Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
SHOREHAM HARBOUR TRANSPORT STRATEGY BASELINE ANALYSIS SHOREHAM HARBOUR JOINT AREA ACTION PLAN OCTOBER 2014
2
Blank Page
3
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 4 1.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... ……4 1.2 TECHNICAL EVIDENCE BASE ...................................................... 4 1.3 DEVELOPING THE TRANSPORT STRATEGY ............................. 6
2 THE PLACE .................................................................................... ………...9
2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 9 2.2 COMMUNITY .................................................................................. 9 2.3 ACCESSIBILITY ............................................................................14
2.4 HIGHWAY NETWORK ..................................................................17 2.5 CAR PARKING ..............................................................................21 2.6 RAIL ...............................................................................................24 2.7 BUS ...............................................................................................29
2.8 CYCLING .......................................................................................32 2.9 PEDESTRIAN NETWORK .............................................................35 2.10 ENCOURAGING SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR .............36 2.11 SECONDARY IMPACTS AND CONSTRAINTS ON THE
TRANSPORT NETWORK .............................................................40 3 FUTURE CHALLENGES ............................................................................46
3.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................46
3.2 ADUR LOCAL PLAN AND SHOREHAM HARBOUR TRANSPORT STUDY 2013 AND ADDENDUM (2014) ........................................46
3.3 BRIGHTON & HOVE CITY PLAN STRATEGIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT 2013 .....................................................................51
3.4 SHOREHAM TOWN CENTRE STUDY 2014 ................................52
3.5 SHOREHAM PORT MASTERPLAN TRANSPORT AND ACCESS NOTE ............................................................................................53
4 OUTCOMES ...............................................................................................54
4.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................54
4.2 TRANSPORT STRATEGY OUTCOMES .......................................54 5 STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................56
5.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................56 5.2 THEMES AND POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS ............................56
5.3 APPRAISAL OF INTERVENTIONS LONG LIST ...........................58 5.4 TOWARDS A PREFERRED STRATEGY ......................................59
APPENDIX A .................................................................................................66
Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations .........................................................66
4
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.1.1 The Shoreham Harbour Transport Strategy (2016-2031) has been prepared by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) on behalf of the Shoreham Harbour Regeneration Partnership1, alongside the Shoreham Harbour Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP). The JAAP is a long-term 15 year strategic vision for a comprehensive regeneration scheme in Shoreham Harbour that focuses on four development areas of Aldrington Basin, South Portslade, Southwick Waterfront and Western Harbour Arm.
1.1.2 This Baseline Analysis document accompanies the Transport Strategy and provides technical background information. This includes an analysis of current travel patterns, identification of key issues with the transport network and identification of future challenges. There is also a section that explains how the Transport Strategy was developed and includes a long list of the potential interventions that were considered. A glossary of terms and abbreviations has been included in Appendix A.
1.2 TECHNICAL EVIDENCE BASE
1.2.1 The Transport Strategy is underpinned by a technical evidence base. This is comprised of strategic and local transport studies, Census data, accident statistics, parking reviews and information prepared to support previous funding bids. Table 1.1 provides a list of the technical evidence base documents and planning and transport policy documents which have informed the preparation of the Transport Strategy:
1 The Partnership consists of Adur District Council, Brighton & Hove City Council, West Sussex
County Council and Shoreham Port Authority.
5
Table 1.1: Transport Strategy Evidence Base
Policy and Guidance Documents
Data and Supporting Documents
Technical Studies
Shoreham Harbour Joint Area Action Plan (Proposed Submission) 2014
Office for National Statistics – 2001 and 2011 Census, Economic statistics, Index of Multiple Deprivation (2010)
Adur Local Plan and Shoreham Harbour Transport Study 2013 and Addendum (2014)
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012
BHCC and WSCC Accident Statistics
Brighton & Hove City Plan Strategic Transport Assessment 2013
Revised Draft Adur Local Plan 2013
Office of Rail Regulation Station Entries and Exits 2009-2012
Shoreham Town Centre Study 2014
Brighton & Hove Submission City Plan Part One 2013
BHCC, WSCC and DfT Traffic Statistics
Shoreham Harbour Capacity and Viability Study 2011
Shoreham Harbour Western Arm Development Brief 2013
Network Rail Sussex Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) 2010 and draft Sussex Area Route Study (2014)
Shoreham Harbour CIF Project and Evaluation Report 2009 & 2013
South Portslade and Aldrington Basin Development Brief 2013
Coastal Transport System Major Scheme Business Case (draft)
Shoreham-by-Sea Parking Review: Public Consultation Report 2013
West Sussex Transport Plan 2011-2026
Adur Air Quality Action Plan Shoreham-by-Sea Off-Street Parking Study: Demand and Capacity Assessment 2013
Brighton & Hove Local Transport Plan 3 2011
Brighton & Hove Air Quality Action Plan
Shoreham Harbour Level Crossing Improvements 2009
WSCC Guidance on Parking in Residential Developments 2010
Brighton Agglomeration Noise Action Plan (DEFRA)
Shoreham Maritime Vision Transport Study 2003
Revised County Parking Standards and Transport Contributions Methodology 2003
WSCC Advisory Lorry Routes
BHCC Parking Standards (SPGBH 4) 1997
Local Sustainable Transport Fund bids (BHCC, WSCC)
6
Policy and Guidance Documents
Data and Supporting Documents
Technical Studies
Shoreham Port Masterplan 2010 and Transport Access Note
Greater Brighton Cycle City Ambition bid
Shoreham Harbour Interim Planning Guidance 2011
Southwick and Portslade Seafront Survey Results
Shoreham Harbour Streetscape Guide
Sustrans’ Route User Survey Report: Harbour crossing footbridge, Shoreham – Connect 2 2011
Draft Sussex Air Quality Emissions Mitigation Guidance 2013
Sustrans’ Route User Survey Report: Adur Ferry Bridge, Shoreham – Connect 2 2014
Shoreham Harbour Regeneration Proposals: Transport Strategy 2009
Stagecoach website
A Strategy for Shoreham Renaissance 2006
Brighton & Hove Buses website
Brighton & Hove Seafront Strategy (draft)
Hove Station Travel Plan
1.3 DEVELOPING THE TRANSPORT STRATEGY
1.3.1 The Transport Strategy has been informed by emerging and established planning
and transport policy. An analysis of the technical evidence base has provided an understanding of the transport network. This analytical process has been supplemented by local knowledge to identify existing key issues (summarised in Section 2) and future transport challenges (Section 3). This strategy development process is set out in Figure 1.1.
1.3.2 Five Transport Strategy outcomes have been identified to set out how Shoreham Harbour and its transport network will function in the future (Section 4). The Transport Strategy focuses on delivering these outcomes through a series of interventions. A long list of possible interventions was developed to assess how best to address the challenges and deliver the Transport Strategy outcomes.
1.3.3 To develop a preferred strategy, the performance of the possible options was appraised against the challenges, outcomes, deliverability and value for money (Section 5). The most effective and deliverable solutions for a holistic Transport Strategy were developed and tested using suitable transport modelling tools. Through an iterative process of testing and refinement, alongside preparation of the Shoreham Harbour JAAP, the strategy has been determined and is set out in the main Transport Strategy document.
7
1.3.4 The Preferred Transport Strategy was made available as a supporting document for
the public consultation on the draft Shoreham Harbour JAAP during 2014. Following this consultation, the strategy has been reviewed and updated in response to the comments received.
Figure 1.1: Transport Strategy Development Process
1.3.5 The Transport Strategy takes account of the constrained geography, and emerging
planning policies for Shoreham Harbour and uses best practice from other similar developments elsewhere in the UK. The scale of interventions proposed in this Transport Strategy is considered to be proportionate to the scale of development proposed in the Shoreham Harbour JAAP and seeks to ensure that, following
Planning Policy &
Technical Evidence
Challenges
Outcomes
Interventions
Appraisal
Strategy
Implementation
Evaluation
8
implementation of the Transport Strategy, the cumulative impact of development on the transport network will not be severe.
9
2 THE PLACE
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.1.1 The following section sets out key issues by describing current travel patterns, the transport network and secondary impacts on Shoreham Harbour and its surrounding area. Current travel patterns are identified through an analysis of Census data. A series of maps have been prepared to illustrate the accessibility of key areas of change within the JAAP area. Key issues with the transport network and its usage are identified by mode of transport in this section. This includes an analysis of modelled peak hour traffic flows, rail station entry and exit data, bus user surveys and cycle count data. Secondary impacts and constraints on the transport network are also identified. This provides an understanding of the baseline before future challenges associated with proposals in the draft JAAP are described in Section 3.
2.2 COMMUNITY
2.2.1 This section provides an indication of the existing travel behaviour in the area most likely to be affected by development at Shoreham Harbour, as well as a baseline to measure future changes. 2011 Census and other economic and socio-demographic data
2.2.2 The 2011 Census provides a recent and relatively robust source of information for socio-economic and demographic patterns. The Shoreham Harbour area does not have its own administrative boundary on which to assess Census statistics. In order to provide a broad indication of travel characteristics for the Shoreham Harbour area, data has been used from Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs)2 within a 600m boundary of the JAAP area and south of the Old Shoreham Road in Adur District and Brighton & Hove. In the text description below ‘Shoreham Harbour’ refers to the LSOAs shown in Figure 2.1.
2.2.3 The 2011 Census was undertaken in April 2011 with first data releases made by the Office for National Statistics in 2012. The Census provides information about car and van availability per household and usual method of travel to work. This section presents Census data from 2011 and 2001 to show changes over time. Demographic and socio-economic variables analysed include population, age structure, car ownership and travel mode to work statistics from the Census as well as an Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) measure.
2 Lower Super Output Areas Used for Shoreham Harbour area from 2011 Census, Neighbourhood Statistics:
Adur - 001 A, E, F; 002 D, E; 004 A, B, C, D, E, F, G; 005 A, B, C, D, E Brighton & Hove 012C, E; 021A, B, C, D, E; 023 A, B, C, D; 028D
10
Figure 2.1: Lower Super Output Areas used to define the ‘Shoreham Harbour area’
Population
2.2.4 In 2011, the population for the Shoreham Harbour area was 45,206 in 19,744 households, with an average occupancy of 2.29 people per household3. The average age across the area was 42.5 years, higher than in Brighton & Hove but lower than Adur. Of those aged 16 to 74, 66.4% are economically active in employment4; this is higher than both the Adur and Brighton & Hove averages.
2.2.5 The 2011 Census showed that the age profile was fairly evenly distributed in the Shoreham Harbour area, indicating a mixed population profile. The age range distribution showed that 60.5% of the population were within the economically active age of 18-64, which was slightly lower than the South East average of 61.3%5. As there are a number economically active people alongside an ageing population, they will have different requirements from transport services and infrastructure.
2.2.6 Figure 2.2 below presents the Index of Multiple Deprivation (2010) for the LSOAs. It shows that five out of the 29 LSOAs were within the 20% most deprived areas of England, 14 LSOAs were in the 40% most deprived, while only one LSOA was in the 20% least deprived areas6.
2.2.7 In 2012/13, Adur District recorded an unemployment rate of 6.3%, the third highest rate in West Sussex, whilst Brighton and Hove recorded a figure of 8.3%, compared
3 ONS Census 2011 KS102EW
4 Excludes students; ONS Census 2011 QS601EW
5 ONS Census 2011 KS102EW
6 DCLG, English Indices of Deprivation, 2010
11
to a rate of 6.1% for the South East as a whole7. Conversely, the area shows a relatively strong business survival rate. Between 2007 and 2011, 93.2% of new business start-ups survived beyond one year in Adur District, compared to 93.0% in Brighton and Hove and 93.1% in West Sussex8. Figure 2.2 – Indices of Multiple Deprivation (2010)
Car and Van Availability
2.2.8 In the Shoreham Harbour area, 73.7% of households have access to at least one vehicle (27.1% of households reported access to two or more vehicles) (see Table 2.1). This is compared to 79.4% in Adur and 61.9% in Brighton & Hove where parking restrictions and socio-economic characteristics differ. Conversely, 26.3% of households in the Shoreham Harbour area reported not owning, or having access to a car or van. This is compared to 20.6% in Adur and 38.2% in Brighton & Hove.
2.2.9 Since the 2001 Census, the number of households with no access to a car in the Shoreham Harbour area has decreased by 2% whilst households with two or more cars increased by 1.1%. The total number of recorded cars and vans in the Shoreham Harbour area increased by 2,153 to 21,281 in the period between the 2001 and 2011 Censuses, whilst in this period the number of households also increased by 1,327. These increases have not resulted in any significant growth in the ratio of vehicles to households as there is now an average of 1.08 cars per household in 2011 compared to 1.04 in 2001. This compares to averages of 1.22 for Adur District and 0.86 for Brighton & Hove in 2011.
7 ONS, Worklessness: Economic Activity, April 2012 - March 2013
8 ONS, Business Demography – 2012 Enterprise Births, Deaths and Survivals
12
Table 2.1: Car Ownership 2001 (ONS KS17) & 2011 (ONS KS404EW) censuses
2001 Census (KS 17) 2011 Census (KS404EW) Shoreham Harbour change 2001-11
Shoreham Harbour A
du
r
Bri
gh
ton
& H
ov
e
We
st
Su
ss
ex
Shoreham Harbour A
du
r
Bri
gh
ton
& H
ov
e
We
st
Su
ss
ex
Hou
se
-
ho
lds
% o
f
tota
l
% o
f
tota
l
% o
f
tota
l
% o
f
tota
l
Hou
se
-
ho
lds
% o
f
tota
l
% o
f
tota
l
% o
f
tota
l
% o
f
tota
l
% change
All Households
18,417
19,744
No car or van
5,218 28.3 23.5 36.5 18.9 5,184 26.3 20.6 38.2 17.8 -2.0
One car or van
8,416 45.7 46.4 43.8 44.4 9,219 46.7 46.6 42.6 43.4 +1.0
Two or more cars or vans
4,783 26.0 30.1 19.6 36.7 5,341 27.1 32.8 19.3 38.7 +1.1
Travel to Work
2.2.10 Just under half of residents in the Shoreham Harbour area reported driving a car to work (48.0%) in 2011, making it the most popular method of travel to work. This is less than the average for Adur (58.3%) and West Sussex (58%) but above that of Brighton & Hove (34.9%) (Table 2.2). From 2001 to 2011 there was a 4.6% decrease in Shoreham Harbour residents who stated that they drove to work, with similar trends recorded for Adur (0.8% decrease), West Sussex (2.1% decrease), and for Brighton and Hove which recorded the largest proportional decrease (8.3%).
