Contact: Peter Syddall, ext 6050 email:[email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 Government guidance on preparing the next Local Transport Plan (LTP) requires consultation with stakeholders as an integral part of the LTP process. The County Council sees consultation and engagement with stakeholders as vital to the preparation of a successful LTP. Consultation seminars and workshops have been held as one part of the process. These consultations have provided valuable information about stakeholders concerns, priorities for their area and an indication of some possible solutions. This report presents information on the outputs from the seminars and workshops, a summary of the emerging key themes and how these outputs are influencing the development of the area strategies and programmes.

2. Introduction

2.1 Hampshire County Council officers have already collected a considerable amount of information about local problems and opportunities through ongoing dialogue with District Councils, Local Strategic Partnerships and other local stakeholders. This has been complemented with a series of seminars and workshops which focused on problem identification.

3. The Consultation Process

3.1 The following key consultation events have been held during early 2005:

(i) Local Transport Plan Stakeholders Seminar;

(ii) Local Transport Plan Business Seminar; and

(iii) Transport Strategy Panel Workshops.

4. Local Transport Plan Stakeholders Seminar

4.1 The LTP Stakeholders Seminar, held on 18 March 2005 at the Guildhall, Winchester involved delegates representing a wide variety of groups including transport operators and providers, user groups, representatives from disability groups and Hampshire's Youth Parliament. County Council officers provided updates on the LTP preparation process. One workshop session focussed on the area strategies and the second workshop was based on key themes. The summary of issues raised at the Stakeholder Seminar are included in Appendix 1 to this report.

5. Local Transport Plan Business Seminar

5.1 The Hampshire Economic Partnership event held on 9 February 2005 involved key business stakeholders with an interest in transport related issues. After a series of presentations on the LTP these stakeholders were divided into a number of `task groups' which were challenged with answering key questions in relation to transport issues. The summary of issues raised at the stakeholder seminar are included in Appendix 2 to this report.

6. Transport Strategy Panel Workshop

6.1 The North Hampshire Transport Strategy (NHTS) Panel met on 4 March 2005 with the main part of the meeting given over to the workshop session. A full list of the comments from the NHTS Panel is included in Appendix 3.

6.2 From the workshop, a number of key themes have been identified that reflect the concerns and priorities of the Panel Members. The key themes for NHTS and how they will be reflected in the next LTP and five year programme are identified below.

7. Key Themes - Basingstoke and Deane

Key Theme 1 - Road Improvements

A33 Corridor

7.1 Problems in respect of severance caused by the Ringway for pedestrians and cyclists were noted, as were concerns relating to how best to accommodate higher traffic flows arising from local development affecting this corridor.

7.2 Members considered there was a need to improve the junctions on the urban section of the A33 and that vehicle capacity should be increased along the corridor. There was support for the proposed new railway station at Chineham and the safeguarding of bus routes serving the area.

A30 Junction Improvements

7.3 Localised congestion was regarded as a problem during peak hour traffic flows at particular points along the A30 south-west corridor. Both Brighton Hill and Winchester Road Roundabouts were regarded as specific problem areas. Proposals for the inclusion of a flyover at Winchester Road roundabout were suggested as a potential solution. Other issues raised included the lack of public transport priority; provision for cyclists; and the ease of movement for pedestrians and the mobility-impaired.

A340 Aldermaston Road

7.4 The A340/A339 junction was consider a high priority. Measures need to be taken to reduce the peak hour delays on this corridor. Furthermore, with significant development occurring at Popley there were concerns that this problem would get worse. It was recognised that transport solutions are constrained by the availability of land. The acquisition of the land might prove very expensive. There was support for signalisation at this junction.

M3 Junction 6/Black Dam

7.5 The M3 Junction 6 was raised as a serious concern. The problem relates to the junction being at capacity during peak hours and traffic flows queuing back onto the M3 reducing capacity on the motorway and presenting a road safety problem. This was considered to be one of the top transport priorities that needed to be addressed in Basingstoke.

