Hampshire County Council South West Hampshire Transportation Panel 4 November 2003 Central Eastleigh Transport Strategy Report of the Director of Environment

Item 9

Contact: Julie Jarvis, ext 6052 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report summarises the results of the local public consultation undertaken in June 2003 on the principles of the draft Central Eastleigh Transport Strategy (CETS). Members are asked to endorse an appropriate way forward for the strategy, taking account of responses received from the public and interested parties.

2. Background

2.1 The redevelopment of the Pirelli and Causton sites to the west and north of Eastleigh town centre will have an impact on traffic levels and patterns of vehicle movements in and around central Eastleigh. The priorities for network management improvements identified in the Central Eastleigh Transport Plan undertaken in 1998 have been reviewed by the County Council's partner consultant, Atkins, and its study approach was detailed in a report to this Panel on 24 October 2002. In the development of a transport strategy for the Central Eastleigh area, a transport model has been built to ensure that the schemes identified as part of the strategy not only overcome existing traffic and safety problems but also contribute towards mitigation of the impacts of the development sites, and provide added value to off-site network improvements funded by the development. Financial contributions from the redevelopment of these two sites amount to a total of £858,000. Allocations are included in the South West Hampshire Transport Strategy (SWHTS) draft capital programme for 2004/05 to 2005/06 to implement measures associated with the Quality Bus Partnership (QBP), A335 Leigh Road corridor, and to provide traffic management measures along Factory Road.

3. Public Consultation

3.1 On 24 October 2002 this Panel endorsed the principles of the draft strategy for consultation purposes. A staffed exhibition was held in the Swan Centre in Eastleigh on Friday 13 June from 9.30 am to 5.30 pm and on Saturday 14 June from 9.30 am to 4.30 pm. The exhibition moved to the Fleming Park Leisure Centre on Sunday 15 June 2003 and was staffed

between 11am and 3pm. The exhibition was then transferred to Eastleigh Borough Council offices, where it was unmanned from 16 to 20 June 2003. Details of the draft principles and proposals, together with the questionnaire, were also available on the web. The event was advertised by:

(i) the distribution of leaflets to all households and businesses in the study area and to Boyatt Wood;

(ii) posters in shop windows and on notice boards throughout the town; and

(iii) informing interested parties directly by letter and via press releases.

Visitors to the exhibition were able to view plans of the location of draft proposals and principles, discuss issues and exchange ideas with both County Council and Borough Council officers and complete a questionnaire, attached as Appendix 1, designed to survey public opinion.

3.2 The public exhibition in the Swan Centre was attended by 650 people over the two day period. A total of 188 responses was received, 129 written questionnaires and 59 emailed questionnaires, during the six week consultation period following the exhibition. A summary of the responses to the exhibition/consultation is attached as Appendix 2.

Responses to the Consultation

3.3 The completed questionnaires have been analysed based on the whole data set and those resident in the study area only.

Street Categorisation

3.4 The majority of respondents (84%) agreed with putting the streets into categories to determine the type of traffic measures required. This high percentage was mirrored by the respondents living within the CETS study area. However, just less than half of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the proposed street category given to each road in the study area was correct. A large number of people (36% of total responses and 39% of respondents within the study area) answered neutral to this question.

3.5 Comments and suggestions for street categorisation were given by a relatively small number of respondents. Comments by residents of the study area centred on making residential roads truly residential by reducing speeds and discouraging Heavy Commercial Vehicles (HCV). However, it was also noted that that `through' roads should not be access only.

Comments from all respondents were centred on specific roads, primarily Twyford Road. It was also suggested that the categorisation of Stoneham Lane, Chestnut Avenue and Nightingale Avenue be reviewed and that measures be implemented to Kipling Road, Burns Road and Newton to prevent rat-running. Again reducing speed limits and discouraging HCVs featured.

