BUILD A BETTER A27: COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ON … › media › 11642 › build-a-better...1. Build a Better A27: Community Feedback on A27 Suggestions Analysis of Community Feedback 107162

Build a Better A27 – Community Feedback 22/05/2018

Reference number: 107162

BUILD A BETTER A27: COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ON A27 SUGGESTIONS

BUILD A BETTER A27: COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ON A27 SUGGESTIONS ANALYSIS OF COMMUNITY FEEDBACK

IDENTIFICATION TABLE

Client/Project owner West Sussex County Council

Project Build a Better A27: Community Feedback on A27 Suggestions

Study Analysis of Community Feedback

Type of document Report

Date 22/05/2018

File name 20180516_A27 Chichester Feedback Analysis Report v1.2.docx

Reference number 107162

Number of pages 30

APPROVAL

Version Name Position Date Modifications

1

Author K.Hall, E.Salter 21/05/18

Checked by K.Hall 21/05/18

Approved by

D.Carter 21/05/18

2

Author K.Hall, E.Salter 22/05/18

Checked by K.Hall 22/05/18

Approved by

D.Carter 22/05/18

Build a Better A27: Community Feedback on A27 Suggestions Analysis of Community Feedback 107162

Report 22/05/2018 Page 3/30

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 5

OVERVIEW 5

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 5

RESPONSES RECEIVED 6

OUR APPROACH TO ANALYSIS AND REPORTING 6

2. CURRENT ROUTE SUGGESTIONS 9

INTRODUCTION 9

GENERAL COMMENTS MADE ABOUT ON-LINE SUGGESTIONS 9

MARGINAL NETWORK GAINS 9

PACKAGES OF INDIVIDUAL JUNCTION IMPROVEMENTS 10

TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS 13

IMPROVEMENTS / MITIGATIONS 14

NEW SUGGESTIONS 15

3. NEW ROUTE SUGGESTIONS 16

INTRODUCTION 16

GENERAL COMMENTS MADE ABOUT OFF-LINE SUGGESTIONS 17

SOUTHERN ROUTES 17

NORTHERN ROUTES 18

IMPROVEMENTS / MITIGATIONS 19

NEW SUGGESTIONS 19

4. MODAL SUGGESTIONS 20

INTRODUCTION 20

GENERAL COMMENTS MADE ABOUT MODAL SUGGESTIONS 22

WALKING, CYCLING AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT 22

PARKING, TRAFFIC AND FREIGHT MANAGEMENT 24

IMPROVEMENTS 25

NEW SUGGESTIONS 25

5. CONCLUSIONS AND KEY CONSIDERATIONS 27

SUMMARY 27

CURRENT ROUTE SUGGESTIONS 27


Report 22/05/2018 Page 4/30

NEW ROUTE SUGGESTIONS 28

MODAL SUGGESTIONS 28

KEY CONSIDERATIONS 29

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Example Feedback Form Appendix B – Coding Framework and Responses to Closed Questions Appendix C – BABA27 Key Themes


Report 22/05/2018 Page 5/30

1. INTRODUCTION

Overview

The A27 through Chichester, referred to as the Chichester bypass, is a dual carriageway road of approximately three miles (5.5km) long, intersecting with the local road network at five roundabouts and one signalised junction. The road is designated as a part of the Strategic Road Network as a Trunk Road and is managed by Highways England.

Traffic volumes, congestion and journey time uncertainties on the A27 and approach roads generate serious transport, social, environmental and economic impacts. An earlier Road Investment Strategy 2015-2020 (RIS1) scheme was developed by Highways England to attempt to address the problems of the A27. Addressing the A27 is also a priority in the West Sussex Transport Plan, with objectives shared with Highway England to increase capacity, improve reliability and safety to increase local business competitiveness and attract investment.

However, there were considerable concerns over community acceptability of the proposed RIS1 scheme, which led to it being cancelled. BABA27, a community led process to address the fundamental issues of the A27, was established to try and build consensus around a new range of options.

SYSTRA has been commissioned by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) to develop ‘long-list’ suggestions for addressing the A27 and sift these to identify a preferred scheme(s) to put forward for a formal sign-off by WSCC, Chichester District Council (CDC) and the local MP, and ultimately to Highways England for the potential inclusion in the RIS2 programme.

1.1.5 Suggestions for improvements were grouped into:

On-line – following the current alignment of the A27; Off-line – away from the current alignment of the A27; and Modal suggestions – focus on other non-highway modes of transport and wider

policy levers.

An early ‘pre-sifting’ exercise was undertaken by SYSTRA, intended to generate a more manageable number of suggestions for further assessment. Those to be considered further were placed ‘above the line’, with suggestions unlikely to be deliverable, or with limited contribution to meeting the A27 success criteria being, at this stage, allocated ‘below the line’.

Community Engagement

BABA27 has been critical to the process of building community consensus and since SYSTRA’s appointment three workshops have been held with the group to collect feedback on approach, key success criteria and the long-list suggestions. A business briefing was also held to collect any specific business-related feedback.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 6/30

To check the acceptability of these long-list suggestions, a wider feedback exercise was initiated via the Chichester Observer, the WSCC website, email response to the BABA27 inbox and collation of hard copy feedback.

The specific objective of this work was to get a broad community view on the long-list suggestions, particularly on the levels of support and suggestions for improvements or mitigations that might change that level of support. Aa an example, a copy of the feedback form from the Chichester Observer is attached in Appendix A.

This report summarises the responses received from this wider feedback exercise. Other feedback from BABA27 meetings has been collected and is reported separately.

Responses Received

In total, 3,798 responses were received via the Chichester Observer and WSCC online response forms, email and hard copy through the Chichester Observer.

Respondents could complete a number of multiple choice, or closed, questions and then had the opportunity to provide further free text, or open-ended, responses to a further four questions.

Not all respondents provided additional text in the open-ended questions. There were 1,925 respondents who did provide some response to at least one of those open-ended questions. There were 1,426 comments made on the current route suggestions, 1,291 on the new route suggestions, 852 on the walking, cycling and public transport suggestions and 649 comments made on the traffic management and freight suggestions.

It should also be noted that as responding to closed questions was not mandatory on hard copy responses, not all respondents have provided answers to each question and therefore the base number differs between questions.

Responses received were checked for duplication by using IP addresses, email addresses and checking for identical text and these were removed from the analysis.

Our Approach to Analysis and Reporting

Responses to the closed questions have been collated and are reported in graphical form in this report. The dataset is provided in Appendix B of this report.

For the open-ended questions, all comments were read, and each sentiment or idea mentioned was allocated to a code, or ‘heading’; these headings (and their relationships) are known as the ‘coding framework’.

Our analysis on responses about current routes, new routes and modal suggestions has been broadly grouped into:

Reasons for support / concerns; Suggestions for improvement / mitigation; and New suggestions i.e. those not already captured on the long-list.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 7/30

We have developed a data-led, three-tier coding framework to standardise the analysis of these responses.

Level 1) On-line / Off-line / Modal Level 2) Suggestion (i.e. the long-list suggestion they are talking about or ‘new

suggestion’) Level 3) Comment

The Level 3 comments are structured around the BABA27 key themes with additional common themes such as long-term solution and accessibility added. New codes were added as new sentiments were found in the responses. A full export of the data and coding framework is attached in Appendix B. The BABA27 key themes are attached as Appendix C.

Our approach was to code what the response stated, not to interpret or assess whether their comments were valid.

Note that as the focus of this engagement piece is the suggestions and the potential mitigations, the following comments have not been captured in this analysis:

Comments on process e.g. feedback on our technical approach or the stakeholder engagement process, as these have been captured elsewhere and have informed the process as it has evolved;

Detailed comments on issues not relevant to major A27 improvements e.g. repairing pot holes, national strategic policy such as views on a new South Coast motorway or police enforcement of speeding and poor driver behaviour; and

Reasons for new suggestions i.e. if a new suggestion outside of the long-list suggestions is made, this is recorded but the reasons for putting forward this suggestion are not.

As with all qualitative research, it should be noted that:

The views and opinions reported are the views and perceptions of respondents and are not necessarily factually correct;

Beyond the statements about the close questions, numbers have not been included in the subsequent reporting of responses. This is both to aid readability and avoid presenting this feedback as a ‘vote’;

It is standard practice not to provide numeric values within qualitative research. This is because they can easily be misinterpreted. Qualitative research, such as this, does not provide a statistically representative sample; instead it ensures the views and opinions of different types of people are heard;

We have, however, given an indication of how frequently a particular view has been expressed, using consistent language to describe the relative number of comments so that the reader can understand whether, for example, a theme came from just one respondent, a few, the majority, or the vast majority.

While this report does state the number of respondents expressing support for each suggestion, this engagement process cannot not be seen as ‘vote’, and we do not attempt to draw conclusions about what the ‘best’ suggestion might be based on the number of people offering positive or negative comments about a particular suggestion.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 8/30

Respondents have not been asked to choose between one suggestion or another. Rather, suggestions are presented for comment and one respondent may have offered views on and support for multiple suggestions. It is therefore not appropriate to attempt to count these comments to give an overall view on one suggestion versus another. It is for the reader to determine for themselves the weight that should be given to a particular point of view, and likewise, it will be for WSCC, CDC and the MP to determine the weight they apply to various views expressed in reaching their final conclusions.

