CONNECTING SOUTHAMPTON

Ref

Main issues raised

Officer Response

1

Concern that additional crossings, narrower carriageways and cycle infrastructure will worsen congestion.

Example comments:

“Winchester Road is already congested at peak times. A cycle lane is unnecessary and will hamper traffic flow. Additional crossings will also hamper traffic flow. Increasing congestion and pollution”

“Already far too many traffic lights to slow smooth flow of traffic”

“These proposals are unnecessary & disruptive for residents & commuters. We only need new pavements. Traffic is already calmed because the road is so blocked. Wider cycle lanes will make the road too narrow.”

The scheme is not expected to have a significant impact on traffic flows or congestion along Winchester Road. It is focused on improving the facilities that are already in place rather than adding brand new elements.

The width of the general traffic lanes on Winchester Road would remain within accepted standards for a major urban A-Road route. There are already advisory cycle lanes in place along much of the scheme area and as such the general traffic lanes will largely remain as is.

The proposed crossings are not expected to have a significant adverse impact on traffic flow along Winchester Road.

Controlled pedestrian crossings are routinely installed on busy routes where traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, and pedestrian demand create barriers to safe and convenient road crossing.

The crossings would operate on demand, stopping traffic only when required by pedestrians. Whilst this would result in occasional short delays to vehicles, these interruptions would be intermittent and are considered proportionate when balanced against the benefits to pedestrian safety, accessibility, and connectivity.

During peak periods, traffic on Winchester Road already experiences queuing to the roundabouts at each end of this section. Under these conditions, vehicles delayed by the crossing would typically rejoin the rear of an existing queue, meaning the crossing is not expected to result in any material increase in overall journey times.

2

There is no need for wider or segregated cycle facilities, as a low number of cyclists use this route.

Example comments:

“I am a regular user of Winchester Road. I fail to understand why the Council is spending scarce funds on widening the existing cycle lanes. There is ample room already to facilitate single file cyclists; if they exist. I rarely see cyclists on Winchester Road.”

“Bicycles are rarely seen on Winchester Road and it is speculative to say the least that there will be a significant increase in such traffic following the completion of the improvements to the Sports Centre.  Far more likely will be an increase in motor vehicles with parents bringing there children to use the upgraded facilities.”

“Because Winchester Road is dangerous enough as it is - introducing these proposals will just make i worse.  I pass very few cyclists on this road when using it so I don't understand why you are widening the lanes for them.”

The scheme is intended to balance the needs of all users of Winchester Road, including pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. The proposed improvements are designed to enhance safety, accessibility and connectivity for people travelling by a range of modes, rather than prioritising any single group of road users.

Winchester Road forms part of Southampton Cycle Network Route 9 (SCN9), which is a key strategic cycling route linking residential areas with education, employment, leisure and community destinations. As a designated cycle route, it is important that the infrastructure is suitable for a wide range of users, including less confident cyclists, children and those who may currently be deterred from cycling by traffic conditions.

The number of cyclists currently using the route should not be considered in isolation when assessing the need for improvements. Existing cycling levels are often influenced by the quality and perceived safety of the available infrastructure. Where facilities are limited or unattractive, many people who may otherwise choose to cycle decide not to do so. As a result, current usage levels can underrepresent the potential demand for cycling.

It should also be recognised that motorists travelling along Winchester Road observe only a snapshot of activity at a particular point in time. Individual drivers are therefore likely to encounter relatively few cyclists during a single journey, even where the route is being used by a larger number of cyclists throughout the day. Personal observations, while understandable, do not necessarily provide a complete picture of overall cycle usage or demand.

The improved cycle facilities are intended to address these barriers and create a safer, more comfortable environment for cyclists of all ages and abilities.

3

The bollards / segregation would prevent traffic moving aside for ambulances travelling to and from Southampton General Hospital.

Example comments:

“I'm concerned that widening the cycle lanes will make it difficult for emergency ambulances, going to and from Southampton General Hospital, to pass traffic speedily.”

“Bollards for separation of cycle lane would make it impossible to move over for ambulances which are constantly driving up and down with twos and blues on”

The purpose of the proposed segregation is to provide a safer and more attractive environment for cycling on Winchester Road. The inclusion of physical segregation has been developed in accordance with current national guidance and reflects recommendations from Active Travel England, which has reviewed the scheme as part of the funding and approval process.

