0

Winchester Movement Strategy

Consultation: Key Findings Report

1

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2

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

Consultation aims ........................................................................................................................ 2

Geographical scope of the consultation ....................................................................................... 3

Research approach................................................................................................... 4

Open consultation ....................................................................................................................... 4

Responses to the consultation ..................................................................................................... 5

Publication of data ....................................................................................................................... 5

Findings from the consultation ............................................................................... 6

Key Findings ............................................................................................................................... 6

Respondents experiences of moving into and around Winchester ..................... 8

How and why respondents move around Winchester .................................................................. 8

What are respondents’ experiences of moving around Winchester? .......................................... 11

What concerns do respondents have about moving around Winchester? .................................. 19

Concerns by reason for visit, mode of transport and area of residence ..................................... 20

What did respondents think of the Strategy’s ideas? ......................................... 23

Proposed Priorities .................................................................................................................... 23

Proposed priorities by concerns about movement in / around Winchester ................................. 24

Priorities by reason for visit, mode of transport and area of residence ....................................... 25

Ideas for change ........................................................................................................................ 27

Ideas supported by reason for visit, mode of transport and area of residence ........................... 28

What were respondents’ own ideas and priorities? ............................................ 31

Suggested Priorities .................................................................................................................. 31

Suggested Solutions ................................................................................................................. 42

Key Findings ........................................................................................................... 50

Appendices ............................................................................................................. 51

Appendix 1 - Responses from outside the consultation questionnaire ....................................... 51

Unstructured responses ............................................................................................................ 60

Appendix 2 - Consultation Response Form (Standard Format) .................................................. 63

Appendix 3 - Consultation technical detail ................................................................................. 72

Appendix 4 - Consultation participant profile .............................................................................. 73

Appendix 5 - Data tables (including coded responses to open questions) ................................. 75

2

Introduction

Context

Hampshire County Council and Winchester City Council are looking to improve how

people travel in and around Winchester. As the City grows and evolves, there is a need for

an agreed strategy to ensure that the right travel and transport infrastructure is in place.

This is vital to securing Winchester’s future economic growth and prosperity - and making

the City a healthier place to live, work and visit.

Since the 1990s, there have been many changes to transport in Winchester. These include

park and ride schemes and new 20mph speed limits in the City centre. With new housing

developments underway, and other potential developments being planned, the time was

right to review progress and set a new overall plan for movement in Winchester. The

Movement Strategy will set out an agreed vision and long term priorities for traffic and

transport improvements in Winchester over the next 20-30 years. The Strategy will also set

out, at a high level, plans for how these priorities will be met.

Developing the Strategy required an understanding of the shared aspirations for the City,

to set priorities for the future and consideration of which practical measures could help to

achieve these priorities. Therefore, residents and stakeholders were asked to share their

initial views prior to the Strategy being developed.

Consultation aims

Hampshire County Council and Winchester City Council are committed to listening to the

views of local residents and stakeholders before deciding which actions to take.

The consultation sought to understand:

Experiences of travelling into and around Winchester

Residents’ and stakeholders’ views on early ideas put forward by the Strategy

Residents’ and stakeholders’ own priorities and ideas for improving movement

throughout the City.

This report summarises key findings from the online and paper consultation

questionnaires, as well as an overview of key themes arising from unstructured responses

and the Stakeholder workshop held on the 28th November 2017.

The consultation findings are intended to support Hampshire County Council and

Winchester City Council decision making processes as work to develop the Strategy

progresses.

3

Geographical scope of the consultation

This consultation concerned movement throughout the City of Winchester. The area under

consideration is highlighted by the purple line in the map below:

4

Research approach

Open consultation

Hampshire County Council and Winchester City Council carried out an open consultation

to seek residents’ and stakeholders’ views and ideas.

The consultation was promoted through a range of online and offline channels, including

via social media and the local press. A number of local interest groups also took the

opportunity to conduct their own publicity campaigns to help raise local awareness.

The consultation ran from 30 October 2017 to 11:59pm on 8 December 2017.

A consultation Information Pack and Response Form were made available to view, print

and download from the County Council’s website. Responses could be submitted through

an online questionnaire available at www.hants.gov.uk/winchestermovementstrategy

To aid participation, paper copies and alternative formats were also made available upon

request.

‘Unstructured’ responses could be sent through via email or written letters, and those

received by the consultation’s close date were accepted.

Stakeholder workshops and interviews were held to hear and understand the views of

delivery partners, and local interest groups.

5

Responses to the consultation

As the consultation was an open exercise, its findings cannot be considered to be a

‘sample’ or representation of a specific population.

There were 1343 responses to the consultation questionnaire which breaks down as

follows:

1323 responses were received via the online response form, of which 1298 were

from individual respondents, 20 were from an organisation or group. Four

businesses also responded.

20 responses were received via the paper response form; all were individual

respondents.

In addition, there were 24 ‘unstructured’ responses (email, letter) received by the

consultation deadline: fifteen were from members of the public; one response from

a political representative; and eight from a stakeholder organisation or group.

Further detailed information is available in data tables in the Appendices, including a

breakdown of responses by key demographics.

Publication of data

Data provided as part of this consultation will be treated in accordance with the Data

Protection Act 1998. Personal information will be used for analytical purposes only. The

information collected as part of this consultation will be used by Hampshire County Council

and Winchester City Council for analysis but will not be shared with any other third parties.

All individuals’ responses will be kept confidential. Responses from groups or

organisations may be published in full. All data will be securely retained and copies of

responses stored for one year after the end of the consultation process, and then deleted

by both councils.

More details on how Hampshire County Council holds personal information can be found

at: www.hants.gov.uk/privacy.

More details on how Winchester City Council holds personal information can be found at:

http://www.winchester.gov.uk/no-listing/privacy-policy

6

Findings from the consultation

Key Findings

Objectives put forward by respondents (verbatim responses).

When asked to give unprompted feedback about their experiences, the majority of

respondents (81%) painted a negative picture of travelling around Winchester. In the main,

respondents spoke of the congestion they experienced whilst travelling in and around

Winchester, with poor traffic flow the key contributor.

748 of the 1343 respondents put forward their own movement priorities for Winchester. At

a strategic level these reflected three ultimate aims – to ‘Reduce city centre traffic’, to

‘Support healthier lifestyle choices’, and to ‘Improve traffic flow’. Respondents travelling on

buses and from outside of the City were most likely to support the former, those travelling

by private motorised vehicles and from SO22 were the main proponents of the latter, and

those living in SO23 and travelling by bike were the main advocates of a strategy that

prioritises support for healthier lifestyle choices.

Ideas for improvement suggested by respondents closely mirrored the priorities that they

proposed. Although private and commercial transport was seen as an obvious cause of

congestion respondents saw little point in restricting this without the introduction of viable

alternatives. Therefore, their focus was to facilitate and encourage transport by other

means where feasible to relieve the City of the burden of traffic and to enable those who

did need to travel into Winchester (including by car) to do so safely and efficiently.

Objectives proposed by the Strategy (structured responses).

The vast majority of respondents travelled frequently into and around Winchester and were

therefore well placed to understand the key issues of movement around the City. Almost

universally, regardless of how, why or where respondents travelled from, road congestion

was a big concern – with many recognising the dominance of through and motorised traffic

as key contributors to this and poor air quality as the result.

All three priorities for improving movement put forward resonated well with respondents

with over 90% agreement that ‘achieving the right balance between traffic types’,

‘improving air quality’ and ‘supporting growth and economic vibrancy’ were important at

some level. However, many respondents felt that ‘the right balance’ should be clearly

defined, with ‘cycling, walking and public transport’ often favoured over private vehicle use.

The ideas for change suggested by the Strategy were supported by more than half of

respondents – with those that related to relieving traffic congestion in the City centre

achieving the most support. However, any resolution should prioritise enablement over

prevention. Introducing enforcement options to restrict vehicle access was amongst the

least well supported ideas, and certainly less popular than options that aimed to

encourage positive behaviours.

7

Ultimately, therefore, the consultation provides a mandate to:

Be bold. To not just tinker around the edges but seize the opportunity for real change.

Tackle the causes of traffic congestion and improve movement flows in and around the City.

Address air quality issues, helping to make Winchester a healthier, more pleasant and less polluted environment.

Develop new options that prioritise safe travel for both pedestrians and cyclists.

Encourage more walking especially for short-distance trips – even more than now.

Facilitate opportunities for people to leave their cars outside of the City centre and travel in by other means.

Encourage further growth, cultural and economic development – but only where supported by an efficient and well planned transport infrastructure.

Support enabling measures with ‘carrots’ encouraging change rather than just ‘sticks’.

8

Respondents experiences of moving into and around

Winchester

In addition to information about how and why people move around Winchester, this section

of the consultation report considers respondents’ unprompted verbatim feedback on their

experiences. These ‘top of mind’ concerns provide an important read on some of the key

frustrations respondents feel as they travel into and around the City and set the context for

the priorities and improvements advocated in later sections.

How and why respondents move around Winchester

The majority of respondents were

very familiar with travelling around

Winchester. Almost everyone who

responded moved frequently within

and around the City – with over 90%

visiting more than once a week.

Most often, respondents travelled into Winchester during weekdays, but evening

respondents were also well represented, as were those who visited the City at weekends.

How often do you tend to travel into and around Winchester? (Base: 1306)

When do you usually to travel into and around Winchester? (Multicode. Base: 1302)

9

Respondents tended to use motorised transport to come into Winchester, but many switched to walking once in town. In particular, further sub-group analysis revealed that almost half of those travelling into Winchester by private motorised transport then switched to travel around the City by other means.

A more detailed analysis of modal data suggests a number of opportunities for behavioural

change.

How do you usually travel into and around Winchester? (Multi-code. Base: 1237, 1263)

The data suggests that for many

private vehicle users, other forms of

transport into the centre could be an

option. Around a third of these

respondents will sometimes use the

bus to travel into Winchester, one in

three could travel by foot and one in

five by bike, were they facilitated

and/or better motivated to do so.

How do you usually to travel into Winchester? Other methods also used by respondents who

travel by private motor vehicle (Base: 912)

10

Most respondents (78%) travelled into and around Winchester for multiple reasons.

Shops and leisure facilities were the primary drivers of trips into the City, with around two

thirds travelling for these purposes.

Representation was received from both resident and non-resident populations – with the

former slightly within the majority – almost six out of ten respondents lived within

Winchester.

The working population of the City also responded –

around half of whom lived outside of the City and

commuted in on a regular basis. The consultation also

captured the views of a smaller number who commuted

via Winchester on their way to work elsewhere.

‘Other’ reasons for regular travel around Winchester

included meeting friends and family, and attending church.

For what reasons do you come into, or travel around Winchester?

(Multicode. Base: 1305)

11

What are respondents’ experiences of moving around Winchester?

When asked to write about their experiences, the majority of respondents (81%) painted a

negative picture of travelling around Winchester. Quantification of the stories told revealed

a focus on 11 key aspects, as illustrated in the chart below.

In the main, respondents spoke of the congestion they experienced whilst travelling in and

around Winchester. 423 respondents said that traffic flowed poorly through the City, with

contributing factors including inappropriate loading and unloading on key routes (15%), the

capacity of the existing road network to cope with increasing volumes of traffic (49%), and

an outdated infrastructure of junctions and traffic light sequencing that no longer feels fit

for purpose (21%).

Please tell us a little about your experiences of moving into and around Winchester (Base: 1028)

Proportion of respondents mentioning. . .

Quantification of sentiment. . .

12

The prominence of radial routes and the central one way system in many respondents’

stories gives a clue as to where some of the key pinch-points for congestion are felt to be.

124 respondents featured the central one way system in their stories of travelling around

Winchester. Mainly it was seen as a source of frustration, causing high volumes of traffic to

drive in circles on narrow roads within the heart of the City, leading to pollution and

congestion.

13

Of the 148 people who mentioned radial routes, 58% spoke of experiences on Andover

Road, 22% of Romsey Road, 20% of Stockbridge Road and 13% of the Winnall Junction.

The comments below are typical, highlighting the impact of traffic volumes and in particular

growing frustration with development of brownfield and large-scale sites, unsupported by

parallel improvements to the local infrastructure.

Poor traffic flow, however, was not just about motorised traffic. Cyclists too complained of difficulties crossing the City centre, with some noting that the shared space between powered and non-powered vehicles was a causal factor. 102 comments mentioned the lack or deficiency of dedicated space for cyclists, with 123 respondents feeling that cyclists could not travel safely in Winchester.

14

Less prominent, but common, themes mentioned by cyclists included poor road

maintenance (also a safety concern), air pollution and insufficient facilities for secure

parking / storage of bikes. In contrast, Winchester’s topography – historically a barrier to

cycling, was felt to be a declining issue as electronic bikes become more accessible.

159 respondents spoke of their experiences of walking around Winchester. Many of these

had also experienced issues with safety (56%) and a lack of dedicated space (16%) which

tended to make for an unpleasant and offputting experience. Almost half spoke of

concerns regarding motorised traffic, with many finding the the proximity and speed of

vehicle movement threatening – particularly around the central one way system, which

was mentioned by one in five pedestrians.

In total, a third of those who had experienced walking in Winchester mentioned narrow

streets, which, in addition to the danger of being knocked by wing mirrors, also proved an

obstacle to those carrying shopping, holding children or pushing buggies.

Pedestrians also complained of poor pavement maintenance (31%) – including uneven

surfaces, loose paving slabs, the standard of materials being used in repairs and slippery

surfaces (exacerbated by leaves in the autumn), which left them at risk of falling. Poor air

quality (13%) also made them reticient to walk in built up areas.