This report covers responses received on the suggestions including levels of support, reasons for support or concerns about the suggestions and ideas for further improvements or mitigations for these suggestions. It also briefly covers new suggestions provided by respondents. The role of SYSTRA in this report does not extend any further than providing a summary of the responses received to this feedback exercise. The rest of the report is set out as follows:

Chapter 2 covers responses received on the current route suggestions; Chapter 3 covers responses received on the new route suggestions; Chapter 4 covers response received on the modal suggestions including walking,

cycling, public transport, freight, traffic management and policy; and Chapter 5 provides high-level summary conclusions.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 9/30

2. CURRENT ROUTE SUGGESTIONS

Introduction

2.1.1 On-line suggestions refer to improvements using the current alignment of the A27. They are primarily configured to reduce the impacts of traffic volumes on the existing A27 and associated traffic in Chichester city centre and the surrounding district by improving the efficiency and operation of the existing network and/or providing additional highway ‘on-line’.

This chapter reports on the general comments made about suggestions for improvements to the current route and then goes on to consider the different types of suggestions in more detail, including responses to the closed questions and more detailed comments provided in the open-ended responses received.

General Comments made about On-line Suggestions

Many respondents made general comments on improvements to the current A27 route. The vast majority of these were negative, with the principal reasons being that they felt these improvements would not be a long-term solution and because of the level of disruption caused during construction.

Other concerns that were less frequently expressed were that these improvements would not address the problem, they would have negative environmental impacts, particularly in relation to air quality, and they would stop / slow the traffic flow when in place. Respondents were also concerned about the feasibility / cost of these improvements and the impact on local residents and businesses.

Of the relatively few general positive comments about on-line suggestions, the most commonly expressed views were in relation to the feasibility / cost of the suggestions as respondents felt they would be more affordable and cost effective than a new route and would not intrude on land earmarked for housing. They also felt these current route suggestions would enhance traffic flow and separate through and local traffic.

Marginal Network Gains

These would be delivered through small on-line improvements to network operation using measures such as: revised signal settings, dynamic signal management, white-lining changes and marginal widening.

Support for marginal network gains was relatively limited, as demonstrated by the responses shown in Figure 1.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 10/30

Support for Small Enhancements to the Network

In the open-ended comments box about improvements to current routes respondents did not make the distinction between marginal network gains and signalised junctions, which would be part of the package of individual junction improvements. Those that commented tended to refer to traffic lights in general. Therefore, further comments on this suggestion are reported in section 2.4 below.

Packages of Individual Junction Improvements

Introduction

These packages of improvements between Fishbourne and Portfield on the existing A27 would be to handle increasing traffic volumes, smooth traffic speeds and flows and better manage or reduce conflicting movements. They would include a range of approaches to improving junction operation, with and without additional land-take, such as:

Enhanced roundabout, including ‘hamburgers’, signalisation; Signalised junctions; Grade separation (using flyovers or underpasses); Turning restrictions; Selective widening on the approaches to junctions; and Other carriageway widening.

Levels of support for the different types of junction improvement are shown in Figure 2.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 11/30

Support for Junction Improvements on existing A27

Underpasses and flyovers were the types of improvements that received the most support from those that responded, with around 50% supportive of these measures. This rises to 67% for underpasses and 63% for flyovers when including those respondents that may support the suggestions with some mitigations.

Support for other junction improvements was more mixed with turning restrictions and signalised junctions receiving the least support (22% and 14% respectively).

Enhanced roundabouts, including ‘hamburgers’ and signalisation

Just under half of those that responded were supportive of enhanced roundabouts or may be with some mitigation. However, in the more detailed comments received, opinion was split on whether such improvements would stop / slow the flow of traffic or enhance it. Most comments made on enhanced roundabouts were in relation to the flow of traffic.

Of those positive comments received which mentioned a specific location, Fishbourne and Portfield were mentioned most frequently as roundabouts where enhancements would be beneficial.

Signalised junctions

Signalised junctions received the least support of any of the suggested improvements to the current route and most of the more detailed comments received on them were negative. Most respondents that commented on them were concerned about signals stopping / slowing the flow of traffic. Concerns were also raised about the negative impact on the environment, particularly air quality, from start/stop traffic and the feeling that they would not be a long-term solution to the issues on the A27.

Those that were supportive of signalised junctions felt that they would enhance traffic flow and also improve safety.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 12/30

A few respondents mentioned specific junctions and generally felt positive about traffic lights at Fishbourne and Bognor, with some mentioning safety improvements at Fishbourne in particular. Of the few who commented on specific junctions, most were not supportive of traffic lights at Stockbridge because of the negative effects on traffic flow.

Grade separations, using flyovers

Flyovers were the most commented on element of the on-line suggestions and the majority of comments received were positive. Respondents were supportive of flyovers as they feel they will enhance traffic flow and separate through and local traffic. They were particularly supportive of flyovers at Bognor and Fishbourne roundabouts for the reasons mentioned above and, to a lesser extent, because of improved safety at Fishbourne.

A number of comments were made against flyovers, and these were primarily in relation to environmental impacts and landscape and conservation, particularly visual impacts from elevated carriageways. A smaller number of comments were made expressing concerns about the feasibility / cost of such improvements and the residential impact of these suggestions. Most of these comments were made about flyovers in general but of those very few that commented specifically, concerns about flyovers at Stockbridge were most frequently mentioned due to landscape, limited accessibility and residential impact. Nevertheless, there were far more comments made in support of flyovers at Stockbridge.

Grade separations, using underpasses

Behind flyovers, underpasses were the second most frequently commented on on-line suggestion. The vast majority of the more detailed comments received about underpasses were positive and were primarily related to them enhancing traffic flow. Respondents also supported underpasses because they would separate through and local traffic and because of the environmental impact. Of those few that elaborated on this further, the view was that underpasses have less environmental impact than flyovers and that they would enhance traffic flow, therefore reducing stop/start traffic and the consequential impact on air quality. Sinking the road in underpasses was also considered to mitigate noise pollution.

As with flyovers, respondents were particularly supportive of underpasses at Bognor and Fishbourne roundabouts for the reasons mentioned above and, to a lesser extent, because of improved safety and reduced environmental impact at Fishbourne.

Negative sentiments about underpasses were less frequently expressed and the reasons were more diverse. The most commonly mentioned concern was feasibility / cost, followed by environmental impact and impacts during construction.

Turning restrictions

Turning restrictions were not well supported by those that responded and the majority of detailed comments received elaborated that this was because respondents thought they would reduce accessibility, stop / slow traffic and would not provide a long-term solution to the issues on the A27. A smaller number of respondents were also concerned about the residential impact and the environmental impact of turning restrictions.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 13/30

Of those small number of respondents that were supportive of turning restrictions, the primary reason was because they would enhance traffic flow. Although few in number, comments that were made in support of turning restrictions at specific junctions were more frequently made about Fishbourne and Stockbridge because they would separate through and local traffic and enhance traffic flow. Although, nearly the same number of comments were made specifically opposing turning restrictions at Stockbridge.

Widening (unspecified)

More than half of those that responded were supportive of some road widening or may be if suitable mitigation was provided. Of the more detailed comments made about road widening, more than half were positive and of these the most frequently expressed reason was in relation to enhancing traffic flow.

Negative views expressed generally related to widening stopping or slowing traffic flow, the feasibility / cost of such improvements and the fact that it is not considered to be a long-term solution.

Technology improvements

‘Smart A/B road’ concepts would include a range of technology drivers to actively manage traffic flows, ‘platoon’ vehicle flows, and adjust junction and signal timings, to deliver traffic flow priorities and maximise network efficiencies.

Dynamic, variable message signing is a potentially valuable tool for messaging users on tactical traffic routings, under both normal and disrupted conditions.

On-line and approach road HGV and goods vehicle priority would include delivering priority measures to HGVs and goods vehicles to improve goods vehicle access to the A27 thus minimising the impacts of congestion for local business in the city, on the Manhood and to east of Chichester.

Levels of support for the different elements of the technology initiative are shown in Figure 3Figure 2.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 14/30

Support for technology improvements on existing A27

Although technology initiatives, particularly queue and incident detection (67% support and may support with mitigation) and dynamic variable messages (63% support and may support with mitigation) were well supported in the feedback received, few more detailed comments were received on these suggestions.

Of those that did comment, there were equal numbers of positive and negative sentiments expressed. The most frequently expressed reason for supporting such initiatives was the potential for enhanced traffic flow. Those that did not support the measures primarily mentioned that they did not consider them to be a long-term solution to the issues on the A27.

Improvements / Mitigations

Few comments were received on improvements or mitigations specifically and those that were received were quite diverse. Packaging junction improvements with ‘smart’ roads / intelligent traffic management was most frequently mentioned.