2.2.11 Table 2.2 shows that the proportion of residents who travelled by train, bus or cycle as their main mode to work grew between 2001 and 2011 across the Shoreham Harbour area, whilst walking decreased slightly. Residents who reported mainly working from or at home also increased by 2.1% to 12.1% from 2001 to 2011 in line with trends for Adur (+1.2%), Brighton and Hove (+3.1%) and for West Sussex (+1.9%). Cycling levels in the Shoreham Harbour area were proportionally (4.9%) slightly higher than the average in Brighton and Hove in 2011 (4.7%) as well as being higher than in Adur (3.7%) and West Sussex (3%) as a whole. Train and bus accounted for 18.7% of all journeys to work by residents in Shoreham Harbour, compared to 12.8% in Adur, 10.7% in West Sussex and 23.2% in Brighton & Hove. Journeys on foot made up 10.0% of trips to work in the Shoreham Harbour area. Between 2001 and 2011, proportional growth rates for journeys to work for the Shoreham Harbour area were 2.2% for train use, 1.4% for cycling, and 1.2% for bus use.
13
Table 2.2: Usual Method of travel to work 2001 (ONS KS15) & 2011 (ONS CT0050EW) censuses
2001 Census (KS 15) 2011 Census (CT0050EW)
Shoreham Harbour
Ad
ur
Bri
gh
ton
& H
ov
e
We
st
Su
ss
ex
Shoreham Harbour
Ad
ur
Bri
gh
ton
& H
ov
e
We
st
Su
ss
ex Shoreham
Harbour Change 2001-11
Ag
ed 1
6-7
4
em
plo
ye
d
% o
f to
tal
% o
f to
tal
% o
f to
tal
% o
f to
tal
Ag
ed 1
6-7
4
em
plo
ye
d
% o
f to
tal
% o
f to
tal
% o
f to
tal
% o
f to
tal
% change
Home working
1,891 10.0 9.0 9.3 10.3 2,663 12.1 10.2 12.4 12.2 +2.1
Train 1,322 7.0 5.9 8.4 5.8 2,043 9.2 7.3 9.9 7.2 +2.2
Bus 1,549 8.2 5.3 12.5 2.9 2,086 9.4 5.5 13.3 3.5 +1.2
Car driver 9,932 52.6 59.1 43.2 60.1 10,599 48.0 58.3 34.9 58.0 -4.6
Passenger in Car
1,022 5.4 6.1 4.9 5.7 963 4.4 5.1 3.4 4.7 -1.0
Cycle 664 3.5 4.0 2.7 3.4 1,077 4.9 3.7 4.7 3.0 +1.4
Foot 2,075 11.0 8.3 17.2 9.8 2,201 10.0 7.8 19.5 9.7 -1.0
COMMUNITY: SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
• The age profile is fairly evenly spread, with 60.5% of the population in the 18-64
age range. Alongside an ageing population, this will place different requirements on transport services and infrastructure
• Parts of the Shoreham Harbour area fall within the 20% most deprived areas of
England, so access to key services and employment is an important consideration
• Over a quarter of residents do not have access to a car meaning that access to
public transport services and walking and cycling infrastructure is important
• The car is an important mode of transport, with just under half of journeys to
work by residents of the Shoreham Harbour area being made by car; this puts pressure on the road network, particularly in the peak hours
• Between 2001 and 2011, the highest growth rates for travel to work were for
train, bus and cycling, whilst home working also increased
14
2.3 ACCESSIBILITY
2.3.1 Accessibility is about connecting people with the activities and services they need as
part of their daily lives such as healthcare, learning, employment and housing. In general, Shoreham Harbour is an accessible location, both for longer distance and for local journeys with many key services nearby. Existing bus and rail services to the east and west are strong. However, the railway line is a barrier to north-south movement. There are a greater density of bus services and more rail crossing points towards the eastern end of the Shoreham Harbour area.
2.3.2 The maps in Figures 2.3 to 2.6 provide an indication of public transport accessibility (bus and rail) for central points in the Western Harbour Arm, Aldrington Basin and South Portslade character areas, using bus and rail timetable data from October 2013. The maps have been produced using Visography TRACC9 and include an ‘as the crow flies’ maximum walking connection distance of 400 metres to public transport stops. The maps do not take into account physical barriers preventing walking access to public transport stops, for example the railway line or waterfront. The centre of Brighton and Worthing are accessible within 30 minutes from parts of the different character areas due to strong east-west public transport services.
2.3.3 The Western Harbour Arm character area lies to the east of Shoreham town centre. The western end is close to the town centre (approximately 1km) but the eastern end is further away which makes accessing existing services more challenging. The South Portslade and Aldrington Basin character areas, to the south of Portslade town centre, are more integrated within the existing urban layout. The A259 is a potential barrier to accessing services, particularly in the Aldrington Basin area. There are level differences between South Portslade, Aldrington Basin and Shoreham Harbour which make access to the waterfront challenging.
2.3.4 Although Aldrington Basin is slightly further east than South Portslade, Figures 2.4 and 2.5 indicate that journey times to central Brighton and beyond are shorter from South Portslade due to its proximity to Portslade station. Hangleton and Mile Oak (north of Portslade) are also shown to be accessible within 30 minutes from South Portslade and Aldrington Basin due to frequent north-south bus services in this area, but not from the Western Harbour Arm. Inbound public transport accessibility to South Portslade (where the main provision for employment development is planned) is shown in Figure 2.6.
9 Visography TRACC is an accessibility modelling software package for visualising journey times. The
software is used here to show public transport journey times to and from central points in 5 minute increments.
15
Figure 2.3: Western Harbour Arm outbound public transport accessibility Oct 2013 (Visography TRACC plot, WSCC)
Figure 2.4: South Portslade outbound public transport accessibility Oct 2013 (Visography TRACC plot WSCC)
16
Figure 2.5: Aldrington Basin outbound public transport accessibility Oct 2013 (Visography TRACC plot, WSCC)
Figure 2.6: South Portslade inbound public transport accessibility Oct 2013 (Visography TRACC plot, WSCC)
17
ACCESSIBILITY: SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
• Good east-west public transport services indicating potential to sustain further growth in patronage • Poorer north-south connectivity due to physical barriers including the A259, railway line and Shoreham Harbour waterfront, particularly in Western Harbour Arm • The land use pattern of development envisaged in Shoreham Harbour should improve local retail and service accessibility
2.4 HIGHWAY NETWORK
2.4.1 The highway network surrounding Shoreham Harbour is dominated by east-west routes with connecting north-south routes. This is due to the geography of the area around the Harbour, with the South Downs and English Channel acting as natural constraints to north-south movement. The West Coastway railway line also acts as a physical barrier as there are limited north-south crossing points.
2.4.2 Forming the northern boundary of the urban area, the A27 is part of the national strategic road network along the south coast linking Southampton, Portsmouth, Chichester, Worthing, Brighton & Hove and Lewes and is managed by the Highways Agency. It has been improved over several decades to its current standard. The section serving Shoreham Harbour, forming the Shoreham-Brighton bypass, is of a dual carriageway standard with grade separated junctions. The A27 intersects with the A23 north of Brighton, which provides longer distance north-south links to Gatwick Airport, the M25 and London via the A23 / M23 corridor.
2.4.3 The A259 runs (east / west) through the Shoreham Harbour area and provides access to locations in the Harbour. The A259 has a dual function carrying long-distance traffic and local journeys to Shoreham town centre, the Port and other destinations. It is single carriageway with a 30mph speed limit with limited waiting restrictions in some places.
2.4.4 Further north, the A270 Old Shoreham Road (running east / west) is located between the A259 and A27 corridor and provides access to the upper suburbs of Southwick, Portslade, central Hove and central Brighton. Throughout the urban area the A270 is a dual carriageway, with sections of central reservation and a 40 mph speed limit, reducing to 30 mph east of the A293 Trafalgar Road junction.
2.4.5 The A283 Old Shoreham Road-Steyning Road runs from the A259 in Shoreham town centre north to Steyning and Horsham. There is a grade separated interchange with the A27 north of the urban area. The A283 is a single carriageway road with a 30 mph limit from A259 to north of Upper Shoreham Road, where it changes to national speed limit.
18
2.4.6 The A293 Trafalgar Road and Church Road provide a link between the eastern end of the Harbour with the A270. It passes through a predominately residential area, with some industrial and commercial uses at the Harbour end and has a 20 mph speed limit. From the A270 to the A27, the A293 is referred to locally as the Hangleton Link Road. This link is single carriageway with only two junctions (one for a food superstore, and the other to the residential areas of Hangleton, Foredown and Mile Oak). The interchange with the A27 is grade separated. The A27, A259, A270, A283 and A293 are the main roads serving the Shoreham Harbour area and will continue to perform this role in the future.
2.4.7 Other local roads in the Shoreham Harbour area are primarily residential in nature; with the most heavily trafficked being Eastern Avenue, Kingston Lane, B2066 New Church Road and the B2194 Station Road & Boundary Road in central Portslade. Network usage / performance
2.4.8 The highway network accommodates many types of journeys including commuting, business, education, shopping, health and leisure. The network through the JAAP area not only serves the Harbour but also includes journeys and travel patterns from other destinations. Figure 2.7 provides an indication of current volumes of traffic on the ‘A’ class roads in the area surrounding Shoreham Harbour. The plan indicates the number of vehicles travelling along these routes in the AM peak (08:00-09:00).10 Parts of the A27 accommodate over 6,000 vehicles in this time period. Sections of the A259, A270, A283 and A293 accommodate 2,000-3,000 vehicles in this period.
10
Data has been obtained from the Adur Local Plan and Shoreham Harbour Transport Study. The traffic volumes shown on Figure 2.7 are a projection based on predicted 2016 figures including committed development. Although this is a future date, it is the best available data and is closest to demonstrate current traffic flows in this area (the base year data from the study is from 2008).
19
Figure 2.7: Average number of vehicles in AM peak on main roads
2.4.9 Due to existing travel patterns and the capacity of the network, congestion can affect many parts of the highway network. This is particularly prevalent during the peak periods and there is some seasonal variation. The impacts of congestion include unreliable journey times for private vehicles and public transport, community severance, poor air quality and noise. It is estimated that traffic-related congestion in Sussex costs businesses £2.5bn annually11, through inefficient use of the network, queues and missed deliveries. The main corridors affected are the A27, A259 and A270.
2.4.10 The A27 provides access to Shoreham Harbour for long distance traffic and experiences significant delays along the route. The most significant problems are at Chichester, Arundel, Worthing and Lancing; where traffic volumes exceed capacity leading to congestion, high accident rates, community severance and traffic diverting to less suitable routes.
2.4.11 At peak periods, journey times along the A259 are slow, such as in High Street, Shoreham where it can take in excess of nine minutes to travel 750 metres12. The resilience of the A259 is a key issue for the Shoreham Harbour area, with concerns associated with flood risk from the nearby river Adur and the impact of climate change. The A270 has high volumes of traffic and in peak periods experiences congestion, particularly at the signalised junctions.
2.4.12 Away from the strategic roads serving the JAAP area, ‘rat running’ is prevalent, with many of the smaller streets being used by drivers with good knowledge of the area to
11
Sussex Enterprise estimate 2010 12
Shoreham Town Centre Study, Parsons Brinkerhoff, 2014
20
avoid congestion. This includes avoiding the queues at the level crossings and along the main road corridors. In certain places, traffic calming has been introduced to discourage drivers from using less suitable routes. In Shoreham town centre, a one-way system operates to manage traffic flow through the narrow streets. Some rat running still occurs, particularly on West Street, as traffic seeks to avoid congestion along the A259 High Street. Some streets around Portslade and Hove have been traffic calmed and made one-way to minimise and manage the impact of rat running.
2.4.13 Due to the topography of the area, there are three level crossings close to Shoreham Harbour on Buckingham Road (Shoreham-by-Sea Station), Eastern Avenue and Station Road (Portslade Station). In Southwick, there are accessibility issues due to narrow access roads running under rail bridges. The frequency of train services means that level crossings are closed for long periods at peak times leading to traffic congestion, poor air quality and noise. Freight and HGVs
2.4.14 The A259, A270 and A293 have been designated as advisory HGV routes for accessing Shoreham Harbour and the wider urban area from the A27. Strategic and Local HGV Routes are shown in Figure 2.8: Figure 2.8: Advisory HGV Routes
2.4.15 Commercial activity at Shoreham Port and the surrounding industrial areas is a
significant generator of HGV movements. Shoreham Port Authority (SPA) promotes a designated HGV route to the A27 from the Port, which goes via the A293. Traffic flow data indicates that this is the most well used north-south route. The SPA Port Masterplan notes typical traffic flow as 17,000 vehicles (12-hour two-way) on A259 west of Wharf Road, 6% is medium or heavy vehicles. However, due to conditions
21
on the advisory routes, HGVs sometimes divert onto less suitable residential roads to access the Shoreham Harbour area. This has resulted in longstanding community tension over HGV routing and volumes. Other known issues for HGVs include speed on the A283, insufficient loading facilities on the A259, noise and poor air quality.
HIGHWAY NETWORK: SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
• There is limited space for major highway improvements due to the constrained
geography
• Traffic congestion on the A27, A259 and A293 causes unreliable journey times
• To avoid this congestion there is rat running through residential areas
• Level crossings cause delay, congestion and inconvenience
• HGVs are perceived to use less suitable roads
2.5 CAR PARKING
2.5.1 There is a mix of on-street and off-street car parking facilities within Shoreham
Harbour and its surrounding area. Off-Street Parking
2.5.2 The majority of off-street car parking is managed by ADC and BHCC, supplemented by private facilities open to the public. These are located in town centres or other attractions such as Shoreham Fort or Southwick Beaches. A facility for HGVs and coaches is provided on Albion Street in Southwick, owned by WSCC but managed by ADC. ADC also manages some private car parks for residences, such as at Kingston Beach. Table 2.3 provides details of the local authority off-street car and lorry parks.
2.5.3 Alongside local authority car parking provision, parking facilities are available at the main rail stations (Hove, Portslade and Shoreham-by-Sea). These cater mainly for rail users but also provide facilities for non-rail users. The charging regime is comparable to charges in local authority owned car parks (Table 2.4).
2.5.4 In both Shoreham and Portslade town centres there are private car parks at the Co-operative (Ham Road) and Tesco (Boundary Road) food stores; these provide additional capacity.
22
Table 2.3: Off-street car parking provision (local authority)
Duration Location Cost Spaces Owner
Short
Middle Street, Shoreham £2 up to 4 hrs 20 ADC
Haddington Street, Hove £1.50-£2.50 1-3hrs
33 BHCC
King Alfred, Kingsway, Hove
£1.50-3.00 1-4hrs
120 BHCC
Long
Southwick Square, Southwick
£3 all day 90 ADC
Riverside, Shoreham Beach
£3 all day 60 ADC
Old Fort, Shoreham Beach £0.25-£2.50 1-8hrs
25 ADC
Southwick Beach, Southwick
£3 all day 105 ADC
Kingsway, Hove £3.50-£20.00 1-11hrs
126 BHCC
Norton Road, Hove £1.00-5.00 1-12hrs
290 BHCC
Long Premium
Pond Road, Shoreham £8 up to 8hrs 87 ADC
Ropetackle, Shoreham £8 up to 8hrs 20 ADC
Tarmount Lane, Shoreham £8 up to 8hrs 70 ADC
Lorry & Coach Park
Albion Street, Southwick £200/ 3 month season
20 WSCC
Table 2.4: Off-Street car parking provision (rail stations)
Station Cost Spaces
Hove £6/day 87
Portslade £3.70/day 15
Shoreham-by-Sea £4/day 138
2.5.5 The demand for car parking spaces from existing residents and businesses places
additional pressure on the highway network. Census data from 2011 indicates that on average there are 1.08 vehicles per household in the Shoreham Harbour area. In addition to visitors, this level of car ownership outstrips the supply of on-street spaces. Public off-street car parking is perceived as insufficient to cater for demand and not competitively priced. This can lead to overspill in surrounding streets.
