S 

MOLE VALLEY DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN

Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

Project Title: Mole Valley District Council Local Plan

Document Title: Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

Client Reference:

Date: 1 March 2017

Prepared By: Print Emma Hooper

Authorised By: Print William Bryans

Amendment List Iss. / Rev Edit Iss. / Rev. Date Page Iss. / Rev. 2 01/03/17 20 Paragraph 3.3.4 edited 2 01/03/17 18 Paragraph 3.1.2 added 2 01/03/17 19 Table 3.1 added 2 01/03/17 18 Paragraph 3.1.1 edited 2 01/03/17 19 Paragraph 3.1.3 edited 2 01/03/17 14 Section 2.5 edited 2 01/03/17 17 Figure 2.5 added 2 01/03/17 20 Paragraph 3.1.6 added 2 01/03/17 17 Section 2.6 added 0201SF10 07/08/02 Filename: S:\Project-Current\3000 PROJECT NOS STARTING WTIH 3000\3613\53613T47_Molevalley\02 Reports\Doc01_Existing Transport Trends & Constraints_V2.Docx

Issue No. 02 Page 2 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 4 1.1 Background 4 1.2 Location 4 1.3 Population 4 1.4 Mode of Transport 4 1.5 Distance Travelled to Work 6 2 HIGHWAY 7 2.1 Existing Highway Network 7 2.2 Highway Traffic Growth 8 2.3 Car Availability 9 2.4 Origins and Destinations of Car Commuters 10 2.5 Existing Areas of Delay 14 2.6 Travel to School 17 2.7 Road Safety 19 3 PUBLIC TRANSPORT 21 3.1 Existing Bus Services 21 3.2 Bus Reliability 22 3.3 Origins and Destinations of Bus Commuters 23 3.4 Existing Rail Network 27 3.5 Railway Station Usage 27 3.6 Origins and Destinations of Rail Commuters 28 3.7 Accessibility 32 4 CYCLING 33 4.1 Existing Cycle Network 33 4.2 Cycle Usage 34 4.3 Propensity to Cycle 36 5 FUTURE TRANSPORT SCHEMES 37 5.2 Highway 37 5.3 Public Transport 37 5.4 Cycling 39 6 SUMMARY 40

Issue No. 02 Page 3 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 1.1.1 Mole Valley District Council is in the process of producing a new Local Plan. The new Local Plan will establish a spatial strategy to show the most suitable quantity and location of future residential and commercial development in the district. The Local Plan therefore aims to ensure the demand of future development is adequately met by the most suitable strategy of supply.

1.1.2 To ensure decision making regarding the location of new development is well informed, Mole Valley are seeking to enhance their evidence base of the existing, as well as potential future, transport issues in the district. Transport is one of the many key forms of infrastructure required when planning for future development. Local policy and national government guidance states that future developments must be suitably located near, and/or provide, transport infrastructure and services for residents and employees to utilise, as well as encouraging sustainable travel patterns1.

1.1.3 Mole Valley commissioned Surrey County Council’s Transport Studies team to analyse the current transport patterns and issues in the district, to aid the evidence base of the new Local Plan.

1.1.4 This document provides an insight to the existing transport trends and constraints of the current highway network and public transport facilities in Mole Valley at a district wide scale. It should therefore be considered that some of the strategic views expressed in this document may not be as apparent at the more local detailed scale.

1.2 Location 1.2.1 The district of Mole Valley is located in the centre of Surrey. It is bounded by the neighbouring local authorities of Reigate and Banstead, Epsom and Ewell, Elmbridge, Guildford and Waverley in Surrey, as well as Horsham and Crawley in West Sussex and Kingston-upon-Thames in London.

1.2.2 Mole Valley is a predominantly rural district with the main urban centres focusing around the towns of Leatherhead in the north of the district and Dorking in the centre.

1.2.3 London Gatwick Airport is situated in very close proximity to the south eastern district boundary, in the neighbouring local authority of Crawley, West Sussex.

1.3 Population 1.3.1 Mole Valley has a total population of approximately 85,0002, which is approximately 8% of the total population in the county of Surrey. Of the total population in Mole Valley 71% are aged between 16 and 74, whereas the proportions for Surrey and the South East are 72% and 73% respectively. This therefore suggests that Mole Valley has a very marginally smaller population that could be classified as the working age, when compared to the surrounding area.

1.4 Mode of Transport 1.4.1 Figure 1.1 displays the choice of mode that the residents of Mole Valley, aged between 16 and 74, use to travel to work according to the 2011 census. For

1 Source: National Planning Policy Framework 2 Source: 2011 Census (Table KS101EW)

Issue No. 02 Page 4 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

comparative purposes, Figure 1.1 also displays the choice of mode for the county of Surrey and the south east region, excluding London.

Method of Travel to Work

70%

74 60% - Mole Valley 50% 40% Surrey 30% 20% South East (excl London) 10%

0%

Taxi

Train

Other

Bicycle

On foot On

Motorcycle

Bus / Coach / Bus

Car / / Van Driver Car

Work from homeWorkfrom

Percentage Percentage Usual Residents Aged 16

Underground Underground / Tram Car / / Van Passenger Car Mode

Source: 2011 Census (Nomis Table QS701EW) Figure 1.1: Method of travel to work

1.4.2 Figure 1.1 clearly highlights that the preferred method of travel to work in Mole Valley is by driving a car/van, as 58% of the working age residents were recorded as using this mode in the 2011 census. However, a marginally smaller proportion of Mole Valley’s residents are using the private car as the main mode of travel to work when compared to the county of Surrey and south east region, which have values of 59% and 60% respectively.

1.4.3 The second most favoured mode of transport to the workplace by Mole Valley residents is train, with 13% of residents commuting by rail. A slightly smaller proportion of residents use the train to travel to work when compared to the Surrey value of 14%, but both Mole Valley and Surrey have a higher proportion of people using the train when compared to the entire south east region, where only 7% of residents use the train to travel to and from the workplace.

1.4.4 Figure 1.1 also indicates that Mole Valley has a greater proportion of residents either working from home (10%) or travelling to work on foot (10%), when compared to the county of Surrey and the south east region.

1.4.5 However, Figure 1.1 is suggesting that travel via bus or bicycle is slightly lower in Mole Valley when compared to the proportion of working residents using these modes in Surrey and the south east. 1% of residents in Mole Valley use the bus to get to work, whereas 3% and 4% use this mode in Surrey and the south-east for the same purpose. With regards to cycling to work, 1% of Mole Valley residents cycle compared to 2% of Surrey residents and 3% of residents in the south east.

1.4.6 It could therefore be suggested that physical infrastructure improvements and/or a change to attitudes may be required in Mole Valley to encourage a greater number of working residents to travel by bicycle and bus, so the proportions for these modes are consistent with Surrey and the south east.

Issue No. 02 Page 5 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

1.5 Distance Travelled to Work 1.5.1 The average distance travelled to work (for all modes) by residents of Mole Valley, aged between 16 and 74, is 15.4km. This Mole Valley statistic is almost identical to the Surrey average distance travelled to work of 15.6km3.

1.5.2 Table 1.1 shows the distance travelled to work, by mode, for Mole Valley residents according to the 2011 census. Values for Surrey have been presented in brackets and grey text where they differ from the values for Mole Valley.

1.5.3 Table 1.1 reinforces the information previously shown in Figure 1.1, which driving a car/van is generally the dominant mode choice when travelling to work for the district of Mole Valley, as well as the county of Surrey.

1.5.4 Driving a car/van is the dominant mode for all distances travelled to work, with the exception of workplaces situated less than 2km or 30 to 40km away. 48% of Mole Valley residents travel on foot when the distance to work is 2km or less, whereas 63% of trips travelling a distance of 30 to 40km for work purposes are made by rail.

1.5.5 A substantially high proportion of residents that are travelling a distance of less than 5km to work are using the private car/van to do this. 73% of Mole Valley residents are using the car to travel between 2 and 5km to work, whereas 3% are travelling by rail, another 3% by bus, 5% are cycling and 6% are travelling on foot. These values are generally in correlation with the Surrey figures, although it should be noted that 7% of Surrey residents use the bus when travelling between 2 and 5km to work, whereas only 3% of Mole Valley residents do.

1.5.6 48% of the districts residents commute to work on foot if the distance to the workplace is less than 2km, which is slightly greater than the Surrey figure of 42%. However, 40% of Mole Valley residents still drive a car/van to work even though the distance travelled is less than 2km.

1.5.7 Table 1.2 presents similar information as Table 1.1 but focuses on the distances travelled by Mole Valley residents commuting by car/van and rail. Table 2.1 reinforces Table 1.1 by indicating that use of the private car is most popular when commuting distances between 2 and 20km, therefore predominantly short distance commuting trips. Whereas, Table 1.2 indicates that rail is the preferable mode to use when commuting distances between 20 and 40km, predominantly long distance trips. Such trends shown in the 2011 census suggests that rail is not being used by Mole Valley or Surrey residents for short distance trips but instead the private car is used.