Consideration of landscape and conservation in the design of flyovers and underpasses was also a frequently mentioned mitigations by respondents.

A small number of people suggested removing the Oving traffic lights, but the same number were in favour of retaining the signals at this location.

The most frequently mentioned improvement for enhanced roundabouts was use of ‘keep clear’ / yellow box restrictions to improve the traffic flow and driver discipline at these junctions.

A small number of respondents also made general suggestions for improvements to the on-line concepts, particularly noting the need to mitigate the impact on local residents and the environment and the need to improve the Portfield roundabout.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 15/30

New Suggestions

In relation to improvements on the current A27 route, the most frequently expressed new suggestion was to make improvements to other current roads, such as those joining and crossing the A27 and local roads on the Manhood Peninsula. Several respondents also suggested filter lanes / slip roads rather than roundabouts, which could be seen to refer to a preference for free-flowing traffic and a separation of through and local traffic. Road widening other than at junctions was also mentioned, particularly in relation to railways crossings.

Another, less frequently mentioned, new suggestion was a reduction in the number of junctions, with no specific junctions mentioned, although a small number of respondents suggested combining Fishbourne and Stockbridge roundabouts into one junction or removing Fishbourne roundabout altogether. In contrast, a similar number also mentioned the need for an additional junction to the west of the city.

A few respondents also recommended reducing the speed limit on the current route.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 16/30

3. NEW ROUTE SUGGESTIONS

Introduction

3.1.1 Off-line, or new route, suggestions refer to improvements made away from the current alignment of the A27, to reduce the impact of traffic volumes on the existing A27 and associated traffic in Chichester city centre and the surrounding district. Six different suggestions were presented for comment:

New local route south of the city to segregate traffic accessing the Manhood Peninsula from A27 ‘through’ traffic, with a new link from the Fishbourne junction, to A286, B2201, or B2145/B2166;

New multi-purpose or strategic route to the south of the city between Fishbourne junction & A259 Bognor Road, east of the A27. Multi-purpose route would have local junctions to access to the Manhood Peninsula, whereas a strategic route would have no local junctions to segregate ‘through’ Bognor traffic;

New strategic northern route between A27 west of Fishbourne junction and near to Tangmere, with a junction at the A286 to give access to Midhurst and north Chichester, or no intermediate junction;

New local northern route between A27 west of Fishbourne junction and Temple Bar, utilising and improving some existing local roads to limit new construction;

New multi-purpose northern route, between A27 west of Fishbourne and near to the A27 at Portfield, providing a stronger local functionality than route variants above, including junctions on B2178 and A286; and

New multi-purpose route north of the city between A27 west of Fishbourne junction and near Tangmere, with junctions giving access to Midhurst and north Chichester and A27 through traffic.

Analysis of the closed questions shows divided opinions on the various off-line suggestions as shown in Figure 4 below.

Support for New (Off-Line) Suggestions


Report 22/05/2018 Page 17/30

There is marginally more support for a multi-purpose route or strategic route to the north of the city, with just over half of those that responded supporting these routes or maybe supporting them with mitigations provided. New southern off-line routes are not well supported and a new local route to the north of the city received the least support from those that responded to this feedback exercise.

The remainder of this chapter goes into further detail on the comments provided in the open-ended responses received looking at reasons for support or concerns, potential improvements, mitigations and new suggestions made by respondents.

General Comments made about Off-line Suggestions

3.2.1 Of those that made general comments about new (off-line) routes, the majority did not support them for the following reasons:

Impacts on landscape and conservation, with respondents citing concerns over land take, especially within the green belt and wildlife habitats;

Environmental impact, with respondents suggesting that new roads would create new traffic and new pollution;

Feasibility / cost, with respondents citing concerns over the expense of new road building and suggesting that new roads would not be cost effective and would intrude on land earmarked for housing development; and

Impact on residents, with respondents showing concern for the impact of new roads on local, rural villages and communities, housing value and housing in-fill.

There were fewer general positive comments about new route suggestions, but of those that did express general positive sentiments, most supported a new route because they felt it will separate through and local traffic, enhance traffic flow and provide a long-term solution to the issues on the A27.

Southern Routes

General

The majority of general comments made on new southern routes were negative with respondents predominantly expressing concern about environmental and residential impacts. Several respondents also felt that a new southern route would stop / slow traffic flow as it would encourage further traffic, particularly for Manhood beaches and local schools, ultimately resulting in congestion on the new route, the existing A27 and other surrounding local roads.

Concerns were also raised about disruption during construction, the cost of construction, particularly land costs, negative impacts on landscape and conservation and the view that a new southern route would not offer a long-term solution.

The few positive comments that were made were mostly around environmental impact, relative to new northern routes, and enhancing traffic flow.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 18/30

New local road to the south of the city

There was very little comment made on the southern local route specifically. Of those that did comment, the vast majority did not support the suggestion as they felt it would not address the problem or offer a long-term solution. They also expressed concern that this new route would stop / slow traffic flow.

New multi-purpose or strategic southern route

Few comments were received specifically on the southern multi-purpose or strategic route suggestion. Again, of those that did comment, the majority did not support the suggestion due to the environmental impact, the fact it would stop / slow traffic flow and the view that it would not address the problem or separate through and local traffic.

Northern Routes

General

Many respondents provided general comments on a new northern route. The most frequently expressed sentiment was opposition to or concerns about a northern route because of the negative impacts on landscape and conservation. Many also expressed concern about environmental impacts, particularly related to noise and air pollution.

Other, less frequently raised, concerns were around negative impacts on local residents and businesses.

A number of positive comments supporting a northern route were also received. The main reasons stated were the enhancements to traffic flow and the separation of through and local traffic. Respondents also considered a northern route to be a long-term solution and to have a lower impact during construction than improvements on the existing A27.

New strategic northern route

Many respondents commented on the strategic northern route and the most frequently expressed view was support for this suggestion because it would separate through and local traffic, enhance traffic flow and provide a long-term solution. A few respondents also supported it because of the feasibility / cost, suggesting that it would be more cost effective in the long-term, make sense due to available land to build, be cheaper without junctions and take traffic away from the high water table.

Compared to the positive comments about separating traffic and enhancing traffic flow, a slightly smaller number of comments were made expressed negative views about this suggestion because of the impact on the landscape and conservation. Less frequently expressed concerns were focused around the impact on local residents.

Views were split on whether this suggestion would have a positive or negative environmental impact.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 19/30

New local northern route

This suggestion received the least support from respondents and very few commented specifically on it. The vast majority of those that did were not supportive as they did not feel it would offer a long-term solution or separate through and local traffic.

New multi-purpose northern route, to the A27 at Portfield, including junctions on B2178 and A286

Few comments were made specifically on this suggestion and the vast majority that did comment were not supportive, primarily due to perceived feasibility / cost. Respondents also felt it would stop / slow traffic and have negative impacts on local residents.

New multi-purpose route north of the city to near Tangmere, with junctions giving access to Midhurst and north Chichester and A27 through traffic

Although still relatively few in number, more comments were received on this multi-purpose suggestion and these tended to be more positive than for the multi-purpose suggestion to Portfield. The vast majority of comments that were received about this suggestion were supportive because respondents felt it would enhance traffic flow, offer a long term solution and have a positive economic impact. They also felt it would separate through and local traffic and made positive comments about the feasibility / cost of this suggestion.

Improvements / Mitigations

Most comments received in relation to improvements or mitigations to these new route suggestions were in relation to northern routes in general or northern strategic routes.

The most frequently expressed suggestion was to cut the road in to mitigate the impacts on landscape, conservation and the environment. Many respondents also made general comments about the need to consider landscape and environmental impacts in the design of the route when thinking about northern routes in general and the strategic northern route in particular.

There were far few comments made about improvements or mitigations to the southern new route suggestions, with no significant themes emerging. One or two respondents mentioned consideration of environmental impacts and the need for Air Quality Risk Assessments in particular. One or two also mentioned the need to consider residential impacts in design of any new southern routes.

New Suggestions

Some respondents provided new suggestions not already covered by those presented for comment. The most frequently mentioned in relation to new routes were a new or specific access road to Goodwood or a tunnelled route under the city. A small number of respondents also suggested a strategic southern route.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 20/30

4. MODAL SUGGESTIONS

Introduction

4.1.1 Modal suggestions refer to non-highway improvements across a number of different modes of transport. They can be grouped as follows:

Walking and Cycling (Active Travel modes): to increase walking and cycling for relatively short journeys to, from and around Chichester and, where possible, reduce the number of short-distance car journeys in the city and specifically crossing, or using the A27;

Public Transport modes: to increase the use of public transport and directly reduce car travel, especially for access to Chichester;

Parking, Traffic Management: to assist in managing and reducing the impacts of traffic flows, both in accessing and parking in Chichester;

Freight: to provide enhanced facilities and management of freight to mitigate the impacts of congestion on the A27;

Land-use Planning: primarily offer long-term influences on travel demand through managing the availability and use of land, especially for new developments, use of ‘brown-field’ sites and in changing the use and densities of existing land uses;

Behaviour Change initiatives: to encourage travellers, especially those ordinarily using cars, to consider changing their travel patterns – to change mode to public transport, walking, cycling, to delay their journeys to less busy periods or to make shorter journeys to local facilities; and

Technology initiatives: to reduce the impacts of car usage and increase the use of public transport and sustainable modes, both through improving the efficiency of the transport network and improving information available to residents and travellers to the area covering travel choice and availability.