2.5.6 In Shoreham, residents and businesses can experience difficulty in finding available on-street parking, particularly around the town centre and Shoreham-by-Sea station. Investigations have identified that in places, such as on A259 High Street, limited waiting restrictions are contravened. Analysis of ticket sales data13 indicates that off-street car parks operate at 70-90% of their capacity. This can be attributed to unclear
13
Shoreham-by-Sea Off-Street Parking Study: Demand and Capacity Assessment, 2013.
23
signing to off-street car parking and the mix of residential and shopper parking, results in unnecessary circulation of vehicles searching for spaces in the town centre; this adds to the congestion and air quality issues. Availability and turnover of car parking on Shoreham Beach is also a concern. Elsewhere parking pressures are less acute, with hotspots around shopping areas, schools, Southlands Hospital and rail stations.
2.5.7 WSCC has parking standards for new commercial development and guidance for
parking in new residential development to ensure the number of spaces provided is appropriate to the location and characteristics of a site. The number of spaces required for new residential development is calculated using the Car Parking Demand Calculator.14
2.5.8 Planning permission has recently been sought for a new superstore including
commercial space and 70 new homes on the former Minelco site. The application has been approved at committee subject to the signing of a legal agreement. The development includes three hours of free car parking; this could impact on demand for short term parking in Shoreham town centre.
2.5.9 The demand for car parking spaces from residents, businesses and visitors to
Brighton & Hove requires it to be managed in a variety of ways. These include parking standards for new development, waiting restrictions including controlled parking zones, and a charging regime for on and off-street parking. The Brighton & Hove Local Transport Plan notes over the last few years in the AM peak there has been a decrease in traffic entering the city centre. This is (in part) attributed to higher levels of parking enforcement there; this is alongside other interventions aimed at reducing demand. The residential streets in Portslade (from the city boundary to Station Road) are not within a controlled parking zone. Those in Aldrington (Station Road eastwards towards Hove) are included within the Brighton & Hove Resident’s Permit Scheme (Zones R and W). Aldrington is also part of the pay and display zone, designated as ‘low’ (£1 per hour). Parking Studies
2.5.10 To respond to the parking pressures in Shoreham town centre, WSCC carried out an initial consultation exercise in 2011 with residents and businesses. This asked for views on investigating the principles of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) for the town centre and Shoreham Beach to manage the on-street parking demand. In response, 61% of residents reported experiencing parking problems in their street, and overall there was general consensus on carrying out a further parking review.
2.5.11 WSCC consulted on the findings of this study, proposing initial designs for a Residents’ Parking Scheme (RPS). This proposed short-stay parking for the retail core and long-term residents’ permits in the residential areas. Overall, support and opposition to the proposals was evenly split and opinion in different geographical areas varied considerably. The residential core of the town centre was in favour and the commercial area (e.g. High Street) against the proposals.
14
http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/living/roads_and_transport/roads_and_pathways/plans_and_projects/development_control_for_roads/pre-application_charging_guide.aspx
24
2.6 RAIL
2.6.1 Shoreham Harbour is served by the West Coastway railway line between Brighton
and Havant. The Brighton Main Line is to the east of the Harbour and is directly connected via a chord east of Hove station. Services are currently provided by Southern, as part of the South Central franchise, supplemented by two services per day provided by First Great Western between Brighton and the West Country. The South Central Rail franchise will be amalgamated into the Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) railway franchise in July 2015. The stations are managed by Southern and Network Rail manages the infrastructure (track, signals, bridges etc).
2.6.2 There is a reasonably frequent service on the electrified West Coastway Line, serving Brighton, Chichester, Littlehampton, Worthing, Portsmouth and Southampton. The connection with the Brighton Main Line via the chord allows direct access to London, Gatwick Airport and beyond without needing to change at Brighton. Shoreham-by-Sea, Portslade and Hove have the highest frequency of service, including two trains per hour to London Victoria, with one additional service to London Bridge in the morning peak period. The average journey time15 to London is 75 minutes from Shoreham-by-Sea and 67 minutes from Hove. These services also call at Gatwick Airport. There are frequent stopping services to all stations to Brighton taking an average of 15 minutes from Shoreham-by-Sea. Services westbound from Shoreham-by-Sea go to Littlehampton, Portsmouth and Southampton taking approximately 28, 68 and 94 minutes respectively. Rail Stations
2.6.3 There are six mainline rail stations within close proximity to Shoreham Harbour and its surrounding area: Aldrington, Fishersgate, Hove, Portslade, Shoreham-by-Sea, and Southwick. The stations provide a regular train service for short and medium
15
Journey times are taken from the December 2014 Timetable.
CAR PARKING: SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
Insufficient on-street car parking spaces to meet current demand, particularly around railway stations and shopping areas
Tension between the demand for parking from commuters, shoppers and residents in Shoreham-by-Sea and Portslade
Circulation of vehicles searching for spaces in Shoreham-by-Sea and Portslade town centres
Unclear signing to off-street car parking
Additional demand for parking caused by new developments
25
distance trips. They cater for a local market and, reflecting the geography and density of the built up area, are within a walkable catchment area. Current service provision and facilities for interchanging with other modes of transport is shown in Table 2.5. Table 2.5 – Rail service provision in Shoreham Harbour
Station Destinations Frequency (per hour)
Bus Service
Taxi Rank
Cycle Parking
Car Parking
Aldrington Brighton West Worthing
2 2
None No 8 spaces
On street
Fishersgate Brighton West Worthing
2 2
20X No 10 spaces
On street
Hove
Brighton London Victoria Southampton Portsmouth Littlehampton Bognor Regis West Worthing Bristol Temple Meads/and beyond
6 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 (per day)
7, 81 Yes 60 spaces
87 spaces
Portslade
Brighton London Victoria Southampton Portsmouth Littlehampton Bognor Regis* West Worthing Bristol Temple Meads/and beyond
4 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 (per day)
1, 6, 7, 16, 25, 49, 66
Yes 30 spaces
15 spaces
Shoreham-by-Sea
Brighton London Victoria Southampton Portsmouth Littlehampton Bognor Regis* West Worthing Bristol Temple Meads/and beyond
4 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 (per day)
2/2A, 9, 19, 20X, 700
Yes 62 spaces
138 spaces
Southwick
Brighton Southampton Portsmouth Littlehampton West Worthing Bognor Regis*
4 1 1 1 2 1
46, 700 No 22 spaces
5 on street (plus 1 disabled)
* Bognor Regis service is AM peak service only
2.6.4 Shoreham-by-Sea rail station serves the western end of Shoreham Harbour and is located immediately to the north of Shoreham town centre. There are six trains per hour at peak times in each direction. The station is on the current National Cycle
26
Network (NCN) Route 2 and has links to the Downs Link Regional Cycle route. Buses do not stop at the station, but the closest bus stops are within 100 metres on Buckingham Road and Ham Road. The station is the closest to the Western Harbour Arm character area, which is approximately 400 metres east of the station.
2.6.5 Portslade is closest to the eastern arm of Shoreham Harbour located to the north of Portslade centre. It has a similar level of service frequency to Shoreham-by-Sea, with six trains per hour in each direction. The station has bus stops in close proximity on Station Road and Portland Road. The station serves the South Portslade and Aldrington Basin character areas which are both 800m south of the station.
2.6.6 Hove is by far the busiest and best connected station, although it is the most distant to Shoreham Harbour. Hove has the greatest choice of destinations and frequency of service, with up to eight trains per hour in each direction. The station is located to north of the central area of Hove and is 2.8km from Shoreham Harbour. It is a local transport hub with bus services terminating or calling at the station, a taxi rank and a large capacity for cycle parking on both sides of the railway line.
2.6.7 Aldrington, Fishersgate and Southwick are less well-used stations in the Shoreham Harbour area and are less well connected. Only Southwick provides longer distance connections to Portsmouth and Southampton and has a part-time staffed ticket office. Aldrington and Fishersgate are basic ‘halt’ stations with a local stopping service between West Worthing and Brighton. Fishersgate and Southwick are within the Southwick Waterfront and Fishersgate character area, and Aldrington is 2.3km northeast of Aldrington Basin. Only Southwick is in close proximity to bus routes either at Southwick Square to the north or on Brighton Road to the south.
2.6.8 The rail stations in the Shoreham Harbour area have the following issues:
Aldrington – poor accessibility between platforms, narrow access path and platform widths, poor sense of security on access path, low level of cycle parking provision and lack of available space for improvements, no cycle routes to the station;
Fishersgate – no step free accessibility between platforms and sides of railway line, narrow platform width, negative perceptions about security, cycle parking provided but not used, poor or no bus service, lack of wider cycle routes to station;
Hove – cycle parking well used but insufficient capacity for demand, poor interchange with buses;
Portslade – cycle parking well used but insufficient capacity for demand, step free access between platforms remains via the level crossing, poor condition of the subway, onwards connection with Boundary Road shops, condition of routes to bus stops;
Shoreham-by-Sea – step free access between platforms remains via level crossing, no access to subway when level crossing barriers are down, poor condition of subway, cycle parking well used but insufficient capacity for
27
demand, poor connections between bus and rail, the setting of the station and its connection with the town centre;
Southwick – cycle parking provided but not well used, poor station environment and sense of security, no bus stops at the station, and low quality routes for pedestrians and cyclists to the station.
2.6.9 The rail stations are shown in Figure 2.9. This plan displays rail station use by total number of passengers in 2011/12. Usage is estimated from Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) statistics of the total number of people entering, exiting and interchanging at stations based on ticket sales. Figure 2.9: Total Number of Passenger per Year at Stations, 2011-12
2.6.10 Table 2.6 provides a comparison of ORR rail station patronage data between 2009-10 and 2011-12, for the stations serving Shoreham Harbour. Rail travel has become increasingly popular and patronage has grown at all stations serving the Harbour area. This is in line with the national trend and is expected to continue. The proportion of journey to work trips by rail has also grown by 2.2% to 9.2% for the Shoreham Harbour area from the 2001 to 2011 Census (see Table 2.2).
28
Table 2.6: Rail Station Patronage Data 2009-12 (Office for Rail Regulation)
2.6.11 The Sussex Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) 2010, produced by Network Rail,
identified capacity constraints on the Brighton Main Line and West Coastway as major issues facing the railway. This is being updated through the emerging Sussex Area Route Study16 which is providing updated information about capacity constraints, performance issues, and the interventions required in rail industry Control Periods 6 (2019-2024) to meet forecast morning peak demand growth to London. On the West Coastway line, while the frequency of service is good, slow journey times, reliability and capacity on some services remain key issues which are also considered by proposals in the draft Sussex Area Route Study. The slower journey times, to, from and along the West Coastway line in particular, disadvantage rail journeys, which in some cases do not compete well with travelling by road.
2.6.12 Level crossing downtime remains an issue for both the rail and road networks. They are a safety and maintenance concern for Network Rail, who have a long standing policy to close and replace, where feasible, level crossings with suitable bridges or underpasses. Downtime (length of time that the barriers are down) has severe knock-on effects for road traffic, causing congestion, poor air quality and noise. If there is no alternative provision this can also cause delays for pedestrians and cyclists.
RAIL: SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES • Rail travel is an increasingly popular mode of transport and the growth in rail travel is expected to continue • Access to stations and interchange with other transport modes is inconsistent
• Journey times on the West Coastway railway line can be slow compared to road
• Capacity issues for current rail services to Gatwick, London and Brighton during
peak times
16
Network Rail, South East Route: Sussex Area Route Study Draft for Consultation, 2014.
Station Usage (09/10)
Usage (11/12)
2009/10- 2011/12 Change
2009/10-2011/12
% Change
Aldrington 157,872 190,956 33,084 20.9%
Fishersgate 92,616 105,982 13,366 14.4%
Hove 2,259,680 2,391,926 132,246 5.8%
Portslade 871,338 1,033,796 162,458 18.6%
Shoreham-by-Sea 1,295,044 1,440,560 145,516 11.2%
Southwick 339,758 365,302 25,544 7.5%
Totals 5,016,308 5,528,522 512,214 10.2%
29
2.7 BUS
Bus Services
2.7.1 Services on the bus network for Shoreham Harbour are provided by Stagecoach South, Brighton & Hove Buses and Compass Travel. Bus routes are operated on a largely commercial basis. These provide access through the urban area to local destinations in Shoreham, Portslade, Southwick, Hove and the Holmbush Centre. They also provide access to destinations further afield including Worthing, Brighton and Portsmouth.
2.7.2 The bus network provides good coverage around Shoreham Harbour, with a core ten minute frequency service along the A259 corridor with the 700 service providing connections to Brighton, Worthing, Chichester and Portsmouth. Journey times between Worthing and Brighton are comparable to rail journey times for the same stretch. To provide sufficient passenger capacity, Stagecoach runs this service with double-deck buses. Recent changes to the 700 service have improved operational reliability.
2.7.3 There is a higher concentration of high frequency bus services in Portslade and Hove (up to every six minutes in some locations) linking to Brighton city centre and other destinations. Hubs for bus services are in Shoreham and Portslade town centres, where several services radiate from, providing a high service frequency towards Brighton or Worthing. Current bus service provision that serves Shoreham Harbour directly or indirectly is shown in table 2.7.
30
Table 2.7: Bus routes serving Shoreham Harbour
Route Frequency Destinations Operator
1/1a 6-7mins Whitehawk-Brighton-Portslade Brighton & Hove
2/2a 20mins Rottingdean-Brighton-Shoreham (Steyning)
Brighton & Hove
6 10mins Brighton-Hove-Portslade-Downs Park
Brighton & Hove
7 5/day Portslade-Hove-Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove
9 60mins Littlehampton-Worthing-Shoreham-Holmbush Centre
Stagecoach
16 Hourly Portslade-Knoll Estate-Hangleton
Brighton & Hove
19 60mins Shoreham Beach-Shoreham-Holmbush Centre
Compass
20X 3/day Brighton-Hove-Southwick-Shoreham-Steyning
Brighton & Hove
46 20mins Southwick-Hove-Brighton-Coldean
Brighton & Hove
49 20mins East Moulsecoomb-Brighton-Hove-Portslade
Brighton & Hove
56 60mins (AM only)
Southlands Hospital-Southwick-Brighton
Brighton & Hove
59/59A 3/day Shoreham Beach-Shoreham-Southwick-Portslade-Hove-Brighton
Brighton & Hove
66 Hourly Portslade-Hangleton-Portslade Compass
108 Wed Only Shoreham-Steyning-Horsham Compass
700 10mins Portsmouth-Chichester-Worthing-Shoreham-Brighton
Stagecoach
Bus Passenger & Vehicle Infrastructure
2.7.4 Bus passenger and vehicle infrastructure in the Shoreham Harbour area is limited to at-stop facilities (bus stop flags, timetable information, shelters) with some virtual bus priority. Bus operators indicate that congestion on Shoreham High Street and Station Road / Boundary Road cause the greatest level of delay and unreliability to bus services, however they are acknowledged as the main destinations for passengers. The frequency of stops that buses have to make per journey can affect the reliability of journey times.
