Transport for South Hampshire and Isle of Wight Public Transport Delivery Plan...

Project Ref: 28842/001 | Rev: 3 | Date: March 2014

Office Address: Caversham Bridge House, Waterman Place, Reading, Berkshire RG1 8DN T: +44 (0)118 950 0761 F: +44 (0)118 959 7498 E: [email protected]

Transport for South Hampshire and Isle of Wight

Public Transport Delivery Plan 2014-2036



J:\28842 TfSHIOW\3 documents\outgoing\reports\#4 Issued 17 Mar 2014\Public Transport Delivery Plan 140314.docx Page ii

Document Control Sheet

Project Name: TfSHIOW Public Transport Delivery Plan

Project Ref: 28842-001

Report Title: Public Transport Delivery Plan 2014-2036

Doc Ref: 03

Date: 07.03.2014

Name Position Signature Date

Prepared by:

David Harrison

Philip Blake

Alastair Mackie

Principal Planner

Consultant

Associate

DH

PB

AM

06.03.2014

Reviewed by: Bob Pinkett Partner

07.03.2014

Approved by: Bob Pinkett Partner

07.03.2014

For and on behalf of Peter Brett Associates LLP

Revision Date Description Prepared Reviewed Approved

1 06.01.2014 Draft DH PB AM RWP RWP

2 14.02.2014 Final Draft DH AM RWP RWP

3 07.03.2014 Final AM RWP RWP

Peter Brett Associates LLP disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of this report. This report has been prepared with reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the Client and generally in accordance with the appropriate ACE Agreement and taking account of the manpower, resources, investigations and testing devoted to it by agreement with the Client. This report is confidential to the Client and Peter Brett Associates LLP accepts no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report or any part thereof is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk.

© Peter Brett Associates LLP 2014



J:\28842 TfSHIOW\3 documents\outgoing\reports\#4 Issued 17 Mar 2014\Public Transport Delivery Plan 140314.docx Page iii

Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

2 Context ......................................................................................................................................... 2

3 Public Transport Schemes ....................................................................................................... 14

4 Scheme Appraisal ..................................................................................................................... 32

5 Governance and Funding ......................................................................................................... 39

6 Delivery Plan Summary ............................................................................................................ 45

Figures

Figure 1: Committed Public Transport Schemes …………………………………………………….……. 46 Figure 2: Potential Public Transport Schemes to 2026 ………………………………………………...… 47 Figure 3: Potential Long Term Public Transport Schemes …………………………………………….... 48

Tables

Table 2.1: Public Transport Modal Share ................................................................................................ 5 Table 2.2: Workshop SWOT Analysis ................................................................................................... 13 Table 4.1 East Assessment Methodology ............................................................................................. 34 Table 4.2: EAST Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 36



J:\28842 TfSHIOW\3 documents\outgoing\reports\#4 Issued 17 Mar 2014\Public Transport Delivery Plan 140314.docx Page iv



J:\28842 TfSHIOW\3 documents\outgoing\reports\#4 Issued 17 Mar 2014\Public Transport Delivery Plan 140314.docx Page 1

1 Introduction

This Public Transport Delivery Plan sets out the priorities for investment in public transport schemes in South Hampshire and the Isle of Wight for the period to 2026, and beyond to 2036.

The Delivery Plan derives from the Public Transport Strategy Statement which gives the over-arching vision for public transport in the area:

‘An attractive, reliable and easy-to-use public transport system that is the mode of choice over the private car to support the overriding aims of unlocking the potential for economic growth and reducing carbon’

The Strategy Statement provides the vision and strategic priorities for public transport which is then implemented through the Delivery Plan. The Delivery Plan provides more detail on proposed public transport schemes, their costs and benefits and relative prioritisation. It is a dynamic document that is regularly reviewed to ensure it is attuned to the prevailing economic environment.

Both documents take account of the Transport for South Hampshire Transport Delivery Plan 2012-2026, the South Hampshire Joint Strategy – LTP and the Isle of Wight Local Transport Plan (‘Island Transport Plan’) as well as the Network Rail London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy 2011.

The Strategy Statement and Delivery Plan also consider current and emerging spatial strategies, the emerging LEP Growth Strategy and the Southampton and Portsmouth City Deal agreement.

Finally, the Delivery Plan builds upon the schemes funded through the Local Sustainable Transport Fund and Better Bus Area Fund and other projects that are currently being delivered or for which funding is secured.




2 Context

2.1 Policy

The Transport for South Hampshire and Isle of Wight (TfSHIoW) area is made up of a number of local authorities, whose areas are within the boundaries either in full or in part:

Hampshire County Council (part);

Southampton City Council;

Portsmouth City Council;

Isle of Wight Council;

Fareham Borough Council;

Havant Borough Council;

Eastleigh Borough Council;

Gosport Borough Council;

Winchester City Council (part);

Test Valley District Council (part);

East Hampshire District Council (part); and

New Forest District Council.

Parts of the area also fall within the remit of the South Downs National Park Authority, which has produced joint planning policy documents with Winchester City Council and East Hampshire District Council.

TfSHIoW themselves have produced two overarching policy documents that attempt to encompass all of the regularly recurring themes in the work produced by the constituent authorities. The Transport Delivery Plan, produced in February 2013, provides policy and demographic context together with an approach for developing major individual schemes which will benefit the sub-region as a whole.

The four top-tier authorities – Hampshire, Southampton, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight – are Local Transport Authorities (LTAs), meaning that they are responsible for developing and maintaining the transport network in their areas.

Instead of producing three separate Local Transport Plans, Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth worked together to produce the South Hampshire Joint Strategy Local Transport Plan in 2011.

This Plan identified a number of challenges that included: securing funding in a time of constrained spending; ensuring timely infrastructure delivery and reliable access; maintaining the existing network; mitigating adverse impacts of transport; and widening travel choice. There are fourteen policies in the Plan:

a. To develop transport improvements that support sustainable growth and development within south Hampshire;




b. Work with the Highways Agency, Network Rail, ports and airports to ensure reliable access to and from South Hampshire’s three international gateways for people and freight;

c. To optimise the capacity of the highway network and improve journey time reliability for all modes;

d. To achieve and sustain a high-quality, resilient and well-maintained highway network for all;

e. To deliver improvements in air quality;

f. To develop strategic sub-regional approaches to management of parking to support sustainable travel and promote economic development

g. To improve road safety across the sub-region;

h. To promote active travel modes and develop supporting infrastructure;

i. To encourage private investment in bus, taxi and community transport solutions, and where practical, better infrastructure and services;

j. To further develop the role of water-borne transport within the TfSH area and across the Solent;

k. To work with rail operators to deliver improvements to station facilities and, where practical, better infrastructure and services for people and freight;

l. To work with Local Planning Authorities to integrate planning and transport;

m. To develop and deliver high-quality public realm improvements; and

n. To safeguard and enable the future delivery of transport improvements within the TfSH area.

These policies and associated delivery options then fed into the TfSH Transport Delivery Plan highlighted above.

At the time the Transport Delivery Plan and South Hampshire Joint Strategy were being developed, the Isle of Wight was not a full member of TfSH. As a consequence of this, the Isle of Wight produced its own Local Transport Plan, which concentrated on attaining a number of strategic goals including improvement and maintenance of highway assets, improvement in accessibility, road safety and quality of life, continued economic growth and maintaining the local environment.

Each of the constituent district, borough or unitary council areas is required to produce a strategic planning policy document known as a Core Strategy (for those documents already prepared or in the later stages of progression) or a Local Plan (for those documents in the early stages of progression). These documents set the strategic development framework, most notably for the level and type of development that is expected to take place in their areas up to 2026. District- and borough-level authorities have no responsibilities for strategic delivery of transport schemes, and therefore their role is generally to support the strategies of higher-tier authorities and to provide the policy framework for sustainable development in transport terms.

Core Strategies, and their successor Local Plans, are principally documents designed to guide the Council’s decision-making policies with regards to planning applications – especially the location, size and type of major developments. With the exception of Southampton and Portsmouth, all of the local authorities required to complete such a document are not LTAs and therefore have no strategic remit over transport.

The key area where district and borough councils make a significant contribution to transport policy is in the location of new residential and commercial developments. In all the constituent authorities’ plans, the focus is on delivering sustainable development in accessible locations,




with adequate financial contributions (either through Section 106 or Community Infrastructure Levy) to mitigate the impact of development and attract residents to more sustainable modes.

By 2026, there will have been a forecast increase of 55,000 dwellings in the TfSHIoW area, coupled with a related increase in population and demand for travel. Substantial urban extensions or new communities are proposed at Welborne (north of Fareham – 6,500 dwellings), North Whiteley (3,500 dwellings) and West of Waterlooville (2,000 dwellings), all of which will require new and bespoke transport solutions to meet their needs.

Whilst the district and borough councils are not responsible for most transport functions, there is still an important role for them in identifying and mitigating transport impacts. Examples of this are as follows:

Adopting a “Reduce – manage – invest” approach to transport: reducing the need to travel, managing available capacity and investing in targeted schemes where appropriate;

Proposing new developments in locations that are either already highly accessible or have the potential to be on a commercially viable basis;

Ensuring that new developments make appropriate financial contributions towards transport infrastructure and services in order to mitigate their traffic impact;

Demanding travel plans and transport assessments for all significant new development; and

Supporting Hampshire County Council, TfSHIoW and other key stakeholders in delivering their transport plans.

The majority of the Core Strategies and Local Plans are united in communicating these key messages.

2.2 Description of Current Public Transport

Mainland South Hampshire is well served by a dense network of public transport routes, with rail links both north to south and east to west, complemented by frequent urban bus services and other less strategic links to the more rural parts of the sub-region.

Southampton lies on the north-south rail service between the South Coast, the Midlands and North of England, as well as on the east-west axis to Portsmouth and Brighton. Portsmouth is not served by inter-city national trains. There are seven railway stations in Southampton and five in Portsmouth. Both cities enjoy good rail links to London, although journey times are considerably shorter from Southampton than from Portsmouth.

Rail links between the two cities are relatively poor, however, with one stopping train and one semi-fast train per hour. Previous studies on travel patterns and demand in South Hampshire

1

have identified that travel demand between the two cities, particularly for commuting trips, is not particularly strong and there are two largely separate journey to work areas for Portsmouth and Southampton. Southampton and Portsmouth are served by frequent urban bus networks, with Fareham, Gosport and Eastleigh also enjoying a high level of coverage. Bus services in Southampton are primarily provided by First and Bluestar, with some corridors subject to competition. In Fareham and Portsmouth, First are the largest operator and Stagecoach are the second major company. Stagecoach are the largest operator in Havant.

1 TfSH EB – R6 Case for Intervention and Options, MVA, 2011




Strong bus links are also found in Eastleigh, with key inter-urban corridors supplemented by routes provided by a number of independent operators. In the rural areas, there is a lower level of provision commensurate with reduced levels of demand.

The Isle of Wight’s land-based public transport network comprises both rail and bus services. The Island Line, operated by Stagecoach, runs between Ryde and Shanklin on the eastern side of the Island and there is also a steam railway that connects to the main line at Smallbrook.

Almost all bus services on the Island are run by Southern Vectis, part of the Go Ahead group of companies. Services radiate from Newport to most areas of the Island and there are frequent links between many of the main towns. Some un-remunerative services are provided by Southern Vectis using volunteer bus drivers operating under the “Community Bus Partnership” initiative.