The Department for Transport's Local Transport Note 1/20 (LTN 1/20) recommends the use of physically separated cycle facilities on roads with speed limits of 30mph and high traffic volumes. Figure 4.1 of LTN 1/20 identifies segregation as the appropriate form of provision in such circumstances. The guidance also notes that painted cycle lanes on 30mph roads exclude some potential users and that, on roads carrying more than 6,000 vehicles per day, they are unlikely to be suitable for most people. Winchester Road carries approximately 20,000 vehicles per day, meaning that a higher level of protection is required if the route is to be accessible to cyclists of all ages and abilities.

The design has been developed with the needs of emergency services in mind. Gaps have been incorporated within the segregation at appropriate locations to allow emergency vehicles to navigate around stationary or slow-moving traffic. The proposals do not create a continuous barrier along the route.

The scheme has been shared with all emergency services as part of the consultation and design process, and no objections have been received. In particular, South Central Ambulance Service (SCAS) has been directly engaged regarding the proposals and has advised that it does not anticipate any significant operational issues arising from the scheme. Nevertheless, the operation of the route will be monitored following implementation to ensure that any unforeseen issues can be identified and addressed.

4

Additional crossings along Winchester Road are not required, there are relatively few people crossing the road and the existing facilities are sufficient.

Some respondents suggested that Zebra crossings would be more suitable and have less impact on traffic.

Example comments:

“Winchester Road (between the Avenue and Hill lane roundabout) already has two toucan crossings for an approx. 1km stretch of road. This is already high-traffic road and further implantation of new toucan crossings will likely cause increased building up of traffic which will inconvenience not only locals but also many who work up at the general hospital. More stagnant traffic may also increase local pollution potentially impact health of local residents. As a local resident who does utilise the island crossings currently in place, I do note that these are not high-traffic pedestrian crossings, and before any works take place I would want to see evidence that there is quantifiable utility in adding these crossings in, especially given that this is likely to cost significant sums of tax-payer money.”

A key objective of the scheme is to improve connectivity between Southampton Common and the Outdoor Sports Centre, as well as to enhance walking, wheeling and cycling routes that cross Winchester Road. The section of Winchester Road between Hill Lane and Bassett Avenue currently creates significant pedestrian and cycle severance on this important north-south corridor. This is due to the combination of high traffic volumes, with an average of 26,482 vehicles per weekday (2023 ATC data), and the limited provision of suitable crossing facilities. While there are currently two signal-controlled crossings on this section of road, they are approximately 850 metres apart. Between these crossings there are three refuge islands, but only one has tactile paving and none are considered suitable for less confident pedestrians, wheelchair users, or cyclists given the traffic volumes and vehicle speeds on the route.

The proposed crossings are therefore intended to replace and improve existing crossing opportunities, making it safer and easier for people to travel between key destinations on either side of Winchester Road. This need was also reflected in the results of a 2021 survey which highlighted concerns about difficulties crossing major roads, including Winchester Road.

Whilst zebra crossings can be appropriate in some locations, they are not considered suitable for Winchester Road due to the volume of traffic using the route.

5

The scheme will result in a loss of on-street parking which will create issues for residents and their visitors, as well as increasing parking pressures in nearby side roads.

Example comments:

“the proposed removal of parking and waiting opportunities outside my property. This will have a detrimental impact on residents, visitors, deliveries and contractors. The consultation documents do not appear to explain how these impacts on existing residents have been considered or mitigated.”

“Proposed extension of parking restrictions on both sides of Winchester Road, west of Thornhill Road junction will severely impact parking space for residents of Winchester Road and Surrey Point.  This is likely to impact residents of Printout Road where lack of parking on Winchester Road will spill over into this area.  As the proposed lack of on-street parking will mean residents of Winchester Road will need to park on their drives, this will require residents to potentially reverse into traffic from their drives onto the road into oncoming car and cycle traffic.”

It is acknowledged that the scheme will result in some loss of on-street parking. However, the newly proposed waiting restrictions have been limited to those locations where they are necessary to accommodate the scheme and to achieve its objectives safely and effectively.

In developing the proposals, efforts have been made to retain parking in the areas of highest demand wherever possible, while balancing the needs of all highway users. The Council must also consider the requirements of pedestrians and cyclists, and it is not possible to provide on-street parking for all residents and visitors in every location.

