A325 final report issued sept2013 low low

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Strategy Report

September 2013

Hampshire County Council A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study Final Report September 2013

Amendment Record

Revision

By

Date

Version

Checked

Approved

8/8/13

N Albon

8/8/13

Draft Report

S Doyle

A Linfoot

12/6/13

N Albon

12/6/13

Draft Report

S Doyle

A Linfoot

13/8/13

N Albon

13/8/13

Final Report

A Linfoot

A Linfoot

Halcrow Group Limited (a CH2M HILL Company), 1 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol.

BS1 6DG.

2

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Contents 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10

Introduction The Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Purpose of the Study Structure of the Report The Eco-town Masterplan Residential Character Transport and Movement Draft Walking and Cycling Strategy Community Facilities Emerging East Hampshire District Council Work Town Design Statetment

2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10

Site Analysis and Transport Baseline The Study Area Existing character areas Background Documents Relevant Policy and Guidance Manual for Streets Key Sources Preferred strategy and design traffic demands Existing challenges, problems, issues and concerns Possible traffic management measures and treatments Opportunities

3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9

Consultation Summary Introduction A325 Workshop 1 Summary Background Purpose of the Workshop Workshop Format Summary of Comments by Section Public Exhibition Stakeholder Comments Consultation Response

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11

Strategy Introduction Design Principles Traffic Management Segmentation of A325 Vehicular Design Demands Proposed Speeds Highway Proposals Network Resilience Utilities Eliminated Possibilities Overarching Design Strategy

5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12

Concept Proposals Introduction Concept Option Development Northern Employment Area Northern/Eco-station Gateway Camp Road North Town Centre Gateway (North) Town Centre Town Centre Gateway (South) Conde Way/Woolmer Way Roundabout Viking Park Employment Area Whitehill Village/Southern Local Centre Southern Gateway

6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7

Design Elements Introduction Public Realm Materials Street Furniture Public Art Signage Branding Planting

7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11

Next Steps Delivery Further Work Cost Estimates Phasing Masterplan Delivery Community Engagement Traffic Modelling Additional Surveys Parking and Traffic Regulation Orders Quality Audit Preliminary Design

8 8.1 8.2 8.3

Appendices Appendix A - Area Descriptions Appendix B - Consultation Appendix C - Cost Estimates

3

4

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

introduction A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

5

1 Introduction 1.1 1.1.1

The Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town This document, produced by Halcrow Group Limited, on behalf of Hampshire County Council, sets out the approach to the redesign of the A325 in accordance with the aspirations of the Whitehill & Bordon Ecotown Masterplan (Revised May 2012).

A 33

A 30

A 331 Ash Aldershot

Basingstoke

A 287

M3 A 31

1.1.2

1.1.3

1.1.4

Whitehill & Bordon is located within East Hampshire District and the County of Hampshire, between Farnham and Petersfield, to the south west of London.

Farnham

A 339

The Eco-town area is set in attractive countryside, comprising beautiful open heathland and woodland. The area has a wealth of designated ecological sites. It is also located at the boundary of the newly designated South Downs National Park.

A3

A 287 A 325

Alton

The Vision for the Masterplan places this outstanding natural environment and landscape surrounding the town at the centre of the Masterplan.

A 31

Whitehill and Bordon Hindhead

1.1.5

The design of the public realm has an important role in creating a sense of place, and building upon the characteristics which make Whitehill & Bordon unique.

1.1.6

There is a significant opportunity to improve the public realm in the A325 area to both enhance public transport, pedestrian and cycle movement and to enhance the quality of the local environment.

A 286 Liss Petersfield

A3

A 272

Midhurst

Figure 1.1: Study Area Location

6

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Purpose of the Study The primary aim of the study is to provide a joined up approach to urban design and traffic management to: • redesign the A325 so that through traffic will be more likely to use the proposed Inner Relief Road (IRR); • create a high quality, accessible public realm along the existing A325 with a distinctive ‘sense of place’; • focus on creating a sustainable Whitehill & Bordon town centre; • reduce barriers to walking and cycling in the town; • integrate new development with the existing community; • redesign the A325 so that it is better configured to accommodate East-West local movement; and • support regeneration and redevelopment along the A325.

Farnha m Roa d

A325

ad

n Ro

Camp Road

Statio

Bu

dd

s

La

ne

Cha et Stre

Structure of the Report The structure of the report is as follows:1 - Introduction 2 - Site Analysis and Transport Baseline 3 - Consultation Summary 4 - Strategy 5 - Concept Proposals 6 - Design Elements 7 - Delivery and Next Steps 8 - Appendices.

ill

High

1.3 1.3.1

let H

Co

nd

eW ay

oad

The aim of this document is to illustrate the design strategy for the A325 which supports proposals set out in the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Masterplan (Revised May 2012).

rsfie ld R

1.2.2

oad

ord R

Lindf

Firgrov

Pete

1.2 1.2.1

e Road Liphoo

k Road

A325 Petersfield Road

Figure 1.2: Aerial Photograph

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

7

1.4 1.4.1

The Eco-town Masterplan This section presents the background to the production of the Masterplan.

1.4.2

The Masterplan (shown in Figure 1.3) sets out a vision for the Eco-town development with the following elements:• A new mixed use town centre; • Additional primary school provision and early years centres, and a new children’s centre; • Re-building of Mill Chase Community Technology College on a new site; • Skills training and further education facilities; • Sites for new commercial leisure facilities; • New residential neighbourhoods; • A public sports hub with leisure centre and pitches; • Local healthcare and emergency services; • Eco-business park; • Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANGs) to mitigate against human impacts on nearby European protected habitats; • A central public transport hub and modern public transport systems including a safeguarded rail corridor; and • Retrofitting of existing homes and businesses to improve energy and water efficiency.

1.4.3

One of the key elements of the Masterplan is the provision of a green loop and green grid network:– a circular network of footpaths and cycleways linking the parks, sports facilities and the town centre.

Figure 1.3: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Masterplan (2012)

8

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

1.4.4

1.4.5

The Masterplan was revised in 2012 in response to a number of additional pieces of work as follows:• Green Infrastructure Strategy (Halcrow, 2011); • HRA Report and Land Management Report (UE Associates, 2011); • Detailed Water Cycle Study (Peter Brett Associates, 2011); • Energy Feasibility Study (LDA Design, 2011); • One-Planet-Living-Strategy (BioRegional, 2011); and • Neighbourhood Consultation Report (EHDC, 2012).

1.5 1.5.1

Residential Character The Masterplan document defines a number of residential character areas as shown on Figure 1.4.

1.5.2

These character areas particularly affect the A325 in terms of the character of the green space network, the town centre and local satellite centres.

The Masterplan was adopted by the Council in 2012 and is a material consideration in determining planning application within the Masterplan area.

Figure 1.4: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Masterplan (2012) - Housing character areas

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

9

1.6 1.6.1

Transport and Movement The proposed street network is shown on the adjacent plan Figure 1.5. The diagram includes the principle of introducing traffic management for the A325 and the proposed options for the Inner Relief Road. For the purposes of this study, it has been assumed that the alignment of the Inner Relief Road will follow Option 2 and connect with the Liphook Road/Firgrove Road junction, which is the preferred option of Hampshire County Council.

1.7 1.7.1

Walking and Cycling Strategy The Walking and Cycling Strategy (2012) produced on behalf of Hampshire County Council assesses existing provision and sets out a number of recommendations for route enhancement. The recommended strategy has been developed into a series of phased improvements comprising: • ‘A consistent approach to provision of the Green Grid and Loop across the settlement area; • New links to improve walking and cycling connectivity across Whitehill & Bordon; • A change in character for the A325 to encourage its use as a main route for walking and cycling; • New crossing points to provide easier access across main routes; • Recommended speed reduction areas to encourage walking and cycling; • Dedicated route facilities to provide better signage, encourage their greater use and to provide rest points; • A consistent approach to walking and cycling networks across existing and proposed areas of the Whitehill & Bordon settlement areas.’

Figure 1.5: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Masterplan (Revised 2012) - Proposed street network

10

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

1.8 1.8.1

Community Facilities The adjacent Community Facilities Plan Figure 1.6 presents how these key facilities are linked through the green loop and community spine.

Figure 1.6: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Masterplan (Revised 2012) - Community facilities

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

11

1.9 1.9.1

1.10 1.10.1

12

Emerging East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) Work EHDC is currently preparing “Town Centre and Louisburg Barracks development briefs” and “Character area design code” for Whitehill & Bordon. The public consultation on draft development briefs was completed in July 2013. The final documents are expected by the end of October 2013 and will incorporate recommendations from this study.

Town Design Statement Whitehill Town Council and Whitehill Bordon Town Partnership are preparing the Town Design Statement. It has a robust baseline analysis of the existing townscape character and has informed the A325 character area study.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

site analysis A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

13

2 Site Analysis and Transport Baseline

residential/barracks green space/landscape/woodland

Northern Woodland

car park m Roa d

major roads/junctions

Farnha

leisure/community commercial/industrial

ad

rd Ro

Lindfo

mixed use

Northern Gateway (A325/Station Road/ Lindford Road Junction)

oad

on R

Stati

Camp Road

superstore

Camp Road North

Northern Local Centre

p R oad

The character areas present a context for the design of the streetscape to respond to. For example, the design of the A325 within the strong woodland context near Viking Park contrasts with the more urban context of the town centre.

Cam

2.2.4

Camp Road South

Bu

dd

s

La

ne

et

The character types include:• residential; • green space/landscape/woodland; • car park; • major roads/junctions; • leisure/community; • commercial/industrial; and • town centre/mixed use.

A325

Stre

Existing character areas The character of the A325 varies along its length and can be defined by a number of character types and specific character areas which reflect the adjacent land uses and built form.

Key

2.2.5

High

2.2.2

This section includes key issues set out in the separate A325 Whitehill & Bordon Urban Design & Traffic Management Study Draft Traffic Baseline Technical Note (Dec 2012).

The adjacent plan (Figure 2.1) shows the existing character types and areas along the A325 of the Masterplan area as follows:• Northern Woodland • Northern Gateway (A325/Station Road/ Lindford Road Junction) • Camp Road North • Northern Local Centre • Camp Road South • Town Centre/High Street • Viking Park/Employment South • Whitehill Village/Southern Local Centre • Southern Gateway.

Town Centre/High Street

Due to the range of land uses that exist in the area, the public realm should be designed to provide visual cohesion between these various areas and continuity between spaces.

Cha

let H

ill

et

2.2 2.2.1

2.2.3

Stre

2.1.2

The Study Area The study area includes the area of the A325 within the Masterplan boundary.

Descriptions of each stretch of the A325 and existing photographs are presented in the Appendices.

Hig h

2.1 2.1.1

Viking Park/ Employment South Co

nd

Pete

rsfie

ld R

oad

eW ay

Whitehill Village/ Southern Local Centre Southern Gateway Firgrove

Road Liphoo

k Road

A325 Petersfield Road

Figure 2.1: Character Area Analysis

14

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

2.3 2.3.1

Background Documents A number of background documents are relevant to this study and have been referred to in this document as follows: • Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Masterplan, Revised May 2012; • Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Masterplan Summary, Revised May 2012 (particularly the section addressing traffic and transport); • Whitehill Bordon Eco town, Neighbourhood consultation report, February 2012; • East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy • Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town, Green Infrastructure Strategy (2011), Halcrow; • Whitehill Bordon Eco town Evidence Base, Transport Assessment, Final, January 2012, Amey for Hampshire County Council • Whitehill Bordon Eco town Evidence Base, TA Key Findings Report, September 2011, Amey for Hampshire County Council • Whitehill Bordon Eco town Evidence Base, Tranche 2 Junction Mitigation Options Report, September 2011, Amey for Hampshire County Council • Whitehill Bordon Eco town, Emerging Transport Strategy, September 2011, Hampshire County Council • Whitehill Bordon Eco town, Framework Travel Plan, June 2011, Hampshire County Council • Whitehill & Bordon Traffic Management Strategy, Consultation Draft, September 2012, WSP for Hampshire County Council • Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town, Walking and Cycling Strategy, September 2012, WSP for Hampshire County Council.

2.4 2.4.1

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Relevant Policy and Guidance Substantial progress has been made in recent years in promoting an integrated approach to highway design and place shaping, much of which is relevant to the design of the A325 as it passes through Whitehill and Bordon once the proposed Inner Relief Road is in place. This progress is captured in numerous policy and guidance documents as well as implemented schemes and case studies. The following lists the most relevant sources of policy and guidance, many of which incorporate implemented schemes as examples and case studies: • Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/94 – Village Speed Control Group – A Summary (DfT, 1994) • Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/00 – Traffic Calming in Villages on Major Roads (DfT, 2000) • Traffic Advisory Leaflet 11/00 – Village Traffic Calming – Reducing Accidents (DfT, 2000) • Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/04 – Village Speed Limits (DfT, 2004) • Local Transport Note 1/07 – Traffic Calming (DfT, 2007) • Local Transport Note 1/08 – Traffic Management and Streetscape (DfT, 2008) • Local Transport Note 3/08 – Mixed Priority Routes (DfT, 2008) • Manual for Streets 1 (DfT, 2007) and Manual for Streets 2 (CIHT, 2010) • Hampshire County Council’s Companion Document to Manual for Streets, (Hampshire County Council, 2010) • Kerb Your Enthusiasm: Why shared space doesn’t always mean shared surface, and other stories (Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, 2010)

• T raffic in Villages: Safety and Civility for Rural Roads – A Toolkit for Communities (Dorset AONB Partnership, 2011) • Local Transport Note 1/11 – Shared Space (DfT, 2011) • Local Transport Note 1/12 – Shared Use Routes for Pedestrians and Cyclists (DfT, 2012) • Department for Transport Circular 01/2013, Setting Local Speed Limits, DfT, 2013).

2.4.2

The Whitehill & Bordon Traffic Management Strategy provides useful summaries of almost all of the above documents, and also provides the following relevant and helpful summary of the key points made by these documents: • Community engagement is vitally important to the acceptability of local Traffic Management schemes; • A single approach cannot be employed across a variety of locations due to need to consider individual local characteristics of each area; • For Traffic Management measures to be successful they should be highly visible, consistent and regularly spaced to be effective; • The success of village entrance treatments (gateway schemes) can be enhanced through the implementation of further Traffic Management measures in the village itself.