There are six ferry crossings between the Island and mainland south Hampshire, connecting Yarmouth, Fishbourne, Cowes and Ryde to Lymington, Southampton and Southsea. Three companies operate these services – Wightlink, Red Funnel and Hovertravel.

Demand

In 2010, the Sub-Regional Transport Model identified the following modal share for public transport services:

Time Period Modal share

AM 0700 – 1000 5.8% (34,388 trips)

Inter-peak 1000 – 1600 4.9% (63,720 trips)

PM 1600 – 1900 4.7% (32,599 trips)

1900 – 0700 3.3% (20,148 trips)

24 hour period 4.7% (150,856 trips)

Table 2.1: Public Transport Modal Share

Public transport accounts for 4% of all trips made in the South Hampshire sub-region. Mode shares in Southampton (7%) and Portsmouth (5%) are above this, but the average figure is reduced by much smaller mode shares in the large areas of suburban and semi-rural settlement where public transport connections are more limited.

This is despite relatively high containment of overall trips within the constituent districts. Just under half (48%) of all trips in the sub-region are contained within one district; Portsmouth (69%), Southampton (58%) and Gosport (48%) are the only mainland districts at or above average but these contain a high proportion of the overall trips. There is a high correlation between containment and modal choice; in East Hampshire, Test Valley and Winchester, which are the three districts with the lowest containment, there is also evidence of the highest levels of car use.

Containment within districts also means that journey lengths are relatively short. 38% of all mainland car trips are 5km or less, rising to 56% in the most densely populated areas – these are the key trips that could potentially be made by public transport and should be targeted through the measures in the Delivery Plan.

Where journeys are made between districts, the three key movements are:




Eastleigh to Southampton;

Fareham to Portsmouth; and

Havant to Portsmouth.

Total passenger demand on the Isle of Wight ferry services is approximately 9 million per annum. Local ferries carry approximately 4 million passengers per annum, of which the vast majority are travelling on the Gosport to Portsmouth link (3.6 million).

Total public transport use is currently forecast to increase by only 3% between 2010 and 2026, whereas private car use is forecast to grow by 13%. Based on this information from the Sub-Regional Transport Model, there is clearly a need to develop a number of schemes to stimulate greater use of public transport and reduce the use of the private car on an already congested network.

2.3 Committed Schemes

The Transport Delivery Plan (TDP), published by TfSH in February 2013, sets out a number of schemes for which funding has already been allocated, commitments have been made or where work has already commenced. These projects are predominantly part-funded by central Government through arrangements such as the Local Sustainable Transport Fund or Better Bus Areas schemes.

Details of each of the currently committed schemes are provided below and are illustrated in Figure 1.

2.3.1 Your Journey: Making Travel Time Your Time

“Your Journey: Making Travel Time Your Time” was a project bid submitted to the Better Bus Area Fund, and was amongst the successful projects awarded funding in March 2012.

The project aimed to raise the quality of local bus travel and alter non-users’ perception of the mode, through addressing features of bus travel which put off new users and by providing facilities that make the bus a more attractive choice in competition with the private car. The package of measures includes:

Free on board Wi-Fi internet on over 550 buses;

Next stop audio visual systems on 500 buses;

LED internal lighting;

Refurbishment of over 130 buses;

Development of apprenticeships and improved customer services facilities;

Bus priority improvements on the A32 between Gosport and Fareham; and

Improved marketing and information, including use of Near Field Communication at bus stops.

Outcomes are expected to be an 8% rise in bus patronage, a 5.6% mode share increase for the bus and a reduction in carbon emissions of 4,205 tonnes, as well as other ancillary benefits such as additional jobs, net travel time benefits and a 0.2% decline in car mode share.




The total value of this project is £7.37million, of which £4.96million is capital expenditure. The bus operators in the region pledged a total of £2.14million towards this cost with local authorities supplying £0.75million – the balance was funded by the Department for Transport.

The project is currently being undertaken with an estimated delivery date of the end of March 2014.

2.3.2 A Better Connected South Hampshire

This project aims to generate modal shift towards public transport from the private car, through in particular targeting access to the key urban centres. The schemes are being applied across the sub-region and are categorised into three streams:

An inter-operable ITSO-compliant smart ticket for bus and ferry travel;

Area-wide and corridor-specific personalised travel planning interventions, aimed at improving take-up rates for public transport and active travel modes; and

Physical interventions along nine key corridors and at sixteen main bus and rail interchanges – including providing 250 Real Time Passenger Information screens, bus priority lanes, and making better provision for walkers and cyclists.

Accesses to Southampton, Portsmouth and Gosport are congested, particularly in peak times, and the combination of physical and softer measures proposed in this package is expected to release capacity which in turn will unlock strategic sites and stimulate economic growth.

Intended outcomes from the project include creating over 750 new jobs by 2026, reducing carbon emissions by 26,000 tonnes, delivering a 5% mode shift from the private car and increasing by a 25% use of public transport. Congestion on the key corridors is forecast to fall by 10%.

This £31.2million project is funded by the Department for Transport through the Local Sustainable Transport Fund bidding stream (£17.8million) plus contributions from local authorities, bus operators, BAA and local businesses.

The project is currently being undertaken with a forecast completion date of March 2015.

2.3.3 Southampton Station Quarter North

The Southampton Station Quarter North scheme followed the major refurbishment of Southampton Central station as part of the National Stations Improvement Programme in 2012. The Station Quarter North scheme consists of a series of infrastructure measures to make it easier and safer for people to interchange between trains, cycles and buses, and for those arriving on foot and by taxi to navigate their way around more easily. The first phase of works is programmed for completion in summer 2014.

The measures include:

Better station drop off and pick up arrangements

More space for the existing taxi queue

Improvements to the signs and accessibility of walking routes between the station and bus stops in Wyndham Place

Improvements to way-finding signs towards the city centre




Toilet facilities for taxi drivers.

Urban realm improvements including new paving and street trees.

2.3.4 Isle of Wight: Sustainable Access to Tourism

The success of the tourism industry on the Isle of Wight has significant transport implications. Recognising this, the Isle of Wight Council made a successful bid to the Local Sustainable Transport Fund for the “Sustainable Access to Tourism” project to encourage car-free tourism, and mitigate the impact of tourism on the Island’s limited road network.

The key elements of the project are:

Establishment of seven strategic integrated transport hubs with interactive information kiosks, improved signage, enhanced accessibility, CCTV provision and cycle storage facilities;

Improved public transport information and support, including Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) displays at key entry points and transport hubs; and

Better marketing and promotion of sustainable travel choices on the Island, coupled with initiatives such as luggage transfer schemes and creation of a Sustainable Travel Co-ordinator role in partnership with the Island’s tourism Destination Management Organisation.

The project is not purely public transport focused, and has a significant emphasis on promoting active travel modes.

The Local Sustainable Transport Fund is contributing £3.9million of the scheme cost, with the remaining £1.3million being provided by the Isle of Wight Council. Of the £5.2million total cost, £3.0million is proposed for capital expenditure.

The project commenced in November 2012 and is scheduled for completion by March 2015.

2.3.5 Portsmouth: A Sustainable & Connected Centre

This scheme aims to improve connectivity between the city centre, Hard Interchange and the harbour by sustainable modes, encourage mode shift away from the car towards public transport and active travel and reduce congestion in and around the city centre. An absence of visible links between the three centres has encouraged use of the car, increased congestion and lead to constrained parking capacity.

The principal elements of the package are:

Improving connectivity in central Portsmouth for walking, cycling and public transport – including infrastructure and service improvements, wayfinding enhancements, improved cycle parking and hubs, public realm changes and branded bus and ferry services;

Influencing travel behaviour – using on-street travel advisors and personalised journey planning targeted at residents with an identified high propensity for modal shift, and workplace activity with major employers; and

Marketing, information and branding activities – social marketing and broader travel awareness campaign, better provision of travel information and a common branding.

Expected outcomes from the project include providing a more welcoming gateway to the city, encouraging shoppers to stay longer and spend more, relieve congestion and parking




pressures, make railway stations more user-friendly, encourage students to contribute to the local economy, reduce carbon emissions and deliver wider benefits in terms of social, health and accessibility indicators.

The Local Sustainable Transport Fund bid earmarked £7.15million for the project, with £5.0million being awarded by the Government and the remainder coming from local contributions.

The project is estimated to be completed by the end of March 2015.

2.3.6 Tipner Interchange & Park and Ride

This scheme aims to unlock the development and regeneration potential of the Tipner site. The scheme provides for a new motorway junction on the M275 (junction 1), a new Park & Ride scheme and an additional bus priority lane on the M275 from the site southbound towards the city centre.

Regeneration of this site will bring major benefits for Portsmouth, and the infrastructure development plan identified the following infrastructure as being necessary:

Motorway junction and bus lane to M275;

A 663-space Park & Ride site;

Highway improvements and public transport links, including Bus Rapid Transit; and

Improved active travel links.

The Park & Ride service is expected to link the site with the city centre with a bus service up to every 12 minutes. The scheme is part of the wider regeneration of the Tipner gateway area which will also include residential development, office provision and a hotel.

Following funding approval through the spending review process, full and final approval for the scheme was granted in December 2012, work started in January 2013 and the project is due for completion in April 2014. The award from the Department for Transport was £19.5million, and the total cost of the scheme is £28.0million.

2.3.7 Southampton: Sustainable Travel City

The Southampton Sustainable Travel City is designed to deliver a 12 percentage point change in modal share away from the private car to other modes, and a real term cut in emissions from transport of between 10-20% despite the addition of 7million more trips per annum over the next 20 years. It will contribute towards the development aspiration of the City for 30,000 new jobs to 2026.

The key focus is on enabling and promoting, through a variety of measures, greater uptake of the use of public transport, cycling and walking for all trip purposes:

A city wide marketing campaign and targeted marketing through the My Journey brand;

Focus on business, school, residential and destination travel planning;

Public transport planning, technology and eco-driving;

A comprehensive active travel programme; and

Freight consolidation and optimisation.




Interventions are intended to deliver a high level of modal shift, shorter journey to work travel times, journey time reliability improvements, higher frequency public transport services, a reduction in carbon emissions, improved health and wellbeing and enhanced business confidence.

The Local Sustainable Transport Fund pledged £4.0million to the project, in addition to a £1.8million local contribution from Southampton City Council and Sustrans.

The project is scheduled for completion at the end of March 2015.

2.3.8 The Hard Interchange

The Hard Interchange was opened in 1979. It is a very busy, compact site in the Portsea area, close to Gunwharf Quays and adjacent to Portsmouth Harbour railway station, and the boarding points for the ferry services to Gosport and the Isle of Wight.

The scheme involves replacing the existing bus interchange and improving the public realm to provide a safe, attractive and efficient environment for public transport users, pedestrians, and cyclists. Evidence from developers and the business community indicate that a high quality environment is needed to unlock development at eight identified opportunity sites (delivering residential, hotel, retail and commercial floorspace). In the short-term it will help unlock development generating over 250 net jobs within the region.