1.5.8 Research has found that switching to a non-car commuting mode is much more likely if the distance travelled is less than three miles (just under 5km)4. This finding in conjunction with Tables 1.1 and 1.2 indicates that there is potential for large proportions of Mole Valley residents commuting less than 5km to be encouraged to switch from the private car to more sustainable modes of bus and rail, or the more active modes of cycling and walking.

1.5.9 Switching to a non-car mode is highly dependent on the quantity, quality and accessibility to existing public transport facilities and infrastructure in the district. Key factors that can influence an individual’s decision about whether to switch from the private car to sustainable modes for commuting are distance, duration, comfort and convenience of the journey.

3 Source: 2011 Census (Nomis Table QS702EW) 4 Source: Clarke, B. et al (2015) Changes to Commute Mode: The Role of Life Events, Spatial Context and Environmental Attitude. Transportation Research Part A, Vol 89, pp 89-105

Issue No. 02 Page 6 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

Work Train / Car / Van Bus / Car / Van from U’ground Passeng Bicycle On Foot Other Coach Driver home / Tram er 1% 40% 4% 48% < 2km 0% 2% 4% 1% (2%) (43%) (5%) (42%) 3% 3% 73% 8% 2 to 5km 0% 5% 6% 1% (2%) (7%) (71%) (7%) 4% 3% 81% 6% 3% 5 to 10km 0% 2% 1% (5%) (5%) (80%) (5%) (2%) 8% 83% 2% 10 to 20km 0% 2% 3% 1% 2% (11%) (79%) (1%) 43% 51% 20 to 30km 0% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% (45%) (50%) 63% 0% 32% 0% 1% 3% 30 to 40km 0% 1% (53%) (1%) (42%) (1%) (0%) (1%) 33% 0% 62% 2% 1% 40 to 60km 0% 1% 0% (56%) (1%) (39%) (1%) (1%) 8% 0% 77% 2% 8% 3% > 60 km 0% 2% (23%) (2%) (63%) (1%) (6%) (2%) Other 63% 0% 27% 0% 2% 1% (incl work from 4% 2% (60%) (1%) (29%) (1%) (1%) (2%) home) 16% 13% 1% 55% 3% 8% 1% All distances 2% (13%) (14%) (3%) (56%) (3%) (7%) (2%) Source: 2011 Census (Nomis Table DC7701EWIa) Values for Surrey have been presented in brackets and grey text where they differ from the values for Mole Valley Table 1.1: Distance travelled to work by all modes (residents aged 16 or over)

Other (incl 2 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 60 < 2km > 60 km work km km km km km km from home) 9% 14% 20% 27% 10% 2% 13% Car / Van Driver 4% 2% (10%) (18%) (22%) (22%) (9%) (3%) (12%) Train / U’ground 4% 11% 36% 32% 5% 1% 8% 2% 2% / Tram (6%) (13%) (33%) (20%) (15%) (3%) (7%) Source: 2011 Census (Nomis Table DC7701EWIa) Values for Surrey have been presented in brackets and grey text where they differ from the values for Mole Valley Table 1.2: Distance travelled to work by car/van and rail (residents aged 16 or over)

2 HIGHWAY

2.1 Existing Highway Network 2.1.1 Figure 2.1 shows an overview of the highway network in the boundary of Mole Valley.

2.1.2 A section of the strategic highway network travels through the north-east of the district, namely the M25, with junctions 9a and 9b facilitating access to and from the motorway at Leatherhead. In addition to this section of the strategic highway network, other key roads in Mole Valley are: -A24; -A243; -A246. -A25; -A244; -A29; -A245; and

Issue No. 02 Page 7 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

Figure 2.1: Overview of Mole Valley

2.2 Highway Traffic Growth 2.2.1 Table 2.1 provides an indication of growth in highway traffic from 2010 for each subsequent year until 2014, for traffic travelling in the district of Mole Valley and the county of Surrey.

2.2.2 The growth in traffic presented in Table 2.1 is representative of million vehicle kilometres travelled for all motor vehicles on all A principal roads in Mole Valley and Surrey. It should be noted that this is not an accurate figure, but is indicative of traffic flow in the district and county.

2.2.3 The proportion of HGVs is also presented for each individual year. This figure does not represent growth but the proportion of vehicle composition for the year in question.

Issue No. 02 Page 8 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

2011 2012 2013 2014 Mole Valley Growth since 2010 -0.7% -1.2% -1.4% 1.4% % HGV 2.6% 2.8% 2.9% 2.8% Surrey Growth since 2010 0.6% -0.4% -0.1% 1.2% %HGV 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% Source: Surrey County Council (Transport Studies) Table 2.1: Growth in traffic compared to 2010 and HGV proportions

2.2.4 Table 2.1 indicates that traffic flow on A principal roads in the district of Mole Valley declined by up to 1.4% between 2011 and 2013 when compared to 2010. However, in 2014 traffic flow increased by 1.4% when compared to 2010.

2.2.5 The pattern of traffic growth for the county of Surrey follows a similar trend to that shown in Mole Valley. The exception being traffic on Surrey’s A principal roads grew by 0.6% in 2011, when compared to 2010, but in Mole Valley traffic flow decreased by 0.7%. The proportional traffic flow reductions and increases in Mole Valley are of a slight greater magnitude than that in Surrey.

2.2.6 The proportion of HGVs contributing to the vehicle fleet on the A principal roads in Surrey has remained relatively constant in Surrey between 2010 and 2014. This is also the case for Mole Valley, although the proportion of HGVs has increased by a minor 0.2% between 2010 and 2014.

2.2.7 In summary, it could be stated that the traffic flows and composition in both Mole Valley and Surrey have remained relatively constant between 2010 and 2014.

2.3 Car Availability 2.3.1 Table 2.2 presents car availability figures for the district of Mole Valley as well as comparative values for Surrey and the south east region, sourced from the 2011 census.

2.3.2 12% of households do not have access to a car in the district, whereas the values for Surrey and the south east are greater at 13% and 19% respectively.

2.3.3 A slightly smaller proportion of households have access to one car in Mole Valley, when compared to Surrey and the south east. However, availability to two or three cars is greater in the district when compared to the values for the county and wider region. 35% of households have access to two cars and 10% have access to three cars in Mole Valley.

2.3.4 In summary, Table 2.2 suggests that car availability is higher in Mole Valley, as well as a greater proportion of households having access to two or more cars, when compared to Surrey and the south east region.

South East Mole Valley Surrey (excl London) No Car/Van (households) 12% 13% 19% 1 Car/Van (households) 39% 40% 42% 2 Car/Van (households) 35% 34% 30% 3 Car/Van (households) 10% 9% 7% 4 or more Car/Van (households) 4% 4% 3% Source: 2011 Census (Table KS404EW) Table 2.2: Car/van availability

Issue No. 02 Page 9 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

2.4 Origins and Destinations of Car Commuters 2.4.1 Tables 2.3 to 2.4 and Figures 2.2 to 2.3 provide information about where Mole Valley car commuting residents are travelling to as well as where people working in Mole Valley are commuting from. Information displayed in Section 2.4 is sourced from the 2011 census journey to work dataset and based on lower super output areas aggregated to local authorities.

2.4.2 Table 2.3 coincides with information displayed in Figure 2.2. Table 2.3 shows the ten local authorities that the largest proportions of Mole Valley residents commute to via car i.e. the most popular workplace destinations of people whose trip originates in Mole Valley. Figure 2.2 is a visual representation of Table 2.3 but for all workplace destinations of Mole Valley residents commuting by car.

2.4.3 Table 2.3 informs, according to the 2011 census, over a third (35%) of Mole Valley residents are travelling by car to a workplace also in Mole Valley. Figure 2.2 suggests that of these intra-district car commuting trips the most concentrated workplace destinations are focused around the two largest towns in Mole Valley, namely Leatherhead and Dorking. The area of the district between Leatherhead and Dorking centred by the A24 is also shown to be a popular workplace destination, followed by the areas to the east, west and south of Mole Valley.

2.4.4 Table 2.3 and Figure 2.2 also show that a large proportion of Mole Valley residents are using the car to commute to the neighbouring borough of Reigate and Banstead, specifically Reigate town centre. Approximately 157 to 299 Mole Valley residents are commuting by car to the lower super output area that contains London Gatwick Airport, situated south east of the districts boundary.

2.4.5 The majority of people commuting from Mole Valley by car are travelling to workplace locations in neighbouring local authorities in either Surrey or West Sussex. However, small proportions of Mole Valley residents are using the car to commute greater distances away from the district such as areas of London, specifically Sutton, Merton and Hillingdon (London Heathrow Airport).

2.4.6 Figure 2.2 supports the statistic discussed previously in paragraph 1.5.1 that the average distance travelled to work, by all modes, of approximately 15 km is also the case for cars. Furthermore, this is also supported by the 2011 census identifying the greatest proportion of car commuters, 27%, in Mole Valley travel between 10 and 20 km5.

