Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Better Connected South Hampshire
Monitoring & Evaluation Report 2014/15
Document reference Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2014/15 Version 5.0 Status FINAL Date June 2016 Author(s) Adrian Hickford (University of Southampton)
John Preston (University of Southampton) John Rider (Solent Transport)
Checked by Approved by
Executive summary
Use of the transport network: • Traffic levels and congestion have increased across the region following the drop in 2013;
economic growth and decreasing fuel costs may have contributed to this growth. Traffic growth was highest in the control corridor. However, these changes are small and there may be several factors unrelated to the LSTF interventions which affect such flows.
• The mode share of vehicles entering Southampton is largely unchanged since 2010. • Rail usage has continued to grow, particularly at stations near Southampton. • Bus passenger numbers have grown following a slight drop in 2013/14. • The decline in ferry usage has slowed, although the Hayling Island service has ceased. Impact of My Journey: • Awareness of the My Journey brand has increased during the study period. In 2015, 28%
of corridor-based residents and 26% of non-corridor-based residents are aware of My Journey. This translates to an estimated 240,000 in the South Hampshire region who are aware of the My Journey brand.
• Differences in awareness of My Journey are area (e.g. higher in Southampton) rather than corridor based.
• There is a correlation between awareness of My Journey and likelihood to travel sustainably; while not necessarily causative, those aware of the brand are likely to walk, cycle and travel by rail significantly more often than those not aware.
• An estimated 70,000 people have changed behaviour due to the My Journey campaign. • Those who said My Journey had encouraged change were likely to spend significantly
more time travelling sustainably; more walking, cycling, using bus and rail, and as a car passenger and in a taxi.
• This is backed up by the one-day travel diary data in the second round of telephone interviews: those influenced by My Journey used the car as a driver for 16% fewer journeys than those not aware of My Journey (39% of journeys by car compared with 55%). They walked for 7% more of their journeys, and cycled for 5% more.
• Travel diary data also indicates that those influenced by My Journey travel more frequently (3.4 trips per day) than those not aware of My Journey (2.3 trips per day), but are travelling less far per trip (7.9 miles per trip compared with 9.2 miles per trip).
Workplace and Personal Journey Planning: • Almost 4,000 residents were given Personalised Journey Planning (PJP) travel advice,
information and other related materials during the study. • 75% of respondents to a follow-up PJP survey said they had been prompted to think more
carefully about their travel behaviour, with around a third already having made a change. • Widespread Workplace Travel Planning (WTP) activities took place, with detailed surveys
undertaken in Eastleigh and Gosport. • Car drivers made up the majority of commuters surveyed during WTP activities; over a
quarter said that nothing would change their behaviour, with a further 50% saying they lived too far from their workplace to consider walking.
• In Eastleigh, 10% of lone car drivers changed activity, mainly to walking, with no change in cycling activity. In Gosport, only 4% of lone car drivers changed behaviour, and there was a 6% drop in cycling commutes.
This report provides an update on the monitoring and evaluation of Solent Transport’s1 Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) large bid “A Better Connected South Hampshire”. It includes current and recent figures for a number of metrics including traffic flows and congestion, public transport usage, prevalence of active travel, and travel plan activities. Analysis of the final round of area-wide telephone surveys undertaken in late 2015 also provides an update on public perceptions, attitudes and travel behaviour. The area covered by the Solent Transport region (formerly Transport for South Hampshire and the Isle of Wight) includes the unitary authorities of Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight, as well as the districts of Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport, and Havant, together with parts of East Hampshire, New Forest, Test Valley and Winchester. However, the Isle of Wight was not part of the initial bid, so data from there has generally been excluded from these analyses. The case for investing in sustainable transport solutions in South Hampshire was set out in the original bid documentation. Before the programme began, South Hampshire’s economy was less prosperous than the wider South East, and the cities in the region were not fulfilling their potential. Employment growth had tended to be concentrated on the M27 corridor, which limits opportunities for sustainable travel. By improving sustainable access to the city and town centres, it was envisaged that new jobs would be created in sustainable locations. The international gateways located within the region are assets that impact not only on the local economy but on the wider UK economy. Improved economic growth is a principal objective for Solent Transport and, along with reduced carbon emissions associated with travel behaviour change, is the key criterion against which the programme will be evaluated by the Department for Transport. With regard to economic growth, the key task, based on the evidence gathered to date, will be to improve business performance and productivity, through managing congestion, improving access and creating more efficient labour markets. The project objectives are to enable higher levels of economic growth by improving local employment opportunities and deepening the labour market; enhancing business performance, particularly at the international gateways, through more efficient transport network and congestion management; improving sustainable access by linking people to jobs and key facilities in our cities and towns; reducing emissions (particularly carbon) from the transport sector by reducing highway vehicle kilometres; reducing unemployment in areas of high deprivation through improved sustainable access to employment centres; and improving levels of physical activity, health and wellbeing through increased active travel. The Better Connected South Hampshire LSTF programme has been developed around three complementary strands of work:-
i. The introduction of an interoperable public transport smart card building on the existing Solent Travelcard and accepted across all bus and ferry operators.
ii. Physical improvements along high frequency bus corridors into Southampton and Portsmouth (interchange enhancements, real-time public transport information, traffic signal enhancements, bus priority measures, cycle paths and stands, etc.).
iii. Targeted behavioural change measures aimed at encouraging people to make trips by sustainable modes (walking, cycling and public transport).
1 Formerly ‘Transport for South Hampshire and the Isle of Wight’
The programme of interventions is focussed around nine corridors, connecting high population densities with employment opportunities through public transport and active modes, and capturing the most severe incidences of current and future forecast highway delays as well as particular socio-demographic groups that have been identified as likely to be most receptive to sustainable transport interventions. The indicators assessed as part of the Solent Transport LSTF programme are focussed around two main strands: Current use of the transport network, and Travel behaviour and attitudes. Assessment of the current network use includes road traffic flows, congestion and reliability measures along the main corridors, as well as a corridor outside the scope of the interventions (used as a control for comparison), and current and recent trends in public transport use. For all corridor groups, area-wide traffic flows increased by 1.3-1.7% in 20142 following a drop in 2013, perhaps reflecting the trends of economic growth and decreasing fuel costs over this time period. Traffic levels for the control corridor increased slightly in 2013, and rose by 2.6% in 2014, a greater increase than the treatment corridors. These changes are small and there may be several factors outside the LSTF interventions which affect such flows. Congestion levels are measured in two ways – average speeds and delays during the morning peak, and the number and length of links which encounter such delays. In line with traffic growth, there has been growth in levels of congestion across the region, with average journey speeds decreasing in all corridors except Corridor 7 (Northbound), where average speeds have increased by 25% since the baseline. This may be related to the Eclipse bus priority scheme, but is should be noted that these metrics are also affected by roadworks and other traffic management measures. Traffic delays occur mostly in the morning peak, with a slight decrease in the evening peak. Generally there have been around 15km of affected roads (links with delays of >30 seconds) across the region, which dropped to 10km in 2012/13, but has since returned to baseline levels. In Southampton (the only location where modal share data is available), the mode share of car use has steadily decreased from 62% in 2006 to 58% in 2009. However, since 2009, the share of car use in the city seems to have remained largely stable. Bus mode share has also remained largely unchanged since 2010, at around 16%, while walking has remained at around 13.5% of mode share. A longer term view of the mode share for commute journeys across the region can be gained from the 2011 Census Journey to Work data (comparing 2011 with 2001). The comparison indicates that in the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, over half of all journeys to work are made by alternative modes to the car. The cities have also seen the most significant modal shift towards walking, cycling and rail between 2001 and 2011, with car and bus use declining. However, Eastleigh, Fareham and Havant have seen little change in the proportion of journeys to work made by car between 2001 and 2011. Sport England’s Active People survey results are based on only 500 respondents per region, and as such are subject to high uncertainty. From these surveys, it seems that levels of cycling in Southampton are consistently lower than for Portsmouth and South Hampshire; although the
2 Note: Unless otherwise stated, a single year (e.g. 2012) denotes data for a calendar year, whereas split years (e.g. 2012/13) indicate that data covers the financial year April-March.
number of people claiming to cycle at least once a month in Southampton has increased from 14% in 2010/11 to 17% in 2013/14. For Portsmouth, this figure was 24% in 2013/14, an increase of 4% on the previous year. Gosport has traditionally had a high level of cycling, but the number of people cycling at least once a week may have decreased by 6% in 2013/14 (the most recent year for which data are available), while there may be increases in cycling activity in both Eastleigh and Fareham. Rail station usage data shows an increasing overall trend since 2009/10. Corridors 1-3 figures are dominated by Southampton Central station, with around 6 million passengers per year. Up to 2012, growth had been more marked at stations not on any of the Solent Transport corridors, however growth from 2012/13 to 2013/14 was between 2 and 3% for Corridors 1-3, Corridors 7-9 and stations on no corridor, with an increase of over 5% for stations on Corridors 4-6. However, the original trend of higher growth at non-corridor stations seems to have returned in 2014/15. Bus patronage figures (provided by the three main bus operating companies: Bluestar, First Group and Stagecoach) are aggregated by corridor group, and there were around 12-13 million passengers in both Southampton and Portsmouth along the corridors in the study years. There may be a change of emphasis within Southampton, with a possible decrease in passenger numbers in the west and north of the city (Corridors 1-3), matched with a similar increase in traffic on the other Southampton corridors. Department for Transport data suggest that passenger numbers rose during both 2013/14 and 2014/15, particularly in Southampton, with an increase of 2 million passengers. There are around 5-6 million passenger journeys within the Southampton boundary on routes away from the Solent Transport corridors. Ferry passenger numbers have been steadily decreasing since 2009, perhaps as a result of the economic downturn. Although still decreasing, it is possible that the rate of decrease has slowed slightly for 2013/14 and 2014/15 figures for Gosport ferry. Hayling Island ferry has closed during the study period. The evaluation above concentrates on changes in the use of the transport network. However, several other activities relating to individual behaviour change were also undertaken, including travel plan activities, marketing and website development. Telephone surveys of a random sample of respondents from around the region were undertaken in two phases, firstly in late 2012 (Portsmouth and the Rest of South Hampshire) and late 2013 (Southampton), then repeated in late 2015 (all). Results suggest that there has been an increase in awareness of My Journey in both corridor and non-corridor locations, of between 8-10% to around 25-28% of respondents. Awareness of My Journey seems was at the highest level in Southampton in Phase 2, where around 40% of respondents from Corridors 1-3 were aware, and about 30% of Corridor 4-6 and non-corridor Southampton respondents. In Portsmouth, for Phase 2, between 20-25% of respondents were aware, as were 13% of non-corridor respondents in South Hampshire. This shows that there are greater differences between these geographical areas than between corridor and non-corridor within an area, highlighting that while some of the interventions were targeted specifically at corridors, the My Journey campaign was aimed at the entire population. If these percentages of the survey respondents are transferred to the population, the numbers of people in the region who are aware of the My Journey brand is estimated to be around 240,000.
Considering the differences between those Phase 2 respondents who were aware and those not aware of My Journey, it appears that there is no difference in the average numbers of days that respondents use the car as a driver or passenger, but those aware are likely to spend significantly more time walking and cycling, and travelling by rail. When asked about their future intentions to travel sustainably, 45% of those aware of My Journey said they intended to cycle more often in the forthcoming twelve months, compared with 30% of those not aware of My Journey. There was less of a difference comparing intent to walk, where 38% of those aware and 34% of those not aware said they would walk more often in the next year. In addition, 23% of those aware suggested they would public transport more often, compared with 19% of those not aware. Thus, while there is a correlation between awareness of My Journey and likelihood to travel sustainably, it is not necessarily causative. It can be expected that people who travel sustainably would be more aware of My Journey. However, those aware of My Journey were subsequently asked whether they thought the campaign had encouraged them to walk, cycle or use public transport more often, and around one third of these respondents said it had. This equates to around 9% of the Phase 2 respondents, or around 70,000 of the regional population. One-day travel diary data in the second round of telephone interviews indicated that those influenced by My Journey used the car as a driver 16% less than those not aware of My Journey (39% of journeys by car compared with 55%). They walked for 7% more of their journeys, and cycled for 5% more. This is likely to be some causation here, since respondents have indicated they have changed behaviour directly as a result of the My Journey campaign. Travel diary data also indicates that those influenced by My Journey travel more frequently (3.4 trips per day) than those not aware of My Journey (2.3 trips per day), but are travelling less far per trip (7.9 miles per trip compared with 9.2 miles per trip). Personal Journey Plan (PJP) activities took place in Gosport, Eastleigh and Portsmouth, with almost 4,000 residents requesting travel advice, information or related materials. In Gosport, this resulted in around 10% of respondents to a follow-up survey saying they had reduced their car use for commuting and leisure trips, with 19% using the car less for shopping and other personal trips, although it should be noted that these results are from a relatively small sample size (of 12 and 24 respondents respectively). The main reasons given for increased active travel were health benefits and avoiding travel costs. Three-quarters of respondents to a follow-up survey in Portsmouth said they thought the conversation with the Travel Adviser had made them think about their travel behaviour, with 35% reporting that they had changed behaviour as a result of the PJP activity; a further 25% said they were planning to change. Workplace Travel Plan (WTP) activities have taken place across the region. Survey results have been provided for 712 respondents across 17 businesses in Eastleigh and Gosport, with follow-up surveys obtained from 256 respondents. The main travel mode for both areas was as a car driver. In Eastleigh, there appears to have been a 10% decrease in use of private car between May 2014 and February 2015, largely shifted to walking to work, with slight increase in bus use. Cycling activity remained the same between the two surveys. In Gosport, the changes in mode share are not as great as for Eastleigh, with only a 4% reduction in private car as the main mode of travel to work, with a much greater decrease in cycling to work.
Contents 1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Structure of the report ..................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Context ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.4 Solent Transport and LSTF ................................................................................................ 1
2. South Hampshire – setting the scene ....................................................................................... 3
2.1 Geography and population ............................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Unemployment and deprivation ............................................................................... 4
2.2 Travel and transport in the region .................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Car ownership (census data)..................................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Trunk road network .................................................................................................. 6
2.2.3 Passenger and freight rail networks .......................................................................... 6
2.2.4 Bus and ferry services ............................................................................................... 7
3. Programme of activities – update ............................................................................................ 8
3.1 Strand 1 – Physical (corridor-based) interventions............................................................ 8
3.2 Strand 2 – Smart ticketing .............................................................................................. 11
3.3 Strand 3 – Targeted behavioural change ........................................................................ 11
3.3.1 Travel Planning ....................................................................................................... 11
3.3.2 Marketing and communications – ‘My Journey’...................................................... 12
4. Monitoring and Evaluation..................................................................................................... 15
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 15
4.2 Current use of the transport network ............................................................................. 15
4.2.1 Traffic flows............................................................................................................ 15
4.2.2 Long-term traffic flow estimates ............................................................................. 17
4.2.3 Peak congestion ..................................................................................................... 17
4.2.4 Network reliability .................................................................................................. 22
4.2.5 Mode share (Southampton).................................................................................... 24
4.2.6 Active travel ........................................................................................................... 24
4.2.7 Rail station usage ................................................................................................... 26
4.2.8 Long-term rail station usage trends ........................................................................ 28
4.2.9 Bus patronage ........................................................................................................ 29
4.2.10 Ferry use ................................................................................................................ 30
4.2.11 Census (2011) Journey to Work data ...................................................................... 30
4.3 Travel behaviour and impact of My Journey ................................................................... 31
4.3.1 Awareness of My Journey brand............................................................................. 32
4.3.2 Impact of My Journey brand ................................................................................... 33
4.3.3 Behavioural change between Phases ...................................................................... 35
4.4 Travel plans.................................................................................................................... 37
4.4.1 Personal Journey Planning ...................................................................................... 37
4.4.2 Workplace Travel Plans .......................................................................................... 40
4.4.3 Public Transport Interchange Travel Plans .............................................................. 44
4.5 Road safety .................................................................................................................... 44
4.6 Economic indicators ....................................................................................................... 45
4.6.1 Structure of the local workforce ............................................................................. 45
4.6.2 Fuel prices .............................................................................................................. 47
5. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 49
Appendix A: Traffic count site locations by corridor group ............................................................. 51
Appendix B: Road sections used in congestion analysis .................................................................. 54
1. Background
1.1 Introduction This report provides an update of the activities and outcomes for Solent Transport’s (formerly Transport for South Hampshire & Isle of Wight - TfSHIoW) Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) large bid “A Better Connected South Hampshire”. It includes current and recent figures for a number of metrics including traffic flows and congestion, public transport usage, and prevalence of active travel. The report refers to three previous reports: The Outcome Monitoring Plan (published in September 2013), the Baseline Report (published in December 2013), and the 2013/14 interim report (published in December 2014). Other related LSTF reports are available, particularly the Congestion Relief and Carbon Reduction Case Study led by the University of Southampton in partnership with Greater Manchester and Leicestershire County Councils.