Redevelopment of the site would entail:

Provision of a contemporary bus interchange facility, incorporating a high quality interchange building, seating areas and passenger information;

Wider access for pedestrians and better manoeuvring space for buses and coaches; and

Provision of safe, secure cycle parking facilities, including a covered storage area;

Outcomes include delivery of a new, refreshed facility which is an attractive environment for passengers and an efficient one for operators. The pedestrian and cyclist environment will be considerably improved and information provision enhanced. It is hoped that the site can form a new gateway to the city centre and create an attractive, vibrant waterfront destination.

The project has been costed at £6.8million, of which £4.8million will be provided by the Solent Local Transport Board. The remainder will primarily be funded through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contribution associated with the redevelopment of Brunel House.

The project could commence in April 2015 and be complete by the end of March 2016.

2.3.9 Southampton-Brighton Panhandle Rail Services

The Southampton-Brighton Panhandle Rail Services scheme addresses the lack of direct access to Southampton Airport from the East. With airport business forecast to more than triple to 6.0m passengers by 2030 and with 20% of departing passengers coming from Portsmouth postcodes, the competitiveness of the airport is dependent on improving public transport access from the East.

The scheme involves diverting the hourly Southern Railway Brighton to Southampton Central service via the Botley line instead of Netley. The service would call additionally at Eastleigh and Southampton Airport Parkway westbound only, introducing a direct service from the East to Southampton Airport Parkway and providing an additional service between Eastleigh and Southampton Airport Parkway/Central. From Southampton Central the service would continue as a loop via the Netley line back to Fareham and Brighton.




The scheme is a franchise commitment by Southern Railway but the implementation date is not yet confirmed.

2.4 Key Issues

The issues and themes that emerge when reviewing current context are perhaps unsurprising – the need for economic growth, viability, sustainability – all requiring a public transport system that responds to the needs of the community and enables progress, rather than hindering it. The importance of first understanding future demand and then planning for public transport investment that can meet those demands must be recognised – a supply side solution delivers only what can be easily built or what was historically desired (the “pet scheme” or “vanity project”), not what future generations will really need to enable mobility and access.

Therefore this public transport delivery plan must build on previous assessments of travel demand and identify whether current proposals for projects will meet that demand, but also must challenge assumptions about the value of projects, their objectives and their deliverability. Not all current schemes, despite perhaps years of development and feasibility testing, will be as relevant now as if they had been built say 10 years ago. Travel patterns and attitudes change, development and technology influences mode choice and expectations, home, work, and social travel destinations are constantly shifting and therefore flexibility needs to be built into the plan.

An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the current public transport network has been undertaken through stakeholder engagement workshops and this is shown below. The workshop analysis also considered the opportunities and threats facing public transport in contributing to the delivery of economic growth.




Strengths:

Market competition

Urban areas

History of strong partnership working

Consistent user base

Three modes – bus, rail, ferry

Comprehensive rail network

Range of PT operators and brands

Multi operator travelcard

Rising bus use in urban areas

High containment

Southampton Airport location/connection to rail

Rising rail use

Introduction of Portsmouth Park & Ride

Weaknesses:

Geography

Basic provision of infrastructure

M27 ribbon development and suburbia

M27 used as a local road

Confusing pricing structures – bus sometimes more expensive than rail

No discount travel for part time workers

Lack of restraint on car use and availability of car parking

Political consistency and boundaries

Quality of PT interchanges

New development designed without PT in mind

Poor cycling infrastructure and connections to PT

Infrequent rail services and connectivity, particularly east-west

Poor rail journey times

Southampton tunnel capacity

Scheme funding reducing

Access to Southampton Airport from the east

Lack of integrated ticketing between modes

Cost and availability of services to/from Isle of Wight




Opportunities:

Parkways

Creating hubs

Major developments

Masterplanning

Three modes and connections between them

Infrastructure and sticks from day 1 (new developments)

Governance

Ferry patronage growth

Developing smart ticketing technology – enabling changes in attitudes towards travel

CIL/S106 to fund infrastructure

New developments to be more multi-modal

Cities First approach to enable modal shift

Improved access to information

Bus priority and journey time reliability

Innovative operators and local authority approach

LEP funding – programme for transport

Policy – ITA

Car insurance premium increases

Portsmouth Park & Ride

Network Rail long term planning process

Highways Agency route strategies

Threats:

User behaviour

Funding – central, local, cap-ex, BSOG/con fares, reduced subsidies

Congestion

Growth

Pricing and cost

LEP interface and funding (transport vs. others)

Increased regulation vs. localism

Climate change

Journey time reliability

Changing political priorities (different administrations)

Planning policy – dispersed development patterns

Skills and employment market

Having the right people to deliver

Policy - ITA

Falling cost of motoring

Table 2.2: Workshop SWOT Analysis




3 Public Transport Schemes

3.1 Introduction

In this section, the proposals for major public transport interventions are set out, categorised by their strategic objective. Each scheme has been described; outline costs and benefits set out; and current status reported. In some cases, the availability of data is limited due to the early stage of scheme development.

Schemes have been categorised by the following objectives:

Strategic connections – between South Hampshire and the Isle of Wight and the rest of the country

Sub regional connectivity – connectivity between the Portsmouth and SE Hampshire area, the Southampton and SW Hampshire area and the Isle of Wight

Enabling development – schemes that are necessary to support major housing or employment developments

Seamless travel – measures that enhance inter-modal travel and encourage new users to the public transport system

Journey Time Reliability – schemes that shield public transport from general highway congestion

Widening travel choice – new public transport services that offer a new alternative to the private car

Travel behaviour change – initiatives to encourage residents to use sustainable modes of transport

References to costings and benefit cost ratios for schemes have been taken from the economic appraisal conducted for the development of the Transport Delivery Plan

2, unless

otherwise referenced.

3.2 Strategic Connections

3.2.1 Havant to Woking Line Speed Improvements

Strategic Case The Portsmouth Direct rail line from London Waterloo is a sinuous route with steep gradients, several level crossings and a sub-optimal signalling system that all combine to restrict the average line speed to 50.7mph on the section between Havant and Woking.

Proposed Scheme This scheme involves a package of infrastructure works and re-signalling in order to maximise the journey time benefits of eased speed restrictions and improved spacing of signals. This would improve the average speed on the Havant to Woking section to 65mph (for fast services) and reduce the Portsmouth to London journey time by 11 minutes.

Indicative Cost £25-50m

2 Option Assessment Working Paper 36, TfSHIOW, November 2013




Benefit Cost Ratio 13 (Note: modelling does not take account of train overcrowding so the actual BCR will be lower)

Current Status Pre-feasibility

PTDP Reference 01

3.3 Sub Regional Connectivity

3.3.1 Eastleigh Station Platform 4

Strategic Case At present, trains travelling between Southampton and Fareham on the Botley line have to reverse at Eastleigh station and this imposes a capacity constraint, as well as having an adverse impact on the accessibility of Southampton Airport from the east.

Proposed Scheme Creation of an additional platform (Platform 4) to the East of the existing platforms. This would enable the operation of the Brighton – Southampton service in both directions via Eastleigh and Southampton Airport Parkway, or the introduction of a new service between Southampton and Portsmouth via Southampton Airport Parkway.

Network Rail note that partial redoubling of the Botley line and redoubling of the Portsmouth Single between Eastleigh station and Eastleigh South Junction is likely to be required.

Indicative Cost £10m3

The scheme has a negative financial case because revenue is lower than the cost of the additional train set and crew required.

Benefit Cost Ratio 0.74


PTDP Reference 02

3.3.2 Eastleigh Chord

Strategic Case As scheme 02

Proposed Scheme A grade separated junction and chord just north of Southampton Airport Parkway. This option would also facilitate the option of running tram trains on the Netley line (see section 3.3.4). The advantage of the Eastleigh Chord is that it avoids Eastleigh station and saves journey time because services do not need to reverse at Eastleigh before heading south to Southampton Airport Parkway.

However, construction is problematic because Southampton Airport’s runway end safety area extends 240 metres beyond the end of the runway, preventing construction of the Eastleigh chord around the southern perimeter of the Eastleigh Works site at grade. Network Rail has investigated various options for at grade, tunnel or grade separated alignments, of which a grade separated chord appears to provide the best balance of cost and operational effectiveness.

3 London and South East Rail Utilisation Strategy, July 2011, Network Rail, s11.8.2

4 ibid




Indicative Cost £89m for a 30 mph limit chord with at-grade junctions and a further £52m for redoubling of the single track section of the Botley Line based on cut-and-cover tunnelling.



PTDP Reference 03

3.3.3 Netley Line Skip Stop Rail Service

Strategic Case To improve sub regional connectivity particularly between Portsmouth and Southampton, and to the two cities from intermediate settlements.

Proposed Scheme This scheme involves replacing the current hourly all stops rail service between Portsmouth, Netley and Southampton with three trains per hour operating on a ‘skip stop’ basis.

Initial proposals suggest that each of the stations between Fareham and Southampton would be served by two out of the three trains, which would enable journey times to be reduced slightly while maintaining all existing direct links. However, it may be preferable to maintain an hourly stopping pattern at smaller stations and maximise the opportunities for reducing journey times.

All three trains would be able to continue beyond Portsmouth & Southsea to Portsmouth Harbour within indicative schedules.

Indicative Cost The skip stop service is assumed to be provided commercially by the train operating company and, therefore, at no net cost to the local authorities.



PTDP Reference 04

3.3.4 Netley Line Tram Train

Strategic Case As scheme 04 plus opportunity to improve accessibility of Southampton city centre by rail services from the East.

Proposed Scheme Operation of high frequency tram trains on the Netley line, which would be shared by heavy rail and lightweight vehicles between Fareham and Woolston. The low-floored trams would be able to stop at low level extensions to National Rail stations and take advantage of the higher speed of the heavy rail route, rather than continuous street running. It would be possible to diverge away from the heavy rail line to make stops at the front of stations before rejoining the heavy rail line, giving better accessibility and interchange with buses while enabling heavy rail services to pass. The tram service would leave the rail line at Woolston and head to Southampton via the Itchen Bridge.

To deliver the scheme, infrastructure works would be required to enable more trains to run between Fareham and Southampton on the Botley line. The extent of works depends on the number of trains diverted from the Netley line to the Botley line:

1 train per hour – single track Eastleigh chord, track doubling




between Eastleigh South and Eastleigh West junctions, third reversible track from the chord to the airport and preferably a third reversible platform at Southampton Airport Parkway

2 trains per hour – double track Eastleigh chord, track doubling and improved signalling throughout, three or preferably four reversible tracks from the chord to the airport and three or preferably four reversible platforms at Southampton Airport Parkway

3 trains per hour – double track Eastleigh chord, track doubling and improved signalling throughout, four reversible tracks from the chord to the airport and four reversible platforms at Southampton Airport Parkway

Indicative Cost The scheme requires delivery of scheme 03 (Eastleigh chord), costs for which are shown under that scheme.

Capital cost for the on street running from Woolston to Southampton and infrastructure works at Woolston are estimated to be in the range £50-100m.

The tram train service is assumed to be provided commercially by the train operating company and, therefore, at no cost to the local authorities.

Benefit Cost Ratio Estimated to be in the range 2.0 – 4.0


PTDP Reference 05

3.3.5 Netley Line Light Rail and Bus Options

Strategic Case As scheme 05

Proposed Scheme Transfer of conventional heavy rail services from the Netley Line to the Botley Line would also facilitate the delivery of other service options on the Netley Line. While not yet worked up in detail, the possibility of light rail and bus rapid transit solutions would then become feasible.