Highway Network

3.6 An overwhelming majority (over 90%) of the total and study area respondents agreed to the first three highway network proposals for the introduction of a signing strategy to direct `through' traffic away from local roads; route signing for HCVs; and the construction of the Chickenhall Lane Link Road to reduce traffic volumes in the town centre. A total 91% of all respondents agreed with junction improvements to reduce vehicle conflict and improve safety, and this was supported by 89% of respondents in the study area. The extension of the area of Controlled Parking Zone and the improved enforcement of on-street parking (51% and 73% respectively) were supported by fewer respondents in the total data set than respondents in the study area (64% and 81% respectively). This was primarily due to more neutral responses.

3.7 Comments received from residents in the study area included the enforcement of parking and access only restrictions. Restricting HCVs using Twyford Road, Passfield Avenue and Woodside Avenue, improving road surfaces and reducing the number of permits available to business were also noted. However, analysis of all responses indicates the desire for more on-street, short stay (20 to 30 minutes) parking in the centre. Greater control of parking in side roads was also noted, together with enforcement of weight restrictions on Twyford Road. Other highway comments included the improvement of road surfaces and widening and that the Chickenhall Lane Link Road is essential.

Walking

3.8 All proposals and principles put forward in the section on walking are well supported by all respondents and those living within the study area. In both cases junction improvements to aid pedestrians are seen as the priority (90% and 93% respectively) whilst improvements to Archers Road footbridge was given least support of all options put forward. However, there is still strong support for this proposal, with 63% and 64% respectively agreeing that improvements to the bridge are required. A higher percentage of respondents were neutral rather than disagreeing with this proposal.

3.9 Residents in the study area were most concerned about improving security in the area surrounding the Archers Road footbridge to prevent vandalism. Width and surface improvements to pavements were noted, together with no cyclists on pavements. The need for pedestrian crossings at Twyford

Road and Romsey Road was also registered. The need for a pedestrian crossing at Twyford Road was the main comment given by all respondents, together with restricting cyclists on pavements. The need for a longer pedestrian phase at the crossing near to the railway station was also noted.

Cycling

3.10 Cycling proposals and principles were well supported by respondents (at least 75% agreeing). Better facilities to enable the crossing of major junctions for cyclists was seen as a priority (84%) by respondents living in the study area. Cycle parking facilities and better integration with public transport (83%) was quoted by all respondents as the priority.

3.11 Issues raised by residents of the study area focussed on the need for off-road cycle facilities to the surrounding area. Cleaner routes and better cycle facilities were also noted. The main issue for all respondents in this section was to stop cyclists using the pavements. The need for comprehensive off-road facilities was also raised, as well as maintenance of roads and routes for cyclists, and secure cycle parking in the town centre.

Public Transport and Taxis

3.12 The majority supported all proposals for public transport and taxis, although in more cases than other sections neutral support was given. This may indicate that fewer respondents use these modes of travel. The priority is seen as to improve bus/rail integration (89%) and the least support is given to a review of taxi ranks and provision, which is supported by about 50%.

3.13 Comments recorded by residents of the study area focussed on issues that could be covered in the QBP, relating to bus frequencies and services, costs, more bus shelters and real-time information at bus stops.

Other Comments

3.14 In addition to the questionnaire, two written responses were received from the Newtown Residents' Association and the South Hants Rail Users' Group. These are attached in Appendix 3.

4. The Way Forward

4.1 The officer working group will consider comments from the public exhibition and take them into account in developing proposals as part of CETS. It is also intended to consider further development of the transport model which will be used to assess the impact of scheme options. An Action Plan is being developed and will be presented to Members in due course. The content of the Action Plan will be dependant upon the funding available through the Local Transport Plan and other sources.

4.2 In the meantime there has been progress on various schemes within the CETS area. These include:

(i) junction improvements, as part of the Eastleigh QBP, at Derby Road/Passfield Avenue and Derby Road/Southampton Road, and access to the bus station at Station Hill/Leigh Road;

(ii) Factory Road pedestrian boulevard, which is a proposal involving the application of `Green Street' status by re-designing it as a route principally for pedestrians and cyclists;

(iii) Leigh Road improvements, including an east/west cycle route and the introduction of decriminalised parking enforcement;

(iv) completion of the Woodside Avenue cycle route; and

(v) development of the Norwood School Travel Plan.