2.7.5 As part of the Shoreham Harbour Regeneration Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) Project, bus priority technology was installed at traffic signal controlled junctions along the A259 corridor. Alongside this, bus stops were improved with new shelters and at 29 stops; with Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) screens installed. Following implementation, analysis of bus journey times in 2013 indicated that westbound journey times on the 700 service had reduced by 17.5% and
31
eastbound 6.9%. This was on the section of A259 between Shoreham and Southwick17.
2.7.6 Despite the investment in vehicles and infrastructure, there are still problems associated with buses and the highway network. These include poor service reliability caused by the operation of junctions particularly on the approaches to the A259 / A283 ‘Norfolk Bridge’ junction, access or egress from bus stops (layover, close proximity), routing through the town centres and integration with other modes of transport. User perceptions of key issues include overcrowding, high cost of travel for some fares, information, frequency of services on Sundays or evenings, reliability and accessibility18.
2.7.7 Bus stops along the A259 for the 700 service have shelters with many having Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI). Other bus stops in the Shoreham Harbour area have shelters and RTPI, but the coverage is not comprehensive. The RTPI network is managed by the local highway authorities (BHCC and WSCC). Bus RTPI screens have also been installed at Shoreham-by-Sea, Southwick, Fishersgate, Portslade and Hove stations.
2.7.8 In 2010, Stagecoach introduced new vehicles into its fleet to be used on the 700 service, supported by a major marketing and branding campaign. These vehicles have been specifically branded for the 700 Coastliner service, with low-floor access and conform to latest engine emission standards (known as Euro V, vehicles since 2008). Subsequently they have altered journey timings westbound and increased use of double decked vehicles to improve the attractiveness of the service. This investment is consistent with the principles established in the Quality Bus Partnership that was established for this route. Brighton & Hove Buses and Compass Travel also run low-floor vehicles of at least Euro III engine standards (since 2000); Brighton & Hove run specific branded buses on 2 / 2A service. Bus Patronage
2.7.9 From the 2011 Census, 9.4% of the working population (aged 16-74) in the Shoreham Harbour area regularly travel to work by bus (which was a 1.2% increase from 2001 (see Table 2.2)). This is lower than the Brighton & Hove average, but significantly higher than the West Sussex average.
17
Shoreham Harbour Regeneration Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) Project Evaluation Report, West Sussex County Council, August 2013. 18
ibid
32
BUS: SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES • Bus patronage is growing across the Shoreham Harbour area • The bus network provides good coverage, and recent changes to services have
improved journey reliability, but traffic congestion and delays can still have a negative impact on the reliability of services
• Inconsistency of the number of stops per journey also affects the reliability of
journey times • User perceptions of overcrowding and high cost of some fares
2.8 CYCLING
Cycle Infrastructure
2.8.1 The cycle network surrounding Shoreham Harbour provides 16km of cycle route; these consist of off-road tracks (away from roads or alongside roads as shared or segregated paths with pedestrians), on-carriageway lanes and advisory, signed routes along quieter less trafficked roads. The core of this network runs east-west between Shoreham-by-Sea, Southwick, Portslade, Hove and beyond. North-south corridors run from Shoreham town centre to the South Downs National Park and Portslade town centre to Hangleton. There are other isolated pieces of infrastructure providing some priority, bypasses or cut-through, however these are not always part of a coherent network of cycle routes. Cycle trips also take place on the wider road network as part of people’s journeys. The cycle network can be grouped into sections, which are outlined below and shown on Figure 2.10:
33
Figure 2.10: Existing Cycle Network
National Cycle Network (NCN) 2 – this runs along the south coast from Dover
to Penzance, including through Shoreham Harbour from Brighton to Lancing. It shadows the A259 corridor along Hove seafront, through the southern side of Shoreham Harbour on Basin Road South, across the lock gates at Southwick, through the residential area to Shoreham town centre, Shoreham Beach and onwards to Lancing Seafront.
The Downs Link – a leisure route from Shoreham town centre to Guildford using a former railway track bed, providing access to the South Downs National Park.
Upper Shoreham Road – on and off carriageway facility along Upper Shoreham Road from east of Buckingham Road to the Holmbush Centre.
A small section of unconnected cycle facilities around Fishersgate and Portslade stations and to Benfield Valley. Around Portslade a series of quiet roads have been designated as suitable for cycling.
2.8.2 Cycle parking, in the form Sheffield stands, can be found across the Harbour area, such as Shoreham town centre, rail stations, Portslade town centre and Southwick Square. Traffic signal junctions include some provision for cyclists; these are either advanced stop lines on the road, or allow cyclists to cross as part of the facilities. Toucan crossings (where cycles are permitted to cross as part of a pedestrian facility) have been installed where routes cross major roads (e.g. A259 Albion Street at Southwick on NCN2 or A270 / A293 Hangleton Link to Benfield Park).
2.8.3 Cycle trips cover a variety of purposes, such as for leisure, commuting, and education. Each purpose has differing requirements which need to be considered
34
when developing a cycle network. The network supports long-distance commuter cycling, local journeys and leisure trips. In the 2011 Census, 4.9% of the working population (see Table 2.2) in the Shoreham Harbour area indicated that they usually cycle to work; this is higher than the West Sussex average (3.0%) and comparable to the Brighton & Hove average (4.7%). Between 2001 and 2011, there was a 1.4% increase in the proportion of working age people in the Shoreham Harbour area choosing to cycle to work (see Table 2.2).
2.8.4 Permanent cycle counters in Shoreham and Brighton & Hove record cycling levels, as shown in Table 2.8 below. This indicates that levels of cycling on these routes are constant despite some significant infrastructure improvements on a limited number of routes e.g. Grand Avenue, Hove. There is an on-going programme of education, training and promotional activities, such as Bikeabilitiy training, in the area to encourage more cycling. These monitoring sites cover NCN2, but do not record trips made on the Downs Link or the trip purpose.
Table 2.8 – Number of cycles at permanent cycle counters in Brighton and West Sussex – Average Number of Daily Cycles (over 7 days)
Site Direction 2010 2011 2012 2013
Beach Road East, Shoreham (NCN2)
Eastbound 163 184 177 181
Westbound 139 121 124 119
All 303 305 302 300
King’s Road, Hove (NCN2)
Eastbound 889 923 971 899
Westbound 700 760 808 536
All 1589 1682 1780 1435
Grand Avenue, Hove (On Road Cycle Lane)
Northbound 154 185 186 192
Southbound 104 100 100 97
All 258 285 286 289
2.8.5 There is a perception that sections of the NCN2 route particularly between Shoreham and Southwick are disjointed, indirect, poorly surfaced with inadequate signing and safe crossing points (such as over Southwick Lock Gates). The other routes in Shoreham Harbour also suffer from these factors and do not join up with each other. The A27, A270 and A259 form barriers to north-south cycling and create severance as there are limited safe crossing opportunities. The A259 is an unattractive environment due to the presence of HGVs and high volumes of traffic, lack of facilities and crossing points, as well as a poor streetscape. The provision of cycle parking is sporadic, but where parking is secure and covered it is often well used, such as at the rail stations).
2.8.6 There have been recent small-scale enhancements to the cycle network connecting to Fishersgate, Portslade and Southwick stations where new cycle parking facilities have been installed. A major improvement to the condition of the network in Shoreham town centre has been the pedestrianisation of East Street and the
35
rebuilding of the Adur Ferry Bridge to Shoreham Beach. There has been an estimated 14% increase in all pedestrian and cycle trips since the bridge opened.19
CYCLING: SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES • Cycling is becoming increasingly popular in the Shoreham Harbour area • Sections of National Cycle Network Route 2 (NCN2) long distance cycle route and
other facilities in the area are disjointed and / or indirect • The A259, A283, A293 and A27 create severance issues for cyclists wishing to
cross for onward journeys • The A259 is an unattractive environment for cyclists and does not provide good
access to the Harbour waterfront
2.9 PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
2.9.1 The pedestrian network is comprised of Public Rights of Way (PRoW) often in rural
areas (e.g. footpaths, bridleways) and footways in urban areas (e.g. pedestrian pavements alongside roads). Walking (or use of a wheelchair) will at some point be part of every journey; it is a low-cost, pollution free and healthy method of travelling. It is not only a way of accessing services and employment, but is a popular leisure activity. Infrastructure
2.9.2 The PRoW network serving Shoreham Harbour consists of footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways in both urban and rural locations. The majority of the PRoW network is located along the River Adur and into the South Downs National Park from the urban area. Long distance footpaths include the Downs Link, South Downs Way and the Monarch’s Way. The PRoW network is managed by BHCC and WSCC through PRoW Improvement Plans.
2.9.3 The urban pedestrian infrastructure covers not only pavements along the road network but paths in recreation areas, twittens and crossing facilities. It covers the public realm ranging from town centre environments to residential areas and public spaces such as beaches and parks. Signing, such as wayfinding posts or legibility maps, and places to rest, form part of the overall network of pedestrian facilities. To connect the urban pedestrian network together there are a number of crossing points where it crosses the highway network. These include footbridges, toucan or puffin signalised crossings – either stand alone or within a signalised junction, zebra crossings and uncontrolled crossings.
19
Sustrans’ Route User Survey Report – Adur Ferry Bridge, Shoreham – Connect2, 2014.
36
2.9.4 Shoreham Harbour is well served by pedestrian infrastructure, however the environment for pedestrians is considered to be poor and unattractive in parts. Part of the network is shared with cyclists, who can be intimidating for some pedestrians particularly people with reduced mobility. In places the network is narrow, in poor condition, close to road traffic or unlit which can discourage people from making short trips on foot. The main road corridors (A259, A270 and A27) and the railway line create barriers to walking and can sever communities.
2.9.5 In the 2011 Census, 10.0% of the working population (aged 16-74) in the Shoreham Harbour area indicated that they usually walk to work (see Table 2.2). However, walking forms some part of most journeys so this is unlikely to be an accurate representation of the total number of walking trips.
2.9.6 Recently the East Street pedestrianisation scheme in Shoreham has improved the street scene and pedestrian network. This included removing traffic between the East Street junctions with the High Street and New Road. A new shared space for pedestrians, with cyclists, has been created. This significantly improved the public realm and is now an attractive place to spend time, where the natural materials complement the existing conservation area. The scheme also includes new wayfinding information, benches, litterbins and cycle parking.
2.9.7 The footbridge connecting Shoreham Beach to Shoreham Town Centre has recently been replaced. The new Adur Ferry Bridge opened in November 2013 and provides a direct pedestrian route from Shoreham-by-Sea station through East Street to Shoreham Beach.
PEDESTRIAN NETWORK: SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES • Poor quality of pedestrian environment along main roads, particularly A259 • Main road corridors and railway line create severance issues for pedestrians • Limited pedestrian access to the Harbour waterfront in the Western Harbour Arm and Aldrington Basin character areas
2.10 ENCOURAGING SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR
2.10.1 Initiatives that seek to encourage sustainable travel behaviour are known as Travel Behaviour Change Initiatives or Travel Choice Initiatives. They use a variety of methods to promote and enhance the attractiveness of sustainable modes of transport including travel information and marketing. These can also be known as ‘soft’ measures, to distinguish them from ‘hard’ infrastructure measures (physical improvements, engineering).
2.10.2 A variety of factors may influence a person’s travel habits, such as need, cost, demographics, culture, opportunity and ability. Sustainable travel behaviour can be encouraged by understanding what influences travel behaviour and removing or
37
overcoming the barriers. Sustainable travel behaviour can reduce traffic levels, improve road safety and the environment, and improve public health.
2.10.3 There are a wide range of travel behaviour change initiatives that can be used to encourage sustainable travel behaviour, such as:
Travel Plans are often submitted through the planning process for new developments; and to minimise the impact of development on the local community and transport network, often as a combination of soft and hard measures. School Travel Plans perform a similar role for schools, focusing on pupil’s journeys to school;
Campaigns to raise awareness and acceptance of the need to change, such as In Town Without My Car, Walk to School or BikeWeek;
Targeted information to residents or businesses to help understand their travel behaviours and habits, to advise them on ways of travelling sustainably and the benefits this can bring, known as Personalised Travel Planning (PTP), or Workplace Travel Planning (WTP);
Providing information on the availability of facilities and schemes through guides, online materials (e.g. journey planners), maps and marketing campaigns;
Skills training aimed at both children and adults for cycling (Bikeability or Bike It to provide confidence for riding, cycle maintenance), driving (eco-driving, driver safety awareness, HGV drivers), walking or rail (visits to rail stations, safety);
Promotional activities that are either mode specific (e.g. Cycle Challenge) or more general (e.g. TravelWise brand);
Providing alternatives to owning or driving a car (e.g. car clubs, car sharing) or provide access to a bicycle (e.g. short term cycle hire, loans to purchase one);
Providing access to and infrastructure for alternative fuels (e.g. electric vehicles and charging infrastructure) to encourage confidence in the system and reduce impact on environment, and;
Use of technology to reduce need to travel (e.g. working at home, online shopping)
Travel Plans (Development)
2.10.4 For any new residential or commercial developments, the current approach in West Sussex and Brighton & Hove is to focus on providing Travel Plans. Guidance from both authorities for the production of a Travel Plan suggest the Plans should aim to achieve at least a 15% reduction in single occupancy car journeys from the site, when compared to existing journey patterns. Monitoring of a Travel Plan is carried out by the highway authorities against the aims set out in the approved plan.
38
2.10.5 Over the past 10 years (2003-2013) 50 development Travel Plans have been
submitted, and approved, through the planning process in Shoreham, Portslade and Hove. Examples of recently agreed Travel Plans for development close to the JAAP area include Ropetackle (mixed use residential / leisure), Tesco Holmbush (retail) and Shoreham Airport (employment). Within Shoreham Harbour, Travel Plans have been submitted for the Minelco (supermarket), Parcelforce (mixed residential/retail) and PortZed (residential) sites. SPA is setting out to establish a travel plan to ‘help to manage and minimise the impact of increased trade and activity in the Port and deliver wider benefits to existing port uses and future occupants’. School Travel Plans
2.10.6 These are aimed at reducing travel to school by car, through encouraging pupils to use sustainable modes of transport to address staff and pupil travel issues. Travel Plans, accredited to the latest standard (known as Travelmark Level One) have been adopted at all 24 local authority maintained schools in the Shoreham Harbour area, and at Shoreham College. Since Travel Plans have been established, there have been increases in cycling, park & stride (i.e. parking away from the school and walking for the remainder of the journey), walking bus (i.e. organised walk to school as part of a group) and walking journeys to the schools. Examples of successes include The Glebe School in Southwick where over 70% of pupils cycle regularly20, and Eastbrook in Fishersgate which has high levels of walking and scootering is now becoming one of the most popular modes of transport.