Further work would be required to develop these options so that light rail and bus rapid transit are considered and compared against heavy rail solutions as part of any wider review of Solent rail options in the context of diversion of heavy rail to the Botley Line.

Indicative Cost The scheme requires delivery of scheme 03 (Eastleigh chord), costs for which are shown under that scheme.

Capital cost is estimated to be in the range £150-200m for an LRT based scheme and £100-150m for a bus rapid transit one.

The light rail or bus rapid transit service is assumed to be provided commercially and, therefore, at no cost to the local authorities.



PTDP Reference 06

3.3.6 Estuarial Ferry Services

Strategic Case To improve connectivity between key centres.




Proposed Scheme Although there are no active proposals for new estuarial ferry services in South Hampshire, two options have been tested:

A service along Southampton Water between Portsmouth or Gosport and Southampton. A journey time of 30 minutes could be achieved on this route

A service within Portsmouth Harbour from Portsmouth via Port Solent to Gosport. A journey time of 20 minutes would be expected on each of the two legs.

During summer 2013 a Park & Sail service operated between Portsmouth International Port and Gunwharf Quays. This was a successful service and there is an aspiration to operate the service again in 2014, and potentially beyond. This is a joint project developed with partners from Portsmouth International Port, Portsmouth City Council and Gunwharf Quays.

Indicative Cost Operating costs are estimated to be £900k for the Southampton options and £1,350k for the Portsmouth to Gosport option.

Modelling suggests that neither scheme would be commercially viable because of predicted low demand

Benefit Cost Ratio 0.3 – 0.5


PTDP Reference 07

3.3.7 Cross Solent Interchange Improvements

Strategic Case Enabling more efficient interchange at cross Solent Ferry ports has been a long standing transport objective, on both sides of the Solent to minimise the interchange penalty associated with transferring from one mode to another.

In addition, there are significant regeneration opportunities which arise as a result of the development of cross-Solent interchange points.

Proposed Scheme Each ferry terminal needs to be assessed for the current efficiency of connections, for all modes and all traffic (foot passengers, cars and freight). The ferry terminals to be improved would potentially include all current operational locations on the Island and on the mainland, although the level of infrastructure improvement could range from improving legibility and passenger experience through to a full rebuild of the interchange. The connections with nearby bus and rail facilities will be the key focus, whether walking routes or shuttle bus connections.

Potential projects include:

Royal Pier Waterfront, Southampton – a £450m redevelopment featuring an extended Mayflower Park, speciality shops, offices, leisure venues, apartments and waterside attractions linked by pedestrian promenades and piers.

Cowes Waterfront – a long term development project spanning the entire Medina Valley from Cowes Harbour to Newport with circa 50 ha of development land, both waterside and brownfield. The objectives of the scheme are to attract investment, create new jobs and bring new facilities to the communities of Cowes, East Cowes and Newport.

Ryde Interchange – creation of a landmark interchange building




and local highway reorganisation to improve access for public transport users and deliver improved links between pier, Esplanade and town centre. Included as part of the IoW Chamber of Commerce and Industries masterplan for Ryde, the idea should form an integral part of any redevelopment of the esplanade and seafront. Estimated cost of £6m

5

Cowes Floating Bridge – replacement of existing facility with new higher quality infrastructure, either a new ferry operation or potentially a fixed link north of the current location.

Indicative Cost Estimated to be in the range £10-25m

Benefit Cost Ratio Estimated to be >4.0


PTDP Reference 08

3.3.8 Inter Urban Coach Services

Strategic Case Although current inter-urban coach services in the sub region are limited, and there are no specific proposals that have yet been developed, there is a potential role for coach services to provide sub regional connectivity as an alternative to the private car. The motorway network in the area, particularly the M27, creates the opportunity to operate fast direct public transport services to Portsmouth and Southampton city centres with the advantage over bus of quicker end to end journey times and the advantage over rail of better penetration of Southampton city centre.

Proposed Scheme Further work will be required to establish the nature of potential demand and hence the nature of any inter urban coach network. Potential routes could include, however, commuter services to Portsmouth and Southampton from the M27 corridor, to Portsmouth from the A3(M) corridor and to Southampton from the M3 corridor. A coach operation could also potentially address the poor connectivity of Southampton Airport from the east in a more cost effective way than infrastructure-heavy rail solutions.

Analysis of existing coach movements has identified that National Express currently operate 22 coaches per day between Southampton and Portsmouth, on a variety of routes – although most continue to Heathrow or Gatwick Airports. At present, these services are accessible on a pre-booked basis only, but potentially there is the possibility that these could be opened up to “walk on” travellers as a further option for travel between the two cities. The service currently operates 24 hours per day, 7 days a week although some timetable amendments would be necessary to ensure a more evenly-spaced pattern of departures. Further dialogue with National Express is proposed on this project.

Indicative Cost The services are assumed to be provided commercially and, therefore, at no cost to the local authorities.



PTDP Reference 09

5 Marks Barfield Architects, http://www.marksbarfield.com/#/projects/ryde-interchange/, retrieved 11 Feb 2014




3.4 Enabling Development

3.4.1 Bus Service Improvements Associated with Major Development Sites

Strategic Case Economic growth in sub region in the period to 2026 and beyond will require significant new housing and employment development, supported by high quality public transport, both within new settlements and to connect to established centres.

Proposed Scheme Major developments are proposed at:

Daedalus Enterprise Zone: the former HMS Daedalus site is planned as a centre for advanced manufacturing and technology businesses within the marine, aerospace and aviation sectors.

Dunsbury Hill Farm: a 20ha greenfield site adjacent to the A3(M), proposed for a high quality business and technology park to facilitate the growth of SMEs and expected to create 1,725 jobs over the life of the development.

Eastleigh Riverside: 150ha development area incorporating several existing major facilities including Southampton Airport, Barton Park and the Eastleigh railway works. It has been identified by PUSH as a strategic employment zone with the potential to contribute significantly to the sustainable economic growth of the sub-region.

North Whiteley: major proposed development of 3,500 homes, schools and community facilities on land between Curbridge and Whiteley. Proposals for bus services are advanced, and will include frequent bus service links to Fareham, Hedge End, Swanwick railway station and Lock’s Heath. Pump priming funding is being set aside by the developers to facilitate these services to reach long-term commercial viability.

Portsmouth city centre: three key opportunity areas are the City Centre North scheme on the site of the former Tricorn centre with a high quality retail, leisure and residential offer; Station Square and Station Street which will become a business hub spread over eight sites; and the Guildhall area, intended to create a vibrant city quarter supporting a mix of land uses.

Southampton city centre: a number of major sites including Itchen Riverside, a 3.6ha site allocated for high quality, mixed use landmark development; Centenary Quay (Woolston) comprising 665 residential units with a mix of community and leisure facilities; Admiral’s Quay, a 299 dwelling scheme located south of Canute Road and scheduled for completion in 2014-15; and Watermark WestQuay, a £70million mixed use scheme.

Welborne: a sustainable new community planned on land north of the M27 near Fareham which will include around 6,500 dwellings with businesses, schools, open spaces and local services. The key public transport link is planned to be a new BRT link from the development to Fareham and Portsmouth.

West of Waterlooville: now known as Berewood, a major 3,000 unit residential development, together with community, retail and employment facilities. The site is being built out at present and, at present completion rates, is expected to continue beyond 2030.




Each of these developments will be accompanied by appropriate public transport proposals, some of which are at a more detailed stage of design than others.

Indicative Cost Public transport infrastructure estimated to be in the range £0-5m per site with services provided commercially once build-out is complete.

Benefit Cost Ratio Expected to be very high, for example North Whiteley has been assessed at 11.1

Current Status varied from pre-feasibility to detailed design

PTDP Reference 10

3.4.2 Horsea Island BRT Link

Strategic Case Port Solent and Horsea Island have been identified as areas of the city where there is the opportunity to deliver sustainable mixed-use development, providing housing, employment, leisure and retail uses. However, current access to Port Solent and particularly Horsea Island is relatively poor, and the development of Horsea Island is dependent on a proposed new bridge from Horsea Island to Tipner.

Proposed Scheme The project includes creation of a new all vehicles bridge adjacent to the M275 to provide road access via Tipner Interchange to Horsea Island, coupled with a new public transport only link road between Horsea Island and Port Solent.

The proposed bridge link will:

unlock 400 dwellings at Horsea Island and potentially substantial employment floorspace at Horsea Island;

significantly improve connectivity between Horsea Island and Portsmouth City Centre (increasing the attractiveness of the site to potential developers and occupiers);

enable the provision of faster and more reliable BRT services between Fareham and Portsmouth and between the A3(M) corridor and Portsmouth, as part of the longer term evolution of the BRT network; and

provide access to the new Horsea Island Country Park.

Indicative Cost £35m


Current Status Feasibility

PTDP Reference 11

3.4.3 City Centre Road, Portsmouth

Strategic Case The Portsmouth Plan includes a number of proposed developments to support the regeneration of the City Centre, but these cannot be delivered without new critical infrastructure to significantly enhance access, both by the private car and sustainable transport modes.

Proposed Scheme The City Centre road has been identified as a scheme to help to unlock a number of key development sites whilst promoting an integrated sustainable transport network which will enable people to




reduce dependence on the private car and encourage modal shift by improving access to public transport.

A key objective of the City Centre road is to improve connectivity to and within the City Centre for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users. A dedicated bus lane has been incorporated linking to the Tipner Park and Ride streamlining buses into the heart of the City Centre with Marketway becoming a central reservation for buses only. Pedestrian and cycle footways have been designed to ensure continuity and joined up access in and around the City Centre creating a viable alternative to driving.

Indicative Cost £10-25m

Benefit Cost Ratio

Current Status Detailed design complete; planning application later in 2014

PTDP Reference 12

3.5 Seamless Travel

3.5.1 Intelligent Ticketing

Strategic Case The LSTF funded scheme for a bus and ferry multi-modal smartcard has been described in section 2.3. While this is a significant step forward in the promotion of seamless travel, there are further measures that could be developed to enhance the scheme. These include the extension of the ticket to include rail travel, which would offer integrated all modes ticketing; and the scope to utilise developments in technology to deliver a fully flexible pricing and charging regime.

Proposed Scheme Whether based on a smart card, bank card, mobile phone or other future technological developments, this would enable operators to price products bespoke to individual users. This would remove uncertainty over pricing as a barrier to public transport use, and also address the needs of part time workers for whom current ticketing products are not always appropriate.

Indicative Cost Estimated to be <£5m


Current Status Detailed design

PTDP Reference 13

3.5.2 Southampton Station Quarter South

Strategic Case Enhancement of urban realm between the city centre and Southampton Central station, raising the quality of access to and interchange between public transport modes.

Proposed Scheme The Southampton Station Quarter South scheme builds on the refurbishment of Southampton Central station and the Station Quarter North project (see section 2.3.3). The scheme involves major redevelopment to the south of the station, based around a remodelling of Western Esplanade and Mountbatten Way to create a new mixed-use business district. This will include offices and other commercial developments as well as new links to the




waterfront and main shopping area. An initial phase of improvement work will focus on a new arrival experience including new shops, serviced business space, new homes and a hotel located around an elegant new station square.