7.6 A key element of the proposed LTP programme for Basingstoke will be a series of measures to reduce severance, particularly that caused by the Ringway and to improve accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists. The capacity problems on the Basingstoke road network, particularly the A33 and A30 corridors and the A340/A339 and Black Dam junctions and improvements to address these issues will be recognised in the new LTP. The model being developed for Basingstoke will assist in identifying appropriate bus priority and highway capacity measures to be undertaken. Work is continuing on the business case and feasibility of Chineham Railway Station.

Key Theme 2 - Public Transport Improvements

7.7 It was generally accepted that public transport improvements were needed in Basingstoke. It was suggested that there should be a long term "bus plan" for Basingstoke. It should identify where bus priority will be needed in the future and ensure that appropriate safeguarding is made in the Local Development Framework.

7.8 The provision of bus priority lanes were felt to be of medium priority. It was suggested that allowing the use of such lanes by HGVs might make them more generally acceptable.

7.9 Members highlighted the need for cleaner fuel vehicles to be used.

7.10 These views are closely aligned with the proposed direction for public transport in the new LTP. Improvements to support and encourage bus use, including priority measures will be worked up as part of the overall transport `master plan' for Basingstoke and a `bus plan' could form part of that process.

Key Theme 3 - Interchange Improvements

7.11 Improvements to the main transport interchanges were needed. In particular the location of Basingstoke Bus Station should be reviewed over the longer term, with the possibility of it being moved nearer the existing Railway Station.

7.12 The LTP will seek to improve the interchange and access routes between the railway and bus stations. Clearly it would be advantageous to co locate the bus and railway stations should this be possible through future development opportunities.

Key Theme 4 - Rail Capacity Improvements

7.13 The importance of rail travel was acknowledged, and measures to increase capacity were seen as a high priority. The provision of higher frequency services should be explored, though there were concerns over the limiting of capacity caused by other rail stations in the region particularly Reading.

7.14 Freight was also a limiting and competing factor on capacity, and measures to create a bypass for rail freight should be explored. The inclusion of a rail station at Chineham was supported. Other issues raised include enhancements to the existing town centre station, improvements to the Salisbury route, and Exeter line reliability problems.

7.15 Basingstoke station was seen as inadequate in terms of its ability to process passengers. A station modernisation scheme was suggested which could link to the Central Area Action Plan.

7.16 Lobbying was considered necessary to seek the extension of Crossrail to Reading and enhancements to the Airtrack proposals being developed. Interest was expressed in the Superlink proposals.

7.17 The strong support to seek improvements to rail services is welcomed. It is proposed that access and interchange improvements to the existing rail station should be pursued in the new LTP.

Key Theme 5 - Rural Issues

7.18 Further study into the issues affecting some rural sections of the Borough were requested. In particular solutions to the problem of access for those without access to a car, by non-car modes were raised.

7.19 Also raised were issues relating to through traffic using villages as diversions from primary routes. Other points raised included narrow footways, lack of mobility-impaired provision and inadequate crossing points e.g. B3400.

7.20 There was a perception of there being safety issues at rural junctions (e.g. A343 Penwood & A339 Tadley) and that junctions on the County borders might experience underreporting. Since the meeting this has been investigated and there is no evidence to suggest that casualties are underreported at these junctions.

7.21 Parking around rural stations was seen as a inadequate. The introduction of commuter parking at rural stations and controlled parking zones was suggested.

7.22 The `Accession' model provided by central government will assist in identifying areas of poor accessibility. Innovative approaches will be needed to meet demands for public transport in rural areas. We will work with the Borough Council on specific traffic issues in villages. Further consideration will be given to the most appropriate solution to parking related and access problems at rural rail stations.

Key Theme 6 - Access improvements

7.23 There was a high level of support for measures designed to improve accessibility, severance and remove barriers to movement by pedestrians, the mobility impaired and cyclists. Some local improvement were suggested.