15

2.5 2.5.1

16

Manual for Streets Perhaps the best over arching and comprehensive guidance for projects of the nature envisaged for the A325 is given in the key principles outlined in Manual for Streets 2, namely: • applying a user hierarchy to the design process with pedestrians at the top; • emphasising a collaborative approach to the delivery of streets, particularly through multi disciplinary teams and identifying successful precedents; • recognising the importance of the community function of streets as spaces for social interaction and using streets to integrate rather than segregate communities and neighbourhoods; • promoting an inclusive environment that recognises the needs of people of all ages and abilities and the importance of way-finding and legibility, especially with regards to the sensory and cognitive perceptions of children, older people and disabled people; • reflecting and supporting pedestrian and cyclist desire lines in networks and detailed designs; • developing masterplans and preparing design codes for larger scale developments, and using design and access statements for all scales of development;

• e stablishing a clear vision and setting objectives for schemes which respond to the more complex and competing requirements in mixed use contexts; • striking a locally appropriate balance between the needs of different user groups; • creating networks of streets that provide permeability and connectivity to main destinations and a choice of routes; • moving away from hierarchies of standard road types based on traffic flows and built densities; • developing street character types on a location specific basis, itself requiring a balance to be struck between place and movement in many of the busier streets; • encouraging innovation with a flexible approach to street layouts and the use of locally distinctive, durable and maintainable materials; • using quality audit processes that demonstrate how designs will meet objectives for the locality; • designing to keep vehicle speeds at or below 20mph in streets and places with significant pedestrian presence; and • using the minimum of highway design features necessary to make the streets work properly.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Table 2.1: Key Sources

Table 1: Key Sources No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12

Title/Description Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Evidence Base, Transport Assessment, Final, January 2012, Amey for Hampshire County Council Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Evidence Base, TA Key Findings Report, September 2011, Amey for Hampshire County Council Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Evidence Base, Tranche 2 Junction Mitigation Options Report, September 2011, Amey for Hampshire County Council Whitehill Bordon Eco-town, Emerging Transport Strategy, September 2011, Hampshire County Council Whitehill Bordon Eco-town, Framework Travel Plan, June 2011, Hampshire County Council Whitehill & Bordon Traffic Management Strategy, Consultation Draft, September 2012, WSP for Hampshire County Council Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Masterplan, Revised May 2012 (particularly Chapter 8) Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Masterplan Summary, Revised May 2012 (particularly the section addressing traffic and transport) Whitehill Bordon Eco-town, Neighbourhood consultation report, February 2012 Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town, Walking and Cycling Strategy, September 2012, WSP for Hampshire County Council “Whitehill Junction Counts - client.xls” containing 12 hour (07:00-19:00) weekday classified turning movement counts (Thursday 12 November 2009, Nationwide Data Collection) for 19 sites in the Whitehill and Bordon area and vicinity, four of which of direct relevance to the A325 Whitehill & Bordon Urban Design and Traffic Management Study - namely: x Site 5 – junction of the A325 with Liphook and Firgrove Roads x Site 6 – junction of the A325 with Chalet Hill x Site 7 – junction of the A325 with Budds Lane x Site 8 – junction of the A325 with Lindford and Station Roads “Site 31.xls” and “Site 35.xls” containing 7 day classified automatic traffic counts (Sunday 1 to Saturday 7 November 2009, Nationwide Data Collection) for two sites on the A325 on either end of the section of road of interest to the A325 Whitehill & Bordon Urban Design and Traffic Management Study - namely: x Site 31 – A325 at Broxhead Common x Site 35 – A325 north of Blackmoor Road

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

2.7 2.7.1

referred strategy and design traffic P demands The traffic relief on the A325 that the proposed Inner Relief Road and proposed traffic management on the A325 are expected to yield – not only relative to future possible demands but also current demands – is clearly evident in the adjacant Table 2.3.

Traffic management on the A325 combined with the proposed Inner Relief Road are associated with 25% to 35% and 20% to 30% decreases in peak two-way flows in 2026 and 2036 respectively compared to 2010 flows.

Decreases of this order present significant opportunities for traffic management treatments and interventions that effect tangible changes in street operation and atmosphere.

Table 2.2: Relevant Transport Assessment Model Scenarios

Table 2: Relevant Transport Assessment Model Scenarios

Model Scenario 3 7 21

Year 2026 2036 2026

Development Option Option 1 (Masterplan) Based upon a residential quantum of 4,000 new dwellings and employment to support some 5,500 jobs; derived through the development of the current draft Framework Masterplan for Whitehill Bordon.

Trip Containment

ey Sources K As already stated, substantial planning and consultation work has been undertaken for Whitehill and Bordon over recent years as part of the Eco-town Masterplanning process.

Amongst the significant body of material available as a result of this work, the documents and data listed in Table 2.1 are referenced in this section.

Car Mode Share

2.6 2.6.1

50%

50%

75%

A325 Strategy A325 Traffic Management Scheme

17

Technical note

Page 6

Project: A325 Whitehill & Bordon Urban Design & Traffic Management Study

Note: Traffic Baseline

Table 2.3: Modelled 2010, 2026, 2036 baseline & 2026 & 2036 design demands8

Table 3: Modelled 2010, 2026 & 2036 baseline & 2026 & 2036 design demands8

2036 Baseline

Both ways

vs 2010 Baseline

vs 2036 Baseline

Both ways

vs 2010 Baseline

vs 2026 Baseline

1,920 1,614 2,053 1,544 1,546 1,683

12% 11% 15% 13% 19% 24%

10% 13% 11% 10% 10% 11%

800 544 608 351 458 466

295 552 549 414 373 522

1,095 1,096 1,157 765 831 988

-36% -25% -35% -44% -36% -27%

-37% -23% -37% -46% -41% -35%

898 628 687 391 505 522

331 622 601 450 400 557

1,229 1,250 1,288 841 905 1,079

-29% -14% -28% -39% -31% -20%

-36% -23% -37% -46% -41% -36%

970 725 774 432 516 506

297 602 613 425 377 535

1,267 1,327 1,387 857 893 1,041

-26% -9% -22% -37% -32% -23%

-27% -7% -25% -39% -36% -31%

739 781 887 746 563 637

777 881 1,007 787 806 870

1,516 1,662 1,894 1,533 1,369 1,507

733 779 922 788 609 684

795 888 1,051 860 895 934

1,528 1,667 1,973 1,648 1,504 1,618

1% 0% 4% 8% 10% 7%

802 850 994 856 671 758

846 954 1,145 920 964 1,006

1,648 1,804 2,139 1,776 1,635 1,764

9% 9% 13% 16% 19% 17%

8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 9%

316 476 532 349 295 372

565 670 725 706 766 765

881 1,146 1,257 1,055 1,061 1,137

-42% -31% -34% -31% -22% -25%

-42% -31% -36% -36% -29% -30%

322 516 560 377 318 384

590 709 767 752 819 817

912 1,225 1,327 1,129 1,137 1,201

-40% -26% -30% -26% -17% -20%

-45% -32% -38% -36% -30% -32%

315 516 568 365 307 389

605 719 803 711 768 854

920 1,235 1,371 1,076 1,075 1,243

-39% -26% -28% -30% -21% -18%

-40% -26% -31% -35% -29% -23%

510 540 614 449 401 365

362 519 588 433 408 396

872 1,059 1,202 882 809 761

562 584 657 489 455 427

365 535 616 448 441 434

927 1,119 1,273 937 896 861

6% 6% 6% 6% 11% 13%

625 644 716 542 504 479

387 579 658 460 451 461

1,012 1,223 1,374 1,002 955 940

16% 15% 14% 14% 18% 24%

9% 9% 8% 7% 7% 9%

240 331 354 257 240 214

246 422 444 319 360 350

486 753 798 576 600 564

-44% -29% -34% -35% -26% -26%

-48% -33% -37% -39% -33% -34%

243 359 373 275 256 235

251 447 471 337 382 377

494 806 844 612 638 612

-43% -24% -30% -31% -21% -20%

-51% -34% -39% -39% -33% -35%

246 351 361 263 244 237

267 447 472 320 361 377

513 798 833 583 605 614

-41% -25% -31% -34% -25% -19%

-45% -29% -35% -38% -32% -29%

Southbound

vs 2026 Baseline

540 790 919 700 622 754

Nnorthbound

vs 2010 Baseline

1,380 824 1,134 844 924 929

Southbound

Both ways

1% -2% 3% 3% 8% 12%

Nnorthbound

vs 2026 Baseline

1,743 1,427 1,842 1,407 1,402 1,517

Southbound

vs 2010 Baseline

483 681 806 643 568 676

Nnorthbound

Both ways

1,260 746 1,036 764 834 841

Southbound

Nnorthbound

1,720 1,460 1,781 1,370 1,304 1,353

Southbound

528 722 769 621 526 585

Southbound

vs 2010 Baseline

2026 Scenario 2111

Both ways

2036 Scenario 710

Nnorthbound

2026 Scenario 39

1,192 738 1,012 749 778 768

Nnorthbound

Section of A325 Weekday AM Peak Hour North of Station Road Between Station Road & Budds Lane Between Budds Lane & Chalet Hill Between Chalet Hill & Tesco Access Between Tesco Access & Conde Way South of Conde Way Weekday PM Peak Hour North of Station Road Between Station Road & Budds Lane Between Budds Lane & Chalet Hill Between Chalet Hill & Tesco Access Between Tesco Access & Conde Way South of Conde Way Weekday Inter-Peak Hour North of Station Road Between Station Road & Budds Lane Between Budds Lane & Chalet Hill Between Chalet Hill & Tesco Access Between Tesco Access & Conde Way South of Conde Way

2026 Baseline

Both ways

2010 Baseline

Note: Red text indicates maximum flow for any one section of the A325 across the three demand periods.

8 9 10 11

18

From Appendix I of Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Evidence Base, Transport Assessment, Final, January 2012, Amey for Hampshire County Council (Source 1 of Table 1).

See Table 2 for definition of scenario.

See Table 2 for definition of scenario.

See Table 2 for definition of scenario.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

2.8 2.8.1

2.8.2

2.8.3

Existing challenges, problems, issues and concerns The following text discusses existing challenges, problems, issues and concerns, some of which are true of the entire length of the A325 as it passes through Whitehill and Bordon and others which are associated with specific locations. The latter are shown on the Area Description plans in the Appendices. onsultation to date has raised the following C problems and issues: • worsening peak period traffic congestion at major bottlenecks that not only delays traffic but also encourages certain elements of it to use alternative less desirable routes; • excessive traffic speeds generally; • a general need for speed restrictions and proper traffic management; • capacity issues at particular locations which are not necessarily associated with main flow congestion (e.g. extremely difficult to make right turn out of Budds Lane into A325 during peak traffic hours); • intimidating and/or undesirable gradients for pedestrians and cyclists; • traffic-related pollution at particular locations (e.g. Chalet Hill junction); • safety issues generally, but also specifically at certain locations (e.g.

Chalet Hill); and • lack of pedestrian crossings; and community severance.

• e xisting highway infrastructure which, at points, features acceleration and deceleration lanes, bus laybys and intrusive road markings; and • the general convenience of the route given its central and connecting location relative to Whitehill and Bordon and coincidence with the inter urban desire line between Farnham and Greatham; and • limited parallel routes to diffuse traffic pressures and bottlenecks.

received the lowest support and the highest concern.

2.8.4

2.8.5

It is evident from the Whitehill & Bordon Ecotown Neighbourhood consultation report that traffic and transport “top the list” in terms of priorities related to the Eco-town. Of all the proposals associated with the Eco-town, the proposed traffic management on the A325

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

he Walking and Cycling Strategy (2011) T includes an assessment of personal injury accident data for the five year period between September 2006 and August 2011 inclusive. During that time there were eight personal injury accidents on the A325 involving pedestrians, six of which classified as slight and two as serious. Three of the slight accidents and both serious accidents involved pedestrians aged 12 or lower. One of the slight accidents involved a pedestrian pushing a buggy. During the same time period there were four personal injury accidents on the A325 involving cyclists, two of which classified as serious and two as slight. Significantly, half of the personal injury accidents involving either pedestrians or cyclists occurred on the Camp Road section of the A325. Further, the section of Camp Road between the Post Office and Station Road features.

The effective re-configuration of a road like the A325 as it passes through Whitehill and Bordon will be challenging, especially given: • its almost straight alignment; • varied, and at times significant gradients and widths; • adjacent development, particularly a lack of built and active frontage, low density development (at least currently), few obvious generators of footfall and a rural or semi rural character interspersed with suburban and village clusters; • limited cross-road movement and civic engagement with the corridor; • limited number of side roads and edge friction;

2.8.6

2.8.7

he following comprise more specific local T issues: • the lateral displacement of the alignment of the B3002 as it crosses the A325; • the hedged fence line on the eastern side of the northern section of the A325 (obstructs free pedestrian movement, particularly between the One Stop and post office and the residential development to the east of the A325); • the intrusive jug-handle bus turnaround facility on the southern section of the A325; • the existing property boundary right up against the footway on the section of the A325 to the north of Ennerdale Road; • the circuitous and also “informal” access to the One Stop; and • the very non descript context of the existing subway (need to raise the profile of the space adjacent the subway); and • issues with “illegal” footpath cyclists north of Chalet Hill. ortunately, the problems and issues raised F above are significantly offset by opportunities like the following: • few direct property accesses over the length of the A325;

• l engths, albeit limited, of immediate and potentially active frontage in town and commercial areas; • significant scope for place-making (e.g. the area associated with the jug handle bus turnaround facility in Whitehill); and • substantially reduced volumes on the A325 in the future (due to the Inner Relief Road) compared to what they could be.

2.9 2.9.1

2.9.2

Possible traffic management measures and treatments The Transport Assessment (Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Evidence Base, Transport Assessment, Final, January 2012, Amey for Hampshire County Council Consultation Draft, September 2012, WSP for Hampshire County Council) and Traffic Management Strategy (Whitehill & Bordon Traffic Management Strategy, Consultation Draft, September 2012, WSP for Hampshire County Council) both provide high level proposals concerning traffic management options and possibilities on the A325 as it passes through Whitehill and Bordon. he Transport Assessment says that: T ‘Potential traffic calming measures which could be implemented along the existing A325 include the following: • Gateway treatments – coloured surfacing, carriageway narrowing • Horizontal deflection measures – chicanes, pinch-points, throttles, existing roundabout junctions • Vertical deflection measures – raised tables, speed cushions • Manual for Streets measures – shared surface, relaxed junction geometry/ visibility standards, sustainable mode priority, quality environment.’

19

2.9.3

20

The package of traffic management measures is expected to include both strategic and local measures, deliverable over a range of timescales within two cost brackets reflected by lower and higher cost options. Possible measures, sourced from the general toolbox of traffic management measures presented in good practice documents, include: • gateway treatments; • tighter road geometry, including the rationalisation or total removal of acceleration/deceleration lanes; • visual narrowing; • reduced forward visibility; • road cross section changes (like pinch points and simple road narrowing) where suitable and appropriate); • vertical deflection measures where suitable (like extended speed or junction tables); • reduced surface differentiations (e.g. lower or at points no kerbs, flush or near flush surfaces, mountable kerbs – particularly for parking and loading in certain sections); • context-enhancing roadway features and surface treatments; • intentional geometric ambiguity at points to trigger more conscious driver behaviour; • courtesy crossings; • improved cycle and pedestrian provision generally; • wide unsegregated and segregated pedestrian and cycle paths; • general de-cluttering, inclusive of the removal of unnecessary roadmarkings (e.g. painted centrelines) over certain sections of road; • low or almost flush central median over

•

•

• • • •

•

•

2.9.4

sections of road (to both narrow the vehicular way and provide a central refuge for crossing pedestrians); carefully considered approach to road edge design, particularly in commercial/ business areas (e.g. ladder-grid pedestrian crossing arrangements where possible and appropriate); control and priority changes at junctions (e.g. removal of signalised control where possible and sensible); retention or addition of on-road parking to calm traffic where appropriate; in road bus stops; locally distinctive solutions at various activity “centres” along the road; improved sense of permeability and connection between road and adjacent development; and enhanced “breaks” between development reflecting the rural or semi rural character interspersed with suburban and village clusters.

More accesses onto the A325, as well as locally re configured access arrangements which interrupt the generally straight and unobstructed A325 might also be possibilities.

The previous section indicates traffic management possibilities, not all of which are suitable to the specific setting of the A325 as it passes through Whitehill and Bordon.

