A letter from Chris Gilham
Strategic Transport
Economy, Transport and Environment Department
Hampshire County Council
The Castle
Winchester
SO23 8UD
Dear Sir
I am responding to the consultation of the Winchester Movement Strategy (WMS) on behalf of the Winchester Green Party.
Hampshire County Council and Winchester City Council have declared a Climate emergency and all sectors need to play their part by eliminating emissions. Transport as one of the largest emitters has
more to do than most and targeting a 10% reduction is underwhelming and wholly inadequate. It is disappointing that the Climate is not mentioned once in the WMS.
We agree with the three priorities outlined by the WMS but don’t feel the Next Steps will deliver the large emission reduction required to meet the net zero targets.
Proposals:
1. Improve P&R facilities on Andover Road. We disagree with this proposal because P&R is expensive and encourages driving from other areas. It attracts people that would have probably parked in out of town car parks anyway. The money would be better spent on thebuses servicing surrounding villages so visitors wouldn’t need a car at all. Disagree
2. Changes to car parking in Winchester city centre. The proposals suggest increased parking charges which we support but this will not stop anyone able to pay so will have little effect.
To deter people from driving into town looking for a parking space we support the removal of car parks (leaving some spaces for blue badge holders). Parking charges should also be
increased for residential permits and exponentially for 2 and subsequent cars registered at an address. Support
3. Converting eastern parts of the one way system. We do not support this proposal because it should be unnecessary if traffic is reduced by other stronger methods. We feel it would be expensive to implement and easy access to car parks will actually encourage more cars.
Making the street two way will prevent bus priority and safe cycling/walking measures being introduced here. We are unsure why you think it will make cycling easier. Disagree
4. Create better public spaces. We support this proposal but feel it can only happen on St Georges Street and Jewry Street once there is a large reduction in traffic. Support
5. Creating a high-quality walking route. We support this proposal but why is it limited to just one of the 13 routes in the City of Winchester Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP). Walking routes need to be safe and away from busy highways to avoid pollution.
Other proposed routes allowing access to all areas of Winchester need to be revived.
Pavements need to be safe and trip free for all people to use. Support
6. Creating safe cycle routes. We support this in principal but to encourage large numbers of cyclists to deliver the reduced traffic it will require high quality safe cycle routes providing direct, convenient routes to destinations. This should be a mixture of dedicated cycle lanes and roads that are not car priority. Simply painting a cycle symbol on an existing road will not
help. Support
7. Providing bus priority on key routes. We support Investment in public transport and in particular getting buses into the city centre faster than cars. Bus lanes and retractable bollards that sink into the ground for buses preventing cars from using the road. Buses have to be better and quicker than cars. Support
8. Improve local bus services. We support improvements to bus routes including additional and more frequent services. It is a priority for a cheap, regular service from all areas of the district into the city. This will increase the numbers of buses travelling through Winchester so it is essential other traffic is reduced. There is no mention of a bus station which we think is a
mistake. Relying on street bus stops for all the new services will restrict space for safe
walking and cycling. Support
9. Improving deliveries into the city centre. We support improvements to freight delivery that reduce emissions and hope by removing car traffic there will be less conflict with deliveries anyway. Loading bays will keep these vehicles from blocking roads and reduce illegal
pavement parking. Support
10. Setting up a freight delivery hub. We support a delivery hub which will consolidate deliveries made by electric bike or van. This goes for bulk deliveries into town but is just as appropriate for larger, heavier purchases delivered home or to a car park further out of town. Deliveries by cargo bike will require better cycle infrastructure and we shouldn’t rule out deliveries arriving by rail. The location of any hub needs to consider all these options. Support
Overall we support the WMS but don’t believe that in its current form it has any hope of reducing traffic by any significant amount which is required. Fundamentally if you want to reduce traffic you
have to implement deterrents while at the same time offer a quality alternative. Massive public transport expansion is essential and it won’t happen by building P&R car parks or waiting for bus companies to put on more services. It requires additional sources of money. The Bus Back Better funding was entirely insufficient for this and has now been cut by a third. Councils have a lot of
options available to them which should be considered:
● Close city centre car parks (leaving some spaces for blue badge holders). This is the most
important and is something the WCC has promised in the past. Money can be raised for their subsequent reuse.
● Increase the cost of residential parking permits from the 2nd and subsequent permit per household.
● Car Clubs with cars available in residential areas. Focus on the 2nd household car which
spends most of its time stationary. If everyone lived within 5 minutes of a car club they might
not invest in a 2nd car.
● Councils have the power to introduce a workplace parking levy.
● Free public transport systems are being introduced in various cities around the world but at the very least we would call for free bus passes for young people under 26. If they had free transport, they would be less likely to invest in a car