7.24 It was recognised that future cycle investment should be made but that it needed to be better targeted at core missing links within the existing Network.

7.25 As indicated above, a key element of the LTP programme for Basingstoke will be improved accessibility to facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.

8. Key Themes - Rushmoor and Hart

Key theme 1 Pedestrian and Cycle Accessibility

8.1 General pedestrian access and facilities were raised as an important issue. In particular the condition of footways was considered to be generally below par, with areas of Fleet noted as an example. Other issues included street lighting, improvements in order to increase personal security along particular routes, improved pedestrian routes to transport interchanges and the issue of parking on footways. There was support for Safer Routes to School projects. The need to provide complete cycle routes was highlighted.

8.2 A key element of the Area Strategy programme will be accessibility. Under this heading schemes will be developed to improve access for pedestrians and cyclists and address the identified current problems. Safer Routes to School will continue to be a key county-wide programme.

Key theme 2 Development Infrastructure

8.3 With some of the existing urban areas seeing significant development occurring, concerns were raised about the ability to link in this new development with the existing built environment. In particular the focus was on securing the provision of adequate transport infrastructure to accommodate the traffic impact of the development occurring.

8.4 The LTP will identify the need for development to implement and/or fund appropriate infrastructure. This will be secured through the normal development control process.

Key theme 3 Public Transport

8.5 The concept of using smart cards and through ticketing was agreed to be a good idea for this area to help increase bus and rail patronage, and also increase the speed and access of journeys by public transport. Ways to promote public transport should be explored further, and offering incentives to new users should be considered as an option. Car parking capacity at stations was recognised as an issue. Hence good bus access and interchange facilities were seen as one way of tackling this problem. Increased parking provision was an option, but could exacerbate traffic conditions.

8.6 Innovative methods and initiatives, including Smart cards and through ticketing, that support and improve public transport will be promoted through the LTP. The improvement of hubs and interchanges is seen as a key proposal for this area.

Key theme 4: Congestion, Traffic Issues, Access to Strategic Road Network

8.7 Some Members felt that improved access to the strategic road network was needed. Examples given were at Junction 4a of the M3, and access to the A331. There were also concerns about the lack of suitable north - south routes in Hart. Currently, issues of localised congestion are evident at particular junctions. It was suggested that flyovers should be explored as possible solutions since it was felt that traffic management alternatives would not always solve the problem. Good levels of parking enforcement were considered important.

8.8 Measures will be brought forward to optimise the use of the existing road network, through traffic management and traffic control systems. Where these will not ease the particular problem, road improvements may be considered. However it is unlikely that funding will be available for major new road building over the next five years. The Highways Agency may also resist or object to proposals that exacerbate conditions on the motorway and trunk road network.

9. Conclusion

9.1 The seminars and workshops have provided a valuable input into identifying the key themes for the next LTP and the development of the capital programme. Members are asked to note the key themes and the comments made at the Panel workshop and seminars, as listed in the appendices. Members are invited to comment further if they wish.

Recommendation

That the Panel notes the key themes and comments as set out in the report and accompanying Appendices.

Appendix 1

Hampshire Local Transport Plan

Stakeholders Seminar

18 March 2005 Guildhall, Winchester

SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK FROM WORKSHOP SESSIONS

Two workshops took place during the Stakeholders Seminar held on 18 March 2005. The first looked at local area issues and the second focused on key themes. This note summarises the issues raised during each of these sessions.

AREA BASED WORKSHOPS

Workshop 1: North and Central Hampshire - Summary of Issues Raised

Topics raised

· Why has north and central been grouped together, when the issues are very different?