15

Environmental concerns were therefore a feature for both cyclists and pedestrians

travelling in Winchester. A review of the number of comments regarding air quality by

respondent type suggests that these two groups are more aware of pollution in the City

than those travelling via other methods.

Awareness of air quality issues is also notably higher amongst residents, than amongst

those travelling into or through Winchester for other purposes.

The key culprits are perceived to be congestion, standing traffic and diesel fumes, with the

consequence being that people are choosing not to walk or cycle, thereby contributing to a

vicious circle.

Please tell us a little about your experiences of moving into and around Winchester. Proportion of comments relating to air quality by mode of transport and residence

(Base: 789, 320, 872, 426, 603, 425)

16

Amongst those who shared their experiences of using buses, there were striking

similarities between the key themes of passengers on regular public service routes and on

Park and Ride.

Here too, congestion plays a part, with users of both Park and Ride and public bus

services complaining of delayed or lengthened journeys as buses compete with other

trafffic – particularly during peak periods. For respondents already concerned about cost of

public bus fares, service reductions and long gaps between scheduled bus times in

outlying areas, such experiences make reliability a key barrier to further use.

Key Themes Buses (base: 132) Key Themes - Park & Ride (base: 109)

17

The introduction of a Park and Ride service to Winchester was a very welcome addition for

a significant number of respondents. However, its popularity is now becoming an issue as

increased demand leads to capacity issues on existing routes.

Combined with a lack of priority for Park and Ride buses versus other traffic can mean a

long wait at a bus stop, followed by a long journey on an overcrowded bus back to the car

park. Over a quarter of those who spoke about Park and Ride services focussed on

location – and particularly the need to drive all around Winchester to reach a car park

when travelling from the north.

18

The need to drive around the City to find a space was also highlighted as a regular

experience by those respondents who needed to park closer to the centre and walk to their

destination – contributing to the air pollution and congestion experienced by many.

Both the growing cost and the decreasing capacity of parking spaces were emphasised as

barriers to visiting and working in Winchester. When it comes to parking, workers raised a

number of issues including high costs of central spaces, the ever widening creep of

residential permit areas removing the alternative of street parking further out, and a lack of

capacity for Park and Ride– making them feel like they are running out of options.

19

What concerns do respondents have about moving around Winchester?

Respondents’ experiences of travelling in and around Winchester prompted them to

acknowledge a number of the movement concerns suggested. 99% of respondents

expressed some level of concern, with road congestion and through traffic in the City

centre being the most recognised issues.

When asked to clarify their top three concerns from those selected, the pattern was much

the same, with road congestion, through traffic and poor air quality remaining the pre-

dominant factors, and eight of the top ten concerns remaining so in the more refined list.

What concerns you about moving in and around Winchester?

(Multicode. Base: 1330)

Top three concerns about moving in and around Winchester?

What concerns you about moving in and around Winchester?

(Top 3 from initial list. Base: 1330)

20

Concerns by reason for visit, mode of transport and area of residence

Concerns do, however, vary by why and how respondents travel into and around

Winchester.

For example, all visitor groups are in agreement that road congestion is a major concern,

however, the level of concern surrounding other issues is more variable, as revealed by

the vertical range in the graph below.

The data suggests that:

Respondents who work in Winchester are generally less concerned than other

groups - however, they are most likely to feel the impact of limited availability of

both parking and of park and ride. (NB: This is even more so when we look at those

who work, but do not live in Winchester.)

Air quality is more of a concern for those with a local focus - residents, those

accessing education or services. Workers or commuters are less likely to share

their concerns.

Respondents who travel in Winchester to study or complete the school run are most

concerned about the impact of motorised and through traffic, the subsequent impact

on road safety and the option of cycling as a viable alternative.

What concerns you about moving in and around Winchester – By reason for visit (Multicode. Base: 767, 643, 110, 134, 881, 814, 662)

)

21

Similarly, concerns varied depending on how respondents travelled into and around the

City.

In this case, the data reveals that:

Those who travel in commercial vehicles are generally the least concerned.

However, specific issues are highlighted in that small commercial drivers are the

group most worried about limited parking; whilst those driving commercial vans or

lorries are most impacted by poor street design. However, base sizes for these

groups are very low, so more work is needed to identify if these are general trends.

For those not travelling in commercial vehicles:

Respondents who move around Winchester by taxi are most concerned about a

range of factors, including road congestion, through traffic, road maintenance and

limited public transport.

The greatest variance in levels of concern are seen within difficulty cycling in and

around Winchester (50% point variance between most and least concerned

groups), motorised traffic dominance (32% point variance), limited parking (24%

point variance), and poor air quality (23% point variance).

Air quality and the dominance of motorised traffic are much more of a concern for

cyclists than other groups. Cyclists also emphasise the difficulty of moving in and

around Winchester on two wheels.

What concerns you about moving in and around Winchester – By mode of transport (Multicode. Base: 1029, 27, 100, 10, 389, 556, 208, 1104)

)

22

Considering concerns by where people live also reveals a number of varying patterns.

Again, all groups are in agreement that road congestion is a key concern when moving in

and around Winchester, really cementing the point that this is an issue that affects

everyone.

In most cases, the general pattern then becomes that concern decreases with distance

from the City centre – so for example, respondents resident in SO23 are more concerned

about poor air quality, motorised traffic dominance, through traffic, traffic on unsuitable

roads and difficulty cycling and walking, than those resident in SO22. Those resident in

SO22 are then more concerned about these issues than those respondents living outside

of the two central postcode areas.

The only real variances in this pattern are:

That those living in SO22 and outside of the centre are slightly more concerned

about road congestion and road maintenance than respondents living in SO23.

That limited car parking, public transport and park and ride are notably more

concerning for respondents living outside of SO22 / SO23.

This is likely to reflect differing levels of usage / demand by these groups.

What concerns you about moving in and around Winchester – By area of residence (Multicode. Base: 227, 376, 371. For area illustration map, see page 74)

SO23 SO22

23

What did respondents think of the Strategy’s ideas?

Proposed Priorities

All three movement priorities put forward resonated well with respondents, with the need

to achieve the right balance between traffic and improve air quality in Winchester felt to be

particularly important.

However, although there was clear agreement with the principle of a balanced approach to

traffic movement, verbatim feedback suggested that in practice respondents felt very

strongly that the ‘right balance’ needed to be clearly defined and agreed. Many felt that the

development of the Movement Strategy provided a not-to-be-missed opportunity to make a

substantial change for the better, and deserved more than a vague statement of intent.

How important is it that the Movement Strategy aims to. . .? (Base: 1317)

24

Proposed priorities by concerns about movement in / around Winchester

Considering the chosen priorities by the concerns highlighted by respondents can help to

understand the drivers for potential change in each area.

‘Very important’ that the Movement Strategy aims to. . . By highlighted concerns (Base: 812, 782, 536)

Difficulty cycling in /around city 77%

Dominance of motorised traffic 73%

Road safety 72%

Motorised traffic on unsuitable roads 72%

Difficulty walking in/around city 71%

Achieve the right traffic balance

Respondents who expressed concern about

difficulty cycling and walking around the City

were amongst those most likely to call for a

change to achieve the right balance between

different types of traffic. A need for a better

balance was also advocated by respondents

who felt that motorised traffic was too

dominant – particularly on unsuitable roads,

and those who were worried about road

safety.

Perhaps unsurprisingly there was a direct

correlation between concerns about poor air

quality and the importance attached to

improving this. Perceptions of motorised

traffic dominance drove a desire for

improvement and respondents who

expressed concerns about walking, cycling

and road safety in Winchester felt that

improving air quality was ‘very important’ –

potentially reflecting a perceived causal link.

Poor air quality 88%

Dominance of motorised traffic 80%

Difficulty walking in/around city 79%

Difficulty cycling in /around city 78%

Road safety 75%

Improve air quality

Limited availability of car parking 48%

Poor road maintenance 45%

Poorly maintained pavements 44%

HGV's in City Centre 42%

Road Congestion 42%

Support growth/economic vibrancy

Respondents who were concerned about

the limited availability of car parking in

Winchester were most likely to hope that

the Movement Strategy would help to

support growth and economic vibrancy.

Further concerns relating to poor road and

pavement maintenance, HGV’s in the City

centre and road congestion amongst the

main advocates of this priority suggests

that these aspects may be seen as a

barrier to further growth.

25

Priorities by reason for visit, mode of transport and area of residence

There was very little variance in agreement with the three proposed priorities amongst

core visitor types, with the small number of respondents (110) who commuted via

Winchester being the only group to vary notably in their view of what was ‘very important’.

Opinions did vary more markedly, however, by how respondents travelled into and around

Winchester.

Although only a small group of respondents, those travelling by commercial vehicle (of any

size) apportioned relatively less importance to ‘achieving the right balance between

different types of traffic’ than respondents travelling by other modes.

% who believe it is ‘very important’ that the Movement Strategy aims to . . . (By mode of transport. Base: 1019, 27, 99, 10, 386, 549, 207, 1097, 16)

% who believe it is ‘very important’ that the Movement Strategy aims to . . . (By reason for visit. Base: 767, 643, 110, 134, 881, 814, 662)

26

The vast majority of cyclists, in contrast, felt that achieving the right balance between

different traffic types was ‘very important’. This group were also most likely to advocate

improvements to air quality in the City, and least keen on seeing further growth.

Support for each of the priorities also varied by respondents’ area of residence. This was

most marked with regards to the need to improve air quality in Winchester – which became

increasingly important the closer to the centre respondents lived.

Respondents who lived in SO23 were more than half as likely again as those who lived

outside of Winchester to see improving air quality as a ‘very important’ priority. They were

also more likely to support a motion to achieve the right balance between different types of

traffic and the least likely to prioritise support for growth and economic vibrancy.

27

Ideas for change

Over half of the consultation respondents felt that all the ideas for change put forward were

worthy of further consideration.

The suggestions that resonated most with respondents were those that related to relieving

traffic congestion in the City centre – either by changing existing infrastructure to divert it

elsewhere or by providing increased support for realistic alternatives, such as park and

ride.

Although still strongly supported overall, the suggestion with the highest level of

disagreement (23%) was the proposal to increase capacity for traffic on key routes –

reflecting earlier concerns about traffic dominance. Equally however, respondents were

keen that the issue of traffic dominance was resolved using a carrot, rather than a stick

approach. Introducing enforcement options to restrict vehicle access was amongst the

least well supported ideas, and certainly less popular than options that aimed to

encourage positive behaviours.

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the two councils should give further consideration to the following examples for improving movement around Winchester? (Base: 1307)

28

Ideas supported by reason for visit, mode of transport and area of residence

As the charts below illustrate, the general pattern of agreement with each of the ideas for

improving movement is relatively stable across visitor types, with the majority being

supportive in all cases.

The group most likely to vary from the average in their attitudes towards change are

respondents who in work in Winchester. These respondents were significantly more likely

to support options for capacity improvement and the introduction of additional routes to

relieve the town centre of cross City traffic than other groups. They are also less likely to

support options to encourage clean fuel technologies and restrict vehicle access in high

pollution areas.

% Strongly/agreeing that further consideration should be given to. . . (By reason for visit. Base: 749, 639, 108, 134, 863, 798, 650)

29

Support for the movement ideas suggested varies more markedly by the mode of transport

respondents are using to travel into and around Winchester, although again the majority

are usually in agreement that all ideas are worth pursuing.

Base sizes for respondents travelling by commercial vehicles are again too small to be

generally conclusive, but are displayed above for information.

These respondents aside, cutting the data by mode of transport suggests that:

Cyclists are most likely to vary from the average in their views. This is most notable

with regards to the introduction of capacity improvements on key routes, towards

which the majority of cyclists are unsupportive.

Cyclists are also least likely to advocate the introduction of additional routes to

relieve cross-City traffic, instead they are most likely to encourage clean fuel

technologies and public realm improvements – and significantly more so than those

travelling by private motor vehicle.

Respondents who use the bus to travel in and around Winchester are most likely to

support options for facilitating movement via public transport – including bus priority

measures, capacity increases for park and ride and vehicle access enforcement.

% Strongly/agreeing that further consideration should be given to. . . (By mode of transport. Base: 1021, 26, 100, 10, 384, 550, 106, 1093)

30

By area of residence, respondents who live closest to the City centre in SO23 are most

likely to agree that the Movement Strategy should look to encourage clean fuel

technologies and introduce enforcement to restrict vehicle access in areas of high

pollution.

Although these ideas for improving air quality are supported by the majority of

respondents, agreement does diminish significantly with each step away from the City

centre.

In contrast, agreement with the suggestion to improve capacity on key routes follows the

opposite pattern – with support declining the closer to the centre respondents live. In this

case, a majority of those living within SO23 are not supportive of capacity improvements.

Other notable variances by area are the higher support for a re-planned one way system

amongst SO23 residents versus those living in SO22, and for public realm improvements

amongst those living within SO23 when compared to both other resident groups.

31

What were respondents’ own ideas and priorities?

Suggested Priorities

748 respondents put forward alternative priorities to those suggested for the Strategy. These primarily focussed on three areas - illustrated in the diagram below:

Looking at these areas in more detail by the primary modes of travel into / around

Winchester and where respondents travel from suggests that those travelling on buses

and from outside of the City are most likely to support a reduction in City centre traffic,

those travelling by private motorised vehicles and from SO22 are the main proponents of

improved traffic flow, and those living in SO23 and travelling by bike are the main

advocates of a strategy that prioritises support for healthier lifestyle choices.

