Green Party response to draft Winchester Town Access Plan, November 2010

About the Green Party and our transport policies

The Green Party has a well-developed and longstanding set of transport and access policies, and has for many years been at the forefront of radical thinking on the need for transportation and how it can be efficiently achieved with minimal damage to the environment and without causing social exclusion. 

The past decades have seen a dramatic rise in the distances generally being travelled and a major shift towards the use of less equitable and unsustainable methods of transport. While the number of trips has not changed significantly, there has been a decrease in walking, cycling and the use of buses, and an increase in trips by car and air.

As the amount of traffic has increased so have the negative consequences. Road traffic is a major and increasing source of many of the worst pollutants, including the nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide, carcinogenic particles and noise. These emissions cause damage to the natural and built environment and have serious effects on human health.

Government transport policy has in the past tried to predict future increases and provide for them. Taxes, regulations and legislation on transport infrastructure and operations have mostly favoured the use of cars, road freight and air travel. A key distinction between Green Party transport policy and others is the emphasis on demand management rather than provision for anticipated demand. We want to provide what is necessary and efficient, and reject simply providing for anticipated demand as wasteful, damaging and unsustainable.

Our vision for Winchester

At 8.4 tonnes of CO2 per person per year, the Winchester District has the highest greenhouse gas emission level in Hampshire, and the sixth highest in the South East of England.  A 2007 survey (WWF) ranked Winchester at the bottom of the UK league for its carbon footprint.

Many people here regard car traffic as blighting what is otherwise a beautiful city. In an opinion survey carried out by Winchester Green Party in the spring of this year, car traffic and congestion clearly emerged as people’s top concern. Transport and access are key issues which must be tackled if Winchester is to become a healthier, fairer and more sustainable place to live.

Our vision for Winchester is one in which a democratically vibrant form of local government would identify and tackle current problems, involving all sectors of society, and steering Winchester onto an upward trend.

We’d like to see a place full of natural and architectural beauty, in which it would be easy and pleasant to walk and cycle. The ancient walled part of the city would be mainly pedestrianised, with efficient public transport systems as the primary form of transport from and into the town. Housing and places of work would take priority in the centre, and an efficient form of trans-shipment would facilitate deliveries. Air quality would be optimum and road safety a high priority.  Low or zero carbon emissions would be achieved through energy efficiency with the planning system creating a compact and walkable city.

Jobs and a vibrant sustainable local economy would be paramount, with green-tech and clean-tech industries, agriculture and small-scale manufacturing companies strongly represented. Close communities and social equality would be the norm, with vulnerable members of society protected and assisted.  Winchester’s relationship with its rural neighbours elsewhere in the District would be mutually beneficial, allowing quick and easy access for work, shopping and leisure.

Winchester Town Access Plan draft, July 2010

Winchester Green Party believes that the WTAP as it stands is not fit for purpose and needs substantial revision.  Our overall concerns are: 

• There is clearly a public consensus in favour of the four key Aims of the WTAP (page 3), and we also welcome these Aims, but the actions proposed in the WTAP do not go anywhere near realising them;
• Public concern ‘To reduce the negative effects of transport on residential neighbourhoods and the town’s historic environment, particularly in relation to air quality and the safety of pedestrians and cyclists’(Aim 4) is reiterated in Priority Area 4: ‘[To] reduce the negative impact of vehicle movements in residential areas’; and yet the WTAP fails to tackle its own top priority;
• No timelines or schedules of action are given; in fact there is not even a date for the duration of the WTAP; no critical path analyses to monitor progress are proposed;
• Essential facts are either missing (for example, no data is given on the Air Quality Management Plan, pages 8, 16 and 37), or conflicting (for example, on page 4 it says there are over 28,000 commuter trips in to the city each day, and on page 23 it says there are approximately 43,000 commuting trips made into and out of Winchester each day).
• The actions proposed in the Action Plan, such as new stretches of cycling contraflow, are futile and potentially even dangerous if, as seems evident, the central problems have been inaccurately identified or evaded.
• The WTAP as it stands would fail to achieve the carbon emission reduction targets so critically needed in the Winchester District.

Actions do not flow in a rational way from the issues identified.  Crucial targets, namely 1) the statutory obligation to comply with National Air Quality Strategy thresholds, and 2) the need to reach the Winchester District Strategic Partnership/Winchester City Council targets of a 20 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2012 and 30 per cent by 2015, should be central to the WTAP but are just mentioned in passing.

