Accessibility and Display Options

Choose accessibility and display settings
Text Preferences
Colour Schemes
Save Close


EV57 - Interim Transport Assessment


Transport Assessment The Transport Assessment, in paragraphs 4.3.1-4.3.3 states that a run of the sub-regional model undertaken by PUSH taking account of all committed developments and transport infrastructure interventions to 2036 in the region provides the baseline against which the incremental traffic impacts of the proposed site allocations can be compared. It does not do this because Welborne is not included in the 2036 baseline. The interim Transport Assessment therefore does not do what it states in the introduction. It does not consider the potential transport related impacts of the proposed land allocations in the emerging Local Plan; it considers the impact of the proposed allocations together with the allocations at Welborne. The Transport Assessment also states that the Welborne M27 all movements Junction 10 is included in the model. It is not included in any of the of the figures in the Transport Assessment. As the Transport Assessment does not identify separately the traffic impacts of the site allocations included in the draft Plan, but adds in the impact of Welborne it cannot be considered to be sound. Irrespective of the fact that the Transport Assessment is unsound and does not do what it states, the figures included raise other issues. Many of the figures do not include Portchester and Stubbington/Hill Head which will be significantly affected by the proposed developments at Romsey Avenue, Downend Road and Daedalus. The poor quality of the figures obscures many of the numbers and its diagrammatic nature, in parts, confuses the picture. For example, Figs 6-7 and 6-8 appear to show a new road from Dibles Road to Hook Lane/Little Abshot Road. Presumable this is meant to be the route along Fleet End Road and Hook Lane through Hook village. There is insufficient information to enable comparisons of actual flows of traffic, for example there should be actual flow figures for the 2015 base so that comparison can be made with the 2036 actual flows shown in figures 6.1 and 6.2. In the light of the daily experience of traffic at a standstill the Society would expect paragraph 3.1.2 to include congestion off M27 junctions 9 and 10 in the pm period as well as the am period. There are many changes if the actual flows and volume/capacity rates that appear to be inexplicable even accepting that the Transport Assessment does not identify the impacts of only the sites allocated in the draft Plan. Future Transport Assessments must contain sufficient information and explanations for what the modelling outputs show. The statement in paragraph 6.2.3, copied below, is totally inadequate to explain the output of the assessment. “These indicate that there is forecast to be a general increase in traffic on most links during both the AM and PM peak hours, especially on the A27 between Fareham and the M27. However, there is a reduction of traffic on the M27 during the AM peak hour. This is likely to be because of additional traffic 6. congestion at junctions with the motorway that restricts access to it and causes traffic to divert on to alternative roads to avoid the traffic congestion.” Can it be possible that the impacts of development on the allocated sites is sufficient to cause such severe additional congestion on the M27 that will result in traffic diverting to alternative routes that are also already congested and which will become more congested because of the development of the allocated sites? There are many other examples where improved clarity is required, for example paragraph 6.2.7 refers to ‘a reduction on Wickham Road during both peak hours’. The data shows that there is a reduction on Wickham Road north of the M27, but there is a significant increase in traffic on Wickham Road south of the M27.


Back to top of page Back to Top How to get here RSS Feeds