While some displacement of parking may occur, the restrictions have been kept to the minimum extent considered necessary. The Council is satisfied that the overall benefits of the scheme outweigh the reduction in parking provision and that the retained parking opportunities continue to provide reasonable access for residents and visitors.

6

The banned right turn from Vermont Close into Winchester Road does not address the cause of congestion which is school related traffic, in particular buses and taxis.

Having a full-time restriction would inconvenience local traffic throughout the day while providing limited benefit outside peak times.

Example comments:

“individual resident vehicles turning right out of Vermont Close do not materially disrupt traffic. The delays are caused by the volume and movement of school buses, not by the occasional right turn made by residents. The proposed restriction is therefore disproportionate and unlikely to deliver the intended benefits.”

“The no right turn at Vermont Close onto Winchester Road should be limited to peak child delivery and pick up times to/fro the schools usually from approx 8.30am to 9am in the morning (term times only) and a similar bottle neck occurs in the afternoon. A 24 hour no right turn is not required and it would adversely affect the residents of Vermont Close, Talbot Close and The Firs especially when it is not required for the other 23 hours of the day.”

“Concerned about proposal to stop right turn from Vermont Close to Winchester Rd. Could this be changed for when the school drop off and pick up only? The rest of the time turning right has never been a problem.”

It is acknowledged that congestion on Winchester Road is heavily influenced by school-related traffic, including buses and taxis, and that right turn movements  by residents are only one element of the overall traffic movements in the area.

However, the proposed banned turn is intended to address the issues where vehicles waiting to turn right can impede the flow of traffic and contribute to delays, particularly during periods of high demand.

The impact on residents has been carefully considered. Vehicles exiting Vermont Close and wishing to travel southwards along Winchester Road would still be able to do so via Memorial Roundabout, resulting in an additional journey of approximately 450 metres. This should only be a minor inconvenience for the majority of journeys and is considered proportionate to the potential benefits in terms of improving traffic flow and reducing conflicts at the junction.

Alternative measures, including signal control have been considered. However, these options were not taken forward due to their greater impact on traffic movements and the wider operation of the highway network. The proposed right-turn ban was identified as a more proportionate and effective solution.

The suggestion of a part-time restriction has also been considered. However, timed restrictions can be more susceptible to inadvertent or deliberate non-compliance. A permanent restriction provides a clear and consistent arrangement for all road users and avoids uncertainty about when the restriction is in force. Therefore the proposed 24-hour prohibition is considered to be the most appropriate option.

7

The banned right turn from Vermont Close into Winchester Road will make it more difficult for school transport, including increasing journey lengths.

Example comment:

“With 2 schools for children with sen plus housing on vermont close, changing the route for a left turn only will make it more difficult for school transport. Maybe upgrade the light system to a 3 way set of lights. This allows safe flow of traffic in and out of vermont close, allowing sequencing to adjust to peak times/term time. The roundabout at times is extremely busy. Cars throw themselves out because people are impatient.”

As noted above vehicles exiting Vermont Close and wishing to travel southwards along Winchester Road would still be able to do so via Memorial Roundabout, resulting in an additional journey of approximately 450 metres. This should only be a minor inconvenience for the majority of journeys and is considered proportionate to the potential benefits in terms of improving traffic flow and reducing conflicts at the junction.

Alternative measures, including signal control have been considered. However, these options were not taken forward due to their greater impact on traffic movement and the wider operation of the highway network. The proposed right-turn ban was identified as a more proportionate and effective solution.

8

Concerns, including from some cyclists, of conflict between cyclists and pedestrians at shared facilities and Toucan crossings.

Example comments:

“As a cyclist, I do not want to be forced onto the pavement and into conflict with pedestrians at almost every junction. Coming downhill, even on a pedal bike, I often reach 17-19mph. There are multiple e-bike users who achieve greater speeds than this in either direction and putting them in direct conflict with vulnerable pedestrians is likely to cause a serious accident for example as a toddler moves forward to push the button (every child’s favourite thing to do).”

“Winchester Road topography does not suit cycle lanes merging into pedestrian crossings.

It is ludicrous that when cycle speeds are fast (especially with the prevalence of Motorised bicycles) that the bikes merge with pedestrians crossings.”

“The design of the proposed Winchester Road pedestrian/cycle crossings at Thornhill Road and near Butterfield Road puts pedestrians and cyclists in direct conflict, with the potential for cyclists crossing the path of pedestrians at right angles. The same applies to the design of the crossing at Vermont close on the south east side of Winchester Road, but not on the north west side. It seems to me that the design of the latter is much safer for both pedestrians and cyclists.”