Is there anything else we should prioritise when considering changes to the transport

infrastructure in Winchester? (Quantified Verbatim, Multicode: Base 748)

‘Anything else’ we should prioritise – by primary transport modes and location

(Quantified Verbatim, Multicode: Base 571, 260, 333, 647, 153, 252, 179)

32

Suggested Priorities - Reducing City Centre Traffic

The proposed strategic objective of achieving a reduction in City centre traffic was proposed by 332 respondents and underpinned by a range of more practical priorities to improve specific services. The chart below illustrates how each of these come together to ultimately contribute to less traffic travelling through the City centre.

Four aspects in particular were seen as key to reducing the volume of traffic travelling

within the centre of Winchester. One in five stated their support for reducing traffic by

restricting vehicle access to the City centre (equivalent to only 5% of respondents overall),

however, the predominant focus was on enabling people to use other options – which

most recognised would need to be in place if restrictions were applied.

Priorities relating to Reducing City Centre Traffic (Quantified Verbatim, Multicode: Base Overall: 759, This priority: 332)

33

The primary enabler was improvements to local public transport – and in particular bus –

services. Almost half of those who sought traffic reduction feel that enabling access to

public transport should be a priority – and in particular achieving timetables that

encompass more frequent services operating longer hours, giving buses priority over other

traffic that allows them to keep to these timetables, and making the cost of using public

transport more attractive than that of using a private car.

The call to prioritise buses over other traffic and improve affordability of fares was also

mirrored by the respondents who felt that a reduction in City centre traffic could best be

achieved by prioritising improvements to Park and Ride. However, by far the dominant

priority for these respondents was the need for scheme expansion, with over three

quarters of those who advocated improvement calling for additional capacity.

34

Support for extending the current Park and Ride schemes was overwhelming. In particular,

respondents prioritised the creation of a new Park and Ride location to the north of the

City, but those using other locations called for extension of hours, frequency of buses and

increased capacity of parking and bus places too. Also notable was the call for Park and

Ride to integrate active transport options by linking directly to dedicated walking and

cycling routes into town – with the latter further supported by offering bike rental (possibly

electric) at the car park.

The main driver for a northern Park and Ride site in particular was to remove unnecessary

journeys through the City centre by facilitating other options. This was also the priority for

those who proposed a focus on creating alternative routes for through traffic (11%).

Around half of these respondents feel that the Strategy needs to go beyond simply

‘tinkering around the edges’ and take opportunity to create a way of assisting traffic to

move around, rather than across the City. They felt that the significant amount of

development that is taking place and proposed for Winchester provided a mandate to re-

visit the options for a ring road or bypass.

Overall, the vast majority of respondents sought to reduce cross-City traffic by enabling,

rather than enforcing. However, just under a quarter of those calling for traffic reductions

felt that prioritising who could access the City centre and when may be the ultimate

solution – with HGV and diesel vehicles often their primary focus.

35

Suggested Priorities – Supporting Healthier Lifestyle Choices

Respondents who felt that walking, cycling, and green forms of transport should be

prioritised were generally also supportive of reducing traffic within the centre of

Winchester. Their ultimate objective was often more focussed on beyond just ‘improving

air quality’, with respondents suggesting that a more suitable strategic priority was to

support healthier lifestyle choices, with the aim of improving quality of life for those living

and working in the City.

250 respondents proposed this strategic objective, within which both cycling and walking

was heavily prioritised, with significant crossover between the two. 63% of respondents

who felt cycling should be prioritised would also advocate facilitation of walking as a

priority, and 57% of those who would prioritise walking felt that helping cyclists was also

important. Therefore, the output priorities were often similar, with defined and dedicated

spaces and improvements to infrastructure to make both cycling and walking a feasible,

attractive and safe alternative to motorised transport key targets for both groups.

Priorities relating to Healthier Lifestyle Choices (Quantified Verbatim, Multicode: Base Overall: 759, This priority: 250)

36

For almost half of respondents, this meant prioritising dedicated space to allow cyclists to

move around the City without sharing space with motorised traffic. Clearly defined cycle

lanes were felt to be the minimum – ideally cyclists would like dedicated cycle ways which

would enable them to move quickly around Winchester without being exposed to traffic

fumes.

It was felt that prioritising dedicated cycle ways would help to make cycling a more

attractive alternative to the car. These routes would be safer and make the prospect of

cycling less daunting than at present, thereby encouraging the new or casual cyclist to see

cycling as a more viable option; this was particularly the case for a number of parents, who

were currently reluctant to allow their children to cycle on Winchester’s narrow and busy

streets.

Having dedicated space for cyclists was also attractive to motorists who felt that taking

bikes off-road would help improve congestion. Respondents’ experiences of travelling

around Winchester revealed that the sharing of space between motorised and non-

motorised traffic is an uneasy compromise, and over two thirds of those who suggested

that cycling should be a priority for the Movement Strategy were drivers, of whom a third

did not currently cycle in and around Winchester.

37

In addition to the new dedicated cycling space, around one in five respondents would like

to prioritise smaller upgrades to Winchester’s existing transport infrastructure that would

benefit cyclists.

Specifically, this encompassed more secure storage for bikes and priority for cyclists at

junctions but also improvements to road surfaces that would benefit all road users, but that

are particularly dangerous to cyclists – such as potholes.

A small number also suggested that Winchester could adopt a bike rental scheme, similar

to that already running in London – making cycling a viable option for visitors and those

who don’t have their own equipment.

Similarly to cyclists, respondents also felt that pedestrians should have ‘traffic free’ space

within Winchester. In this case, however, the objective was less about getting from A to B

and more about increasing enjoyment of Winchester as a destination.

38

In particular, respondents who suggested lifestyles could be improved by prioritising

walking would like to see increased pedestrianisation of the City centre (28%). This was

felt to offer a number of benefits – social, physical, cultural and economic – that would

make Winchester a more attractive place to visit and dwell. Many referenced recent

studies and examples of other towns and cities where pedestrianisation had helped to

boost visitor numbers and increase spend in local shops – suggesting that the commonly

held view that cars equal cash for cities is outdated and has been widely disproved.

Where travel by foot was the focus, respondents prioritised outputs that would improve

pedestrian health and safety (35%). This encompassed well signed and dedicated walking

routes that separated pedestrians from cars (ideally separate from cyclists too), but also

improvements to the existing pedestrian infrastructure such as pavement repairs and

widening and additional pedestrian crossings.

Whilst many respondents felt that active transport should be the priority, 1 in 5 recognised

a continuing need for motorised transport but felt that encouraging greener options should

be a clear priority in order to improve health by reducing pollution. In their view, the

Movement Strategy provided an opportunity for Winchester to become a champion of the

inevitable shift towards electric transport, by developing an infrastructure that enables and

encourages individuals and companies to become early adopters of electric ‘fuel’ options.

39

Suggested Priorities – Improving Traffic Flow

Respondents’ proposed strategic objective of improving traffic flow prioritised the management of motorised traffic, rather than discouraging its access into Winchester. In this case, the focus of enabling priorities was on improving the road network and supporting infrastructure to keep traffic moving and thereby avoid the frustration and pollution caused by jams and idling vehicles. 245 respondents felt that improving the flow of traffic in and around Winchester should be a priority, with much of the focus in this area related to the proposed re-routing of traffic through the new Barton Farm development. Views both for and against the closure of Andover Road were represented – with the latter being in the vast majority. It is clear that this issue remains contentious with the focus ultimately being the safe and fluid movement of traffic via radial routes – particularly as further development at Sir John Moore Barracks and Worthy Down takes place.

Priorities relating to Improving Traffic Flow (Quantified Verbatim, Multicode: Base Overall: 759, This priority: 245)

40

However, Andover Road was not the only route which respondents felt should be

prioritised. Journey time was generally felt to be a problem on arterial corridors, and

concerns were also raised about traffic on radial routes, with 1 in 5 respondents feeling

improved flow here should be a priority. All of these roads were further impacted by both

planned and unplanned traffic displacement – particularly from the M3 and A34, making

improvements to both the road infrastructure and a clear plan for managing traffic a clear

priority for respondents if transport flow were to be improved.

41

The main single bottleneck in the City, however, was perceived to be the central one way

system, and therefore re-thinking this was a key priority for at least 1 in 5 respondents

when looking to improve the movement of traffic within the centre of Winchester.

The one-way system was felt to cause traffic to circuit around the City, increasing journey

lengths, traffic volumes, pollution and bottlenecks. This was further exacerbated by the

commercial nature of many buildings around the route, with delivery vehicles and HGV’s

causing further disruption by blocking already narrow spaces.

15% of respondents felt that restricting unloading and loading along the one-way system

should also be prioritised, or at a minimum existing legislation be better enforced.

42

Suggested Solutions

In addition to the ideas for improvement put forward by the two Councils, respondents were invited to suggest their own practical solutions to improving movement in and around Winchester. In total, 893 respondents put forward suggestions. These closely mirrored the ‘enabling’ and ‘output’ priorities they had previously proposed and primarily focussed on ten areas – as illustrated in the diagram below:

The most mentioned area for improvement was the Park and Ride scheme

that operates in Winchester with 254 suggestions relating to this, many of

which could be grouped into one of three themes – location, capacity or type.

How do you think we could improve movement around Winchester? (Base: 893)

43

Of those that mentioned Park and Ride schemes, half suggested that additional Park and

Ride sites are needed at other locations, particularly in the north of Winchester, as car

users currently have to travel through the City centre to reach the current car parks.

1 in 5 comments relating to Park and Ride concerned a need for an increase in the current

capacity of the service through introducing larger buses, additional bus services and

further car parking spaces.

A similar number of respondents (20%) suggested alternative types of scheme, such as

‘park and walk’ or ‘park and bike’ as a way to increase usage, or even a ‘park and train’

scheme where an additional train station based outside the City centre could be created to

help alleviate traffic in the City - by both removing the need for commuters to travel into

Winchester to use the train, and giving those who wanted to visit the City another viable

alternative.

Only slightly less popular than improvements to Park and Ride, vehicle

access restrictions were the second most mentioned improvement. In total,

respondents submitted 240 suggestions that aimed to keep traffic out of the

City centre. Although some respondents felt all motorised traffic should be

banned, most proposed restrictions on specific types of traffic – with delivery

vehicles being the main target

Delivery vehicles were seen by many as disruptive to traffic flow, and a main contributor to

pollution, and almost half of those advocating vehicle restrictions felt that constraints

should be placed on the unloading and loading of goods. Closely related to this concern

was that other types of commercial vehicles, such as Heavy Goods Vehicles, should be

restricted as they were too big for the narrow streets of the City centre.

44

Radial routes into the City centre were another focus for respondents

hoping to improve the flow of traffic into and around Winchester.

In total, 224 suggestions were made for improvement to radial routes. The majority of

these (57%) were regarding improvements to Andover Road, most of which mentioned the

importance of keeping the existing road as it is, and not directing traffic through the new

Barton Farm development. Respondents commented how the Andover Road was a key

route for many into Winchester, and that changing or diverting the road could exacerbate

congestion as well as impacting on quality of life for those living in the new development.

Other radial routes also featured, with 1 in 5 respondents suggesting improvements to

routes other than the Andover Road, most specifically, with regards to improving the

junction at Winnall roundabout.

A quarter of comments went further still, and suggested creating a bypass for Winchester

in order to move traffic around the outskirts of the City and thereby alleviate congestion in

the City centre.

45

Infrastructure improvements were a key theme throughout many respondents’

suggestions. These were seen as vital to enabling all types of users to move efficiently

around Winchester, whether travelling by car, by bike or on foot.

Almost one in five of those who proposed alternative solutions (159

respondents) wanted improvements that would enable those on foot to

move more freely around the City centre and increase their feeling of

safety whilst doing so.

67% of those that talked about improving the pedestrian infrastructure identified that there

is a need for more dedicated pedestrian space - mainly within the city centre.

Respondents also commented how more could be done to ensure walking conditions are

safe through the widening of pavements into and around the city centre, and that the

resulting space could also be shared with cyclists.

Another improvement to safety, mentioned by 11% of those who wanted better pedestrian

infrastructure (19 respondents), was to improve pedestrian crossings in key areas such as

near schools and in the city centre. Some respondents mentioned that crossings within the

city centre could be improved by increasing the length of time to cross roads at traffic light

controlled junctions so pedestrians can cross more safely.

In addition, 14% of those proposing pedestrian improvement (24 respondents) mentioned

that there is a need for improvement to pavements in order to eliminate trip hazards.

46

There were 208 mentions of possible improvements to the city’s cycling

infrastructure:

Many respondents found cycling in Winchester difficult and dangerous and to alleviate this,

nearly all of those who mentioned cycling, suggested there should be additional cycle

lanes and dedicated space for cyclists.

Many respondents saw that having an improved cycling infrastructure would encourage

more cycle usage, over the private motor car, thus having the added benefit of improving

the city’s air pollution and health more generally.

211 respondents mentioned road infrastructure as an area for improvement.

In the main, this related to routes and roadways around the City centre,

rather than junctions or signage.

In particular, 63% of those people who mentioned infrastructure

improvements suggested that the one way system should be improved to promote better

traffic flow through the City centre. Some felt that changes could be made at specific

points to prevent traffic circulating, whilst others simply suggested abolishing the one way

system and reintroducing two-way traffic. 39% mentioned additional routes should be

created, taking traffic away from the City centre, and ensuring swift movement through the

City.