Analysis of the closed questions on modal suggestions is shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6. For these suggestions, respondents were just asked to select those suggestions they supported.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 21/30

Support for Walking, Cycling and Public Transport Suggestions

Support for Parking, Traffic Management and Development Suggestions

Walking and cycling improvements were well supported with over half of those that responded supporting wider major improvements in pedestrian and cycle routes on routes into Chichester and the Manhood Peninsula and encourage use of walking, cycling


Report 22/05/2018 Page 22/30

and public transport by working with schools, colleges and businesses. Improving pedestrian and cycle crossings on the existing A27 and improving local transport information and real-time information were also popular suggestions.

Of the traffic management suggestions, working with developers to reduce car use and encourage use of sustainable modes and provision of charging points for electric vehicles were the most popular suggestions. Restrictions to HGVs and further parking management in the city centre were also supported by nearly half of those that responded.

Those receiving least support were prioritising buses and HGVs at A27 approaches and junctions and general public transport and freight improvements were not as well supported as other modal suggestions.

The remainder of this chapter goes into further detail on the comments provided in the open-ended responses on the modal suggestions. Fewer comments were provided on modal suggestions, compared to the on-line and off-line suggestions.

General Comments made about Modal Suggestions

The majority of respondents that commented on the modal suggestions offer general comments and these were mostly concerns that these suggestions cannot address the issues on the A27. Some respondents were more specific, stating this was due to continued reliance on private cars making alternative modes unfeasible or unpopular.

There were a much smaller number of general positive comments, of which the beneficial impact on the environment, particularly air pollution, was most frequently mentioned.

Walking, Cycling and Public Transport

General comments

Most of the general comments provided on walking, cycling and public transport improvements were positive, particularly around enhancing traffic flow and having a positive environmental impact, especially on air quality. Respondents also felt these suggestions would have a positive impact on local residents.

Those that did not support these suggestions felt that they cannot address the problems of the A27 due to the continued reliance on cars.

General comments on walking and cycling improvements focused on the positive safety benefits of these improvements and a few respondents also mentioned benefits to traffic flow, the environment and accessibility. The very small number of negative general comments about walking and cycling improvements were spread across a number of reasons including not being able to address the problems of the A27, safety concerns and feasibility and cost.

There were a small number of general comments on bus improvements and these were split between positive views that such improvements would enhance traffic flow, improve accessibility and safety and concerns that bus improvements would not address the


Report 22/05/2018 Page 23/30

problems of the A27, would stop / slow the flow of traffic, would be costly and may have negative environmental impacts.

Improved pedestrian and cycle crossings on A27

A few respondents offered specific comments on improved pedestrian and cycle access across the A27 and of those that did, most viewed this suggestion positively as it would be safer for pedestrians and cyclists. However, a very small number of respondents were concerned about such crossing stopping or slowing the flow of traffic on the A27.

Improved pedestrians and cycle routes

Several comments were made on improved pedestrians and cycle routes into the city centre and on the Manhood Peninsula and the almost all of these were positive. Most were supportive because of improved safety conditions, whilst a smaller number of positive comments were made about improved accessibility and enhancement to traffic flow if pedestrians and cyclists were segregated from other road vehicles.

Improved use of public space

No specific comments were made about this suggestion in the open-ended responses.

Bus priority at A27 junctions

This was the least supported of any of the modal suggestions and no specific comments were made about this suggestion in the open-ended responses.

Improved bus stops and facilities

There were very few specific comments on improved bus stops and facilities. Those that did comment were mostly positive about the impact on local residents, improved accessibility and enhancements to traffic flow. Although one respondent expressed concerns about the feasibility / cost of such improvements.

Improved bus frequencies

A few respondents had specific comments on improved bus frequencies, mostly expressing positive views that it would improve accessibility and enhance traffic flow by encouraging more people to use local buses as an alternative to the car.

Park and Ride

Just over half of those that responded were supportive of park and ride and it was the most heavily commented on of the specific modal suggestions. The vast majority of these comments were positive, particularly around enhancements to traffic flow and improvements in accessibility. A smaller number of positive comments were made about environmental impact, economic impact and the feasibility / cost of implementing such measures.

Those small number of negative comments that were made about park and ride were split across concerns including impacts on local residents and traffic flow and the feasibility / cost of implementation.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 24/30

Integrated public transport ticketing

Very few specific comments were made on integrate public transport ticketing. The few that did were mostly positive about costs and enhanced traffic flow. Although, one negative comment was received about the feasibility / cost of implementing this suggestion.

Working with schools, colleges and businesses to encourage sustainable modes

A few respondents commented on the engagement with schools, colleges and businesses to encourage walking, cycling and use of public transport and almost all of these were positive. Most focused on the positive impacts on traffic flow, particularly when considering the impact of the ‘school run’ on the road network. A smaller number commented on the positive impacts on the environment, landscape and conservation from encouraging sustainable modes of travel.

Parking, Traffic and Freight Management

Parking management changes in the city centre

A few respondents commented specifically on parking management changes in the city centre and the vast majority of these comments were positive. Mostly because it was felt city centre parking management would enhance the flow of traffic and a small number of respondents also commented on the positive economic impact of these changes.

Traffic management

Traffic management improvements, such as 20mph zones and improved signage, was not commented on specifically by many respondents. The vast majority of those that were received were negative and were mostly concerns about stopping / slowing traffic flow and the associated negative impact on air quality from stop/start traffic.

Safety improvements

A very small number of specific comments were received on safety improvements and they were positive about the impact these measures could have.

HGV and goods vehicle priority at A27 junctions

A few comments were received specific on HGV and goods vehicle priority at A27 junctions. This received the least support of any of the modal measures, with less than 10% of those that responded viewing this suggestion favourably. The majority of specific comments received were also negative, mainly expressing concern about stopping / slowing traffic.

HGV and goods vehicle restrictions

A few comments were also received on HGV and goods vehicle restrictions, where the suggestions was to limit times and routes to main roads only. Most that offered specific comments on this suggestion viewed it positively, feeling it would improve traffic flow and environmental conditions, particularly in relation to air quality and noise.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 25/30

Those few that expressed negative views about this suggestion were primarily concerned about the economic impact on businesses and felt that this would not address the problems of the A27.

Electric vehicle charging points

Just over half of those that responded were supportive of charging points for electric vehicles, and specific comments received on this suggestion were split as to whether they were positive or negative. Those that viewed this suggestion positively were supportive because of the benefits to the environment. Those that were not supportive mainly felt it would not address the problem and that it could negatively impact traffic flow.

Working with developers to reduce car use and encourage sustainable modes

The majority of specific comments received on this suggestion were positive. Similar to the suggestion to work with schools, colleges and businesses to encourage sustainable modes, respondents felt this suggestion could have a positive impact on the environment and improve traffic flow and accessibility.

The smaller number of negative comments on this suggestion primarily felt that it could not address the problem due to the reliance on private cars.

Improvements

Suggested improvements to these modal concepts provided by respondents were varied. The most commonly mentioned in the responses received were:

Specific suggested locations for park and ride sites; Improvements to bus services frequencies for routes other than the key ones

mentioned to Witterings, Selsey and Bognor; New bus routes; and Enforcement of 20mph limits, although a slightly smaller number of comments

were made suggesting 20mph zones should be removed.

The suggestion that received the most specific comments on improvements was parking management in the city centre. A number of suggestions for improvement were made, the most frequently mentioned of which were pay on exit rather than pay and display parking, reducing on-street parking and better parking enforcement.

New Suggestions

Many comments were received offering new suggestions for modal improvements, beyond those presented for comment. There was considerable variety in these suggestions but the most common ones could be grouped into changes to rail, other than ticketing. This covered suggestions such as:

Level crossing changes i.e. ensuring barriers are not down for too long, remove barriers, raising the railway above the road;

Improve Southern Railway's service (frequency and reliability) otherwise integrated transport service will not be possible;


Report 22/05/2018 Page 26/30

More frequent stops at Bosham; Improving train links, for example, direct trains from Bognor Regis to Chichester,

Portsmouth, Southampton and Reading; and Integrated transport hub in Chichester pulling together the bus and rail services.

Changes to public transport ticket pricing was also a very frequently raised issue as were other improvements to bus services, particularly extended operating hours, better vehicles, better services to villages and more bus subsidies.

Many comments also recommended other improvements to walking and cycling facilities and improvements to routes in the city itself.

The introduction of new modes of transport, including tram and bike hire, was also suggested by a few respondents.