Generally speaking, design demands suggest: • a “naked street” (i.e. de-cluttering and simplification) approach to the entire length of the A325; • more substantial and simple highways provision to the south of Woolmer Way North than to the north of Woolmer Way

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

North reflecting the significantly different traffic compositions on and settings of each section; localised physical roadway treatments of a more psychological rather than overt traffic control nature at and in the vicinity of the One Stop, community hall and post office on the northern section of the A325 and the commercial and community facilities in Whitehill on the southern section of the A325; partial or fully-fledged “shared space” measures in the vicinity of Chalet Hill and the proposed town centre; wide footways on at least one side of the A325 generally (to provide minimum 3m footways); off road cycle provision generally; re configuration of the existing jughandle bus turnaround arrangement to (1) enhance its public realm function, (2) make it more legible, (3) reduce the “island effect” and (4) make the traffic function less space hungry; rationalisation and re casting (i.e. perhaps by making it level with the adjacent footways) of the on-street parking on both sides of the A325 immediately to the north of Firgrove Road (especially that to the west of the A325); two northern gateways – a rural-type gateway immediately south of the new Inner Relief Road junction and an urban gateway immediately to the south of the A325 and Station Road junction or, potentially, immediately to the south of the Eco-Station and bank (depending on the final junction choice at Station Road); a single southern gateway immediately north of the southern junction with the Inner Relief Road;

• a creative approach to the junction of the A325 and Chalet Hill and its immediate vicinity to exploit its place making potential; • courtesy pedestrian crossings, generally comprising special surface treatments at various locations along the A325; • potentially, a low or almost flush central median where widths allow and adjacent activity calls for it; and • potentially, the removal of signalisation at the junctions of the A325 with Chalet Hill and Station Road, with shared space with negotiated albeit suggested priority at Chalet Hill and a custom configured roundabout (“squareabout”) at Station Road.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

2.10.2

Opportunities are presented in terms of the key Masterplan character areas:• Northern Employment • Northern Gateway (A325/Station Road/ Lindford Road Junction) • Camp Road North • Northern Local Centre • Camp Road South • Town Centre/High Street • Viking Park/Employment South • Whitehill Village/Southern Local Centre • Southern Gateway.

2.10.3

2.10.4

Key Masterplan Land Uses

Northern Employment

• potential location to define gateway to proposed Eco-town commercial development • design to be sensitive to surrounding woodland landscape character • strong existing woodland character –retain existing tree belt adjacent to A325 • potential to move existing 30 mph gateway to Inner Relief Road junction • potential for cycle route through to Inner Relief Road

proposed masterplan inner relief road options proposed masterplan employment area

proposed masterplan green grid

In addition to the specific transport issues highlighted previously there are a number of issues relating to the influence that new development through the delivery of the Masterplan will have on the character of the road.

Northern Gateway (A325/Station Road/ Lindford Road Junction

Farnha m Road

Opportunities The adjacent plans shows the key urban design and traffic management opportunities for the A325 corridor. The opportunities plans are shown over a series of 3 plans (Figures 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4)

Existing/Potential Node/junction

ad n Ro

o

Stati

Northern Local Centre

The perception of the character of the existing road is influenced, in particular, by the current general lack of active frontage along the road, existing low levels of footfall and a historic highway led approach to the design of the corridor. The delivery of the Masterplan will, therefore, play an important role in achieving the overall project objectives by providing opportunities for the creation of stronger and more active built form frontages and edges, new access junctions, higher levels of footfall from new development, new landmark features and improvements to the green grid.

• potential to define gateway • opportunity to improve crossing facilities to support proposed green grid • consider potential for small roundabout • potential to change priority to encourage east-west movement and provide opportunity for defining A325 gateways and improve pedestrian/ cycle crossings

Analysis and Opportunities

• potential for redesign including repaving/surfacing to define local centre • potential for shared pedestrian/cycle route or on road cycle lane • opportunity to improve crossing facilities to support proposed green loop • potential to raise profile of subway

Proposed Green Loop/Grid

Camp Road North

Camp Road

2.10 2.10.1

• potential for off road cycle route dependant on land ownership • this section offers potential for carriageway redesign including narrowing/pinchpoints to calm traffic - land ownership is a potential constraint in this area particularly on the western edge creating a narrow corridor • this narrow character could be reinforced to contribute to traffic calming • opportunity to improve crossing facilities to support proposed green grid/loop

Existing/Potential Pedestrian Link Existing/Potential Cycle Route Existing/Potential Local Landmark

proposed masterplan green loop

Figure 2.2: Opportunities - A325 (North)

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

21

2.10.5

2.10.6

There is a major opportunity for there to be a strong urban design led approach to the A325 which changes the relationship between the town and the road. It is acknowledged that changing the character of the road is not only dependent on the redesign of the highway but is also reliant on new development proposed in the Masterplan to provide more comprehensive change.

Camp Road South

• opportunity to improve crossing facilities to support proposed green grid • potential for shared pedestrian/cycle route or on road cycle lane • Canada Way - potential to enhance crossing facilities

proposed masterplan green grid

Town Centre/High Street

Bu

dd

s

• potential to define key proposed gateways to the proposed town centre area and enhance crossing facilities • potential for new town centre built form to alter character of road corridor • potential to develop a bespoke street design for the town centre to promote sustainable transport modes • opportunity to enhance the economic vitality / viability of the town centre

La

ne

The adjacent figure shows the opportunitiies for the central stretch of the A325.

proposed masterplan public transport hub

Hig h Stre et

proposed masterplan mixed use town centre

Town Centre Potential Access Opportunities • consider time constrained zone - open in evening for takeways/passing trade and allow parking in the evening, with loading only in the day requires management • realign road through proposed public space to slow traffic speeds • consider potential for redirecting traffic through new town centre development to create stronger deterrent for through traffic High Street/Budds Lane Junction Opportunities • define town centre gateway

proposed masterplan residential area

High Street/Chalet Hill Junction Opportunities • consider change in priority to promote High Street/Chalet Hill route • potential for shared space approach linking into new public space • define town centre gateway

proposed masterplan green grid

High Street/Woolmer Way Junction Opportunities • consider junction changes to promote bus, pedestrian and cycle priority • consider change in priority to promote east-west route and define gateway to town centre • define town centre gateway Petersfield Road/High Street/Woolmer Way Roundabout Opportunities • strengthen existing pedestrian crossing points • consider junction with signals • potential to change priority to improve pedestrian and cycle crossings • opportunity to improve crossing facilities to support proposed green grid and to improve crossing point for pedestrians

Figure 2.3: Opportunities - A325 (Central)

22

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Hig h Stre et

Drafts of these analysis and opportunities plans formed the basis of initial community consultation on the project as described in section 3.

proposed masterplan inner relief road option

Viking Park/Employment South • consider potential to create wider eastern footway • opportunity to improve crossing facilities

proposed masterplan employment and commercial leisure mixed use area area

Whitehill Village/ Southern Local Centre

• opportunity to define local centre area through repaving, gateways and branding • opportunity to improve crossing facilities to support proposed green loop • potential to simplify the design of the car park and bus turning areas • potential to realign cycle route adjacent to carriageway • potential to rationalise design of this area and parking bay layout

proposed masterplan green grid Conde

Way

ld R oad

2.10.8

rsfie

The adjacent figure shows the opportunitiies for the southern stretch of the A325.

Pete

2.10.7

proposed masterplan green loop

proposed masterplan inner relief road option

Southern Gateway

• gateway to include signage and branding • proposed inner relief road to be main arm to junction to direct through traffic away from A325 • A325 to be designed as minor arm to discourage through traffic • proposed masterplan inner relief road options includes potential realignment of Liphook Road • opportunity to improve crossing facilities to support proposed green loop • integrate proposed gateway sensitively into surrounding woodland landscape character

proposed masterplan green grid Firgrov

e Road

Liphoo

A325 Petersfield Road

k Road

Figure 2.4: Opportunities - A325 (South)

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

23

24

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

consultation A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

25

3 Consultation 3.1 3.1.1

26

Introduction The stakeholder engagement process for this study included the following key activities: • Project team meetings involving the Halcrow team and client officers from Hampshire County Council and East Hampshire District Council; • Initial stakeholder workshop with the Study Stakeholder group and other stakeholders as part of the Eco-town Standing Conference workshop 29th November; • Meeting with officers from Hampshire County Council and East Hampshire District Council; and • Second stakeholder and public consultation event/drop-in exhibition in March 2013.

3.2 3.2.1

3.3 3.3.1

3.4 3.4.1

A325 Workshop 1 Summary Date: 29th November 2012 Venue : Eco-station, Camp Road.

Background Consultation for this study has built upon the substantial consultation which has already been undertaken for Whitehill & Bordon over recent years as part of the Eco-town Masterplanning process. This workshop formed part of the Whitehill & Bordon Ecotown Standing Conference Meeting.

urpose of the Workshop P This first stakeholder workshop was an important part of the initial stage of the project. The specific objectives of this workshop were to: • explain the purpose and context of the study in the context of the overall Masterplan; • discuss and identify the key urban design issues and transport issues for the A325; • provide an opportunity for the project team to hear the local perspective on urban and transport problems and how the redesign of the A325 might affect businesses, the local economy, and the environment; and • discuss how these problems can be best addressed - looking at initial opportunities for the A325 and agree an overall vision for the A325 from which the design can be progressed.

3.5 3.5.1

orkshop Format W The format for the workshop was as follows: 1. A short introductory presentation was made by the project team covering the background to the study, the Masterplan proposals, design principles and issues for discussion.

3.6 3.6.1

Stakeholder Comments by Section Table 8.1 in the Appendices shows comments made by stakeholders at the workshop as well as comments made at the Whitehill Town Council meeting in November, grouped by area and theme.

2. Break out discussion groups (30 minutes).

• Part 1 - Discuss the key problems and issues for the A325 and suggest any additional issues which need to be addressed.

• Part 2 - Discuss possible solutions and agree key design principles upon which a concept design can be developed.

3. Brief report back by table representatives to main meeting of key conclusions.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

3.7 3.7.1

3.7.2

3.7.3

3.7.4

Public Exhibition The second stakeholder event comprised a drop-in exhibition held in the Forest Centre on Friday 22nd March and Saturday 23rd March.

3.8 3.8.1

The purpose of the exhibition was to present the emerging draft urban design and traffic management proposals for the A325 to key stakeholders and the wider community.

3.8.2

A key objective of the exhibition was to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to comment on draft proposals prior to finalisation.

Halcrow produced display materials for the public exhibition, giving an introduction to the project, including draft proposals plans, with photographs and images to illustrate ideas.

Staff from the project team were on hand to answer questions and provide further information.

3.7.6

A questionnaire was distributed on the day and was also placed on the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town website.

3.7.7

Details of the consultation and copies of the exhibition panels were also available on the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town website, with the feedback form.

In general, the feedback was positive with the majority of people stating that they were comfortable with the proposed enhancements, albeit that some suggested slight amendments to certain aspects.

Where people expressed concern about the suggestions for the A325 this was generally related to a wider concern about the Inner Relief Road. In particular people expressed concern about planning for the A325 when the proposals for the IRR have not yet been confirmed and a small number questioned the IRR in principle.

3.8.4 3.8.5

3.8.6

Question 1 - Overall strategy The exhibition display gave an overview of the ideas and options that together form the emerging urban design and traffic management strategy for the A325. These focussed on redesigning the A325 in a way that is appropriate for reduced levels of traffic flow and helping to promote walking, cycling and public transport, once an IRR is built.

• •

•

Question 1 sought views on the extent to which respondents agreed with the overall approach. Table 8.2 (Appendices) shows that 17 of the 28 respondents stated that they agreed with the approach or agreed subject to some minor amendments. 7 of the 28 were not supportive or did not like some of the elements.

•

3.8.7

3.8.3 3.7.5

Stakeholder Comments The exhibition was attended by 63 people on the Friday and 30 on the Saturday. 28 feedback forms (1 accompanied with a letter) and 1 email were received.

The written comments supporting this question suggest that those who stated that The following sections provide a summary of they did not support the proposals were the responses to each of the questions. concerned about the wider context. Only one of these comments was really about Hav the detail of the urban design and traffic ey our thro say o management proposals. ugh n th Wh e A3 25 iteh • One respondent stated “Without details ill & impr Ad Bor ovem rop -in d ent on. con of the new relief road this tells us nothing. s .. sult atio ne ven Hav The traffic will not just disappear.” Another t is For ey bein est our gh Com eld s a thro (who did not vote specifically for this y at t mu he nity ugh on th Frid Cen Wh e A3 ay o t i tequestion re n 22n Sat hill 25 imp but completed the comments dM urd &B rov Ad arc ay r ord said e o p-in h 23r section) on. me“I ntsdon’t know how to vote con d M and from .. sult arc 1 p so t atio m-8 h fr hat n pm om eve because the plans look fantastic but de re nt is 10a the sign a sident For bein m-1 n s A32 est gh .

5 t o d t r a ff i c a n h 3 C 0pm eldbe considered in conjunction with should om enc c ma ave t at t mu he pro ourag nage heir s nity pos m a e F y on thro ent C r ed i d e the relief road which has not been decided ntre ay inne ugh prop urb o n 2 a o Sat r re t 2nd So l i e f r a ff i c t s a l s f o n urd M com ou roa r arc ay se t upon yet.” d. ea h 23r he long d M and from arc and 1pm so t h l h -8p • A nother was concerned about the from des at res thinet us k m ign iden 10a n k t h . o e a w ts c The m-1 nd A32 wha a t exh ra .30 5 to interaction between the A325 and the n t yo ibitio pm e n ff i c m h a v e u nm at pro courag anage their s pos m ww erial c a e y e Green Loop and said “I am very worried t w.w n h an ed als hit inne rough t prop on urb an osa from ehillbo o be v r re traf So iew l rdo f l s 25t i i c ef r f ed n. com hM the route of the green loop at the oad toabout onli use or arc com ea ne . h. the at long and Whitehill end between Conde Way and let u The

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

thin

exh

ibitio

k. s know

wha

nm at ww erial c w.w an als hit from ehillbo o be v ie rd 25t h M on.co wed o nlin arc h. m e

at

•

Liphook Crossing. The new A325 route being crossed by the green loop is a nightmare waiting to happen.”

One respondent felt there is no need for the IRR. One was concerned about the impact of the IRR and stated “The IRR will run through a residential area, past the doors of several schools. It will create more problems than it solves.”

One was concerned about narrowing the road.

One questioned the whole eco-town strategy saying “The A325 is not the problem, just a symptom. (The) problem is trying to develop a bigger town in the wrong location.” Another respondent, who did not respond to the tick box part of Question 1 but used the comments section, expressed a similar view and was concerned that there would be no money to finance any of the plans.

One felt that money would be better spent on footways and cycleways.

3.8.8

In addition, several of the people who said they supported the proposals caveated their response saying that it was dependent on final decisions on the IRR.

3.8.9 3.8.10

Question 2 – Key Proposals Question 2 listed the key proposals and asked people to say whether they supported each, had no view, or did not support the concept. Respondents were then asked to highlight their top three priorities.

3.8.11

Table 8.3 (Appendices) shows that the majority of respondents supported all of the proposals. Every proposal was supported

t yo u

27

by 16 or more of the 28 respondents. The elements of the proposals that people seemed most concerned about were: • Traffic calming. 7 respondents did not support this.

• In carriageway bus stops. 4 respondents did not support this.

• 20mph zone. 4 respondents did not support this.

3.8.12

The written comments in support of this question were used by a small number of respondents to express concern about the link between the A325 proposals and the IRR. One person stated “It all sounds wonderful but totally depends on the relief road.”

importance of native tree planting and called for improvements for pedestrians and cyclists in the short term.

3.8.15

3.8.16

3.8.17 3.8.13

3.8.14

28

Whitehill Town Council provided a detailed response to this question. They listed the following requirements.

• “Clear demarcation required at crossing points.

• Lay-by opposite One Stop shop be retained.

• Provision of new lay-bys for buses where there is prolonged traffic waiting.

• Keep tree screens. Add native tress to screen wall by maisonettes.