· Affordable transport for young people

· Cross border issues with surrounding areas

Rural issues

· Wider environmental issues, such as street clutter

· Impacts of signs designed for urban use in rural areas- visual impact

· Need for lower speed limits in rural areas - often not adopted

· Long bus journeys from outer areas into urban centres (i.e. elongated journeys to take in lots of areas)

· Needs of rural businesses - freight deliveries etc must be taken into account in terms of traffic management. Traffic calming can prevent deliveries

· Large agricultural vehicles damaging lanes, hedges etc

· Issue of cycling on lanes - all schemes should consider the needs of cyclists and pedestrians

· Roads are too dangerous for cyclists - instead look to house them on wider pavements

· Make roads more comfortable for non-car users - behavioural change issues

· Speed limits on minor roads - national issue

· How can rural transport be made affordable?

· Bring services to the community - through the LTP and other means

· But at the same time, Post Offices are closing

· Greater need for the community to be involved in informing the LTP of what needs to be covered

· More communication from HCC on rural issues - consult with LSP

Consideration for children and young people

o Children excluded from after school activities as there are no buses

o Safe cycle/pedestrian links from outlying areas into the urban centres

o Use of CCTV to make routes safer

· Through ticketing from rural areas to urban areas

· Access to train stations - longer platforms at rural stations

Urban Issues

· Air quality

· The issues for north east Hampshire are different from those for Basingstoke

· Impact on north east Hampshire of the Aldershot urban extension with 10,000 extra people

· Rushmoor has close links with Surrey/Berkshire - strategies need to overlap

· M3 -air quality management area

· Travel for young people in urban areas

· Need to link LTP policies with urban extensions

· Also going to be 1200 extra houses in Hart

· Highways Agency has no immediate plans to improve the M3

· A33 Basingstoke to Reading is a major artery

· Rail is at capacity - interchange upgrades are needed (Farnborough), trains overloaded

· Long distance commuting, identified some reasons why:

o Short term contract working means workers unlikely to move closer

o Cars and motorways work

o Large companies close small offices and centralise

o Cost of housing and quality of life

· Central and local government need to introduce policies to encourage people to live and work locally - tax breaks etc

· Attitude of local authorities towards rail passengers - i.e. someone else's problem once they are on the train

· Better integration of information - i.e. train times in villages

· Train time information in bus stops (RTI)

· Freight - distribution issues/use of local produce

· Access for disabled - especially at rail stations (Farnborough)

Workshop 2: Solent Area - Summary of Issues Raised

Key traffic hotspots in Hampshire:

· M27 (Eastleigh to Hedge End)

· North Portsmouth

· Eastleigh - Fareham railway

· Traffic congestion in Portsmouth & Southampton City Centres

Solent Travel to Work by Ward: Bus

Consideration of bus services in cities

Importance of transport hubs: Southampton & Portsmouth

Commuting

+20% commute trips from north of Portsmouth and Fareham to Portsmouth City Centre

+20%: Totton & Waterside/Romsey & Eastleigh/Hedge End commute trips to So'ton City Centre

+10% Whiteley (only) to both Portsmouth & Southampton

Solent Transport requirements

· Develop shared priorities

· Identify existing issues

· Build upon successes

· Anticipate future pressures

Port of Southampton

Development pressures

Significant growth in a global shipping market

Largest employer in South Hampshire

Freight handling: expected to grow by +60/70% in next ten years

Road: improved routes to port through city

Rail gauge enhancement (constraints of Southampton Tunnel and others along the route) - Government being lobbied for decision

Journey to work issues:

Local deficiencies in PT network

LRT would facilitate extension westwards to Southampton

Southampton's access is too geographically constrained

Alternatives to M27 as a commuter route required

Whiteley (off Jct.9 of M27)

Poor accessibility (explore alternatives)

Employers struggling with access issues (may affect productivity)

Safety aspects of queuing traffic onto M27 at Jct.9

Social exclusion issues in Fareham/Gosport

Local residents priced out of PT

Govt. should listen to them

Bus reliability in Eastleigh

Improve accessibility to local bus services and reliability of local services

24/7 bus services required in South Hampshire

Public transport in Hampshire

70% are commercially provided bus services

Partnership working with local transport operators(28 million PT trips in Hants pa).