Following preparation of a feasibility report, proposals for enhancing pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities at the Twyford Road/Romsey Road roundabout are currently being refined. A contribution of £36,000 has been secured for these works as part of the development of the Lidl supermarket.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The draft CETS was well received at the public exhibition held in June, with a majority support for most of the principles proposed. Officers of the County Council and Eastleigh Borough Council will consider the results and comments of the public consultation when developing an Action Plan for the delivery of the CETS. Further investigations of the transport model will be used to assess the impact of scheme options. Progress has already been made in the development and implementation of some schemes within the strategy area.

Recommendation

That an Action Plan be developed for the delivery of the Central Eastleigh Transport Strategy.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.
NB the list excludes:
1.	Published works.
2.	Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE	LOCATION
None.

8296/JJ

APPENDIX 1

Central Eastleigh Transport Strategy

Public Consultation Questionnaire

This questionnaire is an opportunity for you to help shape and influence future transport provision in your area. Your views are an important part of the process of achieving the most appropriate solutions to the relevant problems. The Central Eastleigh Transport Strategy is being developed in recognition of growing transport pressures in the area, together with national policies for managing the increasing demand for travel by car and providing effective alternatives. All questionnaires will be analysed and the outcomes will be reported to the appropriate panels and committees of Hampshire County Council and Eastleigh Borough Council, to progress the development of the Central Eastleigh Transport Strategy.

Please give your opinion on each of the following principles by ticking the box which most closely matches your view. Please give any comments or suggestions in the spaces provided.

Strongly

Agree

Street Categorisation

· Putting the streets within Eastleigh into categories to

determine the type of traffic measures required.

· The proposed street category given to each road in the study area is correct

Comments and suggestions for street categorisation: ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Highway Network

· Introducing a signing strategy to direct `through' traffic

away from local roads

· Heavy Commercial Vehicle (HCV) route signing

· Construction of the Chickenhall Lane Link Road to reduce traffic volumes in the town centre

· Junction improvements to reduce vehicle conflict

and improve safety

· Extend the area of the Controlled Parking Zone

· Improve enforcement of on-street parking

Comments and suggestions for the highway network:

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Walking

· Designating Green Streets to reduce `through' traffic

and encourage drivers to drive safely

· Junction improvements to aid pedestrians

· New and improved footway improvements

· Improvements to Archer's Road footbridge

· New pedestrian crossing facilities

· Pedestrian signing strategy

· Extend shopping area covered by pedestrian canopies

· Promote Safer Routes to Schools

· Disabled accessibility review

Comments and suggestions for walking: ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Cycling

· Extension of the off-road and on-road cycle network

· New and upgraded crossing facilities for cyclists

· Better facilities to enable the crossing of major junctions

for cyclists

· Routes and links to new housing and employment

developments

· Improved pedestrian/cycle links to bus and rail stations

· Cycle parking facilities and better integration with

public transport

Comments and suggestions for cycling:

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Public Transport and Taxis

· Junction improvements to assist buses

· Selective Vehicle Detection to assist buses at traffic lights

· Bus priority measures

· Improve bus/rail integration

· Better waiting facilities

· More public transport information

· Improve bus accessibility to new housing

and employment developments

· A review of taxi ranks and provision is necessary

Comments and suggestions for public transport and taxi provision: ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

About you

Where do you live? (town/village or postcode) ............................................

How many times per week do you usually travel to/through central Eastleigh?

Once 2 - 4 5 - 6 7+

For which of the following reasons do you travel to central Eastleigh?

(you may tick more than one)

To/from work Leisure activities/facilities

Shopping Pass through

Education Other (please specify) ..............................

How do you usually travel to/through Eastleigh (you may tick more than one)

Car driver Pedestrian Car passenger

Cyclist Bus passenger Rail passenger

Lorry driver Other (please specify) .................................................

Age

0-16 17-24 25-34 35-44

45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

Do you have a mobility impairment? Yes No

How did you hear about this exhibition? .............................................

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. The results of this exhibition and updates on the development of the Central Eastleigh Transport Strategy will be given in the "Borough News".