Reflecting the view held by some respondents that these suggestions would not address the problems of the A27, a few respondents also suggested that they be packaged with other suggestions such as a strategic bypass.

As with all comments received, the fully populated coding framework can be found in Appendix B to this report.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 27/30

5. CONCLUSIONS AND KEY CONSIDERATIONS

Summary

This report has summarised the feedback received from nearly 4,000 responses to the A27 public engagement exercise through the WSCC website and the Chichester Observer. It is one element of a broad community engagement around the A27 Chichester, which also includes input from the BABA27 community group and local businesses. The key themes arising have been very similar to feedback received from these other engagement exercises.

For this exercise, respondents were asked to record their level of support for the long-list suggestions and provide further comments to explain reasons for that support or opposition and particularly to focus on improvements or mitigations that might change their view or level of support.

The analysis of closed questions gives an indication of support for different suggestions but this feedback should not be seen as a ‘vote’ and we have not attempted to draw conclusions about what the ‘best’ suggestion might be based on the number of people offering positive or negative comments about a particular suggestion. Respondents have not been asked to choose between one suggestion or another. Rather, suggestions are presented for comment and one respondent may have offered views on and support for multiple suggestions.

What this analysis has done is to establish some key themes around support and opposition to different suggestions and provide a useful understanding of important mitigations and improvements that can help to shape these suggestions into concepts and ultimately options for further consideration. And whilst no suggestion received outright support or opposition, some were clearly not well supported and would suggest that, in some cases, even substantial mitigation or improvement would not lead to an acceptable level of community consensus on these suggestions.

The remainder of this chapter sets out the key themes for current route, new route and modal suggestions arising from this feedback exercise.

Current Route Suggestions

For the on-line suggestions, underpasses and flyovers were the most well supported suggested improvements because they would enhance traffic flow and separate through and local traffic. Underpasses were also seen to provide some environmental benefit in terms of reducing noise and air quality impacts, especially compared to flyovers.

Consideration of landscape and conservation in the design of flyovers and underpasses was seen as an important mitigation by those that gave more detailed comments.

Support for other junction improvements was more mixed, with turning restrictions and signalised junctions receiving the least support because of their perceived impact on traffic flow and limits to accessibility. Support for marginal network gains was also relatively limited, as respondents felt they would not be a long-term solution and would not fully address the problems of the A27.


Report 22/05/2018 Page 28/30

Technology improvements were well supported because of their potential to enhance traffic flow and several respondents suggested they could be packaged with junction improvements to maximise benefits.

General comments received about current route suggestions were largely negative, principally because respondents felt they did not offer a long-term solution and because of the considerable disruption that would occur during construction of these suggestions.

Those that made generally supportive comments about improvement to the current route felt they would be more affordable and cost effective than a new route and would not intrude on land ear-marked for housing.

New Route Suggestions

Although there were divided opinions on the various new route suggestions that were put forward, there was marginally more support for a multi-purpose or strategic route to the north of the city. It was felt these would offer a long-term solution, separating through and local traffic and improving traffic flow. Many also commented that they would be easier and less disruptive to construct than improvements on the current A27.

However, many respondents expressed concerns about the negative impacts of northern routes in general, particularly on landscape and conservation. Many also expressed concern about environmental impacts, especially related to air and noise pollution, impacts on local residents and concerns about the costs of building a new road.

Respondents felt that the new route could be cut-in to help mitigate landscape and environmental impacts. Many also made general comments about the need to consider landscape and the environment in the design and construction of these suggestions.

New southern off-line routes were not well supported, with respondents expressing concern about environmental and residential impacts and the disruption during construction, cost of construction and negative landscape impacts. There were also few comments on improvements or mitigations for southern off-line routes, and this is probably reflective of the limited support for these suggestions.

A new local route to the north of the city received the least support from those that responded to this feedback exercise because they did not feel it represents a long-term solution or would offer separation of through and local traffic.

Modal suggestions

The modal measures were generally supported as part of the wider strategic solution, but it was felt they will not address the issues of A27 on their own. Reflecting this view, a few respondents felt modal improvements should be packaged with other suggestions, such as a strategic bypass.

Walking and cycling improvements were particularly well supported, as was encouraging the use of walking, cycling and public transport by working with schools, colleges and businesses. It was felt these measures would enhance traffic flow and have positive environmental impacts, particularly in terms of improved air quality. Respondents also


Report 22/05/2018 Page 29/30

felt there would be safety benefits from improved walking and cycling routes and crossings.

Many respondents also commented on park and ride, which was a well supported suggestion. Respondents felt it would enhance traffic flow and improve accessibility.

Electric vehicle charging points were also popular due to the positive impacts on air quality, although some did express concerns about the impact on traffic flow.

Bus and HGV priority at A27 junctions were the least supported of the modal suggestions. Respondents were concerned about the impact on the flow of general traffic and felt these measures would not be required if the overall issues of the A27 were addressed.

Respondents also offered a wide variety of useful suggestions for improvements and new modal suggestions including specific locations for park and ride sites, suggested improvements to bus services including new routes, frequency improvements and fare reductions.

Key Considerations

In considering any of the suggestions put forward, the key factors that were most frequently mentioned were:

The separation of through and local traffic; Enhancing traffic flow; Environmental impacts (including pollution and land take); Construction impacts; Landscape and conservation impacts; Feasibility and cost; and Delivering a long-term solution.

SYSTRA provides advice on transport, to central, regional and local government, agencies, developers, operators and financiers.

A diverse group of results-oriented people, we are part of a strong team of professionals worldwide. Through client business planning, customer research and strategy development we create solutions that work for real people in the real world.

For more information visit www.systra.co.uk

Birmingham – Newhall Street 5th Floor, Lancaster House, Newhall St, Birmingham, B3 1NQ T: +44 (0)121 393 4841 Birmingham – Innovation Court Innovation Court, 121 Edmund Street, Birmingham B3 2HJ T: +44 (0)121 393 4841

Dublin 2nd Floor, Riverview House, 21-23 City Quay Dublin 2,Ireland T: +353 (0) 1 566 2028

Edinburgh – Thistle Street Prospect House, 5 Thistle Street, Edinburgh EH2 1DF United Kingdom T: +44 (0)131 460 1847 Edinburgh – Manor Place 37 Manor Place, Edinburgh, EH3 7EB Telephone +44 (0)131 460 1847

Glasgow – St Vincent St Seventh Floor, 124 St Vincent Street Glasgow G2 5HF United Kingdom T: +44 (0)141 468 4205

Glasgow – West George St 250 West George Street, Glasgow, G2 4QY T: +44 (0)141 468 4205 Leeds 100 Wellington Street, Leeds, LS1 1BA T: +44 (0)113 360 4842

London 3rd Floor, 5 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7BA United Kingdom T: +44 (0)20 3855 0079

Manchester – 16th Floor, City Tower 16th Floor, City Tower, Piccadilly Plaza Manchester M1 4BT United Kingdom T: +44 (0)161 504 5026 Newcastle Floor B, South Corridor, Milburn House, Dean Street, Newcastle, NE1 1LE United Kingdom T: +44 (0)191 249 3816

Perth 13 Rose Terrace, Perth PH1 5HA T: +44 (0)131 460 1847

Reading Soane Point, 6-8 Market Place, Reading, Berkshire, RG1 2EG T: +44 (0)118 206 0220

Woking Dukes Court, Duke Street Woking, Surrey GU21 5BH United Kingdom T: +44 (0)1483 357705

Other locations: France: Bordeaux, Lille, Lyon, Marseille, Paris Northern Europe: Astana, Copenhagen, Kiev, London, Moscow, Riga, Wroclaw Southern Europe & Mediterranean: Algiers, Baku, Bucharest, Madrid, Rabat, Rome, Sofia, Tunis Middle East: Cairo, Dubai, Riyadh Asia Pacific: Bangkok, Beijing, Brisbane, Delhi, Hanoi, Hong Kong, Manila, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore, Shenzhen, Taipei Africa: Abidjan, Douala, Johannesburg, Kinshasa, Libreville, Nairobi Latin America: Lima, Mexico, Rio de Janeiro, Santiago, São Paulo North America: Little Falls, Los Angeles, Montreal, New-York, Philadelphia, Washington