Long term vision for Solent Transport required

Need to determine future priorities

Development of cycle networks

Pedestrians - improved pedestrian routes

Cost of car ownership

Journey to work issues (cost of PT vs. private car). Car ownership is too affordable (cost plateau against rising PT costs)

Developing a Solent Strategy:

HCC to be proactive in PT - joined up thinking with PT operators

Identify commuter routes - increase water transport (e.g. water taxis) across Southampton Water. ABP argue logistical difficulties in running such a service

New developments in Southampton -

· West Quay Phase 3

· Ocean Village redevelopment

· Vosper's regeneration

Idea suggested for a ferry service linking these waterside sites ( to be investigated through Solent Transport Partnership)

Importance of cycling - inter-modal links ("quick wins")

Housing development (three housing options proposed by SEERA in draft SE Regional Plan)

Consideration of health impacts, travel planning opportunities at new developments

Baseline requirement for a robust PT network to service and link new developments across South Hampshire - straw poll: about 50% of seminar group attendees travelled to event by PT

Planning restrictions - currently slow-down process for securing new investment

Public education/promotion of transport alternatives and dependency on the private car

Railways - improving access to PT interchanges by `Access Plans for stations'

Parking capacity management

Too many spaces are free to users!

Consider workplace parking charging (follow example of Nottingham) - impact of charging (consider alternatives: such as car sharing)

Parking charging for LTP2 is considered in respect of:

· Is there an established political will for implementation?

· What will the public reaction be to this proposal?

· Can employers/private sector businesses take the initiative and develop this idea? Would they be opposed to it?

Group suggested developing such features at Whiteley - Park & Ride facility could be developed around the office park?

Workshop3: New Forest - Summary of Issues Raised

Key Issues

· National Park status

· Tourism pressures

· Strategic Cycle Network

· Through-traffic, including HGVs

· Animal accidents

· Lyndhurst Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)

National park status

· Pressure on strategic roads

· Will there be a separate authority?

· Joint cross-boundary issues

· Look at other National Park examples

· Are towns appropriate for coaches?

· Availability of coach parking

· Travel plans for tourist attractions

· Pedestrian links from car parks to town centres

· Deliveries - safety issues. Loading bays blocked by parked cars

· Parking enforcement issues

· Signage - particular reference to getting traffic off M27 at Junction 2

· Variable message signing?

· Aesthetic issues re. signing

Social issues

· Elderly population - especially New Milton and Lymington

· Pockets of deprivation in North-West e.g. Calshot

· Isolated rural parishes

Road Safety

· Road safety - HCC has been successful overall but there are still major issue in the New Forest

· Road casualties - A338, A337, A326

· Child safety in cars - mainly local traffic on school-run

· Perceptions of safety i.e. you are statistically in more danger in a car

Public transport

· Solent Blue Line is more generous with concessionary fares than Wiltshire and Dorset Bus

· Rail capacity to London

· Look into informal Park and Ride?

· Station car parking

· Volunteer shortage for community transport

Traffic

· HGVs - cross border/joint working essential

· Strategic road network reaching capacity

· Highways Agency policy is to remove local traffic from strategic network, but A31 is a main route for locals

· Rural centres dominated by traffic

· Dorset CC have problems, perceived by some as resulting from some HCC issues/policies

· A337 low bridge north of Lymington.

· Traffic management in Lyndhurst, includes impacts of HGVs coming into Lymington

· High levels of traffic on B3347

Parking

· Unmet parking demand

· Pressures in Ringwood (P&R)

· Commuters parking on verges and catching train onwards

· Lack of tourist provision in Lyndhurst

· Low provision of parking at Totton station

· Tourists move around the park by car and use different car parks as bases

General

· Need for cross-boundary working with Wiltshire and Dorset County Councils

· Joint officer dialogue should be a high priority

· New Milton town centre study needs reviewing

· General quality of network - lack of pavements

Cycling

· Lack of linked cycle routes

Solutions

· General safety audit/strategy - look at accident statistics

· Comprehensive safety strategy - speed cameras, school travel plans

· Joint working re. HGVs etc.