Please leave this form in the box at the exhibition. Alternatively please post to:

Director of Environment, Environment Department (Transport Policy), Hampshire County Council, The Castle, Winchester, SO23 8UD

to arrive no later than Friday, 25 July 2003

This questionnaire can be made available in other formats, such as large print. Please contact Stewart Wilson on 01962 846596 or email: [email protected] You can also use Typetalk or our Textphone number: 0808 100 2484 (freephone).

APPENDIX 2

Questionnaire Results - All Respondents

Street Categorisation	Total	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Putting the streets within Eastleigh into categories to determine the type of traffic measures required	185	55	101	20	7	2
	100%	29.7%	54.6%	10.8%	3.8%	1.1%
The proposed street category given to each road in the study area is correct	165	18	64	60	17	6
	100%	10.9%	38.8%	36.4%	10.3%	3.6%

Comments and suggestions for street categorisation:

1. Twyford Road (5)

_ No pedestrian crossing

_ Improved road surface

_ Traffic too fast

_ Speed bumps

2. Discourage HGVs from residential area (4)

3. Stoneham Lane, Chestnut Ave & Nightingale Ave be given a higher category (3)

4. Stop people using short cuts (3)

_ Kipling Road

_ Burns Road

_ Newton Road

5. Enforce a 20mph speed limit throughout Eastleigh (2)

Highway Network	Total	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Introducing a signing strategy to direct `through' traffic away from local roads	182	93	73	11	4	1
	100%	51.1%	40.1%	6.0%	2.2%	0.5%
Heavy Commercial Vehicle (HCV) route signing	144	78	57	6	2	1
	100%	54.2%	39.6%	4.2%	1.4%	0.7%
Construction of the Chickenhall Lane Link Road to reduce traffic volumes in the town centre	182	131	36	10	3	2
	100%	72%	19.8%	5.5%	1.6%	1.1%
Junction improvements to reduce vehicle conflict and improve safety	180	87	77	12	3	1
	100%	48.3%	42.8%	6.7%	1.7%	0.6%
Extend the area of the Controlled Parking Zone	181	48	44	50	29	10
	100%	26.5%	24.3%	27.6%	16%	5.5%
Improve enforcement of on-street parking	180	68	63	26	15	8
	100%	37.8%	35%	14.4%	8.3%	4.4%

Comments and suggestions for the highway network:

1. On street parking in the centre. (20-30 minutes stay) (6)

2. Greater control of parking in side roads (5)

_ 24 hour restrictions so residents can park anytime.

_ Increased checking of illegally parked cars.

_ Reduced illegal parking in disabled spaces.

_ Reduced commercial vehicles parked residentially.

3. Control of HGVs on Twyford Road (3)

_ Too narrow

_ Weight restrictions should be implemented

4. Chickenhall Lane essential (2)

5. Improve road surface and widening of roads (2)

Walking	Total	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Designating Green Streets to reduce `through' traffic and encourage drivers to drive safely	178	69	72	22	11	4
	100%	38.8%	40.4%	12.4%	6.2%	2.2%
Junction improvements to aid pedestrians	178	83	77	14	2	2
	100%	46.6%	43.3%	7.9%	1.1%	1.1%
New and improved footway improvements	179	84	72	20	2	1
	100%	46.9%	40.2%	11.2%	1.1%	0.6%
Improvements to Archer's Road footbridge	173	57	52	56	3	5
	100%	32.9%	30.1%	32.4%	1.7%	2.9%
New pedestrian crossing facilities	178	70	69	30	6	3
	100%	39.3%	38.8%	16.9%	3.4%	1.7%
Pedestrian signing strategy	174	48	79	40	6	1
	100%	27.6%	45.4%	23%	3.4%	0.6%
Extend shopping area covered by pedestrian canopies	179	60	58	42	10	9
	100%	33.5%	32.4%	23.5%	5.6%	5.0%
Promote Safer Routes to Schools	179	88	65	24	1	1
	100%	49.2%	36.3%	13.4%	0.6%	0.6%
Disabled accessibility review	172	66	72	30	1	3
	100%	38.4%	41.9%	17.4%	0.6%	1.7%

Comments and suggestions for walking:

1. A crossing is required on Twyford Road to access a safe route to the station from Boyatt Wood via Lidl Car Park (7)

2. Restrict cyclists on the pavement (7)

3. Uneven pavements prove difficult for the elderly, disabled and pushchairs (4)

_ Widen Pavements

_ Increase dropped curbs.