Pedestrian and cycle routes to the city centre will also be significantly improved via a boulevard link towards John Lewis.

The option of relocating the National express coach station to the Station Quarter South is also being investigated, to provide significantly enhanced facilities for long distance coach users and interchange between rail, bus and coach.




PTDP Reference 14

3.5.3 The Hard, Portsmouth

Strategic Case The adopted SPD highlights the need for a new public transport interchange to create a higher quality and more welcoming environment for residents and visitors to Portsmouth, and to maximise public transport accessibility and seamless travel.

Proposed Scheme An improved multi-modal interchange linking bus, coach, rail, ferry and taxi services with enhanced passenger facilities, information provision and way-finding.

Indicative Cost Circa £6m6

Benefit Cost Ratio 2.0 – 4.07

Current Status Detailed design expected to commence in March 2014

PTDP Reference 15

3.5.4 Fareham Town Centre Interchange

Strategic Case To improve connectivity and interchange between rail services and bus, BRT, walking and cycling.

Proposed Scheme The scheme features urban realm improvements on the approach to Fareham station, including West Street and is likely to include reconfiguration of the A27 Station roundabout and other high cost improvements along the A27. This scheme was identified by the Solent LTB as a priority for the initial tranche of funding from 2015.




PTDP Reference 16

3.5.5 Gosport Bus and Ferry Interchange

6 Atkins, best estimate as at 28 February 2014

7 Solent LTB The Hard Funding Application, October 2013




Strategic Case Gosport ferry and bus interchange is heavily used, particularly for out-commuting from Gosport to Portsmouth. It is the terminus of the Eclipse Bus Rapid Transit system and a number of other high frequency services. However, existing facilities are poor and the quality of the environment is low.

Proposed Scheme The site is owned by the Borough Council but no specific independent proposals have been developed for a basic refurbishment as the scheme is firmly linked to more comprehensive redevelopment in Gosport town centre.

The Gosport Waterfront regeneration scheme has been identified as the leading redevelopment scheme in the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 and a “new transport exchange” is identified a key component of the scheme. As the scheme is at pre-feasibility there are no designs or costs identified for the project yet.




PTDP Reference 17

3.5.6 Woolston Interchange

Strategic Case Woolston railway station is located on the Southampton Central to Portsmouth Harbour line operated by South West Trains. The basic daytime frequency is hourly, with some additional semi-fast services in the early morning, peaks and late evenings operated by Southern. The station has seen a significant annual increase in patronage, from 80,000 per annum in 2004 to 140,000 in 2011.

The station’s geographic location, close to the eastern side of the Itchen Bridge, places it in relatively close proximity to several areas of Southampton city centre. As the journey time from Woolston to Southampton Central by rail is 11 minutes, when this is added to access time between Central station and the city centre, it can be seen that enhancing interchange at Woolston may help to reduce overall journey times into the city centre from the east.

Proposed Scheme The scheme aims to enhance the interchange experience at Woolston so that passengers between railway stations to the east of Southampton and the city centre can change modes at Woolston instead of continuing on to Southampton Central and interchanging there. There are up to 26 buses per hour between Woolston and Southampton city centre so interchange penalties are small, and the journey time is favourable against the train. The bus stops and railway station are currently 70 metres apart, but the A3025 acts as a barrier between the two, despite the presence of an existing subway under this road; this would be a key area for improvement.

This scheme is at pre-feasibility stage and as such there are no details on exactly what may be delivered at this location or the likely scale of costs. However such improvements could include – better seating and shelter arrangements, real time information, improved subway including better lighting, and improved legibility.

Indicative Cost £5m






PTDP Reference 18

3.5.7 Southampton Albion Place

Strategic Case To improve the passenger waiting environment at key stops in Southampton city centre, and to enhance information provision to ease access to the bus network.

Proposed Scheme The Albion Place scheme involves the provision of new high quality ‘super stops’ on Castle Way in Southampton, in the vicinity of Albion Place and creation of additional bus layover facilities.

Indicative Cost £8.7m8


Current Status Outline Design

PTDP Reference 19

3.5.8 East West Connectivity

Strategic Case To improve connectivity and interchange between rail services and bus, walking and cycling thereby creating an integrated public transport offer that is more competitive with the private car. The stations are already well used and are close to employment concentrations and future growth points.

Proposed Scheme The East-West Connectivity scheme involves the creation of public transport hubs at five railway stations to facilitate interchange between rail and buses and active modes, It will significantly aid the objective of strengthening the public transport offer for travel between the east and west of the region, by making multi-mode trips more attractive.

The stations are Cosham, Fareham, Havant, Hedge End and Swanwick. (Fareham Station is also part of the proposed A27 corridor scheme, which includes Station Roundabout and Gudge Heath Lane Interchange junction and carriageway improvements, plus bus stop relocations and upgrades).

In each case an assessment of current strengths and weaknesses of the interchange between rail, bus and active modes will be examined, including basic information, signing and legibility, information through to cycle storage, shelters, revised bus stop and layover facilities. Appropriate levels of funding will be identified to transform the experience of transferring modes at each of these locations, working towards a consistent standard of facilities across the region.

Indicative Cost £25m (£5m per location)



PTDP Reference 20

8 Albion Place Outline Design Study, Balfour Beatty for Southampton City Council, June 2013




3.5.9 Isle of Wight Hubs

Strategic Case The Isle of Wight Council has identified a programme of interchange improvements to build on existing trip patterns and networks, to develop more effective journey options for both residents and visitors.

The improvement of key interchanges will be considered through the Island Plan Core Strategy – Area Action Plans and in partnership with the local business community through the Isle of Wight Chamber of Commerce and Industries masterplanning process. The key interchanges highlighted through this process include Cowes, East Cowes, Fishbourne, Ryde and Yarmouth, with either bus to bus, bus to rail or bus to ferry transfers needing improvement, with enhancing access for pedestrians and cyclists also a priority.

Proposed Scheme Each scheme will require different levels of investment, dependent on current quality of interchange, but should including signing and real time information, shelter and waiting facilities, drop off and taxi bays, etc.

Cost and interchange site design have yet to be assessed, but benefits would include making more complex journeys easier and attractive, particularly by reducing the “interchange penalty”.


Benefit Cost Ratio Estimated to be in the range 2.0 to 4.0


PTDP Reference 21

3.5.10 Legible Bus Networks

Strategic Case To improve the quality of roadside information for bus services throughout the region, aiding way-finding and ease of access to the network.

Proposed Scheme Both Southampton and Portsmouth have secured funding for developing and implementing a Legible Bus Network with Better Bus Fund and/or LSTF funding, and it is proposed to extend the concept throughout the region. Its primary role would be to ‘make legible’ all bus roadside information within the region and coordinate this information provision with the “Legible Cities” approach.

The application of consistent and well directed signing will give public transport users, new and existing, confidence on their journey and improve awareness of the travel choices they have.




PTDP Reference 22

3.6 Journey Time Reliability

3.6.1 South East Hants Bus Rapid Transit




Strategic Case The South East Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit (SEHBRT) scheme is a high profile, mass public transit scheme, linking planned strategic employment and housing sites and key destinations. The scheme will help to encourage economic growth in the area by removing the transport barriers relating to constrained highway access and inherent congestion. The scheme provides a quality alternative to the private car with frequent services and reliable journey times, helping to reduce carbon emissions.

Phase 1 of the scheme, completed in April 2012, has been successful, providing a dedicated busway linking Gosport to Fareham. Future phases are planned to build upon the success of the first phase.

Proposed Scheme An indicative and initial phased delivery strategy has been developed to assist the delivery of this project which needs to be considered in a flexible context dependent upon funding opportunities, related development timescales and the potential for parts of schemes to be delivered sooner as opportunities dictate.

There are a number of routes on several alignments proposed as part of the SEHBRT network. In summary, the long term BRT network includes the following new routes:

North Fareham (Welborne) – Fareham – Gosport;

North Fareham – Tipner – Portsmouth;

North Fareham – Fareham – Tipner – Portsmouth;

Waterlooville – Dunsbury Hill Farm – Havant – Cosham – Portsmouth; and

Havant – Hilsea – Portsmouth.

Several of the SEHBRT elements are proposed to be delivered in the short term, prior to 2019, focused on the Gosport peninsula and between North Fareham, Fareham and Portsmouth. Schemes for delivery in the medium term up to 2016 include the Havant and Waterlooville link.

The delivery of the wider network proposition will help reduce the transport constraints to growth at planned strategic sites coming forward. The BRT network will also provide a critical role in facilitating other development sites as well as other jobs directly created by the construction and operation of the BRT network. The scheme is one of the highest priorities in the sub-region and is critical to help provide sustainable connectivity with key destinations, reducing journey times and help to improve productivity whilst reducing carbon emissions.

Indicative Cost £49.7m

The services are assumed to be provided commercially and, therefore, at no cost to the local authorities.

Benefit Cost Ratio 1.9 to 3.9 depending on level of service provided

Current Status Outline design

A £6m bid for Pinch Point funding to extend the Phase 1 busway to Rowner Road was unsuccessful.

Portsmouth City Council has applied for both Local Transport Board and Pinch Point Funding for junction improvements including traffic signal upgrades and layout changes to improve the A3 Bus Priority Corridor; some of these also benefit the potential route into Portsmouth from Havant.




PTDP Reference 23

3.6.2 Southampton Eastern Corridor Bus Priority

Strategic Case The eastern suburbs of Southampton include some of the most income- and health-deprived areas of the city. The main corridors into the city centre (the A3024 Bursledon Road and A3025 Portsmouth Road) are congested in the peak periods and buses approaching the city centre from Fareham, Locks Heath, Hedge End, Gosport and Portsmouth can be delayed.

Two schemes for these corridors are already committed and will be delivered through the Local Sustainable Transport Fund and Better Bus Area Fund programmes; these are schemes at the Woolston centre junction and on Northam Road. Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) screens are also being delivered on the corridor through these projects.

Proposed Scheme Further schemes to enhance the bus journey experience beyond the committed projects include:

A new bus only link between Bursledon Road and West End Road (along the line of Botley Road), which would facilitate a link to Hedge End; and

Extension of the currently committed LSTF bus priority to include the whole length of the corridor.

Bus priority improvements include the provision of three Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) sensors at key junctions on Bursledon Road, which will provide continuous priority from the Windhover roundabout through to the city centre when taken together with the committed LSTF projects.

The Botley Road bus only link upgrades an existing track to a bus priority route, and allows buses travelling from Southampton to Hedge End to avoid both the Windhover roundabout and M27 Junction 7, which is a local traffic pinch-point. With potential for development in the Hedge End area, the ability for public transport to gain journey time advantages over the car on this key corridor is vital to unlock growth without generation of additional adverse transport impacts.

Indicative Cost £1.25m for the Botley Road bus link and a further £0.5m for priority measures on the corridor.



PTDP Reference 24

3.7 Widening Travel Choice

3.7.1 Waterside Rail Line

Strategic Case The Waterside Rail Line proposal is designed to offer an improved public transport service from Hythe and Marchwood to Southampton, thereby addressing congestion on the A326 and increasing the accessibility of the Waterside area.

Proposed Scheme The proposal involves re-opening the Totton to Fawley freight line




to passenger services on the section between Totton and Hythe, and introducing new station stops at Hounsdown, Marchwood and Hythe. A shuttle service would operate between Hythe and Southampton Central with an anticipated journey time of 23 minutes, requiring one train for an hourly service or two trains for a 30 minute frequency service.