THEME BASED WORKSHOPS

Workshop 1: ITS, Congestion and Modelling, Traffic Management Act, Asset Management Plans - Summary of Issues Raised.

Q. Is the strategic model purely road based?

No, it is multi-modal

Q. How will the model contribute to the land use policies contained in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)?

The model will help to determine location of various land uses

Q. Will the model be a broader based assessment?

The model will look to make the best use of the network and highlight new infrastructure requirements

Q. Will the model be ready in time to inform the RSS?

There is a concern about this

Q. What level of detail does the model go into?

It is a strategic level plan

Could link the model into the new requirements of the Traffic Management Act.

Q. Will the model include cycling?

The model will look at all modes, although the majority of cycling is likely to be local rather than strategic

Basingstoke, Solent and Blackwater Valley are covered by separate strategic models.

Q. What can ITS do to improve the reliability of the network?

This is an objective of the LTP, but there are many ways of contributing to this

Issue raised of the freight Working Time Directive and the impact this will have on working practices of hauliers

Q. Is there a tactical system in place that can manage traffic after a road accident?

No, but as technology develops there will be scope to more effectively monitor the network, and enable smarter modelling. There are also pre-set strategies to provide traffic information after an accident

Q. What use is being made of number plate recognition technology to monitor journey times?

This technology is operating in Winchester, and enables us to provide information on journey times and origin and destination movements

Q. Has the Department for Transport supplied congestion monitoring information?

No - currently using historical data, although do have a Service Level Agreement with ITIS who supply journey time information

Q. Have you considered using similar systems as those used to manage motorways (i.e. reduce speed limits etc)?

Would be very difficult to do in the urban environment

Workshop2: Passenger Transport, Smarter Choices and Road Safety

Issues

Passenger Transport

_ More public consultation when changing times, fares etc.

_ Number of elderly is set to double over next 10 years so high need for public transport

_ Need for more staff at train stations to help disabled e.g. elderly, blind

_ Security and safety issues on buses and trains and at interchanges

_ Reliability

_ Facilities at public transport stations for disabled e.g. blind, deaf for announcements etc.

_ Improvements to interchanges

_ After-school transport does not enable full use of activities

_ Must not forget air and ferry

_ Yellow buses need to be kept in mind

Smarter Choices

_ Need to publicise services

_ Put money into training - car drivers, cyclists, pedestrians

_ Change in culture

_ Address habitual car-dependence

_ National campaign i.e. like the drink driving campaign

_ School travel plans

_ There are 170,000 children with Hants LEA - significant group

Road safety

_ Need for road safety training

_ Busy roads - need for off-carriageway cycle paths, widened pavements

_ Eye testing as well as breath tests

_ Using greens/shared use for cyclists - issues re. safety, elderly and disabled

General

_ Partnership working

_ Difficult for a strategic document (LTP) to tackle local issues

_ Administrative boundary issues, both internal and external

_ Planning policy constraints - lengthy timescales

_ NHS are thinking about transport issues but need help

_ Transfer of capital funding for maintenance to free-up revenue

_ Need to look at other sources of funding across departments

_ Use of developer contributions and raise awareness internally that funds exist

Solutions

_ Guidance should come from the County Council to act as `champion' and work jointly with SWT and Stagecoach, Network Rail, SRA, and other bus operators in the County

_ Be positive and build on good work

Workshop 3: Accessibility and Environment

Issues

· Environment assessment/framework

· What is the accessibility strategy?

· Access to health facilities

· Air Quality Action Plans

· Noise & transport

· Rural issues: landscape; maintenance of unmetalled roads; bridleway issues

· Accessibility

Accessibility

Defining accessibility

Inter-related issues: socio-economic/demographics

Key measures:

Education

Employment

Health Care

Food

Key dates

29/07/05: draft report submission date to DfT/GOSE

31/03/06: final Accessibility Strategy

Accessibility framework (DfT Guidance)

Statement in guidance

Objective: detailed input from consultation

Analytical and objective assessment: what are the accessibility issues?