2.10.7 Outside of local authority schools, Travel Plans were submitted through the planning system for the Academies in the Shoreham Harbour area (Shoreham and Sir Robert Woodward). At Shoreham Academy, it was found that 82% of students walk or cycle, compared to 67% of staff travelling to school in their own car. The target is to increase cycling by 2%, car sharing by 3% and park & stride by 2%21. Campaigns & Activities
2.10.8 There have been limited promotional activities targeted directly at the Shoreham Harbour area to date. One of the largest areas of engagement to date, has been in schools through both skills training and education activities where Bikeability skills training has been used to improve child cycling confidence, skills and road safety awareness.
2.10.9 In Brighton & Hove the ‘BikeIt’ initiative has been run in schools across the city. The initiative supports schools through a coordinated programme of activities aimed at creating a culture of cycling. The primary objective is to increase the levels of children walking and cycling in preference to being driven to school and has proved effective in other areas. BikeIt has proved effective in other areas, such as Crawley where in 2012/13 regular cycling to school increased by 19.6% after one year of engagement.
2.10.10 The BHCC Lewes Road Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) programme includes an intensive Personalised Travel Planning (PTP) initiative. While not directly
20
PLASC Surveys in schools, January 2012. 21
Shoreham Academy Travel Plan 2011.
39
adjacent to the JAAP area, with the work in the east of the city, it is targeting 32,000 households. The approach is to engage with residents understanding their travel behaviours and needs, enabling monitoring of effectiveness of the infrastructure measures being delivered and allowing residents and businesses to influence the design and outcomes of the project. Evidence from other PTP projects in the UK so far has seen a reduction in car use of between 5 and 16%.22 Online Journey Planners
2.10.11 Journey planning tools combine information, routes and timings for either a single mode, e.g. cycling, or combination of modes. Allowing a user to enter journey start and end points then plots options for completing the journey (distance, time, type of transport). There are national websites, such as Transport Direct run by Department for Transport, or local bespoke websites, such as JourneyOn in Brighton & Hove. West Sussex has an online cycle journey planner and is developing a multi-modal version to be launched in 2015. Car Clubs and Alternative Ways of Travelling
2.10.12 Car clubs provide access to a vehicle without necessarily needing to own one individually. Vehicles are available for a short term and provided from a central point or parking bays on-street. A Car Club is in operation in Brighton & Hove, with approximately 70 vehicles spread across the city. Some vehicles are located in Portslade on New Church Road and Hallyburton Road, both in close proximity to Portslade station.
2.10.13 Car sharing is where there is more than one occupant in a car, however often there are times when a driver has empty seats; lift sharing enables people travelling in the same direction to arrange to be ‘paired’ up. Car sharing can reduce the cost of travelling, an estimated reduction in congestion and pollution of 10%, as well as individual costs and parking. The Liftshare initiative operates in both West Sussex and Brighton & Hove, under separate brands but are interoperable.
2.10.14 Electric Vehicles are an emerging mode of transport in response to concerns regarding air quality, cost of fuel and climate change. Current level of electric vehicle ownership in West Sussex and Brighton & Hove is low. Charging infrastructure is emerging in the area, existing ‘slow’ chargers are in central Worthing and central Brighton. A ‘rapid’ charger network is being developed across South-East England with points being located on, or close, to the Strategic Road Network.
22
Sloman et al (2004) Smarter Choices – Changing the Way we Travel, DfT.
40
BEHAVIOUR CHANGE: SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
Some Travel Plans have been prepared
All local authority schools have an adopted and active School Travel Plan
Application of Travel Behaviour Change initiatives is not widespread, but there has been recent investment through initiatives such as Online Journey Planners
A Car Club already operates in western Brighton & Hove
Electric Vehicles are an emerging market
2.11 SECONDARY IMPACTS AND CONSTRAINTS ON THE TRANSPORT NETWORK
Air Quality
2.11.1 Poor air quality has negative impacts on people’s health and wellbeing. It is estimated that across Sussex 850 deaths in 2012 were attributed to air pollution. The main contributor to poor air quality is from road traffic, which is more generally the greatest contributor of NOx / NO2 emissions across Sussex. In a large urban area, such as around Shoreham Harbour, poor air quality is an acknowledged on-going concern.
2.11.2 There are three areas in close proximity to Shoreham Harbour, where the annual mean concentrations of NO2 have exceeded the limit values stated in the EU Ambient Air Quality Directive of 40 micrograms (µg) per cubic metre of NO2 and have subsequently been declared as Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs). The responsible authorities for this are Adur District Council and Brighton & Hove City Council.
2.11.3 An AQMA has been declared on A259 High Street in Shoreham town centre (Figure 2.11), and incorporates the western boundary of the Western Harbour Arm character area. This area can be heavily congested at certain times from high volumes of traffic23. The close proximity of properties to the roadside creates a condition known as a ‘street canyon’, whereby emissions cannot disperse as easily. A second AQMA has been declared along the A270 Old Shoreham Road in Southwick at the junction with Kingston Lane (Figure 2.12). High traffic volumes on the approach to the signalised junction contribute to the high concentrations experienced here24.
23
Recorded NOx levels of 43.0 to 45. 7µg/m³ (annualised from 3 collection sites 2011 Annual Monitoring Report Adur District Council). 24
Recorded NOx levels of 40.7 to 47.4µg/m³ (annualised from 2 collection sites 2011 Adur District Council Annual Monitoring Report Adur District Council).
41
Figure 2.11: Boundary of A259 High Street/Brighton Road AQMA, ADC
Figure 2.12 - Boundary of A270 Old Shoreham Road AQMA, ADC
2.11.4 There is also an AQMA located within Brighton & Hove incorporating part of the JAAP area in South Portslade (Figure 2.13). Part of the AQMA is characterised by narrower streets with properties in close proximity to the roadside (A293 Trafalgar Road-Church Road) or wide roads with high volumes of traffic (A259 Wellington Road-Kingsway)25.
25
Recorded NOx levels on these roads was between 47.9 and 52.1µg/m³ (2012 Annual Monitoring Report, Brighton & Hove City Council).
42
Figure 2.13: Boundary of revised 2013 Brighton AQMA, BHCC
2.11.5 For each AQMA an Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) is required to be developed, which provide aims and objectives for improving the air quality. Adur DC has produced one AQAP to cover both AQMAs and BHCC has a city wide action plan, which is now being updated. Both AQAPs identify measures designed to reduce the levels of poor air quality. Examples of solutions contained include:
Promoting more travel by sustainable means (public transport, walking, cycling)
Different routes, times and modes of freight deliveries
Education and awareness raising about air quality – high pollution days, engine idling
Travel behaviour change initiatives – travel plans, training, car sharing
Alternative fuels development and implementation – electric vehicles, low-emission (HGVs / buses), reusable fuels (bio-ethanol)
Reducing and / or managing traffic and parking through the AQMA
2.11.6 The implementation of the AQAP is monitored and reported each year to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Some of the recent improvements to the highway network, such as the junction improvements will assist in meeting the objectives.
43
Noise
2.11.7 It is recognised at a European and national level that noise is required to be managed, in order to provide an improvement in quality of life for residents. The Government recognises that it is necessary to manage and control external noise, as exposure to it can have direct and indirect health effects. In response, DEFRA mapped noise in major agglomerations in 2009 and 2012, and along major road and railway corridors. This was to assist in the development of Noise Action Plans (NAPs) to help manage environmental noise and its effects. In 2014 an updated NAP that covering Agglomerations was produced. This includes Brighton & Hove, Adur (including Shoreham Harbour), Worthing and Littlehampton.
2.11.8 The NAP sets out a strategic approach for managing noise, but does not propose any specific noise mitigation measures; these are expected to be identified and agreed at a local level. These apply in particular to the most significant area, known as ‘Important Areas’, identified through strategic mapping. Close to Shoreham Harbour, the following Important Areas have been identified on the major roads in the urban area:
A259 corridor from Shoreham town centre to Grand Avenue, Hove
A270 Old Shoreham Road from Cross Lane to A2023 Hove Street
A283 Old Shoreham Road from High Street to Buckingham Street
A27 between A283 and Lewes Road
Sections of the West Coastway railway line through the urban area
2.11.9 BHCC and WSCC along with the Highways Agency and Network Rail are responsible for identifying and assessing the practicality of suitable mitigation measures for implementation. These measures range from reducing or removing traffic, low-noise surfacing, noise barriers, train alterations, traffic flow management and encouragement of alternative modes of transport. Safety
2.11.10 Reported casualty and collision data is held by Sussex Police and Sussex Safer Roads, provided to BHCC and WSCC for the JAAP area. An analysis of the 3-year period from September 2010 to August 2013 has been undertaken. The statistics record the type of collision, vehicles involved, number of people injured and severity, road and weather conditions and traffic conditions. The casualty information is recorded by severity (fatal, serious or slight) and if there was no injury, this was not recorded. In the period analysed there have been a total of 130 recorded collisions in the Shoreham Harbour area, resulting in 152 casualties (personal injury casualties - PICs), these are detailed in Tables 2.9 and 2.10 below.
44
Table 2.9: All Collisions by severity of injury
Severity 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
Fatal 0 1 1 0 2
Serious 3 13 12 8 36
Slight 5 36 27 24 92
Total 8 50 40 32 130
Table 2.10: All casualties by severity of injury
Severity 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
Fatal 0 1 1 0 2
Serious 3 13 13 8 37
Slight 7 43 31 32 113
Total 10 57 45 40 152
2.11.11 Accident clusters are most likely to be found at junctions where conflicting
movements can result in collisions. In the three year period there was one fatal, 27 serious and 54 slight accidents on A259 corridor between Norfolk Bridge and Wharf Road. There were clusters of accidents along this corridor at junctions with Middle Street, Station Road Southwick, The Gardens, Church Road, Boundary Road and Wharf Road. There are separate clusters in Portslade along the A293 Church Road (including a fatality) and in Shoreham town centre along Brunswick Road. Perception of Danger / Safety
2.11.12 How vehicles move around the transport network has raised concerns around safety, such as HGVs diverting from advisory routes into residential areas. A lack of safe and suitable crossing points on the major roads (e.g. A27, A270, A259) also adds to these concerns. The condition of the cycle routes and some pedestrian routes are all raised as safety matters. The level crossings are also identified as potential conflict points, either between vehicles or pedestrians and trains or for queuing traffic on approach to the barriers.
2.11.13 The lack of suitable and safe crossing points has been cited as a reason for not using sustainable modes of transport such as walking and cycling. The A259 High Street-Brighton Road corridor in Shoreham and A270 Old Shoreham Road are examples of where the network is not conducive to cycling or walking.
Built Environment
2.11.14 There are five conservation areas surrounding or close to Shoreham Harbour where the historic buildings and street patterns are preserved through the planning process. The conservation areas are, from west to east, Shoreham-by-Sea, Kingston Buci, Southwick, Old Hove and Hove Station. All but Old Hove and Hove Station border the Shoreham Harbour area. Traffic through Shoreham-by-Sea conservation area has an impact on the buildings through pollution, noise and vibration; additionally there are visual impacts from parking, signage and street clutter. The development and transport impacts of Shoreham Harbour will need to consider these conservation areas.
45
Public Hards and Slipways
2.11.15 Throughout Shoreham Harbour’s history, access to the water itself has been a critical part of the infrastructure. While the majority of the need for and scale of industrial access, such as rail at Kingston Wharf, has been removed or reduced, leisure access to the water remains important.
2.11.16 Provision is through nine historic Hards and slipways26 between Norfolk Bridge and
Southwick Lock Gates where boats can access the water. Some of these locations are only accessible at high tide due to lack of dredging or maintenance. Parking and space to turn a boat trailer are also issues that the historic slipways cannot accommodate.
2.11.17 The local highway authority is responsible for maintaining the slipways up to the High
Water Mark, below is the responsibility of the Port Authority, and many are classified as restricted byways. There is a local desire to see these slipways improved or new ones provided.
SECONDARY IMPACTS AND CONSTRAINTS: SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
• Three Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) are within or close to the
Shoreham Harbour area
• Important Areas for managing noise on key routes are within or close to the
Shoreham Harbour area
• There are accident clusters along A293 Church Road (Portslade) and the A259
corridor
• There are five conservation areas adjacent or close to the Shoreham Harbour area
• There are currently nine public Hards and slipways in the Harbour, which require
maintaining or improving with parking.
26
Hards are for the landing or loading of goods from water; slipways are used for the launching of vessels.
46
3 FUTURE CHALLENGES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.1.1 This section explores the future challenges associated with the regeneration of Shoreham Harbour. Evidence is presented from transport studies, which were undertaken to identify the impact of development at Shoreham Harbour on the transport network in the future and propose mitigation measures. Strategic and local transport studies provide assessments based on the development assumptions identified in the draft Shoreham Harbour JAAP. These studies recommend interventions that have been appraised in Section 5 to determine whether they are suitable to be included in the preferred strategy.
3.2 ADUR LOCAL PLAN AND SHOREHAM HARBOUR TRANSPORT STUDY 2013 AND ADDENDUM (2014)
3.2.1 ADC commissioned consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff to undertake a strategic
transport study to inform the emerging Adur Local Plan and Shoreham Harbour JAAP. The study provides an assessment of the impact of potential housing and employment development on the highway network by 2028, using a computer-based transport model. It also identifies mitigation measures. This transport study forms the main evidence base to support the Shoreham Harbour JAAP and Transport Strategy. An addendum to the study was prepared in 2014 to assess a revised quantum of development to reflect the revised Adur Local Plan. Methodology
3.2.2 Transport modelling was undertaken to assess development scenarios using the Shoreham Harbour Transport Model (SHTM), which is currently the most appropriate available tool to test the impact of future development in this area. The SHTM is comprised of a highway assignment model and a variable demand model, which focuses on the mode choice response of travellers. This transport model has a base year of 2008 and a future forecast year of 2028. There are two modelled time periods: AM peak (08:00-09:00) and PM peak (17:00-18:00).
3.2.3 A reference case was developed based on the future year of 2028. This included committed development in Adur, Worthing and Brighton & Hove and allocations in the Worthing Core Strategy and emerging Brighton & Hove City Plan. Development in the Adur Local Plan and Shoreham Harbour JAAP was not tested, so that it could be compared against the development scenarios to identify the impact of this development.
3.2.4 The impact of four different development scenarios was assessed. These scenarios contained varying levels of housing development as part of the draft Adur Local Plan, proposed employment development at Shoreham Airport as a constant in each scenario, and development proposed as part of the Shoreham Harbour JAAP. This included housing and employment development in six sections: Western Harbour Arm, Aldrington Basin, South Portslade, Port Operational North, Port Operational
47
South and Port Operational East. These were constant in each of the four development scenarios. Findings: Without Mitigation
3.2.5 Before applying mitigation measures, the study indicated that the development would cause an increase in queues, travel time and travel distance with a decrease in travel speed when compared with the reference case. However, the highest demand increase is less than 3%, which occurred in the development scenario with the highest level of proposed development.