Indicative Cost £17.1m

A recent GRIP 3 (Governance for Railway Investment Projects) viability study showed that forecast revenue at £1.0m pa would be insufficient to cover operating costs of £1.9m with a 30 min service.

Benefit Cost Ratio 0.4 to 1.8 The higher figure includes Option Values, i.e. the value placed on having the service available, even if not used.

Current Status In January 2014, Hampshire County Council decided not to pursue this opportunity through the GRIP process, but will review the decision in the light of any factors which would improve the benefit/cost ratio of the project.

Network Rail has indicated that they would not wish to pursue the project following the GRIP 3 analysis.

PTDP Reference 25

3.7.2 Southampton Area Park & Ride

Strategic Case Park & Ride provides an opportunity to intercept car trips on the edge of an urban area. This reduces congestion on radial routes into city and town centres, freeing up capacity for local journeys, and provide environmental benefits. Park & Ride schemes also reduce the need for parking provision in city and town centres, opening up new urban development sites.

Proposed Scheme The three potential Park & Ride sites in the Southampton area are at:

Adanac Park (M271 Junction 1 – west of Southampton);

Windhover (M27 Junction 8 – east of Southampton); and

Southampton Airport (M27 Junction 5 – north of Southampton).

Indicative Cost £21m (£7m per site)

Maintenance and operating costs in the range £2.1-2.8m depending on the resources required for each Park & Ride bus service.

In all three cases, forecast income was well below the operating costs of the site, meaning that ongoing financial support would be required. Even if it was possible to provide the park & ride bus service using an existing bus service, thereby avoiding additional operating costs, neither Adanac Park nor the Junction 5 site would generate sufficient income to cover the site operating costs. In addition, as with the Portsmouth site, there is a strong risk of abstraction from existing bus services.

At Windhover, operating costs and income are more aligned, if the bus service is provided from existing resources, and there is a lower risk of abstraction.

Benefit Cost Ratio 0.5 to 0.7


PTDP Reference 26




3.7.3 Island Line Options

Strategic Case The Island Line is remote from the rest of the National Rail network which brings its own operational challenges. The train stock is formed of ex-London Underground units originally built in 1938; normal size trains cannot be used on the Island Line due to height restrictions imposed by the Ryde Tunnel. Trains currently run at an uneven frequency of twice per hour in each direction.

Revenue from the line is insufficient to fund significant investment but it is recognised that the operation is tired and in need of refreshment.

Proposed Scheme No specific proposals have been developed but options may include lighter rail, tram style units or more modern LUL rolling stock. Isle of Wight Council and South West Trains propose that further work is undertaken to investigate the feasibility and relative merits of these options.

Renewal of train operating company franchises over the period of the Delivery Plan provides opportunities to define specific investment commitments.




PTDP Reference 27

3.7.4 Technology Led Demand Responsive Transport

Strategic Case Demand for public transport services is too low and diffuse in some parts of the region and at some times of day to support the cost of conventional bus services. Yet population numbers are not insignificant and there is a need to meet the travel needs of these residents.

Proposed Scheme Developments in satellite tracking and telematics technology mean that a dynamically scheduled operation can now be provided without the prohibitive overhead costs that previously applied. While not applicable to the main public transport network in and between the principal urban centres in the area, it is an option for some peri-urban areas at certain times of day




PTDP Reference 28

3.8 Travel Behaviour Change

3.8.1 Personal Journey Planning

Strategic Case It is well established that continued investment is required in travel behaviour change in order to reinforce behaviour change and to ensure maximum impact as population changes and new




infrastructure or services are brought into use. The committed LSTF project provides funding until 2019 but there is a need for continued investment beyond that time.

Proposed Scheme The scheme is proposed to offer personalised travel planning and specifically journey planning achieves two goals – continuing and extending the work undertaken during the LSTF funding period to new communities and new residents over the long term and secondly using emerging social marketing techniques to engage differently with non-users to influence their travel decisions.

This may include the use of technology, smart phone apps to better inform travel or to reward public transport use for example, or utilise social marketing techniques drawn from the promotion of consumer products.

Indicative Cost £1.5m pa



PTDP Reference 29




4 Scheme Appraisal

4.1 Introduction

The approach to scheme appraisal and prioritisation has been to adopt the Department for Transport Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST). This is a decision support tool that has been developed to quickly summarise and present evidence on options in a clear and consistent format. It provides decision makers with relevant, high level, information to help them form an early view of how options perform and compare.

EAST is considered to be an appropriate appraisal methodology for prioritising schemes for the Public Transport Delivery Plan as it can be applied without having to obtain detailed evidence as is usually required to support funding applications. This flexibility allows options to be considered at an early stage of development.

EAST has been designed to be consistent with Transport Business Case principles in that the factors and issues promoters are asked to consider when assessing the economic impact of schemes are the same as those they will need to address in a more detailed way in any subsequent full WebTAG compliant Transport Business Case.

The benefits of using EAST for appraisal are that it can be used to:

Help refine options by highlighting adverse impacts or unanticipated consequences;

Compare options, for example, within or across modes, geographical areas and networks;

Identify trade-offs between objectives aiding package development;

Filter the number of options, i.e. discount non-runners early on to ease the appraisal burden and avoid resources being spent unnecessarily; and

Identify key uncertainties in the analysis and areas where further appraisal effort should focus.

4.2 Early Assessment and Sifting Tool

The EAST process involves assessing schemes using the ‘five cases’ model set out in HM Treasury’s Green Book and adopted by DfT to show whether schemes:

Are supported by a robust case for change that fits with wider public policy objectives – ‘the strategic case’

Demonstrate value for money – ‘the economic case’

Are commercially viable – ‘the commercial case’

Are financially affordable – ‘the financial case’

Are achievable – ‘the management case’.

The methodology used to test each of these cases is set out in Table 4.1.




The Strategic Case

Determines whether or not an investment is needed, either now or in the future. Demonstrates the case for change with a clear rationale for making the investment and shows the strategic fit with policy.

Indicator Assessment

Scale of impact in addressing the identified problem 5-point scale (small to significant)

Fit with wider transport and government objectives 5-point scale (low to high)

Fit with other objectives 5-point scale (low to high)

Degree of consensus among stakeholders 5-point scale (little to majority)

Key uncertainties Commentary

The Economic Case

Identifies, at a high level, the nature and extent of all the economic, environmental and social impacts of options including effects which cannot be readily quantified.


Economic growth Red / Amber / Green

Carbon emissions Red / Amber / Green

Socio-distributional impacts Red / Amber / Green

Local environment Red / Amber / Green

Well being Red / Amber / Green

Expected value for money 5-point scale (very high to poor)

The Commercial Case

Provides evidence on the commercial viability of the proposal, sources of funding including the possibility for public and private sources and the procurement strategy that will be used to engage the market.


Flexibility 5-point scale (static to dynamic)

Source of funding Commentary

Income generation Yes / No




The Financial Case

Concentrates on the affordability of the proposal including total capital, operating and maintenance cost; and the profile of costs over time.


Affordability 5-point scale (not affordable to affordable)

Capital cost 10-point scale (£0 to £1bn+)

Revenue cost 10-point scale (£0 to £1bn+)

Cost profile Commentary

Cost risks 5-point scale (high to low)

The Management Case

Assesses whether a proposal is deliverable. It tests the project planning, governance structure, risk management, communications and stakeholder management.


Implementation timetable from inception to delivery 7-point scale (0-1 month to 10+ years)

Public acceptability 5-point scale (low to high)

Practical feasibility 5-point scale (low to high)

Quality of supporting evidence 5-point scale (low to high)

Key risks Commentary

Table 4.1 East Assessment Methodology

The results of the application of EAST to the prioritisation of schemes in the Public Transport Delivery Plan are set out in section 4.3.

4.3 Results

The EAST tool presents the output in two formats. First a summary sheet is available that shows, in landscape format, a summary of the EAST appraisal for each option. There is a single row in the table for each option and the data is presented in a column for each aspect considered. In this summary table the comments on each option may be curtailed. The second form of output is a summary sheet for each of the options considered.

The EAST framework provides an opportunity to record that consideration has been given to a large number of options; a long list. It provides documentary evidence to support decisions as to which options would be taken forward for more detailed consideration. It also highlights, at an early stage in the scheme development process, the extent to which different options are likely to tackle the transport issue which has initiated the process. It also shows the way in which a preferred solution might be built up as a package of complementary options, and highlights key risks, constraints and possible adverse impacts.




4.4 Prioritisation

With the EAST tools we have developed a prioritisation of the schemes identified in section 3 and a summary table of the results is shown overleaf in Table 4.2.

The reference to income generation in Table 4.2 is to transport related income, whether received by the public sector or a private organisation. It does not include wider income regeneration associated with urban realm improvements, for example.

The assessment of the schemes is dependent on the quality of data available, as many medium to long term options have not yet been developed beyond outline levels of feasibility. Where possible we have therefore assigned values, costs and benefits based on similar schemes, either within the region or elsewhere in the UK.

The EAST analysis has not involved any weighting of the evaluation criteria. In Table 4.2 the schemes have been sorted by expected value for money score, contribution to economic growth and carbon reduction, scale of impact and socio-distributional impacts. This reflects the strategic goals and priorities set out in the Public Transport Strategy Statement.

It would be equally possible to sort the schemes by the economic criteria or to weight the economic factors; this would arguably give a closer match to the current economic growth agenda of the LEP and the LTB. However, in the context of a 20 year delivery period, it is likely that other factors in addition to economic growth will be important and the ordering used in Table 4.2 is designed to reflect this.




Table 4.2: EAST Analysis

Ref Scheme Scale

of i

mpac

t

Fit w

ith tr

ansp

ort an

d gov't

objec

tives

Fit w

ith o

ther o

bject

ives

Degree

of co

nsensu

s ove

r outc

omes

?

Econ

omic

Grow

th

Carbon em

issio

ns

Socio

-dist

ributio

nal im

pacts

Loca

l env

ironm

ent

Well b

eing

Expec

ted V

fM C

atego

ry

Imple

men

tatio

n tim

etable

Public ac

cepta

bility

Pract

ical f

easib

ility

Quality

of s

upporting

evid

ence

?

Afford

abilit

y

Capita

l Cos

t (£m

)?

Revenue C

osts (

£m)?