• Gateways required where IRR starts and finishes and gateways engender a sense of place.

• Need to emphasise the South Downs National Park when leaving Whitehill.

• Traffic lights are needed to be sequenced.”

The most popular elements of the proposals were related to trees/planting and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. Several of the written comments emphasised the

3.8.18 3.8.19

Question 2 also asked respondents to prioritise the elements. The results are shown in Table 8.4 (Appendices). This question was only answered by 15 of the 28 respondents and not everyone listed 3 priorities.

The creation of a high quality town centre with a street design to promote walking, cycling and public transport was prioritised by the majority of respondents (9 people listed this in their top 3).

The 20mph limit was prioritised in the top 3 by 7 people and the general proposals to traffic calm the road were prioritised in the top 3 by 6 people. It is interesting to note that traffic calming and 20mph speed limits were also cited in Question 1 as a reason that some people did not support the scheme – the data therefore suggests that opinion may be divided over these issues

Question 3 – Junction Improvements Question 3 asked for views on a number of initial junction options. Opinions were fairly divided, as shown in Table 8.5 (Appendices).

The written comments were also very varied.

Some people felt that traffic signals were the best option as they would keep the traffic moving, whilst others felt that roundabouts would be most appropriate. Several people commented that they found it difficult to discuss these details without understanding the final IRR proposals.

3.8.20 3.8.21

Question 4 - Other improvements Question 4 gave people an opportunity to list other improvements that they might like to see. The comments made were very varied.

They are shown in Table 8.6 (Appendices).

3.8.22 3.8.23

Question 5 - Other comments Question 5 provided an opportunity for respondents to note additional comments.

The majority of comments noted here reiterated previous comments about the relationship of this project to the IRR.

3.8.24

One respondent (via email) made detailed comments and expressed concern that the proposals did not go far enough to deter drivers from using the A325 concluding that “Essentially there is nothing to discourage drivers using the A325 as they do today.”

3.8.25

Table 8.7 (Appendices) provides a full list of all the comments made under this question.

3.8.26 3.8.27

Question 6 – Rebranding the Road Question 6 asked how people would like to see the road named. Opinions were divided and a number of suggestions were made, as shown in Table 8.8 (Appendices). The majority of respondents were supportive of the idea to rebrand the road. Several were keen to retain a historical link. Whitehill Town Council made a specific request to be involved in discussions about the rebranding.

3.8.28 3.8.29

Consultation Response The Strategy has responded to the consultation in a number of way and has been amended to respond to the following issues:• strengthen gateways to the town, referencing both the entrance to Whitehill, and Bordon, and links to the South Downs National Park; • importance of enhancing the town centre and the design of new development and streetscape design; • strongly define the town centre gateways and traffic calming in this area; • importance of the landscape and tree planting; • enhance setting of War Memorial and local centres; • importance of changing the fundamental character of the road to promote pedestrian and cycle use.

3.8.30

Many comments related to the design and implementation of the IRR which should be addressed through the next stages of this project. In particular, comments related to the key gateway role of the proposed junction of the IRR and the A325. The next stage of this project should also consider how the green loop relates to the IRR reflecting comments in this consultation.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

strategy A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

29

4 Strategy 4.1 4.1.1

Introduction This section sets out the key design principles for the scheme and the strategy for the A325. The scheme development embraces the aims of the wider Masterplan objectives.

4.1.2

The aim is to adopt a comprehensive approach which integrates both the design of the public realm with traffic management.

The key development sites proposed in the Masterplan in particular provide opportunities for interaction with public space to be maximised.

4.1.3

The design principles have been formulated in response to the project brief and have been refined following the baseline review, character analysis and through stakeholder input.

4.1.4

The wider Whitehill & Bordon Traffic Management and Walking and Cycling Strategies make a variety of recommendations concerning the A325.

Being part of relatively high level strategies for Whitehill and Bordon as a whole, such recommendations informed but did not necessarily dictate possibilities in this study.

Most importantly, the proposals presented in this document are more holistic in nature, combining traffic engineering and urban realm solutions in a complementary manner.

30

4.2 4.2.1

Design Principles The key urban design principles are: • To re-design the A325 for reduced levels of traffic movement; • To promote the A325 corridor for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, and retain the A325 for local access; • To reduce the attractiveness of the A325 to through-traffic and encourage these users to access the proposed Inner Relief Road as the primary route; • To design the street to make it safer for walking and cycling and to address issues of community safety; • To improve existing crossing points to encourage more walking and cycling; • Redesign the A325 so that it is better configured to accommodate East-West local movement; • To improve the image and identity of the area and support town centre regeneration; • To create a distinctive identity, brand and style for the streetscape; • To create and define the principal gateways to the town and along the A325; • To create a high quality public realm and landscape; • To integrate new development with the existing community; and • To design the streetscape to consider maintenance and management issues and long term sustainability.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

4.3 4.3.1

Traffic Management This section describes the traffic management strategy (provided in a separate Traffic Management Strategy technical note) in terms of the following: • segmentation of the A325; • vehicular traffic design demands; • proposed speed limits and targets; • highway proposals; and • eliminated possibilities.

4.3.2

Repeated reference is made in the following discussion to Figure 4.1 and Table 4.2.

Terminology. The terms “shared space” and “naked street” are used repeatedly in this document, particularly in this section. They refer to a range of design types and settings, real or intended, as well as the design approaches that lead to those design types and settings. Shared space seeks to reduce vehicle dominance, primarily through lower speeds and encouraging drivers to behave more accommodatingly towards pedestrians. Because sites differ, there is no such thing as a definitive shared space design. Naked streets are simply less cluttered, clearer and, as a result, safer street environments.

4.4 4.4.1

Segmentation of A325 The development of an effective traffic management strategy for almost any situation, involves the identification and development of street character types on a location specific basis, each reflecting a particular balance between the place and movement functions.1 Figure 4.1 shows the segmentation proposed for the A325 as it passes through Whitehill and Bordon.

4.4.2

Overall, 16 distinct elements are identified, 11 of which road sections and 5 of which key junctions. Each reflects or borders a distinct character area for which separate attention is required.

4.4.3

At least 3 of the 5 key junctions connect road sections of differing character and function – namely, the junctions of the A325 with Station Road, Chalet Hill and Woolmer Way North. These junctions will therefore not only need to fulfil a traffic function commensurate with the traffic (vehicular and non vehicular) they must carry, but also fulfil an integrating role between adjacent but differing sections of the A325.

1

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

See pages 7 and 8 of Manual for Streets 2, CIHT, 2010.

Figure 4.1: A325 Sections, Design Flows and Speeds

31

4.5 4.5.1

Vehicular Design Demands Figure 4.1 also shows the design volumes for the different sections of the road in terms of maximum weekday hourly vehicular traffic flows. 2010 and 2036 baseline flows (the latter with planned development but without the IRR) are also shown to indicate how design flows relate to relatively recent flows on the A325 or projected flows on the A325.

4.5.2

Table 4.2 presents the same design flow information shown on Figure 4.1 as well as average weekday inter peak and 24 hour vehicular traffic flows. All of the traffic flow information presented in Figure 4.1 and Table 4.2 is extracted or estimated from model information presented in the Transport Assessment. A full discussion of design flows, which reflect Scenario 7 of the Transport Assessment, can be found in the Traffic Baseline Technical Note.

4.5.3

The traffic relief that the proposed IRR and proposed traffic management on the A325 are expected to yield – not only relative to future possible demands but also current demands – is clearly evident in Figure 4.1 and Table 4.2. Decreases of this order present significant opportunities for traffic management treatments and interventions that effect tangible changes in street operation and use and urban fabric.

32

4.5.4

erhaps the most important things to P note about the maximum weekday hourly vehicular traffic flows - the most important flows for proposal development - in Figure 4.1 and Table 4.2 are: • the generally flat link flow profile over the length of the road, varying between a minimum of 1,050 in the Bordon town centre area and maximums of 1,325 between Budds Lane and Chalet Hill and to the north of Station Road; • a significant dip in flow between Chalet Hill and Woolmer Way North; • slightly higher flows generally on the northern half of the road (i.e. north of Chalet Hill) than on the southern half; and • significant flows at the junctions of the A325 with Station Road and Conde Way (2,050 and 1,850 vehicles per hour respectively).

4.5.5

xamination of the weekday 24 hour E vehicular traffic flows figures in Table 4.2 shows vehicular link flows generally in the order of 12,000 to 15,000. In only one instance – the section of the A325 between Chalet Hill and Woolmer Way North – are flows near 10,000. At the junctions of the A325 with Station Road and Chalet Hill weekday flows are in the order of 21,000 and 14,000 respectively. Flows of this magnitude have significant implications for cycle provision, more radical “shared space” solutions and the type of traffic calming and speed reduction techniques utilised.

4.6 4.6.1

roposed Speeds P Figure 4.1 and Table 4.2 also show speed limit proposals for the entire length of the A325 as it passes through Whitehill and Bordon. Significantly, a 20mph speed limit is not proposed for the entire length of the A325 because it is not believed it can be credibly imposed. Further, to avoid frequent and short-length speed limit changes over the length of the road, a 20mph posted speed limit is only proposed between Budds Lane and Woolmer Way North. Respecting opportunity and guidance , however, design speeds below 30mph and as close to 20mph as possible are proposed for the two other locations where significant pedestrian presence already exists or can be expected in future – namely, the sections of the A325: • adjacent the Northern Local Centre; and • running through Whitehill right up to the junction with Liphook Road.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

4.6.2

here is at least one other section of the T A325 where speeds lower than 30mph are desirable in theory, particularly given accident records, but which will be difficult to credibly achieve in practice. The section in view comprises the Camp Road section of the A325 between Station and Ennerdale Roads. The extended gateway environment proposed for the section of road adjacent the Eco-Station and bank will help to heighten driver awareness and slow traffic substantially – ideally, below 30mph. Between the bank and Ennerdale Road, however, it will be more difficult. As proposals and designs are developed for this section of road, roadway and roadside features should be identified and incorporated which heighten driver awareness of potential pedestrian and cycle presence at the very least and, if possible, actually encourage lower vehicular speeds generally (i.e. below 30mph if not quite as low as 20mph) irrespective of the presence of pedestrians and cyclists. The location of a public amenity or feature of some type to the immediate north of the war memorial might be a consideration.

4.6.3

oadway environments are proposed R elsewhere (e.g. the Northern and Southern Local Centres and the Southern Gateway and the section of Camp Road between the Northern Local Centre and Budds Lane) which encourage lower vehicular speeds (tending towards but not necessarily as low as 20mph).

4.7 4.7.1

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

ighway Proposals H The traffic management proposals developed for the A325 as it passes through Whitehill and Bordon are indicated in Table 4.2 in terms of lower cost and higher cost options.

4.7.2

eatures of the traffic management F proposals are: • retention of the wooded and winding northern section of the A325 to the north of Station Road effectively “as is”, but with a gateway feature immediately south of the new Farnham Road and IRR junction; • the improvement of off road pedestrian footways and shared pedestrian/cycle ways on the A325 over the entire length of the road; • narrower carriageway generally in the vicinity of Canada Way; • an off-road cycle/pedestrian path in the open green area to the east of the northern section of the A325 or right up against the eastern side of the A325 towards Canada Way; • more “shared space” – oriented measures for the sections of the A325: - adjacent the Northern Local Centre; - between Budds Lane and Woolmer Way North; and - running through Whitehill right up to the junction with Liphook Road; • pinched up side road junctions generally and significant changes in junction configuration at Station Road and Chalet Hill; • rationalised parking and loading provision in the Bordon town centre and Whitehill vicinities; • a gateway feature immediately north of Liphook Road; and • in carriageway bus stops everywhere except in the vicinity of Chalet Hill.

33

4.8 4.8.1

4.8.2

4.8.3

34

Network Resilience All of the measures proposed in Table 4.2 have traffic calming and carrying implications, such that the A325 will be less able than it currently is to carry large volumes of traffic – particularly, through traffic. The addition of the IRR to the broader road network, a prerequisite for a traffic managed and calmed A325 through Whitehill and Bordon, however, will enhance rather than undermine the road network’s general ability to carry traffic compared to the present.

Overall, therefore, network resilience will improve rather than reduce. Further, because of the type of traffic management measures possible for use on the A325, the A325 will still be configured to accommodate through traffic, albeit at significantly reduced levels compared to the present, should the IRR become unavailable for any reason. ignalised junction control generally offers S greater options for traffic management during traffic incidents. The retention of signalised control at the junctions of the A325 with Station Road and Chalet Hill, therefore, might be preferred over the other options that are proposed. This is noted in Table 4.2.

Further more detailed work is required to resolve this issue.

4.9 4.9.1

Utilities Drawings of existing utilities over the full length of the A325 were supplied to Halcrow

by Hampshire County Council to inform and sense check option estimates. As one would expect, and confirming site observations, there are an extensive number of utilities present within the highway over the entire length of the A325, much of which close to or right up against the existing carriageway.

Further, at points along the road utility presence is particularly concentrated. While it is impossible to anticipate actual utility protection and relocation costs, known utility presence justifies generous contingency estimates and/or optimism biases (see Appendices).

4.10 4.10.1

Eliminated Possibilities One of the objectives of the proposals development exercise was to: • develop proposals that reflect the best choice or combination of traffic management and urban realm possibilities given technical, financial and local factors; while • suitably acknowledging and eliminating realistic alternatives, particularly those with technical merit and stakeholder support.

4.10.3

On road cycle provision. The Walking and Cycling Strategy recommends 1.5m minimum width on road cycleways on both sides of the A325 carriageway over its entire length.

Unfortunately, traffic volumes over significant lengths of the A325, even after the IRR is implemented, will still be of magnitudes that argue against on-road cycling for all but proficient cyclists. Thus, efforts have been taken to provide an on-road environment that accommodates cycle presence but does not necessarily encourage cycle use.

4.10.2

Halcrow believes that the proposals described in Table 4.2 reflect the best choice or combination of traffic management possibilities given technical, financial and local factors. The following identifies the most significant alternatives to those finally chosen and the primary reasons for their elimination.

4.10.4

Road centre line removal. Removal of the road centre line on straighter sections of the A325 to the north of Station Road, and, possibly, the provision of road edge lining along the same sections, were considered.

However, (1) the winding nature of the road (albeit gentle) and (2) traffic volumes on it argue against removal of centre line as well as anything that suggests formal in road cycle provision, especially if it is not continuous.

4.10.5

Discontinuous A325 and town centre diversion. One of the possibilities considered to discourage through traffic on the A325 comprised the actual or effective closure of the A325 in the vicinity of Chalet Hill with the provision of a diversion through the new town centre. This was dismissed because of (1) a principal commitment to retain A325 continuity and (2) a need to follow the Masterplan layout structure.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

4.10.6 4.10.7

Full “shared space” arrangements.

Although the IRR will substantially relieve the A325 – both relative to future possible demands and also current demands – and allow the application of shared space techniques to varying degrees along the A325, volumes will still be of an order that precludes more radical “shared space” arrangements. Weekday 24 hour vehicular traffic flows generally in the order of 12,000 to 15,000 are expected. In only one instance – the section of the A325 between Chalet Hill and Woolmer Way North – are flows near 10,000. At the junctions of the A325 with Station Road and Chalet Hill weekday flows are in the order of 21,000 and 14,000 respectively.

4.10.8

20mph speed limit over entire length.

A 20mph speed limit is not proposed for the entire length of the A325 because it cannot be credibly imposed without resorting to the type of traffic calming measures usually used in 20mph zones and which would not be pertinent to a road carrying the traffic volumes the A325 is predicted to carry. A 20mph speed limit, however, is proposed between Budds Lane and Woolmer Way North and low design speed targets (below 30mph and as close to 20mph as possible) are proposed for the other two locations where significant pedestrian presence already exists or can be expected in future.