2.4.7 As previously discussed in Section 1 the dominant mode choice for travelling to work in Mole Valley, as well as in Surrey and the south east region, is by car. There is potential to try and encourage some residents travelling to work from Mole Valley to nearby proven popular destinations such as Reigate, Gatwick, Epsom and Kingston to switch from using the car to sustainable modes such as train and bus. Switching to either modes of bus or rail is more likely to be achievable if residents of Mole Valley can access rail stations or bus routes that travel to an area in close proximity to the workplace destination, with regular and reliable services at suitable times of day.

2.4.8 Table 2.4 relates to information displayed in Figure 2.3. Table 2.4 displays the ten local authorities that the largest proportions of car commuters originate from when commuting by car to a workplace in Mole Valley i.e. the most popular areas of residence for those travelling by car to work in Mole Valley. Figure 2.3 is a visual representation of Table 2.4 but for all areas of residence of those commuting to a workplace in Mole Valley.

5 Source: 2011 Census (Nomis Table DC7701EwIa)

Issue No. 02 Page 10 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

2.4.9 Similar to Table 2.3, Table 2.4 indicates that the largest proportion, 28%, of car commuters travelling to a workplace destination in Mole Valley are also residents of Mole Valley. Figure 2.3 indicates that the majority of the Mole Valley residents producing these intra-district trips generally live in the centre of the district as well as the rural extremities.

2.4.10 Figure 2.3 suggests that in general the amount of people commuting by car to a workplace in Mole Valley gradually decreases as the distance increases from the district. This trend is relatively even in all directions away from the boundary of Mole Valley, with exceptions to this occurring in the central areas of Guildford and Billingshurst.

Workplace Destination of Rank Car Commuters with an Proportion Origin in Mole Valley 1 Mole Valley 35% 2 Reigate and Banstead 10% 3 Guildford 7% 4 Epsom and Ewell 6% 5 Elmbridge 6% 6 Kingston-upon-Thames 4% 7 Crawley 4% 8 Sutton 3% 9 Horsham 2% 10 Woking 2% Source: 2011 Census (Journey to Work dataset) Table 2.3: Ten local authorities that greatest proportion of car commuters from Mole Valley travel to (residents age 16 and over)

Origins of Car Commuters Rank with a Workplace Proportion Destination in Mole Valley 1 Mole Valley 28% 2 Reigate and Banstead 11% 3 Horsham 6% 4 Epsom and Ewell 5% 5 Guildford 5% 6 Elmbridge 4% 7 Sutton 4% 8 Crawley 3% 9 Kingston-upon-Thames 3% 10 Waverley 2% Source: 2011 Census (Journey to Work dataset) Table 2.4: Ten local authorities that greatest proportion of car commuters to Mole Valley travel from (residents age 16 and over)

Issue No. 02 Page 11 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

Figure 2.2: Destination of car commuters with an origin in Mole Valley

Issue No. 02 Page 12 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

Figure 2.3: Origins of car commuters with a destination in Mole Valley

Issue No. 02 Page 13 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

2.5 Existing Areas of Delay 2.5.1 Figures 2.4 and 2.5 presents data relating to observed vehicle delay for roads in the district of Mole Valley in the AM and PM peak hours (0800 – 0900 and 1700 - 1800). Observed delay data was sourced from Strat-e-gis Congestion, developed by Mott MacDonald. Strat-e-gis holds observed delay information from global positioning systems. The observed data is representative of Tuesday to Thursday weekday data (excluding school holidays) for the academic year of 2014/15 (01/09/14 – 31/08/15). 2014/15 is the most recent data held in the database.

2.5.2 Figures 2.4 and 2.5 show the average amount of delay incurred for Mole Valley roads grouped into bands of delay by seconds.

2.5.3 Data is shown per direction of travel for dual carriageways, whereas for single carriageways it is only possible to display a band for the direction of travel incurring the greatest delay during the peak hours.

2.5.4 Both Figures 2.4 and 2.5 show a minor amount of anomalies in the observed dataset, specifically where high values of delay are presented on very minor residential cul-de-sac roads in Ashtead, Fetcham and Dorking. For this reason, as well as the two limitations aforementioned, the information shown in Figures 2.4 and 2.5 should not be treated as absolute, but instead be used as an indicator of existing delay experienced in the district during the AM and PM peak hours.

2.5.5 The majority of roads observed as incurring a delay greater than 15 seconds in the AM peak hour are primarily located in the urban and largest residential areas surrounding the districts main towns of Leatherhead and Dorking. This is due to most people travelling to the workplace in the morning, which are primarily located in and around the main urban areas of Mole Valley.

2.5.6 The key corridors in the district shown in Figure 2.4 as having delay ranging between 15 and 60 seconds in the AM peak hour are:

 A243 Kingston Road between junction 9b and the boundary with Kingston- upon-Thames;  A246 Young Street between Givons Grove roundabout and B2122 Guildford Road;  B2033 Reigate Road and Headley Road joining the A24 By-Pass Road;  A25 Reigate Road and Westcott Road approaching Dorking town centre from the east and west; and  A24 Deepdene Avenue between Deepdene roundabout and North Holmwood roundabout;

2.5.7 Figure 2.4 indicates where delay can range between 60 to 180 seconds, (a minute to three minutes), by the roads highlighted in a red band. In Leatherhead the areas where the red bands are most prominent are:

 M25 clockwise between junctions 8 and 10, as well as the clockwise off slip at junction 9a;  A243 By-Pass Road between Knoll roundabout and junction 9a;  A24 Leatherhead Road on the approaches to the signalised junction with Ermyn Way and Grange Road;  B2122 Waterway Road on the approach to the signalised junction with A245 Station Road (Leatherhead one-way system); and  Broadhurst to travel south through the Ashtead level crossing.

2.5.8 The main areas where delay can range between 60 to 180 seconds in the AM peak hour, surrounding Dorking, are:

Issue No. 02 Page 14 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

 A25 Reigate Road between the roundabout with B3002 Station Road and Brockham Lane;  A24 Horsham Road on the northbound approach to North Holmwood roundabout, as well as A24 Deepdene Avenue and Chart Lane north of Holmwood roundabout; and  A2003 Horsham Road and Coldharbour Lane northbound to join Dorking one- way system.

2.5.9 With regards to Figure 2.5, there are similarities in the PM peak hour to the AM peak hour, as to where high values of delay are located on the district’s roads. However, when comparing Figure 2.5 with 2.4, the amount of delay incurred on some of the district’s more congested roads does vary between the AM and PM peak hour.

2.5.10 The key corridors in the district shown in Figure 2.5 as having delay ranging between 15 and 60 seconds in the PM peak hour are:

 A243 Kingston Road between junction 9b and the boundary with Kingston- upon-Thames;  A244 Oxshott Road between junction 9b and the boundary with Elmbridge Borough Council;  A24 By-Pass Road between Givons Grove roundabout and Beaverbrook roundabout;  B2122 Waterway Road and A245 Station Approach leading into Leatherhead town centre;  A24 Mickleham By-Pass between B2209 Old London Road; and  B2032 Pebble Hill Road.

2.5.11 Similar to Figure 2.4, Figure 2.5 indicates where delay can range between 60 to 180 seconds, (a minute to three minutes), by the roads highlighted in a red band. The areas of the district where the red bands are most prominent during the PM peak hour are:

 A25 Westcott Road to the west of Dorking town centre;  A24 Deepdene Avenue approaching Deepdene roundabout;  A245 Randalls Road approaching Leatherhead town centre;  A243 By-Pass Road between M25 Junction 9a and Knoll roundabout; and  B2450 Dorking Road approaching Givons Grove roundabout.

2.5.12 Generally, the greatest amount of delay is incurred on the roads leading into and out of the main urban settlements of Leatherhead and Dorking in the AM and PM peak hours, as well as on the approaches to key junctions on the town’s peripheries.

2.5.13 Figures 2.4 and 2.5 provide an indication of those roads that are likely to be most sensitive to additional flow from vehicle trips generated from any potential development proposed in the Local Plan. Dependent on the size, nature and location of future development; existing areas of delay and congestion could be exacerbated or new areas of congestion could be created.

Consequently, it is of great importance to understand how vehicle flow and delay may alter on roads in closest proximity to potential development locations as part of the evidence base for the district’s new Local Plan. It is also of interest to Mole Valley and Surrey County Council that future developments are suitably located and facilitated by transport infrastructure and services that mitigate impacts of additional vehicular trips, as well as encouraging greater amounts of travel by non car modes.

Issue No. 02 Page 15 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

Source: Strat-e-gis 2014/15 Figure 2.4: 2014/15 weekday AM peak hour delay

Issue No. 02 Page 16 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

Source: Strat-e-gis 2014/15 Figure 2.5: 2014/15 weekday PM peak hour delay

2.6 Travel to School 2.6.1 Pupils travelling to and from school, via the private car, can be perceived as a large contributor to congestion on the highway network in the weekday peak periods, specifically the AM peak period.