Overa

ll cost

risk

Flexib

ility o

f optio

n

Any inco

me ge

nerat

ed? (Y/

N)

Inco

me

genera

tion (£

m)

01 Havant to Woking Line 5 4 4 4 5. Green 3. Amber 3. Amber 6. No Impact 3. Amber 1. Very High >4 6. 5-10 years 5 5 5 2 05. 25-50 01. None 3 2 No 01. None

10 Buses for Major Developments 4 5 4 5 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 3. Amber 1. Very High >4 5. 2-5 years 3 5 4 5 02. 0-5 02. 0-5 4 4 Yes 02. 0-5

08 Cross Solent Interchanges 3 5 3 3 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 1. Very High >4 6. 5-10 years 4 4 3 3 04. 10-25 01. None 5 3 No 01. None

18 Woolston Interchange 2 4 3 3 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 4. Amber/green 4. Amber/green 1. Very High >4 6. 5-10 years 4 4 3 5 02. 0-5 01. None 3 2 No 01. None

20 East West Connectivity 3 4 3 3 4. Amber/green 4. Amber/green 4. Amber/green 4. Amber/green 4. Amber/green 1. Very High >4 6. 5-10 years 4 4 2 4 04. 10-25 01. None 3 3 No 01. None

15 The Hard Interchange 3 4 4 4 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 3. Amber 5. Green 4. Amber/green 1. Very High >4 6. 5-10 years 4 5 5 4 03. 5-10 01. None 3 2 No 01. None

24 Eastern Corridor Bus Priority 3 4 3 3 3. Amber 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 3. Amber 1. Very High >4 6. 5-10 years 3 4 4 5 02. 0-5 01. None 3 2 No 01. None

16 Fareham Town Centre 2 4 3 3 3. Amber 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 4. Amber/green 4. Amber/green 1. Very High >4 6. 5-10 years 3 3 3 4 03. 5-10 01. None 2 2 Yes 02. 0-5

17 Gosport Interchange 2 4 4 4 3. Amber 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 4. Amber/green 4. Amber/green 1. Very High >4 6. 5-10 years 4 4 4 4 03. 5-10 02. 0-5 2 2 Yes 02. 0-5

29 Personal Journey Planning 4 4 3 3 3. Amber 5. Green 3. Amber 6. No Impact 3. Amber 1. Very High >4 6. 5-10 years 3 5 4 3 01. None 06. 50-100 4 5 Yes 02. 0-5

23 SE Hampshire BRT 4 5 4 5 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 2. High 2-4 5. 2-5 years 3 4 4 3 05. 25-50 03. 5-10 3 3 Yes 03. 5-10

05 Netley Line Tram Train 2 4 4 2 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 2. High 2-4 7. 10+ years 4 3 2 2 06. 50-100 02. 0-5 3 2 Yes 02. 0-5

06 Netley Line LRT/BRT Options 2 3 3 2 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 3. Amber 2. High 2-4 6. 5-10 years 3 2 1 1 07. 100-250 02. 0-5 2 2 Yes 02. 0-5

14 Southampton Stn Quarter South 2 2 3 3 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 3. Amber 5. Green 4. Amber/green 2. High 2-4 5. 2-5 years 4 5 4 4 03. 5-10 01. None 4 2 No 01. None

21 Isle of Wight Hubs 1 4 3 3 3. Amber 3. Amber 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 4. Amber/green 2. High 2-4 6. 5-10 years 4 5 2 5 02. 0-5 01. None 4 3 No 01. None

04 Netley Line Skip Stop 2 3 3 4 3. Amber 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 2. High 2-4 5. 2-5 years 5 5 3 5 01. None 02. 0-5 4 4 Yes 02. 0-5

12 City Centre Road 2 4 4 3 5. Green 4. Amber/green 4. Amber/green 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 3. Medium 1.5-2 5. 2-5 years 3 3 3 3 04. 10-25 02. 0-5 3 3 No 01. None

13 Intelligent Ticketing 3 4 3 4 3. Amber 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 6. No Impact 4. Amber/green 3. Medium 1.5-2 5. 2-5 years 5 4 4 5 02. 0-5 02. 0-5 4 3 Yes 02. 0-5

19 Southampton Albion Place 1 4 2 3 3. Amber 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 3. Medium 1.5-2 5. 2-5 years 4 4 4 4 03. 5-10 01. None 4 2 No 01. None

09 Inter urban Coach Services 2 4 4 3 3. Amber 3. Amber 3. Amber 6. No Impact 4. Amber/green 3. Medium 1.5-2 5. 2-5 years 4 5 3 4 01. None 02. 0-5 4 5 Yes 02. 0-5

22 Legible Bus Networks 3 4 3 4 3. Amber 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 6. No Impact 4. Amber/green 4. Low 1-1.5 5. 2-5 years 5 4 3 5 01. None 02. 0-5 4 2 Yes 02. 0-5

28 Technology Led DRT 1 3 3 2 3. Amber 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 6. No Impact 4. Amber/green 4. Low 1-1.5 6. 5-10 years 4 3 2 5 02. 0-5 02. 0-5 4 2 Yes 02. 0-5

27 Island Line Options 1 3 3 2 3. Amber 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 3. Amber 4. Low 1-1.5 6. 5-10 years 3 2 1 3 04. 10-25 02. 0-5 2 2 Yes 02. 0-5

03 Eastleigh Chord 5 4 4 3 4. Amber/green 3. Amber 3. Amber 2. Red/Amber 3. Amber 5. Poor <1 7. 10+ years 3 2 3 1 07. 100-250 01. None 2 2 No 01. None

02 Eastleigh Platform 4 3 4 4 3 3. Amber 3. Amber 3. Amber 3. Amber 3. Amber 5. Poor <1 7. 10+ years 4 5 4 3 03. 5-10 02. 0-5 3 1 Yes 02. 0-5

25 Waterside Line 2 4 3 2 3. Amber 3. Amber 3. Amber 3. Amber 3. Amber 5. Poor <1 6. 5-10 years 3 4 3 3 04. 10-25 02. 0-5 4 1 Yes 02. 0-5

26 Southampton Area P&R 2 3 2 2 3. Amber 3. Amber 4. Amber/green 2. Red/Amber 3. Amber 5. Poor <1 6. 5-10 years 3 4 2 3 05. 25-50 03. 5-10 3 3 Yes 02. 0-5

11 Horsea-Tipner Link 2 3 4 2 3. Amber 3. Amber 3. Amber 2. Red/Amber 3. Amber 5. Poor <1 6. 5-10 years 3 4 2 2 05. 25-50 02. 0-5 2 2 Yes 02. 0-5

07 Estuarial Ferry Services 3 2 2 2 3. Amber 3. Amber 3. Amber 3. Amber 3. Amber 5. Poor <1 7. 10+ years 3 4 2 4 02. 0-5 02. 0-5 2 3 Yes 02. 0-5

Strategic Economic Managerial Financial Commercial




The EAST analysis has not involved any weighting of the evaluation criteria. In Table 4.2 the schemes have been sorted by expected value for money score, contribution to economic growth, fit with transport and wider government objectives, affordability and socio-distributional impacts. This reflects the strategic goals and priorities set out in the Public Transport Strategy Statement.

The highest priority schemes, based on the EAST assessment, are

Havant to Woking line speed improvements – a scheme providing strategic connectivity between the sub-region and the rest of the country, particularly London. The scheme has a very high benefit cost ratio, wide scale of impact and would be a major contributor to facilitating economic growth.

Buses for major developments – scoring reflects the importance of these schemes in enabling development and facilitating economic growth. Where data is currently available, benefit cost ratio figures are very high.

Interchange schemes for Cross Solent Ferries and at Woolston, Portsmouth (The Hard), Gosport, Fareham and local centres in East Hampshire. These schemes have high benefit cost ratios and score well on contribution to economic growth.

Eastern Corridor Bus Priority – high value for money due to the benefits unlocked for a relatively moderate cost

Personal Journey Planning – cost effective compared to major infrastructure schemes with high value for money

SE Hampshire BRT – a scheme with a high value for money score, high impact and strong contribution to economic growth.




5 Governance and Funding

5.1 Introduction

When identifying the public transport schemes that will deliver mode shift and enhance mobility across south Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, it is also important to place the development, funding and management of these projects in the context of policies, organisations and regulatory regimes. In assessing whether current structures can achieve the outcomes identified in previous sections we need to see whether they provide the appropriate levels of governance and funding necessary to take major projects forward.

5.2 Governance and Organisation

The focus and direction of national transport policy is, of course, susceptible to changes of government control from one political party to another. But in many respects, at least since the deregulation of buses and privatisation of the railways, transport policy has been relatively stable. Questions of ownership and levels of state control are regularly raised, but there has been limited movement to change or modify current structures. For the purposes of this report we have therefore assumed a continued central government reluctance to fundamentally change the ownership or regulation of the public transport industry. If such changes were to occur a completely new approach to setting strategic objectives and prioritising investment across the region would be required, and inevitably a new Public Transport Delivery Plan would be necessary.

The most fundamental change in recent years, which we think could be rolled back with a change in government during the plan period, is decentralisation and particularly the increasing emphasis on private sector involvement in investment decisions through the distribution of major scheme funding by Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and Local Transport Bodies (LTB). We would expect over the plan period that there could be further movement to either greater or lesser levels of decentralisation, which will directly affect local decision making on transport priorities. While it is hard to plan for such changes, any prioritisation taken now for schemes which may have a 10 year planning and development period (and a 60 year payback requirement) needs to recognise that the project may have to be managed in a significantly different manner when eventually built.

Regional government, whether through formal structures such as the previous Regional Development Agencies or the increasing influence of regional LEPs, often encourages investment on longer distance routes of strategic importance, rather than local schemes. As such it is possible that the TFSHIOW partnership will be under increased pressure over time to refocus onto strategic radial links with other areas, and particularly those projects that enable development and economic growth. The prioritisation undertaken for this Delivery Plan does not, however, presume a greater importance for strategic links with intra-regional benefits over local schemes that address local transport issues that affect the whole region. This is a fine distinction and the balance may have to change over time as wider economic, environmental and societal changes impact on transport choices in the region.

We should also consider the structures of local government in the development, delivery and management of transport in the region. While the last 30 years has seen considerable structural change, such as the creation of unitary authorities, there appears to be little appetite for further review, whether to recreate two tier authorities or increase the number of unitary authorities.

There continues to be debate about functional boundaries, particular for the cities and their hinterland or travel to work areas. There are sound transport planning reasons for considering transport across administrative boundaries, and the partnership approach of TFSHIOW does allow the overview of transport across a wide region to be offered. We are not identifying a




significantly different structure of local councils in the region in the short term as a factor in delivering the future transport priorities of the region, but anticipate a changing role for TFSHIOW in the medium to longer term to reflect potential developments in local government structure such as Local Transport Bodies and Combined Authorities. Transport for South Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is now firmly established as the main voluntary partnership which can develop strategic plans and lobby for investment in the region’s transport networks.

The Highways Agency and Network Rail are two government agencies that will continue to have an impact on regional transport investment and prioritisation. The current consultation on the Highways Agency becoming a government-owned company needs to be considered in terms of whether any new administrative arrangements will have an impact on investment decisions and the day to day work of the agency.

Network Rail is significant player in delivering the rail infrastructure required. Whether it, or another infrastructure organisation, is involved there will always be a need for an organisation which enables planning, funding and implementation – it just may be in the future that it is vertically integrated with the train operating companies (as on the Island Line), or that it returns to public sector control, as part of central or regional government. There are precedents for the devolution of operations and infrastructure to regional bodies and PTEs (for example Merseyrail and London Overground) but clearly a structure needs to in place to take on such powers and responsibilities.

In the region public transport is provided by a mix of large and small public transport operators, all within the private sector but with a variety of business models and commercial approaches.

As noted above we do not anticipate a government-led change to different ownership or regulatory structures in the plan period, but we would expect continued structural change to the business of transport operation in the UK generally and in the south Hampshire and Isle of Wight region specifically.