47

Although parking did not feature as a key priority for respondents, it was an

aspect of travelling into Winchester that people felt could be improved. 119

respondents commented on this area, with a particular focus on capacity and

cost for parking

The main focus for those that mentioned car parking was the cost of parking. Decreasing

the availability of parking in central areas was seen as an improvement that could be

made, with the goal in mind that it could improve air quality in the City. However there

were a small handful of respondents that suggested the cost for inner City car parks were

too high, which deters visitors and business in the City. A small number of comments

alluded to increasing parking capacity on the fringes of the City, as a way to keep

commuters and visitors away from the busy City centre, where a ‘park and stride’ scheme

could be implemented.

48

145 respondents had suggestions about improvements to bus services in

the City. For many, this was seen as vital to encouraging people to see

buses as a viable alternative to travelling into Winchester by car.

31% of those that mentioned improvements to bus services suggested that increased

priority measures should be awarded to buses, such as the introduction of bus lanes, so

they can move more quickly and easily around the City.

18% of bus related comments (28 respondents) were around decreasing the cost of bus

fares in order to encourage use. In addition, to ensure bus services remain a cheap and

easier alternative to driving, 24% of bus related comments suggested increasing the

availability of buses, by introducing additional bus routes, having an increased number of

buses and the creation of additional bus stops at convenient locations.

101 respondents called for improvements to the way traffic is managed

more generally around the City: Often this stemmed from perceptions that

historic systems had not been updated frequently enough to cope with the

increased volumes of traffic using the City over the years.

Of those that talked about traffic management just under half (48%) suggested that traffic

light sequencing could be improved or modified in order to ensure minimal waiting times at

junctions

49

12% suggested that historic traffic systems could be improved by removing street

narrowing and reintroducing two-way traffic in some areas of the City. In addition, 17%

talked about reviewing speed limits in order to resolve the issue of traffic flow. There is

conflict with the issue of the 20MPH speed limit throughout the comments, with some to be

enforced more rigorously, and others wanting it removed.

The final key area focussed on using education and enforcement to

encourage attitudinal change. 79 respondents felt that the movement

strategy should aim to improve the behaviour of those travelling around

Winchester, so that people chose to travel more considerately and be

more aware of how their own choices might impact on others.

Of those that mentioned behavioural improvements, 44% suggested that there should be

an enforcement of law abiding behaviour, such as parking restrictions on double yellow

lines, having dedicated pedestrian space more widely adhered to and speed limit

enforcement.

In addition, a small number of respondents suggested that encouraging car sharing may

help with decreasing congestion – in particular during busy times such as the morning

commute or school runs. 20% mentioned that more positive behaviours such as walking to

school or encouraging the use of buses could also be adopted to ensure there is less

congestion around schools, and 6% suggested an improved or more widely adopted car

sharing scheme may help alleviate commuter traffic in the City.

50

Key Findings

Objectives put forward by respondents (verbatim responses).

When asked to give unprompted feedback about their experiences, the majority of

respondents (81%) painted a negative picture of travelling around Winchester. In the main,

respondents spoke of the congestion they experienced whilst travelling in and around

Winchester, with poor traffic flow the key contributor.

748 of the 1343 respondents put forward their own movement priorities for Winchester. At

a strategic level these reflected three ultimate aims – to ‘Reduce city centre traffic’, to

‘Support healthier lifestyle choices’, and to ‘Improve traffic flow’. Respondents travelling on

buses and from outside of the City were most likely to support the former, those travelling

by private motorised vehicles and from SO22 were the main proponents of the latter, and

those living in SO23 and travelling by bike were the main advocates of a strategy that

prioritises support for healthier lifestyle choices.

Ideas for improvement suggested by respondents closely mirrored the priorities that they

proposed. Although private and commercial transport was seen as an obvious cause of

congestion respondents saw little point in restricting this without the introduction of viable

alternatives. Therefore, their focus was to facilitate and encourage transport by other

means where feasible to relieve the City of the burden of traffic and to enable those who

did need to travel into Winchester (including by car) to do so safely and efficiently.

Objectives proposed by the Movement Strategy (structured responses).

The vast majority of respondents travelled frequently into and around Winchester and were

therefore well placed to understand the key issues of movement around the City. From

those suggested by the Strategy, almost universally, regardless of how, why or where

respondents travelled from, the main concern was road congestion – with many

recognising the dominance of through and motorised traffic as key contributors to this and

poor air quality as the result.

All three priorities for improving movement put forward resonated well with respondents

with over 90% agreement that ‘achieving the right balance between traffic types’,

‘improving air quality’ and ‘supporting growth and economic vibrancy’ were important at

some level. However, many respondents felt that ‘the right balance’ should be clearly

defined, with ‘cycling, walking and public transport’ often favoured over private vehicle use.

The ideas for change suggested were supported by more than half of respondents – with

those that related to relieving traffic congestion in the City centre achieving the most

support. However, any resolution should prioritise enablement over prevention. Introducing

enforcement options to restrict vehicle access was amongst the least well supported ideas,

and certainly less popular than options that aimed to encourage positive behaviours.

51

Appendices

Appendix 1 - Responses from outside the consultation questionnaire

Stakeholder Workshop

In addition to the consultation questionnaire, workshops and interviews were conducted

with key stakeholders. The main stakeholder workshop was held on 28th November 2017

with representation from Winchester Action for Climate Change (WinACC), Winchester

Walking Strategy Group, Winchester CTC (part of Cycling UK), Winchester Cycling

Working Group, Winchester BID, Winchester Area Access for All, University of Winchester

and the Winchester City Trust

The core objective of the workshop was to understand the transport and travel priorities of

key stakeholder groups within Winchester, and what they feel would need to be addressed

in order to achieve a positive outcome. This was facilitated by a series of three tasks:

Task One: Defining Priorities

Rationale: Prior to the Movement Strategy consultation, all the representative

organisations on the Winchester District Transport Advisory Group had identified their own

movement priorities for Winchester. These, and existing strategies, have been taken into

account when scoping the priorities put forward for public consultation. But have these

been interpreted correctly? Is there anything that’s been missed?

Activity: Delegates were split into smaller groups of 4-5 people. Each group was given a

set of the existing strategic objectives printed on separate pieces of paper, and asked to

sort these into the three proposed priority areas. If any of the objectives did not fit into one

or more of the Movement Strategy priority areas, then participants were asked to agree

and put forward another priority area that they could fall into.

Task Two: Identifying Barriers

Rationale: To ensure all individual views as to barriers to movement in and around

Winchester were represented and an uninfluenced response can then be brought together

to identify commonalities and themes.

Activity: All delegates were asked to individually write down up to three barriers to

achieving each of the priorities agreed in Task 1. Barriers were then grouped to identify

commonalities and outliers and brought back to the group for discussion.

Task Three: Considering Solutions

Rationale: This task aimed to suggest how the identified barriers could be removed in

order to achieve the group’s identified priorities. Why might these solutions work? What

problems might they cause?

Activity: Delegates were asked to re-form into smaller groups. Each group was allocated

one priority, and asked to consider the barriers listed and suggest solutions, before feeding

back to other groups.

52

Stakeholder workshop feedback on the proposed priority “Achieving the right

balance between different types of traffic.”

Initial feedback from delegates was that although achieving balance was a worthy

objective, there needs to be much clearer definition of what ‘the right balance’ is for

Winchester.

In reality, they felt that there was limited possibility of compromise achieving real change,

and therefore that the focus should instead be to prioritise certain modes of traffic – with

the ultimate aim of creating a pedestrian focussed, vehicle free centre.

Change to: A people focussed, vehicle free City centre

Barriers to creating a people focussed, vehicle free City centre

With this new definition in mind, the key barriers to achieving a ‘people focussed, vehicle

free City centre’ were felt to be:

The conflicting ‘needs’ and attitudes of different social groups

Attitude and awareness – local businesses and residents need to accept the

change in priority

Retailers concerns that restricting vehicles will damage their trade

Conflict between different journey types (reasons for travel)

Public perception that people should be able to access the City centre by car

Perception of public transport increasing traffic

Currently, the dominance of motorised traffic prevents people from choosing to

cycle or walk as there is a perception that roads are too dangerous.

Physical barriers

The presence of City centre car parking encourages and enables people to drive

into the City centre

The relative absence of suitable out of town car parking is a barrier to people

choosing to park outside of the City and bus, walk or cycle in.

Public transport is insufficiently viable to encourage people out of their cars. It is still

too expensive and keeps getting cut.

Resourcing issues

Lack of money to implement and enforce change

Lack of funding for modifying behaviour, street layout and allocation of space

Lack of funding for more public transport

Resistance to change

The perception that walking around town takes longer than walking and cycling

Difficulty of encouraging culture change amongst motorists

The cost of driving being cheaper than alternatives

53

Laziness - both in terms of undertaking active transport and the perception that the

car is quicker and easier for trips to town.

Lack of political will for change

Geographical constraints

Road space would need to be adapted to facilitate pedestrianisation. There is

limited space and few obvious route options for displaced traffic.

The existing layout / topography of Winchester makes active transport strenuous

and therefore not suitable for all.

Can we prevent large vehicles entering the City centre or must the roads be able to

accommodate them?

People whose perceived movement needs conflict with the proposed balance.

Perceptual and behavioural change will need to be supported by positive changes

to the physical infrastructure of the City centre.

Solutions to enable a people focussed, vehicle free City centre

Three broad solutions were proposed to address the perceived barriers. These were to:

Help change perceptions by enabling informed real choice

Educate people as to the pros and cons of providing a pedestrian focussed, vehicle

free City centre so they can make informed decisions based on fact.

Provide information to support changed perceptions (e.g. myths around parking and

prosperity, road safety not as bad as people think, education as to the

environmental impact of various transport modes and fuel types).

Improvements to physical options, must be supported by information so people are

aware of their options and know how / why to use them (eg Parking availability in

notices in real time to direct traffic rather than it circle round in search of a space).

Better travel choices and improved publicity about all transport options – including

the train which is often overlooked.

Car journeys should stop on the outskirts of the City centre

Develop parking options so people drive to – not through – Winchester

Less parking in the City centre

Car journeys should stop on the outskirts of the City centre with parking options at

key entry points to prevent through traffic (eg people entering in the north have to

travel through the centre to the south to park – why not have a northern Park &

Ride?)

Joined up thinking by the County and City Councils with regards to a master plan

Ensuring that the infrastructure is in place to support a vehicle free, people

focussed City centre when planning all new developments for the City.

54

Stakeholder Workshop feedback on the proposed priority “Supporting growth and

economic vibrancy.”

Initial feedback from delegates was broadly supportive of this priority, however, they felt it

could be extended to encompass cultural, as well as economic, growth.

Change to: Supporting cultural and economic growth and vibrancy

Barriers to supporting cultural and economic growth and vibrancy

With this additional focus also in mind, the key barriers to ‘supporting cultural and

economic growth and vibrancy’ were felt to be:

The perception amongst City businesses that more cars driving into town equals

greater prosperity, and that businesses will suffer if vehicle access is denied. This was

felt to be an old and irrational idea that was at variance with new research about the

commercial possibilities arising from socialisation of the public realm.

Congestion – which at its current levels limits the appeal of travelling to Winchester as

a destination and is a barrier to popping in and out for shorter shops.

Poor public transport – this was felt to be inefficient and therefore not a viable

alternative to journeys by car.

Poor public realm – the lack of an extensive traffic free zone in Winchester was felt to

make public spaces less attractive.

The town centre lacks sufficient appeal to attract investment – rents and business rates

are felt to be too high, so shops choose not to be in Winchester. In addition, changes to

UK retail patterns mean more people are shopping online and not coming into town

centres to do big shops. This creates a need to widen the focus and offer alternatives

to retail to attract people into City centres and ensure that the shops that do choose to

be in the City centre are supported.

Winchester BID is too focussed on retail and needs a wider remit. We need good

growth that will increase productivity.

The mix of shops – Winchester is felt to lack the type of shops that encourage regular

visits such as a greengrocer or butcher. Shops in Winchester are increasingly seen as

‘exclusive and expensive’ and ‘ordinary people’ are starting to travel out of Winchester

(often to Eastleigh) to shop (especially for clothes) as they don’t feel catered for.

A lack of high quality, well paid jobs in Winchester places natural limitations on the

amount of disposable income available within the resident population.

A lack of consensus across: political groups and businesses, City vs County Council

priorities, and in terms of agreement between groups and users with conflicting needs.

55

A lack of understanding / agreement as to the limitations of what the City can support in

terms of growth.

UK Economy (although unfortunately this is beyond our control. . .)

Solutions to enable cultural and economic growth and vibrancy

Three broad solutions were proposed to address the perceived barriers. These were to:

Provide more information to help people make informed choices

Address the irrational view that parking restrictions inhibit economic growth.

Instead, strong and fresh statistical evidence should be used to develop solutions.

Where people are at any point (i.e. Google maps style info. So, for example, when

they park up, how do they get to town – an app or map showing the route by foot

from car park)

Better walking / cycling signage – eg Chesil to the City and P&R to the City are all

within easy distance if people knew the way. How about an app – using technology

to aid orientation?

Improve signage for visitors travelling into the City from outside, in terms of the

amount, visibility, ease of understanding, and also differentiating between the needs

of those travelling into and through Winchester.

More information on options.

More signage - Better signage will help to keep visitors out of the City centre

(although not so good for local traffic who know the shortcuts.)

