INF2 - Sustainable Transport System

Comment

Encouraging cycling is a key theme within the Hampshire Local Transport Plan (2011-2031) where Policy 12 seeks investment "in sustainable transport measures, including walking and cycling infrastructure, principally in urban areas, to provide a healthy alternative to the car for local short journeys to work, local services or schools; and work with health authorities to ensure that transport policy supports local ambitions for health and well-being" As 'active transport' is included in the Draft Local Plan I wish to comment on examples of what I feel do not encourage, or are not sympathetic to, 'active transport'. Stubbington bypass. At the moment walking, cycling and even riding a horse, it is possible to reach Fareham safely from Stubbington, along Ranvilles Lane (traffic free) and Peak Lane (shared cycle and pedestrian track set well away from the road). Post bypass construction, using Ranvilles Lane will necessitate crossing this road with just a central island for assistance and no protection from traffic. Also the plans show the section of Ranvilles Lane to the north of the bypass will be open to vehicles Using Peak Lane will also mean crossing the bypass, albeit by a signal controlled crossing incorporated into the junction, presumably favouring the bypass. This will mean waiting next to what will be a busy road with undoubted high levels of pollution. I feel this is at odds to encourage active transport. Gosport Road, Stubbington. How will this be stopped from becoming a rat run post bypass construction? Something bold: a 20 mph zone with appropriate traffic calming AND a cycle path, with separation from the road, at least as far as Crofton School and preferably onward to the Alver Vallley Country park would definitely encourage active transport. Newgate Lane North. This has become, at times, a fast road, particularly along the Speedfields Park section which also has a shared pedestrian and cycle track. Whilst I, and I am sure others, appreciate the provision of this facility there is no separation of the track from the road and I can only imagine the risk of crossing multiply lanes of traffic at the roundabout and crossing points along just this particular section. I feel this is at odds to encourage active transport. To encourage safe walking and cycling the facilities ideally need to have separation from the roads (for example the section of shared pedestrian/cycle path along Peak Lane and Cherque Way, Portsmouth and Privett Road in Gosport). The FBC website information on Enforcement of Speed Limits at /parking_and_traffic/traffic_management/speedlimitenforcement.aspx gives the impression that you are resigned to motorists speeding. I feel that there should be a 'zero tolerance' approach to speeding with consideration given to 20 mph zones and more traffic calming measures to reinforce the commitment to support active transport . While undoubtedly motor transport is important to the local economy, all efforts and money seem to be directed towards appeasing motorists and a half hearted attempt is made to encourage active transport by adding shared paths/cycle ways next to busy roads with their associated high levels of pollution, noise and risk. Perhaps a new (and maybe more cost effective) direction is needed to change our attitude of 'must go faster'. It is well documented that speed is a significant factor in accidents with the resulting costs in delays, congestion and pollution.

PO14

Object

Roads are insufficient to support existing traffic in Downsend area, also along A27 into Fareham. I do nor se any improvement for existing traffic {not known} (800-900 + 1600-1800 weekdays) so what is envisioned for additional traffic resulting from these developments. eastern approach to Fareham will be brought to a stand still !!!!

PO16

Comment

I note that in addition to the new town of Welborne there will also be housing at Funtley Road South and Funtley Road North which will further add to the traffic flows in North Fareham. To avoid serious road traffic congestion in and around Fareham and Welborne it is essential to build a new railway station on the railway line between Fareham and Eastleigh on the Western boundary of the Welborne site. Residents of Welborne and other planned and existing residential areas (Wickham, Knowle, Funtley) in and around North Fareham will then be able to travel by train to local centres of employment and shopping including Portsmouth, Southampton and Winchester and some of those who work at Welborne will be able to travel to their workplaces by train to Welborne Station. This will take traffic off the roads. A bus service alone will not be sufficient. Trains have a far greater capacity as they carry more people and have much shorter journey times and for this reason they also provide a more attractive alternative to travel by car. I note that Network Rail are carrying out a scoping study for a two platform station at Welborne. The location of Welborne and other housing developments next to the Fareham to Botley railway line and the resulting opportunity for access these development with a railway station is the reason to put the housing in this area of North Fareham. The complication is that the railway line is single track between Botley and Fareham so a two platform railway station which is the remit of the scoping study may also require the double tracking of the line from Botley to Welborne including the Tapnage Tunnel. The short section through the Fareham tunnels could be left as single track. This would clearly be the best solution if it can be funded. If funding is not available for a two platform station and associated double tracking it would be possible be build a single platform railway station (like Chandlers Ford Station) at very low cost on the Welborne side of the single track railway line between Funtley and Knowle with no more than two minutes added to the time taken for trains to go between Botley and Fareham and this should be manageable. I would prefer this low cost single platform station enabling people to travel to and from Welborne by train to having no railway station at all at Welborne which means many more will drive and add to traffic congestion on the North side of Fareham.

PO15

Object

It takes nearly 3 weeks now to get a non emergency appointments. [redacted]. People now use our road as a Rat run from the A27 top cranleigh Rd. We need a bigger between Portchester band Fareham.