4.10.9

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

20mph speed limits wherever significant pedestrian presence exists or is expected.

20mph speed limits are not proposed for all locations where significant pedestrian presence already exists or can be expected in future because speed limit posting guidance discourages frequent changes in speed limit. Indeed, the minimum length of a speed limit should generally not be less than 600m. Accordingly, speed limit proposals for the A325 assume a 30mph limit generally with 20mph only on the approaches to and through Bordon town centre (i.e. Budds Lane to Woolmer Way North). Roadway environments are proposed elsewhere (e.g. the Northern and Southern Local Centres and the Southern Gateway and the section of Camp Road between the Northern Local Centre and Budds Lane) which encourage vehicular speeds below 30mph, but not necessarily as low as 20mph.

4.10.10 Vertical and Lateral Traffic Calming Measures. Amongst the general toolbox of traffic calming measures are vertical and lateral calming treatments like speed humps or tables, chicanes and one way priority narrowing. None of these measures were adopted for traffic calming purposes on the A325 because of the traffic volumes and types involved.

35

   

   

              

  

  

  

 







  



  



  



  



•  •     













•  •      •  •     •       •               

Table 4.2: A325 Traffic Management Strategy

36

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

  

   



   

              

  

  

  











   



   

                       

 

  

  

  



   

























•  •              •  •     •  •    •   •  •          •  •          •   •     • •                  •  •     •    •  •     •      •   •  

Table 4.2: A325 Traffic Management Strategy

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

37

  

 



  



 

  

    

  

     

              

  

  





  

  





  

  





  

  





  

  





  



  

  



  

  

 



















  

  





























  

  

     





•  •   •   •  •  •    •  •  •  •  •  •  •     •      •  •     •     

•     •  •  •  •  •   •     •   •   •  •    •  •  •   •  

•   •  •  •  

Table 4.2: A325 Traffic Management Strategy

38

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

              

      

   

  



  

  



  

  



  

 









    













•  

•  •  

•     •   •   •   •   •   •     •  

•    •     •    •   •      •   •   •   •     •  

   

  

 



  



Table 4.2: A325 Traffic Management Strategy

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

39

  

            

 

 





•      •  •  •  •  •                    •          

 

40

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Overarching Design Strategy The overarching design strategy for the A325 is shown in Figures 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 which presents the key elements of the design strategy.

Key Masterplan Land Uses

Northern Employment • potential location to define gateway to the town • design to be sensitive to surrounding woodland landscape character

proposed masterplan inner relief road options proposed masterplan employment area proposed masterplan green grid

Farnha m Road

4.11 4.11.1

• propose redesign of junction, improve crossing facilities and define gateway to the town

ad n Ro

o

Stati

Northern Gateway (A325/Station Road/Lindford Road Junction) Analysis and Opportunities Existing/Potential Node/junction Proposed Green Loop/Grid Existing/Potential Pedestrian Link Existing/Potential Cycle Route

Camp Road North

• potential for off road cycle/pedestrian route subject to land owner consent • limited potential for carriageway redesign • traffic calming

Camp Road

Northern Local Centre • propose redesign including repaving/surfacing to define local centre and to improve crossing facilities to support proposed green loop

Existing/Potential Local Landmark

proposed masterplan green loop

Figure 4.2: Overarching Design Strategy Diagram (North)

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

41

4.11.2

proposed masterplan green grid

Camp Road South

• propose improvements to crossing facilities to support proposed green grid

Bu

dd

s

La

ne

proposed masterplan public transport hub

The strategy seeks to provide a comprehensive approach and focusses on key interventions at the following points:• Northern Employment; • Northern/Eco-station Gateway; • Camp Road North; • Northern Local Centre; • Camp Road South; • Town Centre/High Street; • Employment South; • Whitehill Village/Southern Local Centre; and • Southern Gateway.

Hig h Stre et

proposed masterplan mixed use town centre

Town Centre/High Street

• propose 20 mph zone and develop a bespoke street design for the town centre to promote sustainable transport modes • define gateways to town centre

proposed masterplan residential area

proposed masterplan green grid

Figure 4.3: Overarching Design Strategy Diagram (Central)

42

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Hig h Stre et

proposed masterplan inner relief road option

Employment South

• improve crossing facilities to support proposed green grid • retain existing woodland character • limited potential for carriageway redesign in this area

Conde

Way

rsfie

proposed masterplan employment and commercial leisure mixed use area area

proposed masterplan green grid

ld R oad

The key proposals reflected along the A325 corridor are to: • extend the existing shared footway/ cycleway south of the town centre northwards to the Eco-station gateway; • retain the existing tree-lined/woodland character of the A325; • create a defined gateway for the Ecostation area; • define and traffic calm the northern local centre; • propose a 20mph zone for the town centre/High Street area and a more pedestrian friendly public realm; • enhance the Whitehill Village/Southern Local Centre to provide a bespoke streetscape; and • define the southern gateway to create a distinctive entry point.

Pete

4.11.3

Whitehill Village/ Southern Local Centre

• enhance the local shopping area through repaving, street furniture and branding • improve crossing facilities to support proposed green loop

proposed masterplan green loop

proposed masterplan inner relief road option proposed masterplan green grid

Southern Gateway

• define gateway to the town • improve crossing facilities to support proposed green grid

Firgrov

e Road

Liphoo

A325 Petersfield Road

k Road

Figure 4.4: Overarching Design Strategy Diagram (South)

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

43

44

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

concept proposals A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

45

5 Concept Proposals 5.1 5.1.1

Introduction This section illustrates and describes the key concept proposals for the A325 from north to south.

5.2 5.2.1

Concept Option Development Further to the production of the overarching design strategy the design approach was refined into two options.

5.2.2

The two options were produced to provide a range of lower and higher cost interventions. Both options include the introduction of a 20mph zone for the town centre area and seek to create key gateway features to define the area and reinforce the character of the town and sense of place.

5.2.3

The following section presents initial concept ideas for the areas and a description of proposals and sketch options for each stretch of the road.

5.3 5.3.1

Northern Employment Area Potential changes to this stretch of the A325 are closely linked to Masterplan proposals and delivery. The proposed Masterplan employment area and options for the IRR will play a key role in defining the character of the A325 in this stretch.

5.3.2

The junction of the A325 and the IRR will form a gateway to the employment area and should be designed in such a way as to deter through traffic from using the A325.

5.3.3

The design of the employment area is also important in terms of the proposed frontage on to the A325 , particularly where the A325 meets Station Road/Lindford Road. The potential for providing a cycle route through the new employment area should also be explored.

Figure 8.1: Northern Employment Area concept diagram

46

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

5.4 5.4.1

Northern/Eco-station Gateway The design aim for this key area of the town is to create a high quality gateway to the Eco-station area and to mark the entrance to this part of the Eco-town.

5.4.2

The presence of the Eco-station in this area presents an opportunity to define the space outside the Eco-station, to provide gateway features to define the Eco-town brand, and to traffic calm this area.

5.4.3

Two options were presented to local stakeholders for this area. Option A retains the existing signalised junction and acknowledges that there may be potential to reduce the size of the junction.

5.4.4

Adjacent to the Eco-station it is proposed to create a more traffic calmed environment by through a streetscape and paving design which responds to the Eco-station building.

5.4.5

A common feature of both options is the proposal for a shared cycle/footway on the western side of the A325.

5.4.6

The Masterplan shows the proposed green grid north of the junction. Design proposals seek to integrate these proposed cycling and pedestrian routes with the A325 by enhancing crossing facilities in this area.

5.4.7

The Masterplanning process also needs to consider how cycling infrastructure is continued northwards through the proposed northern employment area.

5.4.8

The proposed Masterplan employment area has an important role in defining this space, and there is potential to provide a built frontage onto the junction area.

Figure 8.2: Option A - Eco-station gateway concept diagram

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

47

5.4.9

48

The photographs above show the woodland character of the area to the north of the junction and the existing wide signalised junction.

5.4.10

The sketch above gives an impression of the design approach which could be implemented in this area.

5.4.11

A combination of carriageway redesign, repaving and signage would positively mark the gateway and define the area adjacent to the Eco-station.

5.4.12

In this area there is potential to create a new gateway feature/sign to reflect the adjacent Eco-station. The proposed gateways to the town could be defined with new signage and public art. The images above show examples of gateway features/signs which could be appropriate for the town.These examples have been selected to reflect the woodland character and to show how locally sourced timber could be used in a creative way to contribute to local character and local distinctiveness.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

5.4.13

5.4.14

An alternative option B for this area (shown below in Figure 8.3) is to explore the potential for a more compact roundabout. The roundabout option was suggested in the Traffic Management Strategy and was also suggested by local stakeholders.

Comments made by Hampshire County Council officers with regard to network resilience have also been noted, expressing the desire to retain signal control.

5.4.15

The existing wide verge in this area and existing tree and hedge planting create a strong landscape character to this part of the town.

5.4.16

A longer term proposal is to explore the potential for an off road cycle route. This proposal is subject to land owner agreement and as part of any future redevelopment in the area.

Further work is required on assessing the impact of proposals on network resilience and to identify the best option in urban design and traffic management terms.

5.4.17

The adjacent image shows the alternative sketch option for the roundabout and the potential off road cycle route.

Figure 8.3: Option B - Eco-station gateway concept diagram

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Sketch view looking north

49

5.5 5.5.1

Camp Road North and Local Centre North The straight character of Camp Road North presents a challenge in terms of traffic calming.

5.5.2

In the northern part of this section, there is a need for kerb realignment to address the existing pinch point, in order to accommodate the shared footway/cycleway. Interventions at this point provide an opportunity for a change in materials and an informal crossing point, which if suitably designed, can serve to slow traffic speeds.

5.5.3

The area adjacent to the One Stop Shop and Ennerdale Road represents another opportunity to both enhance the environment of this area and to create a more traffic calmed character.

5.5.4

In the adjacent option it is proposed to define the space around the existing war memorial and Post Office, and to provide crossing facilities linking into the proposed Masterplan ‘green loop’.

5.5.5

This area is to be further defined by signage features for the local centre and the proposed cycleway/green loop.

Figure 8.4: Option A - Local Centre North concept diagram

50

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

5.5.6

The alternative option B (shown in Figure 8.5) below proposes a similar, but more extensive approach to this area, linking the Post Office area with the One Stop shop and the War Memorial.

The extent to which this is possible will depend on the level of available funding.

5.5.7

By redesigning the road and adjacent public realm to create a higher quality environment, there is potential to provide a more extensive traffic calmed area.

5.5.8

The feasibility of implementing this option will depend on the overall scheme budget and the need to consider urban design and traffic management objectives within the context of budget constraints and competing priorities. However, there are safety issues in this area to be addressed due to the poor traffic accident record outside the One Stop Shop.

5.5.9

There is also potential for a longer term off road cycle route option in this stretch of the A325, which is again subject to land owner agreement and as part of any future redevelopment in this area.

Figure 8.5: Option B - Local Centre North concept diagram

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

51

5.5.10

The Post Office area presents an opportunity to define the streetscape in this area and introduce traffic calming measures.

5.5.11

The sketch below shows how the area could look compared to the existing situation.

Sketch view of Post Office area

52

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

5.5.12

The streetscape design implemented in Petersfield (see photograph below) both defines junctions and crossing points and also serves to slow traffic speeds.

5.5.13

The adjacent examples also show how built features can be reflected in the paving design.

Sketch view looking north

5.5.14

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

The image above shows how a longer term off road cycle option in this stretch of the A325 could be located on the eastern side of the A325, which is again subject to land owner agreement.

53

5.5.15

The central stretch of Camp Road retains the similar straight character to the previous section and is also characterised by a wide verge on the eastern side of the A325 with mature trees and hedging.

5.5.16

The western side of the A325 is defined by a high brick wall which forms the boundary to 3 storey maisonettes.

5.5.17

In general terms, there is more limited scope to change the design of the A325 in this stretch. The continuation of the shared cycle/footway on the western side of the A325 is a key proposal, as are proposals for new crossing points and links to Masterplan ‘green grid’ proposals.

5.5.18

There is also scope for additional tree and bulb planting to create a stronger ‘boulevard’ character, although this is subject to both landowner consent and the location of utilities in the area.

Figure 8.6: Option A - Camp Road South concept diagram

54

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

5.5.19

The longer term proposal for an off road cycle route on the eastern side of the A325, is again subject to land owner agreement and as part of any future redevelopment in this area.

Figure 8.7: Option B - Camp Road South concept diagram

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

55

5.6 5.6.1

Town Centre Gateway (North) The junction with Budds Lane provides an opportunity to create a gateway to the town centre and the proposed 20mph zone.

5.6.2

This option identifies the need to explore the potential for redesigning the Budds Lane junction as a tighter priority junction.

Figure 8.8: Option A - Camp Road South/Budds Lane concept diagram

56

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

5.6.3

The alternative approach is to examine the potential to design the Budds Lane junction as a mini-roundabout.

5.6.4

There is also potential to redesign the Canada Way junction to provide a consistent treatment to junctions along Camp Road and to unify the character of the road. Again, these more extensive proposals are subject to available funding.

Figure 8.9: Option B - Camp Road South/Budds Lane concept diagram

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

57

5.6.5

58

The Budds Lane junction (photograph below) marks the entrance to the proposed Masterplan town centre area.

5.6.6

In order to contribute to the proposed town centre character, it is necessary for the streetscape design to respond to this change in land use.

5.6.7

The adjacent photographs show examples of schemes which have used differing paving and design treatments to define gateways, junctions and crossing points.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

5.6.8

The more extensive proposals for the town centre propose a central median strip which runs the length of the town centre 20mph zone. The purpose of the median strip is to both slow traffic and to facilitate pedestrian movement.

5.6.9

The adjacent photographs show examples of central median strips, crossings and gateway features to calm traffic, define the 20mph zone and support pedestrian movement.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

59

5.7 5.7.1

Town Centre The Masterplan proposed major changes to the town centre area which will have a significantly more urban ‘feel’ in the future upon implementation of the Masterplan.

5.7.2

Two options are presented on the adjacant plans. Both options propose a 20 mph zone and a bespoke street design to create a higher quality environment which contributes to traffic calming.

Both options propose the shared footway/cycleway on the western side of the A325, and propose new paving, street furniture and signage to define the 20mph zone. The existing on street parking regime is also retained, although the Masterplan proposed that the existing car park is to be redesigned as a new civic space.

5.7.3

This section of the High Street also includes the proposed public transport hub as proposed in the Masterplan. The proposed public realm in the public transport hub area should be designed to be ‘seamless’ with the adjacent A325 public realm and provide continuity in terms of design approach, paving materials and street furniture.

5.7.4

The adjacent option retains the signalised junction but suggests the need to explore a more compact layout.

Figure 8.9: Option A - High Street/Chalet Hill concept diagram

60

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

5.7.5

The alternative option (adjacent) continues the more extensive redesign of the town centre including the central median strip.

5.7.6

In this option the signalised junction is replaced by a compact roundabout (or potential ‘squareabout’). Again, previous comments about network resilience and the desire by Hampshire County Council officers to retain signal control has been noted and further work is required in this area.

5.7.7

This option provides more extensive repaving of the public realm, including footways, carriageway and parking/loading bays.

Figure 8.10: Option B - High Street/Chalet Hill concept diagram

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

61

5.7.8

The photographs above show the existing car park with existing mature trees. There is potential to retain these trees in the Masterplan through the creation of a new civic space, which should link seamlessly into the public realm of the A325.