_ Changing Archers Road footbridge to allow improved access.

4. Improved Security (4)

_ Late at night, especially people using the Archers Road footbridge, cause vandalism on route.

5. The pedestrian crossing near the train station needs to remain red for longer in order to allow the elderly and disabled to get all the way across (3)

Cycling	Total	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Extension of the off-road and on-road cycle network	179	78	62	27	7	5
	100%	43.6%	34.6%	15.1%	3.9%	2.8%
New and upgraded crossing facilities for cyclists	181	60	83	27	5	6
	100%	33.1%	45.9%	14.9%	2.8%	3.3%
Better facilities to enable the crossing of major junctions for cyclists	178	76	72	21	3	6
	100%	42.7%	40.4%	11.8%	1.7%	3.4%
Routes and links to new housing and employment developments	178	59	85	27	3	4
	100%	33.1%	47.8%	15.2%	1.7%	2.2%
Improved pedestrian/cycle links to bus and rail stations	176	67	73	29	5	2
	100%	38.1%	41.5%	16.5%	2.8%	1.1%
Cycle parking facilities and better integration with public transport	179	66	83	24	4	2
	100%	36.9%	46.4%	13.4%	2.2%	1.1%

Comments and suggestions for cycling:

1. Stop cyclists using the pavements (8)

2. Off road cycle paths between Fair Oak, Bishopstoke, Southampton, Winchester and Eastleigh. (Particularly Southampton Road and Bishopstoke Road.) (5)

3. Roads require resurfacing in many locations. Require regular sweeping to remove broken glass etc. (4)

4. Improved on off road facilities, ie lane disappears on approach to major junction (3)

5. Secure cycle parking in the town centre with storage for lights and helmets (3)

Public Transport and Taxis	Total	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Junction improvements to assist buses	173	45	71	41	12	4
	100%	26%	41%	23.7%	6.9%	2.3%
Selective Vehicle Detection to assist buses at traffic lights	176	42	73	47	8	6
	100%	23.9%	41.5%	26.7%	4.5%	3.4%
Bus priority measures	171	38	73	42	10	8
	100%	22.2%	42.7%	24.6%	5.8%	4.7%
Improve bus/rail integration	176	73	83	15	2	3
	100%	41.5%	47.2%	8.5%	1.1%	1.7%
Better waiting facilities	172	57	58	46	9	2
	100%	33.1%	33.7%	26.7%	5.2%	1.2%
More public transport information	175	75	75	22	2	1
	100%	42.9%	42.9%	12.6%	1.1%	0.6%
Improve bus accessibility to new housing and employment developments	176	61	85	21	7	2
	100%	34.7%	48.3%	11.9%	4%	1.1%
A review of taxi ranks and provision is necessary	172	33	55	67	15	2
	100%	19.2%	32%	39%	8.7%	1.2%

Comments and suggestions for public transport and taxi provision:

1. Fares need to be cheaper to encourage bus use (6)

_ Should be able to buy return bus tickets at peak times.

_ Cheaper for families to travel car than bus.

2. Buses need to be more frequent particularly at peak times (4)

_ Increase services to Twyford Road, Asda, Parkway Station.

3. Should be more bus shelters (3)

4. Increase in real time information available (2)

5. Taxi rank outside the bus station (2)

About you

Where do you live? (town/village or postcode) (166)

_ Core Area 74

_ Boyatt Wood 30

_ Chandlers Ford 24

_ Bishopstoke 17

_ Fair Oak 13

_ Southampton 7

_ Winchester 1

How many times per week do you usually travel to/through central Eastleigh? (186)

10 Once 52 2 - 4 49 5 - 6 75 7+

(5.4%) (28%) (26.3%) (40.3%)

For which of the following reasons do you travel to central Eastleigh?