1.2 Structure of the report This report is structured as follows:
• This section provides a brief background to the Solent Transport LSTF programme. • Section 2 provides further background information about South Hampshire which helps set the
context of the overall programme. • Section 3 presents a summary of the programme of interventions and initiatives, and provides an
update of outcomes delivered up to the end of March 2015. • The monitoring and evaluation of these outcomes is presented in Section 4. • Conclusions are presented in Section 5.
1.3 Context The case for investment in sustainable transport solutions in South Hampshire was set out in the Business Case in the original bid documentation. In summary, South Hampshire’s economy is less prosperous than the wider South East, and the cities in the region are not fulfilling their potential. Employment growth has tended to be concentrated on the M27 corridor, which limits opportunities for sustainable travel. By improving sustainable access to the city and town centres, new jobs will be created in sustainable locations. The international gateways located within the region are assets that impact not only on the local economy but on the wider UK economy. The original evidence base indicated that particular measures targeted at specific corridors within the region would support economic growth, helping South Hampshire recover after the recession, and lead to an improved quality of life for local residents. A summary of the originally planned interventions and measures are given in Section 3, along with an update of measures implemented to date.
1.4 Solent Transport and LSTF Improved economic growth is a principal objective for Solent Transport and, along with reduced carbon emissions associated with travel behaviour change, is the key criterion against which the programme will be evaluated by the Department for Transport. With regard to economic growth, the key task identified in the business case documents is to improve business performance and productivity, through managing congestion, improving access and creating more efficient labour markets.
1
The overall project objectives can be summarised as follows: 1. Enable higher levels of economic growth by improving local employment opportunities,
deepening the labour market and therefore increasing productivity. 2. Enhance business performance, particularly at the international gateways, by increasing the
efficiency of the transport network and managing congestion. 3. Improve sustainable access linking people to jobs and key facilities in our cities and towns. 4. Reduce emissions (particularly carbon) from the transport sector by reducing highway vehicle
kilometres. 5. Reduce unemployment in areas of high deprivation through improved sustainable access to
employment centres. 6. Improve levels of physical activity, health and wellbeing through increased active travel.
The Better Connected South Hampshire LSTF programme has been developed around three complimentary strands of work:-
i. The introduction of Solent Go, an interoperable public transport smart card building on the existing Solent Travelcard and accepted across all bus and ferry operators.
ii. Physical improvements along high frequency bus corridors into Southampton and Portsmouth (interchange enhancements, real-time public transport information, traffic signal enhancements, bus priority measures, cycle paths and stands, etc.).
iii. Targeted behavioural change measures aimed at encouraging people to make trips more sustainably (walking, cycling, public transport, car sharing).
Each of the three strands of the Solent Transport LSTF programme is likely to influence each of these objectives to some extent, and summaries of how the overall package aims to deliver against these objectives can be found in detail in the TfSHIoW Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and the original Business Case document 3 (Section 2.8.6, pp182-192).
3 A Better Connected South Hampshire – Volume One: the five business cases. Available online at http://www.hants.gov.uk/environment/tfsh-lstf-businesscase.pdf
2
2. South Hampshire – setting the scene
2.1 Geography and population The Solent Transport region covers an area of around 950km2 and includes the unitary authorities of Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight 4 as well as the districts of Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport, and Havant, together with parts of East Hampshire, New Forest, Test Valley and Winchester. The area is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The Solent Transport area
In 2013, the area had a population estimated to be 1.18m, 88% of which was on the mainland, making it the most urbanised and populous area in the South East of England outside London. The estimated values of population within each of the South Hampshire districts are shown in Table 1.
Population Estimated in South Hampshire
% in South Hampshire
Southampton 234,600 234,600 100% Portsmouth 200,000 200,000 100% Isle of Wight 138,400 138,400 100% Eastleigh 121,000 121,000 100% Fareham 110,300 110,300 100% Gosport 80,000 80,000 100% Havant 117,600 117,600 100% New Forest 175,400 63,500 36% Test Valley 115,400 41,800 36% Winchester 112,700 30,700 27% East Hampshire 111,700 19,800 18%
Table 1: Estimated population of South Hampshire by region (2011) Data source: HCC, 2011
Accessibility is strongly influenced by the coastal setting, dominated by The Solent, which separates the Isle of Wight from the mainland, and the numerous rivers crossing the area. For example, Southampton Water and the River Test separate the urban Waterside area in the New Forest from the city of Southampton; the River Itchen represents a major river crossing within Southampton; the Hamble River and Portsmouth Harbour give Gosport its peninsula characteristics; the Medina dissects the northern part of the Isle of Wight, whilst the city of Portsmouth is predominantly contained within Portsea Island. This
4 Note that the Isle of Wight was not part of the initial bid, so data from there has generally been excluded from the analyses in this report.
3
effectively creates a number of peninsulas across South Hampshire, making inter-urban travel opportunities more difficult to provide but giving opportunities for more short distance trips which generally are more transferrable to non-car sustainable modes. 2.1.1 Unemployment and deprivation Pockets of deprivation exist, with areas of Portsmouth and Southampton among the most deprived authority areas in the South East, as highlighted in the Index of Multiple Deprivation5 (IMD) 2015. Outside Portsmouth and Southampton, pockets of deprivation also exist on the Isle of Wight, and in the Hampshire districts of Havant, the New Forest and Gosport as shown in Figure 2. Indeed, according to the 2011 Census, the greatest proportion of job losses in the ten preceding years were in Gosport (-11.2% on 2001 figures), while the greatest absolute number of job losses was in Southampton.
Figure 2: Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2015
(Source: http://documents.hants.gov.uk/Economy/IndexofMultipleDeprivation.pdf) The percentage of the workforce in a particular region that is unemployed is shown in Figure 3. All regions saw increase in unemployment during 2009, then levels of unemployment remained largely stable throughout the region, at around 7% until the end of 2013. In the urban centres of Southampton and Portsmouth, this figure was slightly higher (around 8%), while the non-urban areas of the Solent Transport region had around 5-6% unemployed. During 2014, unemployment levels have dropped in Southampton (to 6%) and across the non-urban areas of the region (to 4% on average), as it has for the whole country,
5 The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2015 (IMD 2015), published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), is a measure of multiple deprivation at the small area level, and is based on the idea of distinct dimensions of deprivation which can be recognised and measured separately. These are experienced by individuals living in an area. People may be counted as deprived in one or more of the dimensions, depending on the number of types of deprivation that they experience. Further information on the 2015 indices is available here: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/factsandfigures/figures-economics/deprivation_indices.htm Details of the 2010 indices can be found here: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/2010_indices_of_deprivation_compressed.pdf
4
returning to the unemployment levels in March 2009; however, this recent downward trend has only been evident in Portsmouth since early 2015.
Figure 3: Employment data by regions
Data source: ONS Using ‘Official Labour Market Statistics’ data from NOMIS6, annual figures for employment can be estimated for South Hampshire (assuming a population profile7 given in Table 1), the employment numbers for the region have dropped during the recession, and since increased again to around 550,000 in 2014, as shown in Figure 4.
6 https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/contents.aspx 7 Where no direct figures are available, South Hampshire figures throughout this document are estimated using the proportions of the populations living within South Hampshire, as set out in Table 1.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Mar
-09
Sep-
09
Mar
-10
Sep-
10
Mar
-11
Sep-
11
Mar
-12
Sep-
12
Mar
-13
Sep-
13
Mar
-14
Sep-
14
Mar
-15
Percentage of 16-64 years oldunemployed (Quarterly)
United Kingdom
South East
Portsmouth
Southampton
Other Solent Transport
All Solent Transport
5
Figure 4: Employment figures for South Hampshire
Data source: NOMIS These trends are underlined in the latest Living Standards 2016 report8, which states that average incomes have only recently returned to the level they were before the financial downturn in 2008, a situation which may impact on general traffic levels as people are more inclined to have access to private vehicles in times of higher prosperity.
2.2 Travel and transport in the region 2.2.1 Car ownership (census data) According to the 2011 census, there were 81,389 cars or vans available to the 85,473 households in Portsmouth, 101,546 available to the 98,254 houses in Southampton, and around 350,000 available to the estimated 250,000 households in South Hampshire9. These figures represent an increase of between 11 and 14% on those given by the 2001 census. 2.2.2 Trunk road network The Trunk road network comprises the M3, M27, A27(T), A3(M), M271 and M275. The M3 and A3(M) provide connections northwards towards London. The M3 connects to the A34 at junction 9 and provides a key strategic link to the Midlands. The M27/A27(T) provide routes to the West and East along the South coast. The M271 and M275 provide connections into the urban areas of Southampton and Portsmouth respectively, including the port facilities. The M27 provides direct access to Southampton Airport. As well as strategic flows, these motorway routes are used by high levels of local traffic travelling between the main urban areas, and perform a key local distributor function on top of their strategic loadings 2.2.3 Passenger and freight rail networks The rail network provides direct passenger services to a number of London stations from both Southampton and Portsmouth, to the Midlands (via Basingstoke and Reading), to the west (via Salisbury) and to destinations along the south coast. There are rail stations in all the main urban areas, except for Gosport and Hythe Waterside. The main train operator in the area is South West Trains, with other services being provided by Southern, First Great Western and Cross Country.
8 Resolution Foundation (2016) Living Standards 2016: The experiences of low to middle income households in downturn and recovery 9 Where no direct figures are available, South Hampshire figures throughout this document are estimated using the proportions of the populations living within South Hampshire, as set out in Table 1 of the Baseline Report. For example, the 2011 census suggests there are 70,200 vehicles available to households in Winchester district, so we assume that around 19,000 (27%) are in the Solent Transport region.
490,000
500,000
510,000
520,000
530,000
540,000
550,000
560,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Employment numbers in South Hampshire
6
The local rail network continues to see growth in passenger numbers. However, there are constraints on rail capacity in both Southampton and Portsmouth and on the Fareham – Eastleigh rail corridor. This is due to the existence of lengthy stretches of one- and two-track railway and the flat junctions at Eastleigh and Basingstoke. Rail freight services continue to be dominated by container movements between the Port of Southampton and the Midlands/North of England. Recent investments in gauge enhancement and the freight upgrade from Southampton to the West Coast Main Line at Nuneaton10 mean that rail’s modal share of container movements is likely to continue to increase. There are a number of other rail freight movements within South Hampshire, including aggregates from the Mendips, oil traffic to and from ExxonMobil refinery at Fawley, and services to Marchwood Military Port. 2.2.4 Bus and ferry services There is an extensive network of bus services within and connecting the main urban areas, with less comprehensive and less frequent services to/ from the smaller settlements. The bus services operating outside of the two cities are generally less well used, operate more infrequently and often rely upon financial support. This causes accessibility problems for residents in those areas and therefore reduces opportunities for those who do not have access to a car. The main operators include Bluestar, Southern Vectis and UniLink (all Go South Coast), First and Stagecoach. These services are supplemented by a range of long distance coach services operated by National Express amongst others, providing a good service to London and beyond. The bus operators within the area have come together to form the South Hampshire Bus Operators’ Association (SHBOA), whose primary objective is to act as an interface between the bus industry with Solent Transport. The partnership aims to promote modal shift in favour of the bus to support the growth agenda, with the objective of delivering 5% growth in passenger numbers across South Hampshire per annum. £20m of Community Infrastructure Funding has been used in implementing the first phase of the Eclipse Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) connecting Fareham with Gosport, which has been in operation since April 2012. In addition to the changes to the physical infrastructure detailed below, Real Time Information (RTI) displays have been introduced throughout the region. In Southampton, 230 RTI displays have been installed and in full operation. Information can be provided for all operators for bus users at shelters, key transport interchanges as well as via web and mobile applications. Beyond Southampton, 78 RTI displays have been installed along the nine study corridors. A number of ferry services exist, the most important being those to the Isle of Wight from Portsmouth and Southampton, which were used by over 11 million passengers in 2012. Local ferry services offer important links between Gosport and Portsmouth, Hythe and Southampton, and Hamble and Warsash. These ferries carry over 4 million passengers per year. The Hayling Island Ferry (to Portsmouth) was discontinued in May 2015.
10 See www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/12277.aspx
7
3. Programme of activities – update The initial programme had three inter-locking elements: (1) low-cost physical interventions along the nine corridors; (2) integration of public transport with an inter-operable smart ticketing system; and (3) a targeted marketing approach to promote behavioural change. This section gives details of the achievements so far in each of these elements.
3.1 Strand 1 – Physical (corridor-based) interventions The focus for the physical interventions has been along radial corridors into the urban centres of Southampton and Portsmouth. Using MOSAIC analysis, nine corridors were identified as likely to be most receptive to sustainable transport interventions. Principally the corridors connect the two cities with their hinterlands, whilst the Gosport peninsula is also identified for specific intervention to tackle particularly acute transport barriers and wider policy objectives. Six corridors radiate from Southampton City centre, while three are focused around Portsmouth and Gosport, as shown in Figure 5. A brief summary of each of the corridor locations and interventions is given below: Corridors 1-3 into Southampton from the west / northwest
1 Hythe to Southampton (Ferry to City Centre) 2 Totton to Southampton City Centre (Station to Station) 3 Romsey to Southampton City Centre (Romsey Station and bus route improvements)
Corridors 4-6 into Southampton from the east/northeast
4 Chandlers Ford to Southampton City Centre (Shuttle bus from Airport and Eastleigh to Industrial and Business premises in Chandlers Ford)
5 Eastleigh to Southampton City Centre (Eastleigh and Southampton Airport Parkway station improvements; bus priority in Southampton City)
6 Eastern suburbs to Southampton City Centre (Cycle and bus priority route implementation)
Corridors 7-9 routes into Portsmouth and Gosport 7 Gosport / Daedalus Enterprise Zone to Fareham (Augment current plans concerning BRT and the
Daedalus Enterprise Zone) 8 Portchester and Waterlooville to Southsea via The Hard (Portsmouth) (Promotion of cycling,
improvement of rail-cycle interchange) 9 Havant to Portsmouth (Improved accessibility to and between key rail and bus interchanges for
pedestrians and cyclists) For this report, most analyses are carried out at a corridor-group level: Corridors 1-3 are routes into Southampton from the west/northwest; Corridors 4-6 are routes entering the city from the east/northeast; and Corridors 7-9 form the routes into Portsmouth and Gosport.
8
Figure 5: Targeted corridors with proposed interventions superimposed and 2011 populations (adapted from graphic originally prepared by MVA consultancy for the TfSHIoW Business Case)
Overall population figures of those who live within postcode sectors likely to be affected by each of the corridor interventions are shown in Table 2.