We are particularly concerned by the tendentious assumption in favour of car traffic which is conspicuous throughout the WTAP and distorts the entire document: 

It is difficult to see a future in which the car does not continue to dominate travel options (page 14, par 2.8);

The Access Plan makes the working assumption that the means of powering private cars and commercial vehicles will change over time, not their prevalence as a mode of travel (page 15, par 2.18);

Workplace parking levies and road use pricing are not seen as appropriate for Winchester (page 19, par 3.9);

The use of private powered vehicles is likely to continue to be a necessity for many people living and working around the town (page 19, par 3.11).

The only solution proposed in the WTAP to the climate change emissions for which car transport is responsible is low emission vehicles, even though it is recognised that ‘low emission vehicles may be driven more not less [therefore] congestion and traffic management will still be a major issue in the future’.

Although we welcome the intention to ‘seek to promote 20mph maximum speed limits for residential and commercial areas’ (page 20, par 3.17), we note that this falls far short of a commitment with a proposed schedule. Other proposals in the WTAP for traffic management (for none are given for the reduction of traffic) amount merely to (pages 46 and 47): 

• Stop cars parking on the pavement;
• Review residents’ parking;
• Undertake a Road Network and Traffic Management Stage 2 study [no explanation given];
• ‘Promote shared space where this is appropriate’ – The Square and Great Minster Street are mentioned.

Issues missed out of, or downplayed in, the WTAP

The reasons why people need to commute out of Winchester for work, estimated at 18,000 per day, with ‘many’ (number not specified in WTAP, page 23) commuting daily to London, are not explored or analysed.

The use of significant areas of the town centre for car parking rather than for homes and places of work, when, as acknowledged by the WTAP, town centre car parks are only 61 per cent full on average (page 25, par 4.11), is not justified.

The inaccessibility of Winchester by public transport from neighbouring rural areas and other towns, due to high bus fares or the unavailability of buses, is not acknowledged.

The blight of off-road car parking by commuters in residential areas including housing estates, and the illegal trade in visitor car parking passes, are not covered.

There is no acknowledgement that many bus services are under-used, and empty buses are commonly seen on the road. Buses are often late and slow. Although efforts have been made to introduce less polluting fuel in some local buses, in general they are still old vehicles which are uncomfortable and spartan, using diesel and doing extremely few miles per gallon.  In the WTAP a glowingly and unrealistically positive picture of bus travel is painted (page 31, pars 4.41 to 4.45), and none of the negative issues are presented or tackled.

Our recommendations

1. The WTAP should be revised and reframed around the following questions:  

• How should Winchester be in [a specified year in the future, eg 2026]?;
• What changes do we need to make to reach those objectives?
• In particular, how do we reduce levels of traffic congestion, which are harming not only people’s health and well-being but also the economic prospects of Winchester?
• What actions will ensure we comply with National Air Quality thresholds by the statutory deadlines?
• What actions are needed to ensure we hit climate change emission reduction targets?
• How do we create a city which is sufficiently attractive both environmentally and economically to ensure that most local people do not have to commute out to work?
• How do we monitor our progress?

 2. A strategic numerical target for the future proportion of journeys by the different modes of transport, favouring walking, cycling, and public transport, should be set.

3. No options should be ruled out of the WTAP. The statement (page 21, par 3.23) that ‘there are no options in Winchester for an extension of public transport options beyond bus and rail’, unnecessarily restrict the Plan’s ambition.

4. Schedules with deadlines and reviews of actions should be specified in the WTAP.

5. When a conflict occurs between businesses (arguing an economic interest) and respondents favouring a move away from car dominance, the former should be invited to set out their case for retaining the status quo for inclusion in the WTAP. Indicative data on retail turnover pre- and post-pedestrianisation of the High Street should be provided for comparison. Research data on the economic impact of progressive transport policies and pedestrianisation schemes should be gathered from relevant towns and cities, including Basingstoke, Freiburg, Groningen and Zermatt.

6. An integrated public transport system Winchester and the surrounding District should be planned and taken forward. An investment plan should be drawn up. As a first step, an integrated local public transport timetable, to include rail and buses (all company services), linking the services available, should be published, both online and in hard copy, funded by HCC/WCC in partnership.

7. A 20mph speed limit for residential areas should be piloted in 2011, then if successful rolled out to other areas, with the aim of city-wide implementation. 

8. Provision should be put in place now to ensure that only green-tariff electricity (100 per cent renewable) is used in electric low-emission cars in the future.

9. A ‘shared space’ scheme should be piloted in 2011, and if successful adopted in other suitable locations. 

10. The WTAP process should be integrated with the development of the Hampshire-wide partnership’s Climate Change Vision and Strategy being coordinated by HCC.

11. The capital and revenue value of city centre car parks should be realised and optimised through raising car parking charges and/or releasing them for housing, and the income raised used to increase bus subsidies. 

See draft WTAP at: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/tap-winchester-full-document.pdf 

ENDS