(you may tick more than one)

To/from work 52 (17.6%) Leisure activities/facilities 61 (20.7%)

Shopping 108 (36.6) Pass through 57 (19.3%)

Education 17 (5.8%) Other (please specify) ..............................

How do you usually travel to/through Eastleigh (you may tick more than one)

88 (30%) Car driver 74 (25.3%) Pedestrian 31 (10.6%) Car

passenger

36 (12.3%) Cyclist 38 (13%) Bus passenger 24 (8.2%) Rail

passenger

2 (0.7%) Lorry driver Other (please specify) ..............................

Age (186)

1 (0.5%) 0-16 7 (3.8%) 17-24 22 (11.8%) 25-34 41 (22%) 35-44

51 (27.4%) 45-54 35 (18.8%) 55-64 19 (10.2%) 65-74 10 (5.4%) 75+

Do you have a mobility impairment? (155) Yes 15 (9.7%) No140 (90.3%)

How did you hear about this exhibition? (126)

1. Leaflets 34

2. Swan Centre Exhibition 32

3. Hantsnet 32

4. Local Press 28

Questionnaire Results - Resident in the Study Area

Street Categorisation	Total	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Putting the streets within Eastleigh into categories to determine the type of traffic measures required	67	20	37	8	2	0
	100%	29.9%	55.2%	11.9%	2.9%	0%
The proposed street category given to each road in the study area is correct	62	9	21	24	5	3
	100%	14.5%	33.9%	38.7%	8.1%	4.8%

Comments and suggestions for street categorisation:

1. Discourage HGVs from rat running through residential areas (4)

2. Through roads to become truly residential with speed, weight and size limits (2)

3. Enforce a 20mph speed limit throughout Eastleigh (2)

4. Through roads should not be access only (2)

Highway Network	Total	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Introducing a signing strategy to direct `through' traffic away from local roads	70	42	24	3	1	0
	100%	60%	34.3%	4.3%	1.4%	0%
Heavy Commercial Vehicle (HCV) route signing	71	42	23	4	2	0
	100%	59.2%	32.4%	5.6%	2.8%	0%
Construction of the Chickenhall Lane Link Road to reduce traffic volumes in the town centre	71	54	11	3	2	1
	100%	76%	15.5%	4.2%	2.8%	1.4%
Junction improvements to reduce vehicle conflict and improve safety	71	33	30	7	1	0
	100%	46.5%	42.3%	9.9%	1.4%	0%
Extend the area of the Controlled Parking Zone	70	26	19	14	8	3
	100%	37%	27%	20%	11.4%	4.3%
Improve enforcement of on-street parking	70	32	25	9	3	1
	100%	45.7%	35.7%	12.9%	4.3%	1.4%

Comments and suggestions for the highway network:

1. Controlled parking zone enforcement (checking permits) (5)

2. Restrict HGVs using Twyford Road, Passfield and Woodside Avenue (3)

3. Improved road surfaces and widening of roads (2)

4. Reduce the number of permits available to businesses (2)

5. Enforce access only restrictions (2)

Walking	Total	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Designating Green Streets to reduce `through' traffic and encourage drivers to drive safely	69	29	26	9	4	1
	100%	42%	37.7%	13%	5.8%	1.4%
Junction improvements to aid pedestrians	69	35	29	5	0	0
	100%	50.7%	42%	7.2%	0%	0%
New and improved footway improvements	69	36	25	7	1	0
	100%	52%	36%	10%	1.4%	0%
Improvements to Archer's Road footbridge	66	23	19	18	1	5
	100%	34.8%	28.8%	27.3%	1.5%	7.6%
New pedestrian crossing facilities	66	32	21	11	1	1
	100%	48.5%	31.8%	16.7%	1.5%	1.5%
Pedestrian signing strategy	66	25	28	10	2	1
	100%	37.9%	42%	15.2	3%	1.5%
Extend shopping area covered by pedestrian canopies	69	28	21	14	2	4
	100%	40.6%	30.4%	20.3%	2.9%	5.8%
Promote Safer Routes to Schools	69	33	25	10	0	1
	100%	47.8%	36%	14.5%	0%	1.4%
Disabled accessibility review	66	28	25	12	0	1
	100%	42%	37.9%	18.2%	0%	1.5%