Estimated population Corridors 1-3 109,800 Corridors 4-5 143,000 Corridors 7-9 248,300 Southampton non-corridor 111,700 Portsmouth non-corridor 100,500 South Hampshire non-corridor 350,300
Table 2: Estimated population near intervention corridor groups and elsewhere (2011) Data source: HCC, 2011
Since the project began, a number of physical measures have been introduced; the major projects are summarised below. Gosport Peninsula (Corridor 7) 2012-15 In 2012/13, in conjunction with the BRT Eclipse Busway, LSTF funding was used to refurbish bus passenger infrastructure on the wider Gosport Peninsula as used by the Eclipse bus route. This included the provision of two new bus shelters at Fareham Rail Station interchange and one at Creek Road, Gosport. There were also improvements to Fareham and Gosport Bus Stations. Each of these improvements included real time information on buses, trains and ferries and incorporated way finding maps. In 2013/14, there were improvements to bus stops along Newgate Lane in Hampshire, supporting new and additional bus services to the Daedalus Major Development Area, a key development site included with the Solent LEP Strategic Economic Plan. 2014/15 saw the implementation of the A27 Western Way bus lane in Fareham. The objective of the scheme was to increase traffic capacity and improve journey time reliability for all transport modes, including the BRT Eclipse, on the westbound approach to the A27 Station Roundabout.
9
Eastern Cycle Route and Southampton Station Quarter public realm (Corridor 6) 2012-15 In 2012/13, the feasibility study for this key cycle corridor was completed, with delivery of the Public Realm improvements beginning in 2013/14. Work began on the Eastern Cycle Route in March 2014, when a small section was created on Marsh Road, followed by connection of this with the Itchen Bridge, via Central Bridge, alongside planned waterproofing works. Work was completed at the end of 2014. Further safety improvements have been implemented at Saltmarsh Road Junction and improvements to cycle infrastructure on Central Bridge, Marsh Lane and Evans Street. Bishopstoke to Eastleigh Cycle link (Corridor 5) 2013-15 In 2013/14 this involved the design and initial implementation of a key new 5km stretch of cycling infrastructure, including off-road share use footway/cycleway linking Eastleigh railway station and town centre with users of ‘The Hub’ sports and recreational centre and local businesses, as well as residents of Bishopstoke Road and the surrounding area. The scheme was completed in 2014/15. 2014/15 also saw the introduction of a scheme to provide a high quality public realm adjacent to the Grade II Listed building at Eastleigh Station and improve accessibility within the site. The design also takes into account the cycle route projects being delivered in the area as well as providing a much better integration with Eastleigh Town Centre. Two further major schemes implemented as part of the LSTF programme were ‘Legible Cities’ and the introduction of real-time information displays at bus stops across the area. Legible Cities (area-wide) Initial work in 2012/13 focused on mapping and identifying locations for wayfinding portals across Southampton and Hampshire, with further mapping and design work in Portsmouth. During 2013/14, the project has provided on-street signage and other media to provide journey support for the local population in Southampton, including free paper maps and posters. Additionally, 160 bus stops including bus stop poles, flags and timetable cases were standardised across the city encompassing all stops along the LSTF corridors, interchanges and other ‘high profile’ stops to ‘make legible’ all bus roadside information. In Portsmouth, there were 39 Navigation Totems and two ‘Hotspot Totems’ introduced. In Hampshire, wayfinding totems and/or fingerpost signs were installed in Gosport, Fareham, Eastleigh, Romsey, Havant and Totton. Real-Time Information (area wide) In 2012/13, Real Time information screens and facilities have been installed across Southampton and South Hampshire. Displays were introduced at 188 bus stops across Southampton, and 7 high quality interchange totems were installed at key locations including the station and city centre. This was supplemented by an exercise to standardise the information provided at the stops in terms of brand, design and quality of information, raising the expectations of passengers in terms of public transport information they can expect to receive at stops and interchanges. The displays not only show next bus departures but also live train departures for local stations, news, weather and promotions for the various My Journey campaigns. In 2013/14, a further 42 displays were introduced in Southampton, and a further 78 along corridor routes. In Portsmouth, 86 displays were introduced in 2014/15.
10
3.2 Strand 2 – Smart ticketing Efficient and attractive public transport was identified as a key transport component to enable South Hampshire to realise sustainable economic growth. Public transport is a means through which economic growth can be achieved while ensuring that the demand for travel can be met in a sustainable way, providing an alternative to car use for many journeys and bringing environmental benefits.
In partnership with bus and ferry operators, Solent Go, a fully interoperable, ITSO (Integrated Ticketing Smartcard Organisation) compliant smart card was launched in August 2014, replacing the Solent travelcard providing the link between operators and modes. The card helps to make public transport seamless, easier to use and cheaper as well as promoting patronage growth. The benefits of Smart Ticketing include:
• full interoperability to ITSO standard across South Hampshire (initially between bus companies then extending to ferries);
• flexible journey based product (e.g. multi-day, variable length season tickets, etc.); • improved customer insight through knowledge of journey patterns; • demand management through use of “shoulder peak fares”; • automatic top-up; • reduced queue and boarding times; • development of Near Field Communications (NFC) Technology and Mobile ticketing, as well as the
development of smart applications and other new technology; • potential extension to rail, bridge tolls, car clubs, cycle hire in time.
Initial take-up of the Solent go card was slow but steady with income in November 2014 of approximately £2,700 across all tickets. By late Spring 2015, both Red Funnel and Wightlink ferries had implemented the necessary infrastructure to allow them to accept the Solent Go card. At the end of the financial year, income had risen to between £7,000 and £10,000 per month.
3.3 Strand 3 – Targeted behavioural change A highly targeted marketing approach has been used to promote behavioural change targeted at the nine corridors and underpinning the other two elements. As well as a range of travel planning initiatives aimed at residents and the local workforce, a marketing campaign to promote the My Journey brand, including websites incorporating an online journey planner, social media and outreach events. 3.3.1 Travel Planning Working with key partners such as large employers, schools and colleges, and at public transport interchanges (including rail stations, bus termini and ferry ports), Travel Plans have been developed with a range of partners under the ‘My Journey’ branding, including:
• Personal Journey Planning (PJP). • Workplace Travel Plans (WTP), targeting major employers and sites such as colleges and
universities, hospitals. • Public Transport Interchange Travel Plans. • School Travel Plans (STP).
Outcomes from PJP and WTP are provided in Section 4.4.
11
3.3.2 Marketing and communications – ‘My Journey’ To reinforce the measures being implemented along each corridor, an area-wide social marketing campaign has been developed. This encompasses the creation of a specific brand, together with associated marketing strategies and behaviour change projects targeting key groups of people most likely to change their travel behaviour. Whilst objectives for these projects vary, the common and linking theme is sustainable travel. To exploit the promotion of these shared objectives, the Better Connected South Hampshire project took up the lead position as provider of an overarching marketing strategy for all authorities, to ensure all marketing activity is coordinated and works collaboratively with local project marketing campaigns. The strategy, which includes a plan for delivering shared campaigns to a combined target audience in a timely way, ultimately leads to greater awareness across a much wider geography and with consistent campaign messaging. This strategic approach has also achieved economies of scale in terms of budget, tools and agency management. The Better Connected South Hampshire project is also the provider of dynamic marketing tools such as the websites, journey planner and social media platforms. It is also responsible for maintaining the brand guidelines and ensuring all communications feed into benefits-led messaging most likely to bring about a change in travel behaviour. The brand The My Journey brand is a leading example of Local Authorities working beyond boundaries to provide residents and businesses in Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth with one unique identity for sustainable travel. The brand is bright, bold and friendly with a versatile strapline that can be adapted to fit local geographical locations, for example ‘My Journey - helping Portsmouth / Southampton / Hampshire get around.’ The brand has been used as an example of best practice by the Department for Transport and has also been showcased at the Local Sustainable Transport Fund annual conference. In addition to the brand, there is a vibrant creative theme in the form of bird-related illustration (see Figure 6). The two combined deliver a stand-out creative theme designed to capture the imagination of local people and encourage them to want to find out more. The high levels of awareness particularly in Southampton have led to being short listed for, and winning, several prestigious marketing industry awards including CIPR (Chartered Institute of Public Relations) PRide Awards and the PRCA (Public Relations Consultants Association) Awards. The overall aim of My Journey is to raise awareness of transport choice in the region and highlight the benefits that alternatives to the car can offer. By promoting a variety of transport options (other than being a single passenger in a car) to local residents and organisations, it is deemed that a change in travel behaviour could take place when given the right information and motivation. In a time when people are continuously bombarded with promotional messages, local Councils agreed it made good sense to offer a strong and simple, single-minded proposition that residents and organisations could easily recognise, signpost to, and engage with directly. Whilst there needs to be support for individual Council transport behaviour change objectives, all Councils agreed there are much greater benefits in having one shared identity11 and this fits well with delivering the objectives set out in the LSTF bid. An online transport information hub The My Journey website sits at the heart of all My Journey communications and is designed to support online activity with schools, communities, active travel and work places. Whilst it is a single website, it has three main domains, one for each Council. Following a redesign that went live in September 2013, all three sites offer a variety of information about local sustainable travel and encourage people to think about how they can get involved or learn more about how they can change their travel behaviour. The
11 The brand and creative theme has also been adopted by Wokingham Borough Council.
12
website also contains links to transport providers in the region, stories of people who have changed their travel behaviour, events and services available.
Figure 6: Example of the My Journey webpage
The website also hosts a multi-modal journey planner that encourages people to compare travel options for any local journey, plus real-time bus and train updates. In a campaign to promote the journey planner during 2014/15 over 19,400 people visited the site in a six week period in the lead up to Christmas when roads are busy and car parks are full. All local versions of the My Journey website are interlinked and consistent in style to ensure the end user has an unswerving My Journey experience. There are also links to existing Council traffic and travel information and related local travel charities and businesses. The aim of the site is to become a one-stop destination for all things travel related in the Hampshire area. The number of visitors to the website up to March 2014 was 87,445 unique visitors and by March 2015 it was 212,342 unique visitors with a 30% return rate. In 2013/14, 36% of people responding to an online poll said that My Journey had helped them to use their car less, and in 2014/15 this had increased to 59% (although there is likely to be some selection bias in these respondents). Social media My Journey engages the public in behaviour change via social media. Channels consist of Facebook, Twitter and the Fix My Journey platform. These channels are shared across the three authorities of Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton. At the beginning of January 2014 there were 616 Twitter followers and 606 Facebook page likes. By March 2015 these figures has increased to 1,238 and 1,250 respectively. Facebook – a number of daily communications are sent out to this group. Communications are varied and relate to a variety of events and activities across all authorities. Recent communications have linked more closely to campaigns to increase relevance, including photos, challenges and competitions.
13
Twitter – My Journey regularly tweet and retweet messages from other associated sustainable travel groups and forums. In particular there is good engagement with local cycling communities, partner charities such as CTC, Sustrans and Living Streets, Local Authority Twitter accounts and the local community. Fix My Journey – this is a social media advocacy platform where individuals choose to post sustainable travel related messages from My Journey to friends and family. In return they can earn prizes through a points reward system. The platform was set up in January 2014 and had 136 advocates sharing 1,517 posts that led to 400,036 page impressions. By March 2015 Fix My Journey has 1,430 advocates, 1,327 endorsements and 1,341,406 impressions. Through this platform, advocates are more likely to share content when compared to those who have signed up to our Facebook and Twitter accounts. Events Events have been an integral dissemination process for My Journey, engaging with the local community about their travel behaviour. Direct, in-depth face-to-face conversations are more likely to lead to a change in behaviour than any other form of marketing. In 2014/15, each authority12 hosted around 12 events predominantly throughout the summer months with the aim of engaging between 300 and 500 people per event, averaging between 3,600 and 6,000 engagements per authority. This leads to a grand total of 10,800 to 18,000 in-depth conversations per year about travel choices. Events also support schools, work places and communities by providing leads to sustainable travel services being provided by specialist partners. In particular active travel-related events are proving to be most successful where people have the opportunity to try a bicycle in a safe environment, obtain cycling and walking maps, tips on eco-driving and handy travel items, get involved in a challenge and other ‘fun’ elements including making a smoothie by pedalling a bike. Further details of the My Journey brand and activities can be found on the website http://www.myjourneyhampshire.com/
12 Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council.
14
4. Monitoring and Evaluation
4.1 Introduction This section of the report contains an update of the data and indicators used to assess change in the use of the transport network and travel behaviour and attitudes. The baseline year for many of the indicators being assessed is 2011/12, and where possible, updates for 2013/14 and 2014/15 are compared with these baseline data. There was no update of the telephone survey results in 2014; a final iteration of these surveys was undertaken at the end of 2015.
4.2 Current use of the transport network Measures of traffic flow, journey times and levels of delay can be used to indicate changes in travel behaviour. For this update report, the assessment of transport network usage includes road traffic flows, congestion and reliability measures along the main corridors, the modal share into the city of Southampton, and current and recent trends in public transport use. 4.2.1 Traffic flows Changes in traffic flows along the corridor groups are determined from extant automatic traffic counters and DfT estimated flow data on major routes. HCC and SCC have 51 permanent counters located in South Hampshire (22 vehicle only, 6 vehicles and cycles, 19 cycles only, 2 not configured, 2 cycles only not in use) allowing data to be extracted for specific routes / corridors, and the locations of these counters is shown in Figure 7. Only some of these counters are applicable to the corridors being assessed, so further data based on DfT estimated flows along major roads has been used throughout the region, and especially in the Portsmouth area, where non-DfT data is sparse.
Figure 7: Existing permanent traffic counts within the Solent Transport area (Sept 2012)
Of these DfT estimates (data is available from http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/), there are 53 count locations in Portsmouth, 51 in Southampton, and over 100 in South Hampshire. These annual road traffic
15
estimates are mainly based on around ten thousand manual counts conducted each year across the regions of Great Britain, which are combined with ATC (Automatic Traffic Count) data and road lengths to produce overall estimates13. DfT guidance suggests that these National Road Traffic Estimates data are unlikely to provide an accurate representation of traffic trends at an individual site; however, aggregation of DfT and HCC data provides a good estimate of the changes in traffic in each corridor group. The locations of HCC, SCC and DfT count sites for each of the corridor groups are shown in Appendix A. The actual aggregate figures (derived from average annual daily two-way (AADT) traffic data) are shown in Table 3, and the resulting index (2012=100) showing changes since 2008 is shown in Figure 8.