Rural transport: low patronage/poor economics

Develop innovative demand responsive buses (e.g. CANGO)

Utilise technology for new PT services

Combined community transport network (flexibility and convenience) & operational efficiency

Rural accessibility

Tourism: do they match up with demand routes?

(i.e. are new developments & attractions situated in the right location?

Time-urgency/dependency on public services

Restricting car access

Building links: partnerships with public service providers

Policy integration required between policy makes and service providers

Choices: public services and how we access them (PT vs. car)

Centralisation of services would create an improved level of transport efficiency?

Social exclusion & access to health care

Optimism on improving access? (health provision requirement)

Fact: 40% of appointments missed due to PT problems

Guidance established -can we affect change?

ACCESSION Software: Which data sets do we use to get the answers to the accessibility issue question? It is important to use the correct data sets (utilise DfT controlled information).In summary: Need to ask the right questions to get the right results!

Rural issues more generally

New Forest: reduce parking in villages (consider environmental impact)

Rural economy:

Definitions?

Diversification of farming

Travel to work issues

Sustainable tourism important

Information provision (e.g.: PT)

Age/social barriers

Rural population: cost of IT infrastructure

We shouldn't wholly rely on technology

Education & awareness

Social interaction important: single vs. group travel

Summary: packaged approach to rural accessibility issues & IT provision

Environmental issues:

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Comprehensive issues-based approach and objectives

Transparent process: informs LTP

Scoping report to be published

Inform decision-making

Tackles underlying sustainability issues

Summary: wider environmental aspects considered

How does SEA impact on scheme development?

Influences decision-making process (objective forming)

Integral to planning

SEA is part of a sustainability appraisal

Air Quality

Approach - shared priority (targets need to meet local needs)

LTP objective - joint approach

Partnerships with Districts

Air Quality Management Areas (5x in Hampshire)

Improving air quality requires tackling traffic congestion

How can we do this? (in an environmentally sustainable approach)

Investment in measures. Indicators must be measurable.

The example of economic growth in Winchester: balanced with environmental needs of this historic environment.

Noise

Look at smaller/quieter and increased environmentally-friendly vehicles

Public education

Parking concessions for different vehicle types

Quieter road surfaces (especially in rural areas)

Light pollution/signage

Rural areas: appropriate to locality

General

An all encompassing environmental strategy is key to LTP 2.

Appendix 2

HEP Transportation and Logistics Task Group

`Driving Transport Solutions 2' Conference

9 February 2005

Summary of Task Group Exercise

The Hampshire Economic Partnership event held on 9 February 2005 involved key stakeholders with an interest in transport related issues. After a series of presentations these stakeholders were divided into a number of `task groups' which were challenged with answering four key questions in relation to transport issues;

_ What are the key problems?

_ What solutions should be put in place?

_ What should be the priorities for action?

_ How an economic growth strategy could help resolve transport problems?

This note summarises the outcomes of the task group exercise. A series of problems and solutions were noted and emerging priorities were identified. There was some synergy between problems, solutions and priorities however overall there were a wide range of suggestions which reflects the diversity of stakeholder interests.

Transport problems

An assessment of the feedback from the day indicates a consistent view that high levels of congestion, lack of past investment, poor accessibility and limited integration of transport at all levels have contributed to current transport and travel problems. The failure to properly integrate land use and transport planning was also identified as contributing to the problem while current levels of travel awareness and lack of good quality information for the travelling public was also a commonly held concern. Finally, the provision of adequate facilities to encourage use of alternatives to the car, particularly cycling and walking, also featured as a lower order issue.