These structural changes could include consolidation of ownership – while the barriers to entry remain relatively low for bus and coach operation, and, in contrast, very high for rail and ferry operation, we would anticipate that the trend to further consolidation to large international transport groups will continue. The impact this will have on the delivery plan is both positive and negative – larger groups have the resources to invest and match fund, but south Hampshire and the Isle of Wight may be competing against operations in other regions and countries for resources. Small and mid-sized bus operators may enter the market, but they may only be able to participate on the margins of delivering the objectives of TFSHIOW.

Similarly when considering competition it is clear that in a deregulated bus environment the region has had mixed benefits from on street and tender competition since 1986. If the current regulatory regime remains in place we foresee continued bus company competition on a limited number of key corridors but otherwise continued stability with dominant sole providers in many areas. The current reductions in levels of local bus revenue support from councils will determine the level of a baseline network, and it may be that in the next 20 years we will not see again the level of revenue support previously enjoyed to maintain socially necessary services. In such circumstances the competition, such as it is, will be focussed on core urban corridors and the social element of service may become the responsibility of low cost operators or the voluntary sector. Cross Solent ferry competition may continue on fares and product offer, but as the routes are distinct in their markets we do not anticipate significant change. On the evidence of recent years there is even less likelihood of competition for rail services beyond longer term franchise renewals.




5.3 Funding

Introduction

As well as reviewing the services and infrastructure that the region requires to be delivered over the plan period, attention should also be directed towards the levels of possible funding that are needed. Funding comes from a variety of sources, both public and private sector, and each needs to be considered in terms whether they will continue to be significant over the plan period. It is also important to assess whether new funding streams may become available to fund the projects that are identified as priorities for TFSHIOW.

Public Sector

Capital

Major investment in transport schemes is now managed through Local Enterprise Partnerships, with the Councils and the newly created Local Transport Board role in the decision making process and allocation of funds having changed again in recent months. This LEP led approach replaces previous systems of allocations through the DfT Major Scheme Business Case and RDA processes, Local Transport Plans, Integrated Transport Block, as well as various grants and challenges.

The DfT identified the primary role of LTBs to “decide which investments should be prioritised, to review and approve individual business cases for those investments, and to ensure effective delivery of the programme.”

The Solent Local Transport Body was established with the same local authority membership as TFSHIOW and includes representation from the Solent LEP and Partnership for South Hampshire (PUSH). The LTB was tasked with allocating transport funding for the period 2015 – 2019, a role that is now coming under direct LEP control. The LEP will have as a minimum £19.2 million for capital schemes during the period and bids have been invited from TSHIOW partners, including public transport projects identified in section 4 above. The funding is part of the Single Local Growth Fund budget allocated to LEPs, so the prioritisation of schemes increasingly must deliver economic objectives first. The LTB Partnership Agreement states that “Proposals prioritised for devolved local major transport scheme funding by the Solent LTB will be for worthwhile transport schemes that meet local priorities and national objectives and accord with the Solent LTB eligibility criteria.” The criteria are as follows:

“a. being included (or will be included) within the Transport Delivery Plan;

b. having a clearly defined scope;

c. comprising a 100% capital funding request;

d. be supported by a local contribution (public and/ or private and revenue and/ or capital) of at least 25% of the overall project cost. This 25% local contribution can be applied after 2019 (with higher local contributions viewed more favourably in scheme prioritisation);

e. having a capital cost of £2,000,000 or above;

f. supporting the generation of employment growth (with higher employment growth viewed more favourably in scheme prioritisation);

g. being expected to deliver ‘high’ value for money;

h. being deliverable within the period 2015-19; and




i. being supported by the Local Transport Authority whose area within which the proposal would be delivered.”

The draft “Transforming Solent LEP Strategic Economic Plan”, currently being finalised to be agreed and published by March 2014, will have considerable influence on the spending priorities in the region, including transport, infrastructure, housing, and employment. Importantly funds derived originally from decentralised DfT budgets are not ring-fenced in the Single Local Growth Fund for transport projects.

On Transport the Economic Strategy summarises the LEP position as follows:

The Local Transport Board’s primary role has been to decide which investments should be prioritised, and it has done this for the purpose of the Local Growth Deal. This includes identifying the following key schemes: the A27 corridor improvement at Fareham, Dunsbury Hill Farm, the Hard Interchange at Portsmouth, Southampton City Station Quarter, and the Southampton - East Cowes Ferry Link.

In addition, the Solent has identified a number of transitional transport projects which will support strategic developments and unlock development sites such as the required improvement to Junction 10 on the M27 to support Welborne, the requirement to prioritise Junction 9 of the M3 and improvements to East-West connectivity in the Solent.

LEPs have also been given responsibility for delivering of a large part of the new round of European Structural and Investment Funds for 2014 to 2020, which potentially could include infrastructure funding.

The impact of the City Deal on funding levels and priorities has yet to be fully determined, but it is expected it provide £953 million of investment into the Southampton and Portsmouth areas, potentially creating more than 17,000 jobs. The infrastructure required primarily will be to improve links to the Tipner/Horsea Island and Watermark West Quay sites.

It should be recognised, though, that the method that central and local government currently uses to identify transport schemes, appraise projects and prioritise expenditure will inevitably continue to change over the medium and long term and it is unlikely that the system in use today will still be in use at the end of the plan period.

Therefore we need to assess both the method of securing funding and the anticipated level of future transport funding. If there is insufficient funding to meet all future transport investment needs (and on current trends that seems most likely) then understanding the appraisal system of the funders and the ability of TFSHIOW to tailor bids and applications to emerging processes will be crucial.

The national trend on transport infrastructure expenditure indicates steady year on year growth, but because of the scale and scope, which includes substantial projects which do not always have a regional or local equivalent – HS1 and Crossrail, rail electrification, tram and guided bus schemes – we must be careful in extrapolating this to a regional spend level. Local Transport Plan expenditure profiles for the TFSHIOW region show a similar growth trend, albeit now slowing as central government scheme funding is increasingly constrained and the LTB major scheme bidding process commences for 2014/15.

The Network Rail High Level Output Specification in 2012 and Industry Strategic Business Plans in 2013 (covering Control Period 5 – 2014 - 2015, as well as their outline aspirations for CP 6) again indicates a slowing of general investment beyond the major projects of national significance – electrification, station remodelling, platform lengthening to enable longer trains and capacity increases. The Office of the Rail Regulator has recently “determined” and agreed the Network Rail plans, albeit with further significant efficiency savings required.




Revenue

Each Council determines its annual revenue expenditure through a review of its available income from rates and central government grant, set against a range of transport and non transport priorities. The complexities of local government revenue funding are beyond the scope of this plan, but the key to enabling the transport needs of the region are met in the future is both capital investment in new equipment, vehicles and routes and on-going revenue support where services are not provided by the market.

Local bus service funding has reduced significantly in recent years as wider council spending pressures have impacted on budgets that are not ring fenced or protected. All four councils have had to reduce their levels of local bus support in recent years, removing support for lightly used services, often on weekends and evenings. In some cases bus operators have maintained services through commercial provision but generally the availability of local bus travel has worsened on marginal routes and off peak times.

Bus Support Operators Grant, replacing the previous fuel duty rebate, potentially offers additional revenue funding, but as the powers to allocate BSOG for tendered services switch to Councils from April 2014 the use of this type of revenue expenditure is again constrained. In designated Better Bus Areas BSOG funding for commercial services will also be devolved.

Therefore it is particularly unwise to extrapolate a funding trend from current revenue expenditure on local bus services, as the industry could be heading towards either a no or low subsidy market with emphasis primarily on urban bus services and perhaps a safety net of community transport for rural areas.

Local Sustainable Transport Fund allocations have to an extent supplemented both capital and revenue funding by councils in recent years, but there is no guarantee that similar challenge funds will be available beyond the current 2015/16 extension (as part of the Local Growth Fund).

Rail revenue funding is related to franchise agreements, but it is broadly assumed that passenger fare income will increasingly fund the day to day operation of the railway in the south east of England. If current passenger growth trends continue (especially if additional capacity can be delivered) then a more commercial operating environment will be established over the plan period.

Cross Solent ferries do not receive direct revenue support but historically estuarial crossings in south Hampshire have received a mix of capital grants and revenue support, from the County Council and City Councils.

Private Sector

The key investment sources from the private sector are the transport operator’s own investments and funding secured from developers and other businesses. Match funding offers local authorities and businesses an opportunity to share the risks and benefits that investment brings and there is an increasing expectation of private/public co-funding to deliver transport projects.

The UK bus industry has significantly invested in new vehicles to ensure service quality continue to improve, to meet environmental standards and to achieve operational efficiencies. Although not directly comparable all of the bus operators in the region have invested to a greater or lesser extent in their fleets, although there are still many older buses in service in the urban and especially rural areas. Strong branding and marketing by operators has improved the commercial performance of many urban corridors and some competition on key routes has benefited passenger choice.




However the willingness of operators to make significant contributions to infrastructure, other than their own depots and vehicles, is limited. Participation in voluntary quality partnerships demonstrates willingness to invest to achieve the mutual objectives of increasing the local bus market and service offer, but it is recognised that significant levels of cash contribution are unlikely to be secured.

Rail investment by train operating companies are determined by the length of the franchise and confidence in the impact that enhancement will have on passenger revenues, capacity and reliability. As longer franchises are let the major transport groups who operate the individual franchise will have more confidence in investing in rolling stock, quality upgrades and local station refurbishment. Major investments to achieve track or station capacity will however remain the responsibility of government and Network Rail, and subject to the budgetary constraints imposed by the Treasury.

Ferry operations are wholly commercially operated on the Solent and the estuarial crossings, and any investment decisions will be made as part of regular business planning. The major investments of replacing or refurbishing ferries are infrequent but clearly place considerable pressure on the operator if passenger and/or freight revenues are declining, for example. For the some of the estuarial crossings the councils have historically contributed to vessel upgrades, but the majority of funding needs to be secured through depreciation funds, equity or loans. A major expansion of ferry capacity or upgrade of facilities is therefore unlikely to be commercially driven except on the busiest Solent crossings and operators will look to the public sector for support.

Apart from transport operators financing their own investment the opportunity to secure development funding – from s106 planning contributions & now Community Infrastructure Levy – offers a source of funds linked to the health of the local economy. Over the last five years receipts from developers have declined considerably and the funding received has had to be shared by a number of activities – schools, highways, healthcare, etc. – as well as public transport. With a resurgence in building there will be the opportunity to secure funding for projects that mitigate the specific traffic growth on and near the development sites, but the use of CIL to fund the infrastructure deficit in a community suggests that the type and location of transport investment funded by developers may also change over time. Care will be needed to ensure that developer contributions in the future are well directed towards schemes that meet both the local planning authority and transport authority’s objectives, but also accord with the strategic planning undertaken by TFSHIOW.




6 Delivery Plan Summary

The Public Transport Delivery Plan is designed to implement the vision and strategic priorities set out in the Public Transport Strategy Statement for the period to 2026 and beyond to 2036. The Delivery Plan is a dynamic document that is regularly reviewed to ensure it is attuned to the prevailing economic environment.

Figures 1 to 3 show, respectively, the public transport schemes already committed, those for potential delivery by 2026 and those for potential longer term delivery.

Transport for South Hampshire and Isle of Wight Public Transport Delivery Plan...

Documents

Transcript of Transport for South Hampshire and Isle of Wight Public Transport Delivery Plan...