No of sites
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base-
line
2013 2014 % change (Baseline to 2014)
Corridors 1-3 29 29673 28722 28515 29330 29232 28844 29211 -0.7 Corridors 4-6 16 17973 17995 17736 17676 17532 17411 17707 +1.0 Corridors 7-9 29 30575 30811 30350 31241 31689 31221 31618 -0.2 Control (W Fareham)
6 25711 25906 25502 25849 26076 26268 26945 +3.3
Table 3: Average aggregated traffic flows (derived from AADTs) by corridor group and control
Figure 8: Index of aggregated traffic flows (derived from AADTs) by corridor group and control Data sources: HCC, SCC, DfT
There has been a consistent increase in traffic flow levels across all routes in 2014, which perhaps reflects the trends of economic growth and decreasing fuel costs. Flows from the west and northwest of Southampton (Corridors 1-3) returned to 2012 baseline levels, having decreased slightly (by 1.3%) in 2013. The trend for a reduction in traffic flows along the corridors to the east of the city (Corridors 4-6) has been reversed in 2014 with a 1.7% increase following a drop of 0.7% in 2013. Portsmouth and Gosport had seen an increasing trend in traffic flows up to 2012, but traffic flows dropped by 2.9% in 2013
13 Further details on the DfT estimates are available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/230528/annual-methodology-note.pdf
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Inde
x (b
asel
ine
2012
=100
)
Corridors 1-3Corridors 4-6Corridors 7-9Control (W Fareham)
16
compared with the baseline. Again, flows in 2014 increased by 1.3%. For comparison, the combined data from one LA and five DfT count sites along the A27 West Fareham route used in the LSTF Congestion Relief and Carbon Reduction Case Study show that, while there may have been a similar pattern of traffic flows to the other Portsmouth-sited corridors up to 2012, the traffic levels appear to have risen slightly in 2013 (when the other corridor traffic seemed to have decreased slightly)), and have risen by 2.6% in 2014, a greater increase than the treatment corridors. As well as changes to the economy, there are a number of other reasons for fluctuations in traffic levels, including the age of the population, household size, and levels of car ownership. However, the results generally show relatively modest changes in traffic volume, and it is not clear whether any such local socio-demographic changes have affected these corridor-based traffic levels over time. 4.2.2 Long-term traffic flow estimates Local Authority data has been provided for 2008-2014, but traffic flow estimate data is available for the DfT estimates from the year 2000. Figure 9 shows the results for the aggregation of flow data from 2000 to 2014 if only DfT sites are used. This figure shows that traffic trends along Corridors 7-9 have remained largely unchanged over time, with a slight drop in flows around the 2008 economic downturn, with traffic levels returning to pre-downturn levels since 2012. The other corridor groups had slightly higher traffic flow levels than the 2012 baseline prior to the economic downturn, although there is some variability year-on-year in the aggregate figures for Corridors 4-6. Looking at the five DfT sites on the control corridor in West Fareham, flow levels were generally lower than the 2012 baseline in the years preceding the downturn. Other than those years, traffic levels seem to have been increasing on this control corridor, including a greater increase than the LSTF corridors in 2014.
Figure 9: Long-term estimates for aggregated traffic flows by corridor
Data source: DfT 4.2.3 Peak congestion According to a 2012 report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research with traffic information company Inrix, congestion is costing the UK economy around £4.3bn per year (equivalent to around £490 per car-commuting household), through increased journey times and wasted fuel. Reducing congestion (and hence promoting economic growth) is a key priority for Solent Transport, and is a cornerstone of this LSTF funded programme.
90
95
100
105
110
115
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Inde
x Ba
selin
e 20
12=1
00
Corridors 1-3
Corridors 4-6
Corridors 7-9
W Fareham (Control)
17
In order to report on congestion across the area, a Solent Transport congestion index has been developed by Hampshire County Council, using data from a range of traffic count sources and Trafficmaster 14 historic journey time data. Average journey times per mile during the morning peak period (using Trafficmaster data provided on weekdays during term time, coupled with surveys undertaken midweek during term time) are shown in Figure 10. The index has been calculated based on an academic year (September to August) for the whole of South Hampshire, as well as the three corridors groups. The index is based on the former National Indicator for congestion (NI 167)15, giving the ‘vehicle journey time per mile during the morning peak (0800-0900)’ on the 9 corridors and 3 corridor groups (as shown in Table 4), weighted by the relative traffic flow on these different routes. The road sections assessed as part of the congestion analysis are given in Appendix B.
Figure 10: Average journey times per mile (morning peak 0800-1000) Data source: HCC, SCC, PCC, Trafficmaster, DfT
Average journey times per mile and therefore levels of congestion have been relatively unchanged across the whole of South Hampshire, although there seems to be a slight increase in journey times (showing an increased level of congestion) since 2011/12. This trend seems also to be the case for Corridors 1-3 (west of Southampton), while the opposite appears to be the case for Corridors 7-9 (routes into Gosport and Portsmouth). There are fluctuations in congestion on routes crossing into Southampton from the east of the city (Corridors 4-6): between 2009/10 and 2011/12 there was a decrease in congestion, although this has increased again between 2012/13 and 2014/15, possibly due to major roadworks at particular sections along those corridors. As shown in Figure 11 (which plots individual pairs of indices for each corridor group and year), congestion tends to increase with increased traffic levels, as might be expected.
14 Trafficmaster supplies local authorities with historical journey time data, calculated using anonymised data from around 50,000 probe vehicles equipped with global positioning system devices, which record speed and location information. Further information is available at www.trafficmaster.co.uk 15 More information is available here: http://clip.local.gov.uk/lgv/core/page.do?pageId=150281
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Solent Transportarea
Corridors 1-3 Corridors 4-6 Corridors 7-9
Aver
age
min
utes
per
mile
(am
pea
k)
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
18
Figure 11: Comparison of traffic flow index and congestion index
Data source: HCC, PCC, SCC, Trafficmaster, DfT The congestion index (minutes per mile) can be shown as average journey speeds for each of the corridors during the morning peak, as given in Table 5. Also included (where available) are details of the Carbon Case Study A27 Control route in West Fareham (although it should be noted that the data used to calculate this aspect of the index is not as comprehensive as elsewhere, and is therefore subject to more uncertainty). Congestion during the morning peak has decreased compared to baseline data for only one corridor section (Corridor 7 Northbound), where average speeds have increased by 25% since baseline. These data also indicate that there has been a slight reduction in congestion levels along the Control corridor.
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130
Traf
fic fl
ow in
dex
Congestion index
19
Academic year 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Baseline
2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 % change (baseline to
14/15) South Hampshire 3:56 3.48 3.44 3.52 3.70 3.75 +9.0 Corridors 1-3 2.62 2.72 2.70 2.77 2.92 2.99 +10.7 Corridors 4-6 4.95 4.42 4.18 4.61 5.20 5.62 +34.4 Corridors 7-9 3.72 3.70 3.73 3.65 3.67 3.54 -5.1 Corridor 1 1.90 2.05 1.97 2.17 2.13 2.16 +9.6 Corridor 2 2.30 2.36 2.35 2.30 2.46 2.55 +8.5 Corridor 3 3.70 3.81 3.83 3.99 4.27 4.32 +12.8 Corridor 4/5 4.39 4.07 4.06 4.22 4.67 4.63 +14.0 Corridor 6 5.31 4.65 4.25 4.86 5.54 6.26 +47.3 Corridor 7NB 4.34 4.46 4.97 4.76 4.50 3.97 -20.1 Corridor 7SB 3.04 3.13 2.99 2.94 3.04 3.20 +7.0 Corridor 8 3.90 3.62 3.46 3.50 3.65 3.47 +0.3 Corridor 9 3.32 3.37 3.16 3.04 3.23 3.46 +9.5 A27 Control 2.81 2.68 2.86 2.85 -- 2.77 -3.1
Table 4: Congestion index – vehicle journey time (minutes per mile) for the morning peak (0800-0900) Data source: HCC, SCC, PCC, Trafficmaster, DfT
20
Academic year 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
Baseline 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 % change
(baseline to 14/15)
South Hampshire 16.9 17.2 17.4 17.0 16.2 16.0 -8.3 Corridors 1-3 22.9 22.1 22.2 21.7 20.5 20.1 -9.7 Corridors 4-6 12.1 13.6 14.4 13.0 11.5 10.7 -25.6 Corridors 7-9 16.1 16.2 16.1 16.4 16.3 16.9 +5.4 Corridor 1 31.6 29.3 30.5 27.6 28.2 27.8 -8.8 Corridor 2 26.1 25.4 25.5 26.1 24.4 23.5 -7.8 Corridor 3 16.2 15.7 15.7 15.0 14.1 13.9 -11.3 Corridor 4/5 13.7 14.7 14.8 14.2 12.8 13.0 -12.3 Corridor 6 11.3 12.9 14.1 12.3 10.8 9.6 -32.1 Corridor 7NB 13.8 13.5 12.1 12.6 13.3 15.1 +25.2 Corridor 7SB 19.7 19.2 20.1 20.4 19.7 18.8 -6.6 Corridor 8 15.4 16.6 17.3 17.1 16.4 17.3 -0.3 Corridor 9 18.1 17.8 19.0 19.7 18.6 17.3 -8.7 A27 Control 21.4 22.4 21.0 21.1 -- 21.6 +2.9
Table 5: Average journey speed (miles/hour) for the morning peak (0800-0900) Data source: HCC, SCC, PCC, Trafficmaster, DfT
21
4.2.4 Network reliability The average length of delays will vary by time of day, with significantly more delays experienced at peak times. A summary of the number and total distance of roads which had delays of more than 30 seconds is shown in Table 6. Most of the delay is encountered during the morning peak (0800-0900), with around 50-60 sections of the road network classed as congestion hotspots. The total distance of affected roads in 2009-2012 was around 15 km, but this decreased to around 10km in 2012/13. Data from 2013/14 and 2014/15 indicate that this has returned to previous levels, and has increased recently to exceed previous values.
AM (0800-0900)
Off Peak (1000-1800)
PM (1700-1800)
2009/10 Length (km) 15.02 1.16 9.24 Number of links 54 3 33 2010/11 Length (km) 15.34 1.66 8.47 Number of links 50 4 32 2011/12 Length (km) 15.24 1.54 7.40 Baseline Number of links 48 6 26 2012/13 Length (km) 10.21 0.94 4.61 Number of links 51 5 28 2013/14 Length (km) 16.54 1.45 4.06 Number of links 60 7 13 2014/15 Length (km) 18.91 1.93 8.95 Number of links 71 8 34
Table 6: Congestion hotspots (links with more than 30 seconds delay) Data source: HCC, PCC, SCC, Trafficmaster, DfT
Thus, while in 2012/13, the number of congestion ‘hotspots’ (i.e. links with more than 30 seconds delays) remained at around 50 during the morning peak, the amount of road space affected decreased by a third, indicating that during that period the length of the resultant tailbacks had generally reduced. Comparing that with other years, it seems atypical; the usual pattern is for around 50-70 separate links to affect between 15-19 km of road space. Table 7 shows the variation in average delay/reliability during AM and PM peaks16 plus the off-peak period, compared to average ‘free flow’ conditions (measured between 10pm and 6am) for 2011/12 to 2014/15. Generally, off-peak delays exhibit the least change over time, as they are less affected by changing levels of congestion. However, where levels of congestion are highest (such as Corridor 6 during am peak), the average delay is also most severe.
16 Note that these data cover the whole academic year (both term time and school holidays); major works and traffic management measures, such as those experienced in Fareham due to the implementation of BRT and Quay Street roundabout improvements will also have impacted on traffic movements/delay and are included in these figures.
22
Average delay (minutes per mile)
Morning Peak (0800-0900)
Off Peak (1000-1600)
Evening Peak (1700-1800)
11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 Solent Transport Area
1.59 1.68 1.82 1.95 0.73 0.71 0.92 0.83 1.30 1.28 0.93 1.45
Corridors 1-3 1.17 1.29 1.48 1.54 0.62 0.62 0.69 0.72 0.93 0.94 0.90 1.11 Corridors 4-6 2.39 2.86 3.19 3.58 0.70 0.72 1.08 0.91 1.50 1.58 1.12 1.87 Corridors 7-9 1.50 1.41 1.44 1.49 0.81 0.77 1.00 0.86 1.43 1.35 0.88 1.47 Corridor 1 0.69 0.90 0.82 0.82 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.32 0.33 0.29 Corridor 2 0.69 0.65 0.89 0.96 0.66 0.61 0.81 0.87 0.91 1.21 0.70 1.19 Corridor 3 1.53 1.67 1.95 2.03 0.74 0.75 0.80 0.83 1.18 1.07 1.18 1.38 Corridor 4/5 2.37 2.60 3.11 2.88 0.55 0.62 1.31 1.02 1.74 1.99 1.10 2.60 Corridor 6 2.40 3.04 3.24 4.08 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.83 1.32 1.28 1.14 1.35 Corridor 7 NB to Fareham
2.72 2.48 2.24 2.39 0.96 0.89 0.88 1.09 1.11 0.93 1.17 1.05
Corridor 7 SB to Gosport/ Lee-on-the-Solent
0.87 0.82 0.91 1.03 0.89 0.86 1.28 0.98 1.93 1.72 0.90 1.83
Corridor 8 1.19 1.19 1.34 1.18 0.66 0.64 0.76 0.66 1.05 1.15 0.68 1.11 Corridor 9 1.07 0.95 1.14 1.41 0.71 0.62 1.23 0.67 1.90 1.87 0.72 2.37 A27 Control 1.07 1.03 -- 0.96 0.45 0.45 -- 0.55 1.49 1.79 -- 1.70
Table 7: Journey time reliability (average delay compared to free flow conditions [2200-0600]) from 2011/12 to 2014/15
Data source: HCC, PCC, SCC, Trafficmaster, DfT
23
4.2.5 Mode share (Southampton) Data specifically collected to determine modal share is only available for Southampton, and results for 2006-2014 are shown in Figure 12. Light vehicles (car, van and taxi) are the most frequently used form of travel for passenger journeys; their mode share has fallen from 61.6% in 2006 to 57.5% in 2014 (equalling the previous low in 2010). The share of active travel modes (walking and cycling) and public transportation (bus and rail) in 2014 have increased by 3.5% and 0.8% respectively compared with 2006 figures.
Figure 12: Modal split in Southampton (three year rolling average)
Data source: SCC
4.2.6 Active travel According to the DfT’s walking and cycling statistics17 Southampton has consistently had a lower proportion of people who cycle regularly than both Portsmouth and South Hampshire. A summary of the levels of cycling and walking activity is shown in Table 8 and Figure 13. It should be noted that the sample sizes of these surveys is small (~500 respondents), and any changes are likely to be subject to high uncertainty.
17 Derived from Sport England’s Active People Survey of sporting participation and active travel. “Walk” refers to any continuous walk of at least 5 minutes, irrespective of purpose. “Cycle” in this table refers to any cycling, irrespective of length or purpose. Datasets are available online at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport/series/walking-and-cycling-statistics
61.6% 60.4% 59.2% 58.1% 57.5% 57.8% 58.6% 58.6% 57.5%
17.1% 17.9% 17.7% 17.4% 16.6% 16.6% 15.9% 16.1% 16.2%
10.8% 11.1% 12.0% 12.9% 13.9% 13.5% 13.6% 13.4% 13.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Others
Pedestrian
Cycle
Rail
Bus
Light vehicle
24
10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 Walk (5 or more minutes, at least once a month) South Hampshire 91% -- 87% 86% Southampton 91% -- 88% 89% Portsmouth 93% -- 89% 89% Cycle (any purpose, at least once a month) South Hampshire 21% 20% 20% 20% Southampton 14% 18% 17% 17% Portsmouth 20% 20% 21% 24% Walk or cycle South Hampshire 92% -- 88% 87% Southampton 91% -- 88% 91% Portsmouth 93% -- 90% 89%
Table 8: Levels of walking and cycling activity between 2010/11 and 2013/14: Proportion of residents who walk or cycle at least once a month
Data source: DfT Gosport in particular had the highest incidence of cycling in 2010/11, with 24% of residents cycling at least once a week; however this reduced to 16-18% cycling once a week in 2012/13 and 2013/14. Cycling activity in Eastleigh appears to have increased from 13% cycling at least once a week in 2010/11 to 18% in 2013/14, and in Fareham from 18% in 2010/11 to 26% in 2013/14.
Figure 13: Levels of cycling activity
Proportion of residents who cycle at a given frequency Data source: DfT
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
S Hants Soton P'mouth S Hants Soton P'mouth S Hants Soton P'mouth
At least once a week At least three times a week At least five times a week
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
iden
ts w
ho c
ycle
10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14
25
4.2.7 Rail station usage Estimates of station usage data (collated annually by the Office of Rail and Road) are summarised in Figure 14, and shown in detail in Table 9, with stations grouped by corridor group. Other stations in South Hampshire not situated along any corridor groups are also included. These data are estimates of the total numbers of people a) travelling from or to the station (entries and exits); and b) interchanging at the station. These data show an overall trend since 2009/10 of increased rail usage. The data for Corridors 1-3 are dominated by those for Southampton Central, with around 6 million passengers per year. The growth trend had previously been more marked at stations not on any of the Solent Transport corridors, but the increase from 2012/13 to 2013/14 was around 2-3% for Corridors 1-3, Corridors 7-9 and stations on no corridor, with an increase of over 5% for stations on Corridors 4-6. However, the original trend of higher growth at non-corridor stations seems to have returned in 2014/15.
