Over three-quarters of respondents (79%) agree with the proposed approach to transport and access; ; 52% ‘strongly agree’ (451 respondents) and 27% ‘agree’ (231 respondents).
Disagreement levels are still at a relatively low level (15% of respondents), however they are higher than seen elsewhere in the thematic guidance analysis.
The following chart shows agreement levels with transport and access. The majority of respondents agree (79%) however disagreement is higher than seen elsewhere with 15% not in agreement.
The following table shows the key for the following chart.
| wdt_ID | Code | Proposed element |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | A1 | All development should seek to prioritise users in the following order: Pedestrians and cyclists; Public transport users; Private vehicle users |
| 2 | A2 | The car/vehicle road network and parking within the seafront area should be designed so as to avoid or, if unavoidable, minimise any detrimental impact on walking and cycling networks |
| 3 | A3 | Cycling infrastructure should be safe convenient and enjoyable for cyclists and safe for pedestrians and other road users. Wherever possible, the design of cycle infrastructure should not be diminished in order to accommodate motor vehicles, should be consistent across the seafront, and should be designed to avoid unnecessary crossing of the carriageway |
| 5 | A4 | For the primary cycle route across the seafront, the preferred design is a two-way segregated cycle route preferably of 1.5-2m width each way |
| 6 | A5 | To help encourage people to use sustainable modes of transport, opportunities need to be taken to redesign roads, pavements, crossings, parking & other public spaces, so that space is balanced more fairly between users & to encourage modal shift & leisure |
| 7 | A6 | Development proposals should take into account the wider walking and cycling networks across the seafront and to other parts of the city, in particular, the aspiration for a safe and convenient cycle route from Gosport Ferry to Haying Ferry |
| 8 | A7 | When roads and parking areas are redesigned, these should include appropriate infrastructure to support and encourage the take-up of electric vehicles, such as designated parking bays and both active and passive charging infrastructure |
| 9 | A8 | Measures should also be taken to improve public transport or the use of innovative solutions like water taxis or automated shuttle buses to move west-east along the seafront |
| 10 | A9 | Secure and attractive cycle parking should be provided at convenient and regular locations |
| 11 | A10 | Cycle infrastructure should seek to link the seafront with other parts of the city |
| 12 | A11 | As far as reasonably practicable, the seafront should be accessible to those with limited mobility, including ensuring adequate vehicular access and parking for people with limited mobility or disability at points along the seafront |
The following in-depth analysis has been undertaken in the interest of the council wanting to be thorough and transparent of the issues at hand.
Respondents in disagreement with the proposed approach to transport and access tended to object to a number of areas of the proposal.
Option A1 about prioritising users is the area facing most criticism; 62% of this cohort selected it.
Also unpopular, but not selected by a majority of this cohort, is option A2 about the seafront road network and parking (48%).
The following chart shows the elements of transport and access that respondents disagree with. Option A1 ‘prioritising users’ attracts the most criticism, selected by 62% of respondents.
A large proportion of comments made about the proposed approach to transport and access mention the need to prioritise cars, or at least not de-prioritise them, and the importance of retaining parking spaces at the seafront.
Concerns were raised about the impact the proposal will have on different groups of visitors to the seafront, e.g. the elderly, people with a disability and tourists.
A number of comments talk about how cyclists shouldn’t be prioritised, some reason that there are only a small number of cyclists use cycle routes in the area and others that cyclists are not adhering to cycle laws.
The following table expands on the responses of the previous chart.
| wdt_ID | Proposed approach | Common themes |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | A1 - Prioritising users | Should prioritise cars. Need to keep parking spaces. Balance priority between car drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. This will discourage visitors and non-Southsea residents. Do not prioritise cyclists. Improve public transport first. |
| 3 | A2 - Seafront road network and parking | Unnecessary. Car drivers should be prioritised. Need to balance priority between car drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. Need to keep parking. This would discourage visitors. Cycle laws are not properly enforced currently, would need to change. |
| 5 | A3 - Cycling infrastructure being safe, convenient and enjoyable | Need to allow vehicle access. Not enough cyclists to warrant this proposal. Unnecessary. Need to enforce cycle laws, currently people cycle dangerously. Will discourage visitors. Need for a safer cycle path. |
| 6 | A4 - Primary seafront cycle route | No space for this. Need to keep parking spaces. Not enough cyclists to warrant this proposal, would need to enforce use of the lane. Pedestrians should be the priority. Cycle route should avoid the seafront. This will displace traffic. Not needed here. |
| 7 | A5 - Encouraging sustainable modes of transport | This needs to be done fairly and should include car drivers. Need to keep parking spaces. Accessibility issues. Unnecessary. Visitors will struggle to access the area. Need to improve current public transport. This will displace vehicles. Unachievable. |
| 9 | A6 - Wider walking and cycling networks | Change the route: avoid the seafront/ do not go as far as Eastney Ferry/ built it off the roads. Cyclists do not currently use cycle paths and will not use this one. Unnecessary. Too expensive. Do not close any roads. Penalises car drivers. |
| 11 | A7 - Redesign of roads and parking to encourage electric vehicles | Electric vehicles are costly, need provisions to help more people afford them and use them. Proposal is impractical. Do not have the infrastructure currently for electric vehicles. This would encourage cars, do not want to do that. Unnecessary. |
| 12 | A8 - Improve public transport | Unrealistic proposal. Too expensive. More important to improve current public transport. Would spoil the environment/disturb this area. Unnecessary. |
| 13 | A9 - Cycle parking | Unnecessary. Not enough cyclists to warrant this proposal. Need to keep parking. Accessibility issues. Lack of space for this. |
| 14 | A10 - Cycle infrastructure linking seafront and city | Unnecessary - a small number of cyclists use the current cycle lanes as it is. Wider cycling infrastructure improvements across the city are needed first. Need to keep parking spaces. |
| 15 | A11 - Seafront being accessible | Split between those arguing that proposals should prioritise disabled people, and those saying it is already adequate and they should not be prioritised. Call to ban cars. |
| 16 | Something else | Too much emphasis on cyclists. Keep vehicle access. Need other options to driving. Need to make sure residents can still park. Need to include electric scooters in proposal. |