3.2.6 On eastbound-westbound routes, clear increases in journey times were identified on sections of the A27 and A259. On northbound-southbound routes, a large increase in journey time was shown on the A283 Steyning Road-Old Shoreham Road. The increases are likely to be caused by increased congestion at junctions.
3.2.7 Figure 3.1 identifies seven junctions where the performance is expected to significantly deteriorate or remain congested in the development scenarios in comparison to the reference case.27
3.2.8 The junctions are as follows:
1. A27 / A283 Steyning Road, 2. A259 / Brighton Road / A283 Old Shoreham Road (Norfolk Bridge), 3. A27 Shoreham Bypass / Hangleton Link dumbbell junctions, 4. A259 Wellington Road / B2194 Station Road, 5. A259 Brighton Road / A2025 South Street, 6. A27 / Grinstead Lane, and 7. A27 / Coombes Road (Sussex Pad).
3.2.9 The following four of the junctions discussed below are the most closely related to
Shoreham Harbour development proposals:
A27 / A283 Steyning Road: Both A283 approaches to the roundabout are expected to operate above capacity in both peak periods in all tested scenarios including the reference case. The A27 westbound off-slip entry to the roundabout is expected to approach capacity in the morning peak period and be significantly over capacity in the evening peak period in all tested scenarios.
A259 / Brighton Road / A283 Old Shoreham Road (Norfolk Bridge): Both A259 approaches to the roundabout are expected to operate significantly above capacity in both peak periods in all tested scenarios. The traffic demand on the A283 Old Shoreham Road entry is expected to approach capacity in the morning peak period and exceed it in the evening peak. A
27
A capacity assessment of 13 junctions was undertaken. Two of these have been excluded from the plan, as they are too far west to be directly related to development at Shoreham Harbour and will be more related to the impact of development from the Adur Local Plan sites. Four of the 13 junctions assessed initially appeared to be problematic, but did not show the same capacity issues when examined with a specific junction model.
48
significant reduction in anticipated traffic demand or increase in junction capacity will be required to ensure this junction operates within capacity in future.
A27 Shoreham Bypass / Hangleton Link dumbbell junctions: This is a dumbbell junction between the A27 and the A293 Hangleton link road in Brighton & Hove City. Both roundabouts will operate well above capacity in both the reference case and Scenario B. Only the southern roundabout in the PM peak is operating within capacity. Also, the current layout of the eastbound merge is deemed not sufficient for the predicted flows.
A259 Wellington Road / B2194 Station Road: This junction is near the eastern end of Shoreham Harbour. While the junction will operate acceptably in the PM peak, in the AM peak, the junction has two arms approaching capacity.
Figure 3.1: Future congestion hotspots identified in Transport Study
Mitigation Package
3.2.10 A package of measures was tested to assess whether the impact of the JAAP and Adur Local Plan development could be mitigated. This was comprised of the following measures:
A reduction in travel demand to represent the combined effects of a package of sustainable transport and behaviour change measures (which could include travel planning, walking and cycling promotion, public transport information and car clubs); a 9% average reduction in car trips was applied to journeys to or from the proposed site allocations, with the percentage varying according to trip length;
49
Smaller trip reduction percentages were also applied for existing trips within the remainder of Adur District according to transport mode and trip length;
A 2.6% reduction in all trips within 500m of the no.2 and 700 bus routes to represent the effect of improvements to public transport; and
Improvements to nine junctions designed with minimal physical changes and minimal third party land including (but not limited to) the following:
1. A27 / A283 Steyning Road: Fully signalise roundabout with a three lane
circulatory and widen A283 north entry and exit, and A283 south entry;
2. A259 / Brighton Road / A283 Old Shoreham Road (Norfolk Bridge): Expand the roundabout and increase capacity westbound from the A259 High Street entry;
3. A27 Shoreham Bypass / A293 Hangleton Link Road dumbbell junctions:
convert both north and south roundabouts into signalised junctions with appropriate amendment to flares at entries; upgrade the eastbound merge to the A27; and
4. A259 Wellington Road / B2194 Station Road: Amend the signal control so the
Basin Road North signal stage is only activated when there is demand from that entry.
Findings: With Mitigation
3.2.11 The combined impact of the mitigation measures is equivalent to an approximate 2% reduction in overall highway travel demand. The actual reductions will vary across the study area, being greatest in and around the site allocations where the measures are targeted. The proposed sustainable transport initiatives and the highway mitigation measures improved the performance of all junctions where mitigation was required, enabling them to accommodate the predicted demand.
3.2.12 A journey time analysis of seven key corridors28 through the study area was
undertaken, which indicates that average journey times with the most intensive development scenario and mitigation will show either improvements or be no worse off compared to the Reference Case in 20 of 28 cases. These 28 cases relate to two directions of travel for both AM and PM peaks for each of the seven routes. Improvements in the journey time as a result of mitigation measures are most noticeable at A27 / Grinstead lane junction, A27 / A283 Steyning Road junction and A259 / South Street junction.
2014 Addendum
3.2.13 To support the preferred development strategy for the Proposed Submission Adur Local Plan, additional transport modelling was undertaken. The additional scenario
28
The key corridors relevant to Shoreham Harbour are – A283 Old Shoreham Road-Steyning Road, B2194 Station Road-A293 Hangleton Link Road, A27 (Lancing to A293), A27-A270 Old Shoreham Road, and A259 (South Street, Lancing to A2023 Hove Street, Hove).
50
(B2) excluded the previously proposed Hasler development site and included some revised access arrangements for the Sompting development sites along with proposed highway improvements. The assumptions for Shoreham Harbour remained the same as used in the previous tested scenarios. The Addendum includes specific consideration of the impacts on the following locations: • A27 / A283 Steyning Road • A259 Brighton Road / A2025 South Street • A259 Brighton Road / A283 Old Shoreham Road (Norfolk Bridge)
3.2.14 When Scenario B2 is compared against the scenario with the maximum level of
development tested in the previous assessment (B), the results of this additional testing indicate that the reduced development allocation eases the expected traffic impact on the highway network. All highway mitigation measures tested in the main study remain effective in Scenario B2. Improvements in average journey time as a result of the mitigation are most noticeable at A27 / A2025 Grinstead Lane, A27 / A283 Steyning Road and A259 / A2025 South Street junctions.
3.2.15 As a result of the reduced impact at the A27 / A283 Steyning Road junction, the scale and cost of the mitigation there has been reduced, with the circulating carriageway being widened only on the western side, rather than around the whole junction.
Conclusion
3.2.16 The package of local transport infrastructure improvements and sustainable transport measures (or a similar package of measures) is likely to provide sufficient mitigation so that any residual cumulative impacts of the proposed development at Shoreham Harbour would not be severe. This is the key test imposed by the NPPF. Over the JAAP period, traffic conditions in a few locations are likely to worsen, although these are generally balanced by improvements in conditions elsewhere on the local highway network. In order to accommodate the planned development and be most effective, it will be important to ensure that the mitigation package is comprehensively delivered.
51
SUMMARY OF FUTURE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
• The number of vehicle journeys across the area is expected to increase by less
than 3% (without mitigation) • An increase in congestion and journey times along A27, A259, A283 and A293 is
expected, unless mitigation measures are provided • A package of sustainable transport improvements and behaviour change measures
will be integral to ensuring that the cumulative impact of development is not severe • Improvements to key junctions will also be required to ensure the highway network
can support the predicted increase in vehicle journeys
3.3 BRIGHTON & HOVE CITY PLAN STRATEGIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT 2013
3.3.1 This investigated the impact of the growth scenarios presented in the draft Brighton & Hove City Submission City Plan Part One (2013) in the period up to 2030. This included an assessment of the impact that Shoreham Harbour development would have on the highway network. This was assessed using a combined highway and public transport (‘multi-modal’) assignment model covering all significant roads and junctions and all bus and rail public transport services.
3.3.2 Journey times are expected to increase (without mitigation) along the A259 corridor from Shoreham to western Hove and the city centre. Parts of the A259 Kingsway east of Shoreham Harbour are expected to be close to capacity. In addition, it identifies key pinch points in 2030 on the single carriageway section of A259 around Fishersgate Terrace and Wellington Road. This is attributed to growth in traffic generated from Shoreham Harbour, leading to ‘modest’ increases in westbound journey times, and a more substantial increase for eastbound trips towards the city.
3.3.3 A package of measures was tested to assess whether the impact of the City Plan
development could be mitigated. This comprised of public transport mitigation measures, local road network mitigation measures, freight management and consolidation measures, sustainable travel promotion and awareness measures, and walking and cycling interventions.
3.3.4 In summary, the results indicate that the mitigation package has a generally positive
impact on reducing journey times with many routes performing better than in the 2030 Committed Base (without strategic development or mitigation). This suggests that the impact of the development areas can be adequately mitigated. Across Brighton & Hove as a whole, the sustainable transport mode share increases from between 25% (morning peak) and 28% (evening peak) in 2010 to 33% in both peaks by 2030. The results of the transport modelling indicate that a sustained improvement in public transport provision and walking and cycling facilities accompanied by personalised travel planning and behaviour change campaigns is required to achieve these mode share targets.
52
SUMMARY OF FUTURE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES • An increase in journey times along the A259 corridor is expected unless mitigation measures are provided • A package of sustainable transport improvements and behaviour change measures will be required to achieve the predicted increases in sustainable transport mode share
3.4 SHOREHAM TOWN CENTRE STUDY 2014
3.4.1 WSCC commissioned an investigation into Shoreham town centre, to report on options for schemes that aid vehicular circulation, pedestrian accessibility and improve air quality. It expands on the analysis carried out in the Adur Local Plan and Shoreham Harbour Transport Study on the A259 / A283 Norfolk Bridge junction, and assists in a better understanding of the impact of the proposed development within the Western Harbour Arm character area on the town centre.
3.4.2 Through an analysis of journey time surveys, the study identifies the A259 High Street as a constraint on capacity and movement through the town centre, which is a situation that is likely to deteriorate in the future. This is due to the level of traffic and activity associated with the town centre. It identifies areas where congestion, accessibility and safety contribute towards the poor traffic flows, environmental concerns, severance and constraints in the town centre.
3.4.3 The study proposes a series of short, medium and long term measures in five
geographical areas to improve the town centre and mitigate the impact of development at the Western Harbour Arm. This includes rationalising the operation of the High Street, reviewing longer term on-street parking arrangements and improving pedestrian and cycle links between the town centre and Western Harbour Arm. The study includes a review of options to improve the A259 / A283 Norfolk Bridge junction. It explains that a signalised junction in this location would not be able to accommodate the predicted future year traffic flows, and suggests that an enlargement to the roundabout to provide sufficient capacity should be taken forward as the preferred option.
53
SUMMARY OF FUTURE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES • Level of traffic and activity associated with Shoreham town centre constrains capacity and movement • Improvements to the highway network will be required to accommodate future development in the Western Harbour Arm
• On-street parking arrangements need to be reviewed
• Improvements to pedestrian and cycle links between the town centre and Western
Harbour Arm are required
3.5 SHOREHAM PORT MASTERPLAN TRANSPORT AND ACCESS NOTE
3.5.1 This note was prepared to support proposals in the Shoreham Port Masterplan. It
provides details regarding traffic generation and the potential impact of proposed new internal roads on traffic distribution. It explores the potential impact of transferring HGV movements from the port operational sites in the Western Harbour Arm to the Eastern Harbour Arm. Although this would be expected to reduce the general level of traffic, a growth in port trade has been assumed to reflect the likely intensification of use of port operational land.
3.5.2 The note sets out proposed changes to the port access arrangements and internal
road network. This includes a widening of Basin Road North and extension to form a more accessible route through the operational port and lead HGVs more directly on to the advisory route on A293 Church Road. This would reduce the amount of port related traffic on the A259 coast road between Church Road and Wharf Road. It would also reduce the volume of HGVs using the A259 / Wharf Road junction. As the A259 / A293 Church Road junction would be more intensively used, the note proposes an improvement to provide two outbound lanes.
SUMMARY OF FUTURE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES • Improvements to port access arrangements and the internal road network will be required to facilitate port consolidation • Proposed improvements should encourage HGVs to use the advisory route to / from Shoreham Harbour
54
4 OUTCOMES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.1.1 The Transport Strategy seeks to achieve five desired outcomes, which complement
the strategic objectives and area priorities within the JAAP. The outcomes have been identified to set out how Shoreham Harbour and its transport network will function in the future. They form an integral part of the Strategy, because they describe how the place will improve to facilitate growth. The outcomes have been identified to address the key issues and future challenges identified in Sections 2 and 3.
4.2 TRANSPORT STRATEGY OUTCOMES
4.2.1 Outcomes OC1 to OC5 are set out below with accompanying criteria, which provide
a framework to enable the assessment of potential interventions:
OC1 Reduced levels of congestion
- Reduction in congestion to benefit all modes of transport
- Less dependence on car trips for short journeys within urban areas
- Focus on east-west routes and north-south links (priority corridors)
- Improvements to journey time reliability
OC2 Strengthened sustainable transport mode share
- Attractive alternatives to the private car
- Minimising the need to travel by car for short trips (when appropriate)
- Scope to influence rail improvements
55
OC3 Improved connectivity
- Focus on local area and further afield
- Completing missing connections
- Removing physical and perceived barriers to the surrounding area and improving public access to the waterfront
- Reducing severance
OC4 A safe and attractive environment
- Improving safety by reducing speed of traffic
- Ensuring transport improvements enhance the public realm
OC5 Adequate parking provision and controls
- Suitable provision of car and cycle parking
- Managing the impact of car parking to improve network safety and efficiency
- Minimising the impact of inappropriate car parking
4.2.2 The Transport Strategy will focus on delivering these outcomes through a series of interventions.
56
5 STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.1.1 This section details the process undertaken to refine a range of transport interventions into the preferred Shoreham Harbour Transport Strategy. A long list of potential interventions has been identified from a series of previous and current technical, policy and assessment documents, along with stakeholder engagement. These interventions have been developed to meet the Strategy’s outcomes (Section 4), and respond to the challenges identified through the analysis of the existing and future transport network (Sections 2 and 3). The interventions can be applied to character areas, development sites or across a wider area.
5.1.2 Specific interventions contained in the long list broadly cover infrastructure investment, network management, campaign, education or behaviour change measures. Similar interventions have been grouped together, where possible, into ‘themes’, such as public transport, local highway network or behaviour change. Some interventions could apply to a number of the themes, but each has been linked to the most relevant theme.
5.1.3 Having defined the themes and interventions, each intervention has been appraised and assessed to inform development of a preferred strategy. Where an intervention does not adequately address the identified challenges, it has been refined or disregarded.
5.1.4 The preferred Transport Strategy was included in the Draft Shoreham Harbour
Transport Strategy, which was a supporting document for the public consultation on the draft Shoreham Harbour JAAP during 2014. Following this consultation, the strategy has been reviewed and updated in response to the comments received.