Case study: Sustrans South Hampshire Active Steps programme “Active Steps is a 10 week programme which will provide high levels of support to enable people to travel more actively.” Purpose and objectives Active Steps, a programme managed by Sustrans from June 2013 to March 2015, supports people with low physical activity levels to improve their physical and mental health through an intensive 10-week active travel programme, with the expectation that this will create long-lasting behaviour change. Participants are provided with a loan bike or a pedometer and a supported programme of activities, motivational emails and opportunities to enable them to walk or cycle for short regular trips. 126 people registered for the programme and 64 follow-up surveys were received. The following outcomes are based on these responses, and the relatively small number of respondents should be borne in mind when considering these results. Demographics
• The majority of participants (58.7%) are female. • Participation of a wide age range: 41.3% aged 25-34, a further 38.9% over 45. • 69% of participants in full-time or part-time employment, 15.9% were either unemployed or not
working due to disability or illness. • 60% of Central Southampton participants and 44% of participants within the wider Southampton
Region live in high levels of deprivation. The project also works in areas of deprivation in Gosport, Havant and Portsmouth.
Results
• Follow-up results show a substantial increase in time spent walking, cycling and/or doing other physical activity, from a baseline average of 4.6 hours total physical activity to 9.7 hours at the end of the 10 week programme.
• Over three quarters (77.4%) of participants had increased the time they spent cycling following engagement, with average time spent cycling increasing by 2.4 hours per week. The vast majority (84.4%) of participants asserted that they intended to travel more by bicycle in the future.
• Although a relatively small sample, the average time spent cycling and doing other physical activity remained higher than baseline both at three months and one year following engagement with the programme, an encouraging indication of the longer-term impact of the project.
• The most commonly cited ‘single biggest barrier’ to active travel following engagement moved from confidence, fitness or lack of equipment to issues of time, personal commitments and weather.
• The average time spent travelling by car to get places (either as driver or passenger) reduced by 3.1 hours per week following Active Steps (from 5.8 hours before to 2.7 hours after).
• Just under half (49.0%) of participants reported a decrease in daily miles of car travel following engagement.
26
Figure 14: Railway usage trends (2008/09 to 2014/15)
Data Source: ORR
Corridors 1-3 (West and NW of Southampton) 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
Baseline 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Romsey 415,716 413,132 428,430 449,488 458,714 477,146 494,982 Totton 301,094 286,440 302,522 278,666 300,266 297,758 306,022 Millbrook 27,410 29,936 33,418 31,362 31,850 39,340 40,524 Redbridge 27,286 24,992 25,568 30,456 33,010 34,598 38,750 Southampton Central 5,835,958 5,596,448 5,799,996 5,951,224 6,106,856 6,278,910 6,433,514 TOTAL 6,607,464 6,350,948 6,589,934 6,741,196 6,930,696 7,127,752 7,313,792
Corridors 4-6 (NE and East of Southampton)
2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Baseline
2012/13 2013/14 2014.15
Chandlers Ford 236,102 218,640 225,622 241,310 238,502 244,338 231,912 Eastleigh 1,445,366 1,435,960 1,504,090 1,497,390 1,532,168 1,599,710 1,643,476 Soton Airport (Parkway) 1,460,708 1,411,294 1,408,684 1,508,948 1,539,766 1,604,488 1,651,626 Bitterne 67,920 69,454 83,608 86,724 96,668 104,568 104,102 St.Denys 218,772 213,904 235,356 247,438 262,794 288,956 120,302 Sholing 63,072 70,744 85,310 90,852 103,748 108,140 298,364 Swaythling 90,004 83,600 89,816 103,766 114,594 130,228 138,090 Woolston 114,694 125,296 138,466 140,484 138,432 162,532 165,408 TOTAL 3,696,638 3,628,892 3,770,952 3,916,912 4,026,672 4,242,960 4,353,280
Corridors 7-9 (Gosport and Portsmouth)
2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Baseline
2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Bedhampton 113,680 98,120 115,866 249,226 171,554 145,468 136,952 Emsworth 325,128 378,422 428,034 401,862 394,830 408,364 390,052 Fareham 1,611,814 1,579,906 1,650,254 1,747,290 1,768,336 1,725,003 1,785,204 Havant 2,184,698 2,124,274 2,153,160 2,047,166 2,152,396 2,203,114 2,351,802 Portchester 318,780 317,808 366,014 372,998 364,038 389,858 393,750 Warblington 45,472 32,690 27,176 31,212 29,770 33,232 34,040 Cosham 810,544 821,552 855,184 908,908 945,188 975,742 976,770
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Inde
x Ba
selin
e 20
12=1
00
Corridors 1-3
Corridors 4-6
Corridors 7-9
No Corridor
27
Fratton 1,557,636 1,485,842 1,530,310 1,582,690 1,552,398 1,570,588 1,643,624 Hilsea 280,332 264,924 284,488 283,738 287,638 309,556 325,254 Portsmouth Harbour 1,826,011 1,835,835 1,904,571 1,851,570 2,197,072 2,272,038 2,206,210 Portsmouth & Southsea 2,281,128 2,280,908 2,383,739 2,413,088 1,965,324 2,032,386 2,156,486 TOTAL 11,355,223 11,220,281 11,698,796 11,889,748 11,828,544 12,065,349 12,400,144
Stations in South Hampshire, but not along any corridors:
2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Baseline
2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Botley 120,054 130,460 135,936 135,498 142,846 143,280 154,388 Bursledon 54,776 54,894 60,264 59,300 59,614 65,206 63,560 Hedge End 381,022 420,318 473,888 472,008 472,302 460,028 506,078 Hamble 86,582 86,822 92,008 111,302 126,072 122,062 118,606 Netley 89,934 89,342 96,608 106,028 102,072 110,256 113,958 Swanwick 517,922 510,472 581,456 618,574 631,824 677,520 696,586 TOTAL 1,250,290 1,292,308 1,440,160 1,502,710 1,534,730 1,578,352 1,653,176
Table 9: Estimates of railway station usage data (2008/09 to 2013/14) Data source: ORR
The most growth since 2008 has been at Sholing (90% increase between 2008/09 and 2014/15) and Bitterne and Swaythling (53% increase); St Denys, Woolston, Millbrook and Redbridge also saw growth of between 30 and 45% in usage numbers since 2008/09. Usage also increased at some stations away from the LSTF corridors, with Hamble in particular experiencing 37% more passenger usage since 2008/09. Considering changes since the baseline data of 2011/12, the greatest increase in passenger usage has been at Millbrook (27%), Swaythling (20%), Woolston (20%). There have been some decreases in passenger usage, notably at Bedhampton (-20%), Chandlers Ford (-3%) and Emsworth (-1%) on corridors, and Hamble (-6%) off corridor. 4.2.8 Long-term rail station usage trends The long-term trend at stations across South Hampshire has been sustained and steady growth in passenger numbers since 2001/02 (Figure 15), although there has been more growth, especially in 2009/10, at stations away from the LSTF corridors, where passenger numbers have doubled in the last 11 years.
Figure 15: Long-term estimates of railway station usage (2001/02 to 2014/15) Data source: ORR (NB: no data is available for 2003/04, average value used)
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15
Inde
x Ba
selin
e 20
12=1
00
Corridors 1-3
Corridors 4-6
Corridors 7-9
No Corridor
28
4.2.9 Bus patronage Bus patronage figures have been provided by the three main bus operating companies: Bluestar, First Group and Stagecoach. These are commercially sensitive data, hence the analysis does not identify individual routes or bus companies. The data is aggregated by corridor group. Bus routes are often changed to reflect demand, and indeed a number of routes along the corridor groups have been altered or removed since the start of the study, and any such changes (including re-assigning passenger number as appropriate) have been included in these analyses. A summary of the overall usage in 2012/13 to 2014/15 by corridor group is shown in Figure 16, showing that there were around 12-14 million passengers carried into both Southampton and Portsmouth along the corridors in the study years. Overall number dropped slightly in 2013/14, but have increased again in 2014/15, with a 3% increase on passenger numbers in and around Southampton corridors. Although the recent trends seems to show a decrease in passenger numbers in the west and north of the city (Corridors 1-3), this is offset by a similar increase in traffic on the other Southampton corridors but this may be due to changes in the matching of bus routes to LSTF corridors.
Figure 16: Bus patronage figures by corridor group 2012/13 to 2014/15
Data source: Bus operators Data from the Department for Transport on local bus services show that there had generally been a steady growth in passenger numbers across Hampshire since 2005, while figures in both Portsmouth and Southampton have remained largely static since 2009/10 (at around respectively 10 million and 18 million passengers annually); there was a slight drop in passenger numbers recorded in 2012/13, but the figures show that passenger numbers rose again during the 2013/14 and 2014/15 periods, particularly in Southampton, with an increase of 2 million passengers. Note that the Portsmouth figures in Table 10 are for local bus journeys within the Portsmouth boundary, whereas corridor 7 is within Hampshire, so the figures are not directly comparable with those shown in Figure 16. Nevertheless, comparing the Southampton results shown in Figure 16 for overall bus patronage in Corridor group 1-3 and 4-6, we can see that there are around 5-6 million passenger journeys within the Southampton boundary on routes away from the Solent Transport corridors.
29
Year 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15
Southampton 18.9 18.4 19.3 19.7 19.8 18.6* 18.0 18.2 17.8 18.0 20.1
Portsmouth 11.4 11.0 11.3 11.7 11.9 10.5 10.8 10.9 10.1 10.3 10.6
Hampshire 27.1 26.7 28.2 29.8 30.5 30.3 31.1 31.9 31.6 32.1 32.4
*Difference between 08/09 and 09/10 in Southampton is due to the change of data collection methodology. Table 10: Passenger journeys on local bus services (in millions)
Data source: DfT 4.2.10 Ferry use Table 11 shows the passenger numbers of the three ferry operators in the Solent Transport area, not including trips to and from the Isle of Wight. These figures are shown graphically in Figure 17. Passenger numbers have been steadily decreasing since 2009, perhaps as a result of the economic downturn. Although still decreasing, it is possible that the rate of decrease has slowed slightly for 2013/14 and 2014/15 figures for Gosport ferry. As part of the LSTF programme, infrastructure and urban realm improvements were planned at the Hythe ferry terminal, and Travel Plans were developed for both Hythe and Gosport ferries. [Note: 2014/15 data for Hythe ferry has not been provided]. The Hayling Island Ferry (to Portsmouth) was closed in May 2015.
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Hythe 331,106 330,957 291,132 270,334 262,766 Hayling 70,662 66,590 63,904 56,028 Gosport 3,516,290 3,400,459 3,328,110 3,033,816 2,986,047 2,922,502
Table 11: Ferry usage data Data source: HCC, ferry operators
Figure 17: Index of ferry usage (baseline = 2011/12)
Data source: HCC, ferry operators 4.2.11 Census (2011) Journey to Work data The 2011 census Journey to Work Origin and Destination data was released in July 2014, providing an opportunity to analyse changes in travel patterns since the previous 2001 Census. The proportion of journeys to work by car is generally higher for trips external to each local authority compared to internal trips. Portsmouth and Southampton have the lowest proportion of internal journeys
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Inde
x Ba
selin
e 20
12 =
100
Hythe
Hayling
Gosport
30
to work made by car (48%), and since 2001 have seen modal shift away from the car for both internal and external journeys. Eastleigh, Fareham and Havant, however, have seen little modal shift. Gosport has seen an increase in the proportion of journeys to work by car, although this proportion is still lower than other areas. Generally, the proportion of walking trips for internal travel has increased, and the proportion of cycling trips has increased in the three authorities with the highest cycling activity: Portsmouth, Southampton and Gosport (with other areas remaining at around 2001 levels). However, the proportion of journeys by bus throughout the region has declined compared with the 2001 Census. Reflecting the trends shown both nationally and in Section 4.2.8, there has been an increase in the proportion of journeys to work by rail.
4.3 Travel behaviour and impact of My Journey As well as assessing the changes in travel patterns and associated impacts on congestion, carbon emissions and road safety, the Solent Transport programme includes a series of attitudinal and behavioural household surveys18. It was intended that these surveys, all undertaken by ICM (to provide a consistent approach) at the outset and culmination of the programme, would provide a snapshot of travel behaviour and attitudes across the region, across a wide socio-demographic range of residents. Respondents’ locations are identified and comparisons drawn between those residents dwelling along corridors or near specific intervention sites and the residents living outside the targeted range of the interventions. Also, in the later surveys, respondents’ awareness of My Journey was assessed, to indicate how effective the marketing and information campaign had been at promoting change. The first phase of telephone surveys were undertaken in Portsmouth (1,154 residents) and the wider South Hampshire area (1,151 residents) in December 2012, with the survey of 1,497 Southampton residents carried out in October 2013. ICM aimed to provide interviews from a representative sample of adults (aged 16+ for Portsmouth and South Hampshire, 18+ for Southampton). Data has been weighted by gender, age, ward, socio-demographic profile and ethnicity. The second phase of surveys was undertaken in the end of 2015 (Oct/Nov for Southampton, Nov/Dec for Portsmouth and South Hampshire). Cost restrictions meant that target numbers were reduced for these Phase 2 surveys, and unfortunately, the sampling technique did not target individuals living with the South Hampshire region, but focused on entire districts which included some areas not within South Hampshire. In addition, there were many respondents who had not provided postcode information, so were not attributable to any corridor or non-corridor group. Thus, there were 85 interviews from respondents in Portsmouth and 359 in South Hampshire (but within Hampshire), which are excluded from the corridor-based analyses below. The resulting lower number of respondents will have an impact on the potential for any of the subsequent changes between the phases to be significant.
Interviews In corridor-based analysis Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Southampton 1,497 1,500 1,497 1,500 Portsmouth 1,154 750 1,154 665 South Hampshire 1,151 752 1,151 393
Table 12: Numbers of respondents to each of the telephone surveys
18 The initial survey of 1,500 Southampton residents by MRUK used different sampling techniques, and results are not directly comparable with ICM surveys. As such, the 2011 Southampton MRUK survey is not included in these analyses.
31
4.3.1 Awareness of My Journey brand In Phase 1, only Southampton-based respondents were asked whether they were aware of the My Journey brand; this question was not included in the South Hampshire and Portsmouth Phase 1 survey. All respondents in Phase 2 were asked this question. Considering only those respondents who were asked, there has been an increase in awareness of My Journey in both corridor and non-corridor locations, of between 8-10% (as shown in Table 13). More corridor-based respondents were aware of My Journey, although by Phase 2, the gap had decreased slightly. Generally, women were more likely to be aware of the brand (31% of Phase 2 women compared with 24% of Phase 2 men).
Awareness of My Journey brand (weighted) Phase 1 Phase 2 Change Corridor 20.51% 28.79% 8.3% Non-corridor 15.59% 25.98% 10.4%
Table 13: Percentage of respondents aware of My Journey, by corridor Awareness of My Journey was at the highest level in Southampton in Phase 2, where around 40% of respondents from Corridors 1-3 were aware, and about 30% of Corridor 4-6 and non-corridor Southampton respondents. In Portsmouth, for Phase 2, between 20-25% of respondents were aware, as were 13% of non-corridor respondents in South Hampshire, as shown in Figure 18. This shows that there are greater differences between these geographical areas than between corridor and non-corridor within an area, highlighting that while some of the interventions were targeted specifically at corridors, the My Journey campaign was aimed at the entire population.