Issue No. 02 Page 17 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

2.6.2 Figure 2.6 provides indicative proportions of pupils travelling by varying modes to a sample of infant schools across the district of Mole Valley during 2015/16.

Method of Travel to Infant School

40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5%

0%

Perecentage Perecentage ofPupils

Taxi

Walk

Train Cycle

Other Car driver Car

shareCar

Public bus Public

School bus Microscooter

n Stride Park (receving (receving lift) a passenger Car Mode

Source: Surrey County Council (Schools Sustainable Travel) Figure 2.6: Method of travel to infant school

2.6.3 Figure 2.6 indicates that the most popular mode of travel to infant schools in the district is by walking, with 35% of the pupils choosing to walk.

2.6.4 Travel by car has been split into three categories relating to car driving, sharing and being a passenger. When combining all car categories, 26% of infant school pupils are travelling to school via the car, making it the second most used mode for this purpose.

2.6.5 After walking and direct car travel the third most used method of travel to school for Mole Valley infant school pupils is to park and stride, with 24% of pupils choosing this mode choice.

2.6.6 Figure 2.7 displays the proportion of secondary school pupils travelling to school by varied modes and makes comparisons for 2015/16 and 2016/17. It should be noted that the data displayed in Figure 2.7 is representative of a very small sample that only relates to one secondary school in Mole Valley, The Priory Church of England Voluntary Aided School in Dorking, so the data should only be interpreted as indicative.

2.6.7 Figure 2.7 suggests that most secondary school children in the district travel to school either by public or dedicated bus services. Travel by bus to secondary school was the most used mode in 2015/16 and still continues to be the most used mode in 2016/17, even though a decrease in bus use has occurred over the year.

2.6.8 Second to bus, walking to school by secondary school pupils is the most popular mode of travel. In 2015/16 18% of pupils walked to school and in 2016/17 this increased by almost 4% to result in just under 22% of secondary school pupils walking to school in Mole Valley.

2.6.9 Driving to school via the private car is the mode that has experienced the greatest increase in number of pupils travelling to school. In 2015/16 5% of pupils were driven to school but in 2016/17 this increased by just over 10% resulting in 16% of secondary school pupils travelling by car to school.

Issue No. 02 Page 18 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

Method of Travel to Secondary School

40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 2015/16 5% 2016/17

Perecentage Perecentage ofPupils 0%

Walk Train Cycle

Scooting

Car Share Car Driver Car

Park and and Park

Public Bus Public School Bus School Stride/Walk Mode

Source: Surrey County Council (Schools Sustainable Travel) Figure 2.7: Method of travel to secondary school

2.6.10 Figures 2.6 and 2.7 indicate that walking or travel by bus are the most popular modes of travel to school for both infant and secondary school pupils in the district. Travel by car is generally the third most popular choice of mode to school, which is slightly contradictory to the perceived belief that school travel is a key contributor to peak period highway congestion.

2.7 Road Safety 2.7.1 Table 2.5 ranks the total number of highway casualties, (fatal, serious and slight) per million vehicle kilometres travelled for each borough/district in the county of Surrey in 2014.

2.7.2 It is necessary to weight the number of highway casualties per million vehicle kilometres travelled to overcome the variance in the differing amount and type of highway network in each borough/district. It should be noted that vehicle kilometres was sourced from the annual average daily traffic flow on A principal roads for all vehicle types in each borough/district of the county.

2.7.3 Table 2.5 indicates that Mole Valley is ranked the lowest of all boroughs and districts in Surrey for the number of highway casualties per million kilometres in 2014. In 2014 Mole Valley had 1.07 highway casualties per million vehicle kilometres, whereas the borough of Spelthorne had three times the amount of highway casualties per million kilometres, and is ranked the highest of all Surrey boroughs and districts.

Issue No. 02 Page 19 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

All Casualties per Borough / District Million Vehicle Rank Kilometres Spelthorne 3.13 1 Runnymede 2.26 2 Tandridge 1.98 3 Woking 1.75 4 Reigate & Banstead 1.64 5 Epsom & Ewell 1.61 6 Elmbridge 1.32 7 Guildford 1.24 8 Surrey Heath 1.20 9 Waverley 1.11 10 Mole Valley 1.07 11 Source: Surrey County Council (Road Safety and Transport Studies) Table 2.5: 2014 highway casualties per million vehicle kilometres

2.7.4 An area of Mole Valley that is of concern to Surrey County Council regarding road safety is Dorking town centre, specifically the section of the A25 High Street/South Street between Deepdene roundabout and Junction Road. This section of the town centre has a history of high collision rates between vehicles and pedestrians. The road width on the A25 High Street is extensive, thus creating a greater distance for pedestrians to cross without refuge due to the infrequent provision of controlled crossing points. Footways are present on either side of the A25 High Street/South Street but the footway on the westbound side of the carriageway is segregated from the highway by being elevated. However, a safety risk is posed to pedestrians from the elevated footway, as very steep steps lead down from the footway straight into the carriageway. These steps provide uncontrolled crossing opportunities for pedestrians, but no barriers are present to protect pedestrians from vehicles at the bottom of the steps. Potential solutions to the road safety concerns in Dorking town centre would be to widen the footways thus reducing the distance of the carriageway to cross for pedestrians, as well as potentially increasing the amount of controlled crossing points. However, it should be acknowledged that if additional controlled crossing points were provided then this could impact vehicular traffic by being a source of additional delay in Dorking town centre.

2.7.5 The A24 that travels north/south through the district is also a known area of concern for road safety, particularly at the junction of A24 Mickleham By-pass with B2209 Old London Road. A high collision rate has been present at this junction from vehicles crossing the dual carriageway to access and exit B2209 Old London Road In 2005 a fixed speed camera was installed at this location on the A24 northbound carriageway with associated safety camera warning signs and driver activated illuminated signs, to remind drivers of the 50 mph speed limit and a camera being present. Prior to the fixed speed camera being installed there were 36 collisions in three years, resulting in 56 casualties, of which seven serious injuries and two fatalities6. It is probable that without enforcing the speed limit on this section of the A24 there would be an increased likelihood of further casualties at this location. The fixed speed camera on the A24 Mickleham By-pass is currently the only one in Mole Valley but mobile enforcement is also regularly undertaken further north of this location.

2.7.6 Highways England have identified junction 9a of the M25 to be a safety concern. Long queues and delay frequent the main clockwise carriageway and clockwise off slip at junction 9a in the AM peak period. Such queues on the junction 9a off slip can extend back onto the main M25 carriageway, thus causing a safety implication

6 Source: Drive SMART

Issue No. 02 Page 20 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

for drivers continuing to travel on the M25 as well as those waiting in a queue to exit the motorway at Leatherhead. Congestion on the local road network, specifically at the junction 9a roundabout, the A243 By-pass Road and A24 Leatherhead By-pass that meet at Knoll roundabout, are known to contribute to the delay and queues incurred at the junction 9a clockwise off slip in the AM peak period, as highlighted in Section 2.5. At other times of the day, when congestion is less, vehicles traverse the circulatory roundabout at high speed thus generating a safety risk for vehicles joining the roundabout from the approach arms. Furthermore, a large amount of weaving occurs on the roundabout which is not helped by dedicated lane markings currently being absent from the circulatory carriageway and approach arms.

3 PUBLIC TRANSPORT

3.1 Existing Bus Services 3.1.1 The two main urban towns of the district, Dorking and Leatherhead, are serviced most frequently with connections within and external to the district. Bus routes beginning and passing through the district allow passengers to travel between the key nearby destinations of Guildford, Gatwick, Horsham, Crawley, Epsom and Kingston-upon-Thames. Mole Valley benefits from relatively good coverage of bus routes and services in the urban areas of the district. Rural areas of the district do not have as great provision of scheduled bus services and therefore there are known gaps in the existing bus service in Mole Valley.

3.1.2 Table 3.1 shows the key existing bus services that run regularly in the district. Details are also provided for the general routes taken between the origins and destinations that they serve. The existing bus services ultimately dictates where people are currently able to travel to/from in the district via bus.