Comments and suggestions for walking:

1. Improved security in the area surrounding the Archers Road footbridge preventing vandalism (4)

2. Improved pavements (4)

_ Surface Improvements

_ Adequate width for prams and wheelchairs

3. No cyclists on the pavements (4)

4. Pedestrian crossing needed on Twyford Road (2)

5. Pedestrian crossing needed on Romsey Road to get to Archers Road footbridge (1)

Cycling	Total	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Extension of the off-road and on-road cycle network	69	29	25	12	1	2
	100%	42%	36%	17.4%	1.4%	2.9%
New and upgraded crossing facilities for cyclists	70	24	29	13	1	3
	100%	34.3%	41%	18.6%	1.4%	4.3%
Better facilities to enable the crossing of major junctions for cyclists	70	29	30	8	0	3
	100%	41%	42.9%	11.4%	0%	4.3%
Routes and links to new housing and employment developments	69	23	31	12	1	2
	100%	33%	44.9%	17.4%	1.4%	2.9%
Improved pedestrian/cycle links to bus and rail stations	67	25	25	14	2	1
	100%	37%	37%	20.9%	3%	1.5%
Cycle parking facilities and better integration with public transport	69	26	30	9	3	1
	100%	37.7%	43.5%	13%	4.3%	1.4%

Comments and suggestions for cycling:

1. Off road cycle paths between Fair Oak, Bishopstoke, Southampton, Winchester, Eastleigh and West End. (Particularly Southampton Road, Bishopstoke Road and Leigh Road.) (5)

2. Cleaner cycle routes. Free from glass and rubbish (2)

3. Parking provisions to compensate spaces lost to cycle paths (1)

4. Two way cycle routes through the town centre (1)

5. Businesses to have better storage facilities for bikes, lights and helmets (1)

Public Transport and Taxis	Total	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Junction improvements to assist buses	67	19	26	14	6	2
	100%	28%	38.8%	20.9%	9%	3%
Selective Vehicle Detection to assist buses at traffic lights	67	17	27	17	2	4
	100%	25.4%	40.3%	25.4%	3%	6%
Bus priority measures	67	14	28	18	4	3
	100%	20.9%	41.8%	26.9%	6%	4.5%
Improve bus/rail integration	71	30	33	5	2	1
	100%	42.3%	46.5%	7%	2.8%	1.4%
Better waiting facilities	68	24	20	20	3	1
	100%	35.3%	29.4%	29.4%	4.4%	1.5%
More public transport information	69	32	29	7	1	0
	100%	46.4%	42%	10%	1.4%	0%
Improve bus accessibility to new housing and employment developments	69	29	24	11	4	1
	100%	42%	34.8%	15.9%	5.8%	1.4%
A review of taxi ranks and provision is necessary	65	15	21	25	3	1
	100%	23.1%	32%	38.5%	4.6%	1.5%

Comments and suggestions for public transport and taxi provision:

1. Buses need to be more frequent particularly at peak times (4)

_ Increase services to Asda.

2. Fares need to be cheaper to encourage bus use (3)

3. Increase in real time information available at bus stops (2)

4. Should be more bus shelters (2)

5. Covered taxi rank outside the bus station (2)

About you

Where do you live? (town/village or postcode)

_ Core Area 73

How many times per week do you usually travel to/through central Eastleigh? (73)

1 Once 9 2 - 4 14 5 - 6 49 7+

(1.4%) (12.3%) (19.2%) (67%)

For which of the following reasons do you travel to central Eastleigh?

(you may tick more than one)

To/from work 22 (17%) Leisure activities/facilities 29 (22.5%)

Shopping 42 (33%) Pass through 19 (14.7%)

Education 9 (7%) Other (please specify) ..............................

How do you usually travel to/through Eastleigh (you may tick more than one)

33 (28%) Car driver 40 (33.9%) Pedestrian 12 (10.2%) Car

passenger

14 (11.9%) Cyclist 11 (9.3%) Bus passenger 7 (5.9%) Rail

passenger

1 (0.8%) Lorry driver Other (please specify) ..............................