APPENDIX A – FEEDBACK FORM

APPENDIX B – CODING FRAMEWORK & RESPONSES TO CLOSED QUESTIONS

A - Current Route: Reasons for Support/Not Support

A1 - Traffic Lights

Code Description Total

A1_1 Positive - Fishbourne RoB - no reason 6

A1_2 Positive - Stockbridge RoB - no reason 1

A1_4 Positive - Bognor RoB - no reason 5

A1_6 Positive - Location Unspecified - Safety 7

A1_7 Positive - Fishbourne RoB - Safety 4

A1_12 Positive - Location Unspecified - Separate through and local traffic 4

A1_13 Positive - Fishbourne RoB - Separate through and local traffic 1

A1_18 Positive - Location Unspecified - Enhance traffic flow 15

A1_19 Positive - Fishbourne RoB - Enhance traffic flow 2

A1_20 Positive - Stockbridge RoB - Enhance traffic flow 1

A1_23 Positive - Portfield RoB - Enhance traffic flow 1

A1_36 Positive - Location Unspecified - Feasibility / cost 2

A1_37 Positive - Fishbourne RoB - Feasibility / cost 1

A1_38 Positive - Stockbridge RoB - Feasibility / cost 1

A1_39 Positive - Whyke RoB - Feasibility / cost 1

A1_40 Positive - Bognor RoB - Feasibility / cost 1

A1_41 Positive - Portfield RoB - Feasibility / cost 1

A1_48 Positive - Location Unspecified - construction impact 2

A1_54 Positive - Location Unspecified - accessibility 3

A1_55 Positive - Fishbourne RoB - accessibility 1

A1_59 Positive - Portfield RoB - accessibility 1

A1_60 Positive - Location Unspecified - Long-term solution 1

A1_72 Positive - Location Unspecified - Other 2

A1_78 Negative - Fishbourne RoB - no reason 1

A1_79 Negative - Stockbridge RoB - no reason 1

A1_80 Negative - Whyke RoB - no reason 1

A1_81 Negative - Bognor RoB - no reason 1

A1_82 Negative - Portfield RoB - no reason 1

A1_83 Negative - Location Unspecified - safety 3

A1_85 Negative - Stockbridge RoB - Poor safety 1

A1_89 Negative - Location Unspecified - Do not separate through and local traffic 2