Bus Service Route Location No. Epsom, Leatherhead, Headley, Box Hill, Dorking, Holmwood, Beare Green, 21 Newdigate, Charlwood, Crawley Shere, Abinger Hammer, Holmbury St Mary, Abinger Common, Westcott, Dorking, 22 Chart Downs, Leigh, Charlwood, Horley, Gatwick, Crawley 50/433/522 Redhill, Reigate, Dorking, Horsham Redhill, Earlswood, Meadvale, Reigate, Betchworth, Strood Green, Brockham, 32 Dorking, Westcott, Gomshall, Shere, Albury, Chilworth and Guildford 93 Horsham, Capel, Beare Green, Holmwood, Goodwyns, Dorking Chipstead Valley, Woodmansterne, Banstead, Drift Bridge, Epsom, Ashtead, 408 Leatherhead, Woodbridge, Oxshott, Stoke D’Abernon, Cobham, Oxhshott 416 Kiln Lane Sainsburys, Epsom, Ashtead, Leatherhead 465 Dorking, Mickleham, Leatherhead, Chessington, Hook, Surbiton, Kingston Guildford, Merrow, West Clandon, West Horsley, East Horsley, Effingham, Bookham, 478 Leatherhead and Woodbridge Epsom, Ashtead, St Andrews School, Leatherhead, Fetcham, Bookham, Howard of 479 Effingham School, West Clandon, Merrow, Guildford Bus Station 669 Walton-on-the-Hill, Tadworth, Lower Kingswood, Reigate, Dorking Table 3.1: Existing bus services

3.1.3 As a large proportion of Mole Valley is rural it is acknowledged that there are some gaps in the coverage of the bus service and lack of frequency on some routes. To help overcome this limitation Mole Valley District Council and Surrey County Council have a partnership with Buses 4 U to provide the Mole Valley Demand

Issue No. 02 Page 21 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

Responsive service, operating Monday to Friday and Saturday afternoons. The Mole Valley Demand Responsive Service collects passengers from Bookham, Fetcham plus rural areas of the district when they require the service and allows them to travel between their place of residence and anywhere else in the district, as well as to attractions in neighbouring local authorities such as Horley, Redhill, Reigate and East Surrey and Epsom hospitals.

3.1.4 In addition to the Mole Valley Demand Responsive service there is also the WASP Community Bus and Chatterbus Service that also help to supplement the ordinary bus services in the district. The WASP Community Bus specifically focuses on running scheduled services between the rural settlements in the west of the district and connecting passengers to the retail facilities in Guildford, Broadbridge Heath or Cranleigh. The Chatterbus Service complements the existing bus services by running a scheduled service for residents located between Weybridge and Leatherhead on Saturdays.

3.1.5 In 2016 the second phase of the Surrey County Council Local Transport Review ended which resulted in changes being made to local bus services across the county, including those servicing Mole Valley. Changes were made to local bus services to ensure those with greatest patronage keep running in the face of funding pressures. In Mole Valley this relates to a small number of existing services being withdrawn but replaced by new revised services, extensions to some routes and revisions to some timetables.

3.1.6 Of particular current interest to Mole Valley and its bus patronage is the potential change that may occur to the 465 service. The 465 is a very popular route that currently serves the northern half of the district between Dorking and Leatherhead and continues into the London borough of Kingston-upon-Thames. The 465 is operated by Transport for London but with Surrey County Council contributing to the cost of funding the service. Surrey County Council informed Transport for London that it will no longer be able to contribute to the funding of the service from 1st April 2017. Consequently, Transport for London have specified two potential options for the 465 service, with one being continuing to operate the service between the existing route of Kingston-upon-Thames and Dorking, or shortening the route to terminate at Leatherhead. At present discussions between Transport for London and Surrey County Council are on-going and no final decision has yet been reached or announced by Transport for London. If Transport for London does announce plans to change the 465, this will initiate a public consultation procedure.

3.2 Bus Reliability 3.2.1 As Figure 1.1 and Table 1.1 to 1.2 have previously highlighted, travel by bus in Mole Valley is one of the least favoured modes of travel to work with only 1% of working age residents utilising it. It is acknowledged that bus usage for travel to work purposes is highly dependent on the existing bus network, accessibility to the bus network by residents, as well as the frequency of services.

3.2.2 However, the main problem for buses on the local road network in Surrey is reliability. Key contributing factors as to why bus services may not be running to schedule are congestion on the highway network, as well as vehicles parking illegally on narrow sections of carriageways and in bus stops. Known examples of where illegal on-street parking can hinder buses from easily traversing already narrow roads in Mole Valley are, North Street and A245 Kingston Road in Leatherhead.

3.2.3 If sections of bus routes are travelling on roads in the district that are congested and there are no forms of traffic management that helps to prioritise buses, such

Issue No. 02 Page 22 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

as bus lanes, bus priority at traffic signals or effective parking enforcement, then it is more difficult for services to run to timetabled schedules and provide a reliable service for passengers.

3.2.4 Not only do unreliable bus services cost more to run but it also discourages passengers from using them, especially where real time passenger information is not provided at stops.

3.2.5 Surrey County Council has a statutory obligation to report to the Department for Transport annually regarding bus reliability. Bus surveys conducted in 2015/16 found that of all buses travelling in Surrey during the peak hours, (0730 to 0900 and 1530 to 1800), 77% were running to schedule, (classified as between 1 minute early or 6 minutes late)7. 95% is the target figure to achieve for bus reliability.

3.2.6 Table 3.2 presents an insight into bus reliability figures for Mole Valley in 2014/15 and 2015/16 by providing the proportion of buses that were running to schedule, according to the criteria stated in paragraph 3.2.5. On site surveys were undertaken at the North Street bus stop in Leatherhead and the White Horse (High Street) bus stop in Dorking during the peak hours (0800 to 1030 and 1500 to 1730) of term time days only.

2014/15 2015/16 Leatherhead (North Street) 37% 50% Dorking (White Horse) 62% 57% Source: Surrey County Council (Passenger Transport Group) Table 3.2: Mole Valley bus reliability

3.2.7 Table 3.2 indicates that bus reliability in Mole Valley is below the value of Surrey as a county. The figures also suggest that between 2014 and 2015 there is an amount of variability in the number of services running to schedule, as well as between the two key centres of the district. Bus reliability in the district could be enhanced by use of more stringent parking enforcement on sections of the highway that are used by bus routes, especially where the carriageway width is narrow. A greater number of stops facilitated with real time passenger information would assist passengers by providing greater information to those waiting and planning their journeys.

3.3 Origins and Destinations of Bus Commuters 3.3.1 Figures 3.1 and 3.2 provide information about where Mole Valley residents that use the bus for commuting purposes are travelling to as well as where people working in the district are commuting from, via bus. Information displayed in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 are very similar to that shown in Section 2.4 but for bus commuting trips.

3.3.2 Figures 3.1 and 3.2 are informed by data sourced from the 2011 census journey to work dataset and based on lower super output areas.

3.3.3 Figure 3.1 indicates that of the Mole Valley residents using the bus to commute to work, the majority of residents are commuting to a place of work also located within the district, specifically Dorking and Leatherhead.

3.3.4 Outside of the district, the locations that most Mole Valley residents are commuting to by bus are either the centre of Kingston-upon-Thames or Chessington in the neighbouring local authority of Kingston-upon-Thames, or Walton-on-the-Hill across the district’s boundary in Reigate and Banstead Borough Council or the town centre of Epsom. Table 3.1 displays the routes of the existing bus services

7 Source: Surrey County Council (Passenger Transport Group)

Issue No. 02 Page 23 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

serving the district. It could therefore be assumed that the 465 would be the service most used to access the proven attractive workplace locations of Kingston and Chessington via bus, the 669 to access Walton-on-the-Hill and either the 21, 408 or 479 to access Epsom.

3.3.5 In summary Figure 3.1 is indicating that the majority of Mole Valley bus commuters are travelling within a distance of 20km to their workplace, which correlates with the information shown in Table 1.1, also sourced from the 2011 census.

3.3.6 Figure 3.2 displays the most concentrated areas of residence for those people commuting by bus to a workplace in Mole Valley. Figure 3.2 highlights that the majority of people using the bus to travel to a workplace in the district are also residents of Mole Valley, with the greatest concentrations focused on the more urban settlements of Leatherhead and Dorking. This correlates with these two main towns of Mole Valley being serviced most frequently by multiple bus services. Therefore a high proportion of intra-district bus journeys are occurring for people using the bus to access a workplace in Mole Valley.

3.3.7 Outside of the district, most bus commuters with a workplace destination in Mole Valley are located in neighbouring local authorities of Kingston-upon-Thames (Chessington and Surbiton), Epsom and Ewell (Epsom), Crawley and Guildford town centre. It could therefore be assumed that the bus routes most people favour to travel on to access employment in Mole Valley are the A243 and A24.

3.3.8 Both Figures 3.1 and 3.2 suggest that bus commuting patterns of Mole Valley residents and employees does stretch further to afield to locations such as Greater London. However, it is a very minor amount of trips that are undertaking such longer distance trips by bus for work purposes.

Issue No. 02 Page 24 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

Figure 3.1: Destinations of bus commuters with an origin in Mole Valley

Issue No. 02 Page 25 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

Figure 3.2: Origins of bus commuters with a destination in Mole Valley

Issue No. 02 Page 26 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

3.4 Existing Rail Network 3.4.1 Mole Valley has multiple railway lines travelling through the district, as shown by Figure 2.1, but services are run by three operators: South West Trains; Southern; and First Great Western. The railway line traversing the district in a north/south direction facilitates travel between London and Horsham. There are two separate railway lines that facilitate travel in an east/west direction, one in the north of the district travelling between London and Guildford and the second in the centre of the district allowing passengers to travel between Reigate/Redhill/Gatwick and Reading.