Transport solutions

While congestion appeared as a key problem, it was not specifically singled out as a key priority. Instead, the following practical solutions were put forward as priorities for action:

· Information and marketing

- Workplace travel plans

- Timetables

- Journey Planning

- Marketing Strategies

· Minimising the need to travel

- flexible working hours

- tele and video conferencing

- working remotely/from home

· Integrated transport

- Integrated ticketing

- Interchanges

- Integration between government, local authorities and stakeholders

· Integration of land use and transport planning

- Planning growth with transport in mind

- Capture of land value from land/transport planning for investment in strategic transport improvements

- Parking standards

- Developer contributions

· Park and ride

· Engaging with businesses (clusters)

· Road user charging

Summary - How might this influence the development of LTP 2

The range of problems identified is familiar to many of us while the proposed solutions are more surprising. The notable issue is that the priorities for action put forward are focused not so much on capital investment but more on a combination of capital and revenue funded initiatives and structural/organisational change. There is also recognition that the business community can, through alternative ways of working, minimise the need to travel and hence reduce the impact of business travel.

The implications therefore for the second Local Transport Plan are interesting. There is a very clear desire to see `soft policy' or `smarter choice' options (such as information, marketing and business travel planning advice) featuring more highly than in the past. This however presents a challenge in putting the resources in place to deliver this activity which traditionally would not be funded from LTP sources. It is also apparent that capital investment in transport facilities should remain a priority, particularly in relation to transport integration but to a lesser extent in improvements to facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. Finally, in transport planning terms, it is also clear that while businesses recognise there may be a role for demand management measures in future transport plans there is a sense that these should only be considered following delivery of improvements to alternative modes.

In terms of better integration of land use and transport planning the review of the South East Plan at the same point as the preparation of the second Local Transport Plan presents an ideal opportunity to ensure better synergy between the two.

Overall however a clear message emerges from this exercise that an effective second Local Transport Plan relies on the forging of a strong partnership (both at a strategic and local level) between local authorities, the business community and other stakeholders. The challenge therefore is to ensure the mechanisms are in place to enable this to happen.

Appendix 3

North Hampshire Transport Strategy Panel

Basingstoke and Deane Borough

Hart District and Rushmoor Borough

Pedestrian and Cycle Accessibility

· Condition of footways, street lighting provision

· Reduce pedestrian/vehicular conflicts

o For example, continue with measures being implanted in North Camp

· Improved pedestrian routes to interchanges

· Address missing/incomplete cycle routes

· More safe routes to school schemes

o Cycle route connections to Farnborough 6^th Form College, Prospect Avenue

Public Transport

· Promote public transport

o Introduce smart cards and through ticketing

o Fare incentives

· Improve interchanges, particularly bus access to stations

· Shortage of car parking capacity at rail stations

o Improve bus access, pedestrian and cycle routes

o Consider more capacity where traffic conditions would not be adversely affected

· Inadequate capacity on some trains

· Limited rural bus services

o Consider tailored solutions - e.g. community services, taxi buses

· Yateley suffers from limited public transport, with no rail station and following changes to bus services

Development Infrastructure

· Appropriate infrastructure (for all modes) must be provided with new development, at the right time and take into account the wider area effects

o Aldershot Urban Extension is a current example

· New development must be integrated with existing development

Congestion, Traffic issues, Access to Strategic Road Network

· Difficulties of access to Strategic Road network, A331 and M3 junction 4a

· Lack of suitable north - south strategic routes

o Develop routeing and signing strategy

· Congestion on Lynchford Road

o Consider in relation to Aldershot Urban Extension and Aldershot Town Centre.

· Impact of traffic, including HGV's in North Lane, problems created by low bridge

o Review previous studies in context of Aldershot Urban Extension and Aldershot Town Centre.

· Other localised congestion, Victoria Road, Farnborough, Oatsheaf Cross Roads, Fleet

· Should consider more major road improvement options e.g. flyovers where traffic management measures will not work

· Need to consider HGV routeing and town centre servicing/delivery arrangements

· Air Quality Management Area along M3 corridor

· Good level of parking enforcement required, including tackling parking on footways

340/PS