5.7.9

The photographs above shows examples of differing approaches to public space character.

5.7.10

The wide character of the existing road through the town centre presents an opportunity for a central median strip in this area as part of the comprehensive redesign of this area.

Sketch view of town centre looking south

62

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Sketch view of existing town centre

5.7.11

The adjacent photographs show examples of possible design approaches appropriate for the town centre.

5.7.12

A bespoke treatment for the town centre could include street furniture, such as cycle racks and seating to provide local distinctiveness. The adjacent photographs show different approaches from recent public realm schemes which could be applied to the town centre.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

63

5.8 5.8.1

Town Centre Gateway (South) This section includes the key southern gateway to the town centre 20 mph zone.

5.8.2

In the adjacent option the existing signalised junction is retained, and it is proposed to define the town centre gateway with signage and repaving.

5.8.3

The area to the south of the superstore junction is characterised by the superstore building and car park and the strong belt of mature trees on the western side of the A325.

5.8.4

The green grid route proposed in the masterplan through this part of the town centre will require careful integration and further work to establish feasibility. In particular, this movement route should be sensitively located through new development, which will provide an oppoortunity to enhance the quality of the overall environment of the route. It is anticipated that the green grid in this area will have an urban character reflecting the town centre location.

Figure 8.11: Option A - High Street/Woolmer Way concept diagram

64

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

5.8.5

The option shown below reflects the more extensive and comprehensive enhancement of the town centre streetscape.

5.8.8

The adjacent photographs show a number of approaches to gateway features, signs and structures.

5.8.6

There is potential to explore the reduction in size of the existing junction and increase the adjacent public space.

5.8.9

5.8.7

The redesign of the town centre public realm to the superstore junction provides a logical point for both the 20mph zone and for a bespoke streetscape design to end.

The extent and type of gateway features will depend on the approach taken and the budget available, but there are obvious urban design benefits in terms of creating new landmarks which can contribute to a distinctive sense of place.

Figure 8.12: Option B - High Street/Woolmer Way concept diagram

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Sketch view of town centre looking north

65

5.9 5.9.1

Conde Way/Woolmer Way Roundabout This stretch of the A325 includes existing and proposed employment areas. There is an existing shared cycle/pedestrian footpath which runs along the western side of the A325 and the area is defined by strong belts of trees and woodland.

5.9.2

There is limited scope for changing the character of the A325 in this stretch but there are opportunities to improve crossing points to link in with the proposed green grid.

5.9.3

The landscape strategy for the A325 seeks to strengthen the existing woodland character of the town. In the employment areas it is important to retain and enhance the woodland character along the A325 through proactive management and appropriate planting.

Figure 8.13: Option A - Petersfield Road/Conde Way/Woolmer Way concept diagram

66

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

5.9.4

In the option below a stronger approach to defining existing crossing points is taken, including the potential provision of a Toucan crossing as proposed in the Walking and Cycling Strategy, although this may be subject to funding.

Figure 8.14: Option B - Petersfield Road/Conde Way/Woolmer Way concept diagram

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

67

5.10 5.10.1

Viking Park Employment Area There is also limited scope for changes to this section of the A325. The major opportunity is in exploring the redesign of the Viking Park employment area junction, and in enhancing pedestrian and cycle crossing points, which are shown to varying degrees of redesign in Options A and B.

Figure 8.15: Option A - Petersfield Road/Viking Park concept diagram

68

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Figure 8.16: Option B - Petersfield Road/Viking Park concept diagram

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

69

5.11 5.11.1

Whitehill Village/Southern Local Centre The Whitehill Village/Southern Local Centre area is another key area for public realm improvement. There is an opportunity to strengthen the character of the local shopping area through a consistent approach to paving design and street furniture.

5.11.2

In the northern part of this zone, there is a need to integrate the proposed ‘green loop’ set out in the Masterplan. The proposed crossing point for the ‘green loop’ marks the northern part of this area, which could be defined with signage and paving materials.

5.11.3

The adjacent option presents a more low key approach to the redesign of this area with minor changes to the car park and pavement areas to enhance cycle provision and pedestrian crossing facilities.

Figure 8.17: Option A - Whitehill Village Centre/Southern Local Centre concept diagram

70

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

5.11.4

The option B shown below provides a more holistic approach to environmental enhancement and traffic calming by defining junctions more strongly with paving materials and re-routing the shared cycle/footway to provide a more direct route.

5.11.5

This option proposes the redesign of the bus turning facility to be based upon a more shared space approach, or through the removal of the bus area completely.

5.11.6

The photograph above shows an example of the type of design approach that could be applied to the shopping area, including positive provision for cyclists and tree planting. The environmental quality of the area has been enhanced through new paving, lighting and street furniture.

Figure 8.18: Option B - Whitehill Village Centre/Southern Local Centre concept diagram

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

71

5.12 5.12.1

Southern Gateway The Southern Gateway is a key gateway to the town to be defined by new signage and branding. The Masterplan shows one of the Inner Relief Road alignment options along the disused railway line. This alignment would require the redesign of the A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road junction. The design of the IRR is outside the scope of this study and the design of the IRR junctions will be covered by future work by Hampshire County Council.

5.12.2

In this scenario, which is Hampshire County Council’s preferred option, the A325 would be redesigned as the minor arm of the junction and the gateway defined through signage and paving.

5.12.3

This is a key gateway to the town and should be designed appropriately to create an attractive entrance and to encourage through traffic to use the Inner Relief Road.

5.12.4

The Town Council also expressed the need to emphasise the South Downs National Park when leaving Whitehill.

Figure 8.19: Southern Gateway (Petersfield Road/Firgrove Road/Liphook Road Junction) concept diagram

72

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

design elements A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

73

6 Design Elements 6.1 6.1.1

74

Introduction This section provides design guidance on the approach to specific design elements such as paving materials and associated street furniture. The approach to these design elements is essential in terms of providing public space which supports the urban design and traffic management principles.

6.2 6.2.1

Public Realm Materials The choice of paving materials plays an integral part of defining the quality of the streetscape and public realm, and defining areas for specific activities. One of the primary aims of the design strategy is that a co-ordinated palette of materials be used throughout the area.

6.2.2

The approach to materials selection suggested in this document reflect the character areas previously defined and also link to emerging work on the Town Centre and Louisburg Barracks development briefs, Character area design code and Town Design Statement. The approach to materials also draws upon information set out in the Masterplan character area descriptions.

6.2.3

The use of materials will vary according to the type of space and the proposed usage.

For both safety and attractiveness, it is important that there is a consistent treatment of street surfaces, related to different functions. Particular materials should indicate, for example, vehicular or parking areas within the street. Strong visual unity of street space is important, so that surfacing materials are selected from a range of similar colours and/or textures, but relatively subtle changes make demarcation of functions very clear.

6.2.4

The objective is that a palette of appropriate hard landscape materials is agreed which can be used consistently throughout the area, and this should be refined as the overall Masterplan and development proposals are progressed.

6.2.5

The proposed approach to materials for the A325 area should also reflect the key spaces and character areas along the A325:• Northern Employment. Public realm materials selection should reflect the building materials proposed for the northern employment area and should reflect the woodland character of this part of the town; • Northern Gateway (A325/Station Road/Lindford Road Junction). In this area public realm materials should provide a transition between the northern employment/woodland character and the urban area. Proposed materials should also link to materials uses at the Ecostation; • Camp Road North/Northern Local Centre/Camp Road South. Materials selection in this area should link to proposed materials for the Quebec Barracks and other development sites in the area and should also seek to strengthen local distinctiveness through repaving/surfacing to define the local centre;

• Town Centre/High Street. The materials selection for the town centre should respond to the proposed town centre development proposals and seek to create a ‘seamless’ public realm and a bespoke street design. For key public spaces in the proposed town centre a high quality public realm treatment is suggested with a contemporary style to reflect the new town centre development. Proposed materials should be selected alongside material selection for the town centre buildings and external areas; • Viking Park/Employment South.

Materials selection in this area should link to materials proposed for the Viking Park development and which reflect the woodland character of this area; • Whitehill Village/Southern Local Centre. Materials selection for this area should seek to enhance the local shopping area through repaving to create a specific character for Whitehill; • Southern Gateway. Materials for the southern gateway should reflect the woodland landscape context and provide a transition to the urban character of the town.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

6.2.6

The materials palette should include a range of paving and surfacing treatments to address different urban situations, uses and townscape character. The selection of materials will be dependent on the level of funding available and the the need to develop higher and lower cost options.

6.2.7

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

A common colour theme can help to unify a space and bring together a range of otherwise disparate elements. A colour theme can also assist with unifying items of street furniture in order to relate to a particular setting or context.

6.2.8

The photographs below show examples of the type of paving approaches which may be suitable for the town centre area.

75

6.3 6.3.1

Street Furniture Street furniture contributes to the character of places and is an important element in creating quality streetscapes.

6.3.2

Whitehill & Bordon has a range of existing street furniture types including cycle parking, tree guards, bollards, bus shelter, seating, litter bins, finger post signage and lighting columns.

6.3.3

The aim for the A325 is to develop a consistent style of street furniture which is distinctive and unique to the route.

6.3.4

The design of bollards, cycle racks and other items of street furniture should be of a simple robust design co-ordinated between different character areas. In particular, street furniture should be carefully placed to avoid street clutter. Any furniture on the highway should not obstruct and create a hazard. Street lighting will be subject to Hampshire County Council approval.

6.3.5

In terms of style there are a range of options available. The adjacent photographs how examples of predominantly contemporary approaches

76

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

6.4 6.4.1

Public Art Public art is an important design element which can contribute to local distinctiveness.

Often public art is presented as an addon rather than an integral part of the development’s design. Public art performs an important role in the public realm by creating identity, focus, a link with the history of an area, as well as adding to the cultural experience. Public art installations should be sited in highly visible locations such as main access roads, open spaces and squares.

6.4.2

The area would benefit from new pieces of public art. There is potential for different forms of art to be located or included within key spaces along the route.

6.4.3

Examples of types of public art are set out in the adjacent photographs. The form of the public art can be varied, and the opportunities for public art can be included into signage, street furniture, paving, building facades, lighting and sculpture. A range of possible techniques are available which could include the following;  Water  Architecture  Sound and light  Sculpture  Landscape and landform  Murals and friezes.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

6.5 6.5.1

Signage Signage should enhance the legibility of the area and elevate the status of key destination points and places of interest. There should be a coherent system linking local facilities and wider destinations.

6.5.2

Traffic signs are necessary for driver and pedestrian safety and convenience, but they can be visually intrusive if not dealt with in the correct manner. From the streetscape point of view the number of signs should be minimised, where possible, in order to reduce their cumulative visual impact and should be as small as possible and grouped together to avoid clutter. However, a balance has to be struck between reducing street clutter whilst still achieving safe and informative signage.

6.6 6.6.1

Branding Signage can also be used to provide a distinctive identity and ‘brand’ for the area.

6.6.2

The provision of signage needs to be viewed positively in order to not detract from the street scene. The adjacent photographs provide a range of possible alternative solutions to signage. The main aim is to provide a comprehensive solution and a coherent strategy which unifies signage throughout the area.

77

6.7 6.7.1

Planting Planting design is an integral part of the creation of a strong landscape structure for the area to provide habitat and promote biodiversity. The landscape structure should provide definition to public and private spaces, and also add colour and seasonal interest to the residential environment.

6.7.2

Trees have a role to play in defining routes and spaces, providing landmarks and focal points and defining views and vistas. The provision of uplighters for street trees should be considered to enhance the after dark image of the area.

6.7.3

Planting is an integral part of the quality of the public realm and its careful location can slow traffic speeds by limiting forward views and reducing the perceived width of the carriageway.

6.7.4

In terms of the A325, the careful location of new trees is a fundamental element in reinforcing the design of the woodland character areas.

78

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

next steps A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

79

7 Next Steps 7.1 7.1.1

Delivery The delivery of the A325 improvements is fundamentally linked to and dependent on the delivery of the development programme and, more importantly, the delivery of the Inner Relief Road.

7.2 7.2.1

Further Work A number of pieces of work are currently being carried out which will play an important part in terms of progressing the strategy, in particular, further work on the Inner Relief Road and further Masterplanning work for the town centre and other key sites.

7.2.2

This section identifies the next steps required to progress the design strategy for the A325 improvements.

7.3 7.3.1

7.3.2

7.3.3

80

Cost Estimates In order to support the strategy development a high level costing exercise was carried out.

In summary, two options were produced to provide a range of interventions comprising the following (see appendices):• option a - approximately £2.5m (up to £4.5m with signalised crossings) construction cost - comprising lower cost changes to the street design for the key areas • option b - approximately £6m (up to £8m with signalised crossings) construction cost - a more comprehensive scheme including a more extensive approach to the town centre area, using higher quality materials.

7.4 7.4.1

7.4.2

In general terms, in order to meet the design objectives, and in particular to meet stakeholder aspirations of creating a high quality town centre environment, it is anticipated that the scheme costs would be towards the higher end of the cost estimate range. It is unlikely that a scheme towards the lower end of the cost estimate range will be sufficient to meet all the design principles or the quality expected by stakeholders. The delivery of the Masterplan development is also essential to meeting these principles.

The capital cost of the scheme is a key issue in terms of delivery. The outline costs which have been carried out require further analysis as more detailed information is available.

Further design work is required on both the A325 and the Inner Relief Road in order to refine these cost estimates. The revenue implications of design proposals is also a key consideration to inform the design process.

7.4.3

Phasing Although the availability of funding, and the broader Eco-town build-out, will mean that there will necessarily be a phased approach to the implementation of the proposals, they should nevertheless be seen as a consistent and single package of proposals for the entire length of the A325. It will be important to consider the implementation of each phase to ensure that it is coherent, that there is design continuity and there continues to be a positive overall impact.

A continuous series of interventions is required along the entire length of the A325 if traffic is to be effectively displaced to the IRR and pedestrian and cycling amenity on the A325 tangibly improved. Further, the delivery of the IRR is essential before any significant traffic interventions are implemented.

Minimum requirements on the opening of the IRR are:• Terminal junctions that actively deflect through traffic from the existing A325.

There is no reason why final layouts with all required signing and gateway treatments cannot be implemented.

• 20mph posted speed limit between Budds Lane and Woolmer Road North with as many complementary physical interventions as possible to support posted speed limit.

• Introduction of as many E-W crossing points as possible.

7.5 7.5.1

Masterplan Delivery Thereafter, and generally speaking, delivery of the remaining portions of the proposals for the A325 should respect the delivery of the broader Masterplan, especially those elements close to or immediately adjacent the A325.

7.5.2

he report has previously referenced the T importance of not only providing changes to the highway and public realm, but also the important role that new development places in changing the character of the A325 from a road to a place.

7.5.3

The delivery of development proposals set out in the masterplan is critical in addressing the general lack of active frontage and low footfall along the road by providing opportunities for the creation of stronger and more active built form frontages/edges and new land uses. New access junctions, new landmark features and improvements to the green grid are also critical components in place-making, required to fundamentally change the character of the road.

7.5.4

The delivery of the new town centre is particularly significant – such that the proposals centered on Chalet Hill should be implemented in tandem with the new town centre and in such a way as minimises traffic disruption while retaining access and movement.

A change in traffic priority at Budds Lane, inlane bus stops and the implementation of the new Station Road junction layout (to handle different volumes and apportion priority more equally) comprise other measures that could be implemented early.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

7.5.5

Future masterplanning work should consider this important role and the implications that development proposals will have on the character of the A325. This study should influence the emerging work on the Town Centre and Louisburg Barracks development briefs, Character area design code and Town Design Statement. This study should also set key principles for the next stage of masterplanning work to be carried.