3.4.2 In total there are ten railway stations within Mole Valley that are primarily located in conjunction with the main settlements of the district, (see Figure 2.1), these being:  Ashtead;  Leatherhead;  Bookham;  Dorking (main);  Dorking Deepdene;  Dorking West;  Boxhill and Westhumble;  Betchworth;  Holmwood; and  Ockley.

3.4.3 Dorking has three railway stations, with Dorking Deepdene and Dorking West facilitating travel on the same east/west line, whereas Dorking (main) station serves the line travelling north/south through the district. All three railway stations in Dorking are within a 25 minute walk of each other, with Dorking (main) and Dorking Deepdene stations being located in closest proximity.

3.4.4 Dorking Deepdene railway station is elevated from the highway carriageway and the only means of accessing the platforms is by stairs. Due to the difference in levels, passengers with limited mobility are prevented from travelling to and from the station, which is recognised as a constraint of the rail network in the district. With stairs being the only form of access to the platforms at Dorking Deepdene station, it also poses a safety risk to passengers during adverse weather conditions.

3.5 Railway Station Usage 3.5.1 Table 3.2 presents the railway stations in Mole Valley ranked according to station usage for both entries and exits in 2015/16. The estimated number of interchanges that occurred at each station is also presented.

2015/16 Entries 2015/16 Station Rank and Exits Interchanges Leatherhead 2,171,492 58,127 1 Ashtead 1,329,660 0 2 Dorking (main) 1,221,252 136,804 3 Dorking Deepdene 419,441 212,494 4 Bookham 333,282 0 5 Boxhill & Westhumble 101,864 0 6 Holmwood 60,970 0 7 Dorking West 58,877 1,070 8 Ockley 42,188 0 9 Betchworth 16,640 0 10 Source: Office of Rail and Road Table 3.2: 2015/16 Estimates of railway station usage in Mole Valley

Issue No. 02 Page 27 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

3.5.2 Table 3.2 shows that the railways stations with the greatest number of passengers entering and exiting in 2015/16 were Leatherhead and Ashtead. These stations are located in the north of the district in closest proximity to London, with the shortest direct journey times to London Waterloo in the weekday AM peak period.

3.5.3 The ranking of railway station usage shown in Table 3.2 is also generally in accordance with how urban the area is surrounding the station, with the exception to this trend being Dorking West.

3.5.4 Of the three railway stations in Dorking, Dorking (main) has the highest usage with over 1.2 million entries and exits recorded in 2015/16. Dorking Deepdene is the second most used station in the town and Dorking West is used significantly less with just under 60,000 entries and exits recorded. Although Dorking (main) had the greatest usage in the town, Dorking Deepdene had almost 100,000 more interchanges occurring in 2015/16 and is thus the most popular location of rail interchanges in the district of Mole Valley.

3.5.5 A high number of recorded interchanges, as well as general usage, at Dorking Deepdene reinforce the known need to improve accessibility and safety for passengers utilising the elevated platforms at the railway station, which has consequently become the subject of a transport scheme due to deliver in 2017. It could also be possible that if the Dorking Deepdene station facilities were improved, a greater number of people could be encouraged to use rail for travel to, from and through the district.

3.5.6 Capacity on the services between Reigate/Redhill/Gatwick and Reading can be hindered in peak times due to inadequate storage being provided for those travelling with large sized luggage between London Gatwick airport. Improvements to storage for luggage on these services would help ease comfort for passengers as well as potentially encouraging more patronage for all journey purposes.

3.5.7 Figure 1.1 and Table 1.1 indicate that the proportion of Mole Valley residents travelling by rail to the workplace is 13%, which is just lower than the Surrey figure of 14%. Therefore any improvements to railway station facilities and/or rail services in the district could help to increase existing patronage.

3.6 Origins and Destinations of Rail Commuters 3.6.1 Figures 3.3 and 3.4 provide information about where Mole Valley residents that use rail to for commuting purposes are travelling to as well as where people working in district are commuting from, via rail. Information displayed in Figures 3.3 and 3.4 are similar to that shown in Sections 2.4 and 3.3 but for rail commuting trips.

3.6.2 Figures 3.3 and 3.4 are informed by data sourced from the 2011 census journey to work dataset and based on lower super output areas.

3.6.3 Figure 3.3 indicates that the majority of Mole Valley residents using rail as the mode of transport to travel to work, are travelling to workplaces located in central London.

3.6.4 Outside of central London the workplace destinations that most Mole Valley residents are using rail to commute to are: Leatherhead; Epsom; Reigate; Guildford; Sutton; and Croydon. All such aforementioned destinations are some of the areas with the greatest economic activity with good rail linkages to Mole Valley, and are consequently attracting a number of commuting trips from the district.

Issue No. 02 Page 28 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

3.6.5 Figure 3.3 shows a spatial trend that the most concentrated workplace destinations of Mole Valley rail commuters are located a greater distance from the district. Therefore Figure 3.3 correlates with data shown in Table 1.2, that the majority, (68%), of the district’s rail commuters are travelling between 20 and 40km.

3.6.6 Figure 3.4 illustrates that the majority of rail commuters travelling to a workplace in Mole Valley are also originating from Mole Valley, or the surrounding local authorities of Greater London, Epsom and Ewell and Reigate and Banstead.

3.6.7 The greatest concentration of rail commuters working in Mole Valley are residing in southern Mole Valley, namely Capel, Leatherhead and Ashtead, as well as Epsom and West Ewell.

3.6.8 A comparison between Figures 2.2, 3.1 and 3.3 visually confirms that some of long distance commuting trips from Mole Valley are undertaken by rail and car but the long distance commuting trips with a destination in central London are all, generally, undertaken by rail.

Issue No. 02 Page 29 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

Figure 3.3: Destinations of rail commuters with an origin in Mole Valley

Issue No. 02 Page 30 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

Figure 3.4: Origins of rail commuters with a destination in Mole Valley

Issue No. 02 Page 31 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

3.7 Accessibility 3.7.1 Figure 3.5 provides a graphical representation of the spatial differences in accessibility to railway stations by walking and bus in the district of Mole Valley, during the weekday AM peak hour (0800 – 0900).

3.7.2 Figure 3.5 shows the estimated travel time by a combination of walking and bus to access a rail station in Mole Valley, or just outside of the district boundary. The accessibility plot is based on the following criteria:  Straight line walk distance between origin to the nearest road and from nearest road to end destination being no greater than 800m;  Interchange walk distance between public transport services being no greater than 1000m;  Interchange time penalty of at least 5 minutes when switching between modes;  A straight line buffer distance of 1000m around each origin and destination. Only public transport stops around these buffers can be used as the first or last stop of the journey and any of these stops can be walked to if the distance is less then 800m;  Walking speed of 4.8km/hr; and  A maximum total travel time by bus and on foot of 60 minutes.

3.7.3 For those areas in Figure 3.5 that are not displaying a coloured contour it is indicative that the origin is too great a walk-able distance from public transport or that the total travel time, using the above criteria, is greater than 60 minutes.

3.7.4 The general trend shown by Figure 3.5 is that residences located in greatest proximity to the A principal roads in the district, such as the A24 and A25 have greatest accessibility to bus services that provide linkages to the rail network. This is mainly due to bus services in Mole Valley using the A principal roads to traverse the district in a north/south and east/west direction of travel between the main urban settlements, and bus services being absent from the rural minor roads.

3.7.5 Travel time via a combination of walk and bus between residences in Mole Valley and the rail stations is most commonly less than 30 minutes in the weekday AM peak hour. However, there are a number of exceptions to this, with Figure 3.5 showing the south east area of the district, namely west of Charlwood and Hookwood, as having travel times in excess of 50 minutes to access the railway stations of Gatwick and Horley in neighbouring Reigate and Banstead and Crawley.

3.7.6 Figure 3.5 indicates that if future development is to be located in areas shown to have poor accessibility to the existing public transport network in Mole Valley, it is highly recommended that agreements with developers are negotiated to improve or provide new public transport services or infrastructure as part of planning permission. This will help to ensure travel by sustainable modes is encouraged and travel by the private car discouraged wherever possible, in accordance with local and national planning policy, such as the National Planning Policy Framework.

Issue No. 02 Page 32 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

Source: Surrey County Council (Transport Studies) Figure 3.5: Accessibility to railway stations by bus, AM peak hour (0800 – 0900)

4 CYCLING

4.1 Existing Cycle Network 4.1.1 The county of Surrey has a good existing cycle network and associated facilities, with the district of Mole Valley containing a proportion of this. Figure 4.1 displays the existing cycle network in the district, disaggregated into the type of existing and proposed cycle routes.