5.2 THEMES AND POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS
5.2.1 A ‘long list’ of potential transport interventions for Shoreham Harbour was developed (see Table 5.2). These interventions were designed to achieve the Outcomes (OC1 to OC5) and respond to the identified challenges. The long list also reflects known issues and aspirations alongside best practice in transport and spatial planning. The long list contains a wide range of possible interventions identified through a series of tasks, including:
Review of existing transport and spatial planning policy documents and
review of historic and recent technical studies (see table 1.1)
Seminars for elected members held in 2012 and 2014
Discussions between the Regeneration Partners
Engagement with transport providers
Proven solutions from other similar developments and strategies
57
5.2.2 Potential interventions have been grouped into a number of themes, designed to target one or more of the strategic outcomes, or a development location. A description of the themes and rationale is given below:
1. An overarching area-wide travel behaviour change and travel choice
programme aimed at supporting the use of existing and new infrastructure,
encouraging cleaner technology and influencing travel habits at change points
in people’s lives, through providing alternative travel choices and information.
2. Improving priority corridors, as the main arterial routes into Shoreham
Harbour; they carry the majority of traffic, provide access to the Port and
development sites, are the core public transport routes and provide
connections to the wider area; this is aimed at making optimal use of the
existing network, and encouraging sustainable travel.
3. Enabling safe access arrangements to the regeneration sites and Port
activities to facilitate site development and the movement of goods and
services to and from the Port.
4. Accessing the waterfront in the Harbour to encourage activity along and
support public access to the water.
5. A high quality public transport network aimed at making travelling by
public transport an attractive and effective alternative to the car to access
employment, leisure and education facilities.
6. Expanding and improving the cycle and pedestrian networks to create a
series of high quality, coordinated, continuous, accessible and safe facilities to
encourage and maintain more sustainable travel and influence travel
behaviour.
7. Enhancing interchange with and access to the railway to support the role
of rail in serving a wider catchment area and longer distance travel, centred
on the gateway stations.
8. Providing a better and enhanced public realm and environment creating a
sense of place for Shoreham Harbour, integrate the development with the
surrounding community and reducing the impact on the environment.
9. Having appropriate car and cycle parking by providing an adequate
amount, and type, of parking for those who require it; managing the impact of
parking within and outside of new development, and support alternatives to
car ownership.
58
10. Managing and maintaining the local highway network aimed at minimising
the impact of development traffic on the community, providing suitable routes
for HGVs, creating safer conditions for all and maintaining the road network,
and serve the needs of the Port and businesses.
11. Improving junction capacity at junctions identified as being under pressure
from traffic, both now and in the future, aimed at reducing congestion and
delay to allow more reliable journey times (this theme was later merged with
the priority corridors theme).
5.2.3 The identified themes and interventions take into account the constrained
geography, emerging polices for Shoreham Harbour and best practice from other similar developments in the UK. The scale of the interventions is considered to be proportionate to the scale of development proposed in the JAAP. They seek to ensure that, following implementation of the Strategy, the cumulative impact of development on the transport network will not be severe. Stakeholder engagement provided a check of the interventions identified and will allow the long list to be appraised and refined.
5.2.4 Table 5.2 sets out the long list of potential interventions within each theme. Some interventions can be specifically defined at this stage, whereas others incorporate undefined or groups of interventions. Interventions can then be scaled to an appropriate character area, site or location. The ‘long list’ of interventions is taken forward for appraisal, with the most suited interventions taken forward for inclusion in the preferred strategy.
5.3 APPRAISAL OF INTERVENTIONS LONG LIST
5.3.1 Having defined the themes and the associated long list of interventions, an appraisal
was undertaken to identify the most suitable and relevant interventions. The preferred Transport Strategy was then developed for Shoreham Harbour
5.3.2 The appraisal in Table 5.2 shows how the interventions have performed against the following selected criteria, presented in Table 5.1.
Contribution to achieving the outcomes (OC1 to OC5) (reducing levels of
congestion, strengthening sustainable transport mode share, connectivity, a
safe and attractive environment and providing adequate parking);
Relevance to the delivery of an individual development site, mitigation of
development or to achieving the outcomes of the JAAP;
Risks to deliverability – land ownership, environmental and technical
restrictions, preparation time or requirement for further work to develop the
intervention, and
59
Value for money – indicative costs for each intervention based on previous
experience, or scheme specific information where this exists assessed
against the expected benefits.
5.4 TOWARDS A PREFERRED STRATEGY
5.4.1 Following the appraisal process, interventions that did not either significantly
contribute to achieving the outcomes, had high deliverability risks, provided poor value for money or were not relevant to the development, were removed from the list. The interventions that are relevant and have no or very limited deliverability risks were included in the preferred strategy. For interventions where there were concerns against relevance, deliverability or value for money, further consideration was given as to whether they should be included in the preferred strategy. Table 5.1: Appraisal Criteria
Category Green Amber Red
Outcome Significant beneficial impact on the outcomes
Some, but limited beneficial impact on the outcomes
Very limited or negative impact on the outcomes
Relevance
Critical to the delivery of a development site, or makes a positive contribution to achieving one or more of the desired outcomes
Desirable as it would aid delivery of a development site, or makes a positive contribution to achieving at least one of the desired outcomes
Limited relevance to delivery of a development site, or the desired outcomes
Deliverability
Land ownership known / held, low environmental risk, feasibility work complete or not required
Land ownership known but not held, some environmental risk, needs further feasibility work
Land ownership not known, significant environmental and / or technical risks, no feasibility work undertaken
Value for
Money
Benefits significantly outweigh the costs (expected Benefit to Cost Ratio of 2)
Benefits outweigh the costs (expected Benefit to Cost Ratio of 1.5 to 2)
Benefits only just outweigh the costs (expected Benefit to Cost Ratio under 1.5)
5.4.2 The preferred Transport Strategy was included in the Draft Shoreham Harbour
Transport Strategy, which was a supporting document for the public consultation on the draft Shoreham Harbour JAAP. Following this consultation, the strategy has been reviewed and updated in response to the comments received, and is presented in the Shoreham Harbour Transport Strategy (October 2014) document.
60
Table 5.2 - Scheme Long List and Intervention Appraisal
Th
em
e
Intervention Description
Strategy Outcomes
Rele
van
ce
Deli
vera
bilit
y
Valu
e f
or M
on
ey
In
clu
ded
in
Str
ate
gy Reduced levels of
congestion
Strengthened sustainable transport
mode share
Connectivity
A safe and
attractive environment
Adequate
parking provision
Benefit
all m
odes
Less s
ingle
car
trip
s
East-
west,
nort
h-s
outh
corr
idor
focus
Journ
ey t
ime r
eliability
Incre
ase a
ttra
ctiveness
of altern
atives
Min
imis
e n
eed t
o t
ravel
by c
ar
Influence r
ail
impro
vem
ents
Local are
a/
furt
her
afield
Com
ple
te c
onnections
Rem
ove b
arr
iers
Reduce s
evera
nce
Reducin
g t
raff
ic s
peed
Enhance p
ublic r
ealm
Suitable
car
& c
ycle
park
ing
Manage im
pact
Min
imis
e inappro
priate
park
ing
Are
a W
ide T
ravel Behavio
ur
Change a
nd T
ravel Choic
e P
rogra
mm
e
Personalised Travel Planning
1-2-1 service or personalised information packs for new and existing residents
Y
Promoting Travel Choices (cycle, walk, public transport, rail)
In-dwelling or office and onsite RTPI screens for bus and rail; printed and online cycle , public transport and walking maps and journey planning tools
Y
Cycle & walking activities & training
Cycle challenges and training activities in workplaces, residential areas and schools
Y
Business Travel Plans
Business travel plans which
seek to address site-specific issues through a variety of initiatives
Y
Car Club and Car Sharing Parking Spaces
Providing access to shared vehicles within a development to ease the need for individual car ownership, or support those who do not own a car or van
Y
Car and Lift Sharing
Promotion of existing lift share schemes in Brighton and West Sussex
Y
Workplace or Area Travel Plan Network
Provide advice, incentives and promotional activities through a support network
Y
Overall campaign to promote sustainable travel
A tailored approach across a variety of media to promote sustainable transport options and choices
Y
School Travel Planning
Connecting the development with the local schools and educating through schemes such as Walk/Cycle to School, Safer Routes to School and Rail, bus & cycle education
Y
Port Travel Plan
A travel plan for the consolidated Commercial Port Activities
Y
Priority
Corr
idors
A259 (Lancing to Hove)
Taking an approach that supports network capacity, safety and environment improvements along the corridor for all
Y
A270 (A27 to Carlton Terrace)
Taking an approach that supports network capacity, safety and environment improvements along the corridor for all
N
A283 (A259 to A27)
Taking an approach that supports network capacity, safety and environment improvements along the corridor for all
Y
A293 (A259 to A27)
Taking an approach that supports network capacity, safety and environment improvements along the corridor for all
Y
61
Th
em
e
Intervention Description
Strategy Outcomes
Rele
van
ce
Deli
vera
bilit
y
Valu
e f
or M
on
ey
In
clu
ded
in
Str
ate
gy Reduced levels of
congestion
Strengthened sustainable transport
mode share
Connectivity A safe and attractive
environment
Adequate parking
provision
Benefit
all m
odes
Less s
ingle
car
trip
s
East-
west,
nort
h-s
outh
corr
idor
focus
Journ
ey t
ime r
eliability
Incre
ase a
ttra
ctiveness
of altern
atives
Min
imis
e n
eed t
o t
ravel
by c
ar
Influence r
ail
impro
vem
ents
Local are
a/
furt
her
afield
Com
ple
te c
onnections
Rem
ove b
arr
iers
Reduce s
evera
nce
Reducin
g t
raff
ic s
peed
Enhance p
ublic r
ealm
Suitable
car
& c
ycle
park
ing
Manage im
pact
Min
imis
e inappro
priate
park
ing
Accessin
g t
he D
evelo
pm
ent
Sites &
Port
Activitie
s
New Accesses into Western
Harbour Arm
Access from A259 to the one-way Waterfront Route
Y
Southwick Waterfront Access Road
A new service road between Southwick Waterfront and Church Road
Y
Basin Road North
A new two way road from Wharf Road to Church Road junctions
Y
Widening A293 to create a Link Road between A259 and A270
Widen existing A293 Church Road/Trafalgar Road to two lanes each way
N
Link Road A259 to A270 (in Tunnel)
A new tunnel to take link road from A259 to A270 in Portslade
N
Widening A259 corridor
Physical widening of A259 to provide additional carriageway to increase capacity
N
Airport Access Road
Improving Cecil Pashley Way to provide access from A259 to A27
N
A259/Minelco Wharf
New Superstore Access Y
A259/Lady Bee Marina & Southwick Waterfront
Provide improved egress point onto A259 from Southwick Waterfront Road
Y
A259/Basin Road North/A293 Church Road
Realignment of junction on south side to provide access from the Port and realigned Basin Road North
Y
A259/Basin Road North/B2184 Boundary Road Junction
Alterations to the junction to restrict access from Basin Road North except ped/cycles
Y
A259/Wharf Road
Improvements to junction layout to maintain access for HGVs from the Port
Y
Accessin
g t
he W
ate
rfro
nt
Western Harbour Arm Waterfront Route
An attractive shared cycle, pedestrian & low vehicle route between Shoreham town centre and Kingston Beach
Y
Public Slipways
Improvements to existing and new slipways in Shoreham town centre, Southwick Waterfront
Y
Waterborne Transport Service
A service through the Harbour linking the character areas
N
Junction I
mpro
vem
ents
A27/Old Shoreham Road/Coombes Road (Sussex Pad)
Remark lines at traffic signals providing additional lanes to improve capacity
N
A27/A283 (Steyning Road)
Fully signalise the roundabout and enlarge
circulatory and approaches to increase capacity
Y
A27/A293 (Hangleton Link)
Replace roundabouts on dumb-bell junctions with traffic signals and widen A27 off-slips
Y
A259/A2025 (South Street, Lancing)
Enlarge the mini-roundabout circulatory and approaches to increase capacity
N
62
Th
em
e
Intervention Description
Strategy Outcomes
Rele
van
ce
Deli
vera
bilit
y
Valu
e f
or M
on
ey
In
clu
ded
in
Str
ate
gy Reduced levels of
congestion
Strengthened sustainable transport
mode share
Connectivity A safe and attractive
environment
Adequate parking
provision
Benefit
all m
odes
Less s
ingle
car
trip
s
East-
west,
nort
h-s
outh
corr
idor
focus
Journ
ey t
ime r
eliability
Incre
ase a
ttra
ctiveness
of altern
atives
Min
imis
e n
eed t
o t
ravel
by c
ar
Influence r
ail
impro
vem
ents
Local are
a/
furt
her
afield
Com
ple
te c
onnections
Rem
ove b
arr
iers
Reduce s
evera
nce
Reducin
g t
raff
ic s
peed
Enhance p
ublic r
ealm
Suitable
car
& c
ycle
park
ing
Manage im
pact
Min
imis
e inappro
priate
park
ing
A259/A283 (Norfolk Bridge)
Enlarge the roundabout to provide sufficient capacity in future
Y
A259/Surry Street (new roundabout)
Create a new roundabout at junction through localised widening to allow turning from New Road
N
A259/Surry Street (priority junction)
Changes to junction layout and priority to simplify turning movements and pedestrian routes
Y
A270/ Kingston Lane
Upgrade signals with bus priority
N
A H
igh Q
uality
Public T
ransport
Netw
ork
Coastal Transport System (CTS)
High quality linear bus service from Goring to Brighton
N
A high quality bus service
Improving the existing bus services to create a frequent and quality bus service
Y
A270 Bus Lanes and Gates
Installing bus lanes and gates on A259 at selected locations to give the bus an advantage over queuing traffic or at delay points
N
Bus Stop Infrastructure
Improved facilities at bus stops
Y
A293 Bus Lanes and Gates
Installing bus lanes and gates on A259 at selected locations
N
B2066 Bus Lanes and Gates
Installing bus lanes and gates on A259 at selected locations
N
A259 Bus Lanes and Gates
Installing bus lanes and gates on A259 at selected locations
Y
Bus priority at traffic signals
Dedicated bus priority technology in any upgraded or new signalised junctions
Y
Expand a
nd I
mpro
ve t
he C
ycling a
nd P
edestr
ian N
etw
ork
s
NCN2 Core Cycle Corridor
Improved cycle facilities to create safe and continuous route, including – Wharf Road, Basin Road South, Southwick Lock Gates and Shoreham town centre
Y
A259 Core Cycle Corridor
Dedicated safe and continuous cycle facility along the A259 (on or off road)
Y
A270 Core Cycle Corridor
Dedicated safe and continuous cycle facility along the A270
N
Designated Cycle Routes
Dedicated cycle facilities between Shoreham Harbour and the main destinations and services residents require
Y
Quietways
Promote use of other roads where traffic speeds and volumes are lower or non-existent, such as side streets
and through parks.