Age (68)

0 (0%) 0-16 3 (4.4%) 17-24 11 (16%) 25-34 20 (29%) 35-44

19 (27.9%) 45-54 7 (10.3%) 55-64 6 (8.8%) 65-74 2 (2.9%) 75+

Do you have a mobility impairment? (57) Yes 5 (8.8%) No 52 (91.2%)

How did you hear about this exhibition? (55)

1. Leaflets 19

2. Swan Centre Exhibition 18

3. Hantsnet 8

4. Local Press 10

APPENDIX 3

Other Comments:

Newtown Residents' Association

GENERAL

The strategy is a partnership between Hampshire County Council and Eastleigh Borough Council to enhance the town's economic prosperity and vitality, and to improve the quality of life for Eastleigh residents.

The main principles are:

To separate pedestrian routes from traffic routes as much as possible; so that most of the town centre will be pedestrianised;

To help businesses to make workplace travel plans by encouraging modes of transport other than the car (ie cycle parking, showers, etc)

to make better access to motorways and schools,

reduce traffic speed and volume,

increase crossings and links for cyclists and pedestrians, and

to improve public transport.

In principle, the strategy looks great, but the change to pedestrianised areas and improvement of many junctions and roundabouts can only be carried out when (or if) the Chickenhall Lane link road is built).

(I asked why houses are built first and chaos reigns for several years until the infrastructure catches up, but we were back to our old friend "developers' contributions" which are not paid until the work has finished. )

There is some money (amount not specified) allocated in the budget for the financial year beginning April 2004 to enable work to start.

NEWTOWN AREA

Chief two items affecting the area are:

Rebuilding of the bridge at the end of Archers Road. I was assured that there is enough room for ramps at the correct degree of slope at each side for cyclists and wheelchair users. When the bridge is rebuilt it will be covered so that youngsters will not be able to throw items onto the railway line. However, if the bridge is a covered one, I think that CCTV there will become an absolute necessity.

The Pelican crossing over Romsey Road will be moved to the bottom of Archers Road, as opposed to half way between Archers and Newtown Road; the new crossing will link up with the new pathway which is to be built diagonally across The Rec to the Precinct.

I was assured that when individual work is to be carried out, there will be consultation with local residents and with Residents' Associations.

South Hants Rail Users' Group

In general terms, your proposals appear very positive, but it may be more useful if I comment from the viewpoint of myself and fellow commuters. Some people are happy to cycle, and to use this as a means of getting to rail stations. However not all cycle users see cycling as an all-weather option. The problem with wet mornings is that London commuters set out early when bus services are sparse. Car therefore tends to be the fallback option.

Eastleigh has two good transport interchanges; Eastleigh rail station and bus station/Southampton Airport Parkway station and the Airport. All three of Hampshire's new or reopened stations since World War II are in the Eastleigh Borough, so there is much to be positive about.

In rail service terms, the problems are that Netley/Hamble/Burseldon and adjacent stations outside the Borough do not have direct rail services to and from Eastleigh. Ideally the Portsmouth-Southampton local services would reverse at Southampton, urn to Eastleigh and perhaps attach to the Portsmouth-Eastleigh-Waterloo trains. Given current scheduling patterns, this should be realisable.

Another option would be for more trains to stop at Eastleigh. I was at a meeting of the Rail Passengers Council in Bristol last Wednesday, when the SRA spokesperson stated that things they were looking at as part of the Rail Utilisation Strategy included extra stops by trains with spare capacity, and some evening-out of service speeds. I think that stations like Eastleigh, Totton, New Milton and Christchurch would be well-placed to qualify for extra stops on that basis. More stops at Eastleigh would also better link the Central Eastleigh and Southampton airport transport interchanges.

A further idea might be to divert the Brighton-Basingstoke train services to Southampton to provide a direct link between Hedge End/Botley and Southampton, and help to create a frequent shuttle service between Eastleigh and Southampton Central stations - I seem to recall that right back in BR days this was identified as a major rail flow.