Issue No. 02 Page 33 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

Legend Existing Cycle Track Existing Greenway Existing Signed Advisory Route Existing Cycle Lane Existing Cycle Friendly Traffic Management

Proposed Cycle Track Proposed Greenway Source: TravelSmart Figure 4.1: Existing cycle routes

4.1.2 The majority of the existing cycle network in Mole Valley coincides with the highway network, with the majority of routes being present on the A25 west of Dorking and the A24 north of Dorking. However, the map does indicate that of the existing cycle routes in the district a number are segregated from the highway, as well as dedicated cycle lanes being marked on the carriageway, such as on the A24 between Dorking and Leatherhead.

4.1.3 Part of National Cycle Route 22 contributes to the existing cycle network in Mole Valley, which facilitates cycling between Banstead and Brockenhurst via Dorking.

4.1.4 As part of the Department for Transport’s Cycle Safety Fund, Surrey County Council has made recent improvements to the cycle network between Leatherhead and Ashtead on the A24 Leatherhead Road. A segregated cycle path was provided for a substantial stretch of the road, the former elevated pedestrian footbridge at the junction with Ermyn Way and Grange Road was replaced by controlled toucan crossing facilities, as well as multiple other controlled crossing facilities being provided elsewhere on the route.

4.2 Cycle Usage 4.2.1 In 2015 Surrey County Council commissioned ActionPoint Marketing Solutions to undertake an interview based survey to gain a greater insight into existing cycling trends in each borough and district of the county. An equal number of cycle

Issue No. 02 Page 34 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

interviews were undertaken in each borough and district for an equal amount of cyclists and non-cyclists. In Mole Valley the interviews were based in Ashtead, Dorking and Leatherhead.

4.2.2 Table 4.1 shows the results of the survey relating to how frequent residents of Mole Valley cycle for all journey purposes. The largest proportion of Mole Valley cyclists, 27%, cycle either daily or 2 to 3 times a week, with the next greatest frequency being classified as occasional.

4.2.3 21% of Mole Valley cyclists have been classified as cycling on an occasional basis, whereas in Surrey 12% of cyclists stated they were occasional riders. In Surrey a third (35%) of residents cycle at least once a month, whereas the figure of Mole Valley is lower at 18%.

Daily / 2-3 Once a 2-3 Times Once a Times a Occasional Infrequent Week a Month Month Week Mole Valley 27% 14% 8% 18% 21% 12% Residents Source: Surrey County Council (Sustainable Transport) Table 4.1: Cycle frequency

4.2.4 Mole Valley was found to be the borough/district of the county with the highest proportion of residents, 56%, that have cycled in the last 12 months, followed by Elmbridge (53%), Waverley (52%) and Guildford (51%). A potential reason why a large proportion of Mole Valley residents are cycling could be due to the interest gained since the 2012 London Olympics, with it creating a legacy from the focal point of the road race event being in the district surrounding Box Hill.

4.2.5 The most popular purpose for cycling in Surrey was found to be for leisure with family/friends. Cycling for work purposes was found to also be a key reason for riders in the county.

4.2.6 Cycling on cycle routes formed of paths and tracks was found to be more popular than cycling on the roads, as 80% of Mole Valley cyclists favoured routes consisting of paths and tracks.

4.2.7 Cycling can be combined with other modes of transport, namely rail. It is possible to take a bicycle on some trains and it is becoming an increasing aim of rail companies to integrate travelling by bicycle and train but restrictions do apply from train operators. However, an increasingly popular way of using combining cycling with public transport is to use a folding bike for ease of space in the more restricted and congested forms of public transport.

4.2.8 Table 4.2 presents the amount of bicycles parked at some of the rail stations in Mole Valley between 2010 and 2016. The cycle parking at these three rail stations have been surveyed by on-site observations on a weekday annual basis in the month of September. The cycle counts are recorded at an approximate time before midday but after the morning peak, in the aim to record the highest number of bicycles using the parking facilities at the rail stations.

4.2.9 When interpreting the data presented in Table 4.2 the following limitations should be acknowledged:

 The on-site counts were undertaken on one day and therefore represent a snapshot of usage instead of a weekly/monthly average;  Weather conditions can play a role in the amount of people choosing to cycle and can impact the number of cycles counted and comparisons between years;

Issue No. 02 Page 35 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

 Data was not recorded at Ashtead rail station in 2013; and  New cycle shelter facilities were introduced to Leatherhead rail station in 2013/14 and 2015, thus potentially not making it a fair comparison to previous years.

4.2.10 The proportional growth in the number of cyclists using the cycle parking facilities at the rail stations, since 2010, have been presented in brackets.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 32 54 69* 70* 84* 79* Leatherhead 50 (-36%) (8%) (38%) (40%) (68%) (58%) 61 75 76 84 79 65 Dorking (main) 74 (-18%) (1%) (3%) (14%) (7%) (-12%) 80 86 111 108 116 Ashtead 68 - (18%) (26%) (63%) (59%) (71%) Source: Surrey County Council (Transport Studies) *Number of cycle parking facilities increased in comparison to previous years Table 4.2: Cycle parking at rail stations

4.2.11 Table 4.2 indicates that Leatherhead and Ashtead rails stations have experienced an increase in the number of cyclists using the cycle parking facilities. Leatherhead rail station has experienced a 58% increase in the number of cyclists parking their bikes at the train station between 2010 and 2015, whereas Ashtead has experienced a 71% increase.

4.2.12 Table 4.2 highlights that the growth in cyclists parking at Leatherhead rail station greatly increased once new parking facilities were introduced in 2013. Cycle parking only grew by a maximum of 8% prior to 2013, when compared to 2010, but increased to 38% once new facilities had been provided. This is a good indication that cyclists will make use of infrastructure provided as well as attracting more to cycle to a transport interchange such as rail.

4.2.13 The amount of cyclists using the parking facilities at Dorking rail station has remained relatively constant or slightly declined between 2010 and 2016, with the greatest growth occurring in 2014 (14%).

4.3 Propensity to Cycle 4.3.1 As Figure 1.1 and Table 1.1 have indicated, only 2% of Mole Valley’s residents choose to cycle to work, with the majority of these cyclists travelling less than 5km between their place of residence and work. As previously stated in paragraph 1.5.8, research suggests that people are more likely to switch from the private car to other modes if the journey distance to work is less than 5km, reinforcing the reason why most existing cyclists are travelling less than 5km to the workplace.

4.3.2 The Surrey County Council cycle survey found that journey distance is a key reason as to why more Surrey residents do not cycle to work, with 38% stating this as their reason. However, the survey also found that another influential reason that could encourage non-cyclists to cycle more is to have an increased number of cycle paths segregated from the highway, which relates to the found preference of Mole Valley cyclists using paths and tracks. 19% of Surrey non-cyclists surveyed stated that the reason they do not travel to work by bicycle is because their route to work is too busy with traffic. These findings reinforce the possibility of a greater number of Mole Valley commuters switching from the favoured commuting mode of the private car to cycling if their travel distance is less than 5km, and a greater number of segregated cycle routes and facilities were provided in the district.

4.3.3 29% of Surrey’s non-cyclists were surveyed as stating that they were very or quite likely to consider cycling in the future.

Issue No. 02 Page 36 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

5 FUTURE TRANSPORT SCHEMES

5.1.1 Surrey County Council and Mole Valley District Council want to deliver multiple future transport schemes designed to tackle the existing known transport issues in the district. Such future transport schemes should be taken into consideration when decisions are to be made about what is the best suited strategy for delivering new sustainable development in the district during the Local Plan timescales.

5.1.2 In general, the future transport schemes do not intend to produce additional capacity to the transport network but instead aim to improve and better manage the existing transport issues and/or constraints.

5.2 Highway 5.2.1 A Transport Study of Dorking is being prepared with a brief currently being under development. The purpose of this study is to prepare a “bid-ready” package for Dorking for when Local Growth Deal 4 funding becomes available from the Department for Transport. This package would build on the existing 2014 sustainable transport project being delivered at the moment, but will focus on addressing highway congestion issues in the town. In particular it will consider locations such as Deepdene roundabout to address safety issues, Pump Corner, the junctions on the A25 with Vincent Lane and Station Road together with associated traffic queues, and the optimisation of traffic signals throughout the town. The package is expected to include a mixture of traffic management and larger schemes, and potentially a major scheme (£5million+).

5.2.2 As discussed previously in Sections 2.5 and 2.7, junction 9a of the M25 is a known area of congestion in the peak periods as well as being a safety concern for Surrey County Council and Highways England. Both organisations are currently in discussions to determine the most suitable method of traffic management to minimise the future risk of casualties, as well as the mitigating delay and queues on the surrounding local and strategic highway. As stated in paragraph 2.6.6 spiral markings are currently absent from the junction 9a roundabout. The introduction of spiral markings may provide initial short term benefits by improving lane discipline on approaches to, as well as on the circulatory of the roundabout itself. However, it would appear that there is a slight reluctance to implement such a scheme for the time being. This is because Highways England is in the process of investigating whether other traffic management methods, such as part signalisation, and/or increasing the number of circulatory lanes and/or provision of jet lanes, would complement the spiral markings. Surrey County Council continues to support Highways England in understanding the best package of mitigation to reduce queue lengths and improve current levels of congestion on the local and strategic highway network surrounding junction 9a.