Figure 18: Comparison of percentage awareness of My Journey brand
(Southampton Phase 1 vs All respondents Phase 2) If these percentages of the survey respondents are transferred to the population, the numbers of people in each location who are aware of the My Journey brand is estimated to be around 240,000, with each of the estimated values by region shown in Table 14.
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
All 1-3 4-6 7-9 Southampton(non)
Portsmouth(non)
South Hants(non)
Corridors Non-corridors
Awareness of the My Journey brand(percentage of respondents, weighted)
Phase 1
Phase 2
32
Awareness of My Journey brand Phase 1 Phase 2 Corridors 1-3 25,400 43,200 Corridors 4-6 28,000 44,300 Corridors 7-9 -- 46,700 Southampton (non) 17,400 35,400 Portsmouth (non) -- 23,600 South Hants (non) -- 46,500 Total 70,800 239,700
Table 14: Estimated population size aware of My Journey brand Considering the differences19 between those Phase 2 respondents who were aware and those not aware of My Journey, it appears that there is no difference in the average numbers of days that respondents use the car as a driver or passenger, but those aware are likely to spend significantly more time walking and cycling, and travelling by rail, as shown in Table 15. When asked about their future intentions to travel sustainably, 45% of those aware of My Journey said they intended to cycle more often in the forthcoming twelve months, compared with 30% of those not aware of My Journey. There was less of a difference comparing intent to walk, where 38% of those aware and 34% of those not aware said they would walk more often in the next year. 23% of those aware suggested they would public transport more often, compared with 19% of those not aware.
Aware of My Journey
Not aware
Car as driver 179 176 Car as passenger 85 84 Bus 59 53 Rail * 24 16 Walking ** 242 199 Cycling ** 57 31 Motorcycle 9 5 Taxi 18 22
Table 15: Average number of days using various modes (weighted) NB ** indicates statistically significant difference at 99% confidence level, * indicates 95% confidence level
4.3.2 Impact of My Journey brand Phase 2 respondents who stated they were aware of the My Journey brand were then asked ‘Would you say the My Journey campaign has encouraged you to walk, cycle or use public transport more often?’, and around one third of those aware said that they had been (which is around 9% of the total respondents). There is no apparent difference in this proportion between corridor and non-corridor based respondents. Comparing differences in gender, proportionally more women stated they had changed behaviour due to My Journey than men (12% of women, 6% of men).
19 Statistical significance tested using Independent t-test (N= ~2,500)
33
However, there are much fewer respondents in the wider South Hampshire area away from targeted corridors who say they have been influenced by My Journey – only 2.6% of South Hampshire respondents compared with 12% of respondents in Southampton (non-corridor) and 10% of those in Portsmouth (non-corridor). It is interesting that there are proportionally more respondents claiming to have changed behaviour because of My Journey away from targeted corridors in Southampton and Portsmouth, again highlighting the widespread nature of the marketing campaign within the cities.
Figure 19: Percentage of respondents who change behaviour due to My Journey
Extending these proportions to the total population, there are possibly around 70,000 adults who have altered their travel behaviour due to the My Journey platform.
Behaviour influenced by knowledge of My Journey brand Phase 1 Phase 2 Corridors 1-3 -- 8,640 Corridors 4-6 -- 14,630 Corridors 7-9 -- 14,450 Southampton (non) -- 13,300 Portsmouth (non) -- 9,730 South Hants (non) -- 9,390 Total -- 70,140
Table 16: Estimated population size whose behaviour was influenced by My Journey brand There is a correlation between awareness of My Journey and likelihood to travel sustainably; while not necessarily causative, those aware of the brand are likely to walk, cycle and travel by rail significantly more often than those not aware. But it can be expected that people who travel sustainably would be more aware of My Journey.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
All 1-3 4-6 7-9 Southampton(non)
Portsmouth(non)
South Hants(non)
Corridors Non-corridors
Influenced by the My Journey brand(percentage of respondents, weighted)
Phase 1
Phase 2
34
However, comparing the responses of mode choice between those whose behaviour might have been influenced by the My Journey campaign, and those who were aware of the brand, but did not change behaviour, it appears that those who said My Journey had encouraged change were (on average) likely to spend significantly more time travelling sustainably; more walking, cycling, using bus and rail, and as a car passenger and in a taxi. The average number for days for each of these activities is shown in Table 17. One-day travel diary data in the second round of telephone interviews indicated that those influenced by My Journey used the car as a driver 16% less than those not aware of My Journey (39% of journeys by car compared with 55%). They walked for 7% more of their journeys, and cycled for 5% more. This is likely to be some causation here, since respondents have indicated they have changed behaviour directly as a result of the My Journey campaign.
Influenced by My Journey
Aware, but not influenced
Car as driver 160 185 Car as passenger *106 78 Bus **90 49 Rail * 39 19 Walking ** 307 222 Cycling ** 92 47 Motorcycle 10 8 Taxi **34 13
Table 17: Average number of days using various modes (weighted) NB ** indicates statistically significant difference at 99% confidence level, * indicates 95% confidence level
These trends are also evident from the detailed travel diary data. Respondents were asked to identify up to eight trips made the previous day, by which mode(s), how long it took, and how far they travelled. Estimates were then derived of average trip length by mode, and overall mode share by trip, and by distance travelled. From these data, those influenced by My Journey used the car as a driver 16% less than those not aware of My Journey (39% of journeys by car compared with 55%). They walked for 7% more of their journeys, and cycled for 5% more than those not aware. Travel diary data also indicated that those influenced by My Journey travel more frequently (3.4 trips per day) than those not aware of My Journey (2.3 trips per day), but are travelling less far per trip (7.9 miles per trip compared with 9.2 miles per trip), indicating a higher use of active travel modes. The above figures suggest that those influenced by My Journey on average drive slightly less far per day than those unaware of My Journey (Influenced: 3.4 trips per day x 7.9 miles per trip x 0.39 = 10.48 miles; Unaware: 2.3 trips per day x 9.2 miles per trip x 0.55 = 11.64 miles). 4.3.3 Behavioural change between Phases As well as comparing the differences between groups in Phase 2 who were aware of My Journey, it is possible to compare groups over time, by assessing corridor and non-corridor-based groups of respondents in Phase 1 and Phase 2. This section reports on the trends and significant changes that are represented in this survey. There has been no change in the aggregated corridor groups for the average number of cars owned, which has remained stable at 1.2 cars per household (80% of households have access to a car). For non-corridor groups, however, there has been a significant increase in the average number of cars owned, from 1.24 in Phase 1 to 1.38 per household in Phase 2. Looking at the individual corridor groups, there has been an increase in numbers of vehicles in all locations, except in the Southampton urban centre associated with Corridors 4-6 (which saw a slight decrease) and Portsmouth non-corridors (which was
35
largely unchanged). This general increase may be an effect of stronger economic performance, with households which already have access to a car tending to own more vehicles, rather than more households gaining access to cars. Bus use20 for corridor-based respondents is generally less than for those living away from the corridors. Comparing the separate corridor groups, bus use has increased in Southampton generally, with Phase 2 respondents indicating they used buses more frequently than Phase 1, both in the Southampton corridor groups and non-corridor. Corridor 1-3 exhibits the biggest change, from 48 days to 65 days per year on average in Phase 2. For Portsmouth and Gosport Corridors 7-9, however, there appears to have been a decline in bus use, from 67 days in Phase 1 to 50 days on average in Phase 2. This decline is also the case for the non-corridor South Hampshire respondents (from 47 to 28 days on average per year – a statistically significant change). Rail use has remained stable for corridor-based respondents, at an average of 16 days per year, while there has been a 14% increase in the average number of days using rail for non-corridor respondents (from 18 to 21 days on average), but this is not statistically significant. As for bus and rail use, those respondents living away from the targeted corridors tend to use a car as the driver more often than respondents living near the corridors, perhaps indicating the more rural nature of these non-corridor groups. There is no increase between Phases for corridor-based respondents overall (although there seems to be a significant increase in use for Corridors 7-9, and a significant decrease in use for Corridors 4-6), while non-corridor respondents used their cars as driver 5% more often (largely due to an increase in use by respondents in South Hampshire non-corridor areas). Frequency of use of the car as a passenger has generally decreased in all areas since Phase 1, indicating that there may be less car sharing by respondents in Phase 2 than those in Phase 1. As expected, where there are fewer cars, there are also fewer days on average when respondents used a car as a passenger. Generally, walking has increased since Phase 1, with a 3.5% increase in average number of days walked per year for corridor-based respondents, and a 5.5% increase for non-corridor-based respondents. This increase in frequency of walking is not significant statistically, except Corridors 1-3, where there has been a significant increase in walking compared with Phase 1, from 213 days on average to 274 days. This change is a result of 15% more respondents in Phase 2 saying they walked on 5 or more days a week (60% in Phase 2 compared with 45% in Phase 1). Cycling appears to have decreased generally for respondents living near corridors (down by 10% on Phase 1 respondents), and seems to have increased for non-corridor respondents (up by 15%), although neither of these changes are statistically different. The decrease in corridor-based cycling is attributable to a decrease in cycling for respondents from Corridors 4-6, (from 26 days on average to 21 days) and Corridors 7-9 (from 39 days to 34 days). There are a higher number of Phase 2 respondents in Corridors 1-3 who said they cycled more frequently than their Phase 1 counterparts, with 10% of Phase 2 respondents from those corridors saying they cycled 5 times or more per week (compared with 7.3% in Phase 1). However, this increase is not statistically significant. Respondents were asked whether they intended to walk, cycle or use public transport more often, less often, or the same, in the twelve months ahead.
20 Average number of days used is calculated using the following: Never used = 0 days; Not used in last 12 months = 1; At least once a year = 5; At least once a month = 15; At least once a fortnight = 30; At least once a week = 60; Several times a week = 182; 5 or more days a week = 312
36
Generally, between 30-40% of respondents indicate that they intend to walk more often in the forthcoming twelve months, and there is little change in this intent to walk more often among Phase 2 respondents compared with Phase 1 respondents. For Southampton corridor-groups, the Phase 1 respondents were more intent on changing their behaviour than their Phase 2 counterparts. As previously noted, Phase 2 respondents in Corridors 1-3 are walking significantly more than those in Phase 1, so it is possible that these results reflect this fact; Phase 2 respondents are already walking more, so are less likely to consider walking more in the next twelve months. However, the same logic does not apply to Corridor 4-6, where there is a possible slight decrease in walking activity by Phase 2 respondents, who are not stating they might walk more than their Phase 1 counterparts. Similarly, there is overall a slight decrease in the percentage of respondents who indicated they intended to cycle more often in the next 12 months (which is around 30-40% of respondents in both Phases). Contrary to the results for walking, Corridor 1-3 respondents in Phase 2 are cycling more than their Phase 1 counterparts, and more of them state that they intend cycling more in the forthcoming twelve months. There seems to be less intention to use public transport for Phase 2 respondents than Phase 1, including 3.1% fewer corridor-based respondents stating that they would use public transport more in the forthcoming twelve months. From the travel diary data, Phase 2 respondents travelled on average 40% further per trip than Phase 1 respondents. For those not on a corridor, this difference was over 50% more distance travelled per trip. However, there were, on average, 16% fewer trips undertaken by Phase 2 respondents. In terms of total distance travelled, Phase 2 respondents travelled 15% further in total than Phase 1 respondents. This is perhaps due to the increased use of cars as a mode by Phase 2 respondents.
4.4 Travel plans A number of different Travel Plans are currently under development and implementation, under the over-arching “My Journey” branding, including:
• Personal Journey Planning (PJP) • Workplace Travel Plans (targeting major employers and sites) • College and University Travel Plans • Hospital Travel Plans • Public Transport Interchange Travel Plans
Each of these travel plan initiatives are being monitored by their own teams, and summary results are included here where available. 4.4.1 Personal Journey Planning Personal Journey Planning (PJP) is an effective way of engaging residents in a one to one basis and encouraging them to consider their travel choices and the options available to them. It seeks to overcome the habitual use of the car, enabling more journeys to be made on foot, bike, bus, train or in shared cars. This is achieved through the provision of information, incentives and motivation directly to individuals. PJP has been undertaken in many towns and cities in UK to date, reporting typically a reduction in car driver trips by 11% (among the target population)21.
21 DfT (2008). Making Personal Travel Planning work: Practitioners' guide. Department for Transport. London, UK.
37
Year Area Consultant Target households
Actual households
Contacted (% of Actual)
Participants (% of Contacted)
2013 Gosport WSP 7,800 7,321 3,686 (50) 2,128 (58) 2014 Eastleigh WSP 4,765 4,080 2,030 (50) 608 (30) 2013 Portsmouth SDG 6,000 6,566 4,445 (68) 1,182 (27) Total 18,565 17,967 10,061 (57) 3,918 (39)
Table 18: Summary of PJP activities There has been PJP activity in Gosport, Eastleigh and Portsmouth, and a summary of their evaluation reports in presented below. Further activities were carried out in 2013 in Millbrook and Portswood in Southampton as part of the small bid, and as such are not reported here. PJP in Gosport Personal Journey planning activities in Gosport took place from May to August 2013, centred around the ‘Eclipse’ (Bus Rapid Transit) corridor. Of the 3,686 doors answered, 2,128 people participated: they were involved in a conversation about their travel choices, and then requested further information. A 60% participation rate is high, due in part to the interest in sustainable travel already present in Gosport, with high rates of cycling activity and the development of ‘Eclipse’ providing a good ‘hook’ to engage the resident at the outset of a conversation. During the conversation, Travel Advisors use survey forms to gather details on travel behaviour and attitudes, as well as some personal details. Participants were also encouraged to take part in a challenge, to trial the alternative modes they had discussed with the Travel Advisor. Of the 2,128 participants in Gosport, 165 agreed to either cycle to work, to the shops or as part of a family cycle ride, or to try bus taster tickets. Once the participant had provided feedback on the experience, they received their incentive gift. Cycling was most popular in Gosport (where levels of cycling activity are already high). Results from the ‘after’ survey (carried out in October 2013) suggest that the majority of respondents considered the PJP programme to be an effective means of encouraging people to consider a wider range of travel choices. Of those who took part in the challenge aspect of the programme, two-thirds reported that they had continued to use that sustainable mode. Results from a further follow-up survey in March 2014 indicate a reduction in solo car use in Gosport of 10% for commuting and leisure trips and 19% for shopping and personal business compared to before the intervention. It should be noted that these results are from a relatively small sample size (of 12 and 24 respondents respectively). The greatest sustained modal shift has been from driving to walking. Overall the health benefits of walking and cycling were noted in the follow up survey as being the main reasons for respondents’ long term modal shift. But the ‘sticks’ of higher motoring costs and increased public transport fares (to a lesser extent) were also important reasons. PJP in Eastleigh Personal Journey Planning in Eastleigh was delivered during spring and early summer 2013. The contact rate was 50%: 2,030 of the 4,048 targeted households were contacted. Of these, there were 610 participant households, a 30% participation rate, which is around half as effective as the Gosport PJP22. 133 of these respondents took part in the ‘after’ survey carried out as part of the evaluation. While 59% of these respondents were aged 25-64, a significant proportion (40%) were aged 65 or over, reflecting the higher likelihood of elderly residents being at home during the survey period. There was also an over-representation of women respondents (67%).
22 In Gosport, as previously stated, interest in sustainable travel and cycling activity was already high, and the ‘Eclipse’ BRT provided a good ‘hook’ to engage the resident at the outset of a conversation.