Adopt a bold approach

Change where it is needed, despite unpopularity

Accept the need for change in overused traffic routes, even when unpopular

Be bold with car parking – more focus on out of town provision

Need to decide what is necessary / unnecessary traffic

Bite the bullet – it will not kill the City if City centre parking is changed

Support easy / quick visits to town

Provide practical solutions to encourage visitation and increase dwell time:

Reduce congestion – The Square, City Bridge, The Broadway, Colebrook Street

Something drastic needs to be done about traffic over the City Bridge as a priority.

Colebrook Street – stop traffic from outside using this.

Persuade more use of Chesil car park.

Improve attractiveness of the City without traffic – eg use a park and walk / ride.

Use Barfield Close to direct access to Chesil Car park

Enable travel in outer hubs – Weeke retail centre and Winnall Business Park. Park

and Ride shouldn’t just get people into / out of the City centre.

56

Stakeholder Workshop feedback on the proposed priority “Improving air quality.”

Delegates absolutely agreed that improving air quality was an important priority for

Winchester. However, they felt that it was perhaps too narrow and should be broadened to

encompass improvements to environment and health more generally.

Change to: Improving Winchester’s environment, making it a healthier place to live.

Barriers to improving Winchester’s environment

With this broader focus in mind, the three main barriers to ‘supporting cultural and

economic growth and vibrancy’ were felt to be:

The freedom to pollute

Unrestricted access to the City centre for all vehicle and fuel types

A lack of traffic free zone / low emissions zone

A circulatory system which exacerbates the causes of pollution

Too many cars in Winchester

Too much through traffic

Motorised traffic access to the City centre which is damaging air quality

High volumes of private cars

High proportion of polluting petrol / diesel vehicles

Technology red herrings (too many electric cars is still too many cars, electric cars

still have polluting cars queuing behind them)

Affluence of local residents meaning private transport is easier and people have

more choice over using it.

People are unwilling to change their patterns of behaviour

Physical issues

Geography and topography. Winchester, sits in a dip which causes pollution to sink

and exacerbates air quality issues.

Lack of time – people will choose to travel by car as it is quicker and more flexible

than other options.

The lack of political will for change and the frequency of local election cycles that

keeps significant change off the agenda.

The high economic cost of making / keeping / planting open space

Too much street furniture, traffic controls, lights, signage that slows down traffic and

causes it to queue.

57

Solutions to enable improvements to Winchester’s environment

Three broad solutions were proposed to address the perceived barriers. These were to:

Demand management

Prioritise public transport versus private vehicles

Better information systems to help people navigate around the City centre and

access parking on the outskirts quickly and efficiently.

Review / lose the one way system (in conjunction with other measures)

Reallocate space to walking / cycling

Do not expect technology (electric vehicles, driverless cars etc.) to provide all the

solutions

Avoid shifting the problem elsewhere

Use the data to define particular areas for attention

Introduce restrictions on vehicle movement

Divert heavy traffic away from the City centre

Charges / restrictions for workplace parking (hospital/prison/tower st etc.). Pollution

of St George’s street peaks during morning and evening rush hour and a smaller

peak at lunch, suggesting a commuter impact that could be addressed.

Reduce to and through journeys by all vehicles (NB: Electric cars are not the

solution, they still clog up the system and other vehicles will be stuck behind them

Prioritise Public transport versus cars – this takes up less road space relieving

congestion as well as cutting down on pollution.

Traffic free and low emission zones need to be considered

Be bold with parking solutions

Allow for Winchester’s geography and design systems to mitigate its impact.

Keep air quality as a key driver

Work around geographical limitations

58

Priority Four – Attractiveness / Culture

Having reviewed all of the objectives, delegates felt they would like to add one further

priority to those suggested for the Movement Strategy. The aim of this new priority was to

accentuate Winchester’s inherent attractiveness as a place to live, work and visit through

public realm improvements that preserve and promote its culture and heritage and allow

time and space to appreciate these.

Add new priority: Encouraging a sense of place

Barriers to encouraging a sense of place

The main barriers to achieving this new priority were felt to be:

Design

Rare design ability to create an attractive public realm

High design standards in all new builds / space creation not currently enforced.

Consensus

Reconciling needs of competing social groups

Achieving consensus on the need for designed public realm and what good looks

like

Motorised traffic dominance and lack of viable alternatives

Current dominance of motorised traffic impacts on a sense of place

Insufficient traffic control and traffic information to encourage traffic to avoid the City

centre

Insufficient off peak bus travel to make this a viable alternative to private transport

Money

Lack of funding to undertake major changes

Space

Physical constraints of buildings and space

The difficulties of releasing road space to create pedestrianised public realm

Physical restrictions of street furniture from traffic (too many signs and signals)

Economic pressures

Commercial imbalance will deny a vibrant community / cultural public realm

Dominance of short term economic needs of developers (City or private)

59

Solutions to enable the development of a sense of place

The solutions that delegates felt would enable the development of a sense of place were

to:

Create an inventory of good and bad public realm / spaces (draw on Visit Winchester)

Prioritise / spend / investment on recruiting good designers, before constructors (i.e.

concentrate on getting it right, rather than just building)

Restrict traffic in heritage areas

Reduce / stop cars entering the City Centre, by offering viable alternatives such as an

increase in Park and Ride options, potentially incorporating some routes into the

mainstream bus network to increase service options, or by improving signage to help

traffic navigate around the City centre rather than through it (eg. uncovering signs

hidden by trees at City Bridge / Broadway) encouraging use of Chesil street car park,

removing Broadway parking.

Encouraging cycling / walking and also improving signage here (maps / apps) to make

the most of existing schemes.

Create Cultural Enjoyment Hubs (no traffic) at:

Barclays Bank Square

City Bridge

Westgate

The Square (could be the pilot project as nearly there and there’s growing

support amongst residents and traders. It did lack the political will for change but

that is also changing)

Outside The Courts

Broadway – close Colebrook car park

and think about bus routes to support this.

60

Unstructured responses

The County Council received 23 responses through channels other than the consultation

questionnaire by the deadline of 8th December 2017, including email, written and drawn

(map) formats. Of these 23 responses, 7 were from an organisation or group, 15 were

from members of the general public, and 1 was received from a political representative. 10

of the unstructured responses received were in relation to the proposal to close Andover

Road, the main themes that came from these comments can be found on page 65. In

order to ensure all views are heard, a short summary of comments raised are listed below.

Main themes:

Concerns about environment and air pollution. Using cleaner fuel technologies or

introduction of low emission zones (9 mentions).

Green modes of transport should be encouraged by improving the service (such as

more bus stops) in and around Winchester, including the use of electric buses (8

mentions).

Creation of safe cycle infrastructure around Winchester, the City centre, new

developments and any up and coming developments (7 mentions).

Changes and modifications to bus routes to ease congestion, for example, having

dedicated bus lanes, and priority measures for buses (6 mentions).

Review and re-plan the one way system (5 mentions).

Increase the capacity of Park and Ride car parks and locations (5 mentions).

Safer movement - stop dangerous movement of cars, to allow pedestrians,

residents and children to feel safer, with use of traffic calming measures (4

mentions).

Changes to the way delivery vehicles access the City centre, such as reduced

access (4 mentions).

Improving pedestrian crossings and pavements and creation of dedicated

pedestrian zones (7 mentions).

Restrictions on types of traffic entering the City such as heavy goods vehicles (3

mentions).

Changes to road infrastructure – such as road widening and maintenance (3

mentions).

61

Public realm improvements (3 mentions).

A ban on all cars entering Winchester City centre (except access) (3 mentions).

Creation of park and walk car parks (2 mentions).

More parking for residents and the disabled, parking restrictions for non-residents in

residential areas (2 mentions).

Supporting growth and economic vibrancy, by protecting businesses with any

transport changes by getting the right balance (2 mentions).

Do a traffic survey to understand the movement of traffic and people (2 mentions).

Traffic and movement should be considered as part of new developments (2

mentions).

Creation of a new Winchester by- pass, suggestions for areas include: between Pitt

and Andover Road, reducing traffic into the City (1 mention).

Having more edge of centre car parking to reduce traffic through City centre

(1mention).

Improvements to the M3 junction 9 (1 mention).

Having clearer signage throughout the City (1 mention).

Creating a new train station near the A34 with park and ride facilities (1 mention).

62

The proposed closure of Andover Road

As part of the wider movement strategy, Councillor Humby, Executive Member for

Environment and Transport at Hampshire County Council, invited residents and interested

parties to provide comments of the proposed closure of the Andover Road as part of the

Winchester Movement Strategy consultation.

There were 10 unstructured responses received from the general public. Two were

received as a joint response. 1 unstructured response was from a political representative.

Respondents expressed their concerns about the proposals to close the Andover Road,

below is a short summary of the main concerns raised:

Increased traffic running through a housing estate would create an unpleasant and

dangerous environment for residents (8 mentions).

Closure of the Andover Road would mean traffic from the M3/A34 would flow

through the housing development, especially when traffic is displaced, creating

traffic flow issues (4 mentions).

Concerns that other smaller roads in the immediate area will be affected. These

smaller roads turning into ‘short cuts’, creating traffic flow issues in other areas (3

mentions).

As Andover Road is a main route out of the City, there are concerns that traffic will

not be able to flow out of the City easily to the north of Winchester (3 mentions).

The redirection of traffic will go through a housing estate, which could potentially

divide the community (2 mentions).

The closure would be an inconvenience to drivers who use the road to commute

into Winchester (1 mention).

As the traffic is redirected through a housing development, there will be an impact

on noise and air pollution through the new estate (1 mention).

As the area itself has changed, and more planned development is underway, plans

to close the Andover Road should be reconsidered as there is a significant change

in circumstances (1 mention).

Having traffic through the development will discourage walking and cycling due to

the volume of traffic (1 mention).

Alternative options could include providing safe crossing places for pedestrians at

all junctions, with a less heavily-engineered road through the development, and

placing a 30mph speed limit on the existing road (1 mention).

63

Appendix 2 - Consultation Response Form (Standard Format)

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

Appendix 3 - Consultation technical detail

Respondent classification

Respondents were asked to identify whether they were responding as an individual, as a

business or on behalf of an organisation or group. This question, as with all questions in

the consultation questionnaire, was optional.

Where respondents identified themselves as individuals they were asked to provide more

information about their demography, personal situation, and household composition.

Where respondents identified themselves as responding on behalf of others, they were

asked to provide the name and address of the group, organisation or business, the name

and position of the individual providing the response and an estimate of the number of

members / staff represented.

There were a total of twenty structured and nine unstructured responses on behalf of an

organisation, group or community representative body. Four businesses submitted a

structured response.

Groups and businesses who submitted a structured response to the consultation were:

Organisations or groups who submitted an unstructured response to the consultation were:

Pell Frischmann, Winchester BID, Winchester Walking Group, Winchester Friends of the

Earth, Go South Coast, Highcliffe Community Forum, South Wonston Parish Council,

Itchen Valley Parish Council

73

Appendix 4 - Consultation participant profile

The breakdown of individual respondents by demographic category is shown below.

Response Option Count Percentage

Gender

Female 626 49%

Male 635 49%

Other 2 0%

Prefer not to say 26 2%

Age

Under 16 1 0%

16 to 24 28 2%

25 to 34 116 9%

35 to 44 258 20%

45 to 54 317 24%

55 to 64 259 20%

65 to 74 220 17%

75 to 84 68 5%

85 or over 12 1%

Prefer not to say 24 2%

Ongoing health problem or disability that limits movement

Yes, a lot 28 2%

Yes, a little 98 8%

No 1150 89%

Prefer not to say 23 2%

74

The geographic spread of individual respondents by postcode is illustrated in the maps below. The majority of respondents lived within Hampshire, although responses were received from as far away as Dorset and Berkshire. The highest concentrations of responses were from within central Winchester.

75

Appendix 5 - Data tables (including coded responses to open questions)

Please note that data with base sizes of under 50 is shown for illustration of respondent

views only and are not generalisable to the wider population.

76

Base - multi code

Road congestion 938 71%

Through traffic in the city centre 756 57%

Poor air quality 592 45%

Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) in the city centre 578 44%

Dominance of motorised traffic 568 43%

Difficulty cycling in and around the City 498 37%

Limited availability of car parking 461 35%

Poorly maintained pavements 416 31%

Poor road maintenance 377 28%

Road safety 364 27%

Limited availability of public transport 323 24%

Motorised traffic using unsuitable roads 317 24%

Pavement congestion 314 24%

Limited availability of park and ride 284 21%

Poor street design 278 21%

Difficulty walking in and around the City 223 17%

Low levels of street lighting 92 7%

Something else. . . 142 11%

I do not have any concerns 7 1%

Base - multi code

Road congestion 496 38%

Through traffic in the city centre 330 25%

Poor air quality 322 24%

Dominance of motorised traffic 296 22%

Difficulty cycling in and around the City 279 21%

Limited availability of car parking 262 20%

Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) in the city centre 215 16%

Limited availability of public transport 133 10%

Limited availability of park and ride 125 10%

Poorly maintained pavements 119 9%

Poor road maintenance 108 8%

Road safety 96 8%

Pavement congestion 73 6%

Difficulty walking in and around the City 68 5%

Motorised traffic using unsuitable roads 62 5%

Poor street design 56 4%

Levels of street lighting 18 1%

Other: What else is it that concerns you about moving in and aro... 89 7%

Thinking about your experiences, what concerns you about moving in and around Winchester?