7.6 7.6.1

Community Engagement We recognise that ongoing, effective and genuine consultation and communication with both stakeholders and the wider community will be key to the successful delivery of these proposals.

7.6.2

Further consultation as part of the outline planning application process should build upon the stakeholder engagement which has been carried out to date.

7.6.3

There is also a strong link to further consultation for the Inner Relief Road.

7.6.4

The results of this next stage of public consultation will be important in terms of gaining wider acceptance of the proposals.

The key outcome will be agreement of the overall Masterplan approach.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

7.7 7.7.1

Traffic Modelling Limited traffic analysis and modelling was undertaken to test the suitability of the proposals, particularly those affecting junction capacity. More detailed traffic analysis and modeling will need to be undertaken as proposals are progressed to assess their impact on traffic movement along the A325.

7.8 7.8.1

Additional Surveys Further background work may be required on land ownership in order to assess the viability of proposals which require both public and private land.

7.8.2

A more detailed assessment of underground services is also a key issue in relation to redefining road space, and the provision of new features such as tree planting, public art and large signage.

81

7.9 7.9.1

Parking and Traffic Regulation Orders The impact of streetscape improvements upon on street parking provision needs to be assessed in the context of overall parking provision for the area in order to address and compensate for any potential losses.

7.9.2

The process of changing speed limits and, more importantly, creating a 20mph zone between Budds Lane and the Tesco access should also be considered at an early stage, taking into account the timescales involved in carrying out the necessary consultation required for traffic regulation orders.

82

7.10 7.10.1

Quality Audit Before preliminary design is commenced, the production of a more detailed quality audit should be considered in line with MfS2 guidance. MfS2 states that “a QA could comprise a number of discrete studies including: • Road Safety Audit (RSA) possibly including a Risk Assessment • Cycle Audit • Visual Quality Audit • Access Audit • Walking Audit • Non-Motorised User Audit • Community Street Audit • Placecheck”

7.10.2

MfS2 goes on to state that “Other issues that may need to be considered in the QA process include parking, servicing, public transport, impact on utilities, trees and planting, drainage, etc. The various audits should be brought together in order to identify any conflicts that may arise, with a view to seeking a balanced response.”

7.10.3

In particular, a safety audit should be carried out to inform the development of the next stage of preliminary design.

7.10.4

As proposals are progressed and developed with greater detail it is possible that certain interventions might take on more of a “shared space” character. Similar projects recently undertaken elsewhere in the country offer useful precedents to learn from and also allay stakeholders of unwarranted fears.

They also underscore the need for careful design and targeted consultation – the latter focusing on access groups.

7.11 7.11.1

Preliminary and Detailed Designs As the Eco-town Masterplanning and delivery exercises progress the concept proposals in this report will need to be worked up into preliminary and detail designs. Further design work needs to be informed by additional more detailed traffic analysis and additional background work concerning safety and cost.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

appendix a - area descriptions A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

83

8.1 Appendix A - Area Descriptions

8.1.2

The plans also describe the key issues and opportunities relating to each area and the Masterplan context.

residential/barracks green space/landscape/woodland

Northern Woodland

car park major roads/junctions leisure/community

Northern Employment ad

rd Ro

commercial/industrial

Lindfo

mixed use The descriptions of each stretch of the A325 and presented in sections, travelling from the north to the south. The areas are shown on the adjacent figure 8.1.

Key Masterplan Land Uses

A325

Northern Gateway (A325/Station Road/ Lindford Road Junction)

oad

on R

Stati

superstore

Camp Road North

Northern Local Centre

Cam

p R oa

d

8.1.3

The plans on the following pages describe the key characteristics of the A325 corridor through Whitehill & Bordon, supported by existing photographs.

Key

Farnha m Roa d

8.1.1

Area descriptions

Camp Road

8.1

Camp Road South

Bu

dd

s

Analysis and Opportunities

La

ne

Existing/Potential Node/junction

High

Stre

et

Proposed Green Loop/Grid Existing/Potential Pedestrian Link Town Centre/High Street

Cha

let H

ill

Existing/Potential Cycle Route

Hig h

Stre

et

Existing/Potential Local Landmark

Viking Park/ Employment South

Co

nd

Pete

rsfie

ld R

oad

eW ay

Whitehill Village/ Southern Local Centre Southern Gateway Firgrove

Road Liphoo

k Road

A325 Petersfield Road

Figure 8.1: A325 Study Area and Area Description Sheets

84

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Figure 8.2: Issues, Masterplan Proposals and Opportunities - Northern Employment Area (Farnham Road)

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

85

Figure 8.3: Issues, Masterplan Proposals and Opportunities - Northern Gateway (A325/Station Road/Lindford Road Junction) and Camp Road North

86

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Figure 8.4: Issues, Masterplan Proposals and Opportunities - Northern Local Centre (Camp Road/Ennerdale Road)

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

87

Figure 8.5: Issues, Masterplan Proposals and Opportunities - Camp Road South (Camp Road/Kildare Road)

88

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Figure 8.6: Issues, Masterplan Proposals and Opportunities - Camp Road South (Camp Road/Budds Lane)

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

89

Figure 8.7: Issues, Masterplan Proposals and Opportunities - Town Centre (High Street/Chalet Hill)

90

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Figure 8.8: Issues, Masterplan Proposals and Opportunities - Town Centre (High Street/Woolmer Way)

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

91

Figure 8.9: Issues, Masterplan Proposals and Opportunities - Employment South (A325/Conde Way Roundabout)

92

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Figure 8.10: Issues, Masterplan Proposals and Opportunities - Viking Park (Petersfield Road/Viking Park Junction)

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

93

Figure 8.11: Issues, Masterplan Proposals and Opportunities - Whitehill Village/Southern Local Centre (Petersfield Road)

94

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Figure 8.12: Issues, Masterplan Proposals and Opportunities - Southern Gateway (A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road Junction)

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

95

96

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

appendix 2 - consultation A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

97

8.2 Appendix B - Consultation 8.2

Consultation

8.2.1

The tables in this section record stakeholder and community comments made at the stakeholder engagement events described in section 3.

8.2.2

Table 8.1 records comments made at Workshop 1 and Tables 8.2 - 8.8 record comments made from the exhibition.

98

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Character Area/Stretch

Stakeholder Problems & Issues

Stakeholder Possible Solutions

Opportunities

General

• Biodiversity and wildlife must be taken into account • Too many HGVs • European SPAs area - where NOx pollution - congested traffic -ordinary traffic will harm the heathland but there must be no road widening here • Excess Pollution • Traffic Congestion • Lighting too high - want darker skies • 20mph will increase emissions • Risk of too much lighting being installed - then faster speeds - (sodium lighting preferred) • Lights too close • Nowhere for foxes/cats to cross • Congestion • Image of the road • Native Trees- e.g - Oaks along A325 • Protect biodiversity - drains and kerbs for hedgehogs-reptiles-toads • Pollution zone – only one in East Hants exceeding EU limits • 30mph already but little enforcement • IRR is fundamental to any proposals - effect on surrounding area • Great increase in traffic in surrounding area • Separating further community • This rural area not urban • HCC are perennially bad at providing crossing facilities for NMUs (e.g.

Frith End - I cannot reach the bus alongside the SDNP) • Too many traffic lights • Whatever facilities there are in W/B will affect users outside the town (e.g.

NMUs will need to feel confident to use minor roads outside the town in order to reach it initially) • Upkeep of buildings facing the A325 need to be improved • Public transport stops are inadequate • If a town can be eco it needs to have very little traffic.

• A325 kept open 2 way traffic • Bus stops could be better placed • Horses cross A325 at Whitehill x-roads from Forest Road – Pegasus crossing requested here and at Frith End • A325 causes community severance

• Department of Transport study found that creating avenues/ hedges/tree lines forced motorists to reduce their speed, because roadside greenery reduced their peripheral vision and helped to reduce average speeds.

• Appropriate lighting needed – will encourage more safer and also careful driving by both improving and reducing sight distances depending on location • More appropriate lighting • Pedestrian Friendly • Different speed limits depending on time of day • Design principles – biodiversity/wildlife interests missing • No to 20mph but enforce 30mph • More trees less lighting • Reduce lighting (pollution) • Greater priority for E-W / W-E movement within town • Less signage • New public transport to include transport for disabled • There should be a scheme to take the traffic off the A325 and out of the village to the west of it (e.g. A31 to A3/M3) • Pegasus crossings requested at FP44, also Frith End, also Sleaford junction, also north fire station x-roads, Osney Lane- if the traffic is going slowly enough it should not cause tail end shunts • Land Bridges to cross A325 • Planting to dampen noise/pollution in more areas - native planting only - graded planting i.e. grasses/hedges/trees • IRR - A325 links other than N and S? • More underpasses

• gateway treatments; • tighter geometry; • reduced surface differentiations (e.g. lower or at points no kerbs; flush or near flush surfaces, mountable kerbs – particularly for parking and loading in certain sections); • visual narrowing; • reduced forward visibility or adjacent context-enhancing features; • intentional geometric ambiguity; • localised surface treatments; • informal courtesy crossings; • on-street cycle provision; • wide unsegregated and segregated pedestrian and cycle paths; • general de-cluttering, inclusive of removal of painted centrelines over certain sections of road; • low central median (to both narrow vehicular way and provide central refuge for crossing pedestrians); • carefully considered approach to edge design particularly in commercial/business areas (e.g. ladder-grid approach to pedestrian crossing arrangements where possible and appropriate)” • removal of signalised control where possible and sensible (chalet hill and station road); • horizontal displacement (like pinch points and simple road narrowing) where suitable and appropriate; and • vertical deflection measures where suitable (like extended speed tables).

Town Council Meeting • Problem with the sequencing of traffic lights at all junctions • T/L’s do not allow a ‘green wave’ for traffic travelling at the correct speed • Concern with the environmental impact of a 20mph speed limit • The trees need to be maintained and strengthened • Cyclists do not mix well with pedestrians • Reduced army presence should reduce the impact of lorries along A325 • Need to maintain local access for lorries • Need to reduce not increase street lighting

Town Council Meeting • We should use traffic lights to control the speed of progress along A325 • Use road surface treatment to differentiate the traffic and other priorities along A325 - but not until the IRR is open • Not keen on changing the priorities at existing junctions, at least until IRR open • Keen on roundabouts to interrupt speeding traffic • Less keen on signal controls and priority junctions that create stop start traffic conditions • Need cycle path along whole of A325 in WB • Either combine with traffic (which has been ‘calmed’) or provide a third lane with physical separation.

• HGV’’’s should be made to use IRR • LED good for energy saving but not good for wildlife • Need to make sure that drainage is ‘friendly’ for wild life • create and not destroy habitat for reptiles/amphibians

Table 8.1: Consultation Responses from Workshop 1

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

99

Northern Employment/Gateway (Farnham Road - Station Road)

A325/Station Road/Lindford Road Junction

Town Council meeting Firestation crossroads • Problem with access from the Lindford direction • Eco station car park access is poor

• Gateway (north A325/Farnham Road) • Gateway signs - ‘Welcome to Whitehill & Bordon’ - (Slow Down) • Use A325 for cycles/vehicle link to Inner Relief Road (from Station Road)

• potential location to define gateway to proposed Eco-town commercial development • design to be sensitive to surrounding woodland landscape character • strong existing woodland character –retain existing tree belt adjacent to A325 • potential to move existing 30 mph gateway to inner relief road junction • potential for cycle route through to inner relief road

• Roundabout (Station Road junction) • Roundabout at fire station cross roads - especially Lindford and EW (pollution issues) • Traffic lights at junction? (Station Road)

• potential to define gateway to proposed Eco-town • opportunity to improve crossing facilities to support proposed green loop • consider potential for small roundabout • potential to change priority to encourage east-west movement and provide opportunity for defining A325 gateways and improve pedestrian/ cycle crossings

Town Council meeting Firestation crossroads • Needs to be converted to a roundabout • Need to create a gateway Camp Road North

• Eco-station parking • No sign - dangerous entrance • Woodland W side - protect trees • Access across A325 to Eco-station – where do school buses/mini-buses visiting centre unload children?

• More high level crossings required rather than underpasses (Camp Road) • Great opportunity to put high level curved route over A325 from Annington Homes to woodland adjacent to south of Eco-Station • Great opportunity to plant behind garages with hedging plants (Camp Road)

• potential for off road cycle route dependant on land ownership • this section offers potential for carriageway redesign including narrowing/pinchpoints to calm traffic - land ownership is a potential constraint in this area particularly on the western edge creating a narrow corridor • this narrow character could be reinforced to contribute to traffic calming • opportunity to improve crossing facilities to support proposed green loop

• War Memorial relocated or improved

• potential for redesign including repaving/surfacing to define local centre • potential for shared pedestrian/cycle route or on road cycle lane • opportunity to improve crossing facilities to support proposed green loop • potential to raise profile of subway

• Fence line is a barrier • Subway is not on the desire line between shops and Trenchard etc

Northern Local Centre

• Traffic/parking and One Stop/Pinewood village hall (flooding at One Stop) • St Lulia /Trenchard - underpass useful but needs brightening • Avoid RC Church • Underpass is a very useful method for getting from one side or the other of the A325 but the outside needs ivy planted to soften the stark concrete

Table 8.1: Consultation Responses from Workshop 1

100

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Camp Road South – Budds Lane

Camp Road South/Budds Lane Junction

Town Council meeting • Quebec Barracks - this development is due to progress soon and will be complete before the completion of the IRR • Safety is an issue at current junction

• Bordon Junior and Infant Schools and Chase Children Centre - cross A325 • A problem turning south from Budds Lane onto A325 at busy times • Cannot get out onto A325 from Budds Lane • Hard to turn onto A325 from Budds Lane - no signal as promised

Town Council meeting • Quebec Barracks - suggest T/l’s or roundabout for junction to serve new development

• opportunity to improve crossing facilities to support proposed green loop • potential for shared pedestrian/cycle route or on road cycle lane • Canada Way - potential to enhance crossing facilities

Town Council meeting • Budds Lane Junction and A325 to north • Needs to be made a mini-roundabout • Serves the proposed education hub need to cater for safe access for school children

Town Council meeting Budds Lane Junction and A325 to north • Area by St Lucia and Trenchard Park - good location for native trees • Problem with parking opposite ‘Onestop’ High Street/Town Centre General

High Street North

• Deliveries to new town centre from A325 or IRR or both?