38
Of these 83 ‘after’ survey respondents who had used bus services within three months, 14% said they were not satisfied with local bus services; 64% however said they were satisfied. By contrast, 84% of the 80 respondents who had travelled by train within three months of the ‘after’ survey said they were satisfied with local rail services, while 9% said they were not satisfied. In terms of walking routes, 91% of the 115 respondents who had used local walking said they were satisfied, while 3% said they were not satisfied. Lastly, 51 respondents had used local cycling routes within three months of the ‘after’ survey, and 25% of these said they were not satisfied with the routes, while 43% said they were satisfied. Except for walking routes, these satisfaction levels do not compare favourably with the two other localities which were identified for PJP work as part of the wider LSTF programme (although outside the South Hampshire LSTF treatment area). For example, residents of Andover and Farnborough23 were more satisfied by local public transport and cycle route provision than Eastleigh residents; these towns were not included in the South Hampshire LSTF interventions, but may have had other behavioural change schemes in place during this time period. As part of the PJP process, residents were offered information materials by the travel advisors. In Eastleigh, the most popular requests for such information were a ‘My Journey – Getting around Eastleigh’ information leaflet (requested by 47% of participants), a leaflet giving details of ‘smarter driving’ (requested by 33% of respondents), and bus and rail timetables. The ‘getting around Eastleigh’ leaflet and local bus and rail timetable information were the materials rated as the most effective in helping them to consider how they could travel in the local area. Results of the ‘after’ survey indicate a change in the trip modal share, whereby respondents had made an 8% shift away from car use as a single occupant towards car sharing (+5%), cycling (+2%) and bus usage (+2%), with walking slightly decreasing by 1%. One quarter of respondents said they thought they had changed travel behaviour within the three months prior to completion of the ‘after’ survey. When asked why their behaviour had changed, 66% of the 32 respondents said they were cycling or walking more to keep fit, 47% said it was because it was more pleasant to walk or cycle, and 41% quoted costs savings as one of the reasons for change. PJP in Portsmouth In May 2013 Steer Davies Gleave was appointed to design and deliver a PJP intervention to support Portsmouth’s LSTF programme. This comprised two distinct, though complementary, interventions:
• On-street (OS) engagement, where Travel Advisers (TAs) were based at key tourist locations in the City and offered visitors advice on both visitor attractions and how to access these using sustainable modes
• Household (HH) intervention, where Travel Advisers visited residents in selected areas of the City to discuss their travel habits and provide information and advice on how those trips could be made using more sustainable modes
On-street engagement: The purpose of the OS travel advice was to encourage:
• visitors travelling from outside the City boundary to stay for longer in the city than they might otherwise have done, with a view to seeing greater spend in the economy;
• additional visits to be made to Portsmouth that would otherwise not have been made; and • use of sustainable modes on future trips to the city.
23 Part of the Hampshire Sustainable Travel Towns project: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/transport-schemes-index/hampshire-sustainable-transport-towns-project.htm
39
To achieve this, a team of Travel Advisers were deployed during August and September 2013, at locations in the city that see the greatest volumes of visitors, namely:
• Portsmouth & Southsea Station; • Portsmouth Harbour Station and The Hard Roundabout; • Clarence Pier; • D-Day Museum; and • Waterfront locations.
On the five weekends when the Park & Sail was in operation, the TAs were also located at Gunwharf Quays and the International Ferry Port. Response to the TA presence On-Street has been resoundingly positive. Not only were the TAs themselves deemed to be ‘very helpful’ by 83% of the respondents but the impact of their presence was marked. Key responses to the follow-up survey show that as a result of their contact with the Travel Advisers, visitors spent more time and money in Portsmouth than they would otherwise have done.
• 65% felt they would make another visit to Portsmouth as a result of this contact. • 56% of visitors reported being encouraged to visit an attraction that they would not otherwise
have visited; • Almost 40% reported spending more money than they would have done otherwise.
Household intervention: The PJP intervention took place between 20 July and 12 October 2013 with a target of reaching 4,000 households in Hilsea and 2,000 in Drayton. In fact, the programme targeted 4,333 and 2,223 households in these areas respectively. Thus an additional 9% of households were included. The outcomes were as follows:
• 1,182 households were engaged as participants in My Journey Portsmouth (defined as having a conversation about their travel and accepting one or more supporting resources for change), and a further
• 3,108 households were also engaged in conversation by a Travel Adviser (TA) and thereby became aware of My Journey Portsmouth, and the objectives of sustainable travel, but they chose not to Participate.
• The remaining 2,111 households were visited on up to three occasions at different times of day, but no one was home when the TA called. They therefore received a “Sorry we missed you” flyer through their letterbox inviting them to request travel information such as bus timetables, or a cycle map.
Although levels of participation have been lower than anticipated, outcomes of the intervention have been very positive. 29% of Participants were surveyed by phone and email for follow up monitoring and:
• 85% scored the service they received as ‘Very Good’. • 74% felt the conversation they had had with the TA had made them think more about their travel
(Agree strongly/Agree). • 72% felt the quality of the resources they received was very good.
The most impressive outcome is the reported behaviour change:
• 35% reported having already made a change to their travel behaviour; and • 25% were planning to do so.
4.4.2 Workplace Travel Plans Workplace Travel Plan (WTP) activities have been undertaken throughout the region. During early consultation it was agreed that, while these Travel Plan surveys will have a degree of flexibility (such as bespoke branding and inclusion of specific questions), a set of core questions should be included in each
40
Travel Plan survey tool. Data from this core question set have been obtained at five workplaces in Eastleigh and from 12 workplaces at Gosport (although 88% of these are from just two employers). Follow-up surveys were undertaken in 2015. In 2014, there were 246 respondents from Eastleigh, 464 in Gosport. In 2015 this had reduced to 125 respondents in Eastleigh, and 131 respondents in Gosport. Businesses are offered a suite of activities, and can select those which are most helpful or likely to engender change in travel habits. These activities include smarter driver training, bicycle maintenance and cycle training classes, Bike Doctor sessions, bus services to and from local transport interchanges, a multi-business car-sharing scheme, pledge and commuter challenge activities, as well as roadshow events on site. Staff surveys are undertaken as part of the WTP process, to determine travel habits and help decide which interventions might be most appropriate. WTP in Eastleigh Comparing Workplace Travel Plan surveys for Eastleigh, there appears to have been a decrease in use of private car between May 2014 and February 2015, largely shifted to walking to work, with slight increase in bus use, as shown in Table A6.20. Cycling activity remained the same between the two surveys. Note that the 2015 survey was completed by half as many respondents than the 2014 survey, indicating perhaps that there may be some selection bias in the second survey – those who had changed mode away from private car might be more willing to respond than those who did not.
Main mode of travel to work 2014 (n=242)
2015 (n=121)
Change
Bus (public transport) 2.9% 5.0% 2.1%
Car (drive alone) 62.8% 52.9% -9.9%
Car share (as passenger) 7.0% 3.3% -3.7%
Car share (driver) 5.0% 7.4% 2.4%
Cycle 1.7% 1.7% 0.0%
Motorcycle / scooter 1.2% 0.0% -1.2%
Train 16.5% 17.4% 0.8%
Walk/jog 2.9% 12.4% 9.5%
Table 19: Main mode of travel to work by Eastleigh WTP respondents Eastleigh drivers said that incentivisation (58% in 2014, 57% in 2015) and a guaranteed ride home (56% in 2014, 57% in 2015) might encourage them to car share. The least likely options selected were ‘An event where you can meet other people looking to car share’, ‘A car share website that helps you to find a car share partner’, ‘Pool cars to enable ad-hoc business travel during the working day’. The most common reason given for not walking to work was that respondents said they lived too far away to do so (71% in 2014, 72% in 2015), and that nothing would persuade them to walk (22% in 2014, 17% in 2015), although these response seem to indicate that in general there is a higher proportion of respondents who might be able to walk, as is shown in Table 19. Similarly for cycling, distance was most often selected as one of the reasons not to cycle (44% of 2014, and 49% of 2015 respondents said they lived too far from work to cycle), with 34% (2014) and 27% (2015) saying they would not be persuaded to cycle. Safety concerns were issues that were likely to deter respondents from cycling.
41
When asked what might persuade them to use public transport, ‘subsidised / cheaper fares’ were cited as the most likely measure (by 46% of respondents in 2014, and 40% in 2015), while direct, frequent and reliable bus routes were selected by around 35% of respondents in 2014 and 39% in 2015. In 2014, 28% said that nothing could persuade them to use public transport; in 2015 this has risen slightly to 29%. WTP in Gosport In Gosport, the number of respondents dropped much more than Eastleigh, from 454 in 2014 to 131 in 2015. It is not clear why this follow-up response rate is lower. However, as can be seen in Table 20, the changes in mode share are not as great as for Eastleigh, with only a 4% reduction in private car as the main mode of travel to work, with a much greater decrease in cycling to work (from 14.5% of respondents to 8.1%). There were greater levels of bus use, car sharing and train journeys in 2015. Again, there may be some selection bias is these responses.
Main mode of travel to work 2014 (n=454)
2015 (n=124)
Change
Bus (public transport) 2.9% 4.0% 1.2%
Car (drive alone) 65.9% 62.1% -3.8%
Car share (as passenger) 1.5% 4.0% 2.5%
Car share (driver) 4.8% 8.1% 3.2%
Cycle 14.5% 8.1% -6.5%
Motorcycle / scooter 4.6% 2.4% -2.2%
Train 0.7% 6.5% 5.8%
Walk/jog 5.1% 4.8% -0.2%
Table 20: Main mode of travel to work by Gosport WTP respondents Gosport drivers in 2014 had said that incentivisation (45%) and a guaranteed ride home (38%) might encourage them to car share, although whether any such measures have been undertaken is not known; 54% of respondents in 2015 said incentivisation might encourage them to car share. The most common reason given for not walking to work was that respondents said they lived too far away to do so (52% in 2014, 61% in 2015), and that nothing would persuade them to walk (28% in 2014, 20% in 2015). Similarly for cycling, distance was most often selected as one of the reasons not to cycle (20% of 2014 respondents and 27% of 2015 respondents said they lived too far from work to cycle). 27% of respondents to both surveys said they would not be persuaded to cycle. Again, mirroring the Eastleigh results, safety concerns were issues that were likely to deter respondents from cycling, although a higher proportion of 2014 respondents (36%) cited this than 2015 respondents (26%), suggesting that cycle routes are now perceived to be safer. For car drivers, the most cited reason for using the car was convenience, with ‘time’, and ‘comfort’ two of the other main reasons for driving. One third of car drivers said they had ‘no alternative’. The main reasons for both cycling and walking were ‘health and fitness’, with 77% of 2014 cyclists and 48% of 2014 walkers selecting this option. Cyclists in 2014 also said convenience was important, as were time and cost (there were only 5 respondents who cycled as their main mode in the 2015 survey). Walkers, too, thought that convenience, cost and lack of alternative options were factors behind their mode choice.
42
When asked what would persuade them to travel by public transport, 35% (in 2014) and 25% (in 2015) of the respondents who answered said that they would like more direct bus routes (i.e. passing closer to their place of work), that were frequent and reliable, with 31% (2014) and 37% (2015) asking for cheaper or subsidised fares. 45% in 2014 said that nothing would persuade them to use public transport, but this had decreased to 32% in 2015. Of the measures which were selected when asked what would persuade them to walk to work, ‘Safer walking routes’ was most popular, with 14.2% (2014) and 13.9% (2015) of respondents choosing this option. 11.3% (2014) and 6.9% (2015) selected ‘Improved surfacing, lighting and markings on pedestrian routes’, and ‘Improved showers and changing facilities at work’ was selected by 11.0% (2014) and 11.9% (2015).
Case Study: Workplace Travel Plan: impact at individual workplace - HSBC HSBC was the business most represented in both before and after surveys, and the following looks at the changes in survey responses for workers there. Participants
• 91 respondents answered the first survey in 2014 • 77 respondents answered the second survey in 2015 • Respondents that answered both surveys cannot be identified due to anonymised data – the
results are aggregated across the respondents. Both sets of respondents have similar gender and age characteristics.
Results
• As the mode of travel to work, walking has increased among respondents (8.3% more, although this represents a change from 1 to 7 respondents (1.1% to 9.4%)); solo car use has reduced (7.5% fewer, from 50 to 36 respondents (56.1% to 48.6%)).
• Use of the train as the main mode has remained stable, but high, at around 22% of respondents (compared to around 17% if all Eastleigh respondents considered).
• There seems to be more inclination for drivers to consider car sharing, as all suggested measures have become more ‘likely’ to encourage respondents to do so in 2015 than in 2014.
• There are fewer respondents in 2015 who could never be persuaded to cycle to work (33% in 2014 (26 of the respondents who answered that question) compared with 25% in 2015 (15 respondents).
• Respondents in 2015 partake in more active travel activities during a typical week. The average total time spent walking, cycling or other exercise is similar for both sets of respondents (420 minutes in a week). However, more time in 2015 was spent walking and cycling (249 and 36 minutes respectively) than in 2014 (183 and 26 minutes respectively) for this set of respondents.
43
4.4.3 Public Transport Interchange Travel Plans The list of locations in the Transport Solent area where Station and other Transport Interchange Travel Plans were originally planned to take place is shown in Table 21.
Station / Interchange Travel Plans Hampshire Hythe Ferry Interchange Totton Station Fareham Station Gosport Ferry Terminal Havant Station Portsmouth Fratton Station Portsmouth and Southsea Station Cosham Station Portsmouth Harbour Interchange Hilsea Station
Table 21: List of Station and Interchange Travel Plan locations originally planned within the Solent Transport area No evaluation reports were available on the impact of these interventions. Other work has been undertaken as part of Southampton’s small bid.
4.5 Road safety The Solent Transport LSTF interventions are not expected to impact on the overall accident rates in South Hampshire, but for completeness, the road accident trend data are recorded here. The numbers of accidents where at least one person was killed or seriously injured on the major roads along each of the three corridor groups is shown in Figure 20, and the index (2012=100) is shown in Figure 21. There was a reduction between 2011 and 2012 for all corridor groups, by around 40% for the routes into Southampton (corridors 1-3 and 4-6) and 30% for Corridors 7-9. However, the 2011 figures were an increase on 2010 for all three corridor groups. In 2013, there was a slight increase in accident numbers for Corridors 4-6 and 7-9 (following the trend across Hampshire), but an increase of around 60% in corridors 1-3. This represents a total of 26 KSIs in 2012 up to 41 in 2013. These variations are to be expected when the accident numbers are small. [NOTE: no accident data received from SCC, so assume same as 2013 for these analyses.]
Figure 20: KSI accident numbers by corridor group
Data source: HCC, PCC, SCC
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Num
ber o
f KSI
acc
iden
ts
Corridors 1-3
Corridors 4-6
Corridors 7-9
44
Figure 21: KSI accidents by corridor group (index 2012 = 100)
Data source: HCC, PCC, SCC, DfT
4.6 Economic indicators 4.6.1 Structure of the local workforce According to the 2011 Census, there has been a small decrease (since 2001) in the number of jobs within the Solent Transport area (-1.2%). Overall, the workforce has become more mobile; even taking account of the 20.3% increase in people mainly homeworking, the proportion of people living and working within the same authority area reduced from 59.6% to 54.8%. The proportion of jobs within the Solent Transport area taken by people living outside the area has increased from 8.1% to 10.4%, while the proportion of the Solent Transport working population that work outside the area has increased from 11.2% to 15.0%. The number of employee positions in each of the broad sectors in 2012 is shown in Table 22, together with an indication of the annual rate of change between 2009 and 2012. The sectors with the largest workforce (>30,000) are manufacturing, construction and health (which have seen a slight decline in full-time numbers since 2009), and professional, retail, business, education and IT services (which have seen recent growth).