And which of those would you say are your main concerns? (select 3)

1332

1330

77

Base - multicode

Poor traffic flow (macro) 24 17%

Flow: Unloading / Loading 11 8%

Flow: Traffic lights 5 4%

Flow: Unclear signage 1 1%

Flow: Capacity issues 2 1%

Flow: Road infrastructure 5 4%

One way system (macro) 5 4%

Displacement of traffic (macro) 3 2%

Displacement from major routes (eg M3 / A34) - -

Displacement / re-routing due to roadworks - -

Issues with radial routes (macro) 25 18%

Radials: Andover Road 17 12%

Radials: Romsey Road 1 1%

Radials: Winnall Roundabout 4 3%

Park and Ride (macro) 9 7%

P&R: Insufficient capacity - -

P&R: Journey length / time 2 1%

P&R: Reliability 4 3%

P&R: Location 3 2%

Parking (macro) 21 15%

Parking: Cost 12 9%

Parking: Capacity 7 5%

Parking: Location - -

Parking: Special events 1 1%

Parking: Residential - -

Public transport (macro) 3 2%

Buses (macro) 16 12%

Buses: Insufficient capacity - -

Buses: Journey length / time 3 2%

Buses: Availability 5 4%

Buses: Reliability 6 4%

Walking (macro) 14 10%

Walking: Safety 6 4%

Walking: Dedicated space 4 3%

Walking: Maintenance 1 1%

Cycling (macro) 19 14%

Cycling: Safety 7 5%

Cycling: Dedicated space 6 4%

Trains (macro) - -

Environment (macro) 7 5%

Air quality 3 2%

Dangerous movement (macro) 14 10%

Other (macro) 15 11%

Not applicable (macro) 1 1%

Quantified Verbatim - Key themes arising when respondents were asked

to state any other concerns with movement into/around Winchester

139

78

Do you think that the proposed

priorities are. . . Base

Achieving the right balance between

different types of traffic 1317 76 6% 427 32% 814 62%

Supporting growth and economic

vibrancy 1310 135 10% 637 49% 538 41%

Improving air quality 1311 100 8% 427 33% 784 60%

Not important Quite important Very important

79

Base - multicode

Reduce City Centre traffic (super macro) 332 44%

CCTR: Provide alternative routes (macro) 36 5%

Alternatives: Build a ring road / by pass 18 2%

CCTR: Enable use of Park and Ride (macro) 110 15%

P&R: Priority measures 19 3%

P&R: Affordability 5 1%

P&R: Scheme expansion 85 11%

CCTR: Enable use of Public Transport (macro) 152 20%

Buses: Priority measures 31 4%

Buses: Affordability 26 3%

Buses: Extended timetables 41 5%

CCTR: Vehicle Restrictions (macro) 73 10%

Restrictions: Congestion charge scheme 8 1%

Parking (macro) 64 8%

Parking: Charges / Cost 26 3%

Parking: Options 40 5%

Parking: Railway parking 1 0%

Improve traffic flow (macro) 245 32%

Flow: Clear management plan for traffic displacement 19 3%

Flow: Andover Road 97 13%

Flow: Review the one way system 42 6%

Flow: Delivery restrictions 37 5%

Flow: Develop new routes for crossing the City Centre 25 3%

Flow: Consider issues on concentric/ radial routes 22 3%

Flow: Traffic light sequencing 17 2%

Flow: Speed limits 9 1%

Support healthier lifestyle choices (macro) 250 33%

Lifestyles: Cycling (inc PTW's) 161 21%

Lifestyles: Walking 145 19%

Lifestyles: Reducing pollution / encouraging green options48 6%

Achieve the right balance between different types of users (macro)64 8%

Users: Consider needs/impact of workers 15 2%

Users: Consider needs of residents 34 5%

Users: Consider needs/impact of visitors 14 2%

Users: Consider needs/impact of commuters 2 0%

Prioritise growth and economic development (macro) 20 3%

Ensure traffic legislation is enforced (macro) 18 2%

Plan for longer term and external impacts (macro) 60 8%

Impacts: Government regulations / policy 5 1%

Impacts: Ensure transport infrastructure is central to development planning45 6%

Impacts: Environmental / Climate change 4 1%

Other (macro) 64 8%

Not applicable (macro) 10 1%

759

Quantified Verbatim - Key themes arising when respondents were

asked to suggest alternative priorities for the movement strategy

80

Quantified Verbatim - Key themes arising when respondents were asked to suggest ideas on how to improve movement into/around

Winchester

Base - multicode 893

Central road infrastructure improvements (macro) 211 24%

Review / replan one way system 134 15%

Additional / amended routes to relieve cross city traffic 82 9%

Radial route improvements (macro) 224 25%

Andover Road 128 14%

Romsey Road 11 1%

Winnall Roundabout (M3 Jct9) 44 5%

Build a ring road / bypass 54 6%

Traffic management improvements (macro) 101 11%

Review historic TM systems / junctions 13 2%

Review speed limits 17 2%

Review traffic lights 50 6%

Signage improvements 15 2%

Pedestrian infrastructure improvements (macro) 159 18%

Dedicated space 107 12%

Pavement / footpath maintenance 24 3%

Pedestrian crossings 19 2%

Remove obstructions 21 2%

Cycling infrastructure improvements (macro) 208 23%

Dedicated space 182 20%

Signage 10 1%

Public realm improvements (macro) 14 2%

Public transport improvements (macro) 38 4%

PT: Improving Buses (macro) 145 16%

Buses: Priority measures 45 5%

Buses: Increase frequency 35 4%

Buses: Location of stops 11 1%

Buses: More routes 23 3%

Buses: Cost 28 3%

PT: Improving Park & Ride (macro) 254 28%

P&R: Priority measures 20 2%

P&R: Increased capacity 51 6%

P&R: Increased frequency 24 3%

P&R: Additional locations 124 14%

P&R: Alternative options 51 6%

Tackling pollution (macro) 66 7%

Encouraging clean fuel technologies / zones 41 5%

Introduce congestion charge 24 3%

81

Base - multicode

Vehicle access restrictions (macro) 239 27%

Restrict at certain times 13 2%

Restrict certain types 75 8%

Restrict in certain areas 9 1%

'Permit only' access to city centre 18 2%

Restrictions on deliveries 106 12%

Total ban on motorised traffic in the city centre 31 4%

Business relocation (macro) 21 2%

Re-imagine delivery options 9 1%

Encourage business development on city outskirts 8 1%

Behavioural improvements (macro) 77 9%

Encourage car sharing 5 1%

Discourage parents from driving children to school 16 2%

Encourage / enforce law abiding behaviour 33 4%

Parking (macro) 119 13%

Parking: Cost 31 4%

Parking: Capacity 76 9%

Parking: Non-car provision 5 1%

Ensure infrastructure fit for residential growth (macro) 24 3%

Other (macro) 25 3%

Not applicable (macro) 10 1%

Cont'd: Quantified Verbatim - Key themes arising when respondents

were asked to suggest ideas on how to improve movement

into/around Winchester

893

82

Base

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly

Agree

Reviewing and re-planning the city

centre one way system 1304 34 64 236 483 487

Introducing additional routes to

relieve the town centre of cross city

traffic 1312 54 75 167 473 543

Improving capacity on key routes

into / out of the city centre 1300 131 162 210 384 413

Making public realm improvements 1269 19 39 476 435 300

Introducing new bus priority

measures 1304 58 121 309 457 359

Encouraging clean fuel technologies 1307 43 62 306 459 437

Increasing capacity for park and ride 1307 28 59 257 466 497

Introducing enforcement options to

restrict vehicle access in areas of

high pollution 1305 101 149 263 359 433

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the two councils should give further consideration to the

following examples for improving movement around Winchester? (counts)

Base

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly

Agree

Reviewing and re-planning the

city centre one way system 1304 3% 5% 18% 37% 37%

Introducing additional routes to

relieve the town centre of cross

city traffic 1312 4% 6% 13% 36% 41%

Improving capacity on key routes

into / out of the city centre 1300 10% 13% 16% 30% 32%

Making public realm

improvements 1269 2% 3% 38% 34% 24%

Introducing new bus priority

measures 1304 4% 9% 24% 35% 28%

Encouraging clean fuel

technologies 1307 3% 5% 23% 35% 33%

Increasing capacity for park and

ride 1307 2% 5% 20% 36% 38%

Introducing enforcement options

to restrict vehicle access in areas

of high pollution 1305 8% 11% 20% 28% 33%

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the two councils should give further consideration

to the following examples for improving movement around Winchester? (percentages)

83

Base

Daily or more often 777 60%

Several times a week 402 31%

Weekly 73 6%

Fortnightly 27 2%

Monthly 16 1%

Every 2-3 months 6 1%

Every 6-12 months 1 0%

Less often 2 0%

Never 2 0%

1306

How often do you tend to travel into or around Winchester?

Base - multi code

On weekdays, during the daytime 1252 96%

At the weekend, during the daytime 904 69%

On weekdays, in the evening 665 51%

At the weekend, in the evening 531 41%

Overnight 64 5%

When do you usually travel into or around Winchester?

1302

Base - multi code

To go shopping 884 68%

For leisure (e.g.bars, restaurants, sports, entertainment) 817 63%

I live in Winchester 770 59%

To access local services (e.g.healthcare, day centre, job centre, council) 666 51%

I work in Winchester 646 50%

To study or do the school run 134 10%

Other (please specify) 126 10%

I commute via Winchester 110 8%

1305

For what reasons do you come into, or travel around, Winchester?

How do you usually move into and around Winchester?

Base - multi code

Private motor vehicle (e.g. car, motorbike) 912 74% 589 47%

Small commercial motor vehicle (e.g. car, motorbike) 22 2% 16 1%

Taxi 70 6% 44 3%

Commercial van or lorry 6 0% 9 1%

Bike 295 24% 316 25%

Bus 441 36% 279 22%

Train 194 16%

By foot 472 38% 1046 83%

Other (please specify) 14 1% 7 1%

Getting into Moving around in

1237 1263

84

Gender

Female 626 49%

Male 635 49%

Other 2 0%

Prefer not to say 26 2%

Age

Under 16 1 0%

16 to 24 28 2%

25 to 34 116 9%

35 to 44 258 20%

45 to 54 317 24%

55 to 64 259 20%

65 to 74 220 17%

75 to 84 68 5%

85 or over 12 1%

Prefer not to say 24 2%

Ongoing health problem or disability that limits movement

Yes, a lot 28 2%

Yes, a little 98 8%

No 1150 89%

Prefer not to say 23 2%

Base

Passenger 329 86%

Both 43 11%

Driver 11 3%

Do you travel on public transport in Winchester as a

383

85

Data cut by Demographics

NB: Green denotes group with the highest agreement, red the group with the lowest,

Where these groups are ‘other’ or have a small base size, the alternative is in yellow.

Movement concerns by reason for visit

Priorities by reason for visit

Achieve the right balance between different types of traffic

I live in

Winchester

I work in

Winchester

I commute via

Winchester

To study or do

the school run

To go

shopping For leisure

To access

local services

Other (please

specify)

Base 759 638 110 133 869 806 652 125

Not important 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 6%

Quite important 30% 33% 24% 26% 32% 30% 29% 33%

Very important 66% 62% 71% 68% 63% 65% 66% 62%

Support growth and economic vibrancy

I live in

Winchester

I work in

Winchester

I commute via

Winchester

To study or do

the school run

To go

shopping For leisure

To access

local services

Other (please

specify)

Base 753 636 110 134 867 802 650 123

Not important 12% 12% 7% 15% 10% 9% 11% 17%

Quite important 50% 48% 46% 49% 49% 49% 51% 44%

Very important 38% 41% 46% 36% 41% 41% 38% 39%

Improve air quality

I live in

Winchester

I work in

Winchester

I commute via

Winchester

To study or do

the school run

To go

shopping For leisure

To access

local services

Other (please

specify)

Base 758 634 108 131 870 805 652 123

Not important 7% 10% 9% 8% 6% 7% 5% 9%

Quite important 27% 33% 37% 27% 32% 31% 30% 27%

Very important 66% 58% 54% 65% 62% 62% 65% 64%

Base 767 643 110 134 881 814 662 126

I live in

Winchester

I work in

Winchester

I commute

via

Winchester

To study or

do the

school run

To go

shopping For leisure

To access

local

services

Other

(please

specify)

Road congestion 72% 70% 68% 71% 73% 73% 72% 68%

Through traffic in the city centre 64% 54% 61% 72% 61% 61% 62% 56%

Poor air quality 55% 39% 42% 55% 49% 49% 54% 52%

HGVs in the city centre 50% 37% 47% 44% 48% 47% 49% 52%

Dominance of motorised traffic 53% 38% 49% 58% 46% 48% 51% 43%

Difficulty cycling in/around the City 48% 35% 48% 66% 43% 45% 49% 40%

Limited availability of car parking 27% 38% 35% 31% 32% 33% 29% 27%

Poorly maintained pavements 38% 26% 42% 28% 35% 34% 36% 30%

Poor road maintenance 34% 22% 43% 29% 32% 31% 35% 33%

Road safety 34% 24% 31% 45% 30% 31% 33% 24%

Limited availability of public transport 26% 22% 33% 33% 28% 28% 29% 30%

Motorised traffic using unsuitable roads 29% 19% 27% 25% 26% 26% 29% 32%

Pavement congestion 25% 26% 27% 22% 24% 25% 25% 25%

Limited availability of park and ride 15% 25% 14% 15% 22% 22% 20% 23%

Poor street design 22% 21% 26% 33% 22% 22% 22% 25%

Difficulty walking in/around the City 21% 16% 21% 21% 18% 18% 21% 20%

Something else. . . 12% 10% 18% 10% 11% 11% 12% 17%

Low levels of street lighting 10% 8% 10% 9% 7% 8% 9% 10%

I do not have any concerns - 1% - - - - 0% -

86

Suggestions by reason for visit

Reviewing and re-planning the city centre

one way system

I live in

Winchester

I work in

Winchester

I commute via

Winchester

To study or do

the school run

To go

shopping For leisure

To access

local services

Other (please

specify)