5.2.3 To enhance the continued road safety measures on the A24 Mickleham By-pass, Surrey County Council are planning to introduce average speed cameras on the A24 between Denbies roundabout and Givons Grove roundabout. The potential use of average speed cameras would be funded through the Surrey County Council Wider Network Benefits scheme. Average speed monitoring and enforcement would replace the existing spot speed camera. As previously discussed in paragraph 2.6.5, the spot speed camera has proved highly beneficial at reducing highway casualties on the A24 and it is therefore hoped that use of average speed cameras would continue this trend, but over a greater expanse of the A24 at Mickleham.

5.3 Public Transport 5.3.1 One of the largest potential future transport schemes that could occur in the district is Transform Leatherhead. Transform Leatherhead is a scheme that aims to make

Issue No. 02 Page 37 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

the town more of an attractive location for economic activity by improving the sustainable transport network, specifically for cycling and walking. Transform Leatherhead aims to improve accessibility by the active modes between the multiple business parks located on the periphery of the town and the rail station, as well as the town centre. To achieve such aims the project intends to provide: segregated cycle paths on key routes such as the A245 Randalls Road and B2122 Waterway Road; improved footway conditions and controlled crossing points for those cycling and walking; and increased quality of public realm in Church Street. Transform Leatherhead is to be planned, implemented and locally funded by a partnership between Mole Valley District Council and Surrey County Council, with the majority of funding being sourced via a bid from the Local Enterprise Partnership’s Local Growth Fund.

5.3.2 At the March 2016 Mole Valley Local Committee meeting it was decided that support would be given to phase one of the Leatherhead Sustainable Transport Package, subject to part-funding being secured from the Capital to Coast Local Enterprise Partnership. The scheme has been developed jointly by Surrey County Council and Mole Valley District Council and the proposed transport measures would complement the broader Transform Leatherhead Project. The Leatherhead Sustainable Transport Package consists of improvements to encourage the districts population to partake in greater frequencies of walking, cycling and travel by bus. The improvements aim to provide links between the town centre, Leatherhead rail station and the town’s multiple business parks located on A245 Randall’s Way as well as the area surrounding the Leatherhead leisure centre. The overall objective is to encourage a greater number of people either living, working or visiting Leatherhead town centre for leisure to move away from using the dominant private car and instead walk, cycle or use public transport to complete their journey.

5.3.3 Transform Leatherhead and the Leatherhead Sustainable Transport Package promote mode shift from the private car to sustainable travel. The key benefits of the reducing car usage in Leatherhead would be:

 Reduction of existing highway congestion;  Increased accessibility to the town’s services and rail station;  Reduction in the number of highway casualties; and  Increased journey time reliability.

5.3.4 If a reduction in the number of journeys made by car was achieved by the schemes, multiple health benefits could also occur. A greater amount of people travelling by the active modes would lower levels of carbon emissions and promote a healthy lifestyle.

5.3.5 However, it should be recognised that the opportunity to progress these two projects depends upon Capital to Coast Local Enterprise Partnership priorities, the availability of local contribution funding and value for money assessments.

5.3.6 The Dorking Sustainable Transport Package is designed to improve the aforementioned constraint of access to Dorking Deepdene train station, as well as enhancing the linkages between Dorking Deepdene and Dorking (main) railway stations, which are the largest points of rail interchanges in the district (see Table 3.1). The Dorking Sustainable Transport Package is split into multiple phases. Phase one consists of improving the links between the two rail stations for those travelling by foot, bicycle or public transport; phase two is the installation of lifts to each platform at Dorking Deepdene railway station; and phase three concerns delivery of a new station building. Phase one entails: widening the footway between Dorking (main) and Dorking Deepdene stations to allow shared

Issue No. 02 Page 38 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

pedestrian and cycle use; improving the waiting facilities at bus stops located in proximity of the stations, including the provision of real time passenger information; and improved waiting facilities and safety for passengers using Dorking Deepdene. The Dorking Transport Package hopes to generate a greater amount of sustainable transport to and from the key rail stations in the town, as well as removing the existing constraint of restricted access at Dorking Deepdene station.

5.3.7 In addition to those bus stops benefitting from improvements in the Dorking Sustainable Transport Package, Surrey County Council’s focus is to improve the bus waiting facilities and information available to passengers at bus stops throughout the district. Expansion of real time passenger information throughout the stops at the district would allow passengers to be better informed about whether their service is running to schedule, with an overall aim of reducing private car use and boosting bus patronage.

5.3.8 To enhance the statutory bus reliability statistics of the district, as well as the county, it would be beneficial to reduce contributing detrimental factors found in the highway network such as congestion. Where possible buses should be given priority, especially in the busier and more congested peak travel times and one method of achieving this is provision of intelligent bus priority at traffic signals as a form of traffic management. Surrey County Council aspires to increase the amount of junctions that utilise intelligent bus priority.

5.4 Cycling 5.4.1 A greater number of cycling casualties have been recorded in the county year on year, with 139 cyclists killed or seriously injured in 2015 compared to 98 in 20108. As such the Surrey Cycling Strategy was published in 2014, with the main aim of getting ‘more people cycling, more safely’. Mole Valley has its own cycling plan which sets out the local implementation of the Surrey Cycling Strategy in partnership between Mole Valley District Council and Surrey County Council.

5.4.2 Improved safety is one aspect of the action plan but provision of cycle infrastructure; cycle training; and continued encouragement of more cycling are also key objectives of the Mole Valley Cycle Plan.

5.4.3 Figure 4.1 displays the existing cycle network in Mole Valley as well as the proposals to extend the network. There are aspirations to improve the existing cycle network by providing a proposed cycle track on the A24 south of Dorking facilitating travel towards Capel, the A25 east of Dorking improving links to Reigate and Lower Road to the west of Leatherhead through Fetcham and Bookham. Such proposals to extend the cycle network in these locations have been formed from pre-consultation workshops with community stakeholders as well as via the Local Committee task group. The proposed new cycle infrastructure aims to provide useful links to services and provide a cycling option for those who are currently discouraged from cycling on busier roads. As discussed in paragraph 4.3.2, cycling on busy roads is a known reason why many do not cycle, and to actively plan to overcome this issue should help promote cycling in Mole Valley in the future. Table 2.3 and Figure 2.2 have also indicated that the main destination of car commuters outside of Mole Valley is Reigate and Banstead, and if additional segregated cycle routes were provided on the A25 it could greatly benefit the up- take of cycling to and from the district.

8 Source: Surrey Cycling Strategy Annual Report 2015/16

Issue No. 02 Page 39 Document No. 53613T47/01 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Existing Transport Trends & Constraints

6 SUMMARY

6.1.1 This document has examined the current transport trends and constraints experienced in the district of Mole Valley, to aid the evidence base on the new Local Plan.

6.1.2 Residents of Mole Valley commute to work most by the private car when the distance of the journey is greater than 2km, with the exception being that travel is greatest by rail if the distance is between 30 and 40km. However, there is potential for a large proportion of Mole Valley’s commuters to move away from using the private car as the dominant mode and instead use more sustainable forms of travel, such as cycling if their distance to work is between 2 than 5km.

6.1.3 The majority of Mole Valley residents who commute by car are also travelling to a workplace within the district, with the town centres of Leatherhead and Dorking being the greatest attractions. It has been indicated that the majority of delay to vehicles travelling on the highway in the AM peak hour is found on the roads approaching the town centres of Leatherhead and Dorking, as well as at the key junctions on the peripheries of the towns.

6.1.4 Therefore, a large amount of intra-district travel is occurring on the district’s highway that could feasibly occur by other sustainable modes if frequent services are provided for suitable routes and the provision of public transport is accessible by residents.

6.1.5 Consequently both Mole Valley District Council and Surrey County Council are aware of the existing issues and constraints posed by the transport network in the district. A response to such issues is the joint preparatory work being undertaken to provide multiple future transport schemes that aim to encourage greater amounts of travel by the sustainable modes of walking, cycling, bus and rail. Schemes such as Transform Leatherhead and Leatherhead Sustainable Package endeavour to increase the provision of transport infrastructure, such as cycle paths and improved bus waiting facilities, as a means of encouraging mode shift from the private car, as well as improving the linkages between Leatherhead town centre, rail station and key employment locations.

6.1.6 In summary, the existing transport trends and constraints should be considered when planning for future development in the district. Knowledge of where and how the current transport network is successful, as well as where there are gaps in provision and/or accessibility to services, will help to ensure that future travel needs of the districts residents and employees are met in the most sustainable manner. This will also seek to ensure that any potential negative impacts on travel via the highway or by public transport are effectively mitigated against as part of the planning process to establish the most the new Local Plan.

Issue No. 02 Page 40 Document No. 53613T47/01