• Narrow pavement (eastern side of town centre High Street) • Town Centre location shops look appalling (takeaway etc) • Too many takeaways (town centre)

• Shared space (town centre) • Shared space (town centre) – concerns about this – will push traffic elsewhere • Restaurants/sit-down/library uses that encourage longer stays (town centre) • Change in business/commercial uses generally • Space for markets (town centre) • Avenue of trees (High Street) • Better transport access from Whitehill / Hogmoor Road to new town centre - at present no transport • Pedestrian crossings – change so pedestrians have priority and sufficient time to cross (High Street) • One way system round open ‘square’- straight south/deviate north (town centre)

• Chalet Hill does not link with Budds Lane - Budds Lane used to be drove - now footpath on outer side

• EHDC Guadeloupe CP – wrong place should restore wooded feature for recreation

• potential to define key proposed gateway to proposed town centre area and enhance crossing facilities • potential to develop a bespoke street design for the town centre to promote sustainable transport modes • consider time constrained zone - open in evening for takeways/passing trade and allow parking in the evening, with loading only in the day - requires management • realign road through proposed public space to slow traffic speeds • consider potential for redirecting traffic through new town centre development to create stronger deterrent for through traffic

Table 8.1: Consultation Responses from Workshop 1

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

101

High Street/Chalet Hill Junction

• Congestion issue – left turn out of A325 southbound into Chalet Hill too fast • Stopping on Chalet Hill just to the east of the A325 (to visit takeaway, etc.) aggravates traffic operations at Chalet Hill Junction Town Council meeting • A325 divides community • Need for more pedestrain crossing facilities • Need for lighting • AQMA needs to be addressed and deal with traffic queues on Chalet Hill • Problem with parking for takeaways and servicing by lorries • Issue with pedestrian safety at the junction

High Street

High Street/Woolmer Way/ Superstore Junction

Town Council meeting • Encourage use of shared space • Need to replace the car park - replace with Plaza • Ok to remove C/P but keep the trees • Problem with parking for takeaways and servicing by lorries • South of Chalet Hill convert layby into left turn slip lane • Need to make up and adopt Lynton Road

• consider change in priority to promote High Street/Chalet Hill route • potential for shared space approach linking into new public space

• Cycle Path done 106 but stops at Chalet Hill

• Congestion at the Superstore junction • Tesco crossing point footfall for Belisha beacons Town Council meeting • Should have put pedestrian crossing at location of central refuge

• Too many traffic lights (e.g.-Tesco) - roundabout better Town Council meeting • This should have been a mini-roundabout

• consider junction changes to promote bus, pedestrian and cycle priority • consider change in priority to promote east-west route and define gateway to town centre

High Street south High Street – Petersfield Road/ Woolmer Way/Conde Way Roundabout

Viking Park Employment

• strengthen existing pedestrian crossing points • consider junction with signals • potential to change priority to improve pedestrian and cycle crossings • opportunity to improve crossing facilities to support proposed green loop and to improve crossing point for pedestrians

Town Council meeting · Roundabout works well · Drainage issues to the north of the roundabout

• Retain woodland screen Viking Park very important

• Gateway Feature (south A325/Viking Park area) • Inner Relief Road if implemented will damage SINC • Retain and enhance wooded edges • IRR South Junction at Viking Park entrance through ‘ASDA’ site

• consider potential to remove road centre line and create wider eastern footway • opportunity to improve crossing facilities to support proposed green loop

Town Council meeting · Woodlark PH should be accessed via a roundabout

Table 8.1: Consultation Responses from Workshop 1

102

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Southern Local Centre

• Off street parking - reasonable solution parking bay east side A325 • Crossings of Green loop from new road over to Whitehill village hall very bad • Because there is a wide path here cars park on it which is detrimental to partially sighted people (Petersfield Road)

Town Council meeting • Parking bays need to be created for residents and the shops

• opportunity to define local centre area through repaving, gateways and branding • potential to simplify the design of the car park and bus turning areas • potential to realign cycle route adjacent to carriageway • potential to rationalise design of this area and parking bay layout

Town Council meeting • The bus turnaround is a useful facility Southern Gateway/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road Junction

• Woolmer/Longmoor - Keep tree barrier (coppice) to protect SPA Town Council meeting • Problem accessing the parking for the dogwalkers and ‘bowmens’ by the whitehill cllub • Problem with forward visibility for drivers south of Whitehill crossroads due to crest/dip in road. Need to slow down traffic

• Wildlife important - site a SINC (Round Hill Mire) – no incursions of new roads in it • Entrance good - nothing made of national park gateway ‘Welcome to Whitehill’ (south A325/Petersfield Road) • No diversion of Liphook Road through mire – SDNP (South Downs National Park) as ecologically sensitive – springs/ natterjacks • Concerned about traffic congestion at new round about – ie feed in from Liphook / Petersfield Road • Disagree with closure of Liphook Road • The proposed diversion of Liphook Road would make life more difficult for the bus services (not that we have many) • Realignment of Liphook Road, the junction with A325 will be one of three in close proximity (one to Range, one to Whitehill Club) it is on a hill which provides limited visibility

• gateway to proposed Eco-town to include signage and branding • proposed inner relief road to be main arm to junction to direct through traffic away from A325 • A325 to be designed as minor arm to discourage through traffic • proposed masterplan inner relief road options includes potential realignment of Liphook Road • opportunity to improve crossing facilities to support proposed green loop • integrate proposed gateway sensitively into surrounding woodland landscape character

Town Council meeting • Whitehill cross roads should have a gateway featurewelcoming travellers to Whitehill and to the national park.

Table 8.1: Consultation Responses from Workshop 1

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

103

Table 8.2 - Response to Question 1 - Do you support the overall proposal?

Table 8.3 - Response to Question 2 - Support for individual elements of the proposals

Yes

10

Yes, subject to some minor alterations

7

I don’t have a view either way

1

No - I don’t like some of the elements

4

No

3

No response

3

TOTAL

104

28

Yes, I support this

I don’t have a view

No - I don’t support this

No response

Traffic calm the road (All)

18

1

7

2

The improvement of pedestrian footways and off-road shared pedestrian/cycle ways along the A325 (All)

19

4

1

4

Create new crossing points along the A325 linked into the proposed green grid and green loop (All)

19

5

1

3

Provide in‑carriageway bus stops along the A325 except in the proposed town centre transport hub and southern gateway (All)

14

6

4

4

Enhance the landscape through proactive tree management and new planting (All)

21

3

1

3

Create attractive ‘gateways’ to the town (Boards 2, 4, 6 & 8)

16

3

2

7

In the longer term, create an off-road cycle path in the green verge to the east of the northern section of the A325 (Boards 3 & 4).

17

4

3

4

Create an improved and traffic calmed environment for the southern gateway and the northern local centre (Boards 4 & 6)

17

2

2

7

Introduce a 20mph zone to the town centre (Board 6)

19

3

4

2

Create a high quality town centre environment with a street design to promote walking, cycling and public transport (Board 6)

22

1

0

5

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Table 8.4 - Response to Question 2 - Priorities

Table 8.5 - Response to Question 3 - Junction Improvements

First priority

Second priority

Third priority

Included in top 3

Traffic calm the road (All)

5

1

0

6

The improvement of pedestrian footways and off-road shared pedestrian/cycle ways along the A325 (All)

1

0

1

2

0

Provide in‑carriageway bus stops along the A325 except in the proposed town centre transport hub and southern gateway (All)

0

1

2

3

Enhance the landscape through proactive tree management and new planting (All)

0

3

1

4

1

1

1

1

0

2

1

The layout that retains a signalised junction

12

The layout that replaces the signalised junction with a roundabout (alternative option)

14

No response

2

1

Budds Lane/Camp Road South Junction.

The layout that retains a priority junction

7

The layout that includes a mini roundabout (alternative option)

17

No response

4

4

In the longer term, create an off-road cycle path in the green verge to the east of the northern section of the A325 (Boards 3 & 4).

0

Create an improved and traffic calmed environment for the southern gateway and the northern local centre (Boards 4 & 6)

0

2

0

2

Introduce a 20mph zone to the town centre (Board 6)

1

3

3

Create a high quality town centre environment with a street design to promote walking, cycling and public transport (Board 6)

7

0

2

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Number of votes

Station Road/A325 Junction.

Create new crossing points along the A325 linked into the proposed green grid and green loop (All)

Create attractive ‘gateways’ to the town (Boards 2, 4, 6 & 8)

Proposal

2 Town Centre.

The layout with the mini roundabout

10

7

The layout that retains the signalised junction (alternative option)

12

9

No response

6

105

Table 8.6 - Responses to Question 4 - Other improvements/comments

Vital to retain trees and to improve the look aesthetically. I like the idea of using art work and different paving styles

Better transport links. Improved ‘face’ of town centre.

Table 8.7 - Responses to Question 5 - Other comments It needs ‘oomphing’ to raise public pride in the area.

Concerned that the Hogmoor Enclosure will be taken away for development and negate potential as green corridor

We don’t need a relief road.

All the other green loop routes seem very sensible but the south one goes right though a built up area which is heavily used by cars.

Traffic calming does not always work eg Liphook centre at peak times

This is putting the cart before the horse. The route for the relief road (if it is possible at all) must be finalised first.

Awaiting more vital consultation on relief road and proposals

I do not see how you can decide on any improvements until the relief road is decided. I am against the route going from the roundabout through the old cutting. Too much wildlife would be lost and it will affect many people.

I am uncertain about an inner relief road. I would support an OUTER relief road

I am sure you will tackle the eco sensitive areas (SSI etc) with extreme care. I accept some loss for greater gain.

More planting of native trees, shrubs and flowers

I would like to see a bridge over the ford on Chase Road to Lindford to reduce traffic having to go along Hollywater Road to meet the road from Liphook then along to Lindford.

A state of the art sports centre built on Viking Park within the next 3-4 years. The roads are in place. The area is an eye sore at present and this is the greatest need for Bordon and Whitehall.

An underpass for through traffic (noted in Question 5)

Without adequate funding, all these fine ideas are just theory. Since the Government cancelled eco town support, nothing seems to have been done to revise the plan. Carrying on as if funding was available - and wasting money doing it - seems futile.

Has increased traffic into Chase Hospital been considered if more clinics are located there?

Do not want lorries going down Chalet Hill, they should use Conde Way. At 20mph limits there should be a raised table using a different colour. Keep trees in Guadalupe Car Park as a picnic area. (Whitehill Town Council)

106

Now - 20mph past the school. Reduce traffic calming along Forest Road By having an underpass for through traffic a relief road would not be necessary and therefore the money saved could be used to provide pavements and cycleways and enhance the existing roads. Keep junctions simple and controlled.

Until the relief road details are finalised - hopefully not across Hogmoor and the Croft - it is impossible to have a clear view of the A325 plans. They are interdependent. I foresee the relief road absorbing all the finance leaving A325 improvements as essentially cheap and cosmetic.

Essentially the A325 remains a through route. Any driver will see a road ahead with clear vehicle and pedestrian segregation. Apart from some narrowing, traffic calming and improved crossing facilities there is nothing to suggest to a driver that he/she does not have priority above pedestrians. Essentially there is nothing to discourage drivers using the A325 as they do today. If the pedestrian and the cyclists are to be the priority user and perceived as such by drivers - then some dramatic design work still needs to be undertaken. Relief roads are in the pipe line I know, but drivers must feel that if they want to drive to the centre of the eco town then they must expect to park sooner than later, expect serious inconvenience and absolutely not have a clear view for probably over a kilometre of the road ahead.

If trees are to be the hallmark of our eco town then for goodness sake rip up lengths of the road and plant trees where the road is shown. This is a serious suggestion and if for any reason it is found to be unacceptable then I fear that something fundamental is missing from the planning/design model as well as the relationships between for example the traffic management planning and say Design Statement preparation.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

Table 8.8 - Response to Question - Rebranding the Road

Comments made

High Street

Petersfield Road, as it retains historical link Camp Road A new name would be nice Single name for the entire stretch of road.

High Street Same as is now. Petersfield Road, High Street and Camp Road.

Keep ‘Petersfield Road’. Change ‘High Street’ to ‘Old High Street’. Retain ‘Camp Road’ for historical reasons.

A325 is fine = not just PR to stop people talking about how awful the A325 is I would like the name to reflect the history and identity of the area Bordon Road - main road. Queen Anne Road - Roman road Please leave the current names alone Yes - a new name would be good.

REME or RCEME have always been part of our town. I think it would be better to name the road REME Way Petersfield Road Yes - uniform name for the whole road through Whitehill and Bordon. Involve the Town Council in the choice of name.

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

107

108

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

appendix 3 - cost estimates A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

109

8.3 Appendix C - Cost Estimates 8.3

Cost Estimates

8.3.1

To support the strategy development a high level costing exercise was carried out. The costs estimates are indicative and are for illustrative purposes only.

8.3.2 In summary, two options were produced to provide a range of interventions comprising the following:• option a - approximately £2.5m (up to £4.5m with signalised crossings) construction cost - comprising lower cost changes to the street design for the key areas • option b - approximately £6m (up to £8m with signalised crossings) construction cost - a more comprehensive scheme including a more extensive approach to the town centre and local centre areas, using higher quality materials.

8.3.3

The breakdown of these costs estimates are shown in the adjacent summaries. The key differences between the Option A and Option B costs are due to the extent of the works and the quality of materials. Option A is based upon using lower cost materials such as concrete paving units, concrete kerbs, tarmac and lower cost street furniture. Option B provides a mix of higher cost materials including concrete and stone paving units, setts, kerbs, tarmac and higher cost street furniture.

Cost estimates (without signalised crossings) Option

Option

A B

Station Road Junction £6,900 £321,461 Camp Road North £160,797 £298,025 Northern Local Centre £247,289 £326,564 Camp Road South £123,347 £229,449 Budds Lane Junction £30,533 £88,545 High Street North £59,618 £153,638 Chalet Hill Junction £173,370 £616,260 High Street to Green Link £205,425 £478,031 Green Link to Woolmer Way £174,878 £507,068 Superstore Junction £14,348 £127,710 High Street South £11,481 £11,481 Conde Way Roundabout £16,965 £101,280 Viking Park £18,600 £74,573 Southern Local Centre £340,872 £447,762

includes 25% for preliminaries (including temporary traffic management) 20% contingency

Cost estimates (with signalised crossings) Option

Option

A

B

£231,900 £213,297 £322,289 £198,347 £105,533 £59,618 £398,370 £205,425 £249,878 £164,348 £86,481 £91,965 £71,100 £393,372

£546,461 £350,525 £401,564 £304,449 £163,545 £153,638 £841,260 £478,031 £582,068 £277,710 £86,481 £176,280 £127,073 £500,262

£3,781,846

£2,791,921

£4,989,346

Detail & preliminary designs & supervision 15% £237,663 £567,277

£418,788

£748,402

Sub-total

£1,822,084

£4,349,123

£3,210,709

£5,737,748

Optimism bias

40%

£728,834

£1,739,649

£1,284,284

£2,295,099

Grand total

£2,550,917

£6,088,772

£4,494,992

£8,032,847

Sub-total

£1,584,421

Note: Other consultants rates have been used for this estimate.

110

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

8.3.4

The cost estimates make a number of assumptions as follows: • 25% for preliminaries (including temporary traffic management) • 20% contingency • 15% for preliminary & detail designs & supervision • 40% optimism bias.

8.3.5

Further, our estimates do not include ongoing maintenance or rehabilitation-related costs - i.e. they are initial delivery costs and not whole life costs.

8.3.6

In producing these cost estimates we have cross-referenced to cost estimates in other strategy documents including the Walking and Cycling Strategy and the Junction Mitigation Options work.

8.3.7

We note that Amey’s Junction Mitigation Options work does not take consultants’ fees, contingencies or optimism bias into account and includes the following caveat:-

“It should be noted that the cost estimates have been developed as accurately as possible based upon the preliminary design stage drawings. A nominal sum for the diversion of statutory undertaker’s plant has been incorporated; however, these are likely to change upon full investigation of plant at detailed design stage. Furthermore, the costs represent an approximate construction cost only for each mitigation option. The costs do not incorporate consultant’s fees, contingencies and have not considered optimism bias at this stage.”

8.3.8

WSP’s Walking and Cycling Strategy, on the other hand, states that its cost estimates are solely related to construction and do not consider any land or environmental constraints or specific costs and do not include maintenance costs.

8.3.9

The cost estimates do not include a specific allowance for utility works and lighting. We have assumed that any utility diversions are covered by contingency and optimism bias and no specific allowance has been made at this stage.

8.3.10 The cost estimates do not include those works proposed as part of the IRR, such as junction improvements to the IRR junctions with the A325 (eg at the A325/Firgrove Road/ Liphook Road junction).

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study

111

112

A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study