749 639 108 134 863 798 650 121

Strongly Disagree 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3%

Disagree 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 3%

Neutral 18% 19% 11% 16% 17% 17% 18% 16%

Agree 35% 37% 37% 34% 37% 35% 35% 39%

Strongly Agree 39% 36% 44% 42% 39% 40% 40% 40%

% Positive 74% 73% 81% 75% 75% 75% 75% 79%

Introducing additional routes to relieve the

town centre of cross city traffic

I live in

Winchester

I work in

Winchester

I commute via

Winchester

To study or do

the school run

To go

shopping For leisure

To access

local services

Other (please

specify)

756 641 110 134 868 804 655 124

Strongly Disagree 5% 3% 6% 5% 4% 5% 5% 7%

Disagree 7% 4% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 7%

Neutral 13% 11% 14% 15% 12% 13% 14% 14%

Agree 33% 40% 36% 30% 36% 35% 35% 35%

Strongly Agree 42% 42% 37% 46% 42% 41% 40% 38%

% Positive 75% 81% 74% 75% 78% 77% 75% 73%

Improving capacity on key routes into / out

of the city centre

I live in

Winchester

I work in

Winchester

I commute via

Winchester

To study or do

the school run

To go

shopping For leisure

To access

local services

Other (please

specify)

746 635 110 133 860 798 650 123

Strongly Disagree 14% 8% 9% 11% 12% 12% 14% 18%

Disagree 16% 10% 16% 16% 14% 14% 14% 11%

Neutral 17% 15% 19% 17% 17% 17% 18% 11%

Agree 26% 31% 26% 26% 29% 27% 26% 26%

Strongly Agree 27% 35% 29% 31% 29% 30% 28% 34%

% Positive 53% 66% 56% 57% 58% 57% 54% 60%

Making public realm improvements

I live in

Winchester

I work in

Winchester

I commute via

Winchester

To study or do

the school run

To go

shopping For leisure

To access

local services

Other (please

specify)

729 626 105 131 843 780 630 117

Strongly Disagree 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Disagree 3% 3% 6% 2% 3% 3% 2% 5%

Neutral 33% 39% 33% 38% 37% 35% 35% 33%

Agree 35% 33% 31% 29% 34% 35% 32% 32%

Strongly Agree 28% 24% 28% 30% 24% 25% 29% 28%

% Positive 63% 57% 59% 59% 59% 60% 61% 60%

Introducing new bus priority measures

I live in

Winchester

I work in

Winchester

I commute via

Winchester

To study or do

the school run

To go

shopping For leisure

To access

local services

Other (please

specify)

752 638 107 133 866 804 653 121

Strongly Disagree 4% 4% 8% 5% 4% 5% 4% 7%

Disagree 10% 8% 13% 13% 10% 10% 9% 8%

Neutral 24% 23% 20% 32% 23% 22% 23% 19%

Agree 34% 34% 31% 27% 35% 36% 34% 36%

Strongly Agree 27% 31% 29% 24% 27% 27% 30% 29%

% Positive 62% 64% 60% 51% 63% 63% 64% 65%

Encouraging clean fuel technologies

I live in

Winchester

I work in

Winchester

I commute via

Winchester

To study or do

the school run

To go

shopping For leisure

To access

local services

Other (please

specify)

755 639 108 134 866 805 654 122

Strongly Disagree 2% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 3%

Disagree 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 4% 4%

Neutral 19% 27% 20% 21% 20% 20% 21% 29%

Agree 36% 35% 35% 33% 38% 37% 35% 30%

Strongly Agree 37% 30% 36% 37% 35% 35% 38% 34%

% Positive 73% 65% 71% 70% 73% 72% 73% 64%

Increasing capacity for park and ride

I live in

Winchester

I work in

Winchester

I commute via

Winchester

To study or do

the school run

To go

shopping For leisure

To access

local services

Other (please

specify)

754 638 110 134 866 803 652 120

Strongly Disagree 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 4%

Disagree 4% 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 4% 3%

Neutral 20% 18% 26% 30% 19% 19% 19% 17%

Agree 36% 35% 41% 28% 37% 36% 36% 38%

Strongly Agree 38% 41% 26% 34% 39% 38% 40% 38%

% Positive 74% 75% 67% 63% 75% 74% 76% 76%

Introducing enforcement options to restrict

vehicle access in areas of high pollution

I live in

Winchester

I work in

Winchester

I commute via

Winchester

To study or do

the school run

To go

shopping For leisure

To access

local services

Other (please

specify)

755 636 108 133 862 802 650 122

Strongly Disagree 6% 9% 12% 7% 7% 8% 7% 10%

Disagree 9% 13% 11% 14% 11% 11% 11% 8%

Neutral 17% 22% 16% 22% 18% 18% 17% 21%

Agree 28% 28% 26% 32% 28% 29% 27% 21%

Strongly Agree 40% 29% 35% 26% 35% 35% 38% 39%

% Positive 68% 57% 61% 57% 64% 64% 65% 61%

87

Movement concerns by mode of transport

Priorities by mode of transport

Base 1029 27 100 10 389 556 208 1104 17Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Road congestion 73% 70% 77% 50% 70% 75% 71% 71% 65%

Through traffic in centre 57% 48% 65% 60% 61% 60% 56% 60% 59%

Poor air quality 41% 37% 40% 30% 64% 41% 53% 48% 65%

HGVs in city centre 44% 44% 49% 20% 46% 46% 43% 46% 59%

Motorised traffic dominance 37% 30% 40% 40% 70% 41% 55% 47% 53%

Difficulty cycling in/around 35% 15% 38% 30% 83% 33% 45% 40% 41%

Limited parking 40% 52% 43% 40% 19% 33% 31% 33% 18%

Pavement maintenance 30% 33% 35% 20% 29% 35% 33% 33% 59%

Road maintenance 29% 30% 37% 20% 35% 30% 24% 29% 29%

Road safety 26% 11% 34% 20% 39% 28% 28% 29% 18%

Limited public transport 24% 22% 36% 10% 25% 30% 33% 25% 12%

Traffic on unsuitable roads 22% 15% 23% 20% 29% 24% 26% 25% 24%

Pavement congestion 22% 15% 21% 30% 24% 24% 33% 26% 29%

Limited park and ride 23% 26% 14% 10% 13% 25% 18% 21% 18%

Poor street design 22% 19% 28% 30% 28% 21% 28% 22% 18%

Difficulty walking in/around 14% 11% 22% 10% 22% 16% 34% 19% 24%

Low levels of street lighting 7% 11% 10% 10% 9% 8% 6% 7% 12%

Something else. . . 11% 11% 8% 30% 10% 10% 10% 10% 18%

I do not have any concerns 1% 4% - - - 1% 1% 0% 6%

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor

vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Base 1019 27 99 10 386 549 207 1097 16

Not important 6% 4% 4% 20% 2% 5% 3% 5% -

Quite important 33% 56% 37% 50% 21% 29% 31% 32% 25%

Very important 61% 41% 59% 30% 77% 66% 66% 63% 75%

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor

vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

1015 27 98 10 382 546 206 1091 16

Not important 9% 7% 7% - 16% 10% 10% 10% 38%

Quite important 47% 44% 47% 60% 51% 52% 52% 49% 31%

Very important 44% 48% 46% 40% 33% 38% 38% 40% 31%

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor

vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Base 1012 27 98 9 388 548 206 1095 16

Not important 8% 7% 7% - 7% 6% 7% 7% -

Quite important 36% 41% 40% 44% 20% 35% 29% 31% 19%

Very important 56% 52% 53% 56% 73% 59% 64% 63% 81%

Support growth and economic

Achieve the right balance between different types of traffic

Improve air quality

88

Private motor

vehicle Bike Bus Foot

Base 571 260 333 647

Reduce City Centre traffic (super macro) 43% 45% 51% 44%

CCTR: Provide alternative routes (macro) 6% 4% 7% 5%

Alternatives: Build a ring road / by pass 3% 3% 3% 2%

CCTR: Enable use of Park and Ride (macro) 15% 11% 17% 13%

P&R: Priority measures 3% 0% 4% 3%

P&R: Affordability 1% 1% 1% 1%

P&R: Scheme expansion 12% 9% 13% 10%

CCTR: Enable use of Public Transport (macro) 19% 21% 28% 20%

Buses: Priority measures 4% 3% 7% 4%

Buses: Affordability 4% 4% 5% 4%

Buses: Extended timetables 6% 6% 8% 6%

CCTR: Vehicle Restrictions (macro) 9% 10% 9% 10%

Restrictions: Congestion charge scheme 1% 0% 1% 1%

Parking (macro) 9% 5% 7% 8%

Parking: Charges / Cost 3% 2% 2% 3%

Parking: Options 6% 4% 4% 5%

Parking: Railway parking 0% - 0% 0%

Improve traffic flow (macro) 34% 22% 29% 31%

Flow: Clear management plan for traffic displacement 3% 2% 2% 2%

Flow: Andover Road 14% 7% 14% 12%

Flow: Review the one way system 6% 4% 7% 6%

Flow: Delivery restrictions 5% 5% 4% 5%

Flow: Develop new routes for crossing the City Centre 4% 3% 3% 3%

Flow: Consider issues on concentric/ radial routes 3% 2% 2% 3%

Flow: Traffic light sequencing 2% 1% 2% 2%

Flow: Speed limits 1% 2% 0% 1%

Support healthier lifestyle choices (macro) 29% 54% 29% 35%

Lifestyles: Cycling (inc PTW's) 19% 42% 17% 22%

Lifestyles: Walking 16% 29% 17% 21%

Lifestyles: Reducing pollution / encouraging green options 5% 11% 6% 7%

Achieve the right balance between different types of users (macro) 9% 10% 5% 8%

Users: Consider needs/impact of workers 2% 1% 1% 1%

Users: Consider needs of residents 5% 6% 2% 5%

Users: Consider needs/impact of visitors 2% 4% 1% 2%

Users: Consider needs/impact of commuters 0% 0% 0% 0%

Prioritise growth and economic development (macro) 3% 2% 1% 3%

Ensure traffic legislation is enforced (macro) 2% 2% 2% 3%

Plan for longer term and external impacts (macro) 8% 10% 8% 8%

Impacts: Government regulations / policy 1% 2% 1% 1%

Impacts: Ensure transport infrastructure is central to development planning 6% 7% 6% 6%

Impacts: Environmental / Climate change 1% 1% 1% 1%

Other (macro) 8% 10% 9% 9%

Not applicable (macro) 1% 1% 2% 2%

Quantified Verbatim of Priorities suggested by respondents - main themes by key transport modes

89

Suggestions by mode of transport

Reviewing and re-planning

the city centre one way

system

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Base 1011 26 99 10 385 545 205 1088 17

Strongly Disagree 3% 4% 3% 10% 3% 2% 2% 3% -

Disagree 5% 12% 5% - 2% 5% 3% 4% 18%

Neutral 18% 31% 22% - 17% 19% 22% 18% 12%

Agree 36% 23% 24% 30% 35% 38% 32% 37% 29%

Strongly Agree 39% 31% 46% 60% 43% 36% 42% 38% 41%

% Positive 75% 54% 70% 90% 78% 74% 73% 75% 71%

Introducing additional

routes to relieve the town

centre of cross city traffic

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Base 1021 26 100 10 384 550 206 1093 16

Strongly Disagree 3% - 5% 10% 7% 4% 7% 4% -

Disagree 5% 4% 4% - 8% 5% 7% 6% 6%

Neutral 12% 12% 13% - 16% 13% 12% 12% 19%

Agree 37% 50% 29% 20% 32% 34% 37% 36% 19%

Strongly Agree 43% 35% 49% 70% 37% 44% 37% 42% 56%

% Positive 80% 85% 78% 90% 69% 79% 74% 78% 75%

Improving capacity on key

routes into / out of the city

centre

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Base 1011 26 96 10 381 544 205 1084 16

Strongly Disagree 8% 4% 8% 20% 19% 9% 17% 11% 38%

Disagree 11% 4% 8% 20% 22% 12% 14% 13% 13%

Neutral 15% 19% 19% - 21% 15% 17% 17% 6%

Agree 31% 42% 30% 20% 18% 29% 25% 29% 6%

Strongly Agree 35% 31% 34% 40% 19% 35% 27% 31% 38%

% Positive 66% 73% 65% 60% 38% 65% 52% 59% 44%

Making public realm

improvements

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Base 982 26 95 10 374 533 201 1063 15

Strongly Disagree 2% 4% 2% - 2% 1% 1% 1% 13%

Disagree 3% - - - 1% 4% 1% 3% 7%

Neutral 40% 54% 38% 60% 26% 35% 29% 36% 20%

Agree 35% 39% 34% 30% 37% 36% 36% 35% 27%

Strongly Agree 21% 4% 26% 10% 34% 25% 33% 25% 33%

% Positive 55% 42% 60% 40% 71% 61% 69% 60% 60%

introducing new bus priority

measures

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Base 1008 26 96 10 384 550 207 1091 16