Y
Downs Link connections
New pedestrian & cycle crossing facility on A283
Y
Formal and informal cycle and pedestrian crossing points
Installation of new or improved cycle crossing points (either standalone, within signalised junctions) at various locations
Y
Destination cycle parking
Convenient and secure cycle parking at destinations
Y
63
Th
em
e
Intervention Description
Strategy Outcomes
Rele
van
ce
Deli
vera
bilit
y
Valu
e f
or M
on
ey
In
clu
ded
in
Str
ate
gy Reduced levels of
congestion
Strengthened sustainable transport
mode share
Connectivity A safe and attractive
environment
Adequate parking
provision
Benefit
all m
odes
Less s
ingle
car
trip
s
East-
west,
nort
h-s
outh
corr
idor
focus
Journ
ey t
ime r
eliability
Incre
ase a
ttra
ctiveness
of altern
atives
Min
imis
e n
eed t
o t
ravel
by c
ar
Influence r
ail
impro
vem
ents
Local are
a/
furt
her
afield
Com
ple
te c
onnections
Rem
ove b
arr
iers
Reduce s
evera
nce
Reducin
g t
raff
ic s
peed
Enhance p
ublic r
ealm
Suitable
car
& c
ycle
park
ing
Manage im
pact
Min
imis
e inappro
priate
park
ing
Cycle Hub
A secure cycle parking centre to provide storage, maintenance, showers and changing facilities within Development Areas
N
Cycle Hire Scheme
A pay-as-you-go cycle hire scheme for visitors, residents and/or workers
N
New or improved formal and informal connections
Opportunities to create permeable and direct route from surrounding communities
Y
Pedestrian priority within development
Rebalancing the street environment within the development areas towards pedestrians make it accessible and safe for all
Y
Monarch’s Way
Improvements to signing, mapping and condition of Monarch’s Way along Basin Road South
Y
Wayfinding and legibility network
A comprehensive direction signs and maps
Y
New pedestrian and cycle bridge(s) over railway
New bridges over the railway to connect between the Western Arm and Dolphin Road to access routes north
Y
New pedestrian and cycle bridge to Shoreham Beach
New bridges over River Adur from Kingston Beach to Shoreham Beach to connect to Shoreham Fort
N
Enhance I
nte
rchange w
ith a
nd a
ccess t
o t
he R
ailw
ay
Shoreham Airport Parkway Station
New station to serve Shoreham Airport and act as Park & Ride
N
Southwick Station (rebuild)
Rebuild station building and improve station environment to make fit for purpose
N
Fishersgate & Aldrington Halts
General improvements to station security, facilities and access
Y
Shoreham-by-Sea public transport interchange
Redesigned forecourt area to create better drop-off/pick up, setting of the station. Long term aspiration for public transport interchange
Y
Portslade public transport interchange
Public transport interchange comprising of improved bus stops, reorganised forecourt, cycle/pedestrian routes and additional cycle parking
Y
Hove public transport interchange
Public transport interchange comprising of improved bus stops, reorganised forecourt, cycle/pedestrian routes and additional cycle parking
N
Southwick Station
Improve access to station the environment with waiting facilities, accessibility for all, security and forecourt improvements
Y
Access to all stations
New and improved pedestrian and cycling routes from surrounding areas and defined links from new development
Y
Station Car Parks
Extend car parking capacity N
Level Crossings
Closure of all level crossings and replacement with bridge/subway
N
64
Th
em
e
Intervention Description
Strategy Outcomes
Rele
van
ce
Deli
vera
bilit
y
Valu
e f
or M
on
ey
In
clu
ded
in
Str
ate
gy Reduced levels of
congestion
Strengthened sustainable transport
mode share
Connectivity A safe and attractive
environment
Adequate parking
provision
Benefit
all m
odes
Less s
ingle
car
trip
s
East-
west,
nort
h-s
outh
corr
idor
focus
Journ
ey t
ime r
eliability
Incre
ase a
ttra
ctiveness
of altern
atives
Min
imis
e n
eed t
o t
ravel
by c
ar
Influence r
ail
impro
vem
ents
Local are
a/
furt
her
afield
Com
ple
te c
onnections
Rem
ove b
arr
iers
Reduce s
evera
nce
Reducin
g t
raff
ic s
peed
Enhance p
ublic r
ealm
Suitable
car
& c
ycle
park
ing
Manage im
pact
Min
imis
e inappro
priate
park
ing
Public R
ealm
Shoreham Town Centre Public Realm
Continuation of pedestrian and cycle friendly treatment between East Street and Shoreham-by-Sea station and A259
Y
Southwick Waterfront Public Realm
Improvements to support new pedestrian and cycle facilities on Lock Gates and access to the slipways
Y
South Portslade Public Realm
Attractive public realm in
North Street and Wellington Road using shared surfaces, consistent paving and minimal street clutter
Y
Aldrington Basin Public Realm
Attractive public realm on Wharf Road between Hove Lagoon and Aldrington Basin
Y
A283 Old Shoreham Road Public Realm
Gateway feature on A283 north of Upper Shoreham Road and changes to public realm
Y
Appro
priate
Car
and C
ycle
Park
ing
Car Parking Provision
Sufficient parking provision, layout & landscaping
Y
Cycle parking
Safe, secure and visible
cycle parking in developments
Y
Bus based Park & Ride
Bus based park & ride close to Trunk Road network (A27) to Shoreham and Brighton
N
Electric Vehicle Charging Points
Installation of bays for Electric Vehicles (rapid or fast charging)
Y
Car Club and Lift Sharing Parking Spaces
Specific spaces for car club and car share vehicles
Y
Parking space standards
Car parking provision for residential and commercial development in line with standards
Y
On-Street Parking Controls & Management
Appropriate mix of parking controls (e.g. limited waiting restrictions), signing for public car parks
Y
Managin
g a
nd M
ain
tain
ing t
he L
ocal H
ighw
ay N
etw
ork
Freight Management Strategy
Coordination with SPA to encourage Port related HGVs to use A293 advisory route
Y
Variable Message Signs
Installation of signs to provide travel information and advice at various locations on A27, A259, A293 and other routes
Y
Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) measures
Measures from adopted AQAPs in Adur and Brighton
Y
Noise Action Plan
Use of noise reduction measures to minimise impact on new residents (surfacing, insulation, development layout, protection)
Y
Low Emissions Zone (LEZ)
Adoption of a low emissions zone for HGVs
N
Maintenance Regime Strategy
Suitable strategy or funding for on-going maintenance
Y
Drainage Strategy
To avoid run off from new or improved network to minimise surface water flood risk
Y
65
Th
em
e
Intervention Description
Strategy Outcomes
Rele
van
ce
Deli
vera
bilit
y
Valu
e f
or M
on
ey
In
clu
ded
in
Str
ate
gy Reduced levels of
congestion
Strengthened sustainable transport
mode share
Connectivity A safe and attractive
environment
Adequate parking
provision
Benefit
all m
odes
Less s
ingle
car
trip
s
East-
west,
nort
h-s
outh
corr
idor
focus
Journ
ey t
ime r
eliability
Incre
ase a
ttra
ctiveness
of altern
atives
Min
imis
e n
eed t
o t
ravel
by c
ar
Influence r
ail
impro
vem
ents
Local are
a/
furt
her
afield
Com
ple
te c
onnections
Rem
ove b
arr
iers
Reduce s
evera
nce
Reducin
g t
raff
ic s
peed
Enhance p
ublic r
ealm
Suitable
car
& c
ycle
park
ing
Manage im
pact
Min
imis
e inappro
priate
park
ing
Safety improvements at Junctions
At various locations where accident clusters or hotspots have been identified
Y
Traffic and network management
Creating a safe environment by using appropriate traffic calming measures to reduce inappropriate vehicles rat running away from Priority Corridors
Y
Signing Strategy
Appropriate directional and local signs to off-street car parks, main destinations and advisory access routes to the Port
Y
20mph speed limit
A network of streets where speed limits are lowered to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists
Y
66
APPENDIX A
Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations
Adur County Local Committee (CLC) – in West Sussex consisting of all Elected Members in Adur District, meeting approximately four to five times annually.
Air Quality – usually defined as the impact that a pollutant or mixture of pollutants might have on aspects such as human health, visibility, or buildings.
Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) – Once an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) has been declared, the relevant local authority must then produce an Air Quality Action Plan detailing the approach to reducing levels of air pollution.
Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) – Under the Environment Act 1995 an Air Quality Management Area is declared when NOx / NO² levels breach UK National guidelines.
Behaviour Change & Smarter or Travel Choices – a range of initiatives widely described as ‘soft’ transport policy measures, often seeking to provide people with better information and opportunities about alternative methods of transport and ways of reducing their car use.
Bikeability – designed to improve people’s cycling skills and confidence to ride bicycles on the road, available for both children and adults.
BikeIt – a project run by Sustrans (the national cycling charity) working in schools to encourage more young people to cycle (and walk), more often; through a programme of activities designed to bring about long term behaviour change.
Bus priority – various methods that give buses an advantage over queuing or congested traffic or provide access:
o Bus Lanes – dedicated road space for buses with other vehicles not permitted to enter, unless allowed through the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), can either operate 24 hours or limited hours depending on circumstances.
o Bus Only Street and Gate – a road or link restricted to bus-use usually allows buses to take a more direct route than other vehicles. Usually a bus gate is required at point(s) of access to ensure compliance by other vehicles, these could be traffic signals or physical barriers operated by the buses.
o Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) – using satellite based GPS and automatic vehicle locating technology, bus and train locations can be tracked against the service timetable; displays at bus stops or stations give the current location and arrival time of the next bus or train.
67
o Traffic light priority – linked with the RTPI system it is designed to detect the approach of buses and give them priority where needed, without delay to other road users.
Car Club – a membership based scheme that provides access to a car in a network across an area, parked in their own bays, available to be booked for a period of time ranging from half an hour, a day or longer.
Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership (C2C LEP) – a body designated by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, established for the purpose of protecting and improving the conditions for economic growth in West Sussex, Brighton & Hove, eastern Surrey and the London Borough of Croydon.
Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) – a national fund run from 2009 to 2011 to provide funding to support the delivery of growth. In Shoreham Harbour, this provided £5m of funding to enable the delivery of transport infrastructure improvements to unlock the potential for strategic residential and employment development.
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) – a new charge which local planning authorities can use to raise funds from developers to pay for infrastructure that is needed as a result of development. When a charging authority introduces CIL, section 106 requirements should be scaled back to those matters that are directly related to a specific site.
Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) – form part of the suite of tools for managing on-street parking on the highway to ensure that the supply, regulation, enforcement and costs of parking are managed and controlled.
Cycle Facilities – an individual section of cycle infrastructure these can be categorised as the following:
o Cycle Lane – a section of road that is designated for cyclists, either in the same direction as traffic or opposite
o Cycle Track or Path – either a converted pavement alongside a road for cyclists and pedestrians, or a purpose built path away from a road
o Signed Route – directional signs providing information on destinations,
distance or route number
o Advanced Stop Line – a designated area at traffic signals in advance of the normal stop line where cyclists can wait ahead of queuing vehicles
Cycle Infrastructure – a specific construction provided to cycle along, or provided at the end of journeys (parking or changing / showers).
Cycle Network – an interlinked collection of cycle routes in a specific location which connect several key destinations together.
Cycle Route – a collection of cycle facilities connected together to provide a continuous provision for cyclists.
Euro Engine Standards - III and V – defines the acceptable limits for exhaust emissions of new vehicles, including buses and HGVs, sold in EU member
68
states, with the limits defined by directives staging the progression of increasingly tighter standards. Euro III was introduced in 2000 and Euro V in 2008.
Grade-Separated Junction – a junction where crossing roads are at different levels, e.g. on a bridge over a roundabout.
Highways Agency (HA) – an executive agency of the Department for Transport with responsibility for the Motorways and Trunk Roads in England, such as M23, A23 and A27.
Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) – this sets out the infrastructure required to deliver proposals in the Local Plan, including responsible agencies, costs, timing, sources of funding and constraints.
Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) - this provides a relative measure of deprivation at small area levels across England. This index is a composite measure of seven domains of deprivation (income, employment, health and disability, education, crime, barriers to housing and services, and living environment).
Lift Share – an organisation coordinating car-sharing (where there is more than one occupant in a private car) by connecting people travelling in the same direction so they can travel together and share costs.
Local Highway Authority – responsible for maintenance and provision of all roads, footways, cycleways, street furniture (e.g. traffic signals, signs, street lighting etc) and structures in an area, often County Councils (West Sussex) or Unitary Authorities (Brighton & Hove).
Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) a Department for Transport administered fund for improving sustainable travel infrastructure and awareness in operation from 2011-2015.
Local Transport Plan (LTP) – statutory document produced by the local highway authority setting out transport policies, programmes and investment for a period (5 years).
Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA) - geographical boundaries produced by the Office for National Statistics to enable reporting of small area statistics. The minimum and maximum population thresholds for LSOAs are 1,000 to 3,000, whilst the minimum and maximum household population thresholds are 400 to 1,200.
Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) – technology installed to traffic signals that can adapt green times to traffic conditions.
National Cycle Network (NCN) – a series of safe, traffic-free lanes and quiet on-road routes that connect every major city and passes within a mile of 55% of UK homes. It is managed by Sustrans and covers 14,500 miles.
Noise Action Plan (NAP) – There is an increasing need for noise to be managed in order to improve the quality of life for our communities. The purpose of Noise Action Plans is to assist in the management of environmental noise and its effects, including noise reduction if necessary, in the context of government policy on sustainable development.
69
Pedestrian and Cycle Crossings:
o Pelican – a signalised crossing for pedestrians using push button detection with green man opposite and have a fixed flashing amber / flashing green man duration
o Puffin – a signalised crossing for pedestrians using push buttons and on crossing detection where the red light time can be extended (or cancelled) through detectors
o Toucan – a signalised crossing designed for unsegregated use by both
pedestrians and cyclists
o Zebra – a non-signalised crossing for pedestrians where vehicles must give way to pedestrians crossing
Planning Obligations (Section 106) – secured through Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to mitigate the impact of a development proposal and are legally enforceable.
Public Right of Way (PRoW) – a legal right allowing members of the public to pass and re-pass along its route, generally for the purpose of leisure and recreation, on private land; classified as public footpaths, bridleways, restricted byways and byways open to all traffic.
Rail Utilisation Strategy (RUS) - these largely area based documents were produced by Network Rail between 2004 and 2012 and set out the strategic vision for the future of the rail network.
Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) – produced by the Local Enterprise Partnership setting out ambitions for economic growth, investments and proposals through the Local Growth Fund to 2020/21.
TRAACS – Accessibility software that can map journey times by public transport from a point, often in 5 minute increments.
Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) – a legal order made by the highway authority under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, requiring road users to obey certain conditions, for example one-way systems, speed limits, weight limits, movement and waiting restrictions.
Variable Message Sign (VMS) – signs providing information on travel conditions, car park spaces or other emergency messages that can change to reflect real time conditions.
70
Blank Page
71
Adur District Council Portland House 44 Richmond Road Worthing West Sussex BN11 1HS
Brighton & Hove City Council Hove Town Hall Norton Road Hove East Sussex BN3 4AH
Shoreham Harbour Regeneration www.shorehamharbour.com [email protected] info@shoreham