The concerns regarding potential conflict between cyclists and pedestrians at shared-use facilities and Toucan crossings are noted. However, experience from existing schemes suggests that such concerns are often based on the perceived potential for conflict rather than evidence of significant safety issues in practice. Where designed appropriately, shared-use facilities and Toucan crossings can safely accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists while improving accessibility and connectivity for a wider range of users.

The shared-use sections within the scheme have been kept to the minimum practicable extent and are limited to areas immediately surrounding crossing points where site constraints make the provision of fully segregated facilities impossible. These arrangements are necessary to provide safe and convenient access to crossing facilities and to ensure routes remain accessible for all users.

The detailed design of the scheme will continue to be reviewed through the Road Safety Audit (RSA) process to identify and address any potential safety concerns before implementation. Following completion, the operation of the facilities will also be monitored, enabling any issues to be identified and considered as part of future reviews of the scheme.

9

The installation of the cycle lanes / bollards would make it difficult and dangerous to enter/exist from driveways along the route.

The detailed design of the scheme will take account of property access requirements, and bollards will not be positioned in a manner that obstructs access to private driveways or prevents vehicles from entering or leaving them safely.

The introduction of mandatory cycle lanes would not be expected to create significant difficulties for vehicles accessing driveways. Residents already need to check for and give way to pedestrians and other road users including people cycling within the marked lane. Cycle lanes are a common feature on roads with residential frontage and are routinely provided where private accesses are present.

10

The money for the scheme would be better spent elsewhere in particular on maintaining / resurfacing the road.

Example comment:

“Another total waste of public money on an unnecessary road scheme … LEAVE OUR ROADS ALONE spend the money on MAINTENANCE of what we already have.”

The funding being used is allocated specifically for the delivery of this improvement scheme and cannot be diverted to general highway maintenance.

The section of Winchester Road included within the scheme is also due for resurfacing as part of planned maintenance works. By coordinating the resurfacing programme with the delivery of the proposed improvements, the Council can reduce overall disruption and improve efficiency.

11

A number of responses highlighted HGV traffic and noise to be more pressing issues which require attention.

Example comments:

“As part of the proposal the road should be made non HGV between 22:00 & 6:00 access only. This road is used all night long by container vehicles from Southampton Docks using it as a short cut to the M3. This excessive volume of vehicles not designed for this road are causing heavy damage to the road surface in addition to noise and air pollution”

“Re-instate the 7.5 ton limit that I believe existed on Winchester road in the 1970's. This would prevent the nightly convoys of heavy lorries using what is basically a residential route as a rat run to the western docks.”

“Lorries have become horrendous”

As noted above, the scheme is focused on enhancing and improving existing facilities. While it aims to address a number of identified issues along the route, it is not intended, and would not be expected, to resolve all concerns.

Separately from this scheme, the Council is aware of residents' concerns regarding the volume of HGV traffic using Winchester Road, particularly overnight. The Council is currently considering what measures may be available to help mitigate the impacts being experienced by the local community.

12

Concerns about the safety of the continuous footway at Butterfield Road

Example comments:

“The provision on a continuous walkway at the end of Butterfield Road will make is very difficult for those of us that live off or on Butterfield Road to safely exit that junction, without blocking the walkway.  The positioning of new proposed giveway markings in Butterfield Road are set back so far from Winchester Road that it very difficult to see east or west (I've been out today and tried it).   Cars will need to pull across the continuous walkway to get a good view of both traffic and more importantly cyclists using the improved cycle lanes.”

Continuous footways are a well-established highway design feature and are already used at numerous locations across Southampton and elsewhere in the UK without significant safety issues. Their purpose is to reinforce pedestrian priority across side roads while improving accessibility and creating a more consistent walking environment.

When exiting Butterfield Road, drivers would be expected to undertake the movement in two stages. First, they should check for and give way to pedestrians using the continuous footway. Once it is safe to proceed beyond this point, drivers can then position themselves appropriately to assess traffic conditions on Winchester Road before entering the main carriageway. This staged approach is similar to that used at many junctions where pedestrians have priority across side road entrances.

The scheme would be subject to monitoring. However, the principle of requiring drivers to check separately for pedestrians before assessing traffic on the main road is a widely used arrangement that is not considered to present any unusual safety concerns.