A1_95 Negative - Location Unspecified - Stop / slow traffic flow 53

A1_97 Negative - Stockbridge RoB - Stop / slow traffic flow 8

A1_100 Negative - Portfield RoB - Stop / slow traffic flow 1

A1_101 Negative - Location Unspecified - environmental impact 12

A1_103 Negative - Stockbridge RoB - environmental impact 2

A1_113 Negative - Location Unspecified - Feasibility / cost 4

A1_119 Negative - Location Unspecified - Landscape and conservation 1

A1_125 Negative - Location Unspecified - construction impact 2

A1_131 Negative - Location Unspecified - Reduces accessibility 2

A1_137 Negative - Location Unspecified - Not a long-term solution 12

A1_143 Negative - Location Unspecified - residential impact 2

A1_149 Negative - Location Unspecified - Other 5

A2 - Enhanced Roundabouts




A2_3 Positive - Whyke RoB - no reason 2

A2_5 Positive - Portfield RoB - no reason 2



A2_10 Positive - Bognor RoB - Safety 2



A2_17 Positive - Portfield RoB - Separate through and local traffic 2




A2_24 Positive - Location Unspecified - environmental impact 5

A2_25 Positive - Fishbourne RoB - environmental impact 1

A2_29 Positive - Portfield RoB - environmental impact 1


A2_42 Positive - Location Unspecified - Landscape and conservation 1


A2_59 Positive - Portfield RoB - Improves accessibility 1

A2_61 Positive - Fishbourne RoB - Long-term solution 1

A2_62 Positive - Stockbridge RoB - Long-term solution 1

A2_63 Positive - Whyke RoB - Long-term solution 1

A2_64 Positive - Bognor RoB - Long-term solution 1


A2_83 Negative - Location Unspecified - Poor safety 1

A2_84 Negative - Fishbourne RoB - Poor safety 2

A2_87 Negative - Bognor RoB - Poor safety 1



A2_96 Negative - Fishbourne RoB - Stop / slow traffic flow 1



A2_103 Negative - Stockbridge RoB - environmental impact 1







A3 - Flyovers









A3_8 Positive - Stockbridge RoB - Safety 1




A3_14 Positive - Stockbridge RoB - Separate through and local traffic 6

A3_15 Positive - Whyke RoB - Separate through and local traffic 5

A3_16 Positive - Bognor RoB - Separate through and local traffic 10





A3_21 Positive - Whyke RoB - Enhance traffic flow 6

A3_22 Positive - Bognor RoB - Enhance traffic flow 15




A3_28 Positive - Bognor RoB - environmental impact 2

A3_29 Positive - Portfield RoB - environmental impact 1

A3_30 Positive - Location Unspecified - Low economic impact 2





A3_54 Positive - Location Unspecified - Improves accessibility 2


A3_66 Positive - Location Unspecified - residential impact 3

A3_67 Positive - Fishbourne RoB - residential impact 2

A3_69 Positive - Whyke RoB - residential impact 1

A3_70 Positive - Bognor RoB - residential impact 4

A3_71 Positive - Portfield RoB - residential impact 3

A3_73 Positive - Fishbourne RoB - Other 1

A3_76 Positive - Bognor RoB - Other 3




A3_104 Negative - Whyke RoB - environmental impact 1

A3_107 Negative - Location Unspecified - economic impact 4


A3_117 Negative - Bognor RoB - Feasibility / cost 1


A3_120 Negative - Fishbourne RoB - Landscape and conservation 2

A3_121 Negative - Stockbridge RoB - Landscape and conservation 2

A3_122 Negative - Whyke RoB - Landscape and conservation 1

A3_123 Negative - Bognor RoB - Landscape and conservation 2

A3_124 Negative - Portfield RoB - Landscape and conservation 1



A3_133 Negative - Stockbridge RoB - Reduces accessibility 1



A3_145 Negative - Stockbridge RoB - residential impact 1

A3_154 Positive - Oving - no reason 1

A4 - Underpasses
























A4_26 Positive - Stockbridge RoB - environmental impact 1

A4_28 Positive - Bognor RoB - environmental impact 2



A4_38 Positive - Stockbridge RoB - Feasibility / cost 2

A4_40 Positive - Bognor RoB - Feasibility / cost 1

A4_41 Positive - Portfield RoB - Feasibility / cost 1


A4_43 Positive - Fishbourne RoB - Landscape and conservation 1




A4_62 Positive - Stockbridge RoB - Long-term solution 1

A4_66 Positive - Location Unspecified - residential impact 5

A4_68 Positive - Stockbridge RoB - residential impact 1

A4_69 Positive - Whyke RoB - residential impact 1






A4_115 Negative - Stockbridge RoB - Feasibility / cost 1

A4_117 Negative - Bognor RoB - Feasibility / cost 1


A4_120 Negative - Fishbourne RoB - Landscape and conservation 1

A4_121 Negative - Stockbridge RoB - Landscape and conservation 1

A4_122 Negative - Whyke RoB - Landscape and conservation 1

A4_123 Negative - Bognor RoB - Landscape and conservation 1

A4_124 Negative - Portfield RoB - Landscape and conservation 1


A4_127 Negative - Stockbridge RoB - construction impact 1





A4_155 Negative - Location unspecified - Personal Safety 1

A4_156 Positive - Oving - no reason 2

A5 - Junction Turns





















A5_98 Negative - Whyke RoB - Stop / slow traffic flow 1



A5_110 Negative - Whyke RoB - economic impact 1


A5_115 Negative - Stockbridge RoB - Feasibility / cost 1





A6 - Road Widening























A6_81 Negative - Bognor RoB - no reason 1

A6_84 Negative - Fishbourne RoB - Poor safety 1

A6_86 Negative - Whyke RoB - safety 1










A7 - Electronic Signs























A8 - Unspecified


A8_1 Positive - Safety 2

A8_2 Positive - Separate through and local traffic 19

A8_3 Positive - Enhance traffic flow 20

A8_4 Positive - environmental impact 12

A8_5 Positive - Low economic impact 4

A8_6 Positive - Feasibility / cost 23

A8_7 Positive - Landscape and conservation 10

A8_8 Positive - Low construction impact 5

A8_9 Positive - Improves accessibility 5

A8_10 Positive - Long-term solution 2

A8_11 Positive - Low residential impact 2

A8_12 Positive - Other 1

A8_13 Negative - Poor safety 6

A8_14 Negative - Do not separate through and local traffic 17

A8_15 Negative - Stop / slow traffic flow 39

A8_16 Negative - environmental impact 39

A8_17 Negative - High economic impact 23

A8_18 Negative - Feasibility / cost 36

A8_19 Negative - Landscape and conservation 6

A8_20 Negative - High construction impact 103

A8_21 Negative - Reduces accessibility 12

A8_22 Negative - Not a long-term solution 116

A8_23 Negative - Does not address problem 63

A8_24 Negative - High residential impact 36

A8_25 Negative - Other 4

B - Current Route: Improvements

B1 - Traffic Lights


B1_1 Retain Oving traffic lights 6

B1_2 Remove Oving traffic lights 6

B1_3 Do not give HGVs priority 5

B1_4 Package - not specified 1

B1_5 Trial first 2

B1_6 Package - speed restrictions 2

B2 - Enhanced Roundabouts


B2_1 'Keep clear' areas 5

B3 - Flyovers


B3_1 Consider landscape and conservation in design 12

B2_4 HGVs only 1

B2_5 Construction off-site 2

B4 - Underpasses


B4_1 Consider landscape and conservation in design 12

B4_2 Mitigate flood risk 1

B5 - Junction Turns


B5_1 Package - Left turn only at Whyke with new route south between B2145 and

Bognor Road 1

B6 - Road Widening


B6_1 Widen route in full 1

B7 - Electronic Signs


B7_3 Package - Unspecified 1

B7_4 Package - Northern route 1

B8 - Unspecified


B8_2 Mitigate residential impact 6

B8_3 Retain accessibility 3

B8_4 Improve Portfield RoB 5

B8_5 Must separate through and local traffic 4

B8_6 Mitigate environmental impact 7

B8_7 Improve Bognor RoB 1

B8_8 Future proof design 3

B8_9 Mitigate landscape and conservation impact 1

B9 - New Suggestion


B9_1 Combine Fishbourne and Stockbridge RoBs 4

B9_2 Remove all junctions 5

B9_3 Improvements to other current roads 47

B9_4 Package - Northern Strategic 5

B9_5 Road widening other than at junction approaches 19

B9_6 Bridge for local traffic over A27 3

B9_7 Filter lanes / slip roads not roundabouts 29

B9_8 High occupancy vehicle lanes 3

B9_9 Removable central reservation 2

B9_10 Reduced speed limit 10

B9_11 Reduce the number of junctions - unspecified 10

B9_12 Improve access to Portfield Retail Park 1

B9_13 Improve visibility at roundabouts 2

B9_14 New junction to the west of the city 8

B9_15 Surface mounted box tunnel 1

B9_17 Consider landscape and conservation 10

B9_18 New junction to east of the city 3

B9_19 Only allow A road access at junctions 1

B9_20 Remove Fishbourne RoB 3

B9_21 Remove Stockbridge RoB 2

B9_22 Bognor RoB - reduce exits 1

B9_23 Fishbourne RoB - reduce exits 1

B9_24 Consider environment 1

B9_25 Open cycle paths for road traffic 1

B9_26 Road user restrictions other than HGV i.e learner drivers 1

B9_27 Expressway lane 1

B10 - Package of Junction improvements


B10_1 Package with smart roads / intelligent traffic management 27

C - New Route: Reasons for Support/Not Support

C1 - Location Unspecified


C1_1 Positive - Safety 1

C1_2 Positive - Separate through and local traffic 13

C1_3 Positive - Enhance traffic flow 12

C1_4 Positive - environmental impact 7

C1_5 Positive - economic impact 1

C1_6 Positive - Feasibility / cost 3

C1_7 Positive - Landscape and conservation 1

C1_8 Positive - construction impact 5

C1_9 Positive - Improves accessibility 2

C1_10 Positive - Long-term solution 9

C1_11 Positive - residential impact 1

C1_12 Positive - Other 2

C1_13 Negative - safety 4

C1_15 Negative - Stop / slow traffic flow 12

C1_16 Negative - environmental impact 23

C1_17 Negative - economic impact 5

C1_18 Negative - Feasibility / cost 26

C1_19 Negative - Landscape and conservation 47

C1_20 Negative - construction impact 6

C1_21 Negative - Reduces accessibility 1

C1_22 Negative - Not a long-term solution 3

C1_23 Negative - residential impact 21

C1_24 Negative - Other 6

C1_25 Negative - Does not address the problem 6

C2 - North Route Unspecified















C2_14 Negative - Do not separate through and local traffic 2











C3 - South Route Unspecified

























C3_24 Negative - journey time 1


C3_26 Negative - does not address problem 2

C4 - North Strategic














C4_13 Negative - Poor safety 2












C5 - North Multipurpose FB->Tangmere



















C6 - North Multipurpose FB->Portfield















C7 - North Multipurpose Unspecified


















C8 - North Local














C9 - South Multipurpose























C10 - South Local


















C11 - Local Unspecified






C12 - Multipurpose Unspecified










D - New Route: Improvements

D1 - Location Unspecified


D1_1 Future proof design 15

D1_2 Route design - Consider landscape and conservation 12

D1_3 No RoBs / traffic lights 1

D1_4 Slip roads 1

D1_6 Cut road in 2

D2 - North Route Unspecified


D2_1 Route design - consider environmental impact 26

D2_2 Consider residential impact 12

D2_3 Cut road in 29

D2_4 Tunnel route 21

D2_5 Remove all junction 6

D2_6 Route design - consider landscape / conservation impact 12

D2_7 Toll road 1

D2_8 Goodwood Estate Access Mitigation 6

D2_9 Route design - Future proof 1

D3 - South Route Unspecified


D3_2 Route design - consider landscape / conservation impact 1


D3_4 Route design - Future proof 1

D3_5 Route design - consider housing development 1

D4 - North Strategic


D4_1 Remove junctions 5

D4_2 50mph 2

D4_3 Single lane 2

D4_4 Cut road in 16

D4_5 Green bridges - Pedestrian and Cycling Access 5

D4_6 Make route as short as possible 2


D4_8 Goodwood Estate Mitigation 12

D4_10 GSJ for Midhurst 3

D4_11 Toll Road 3

D4_12 Banks planted with trees 3

D4_13 Add junctions 16

D4_14 Remove existing A27 1

D4_15 Manhood Access Road 1

D4_16 Tunnel route 2

D4_17 Filter lanes / slip roads not roundabout junctions 1

D5 - North Multipurpose FB->Tangmere


D5_1 Cut Road in 3

D5_2 Air Quality Risk Assessment 1

D5_3 Banks planted with trees 1

D5_4 Goodwood Estate mitigation 2

D5_5 GSJ for Midhurst 2

D5_6 Tunnel route 1

D5_7 No junction 1

D5_8 Do not enter SDNP 1

D6 - North Multipurpose FB->Portfield


D6_1 Consider traffic flow at terminus 1

D6_2 Traffic light at Portfield junction 1

D6_3 Add junctions for access to Midhurst and North Chichester 1

D7 - North Multipurpose Unspecified


D7_1 Goodwood Estate mitigation 2

D7_2 Dual carriageway 1


D8 - North Local



D8_3 Tunnel 1

D8_4 Consider traffic flow at terminus 1

D9 - South Multipurpose


D9_1 Route design - consider residential impact 1


D10 - South Local



D10_2 Route design - Consider residential impact 1


D10_4 Access to Bognor RoB with GSJ 1

D11 - Local Unspecified


D11_1 Package - unspecified 1

D12 - Multipurpose Unspecified


D13 - New Suggestion


D13_1 Tunnelled route under the city 12

D13_2 Strategic South Route 6

D13_3 Cable Car 1

D13_4 New Goodwood access road 13

D13_5 Ring road 4

D13_6 Fully elevated South route 1

D13_7 New Strategic Route to the North between FB and Portfield, without junctions 1

E - Modal: Reasons for Support/Not Support

E1 - Unspecified


E1_3 Positive - Enhance traffic flow 3

E1_4 Positive - environmental impact 10

E1_5 Positive - economic impact 3

E1_6 Positive - Feasibility / cost 2

E1_9 Positive - Improves accessibility 3

E1_10 Positive - Long-term solution 5

E1_11 Positive - residential impact 6

E1_15 Negative - Do not separate through and local traffic 1

E1_16 Negative - Stop / slow traffic flow 3

E1_17 Negative - environmental impact 1

E1_18 Negative - economic impact 1

E1_19 Negative - Feasibility / cost 9

E1_23 Negative - Not a long-term solution 3

E1_24 Negative - residential impact 1

E1_25 Negative - Do not address problem 106

E1_26 Negative - Cannot address problem - reliance on car 16

E1_27 Negative - Other 2

E2 - Walking, Cycling, Public Transport Unspecified


E2_1 Positive - Safety 3





E2_7 Positive - Landscape and conservation 2




E2_12 Positive - Other 3

E2_14 Negative - safety 3





E3 - Parking, Traffic, Freight, Development Unspecified






E4 - Improved pedestrian and cycle crossings - existing A27






E5 - Improved pedestrian and cycle routes into Chichester City and the Manhood Peninsular











E6 - Improved pedestrian and cycle unspecified



E6_2 Positive - Separate through and local traffic 1














E7 - Improved use of public space


E8 - Bus priority at A27 junctions


E9 - Improved bus stops and facilities






E10 - Improved bus frequencies






E10_22 Negative - Reduces accessibility 1

E11 - Park & Ride















E11_29 Positive - Reduces pressure on local parking 2

E12 - Bus improvements unspecified











E13 - Integrated public transport ticketing and service






E14 - Working with schools, colleges and businesses to encourage walking, cycling and public transport









E15 - Improved transport information online


E16 - Parking management changes in the city centre












E17 - Traffic management (e.g.: Signage improvements, 20mph limits)









E18 - Safety improvements




E19 - HGV and goods vehicles priority at A27 junctions








E20 - HGV and goods vehicles restrictions










E20_13 Positive - Specified Location 2




E21 - HGV and goods vehicles unspecified



E22 - Electric vehicle charging points







E23 - Working with developers to reduce car use and encourage walking, cycling and public transport on new developments