PO16

Object

We live in Cranleigh Road and the proposed road access for both Cranleigh Road/Romsey Avenue are totally inadequate both for construction traffic and the proposed number of houses. The junction of Cranleigh Road/Cornerway Lane will be totally chaotic. People who already live in this area are being penalised for development. When football matches occur at weekends, traffic access to Cranleigh Road and Wicor Rec is totally chaotic and with the increase in local traffic with this development it is totally inappropriate to burden present residents even more. The increase pressure on local schools and medical centres is totally inconsiderate and local MPs and Councillors have let us down totally.

PO16

Object

Noise from slip road and air pollution not good for housing. Water flow would be more problematic in Delmi roundabout area in heavy rain. Any extra building in this area would be detrimental to Wallington because of traffic, noise, sewage inadequacy and especially with flood risk affecting Wallington as Welbourne will cause much more run off water and once again reducing green environment for existing residents.

PO16

Object

No mention of extending the railway to the new welborn village, knowle village etc. No mention of designated cycle, bus routes to these areas either, leads to high car dependency and goes against government policy to support other methods of transport.

PO16

Object

There are obvious infra issues, which I will not comment here: medical, employment, schools, dentists, police. My concerns would be the increased utilities (gas, water, IT, waste). Can we be reassured that our current levels of service will be retained; waste collection, access to data (www). Will we be expected to pay the same council charge. Has an environmental assessment been carried out. What is the transport plan to move increased vehicles from Portchester – Fareham etc. In summary 250-500 new homes = more requirement for infra and services.

PO16

Comment

My family is strongly supportive of improved infrastructure to support more, and safer, active travel in Fareham. We would like to see Fareham be ambitious in seeking more funds for improved walking, cycling and public transport improvements, and make a significant decrease in the amount of car based journeys where we live. This would make life more enjoyable, less stressful, safer, healthier and give children the independence to travel without a parent having to drive them everywhere. We would also like to see Fareham make the most made of developer contributions e.g the proposed allocations close to the A27 to improve the safety and accessibility of infrastructure along that route - particularly for people on bikes. Shared use paths may be fine for children or people riding slowly but, as can be seen from a visit to that route at peak hours, a large number of commuters prefer to use the road as it is faster and avoids multiple delays at signalised crossings and potential conflicts with pedestrians. The A27 could make an amazing cycle super-highway with the right infrastructure, supporting journeys to and from the main commuting trip attractors in the area. It should be made safe and convenient to do so. Developers in the proposed allocations should be made to support (financially and in spirit) a move towards these modes through infrastructure and travel planning. We are also strongly supportive of any steps towards bus rapid transit across the borough - buses in this area are already at a good level but this would mark a step change. The ideal situation would involve ticketing that covered both rail and bus but we understand this is not in the direct control or influence of Fareham Borough Council. As a family trying to reduce our car use, and be healthy and integrated within our community, we would want to see significant efforts go towards this modal change, and not a move towards providing increases in capacity for motor vehicles which will only generate more car trips. Thank you for this opportunity to provide input to the Local Plan process.

PO16

Comment

"Fareham allegedly has a high proportion of car owners and certainly has (for what is now such a built up area) high car dependency and relatively poor bus service. Each new person who moves to the borough is forced to either buy a car or to sign up to many hours of slow bus services (X5 any one? - it certainly goes around the houses) and waiting especially for connecting buses. So they buy a car, and then use it, each extra journey reduces the per mile cost of owning the car and any way bus fares are expensive. How can this change? 1) car club/share - this allows people to have a car when they need it, but also be able to use buses to reduce their overall transport costs. 2) increase the ""cost"" of car ownership - congestion charges and parking fees being two options 3) more frequent bus services mean people will take the bus (I've heard the number 3 bus) and actually make more money for the bus company Cycling - although there are some good cycle routes - many good routes peter out just when cyclists need them most (and for new cyclists the signage of some back routes has become poor - signs moved on lampposts and not visible at night e.g. Stubbington to Fareham centre). I know local authorities are (deliberately kept) strapped for cash, so local solutions to transport - which need ""pump priming"" are difficult to achieve, but when I looked into data on air pollution, i noticed that Gosport's pollution was falling and Fareham's was rising - could this be the the positive effect of the E1/E2 bus route? When building more housing in the town centre - consider building blocks with only car share and no personal cars - saves land and encourages more sustainable transport."

PO14

Comment

This whole development plans for our area is an absolute NO NO. Our surgeries overloaded, as is schools. Traffic is a nightmare now, 740 more cars (or 1480) would cause CHAOS. Wildlife so affected by development. Emergency Services have trouble passing through traffic. The A27 is so congested now. Most housing will have 1 or 2 cars. What is classed as "Affordable". When 1 2 bedroom showing on Right Move as £299,000. Pollution is at High Level now, can only get worse. All sites within Portchester should be REJECTED. FBC & Planning have failed to support the community. Sad that our local wildlife will be gone! Community facilities not even thought about. FBC should leave Portchester out of the mass Development Plans. Asbestos and oil pipes have been noted in the past from MOD as being buried under Cranleigh site.

PO16