Strongly Disagree 5% 4% 4% - 5% 3% 3% 4% -

Disagree 11% 23% 12% 10% 8% 4% 6% 9% 6%

Neutral 26% 15% 26% 30% 22% 16% 22% 24% -

Agree 35% 27% 30% 40% 38% 37% 36% 36% 63%

Strongly Agree 23% 31% 28% 20% 29% 40% 34% 28% 31%

% Positive 58% 58% 58% 60% 66% 77% 70% 64% 94%

Encouraging clean fuel

technologies

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Base 1012 27 98 10 386 550 207 1093 16

Strongly Disagree 4% 4% 2% - 2% 1% 2% 2% -

Disagree 5% 4% 5% 10% 4% 3% 4% 4% 6%

Neutral 25% 26% 26% 20% 16% 24% 19% 22% 25%

Agree 36% 44% 29% 50% 38% 37% 35% 37% 6%

Strongly Agree 29% 22% 39% 20% 40% 35% 40% 35% 63%

% Positive 66% 67% 67% 70% 78% 72% 75% 72% 69%

Increasing capacity for park

and ride

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Base 1011 26 98 10 384 550 208 1095 16

Strongly Disagree 2% - 2% - 2% 1% 2% 2% -

Disagree 5% 4% 11% 10% 4% 3% 3% 5% -

Neutral 20% 8% 21% 20% 22% 15% 19% 20% -

Agree 36% 54% 34% 30% 34% 38% 34% 36% 38%

Strongly Agree 37% 35% 32% 40% 38% 43% 42% 39% 63%

% Positive 73% 88% 65% 70% 72% 81% 76% 74% 100%

Introducing enforcement

options to restrict vehicle

access in areas of high

pollution

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Base 1011 26 98 10 384 550 208 1095 16

Strongly Disagree 2% - 2% - 2% 1% 2% 2% -

Disagree 5% 4% 11% 10% 4% 3% 3% 5% -

Neutral 20% 8% 21% 20% 22% 15% 19% 20% -

Agree 36% 54% 34% 30% 34% 38% 34% 36% 38%

Strongly Agree 37% 35% 32% 40% 38% 43% 42% 39% 63%

% Positive 73% 88% 65% 70% 72% 81% 76% 74% 100%

90

Reviewing and re-planning

the city centre one way

system

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Base 1011 26 99 10 385 545 205 1088 17

Strongly Disagree 3% 4% 3% 10% 3% 2% 2% 3% -

Disagree 5% 12% 5% - 2% 5% 3% 4% 18%

Neutral 18% 31% 22% - 17% 19% 22% 18% 12%

Agree 36% 23% 24% 30% 35% 38% 32% 37% 29%

Strongly Agree 39% 31% 46% 60% 43% 36% 42% 38% 41%

% Positive 75% 54% 70% 90% 78% 74% 73% 75% 71%

Introducing additional

routes to relieve the town

centre of cross city traffic

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Base 1021 26 100 10 384 550 206 1093 16

Strongly Disagree 3% - 5% 10% 7% 4% 7% 4% -

Disagree 5% 4% 4% - 8% 5% 7% 6% 6%

Neutral 12% 12% 13% - 16% 13% 12% 12% 19%

Agree 37% 50% 29% 20% 32% 34% 37% 36% 19%

Strongly Agree 43% 35% 49% 70% 37% 44% 37% 42% 56%

% Positive 80% 85% 78% 90% 69% 79% 74% 78% 75%

Improving capacity on key

routes into / out of the city

centre

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Base 1011 26 96 10 381 544 205 1084 16

Strongly Disagree 8% 4% 8% 20% 19% 9% 17% 11% 38%

Disagree 11% 4% 8% 20% 22% 12% 14% 13% 13%

Neutral 15% 19% 19% - 21% 15% 17% 17% 6%

Agree 31% 42% 30% 20% 18% 29% 25% 29% 6%

Strongly Agree 35% 31% 34% 40% 19% 35% 27% 31% 38%

% Positive 66% 73% 65% 60% 38% 65% 52% 59% 44%

Making public realm

improvements

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Base 982 26 95 10 374 533 201 1063 15

Strongly Disagree 2% 4% 2% - 2% 1% 1% 1% 13%

Disagree 3% - - - 1% 4% 1% 3% 7%

Neutral 40% 54% 38% 60% 26% 35% 29% 36% 20%

Agree 35% 39% 34% 30% 37% 36% 36% 35% 27%

Strongly Agree 21% 4% 26% 10% 34% 25% 33% 25% 33%

% Positive 55% 42% 60% 40% 71% 61% 69% 60% 60%

introducing new bus priority

measures

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Base 1008 26 96 10 384 550 207 1091 16

Strongly Disagree 5% 4% 4% - 5% 3% 3% 4% -

Disagree 11% 23% 12% 10% 8% 4% 6% 9% 6%

Neutral 26% 15% 26% 30% 22% 16% 22% 24% -

Agree 35% 27% 30% 40% 38% 37% 36% 36% 63%

Strongly Agree 23% 31% 28% 20% 29% 40% 34% 28% 31%

% Positive 58% 58% 58% 60% 66% 77% 70% 64% 94%

Encouraging clean fuel

technologies

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Base 1012 27 98 10 386 550 207 1093 16

Strongly Disagree 4% 4% 2% - 2% 1% 2% 2% -

Disagree 5% 4% 5% 10% 4% 3% 4% 4% 6%

Neutral 25% 26% 26% 20% 16% 24% 19% 22% 25%

Agree 36% 44% 29% 50% 38% 37% 35% 37% 6%

Strongly Agree 29% 22% 39% 20% 40% 35% 40% 35% 63%

% Positive 66% 67% 67% 70% 78% 72% 75% 72% 69%

Increasing capacity for park

and ride

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Base 1011 26 98 10 384 550 208 1095 16

Strongly Disagree 2% - 2% - 2% 1% 2% 2% -

Disagree 5% 4% 11% 10% 4% 3% 3% 5% -

Neutral 20% 8% 21% 20% 22% 15% 19% 20% -

Agree 36% 54% 34% 30% 34% 38% 34% 36% 38%

Strongly Agree 37% 35% 32% 40% 38% 43% 42% 39% 63%

% Positive 73% 88% 65% 70% 72% 81% 76% 74% 100%

Introducing enforcement

options to restrict vehicle

access in areas of high

pollution

Private

motor

vehicle

Small

commercial

motor vehicle Taxi

Commercial

van or lorry Bike Bus Train By foot Other

Base 1011 26 98 10 384 550 208 1095 16

Strongly Disagree 2% - 2% - 2% 1% 2% 2% -

Disagree 5% 4% 11% 10% 4% 3% 3% 5% -

Neutral 20% 8% 21% 20% 22% 15% 19% 20% -

Agree 36% 54% 34% 30% 34% 38% 34% 36% 38%

Strongly Agree 37% 35% 32% 40% 38% 43% 42% 39% 63%

% Positive 73% 88% 65% 70% 72% 81% 76% 74% 100%

91

Movement concerns by area of residence

Priorities by area of residence

SO23 SO22 Outside

Road congestion 65% 77% 69%

Through traffic in city centre 67% 61% 48%

Poor air quality 65% 47% 32%

HGVs in city centre 50% 48% 37%

Motorised traffic dominance 61% 46% 31%

Difficulty cycling in/around 62% 43% 26%

Limited car parking 21% 32% 44%

Poorly maintained pavements 36% 36% 22%

Poor road maintenance 30% 36% 19%

Road safety 37% 32% 23%

Limited public transport 23% 30% 44%

Traffic on unsuitable roads 34% 24% 18%

Pavement congestion 30% 23% 24%

Limited park and ride 11% 18% 32%

Poor street design 23% 21% 21%

Difficulty walking in/around 28% 17% 13%

Something else. . . 10% 12% 10%

Low levels of street lighting 8% 10% 4%

I do not have any concerns 0% 0% 1%

SO23 Base Not important Quite important Very important

Achieve the right balance between

different types of traffic 225 4% 27% 69%

Support growth and economic

vibrancy 221 15% 52% 33%

Improve air quality 226 3% 19% 78%

SO22 Base Not important Quite important Very important

Achieve the right balance between

different types of traffic 369 6% 33% 61%

Support growth and economic

vibrancy 368 12% 48% 41%

Improve air quality 367 8% 31% 61%

Outside Base Not important Quite important Very important

Achieve the right balance between

different types of traffic 365 7% 33% 59%

Support growth and economic

vibrancy 365 9% 51% 41%

Improve air quality 365 9% 41% 50%

92

SO23 SO22 Outside

Base 153 252 179

Reduce City Centre traffic (super macro) 44% 39% 50%

CCTR: Provide alternative routes (macro) 4% 6% 5%

Alternatives: Build a ring road / by pass 3% 4% 1%

CCTR: Enable use of Park and Ride (macro) 9% 13% 22%

P&R: Priority measures 1% 1% 6%

P&R: Affordability 1% - 1%

P&R: Scheme expansion 7% 11% 16%

CCTR: Enable use of Public Transport (macro) 18% 20% 24%

Buses: Priority measures 3% 3% 7%

Buses: Affordability 3% 5% 3%

Buses: Extended timetables 4% 6% 7%

CCTR: Vehicle Restrictions (macro) 13% 8% 7%

Restrictions: Congestion charge scheme 1% 0% -

Parking (macro) 7% 5% 13%

Parking: Charges / Cost 1% 1% 7%

Parking: Options 5% 3% 7%

Parking: Railway parking - - -

Improve traffic flow (macro) 26% 40% 27%

Flow: Clear management plan for traffic displacement 2% 1% 4%

Flow: Andover Road 4% 25% 7%

Flow: Review the one way system 6% 6% 6%

Flow: Delivery restrictions 6% 4% 5%

Flow: Develop new routes for crossing the City Centre 4% 2% 3%

Flow: Consider issues on concentric/ radial routes 3% 5% 1%

Flow: Traffic light sequencing 1% 2% 3%

Flow: Speed limits 2% 1% -

Support healthier lifestyle choices (macro) 53% 25% 27%

Lifestyles: Cycling (inc PTW's) 35% 15% 18%

Lifestyles: Walking 33% 15% 13%

Lifestyles: Reducing pollution / encouraging green options 11% 4% 5%

Achieve the right balance between different types of users (macro) 7% 5% 9%

Users: Consider needs/impact of workers - 1% 5%

Users: Consider needs of residents 3% 2% 4%

Users: Consider needs/impact of visitors 2% 1% 2%

Users: Consider needs/impact of commuters - 0% -

Prioritise growth and economic development (macro) 2% 3% 3%

Ensure traffic legislation is enforced (macro) 2% 1% 4%

Plan for longer term and external impacts (macro) 7% 12% 5%

Impacts: Government regulations / policy 1% 1% -

Impacts: Ensure transport infrastructure is central to development planning 5% 10% 2%

Impacts: Environmental / Climate change 1% 0% 1%

Other (macro) 9% 10% 7%

Not applicable (macro) 1% 1% 2%

Quantified Verbatim of Priorities suggested by respondents - main themes by area of residence

93

Suggestions by area of residence

SO23 Base

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly

Agree % Positive

Reviewing and re-planning the city centre

one way system 225 3% 2% 15% 39% 42% 81%

Introducing additional routes to relieve the

town centre of cross city traffic 225 4% 9% 9% 31% 46% 77%

Improving capacity on key routes into /

out of the city centre 219 18% 21% 20% 19% 22% 42%

Making public realm improvements 223 1% 1% 27% 39% 32% 71%

Introducing new bus priority measures 224 3% 9% 24% 33% 32% 65%

Encouraging clean fuel technologies 224 0% 3% 15% 39% 42% 82%

Increasing capacity for park and ride 222 2% 3% 21% 38% 37% 75%

Introducing enforcement options to

restrict vehicle access in areas of high

pollution 223 4% 4% 15% 33% 45% 78%

SO22 Base

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly

Agree % Positive

Reviewing and re-planning the city centre

one way system 368 3% 7% 18% 33% 40% 73%

Introducing additional routes to relieve the

town centre of cross city traffic 372 6% 5% 14% 33% 43% 76%

Improving capacity on key routes into /

out of the city centre 367 13% 11% 14% 30% 31% 62%

Making public realm improvements 354 2% 3% 36% 32% 26% 58%

Introducing new bus priority measures 368 7% 10% 22% 33% 28% 61%

Encouraging clean fuel technologies 369 4% 6% 21% 33% 37% 69%

Increasing capacity for park and ride 369 3% 5% 18% 35% 39% 73%

Introducing enforcement options to

restrict vehicle access in areas of high

pollution 371 8% 13% 15% 26% 38% 64%

Outside Base

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly

Agree % Positive

Reviewing and re-planning the city centre

one way system 366 2% 5% 18% 40% 35% 75%

Introducing additional routes to relieve the

town centre of cross city traffic 367 3% 5% 12% 39% 40% 79%

Improving capacity on key routes into /

out of the city centre 366 6% 9% 13% 35% 37% 72%

Making public realm improvements 363 1% 4% 42% 36% 17% 53%

Introducing new bus priority measures 366 3% 9% 21% 39% 28% 67%

Encouraging clean fuel technologies 365 5% 4% 29% 38% 24% 62%

Increasing capacity for park and ride 368 3% 5% 16% 37% 40% 77%

Introducing enforcement options to

restrict vehicle access in areas of high

pollution 363 9% 14% 27% 30% 21% 50%