E23_22 Negative - Reduces accessibility 1




E23_28 Negative - Conflict 1

F - Modal: Improvements

F1 - Unspecified


F1_1 Include in Local Plan 1

F1_2 Future proof 1

F2 - Walking, Cycling, Public Transport Unspecified


F3 - Parking, Traffic, Freight, Development Unspecified


F4 - Improved pedestrian and cycle crossings - existing A27


F4_1 Grade separated crossings 1

F5 - Improved pedestrian and cycle routes into Chichester City and the Manhood Peninsular


F5_1 Compulsory cycle routes 7

F5_2 Package - New Route Unspecified 5

F6 - Improved pedestrian and cycle unspecified


F7 - Improved use of public space


F8 - Bus priority at A27 junctions


F9 - Improved bus stops and facilities


F9_1 Lay-bys 3

F10 - Improved bus frequencies


F10_1 Bus frequency improvements - other locations 14

F11 - Park & Ride


F11_1 Suggested P&R car park location 20

F11_2 Cheaper than city centre parking 2

F12 - Bus improvements unspecified


F13 - Integrated public transport ticketing and service


F13_1 Public transport app 2

F13_2 Ticket subsidies 1

F14 - Working with schools, colleges and businesses to encourage walking, cycling and public transport


F15 - Improved transport information online


F16 - Parking management changes in the city centre


F16_1 Focus on The Hornet 1

F16_3 Pay on Exit rather than Pay and Display 7

F16_4 Better parking space enforcement (including better enforcement of disabled

spaces) 3

F16_5 Discount for local residents 2

F16_7 Roads with parking made one-way 1

F24_24 Remove / reduce city centre parking 11

F24_26 Increase / retain city centre parking 15

F17 - Traffic management (e.g.: Signage improvements, 20mph limits)


F17_1 Add speed bumps 1

F17_2 Remove existing speed bumps 2

F17_3 Remove existing 20mph limits 8

F17_5 Enforce 20mph limits 12

F18 - Safety improvements


F19 - HGV and goods vehicles priority at A27 junctions


F20 - HGV and goods vehicles restrictions


F20_1 Congestion charge 3

F20_2 Enforceable by police 1

F21 - HGV and goods vehicles unspecified


F21_3 Enforce changes 1

F22 - Electric vehicle charging points


F22_1 User should pay 2

F22_2 Solar powered charging points 1

F22_3 Free 3

F23 - Working with developers to reduce car use and encourage walking, cycling and public transport on new developments


F24 - New Suggestion


F24_1 Restrict all vehicular access in city centre 4

F24_3 Rail changes (other than ticketing) 67

F24_5 Package - Unspecified 4

F24_6 Package - Strategic bypass 4

F24_7 Introduce tram 12

F24_8 Bike hire scheme 11

F24_9 Consider motorcycles / two wheelers 2

F24_10 Consider equestrians 3

F24_11 Bus subsidies 8

F24_12 Better bus service into Chichester for rural villages 8

F24_13 Improved cycle facilities other than routes and crossings 27

F24_14 Car Sharing 8

F24_15 Pedestrian and cycle route improvements in the city 25

F24_16 Congestion Charge in city centre 7

F24_17 Changes to bus fleet 9

F24_18 Goodwood public transport services (including P&R) 3

F24_19 Changes to public transport ticket pricing 43

F24_20 HGV consolidation hub out of city centre 5

F24_21 Manage car use on developments / residential areas (rather than reduce) 5

F24_22 Extend bus service operating hours 15

F24_23 Consider those with disabilities 10

F24_25 Remove redundant signage 3

F24_27 Package - Northern Unspecified 1

F24_28 Park & Ride to beach 7

F24_29 Package - New Route Unspecified 1

F24_30 Ultra-Low Emission Zone 1

F24_31 Working with businesses to encourage smart working practices 4

F24_32 Bus lanes 3

F24_33 Changes to parking management outside of the city centre (i.e beaches) 1

F12_1 Move bus garage outside the city 1

F12_2 New bus routes 13

F21_1 Move cargo to the railways 7

F21_2 Driverless vans for deliveries 1

Closed Questions - Suggested improvements to the current route

1. Small enhancements to the network

Support the suggestion

Maybe support, but with mitigations

Do not support the suggestion

Base

Suggested Improvement n % n % n % n %

Traffic light management – adjusted to meet traffic needs, white line changes, marginal widening of junctions or roads

1036 28% 745 20% 1928 52% 3709 100%

2. Package of junction improvements on existing A27 between Fishbourne and Portfield junctions




Base


Underpasses at junctions (to split through and local traffic) 1870 50% 624 17% 1229 33% 3723 100%

Flyovers at junctions (to split through and local traffic) 1768 47% 612 16% 1344 36% 3724 100%

Widening of road - particularly at approach to junctions 1338 36% 895 24% 1478 40% 3711 100%

Enhanced roundabouts or traffic lights on roundabouts 1078 29% 727 20% 1905 51% 3710 100%

No left/right turn at selected junctions 799 22% 595 16% 2309 62% 3703 100%

Traffic lights instead of roundabouts 522 14% 520 14% 2669 72% 3711 100%

3. Smart roads using technology to manage traffic




Base


Queue and incident detection to inform signs or diversions 1516 41% 707 19% 1487 40% 3710 100%

Electronic signs 1341 36% 768 21% 1589 43% 3698 100%

Traffic lights with ‘smart’ phasing (e.g priority for buses or HGVs)

849 23% 678 18% 2170 59% 3697 100%

Closed Questions - Suggested new routes




Base

Suggested new route n % n % n % n %

New ‘multi-purpose’ route north of the city 1629 44% 462 12% 1649 44% 3740 100%

New ‘strategic’ route north of the city 1552 42% 434 12% 1752 47% 3738 100%

New ‘local’ road south of the city 960 26% 807 22% 1952 52% 3719 100%

New ‘multi-purpose’ route north of the city 976 26% 583 16% 2164 58% 3723 100%

New ‘multi-purpose’ route south of the city 941 25% 717 19% 2056 55% 3714 100%

New ‘local’ route north of the city 714 19% 735 20% 2264 61% 3713 100%

Closed Questions - Walking, cycling, public transport & other improvements

Select the suggestions you support

Improvement (Multiple Response Question) n %

Wider major improvements in pedestrian and cycle routes on routes into Chichester and the Manhood Peninsula

2336 62%

Encourage use of walking, cycling and public transport by working with schools, colleges and businesses

2325 62%

Improved pedestrian and cycle crossings of the existing A27 2079 55%

Improved local transport information online, including access to real-time information of bus and rail services and

parking 1956 52%

Park and ride to service Chichester centre 1917 51%

Improved bus stops and facilities, e.g., shelters at all stops, seating and real-time passenger information

1767 47%

Integrated public transport ticketing and service between buses and trains, especially in the evenings

1552 41%

Enhanced bus service frequencies on key routes to the Witterings, Selsey and Bognor Regis

1473 39%

Improved use of public space for pedestrians, bus stops, signage and urban realm improvements

1466 39%

Priorities for buses at the A27 junctions 954 25%

Base 3,766 ---

Closed Questions - Parking, traffic management, freight and development

Select the suggestions you support

Improvement (Multiple Response Question) n %

Work with developers to reduce car use and encourage use of walking, cycling and public transport on new

developments 1976 52%

Electric vehicle charging points at car parks, supermarket, service stations and work places

1935 51%

Restrictions to HGV and goods vehicles routes and times to priorities junctions to limit HGV use to main roads only

1841 49%

Changes to parking management in the city centre e.g. managing short and long-stay parking and providing real-

time information on parking space availability 1755 47%

Safety improvements through design changes, improvements in visibility and lighting, and maintenance

improvements 1630 43%

Traffic management to improve traffic flow on surrounding roads, e.g., signage improvements, 20mph zones

1416 38%

Providing priority for local HGV and goods vehicles at junctions approaching the A27

324 9%

Base 3,766 ---

APPENDIX C – BABA27 Key Themes

Through and local traffic

Strong separation of through and local traffic Fix the problem right and do it once Remove the barrier to the north – south movement created by the current A27 Facilitate better flow of east to west traffic Provision of a diversion route, which can be used in emergencies Facilitate local journeys

Multi-modal transport

Safe separation between motorised and non-motorised road users Integrated transport plan for road and non-road transport

Environmental factors

Sympathetic to Chichester area character Separate A27 traffic and particulates, noise and poor environment from people

Chichester as a jewel of England

Minimise visual impact of the scheme A27 should not be seen as feature of the Chichester area

Landscape and conservation

Preserving the positive and distinctive features of the Chichester area

Transport innovations and experiments

New digital capabilities including signage and smart traffic management Innovation that has worked in the UK and internationally

Local and regional economy

Understand the negative impact on the economy of the A27 as it is Understand the potential positive impact of an improved A27 Understand the potential for future opportunities the A27 brings to a sustainable

economy for the Chichester area

BUILD A BETTER A27: COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ON … › media › 11642 › build-a-better...1. Build a Better A27: Community Feedback on A27 Suggestions Analysis of Community Feedback 107162

Documents