Employee jobs by sector Full-time 2012
Part-time 2012
Full-time 2009-12 Average
annual change
Part-time 2009-12 Average
annual change
Agriculture, forestry & fishing 400 0 -33.01 -39.95 Mining, quarrying & utilities 7000 400 -5.38 -10.02 Manufacturing 58,600 4,800 0.03 -2.65 Construction 32,500 4,000 -4.49 -7.39 Motor trades 12,700 2,300 2.15 -1.90 Wholesale 29,300 3,700 -0.45 -5.22 Retail 35,500 47,000 0.33 2.03 Transport & storage 26,700 5,100 1.23 5.64 Accommodation & food services 22,100 28,700 2.88 2.62 Information & communication 37,800 6,300 -0.54 5.05 Financial & insurance 19,900 5,100 -3.49 -4.25 Property 6,900 4,100 -6.25 4.13
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Corridors 1-3
Corridors 4-6
Corridors 7-9
Hampshire
45
Employee jobs by sector Full-time 2012
Part-time 2012
Full-time 2009-12 Average
annual change
Part-time 2009-12 Average
annual change
Professional, scientific & technical 44,500 12,700 0.63 3.57 Business administration & support services
40,200 26,400 -1.06 9.37
Public administration & defence 25,000 9,000 -3.81 2.61 Education 30,900 44,900 -5.44 7.63 Health 52,800 41,900 0.42 -2.14 Arts, entertainment, recreation & other services
19,500 15,500 -2.55 2.22
Table 22: Hampshire workforce summary: changes in full-time and part-time employee jobs Source: Business Register and Employment Survey 2009-2012
Changes in employee figures – Key facts24:
Figure 22: Hampshire economic area districts
No significant change in employee jobs
• The number of employee jobs in the Hampshire Economic Area has experienced very little change with a growth of 1,100 additional jobs in the economy over the period between 2009 and 2012; an annual rate of change was 0.05%, compared to 0.10% nationally.
• Two of the HEA sub-areas experienced a decline in employee figures, with North Hampshire being the biggest absolute and relative sufferer of job losses as an effect of the recent recession. South Hampshire has been least affected and reported an actual growth in the number of jobs of around 5,800, which can partially be explained in the higher growth in part time jobs.
24 From “Analysis of the employee job figures from the Business Register and Employment Survey” Hampshire Economic Area Topic paper, February 2014
46
Some places growing • Across the area five districts recorded a growth in employee jobs ranging from 4,700 in
Winchester to 1,000 in East Hampshire; eight districts have seen a decline in employee jobs, ranging from a loss of 100 jobs in Hart to 2,600 jobs in Basingstoke and Deane.
Some industries growing
• Out of 18 broad industries in the sectoral analysis, eight industries show a net gain of jobs, these are: Motor trades, Retail, Transport and storage, Accommodation and food services, Information and communication, Professional, scientific and technical, Business administration and support services and Education with the other sectors experiencing a net decline.
• A further analysis of key sectors uncovers the areas which have grown over the analysed period, despite the overall downward trends in employment, these are: Pharmaceutical and Healthcare and Advanced Engineering & Marine.
More growth in part-time jobs
• The more detailed analysis of the full-time and part-time breakdown of employee jobs in HEA has also revealed areas that go against the overall trend of more part-time in place of full-time employment, although the majority of sectors do conform to that trend. However, there are some signs of a reverse trend more recently.
Private sector growing • Although overall private sector has grown and public sector has shrunk over the analysed years,
there are still some spatial differences among the HEA districts. The public sector share of total jobs in the Hampshire Economic Area was about 17.5% in 2012, with some districts still having a relatively high share of more than 23%; the national average is 20.2%.
4.6.2 Fuel prices As shown in Figure 23, fuel prices rose during the 18 months from January 2007 to mid-2008, followed by a drop for 6 months, before rising steadily again between 2009 and 2011. There have been some month-by-month fluctuations since then, but diesel and super unleaded prices have stabilised at between 140 and 150p per litre for the last 3 years. It is to be expected that increased fuel costs will affect traffic levels, but comparing the fuel costs with traffic levels in Figure 8, level along Corridors 4-6 seem to mirror the changes in fuel costs, with slightly increased levels during 2009 (when fuel prices dropped), then traffic levels dropping to 2012, as fuel prices increased. However, the other corridors do not seem to wholly reflect the changes in fuel price, with traffic levels decreasing as expected in 2009 as fuel prices increased, but levels increasing during 2010 alongside increasing fuel costs.
47
Figure 23: Fuel prices for the South East (pence per litre, 2012 prices, adjusted for inflation)
Data source: AA Fuel Price report: http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/fuel/
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
Jan-
07Ju
l-07
Jan-
08Ju
l-08
Jan-
09Ju
l-09
Jan-
10Ju
l-10
Jan-
11Ju
l-11
Jan-
12Ju
l-12
Jan-
13Ju
l-13
Jan-
14Ju
l-14
Jan-
15Ju
l-15
Fuel
pric
e (p
ence
per
litr
e, 2
012
pric
es)
Diesel
Unleaded
Super unleaded
48
5. Conclusions This report has provided an update on the monitoring and evaluation of Solent Transport’s Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) large bid “A Better Connected South Hampshire”. It has presented current and recent figures for a number of metrics including traffic flows and congestion, public transport usage, prevalence of active travel, and travel plan activities. Analysis of the final round of area-wide telephone surveys undertaken in late 2015 has also provided an update on the response regarding public perceptions, attitudes and travel behaviour. The programme has been developed around three complementary strands of work: introducing a public transport smart card; physical improvements along high frequency bus corridors into Southampton and Portsmouth; and targeted behavioural change measures aimed at encouraging people to make trips by sustainable modes. The programme of interventions is focussed around nine corridors, connecting high population densities with employment opportunities through public transport and active modes, and capturing the most severe incidences of current and future forecast highway delays as well as particular socio-demographic groups that have been identified as likely to be most receptive to sustainable transport interventions. Using a corridor-based approach to determine where interventions should best be targeted is a good way to focus resources where they can be of most benefit. However, in order to effectively evaluate the impact of physical interventions which were located at transport interchanges, this approach assumes that only those resident along particular corridor routes will be affected by such interventions, which is unlikely to be the case. A targeted approach to behavioural change, however, is likely to yield results in a particular area, and the Workplace Travel Planning and Personal Journey Planning aspects of the programme have had an impact at an individual level. However, the more widespread impact of the My Journey brand also makes it difficult to assess the impact of the other LSTF measures at a corridor level. Traffic levels have increased since the baseline data collection (between 1.3 and 1.7%), probably as a result of economic growth and decreasing fuel costs. This increased traffic has resulted in increased levels of congestion. There is some evidence that LSTF measure have had a beneficial effect on traffic growth, since higher traffic growth (2.6%) was evident at the control corridor. Rail usage has continued to grow, and while the continued evolution of bus routing can make such evaluation problematic, there is evidence that bus use has also grown across the region. The impact of My Journey on the population’s travel behaviour has emerged as an important factor. There has been an increase in awareness of My Journey in both corridor and non-corridor locations, and extrapolation from the telephone survey to the population, the number of people in the region who are aware of the My Journey brand is estimated to be around 240,000. Those aware of My Journey are unlikely to spend any less time in their cars than those not aware, but there is evidence that those aware are likely to spend significantly more time walking and cycling, and travelling by rail. Indeed, nearly half of those aware of My Journey said they intended to cycle more often in the forthcoming twelve months (compared with 30% of those not aware of My Journey) Thus, while there is a correlation between awareness of My Journey and likelihood to travel sustainably, it is not necessarily causative. It can be expected that people who travel sustainably would be more aware of My Journey. However, those aware of My Journey were subsequently asked whether they thought the campaign had encouraged them to walk, cycle or use public transport more often, and around one third
49
of these respondents said it had. This equates to around 9% of the Phase 2 respondents, or around 70,000 of the regional population. One-day travel diary data in the second round of telephone interviews indicated that those influenced by My Journey used the car as a driver 16% less than those not aware of My Journey (39% of journeys by car compared with 55%). They walked for 7% more of their journeys, and cycled for 5% more. This is likely to be some causation here, since respondents have indicated they have changed behaviour directly as a result of the My Journey campaign. Travel diary data also indicates that those influenced by My Journey travel more frequently (3.4 trips per day) than those not aware of My Journey (2.3 trips per day), but are travelling less far per trip (7.9 miles per trip compared with 9.2 miles per trip). Personal Journey Plan activities in Gosport, Eastleigh and Portsmouth resulted in almost 4,000 residents requesting travel advice, information or related materials. In Gosport, around 10% of respondents to a follow-up survey saying they had reduced their car use for commuting and leisure trips, with a quarter using the car less for shopping and other personal trips. Workplace Travel Plan activities have taken place across the region, but survey results have only been provided for 712 respondents across 17 businesses in Eastleigh and Gosport, with follow-up surveys obtained from 256 respondents. While the main travel mode for both areas was as a car driver, there appears to have been a 10% decrease in use of private car between May 2014 and February 2015 in Eastleigh, largely shifted to walking to work, with slight increase in bus use. Cycling activity remained the same between the two surveys. In Gosport, there was only a 4% reduction in private car as the main mode of travel to work, with a much greater decrease in cycling to work. Thus, while generally traffic levels and congestion have increased, there may be evidence that LSTF measure have limited this growth on targeted corridors. At an individual level, travel planning activities have led to some behavioural change, and there is evidence that the My Journey campaign has led to wide scale behavioural change reducing car use and increasing active travel and use of public transport.
50
Appendix A: Traffic count site locations by corridor group The following images show the locations of traffic count site used in these analyses. Counts are taken from both the permanent counters used by Hampshire County Council and Southampton City Council, and the annual data provided by the Department for Transport on traffic flow estimates on major roads.
Figure 24: Count site locations in corridors 1-3
51
Figure 25: Count site locations in corridors 4-6
52
Figure 26: Count site locations in corridors 7-9
53
Appendix B: Road sections used in congestion analysis
Corridor Congestion Index - Roads Direction
Corridor 1: Hythe to Southampton B3054 Beaulieu Rd jnc to Bramshott Hill jnc NB Bramshott Hill jnc to TWB / Marchwood Bypass
Corridor 2: Totton to Southampton City Centre
A35 Redbridge Causeway (Totton to Redbridge Rbt)
EB A33 Redbridge Road (Redbridge Flyover to Millbrook Flyover) A33 Millbrook Flyover to Town Quay A33 Town Quay to Dock Gate 4
Corridor 3a: A3057 from Romsey to Southampton City Centre
A3057 (A27 Southampton Rd jnc to M271 jnc)
SB A3057 Romsey Road (M271 jnc to A35 Tebourba Way jnc) A3057 Shirley Road (A35 Tebourba Way jnc to Central Station Bridge)
Corridor 3b: A27 Botley Road / Chilworth Road and A33 The Avenue (Romsey to Southampton City Centre)
A27 Botley Road / Chilworth Road (A3057 jnc to M3)
SB A33 Bassett Avenue(M3 to A35 Burgess Rd jnc)
A33 The Avenue (A35 Burgess Rd jnc to A33 Dorset St) Corridor 4a: A335 Southampton Road / Wide Lane / Stoneham Way / Thomas Lewis Way (Eastleigh to Southampton City Centre)
A335 Southampton Road (Lidl Rbt to South Street)
SB A335 Wide Lane (South Street to M27 J5)
A335 Stoneham Way / Thomas Lewis Way (M27 J5 to A3035 St Denys Road jnc)
Corridor 4b: B3037 Fair Oak Road / Alan Drayton Way / Bishopstoke Rd (Fair Oak to Eastleigh)
B3037 Bishopstoke Road (Riverside to Lidl Rbt) WB
Corridor 6a: A3024 Bursledon Road / Bitterne Road / Northam Road (Windhover to Six Dials Rbt)
A3024 Bursledon Road (Windhover to Botley Road jnc)
WB A3024 Bursledon Road (B3033 Botley Road jnc to A334 Bitterne Rd jnc) A3024 Bitterne Road / Northam Road (A334 Bitterne Rd jnc to Six Dials)
Corridor 6b: A334 Charles Watts Way / Thornhill Park Road (M27 J7 to A3024 Bursledon Road junction)
A334 Charles Watts Way (M27 J7 to Kanes Hill Rbt) WB A334 Thornhill Park Road (Kanes Hill Rbt to A3024
Bursledon Rd jnc)
Corridor 7a: A32 Brockhurst Road / Fareham Road / Gosport Road NB (Gosport bus station to Quay Street Rbt)
A32 Mumby Road / Forton Road / Brockhurst Road (Bus station to Military Rd / Elson Rd jnc)
NB A32 Fareham Road (Military Rd / Elson Rd jnc to B3385 Newgate Lane jnc) A32 Gosport Road (B3385 Newgate Lane jnc to A27 Quay Street Rbt)
Corridor 7a: A32 Brockhurst Road / Fareham Road / Gosport Road SB (Quay Street Rbt to Gosport bus station)
A32 Gosport Road (A27 Quay Street Rbt to B3385 Newgate Lane jnc)
SB A32 Fareham Road (B3385 Newgate Lane jnc to Military Rd / Elson Rd jnc) A32 Mumby Road / Forton Road / Brockhurst Road (Military Rd / Elson Rd jnc to Bus station)
54
Corridor Congestion Index - Roads Direction
Corridor 7b: B3385 Broom Way / Newgate Lane NB (Lee-on-the-Solent to A27 Quay Street Rbt)
B3385 Pier Street / Manor Way / Broom Way (Lee on Solent to Peel Rbt)
NB B3385 Newgate Lane (Peel Rbt to A32 Gosport Road jnc) A32 Gosport Road (B3385 junction to A27 Quay Street Rbt)
Corridor 7b: B3385 Newgate Lane / Broom Way SB (A27 Quay Street Rbt to Lee-on-the-Solent)
A32 Gosport Road (A27 Quay Street Rbt to B3385 junction)
SB B3385 Newgate Lane (A32 Gosport Road jnc to Peel Rbt) B3385 Pier Street / Manor Way / Broom Way (Peel Rbt to Lee on the Solent)
Corridor 8: A3 Portsmouth Road / London Road / Northern Parade / Stamshaw Road / Mile End Road / Anglesea Road (Waterlooville to Southsea)
A3 Portsmouth Rd / London Rd (B2149 Dell Piece Way to B2150 Hambledon Road)
SB
A3 London Road (B2150 Hambledon Rd to B2177 Portsdown Hill Rd jnc) A3 London Road / Northern Road (B2177 Portsdown Hill to Portsbridge Rbt) A3 Northern Road / Stamshaw Road (Portsbridge Rbt to Rudmore Rbt) A3 Mile End Road (Rudmore Rbt to Mile End Road Rbt) A3 Commercial Road (Mile End Rbt to Cascades Approach Rbt) A3 Market Way / Alfred Road / Anglesea Road (Cascades Approach to Queen St/Edinburgh Rd jnc) A3 Anglesea Road (Queen St / Edinburgh Rd jnc to St Andrew's Court) A3 Hampshire Terrace / A288 Pier Road (St Andrew's Court Rbt to The Hard)
Corridor 9: A2030 Havant Road / Eastern Road (Havant to A288 Milton Road junction)
A2030 Havant Road (A3(M) J5 to A2030 Eastern Lane jnc) WB
A2030 Eastern Road ( to A27 Havant Bypass junction) SB A2030 Eastern Road / Velder Avenue (A27 to A288
Milton Road)
55
![Global analysis of scintillation variance: Indication of ...theory [Tatarskii, 1971] predicts growth of average scintil-lation index with decreasing altitude nearly proportional to](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/603994aae1f21b65fb7779f3/global-analysis-of-scintillation-variance-indication-of-theory-tatarskii.jpg)
