APPENDIX 1

Transportation and Engineering

South Western Consultation Co-ordinator Our Ref: E/TP/ 04/C Department for Transport Your Ref: 4/15 Great Minster House Contact: Richard Pemberton 3 Horseferry Road Direct Dial: 023 8068 8280 London Direct Fax: 023 8068 8336 SW1P 4DR E-mail: Richard.pemberton@eastleigh.gov.uk Britdoc No:

January 2016

Dear Sir or Madam

South Western Rail Franchise consultation – Eastleigh Borough Council response

This letter constitutes Eastleigh Borough Council’s formal response to the South Western rail franchise consultation document which was published by the Department for Transport in November 2015.

Eastleigh Borough Council is the local planning authority for the urban/ suburban area to the north and east of the city of Southampton, including Eastleigh, Chandler’s Ford, Southampton Airport, Netley, Bursledon, Hamble, Botley and Hedge End.

The Council has a close interest in the development of the railways serving the Borough, and connecting the Borough to destinations beyond. We recognise the major role that the rail network has to play in providing access to employment, education, services and leisure opportunities for our approximately 129,000 residents and for the numerous businesses based in the Borough.

The Borough covers much of the central part of the urban South Hampshire area stretching from Portsmouth and Havant in the east to Southampton and Totton in the west. The rail lines passing through the Borough are key elements of connectivity within and beyond this wider area of approximately 1.3 million population.

Through our draft Local Plan, the Council is planning for substantial increases in provision of housing and employment in the Borough. Whilst the Local Plan is still under development, the final Plan will identify how delivery of between 13,000 and 20,000 homes as well as additional employment floorspace over the plan period to 2036 will be achieved. Some of this housing development has already been brought forward, including permissions at major sites at:

 Chestnut Avenue south of Eastleigh - 1100 homes, closest stations: Southampton Airport Parkway and Eastleigh;  Land west of Horton Heath - 950 homes, closest station: Hedge End; and  Land north-west of Boorley Green - 1400 homes, closest station: Hedge End  Land immediately north of Hamble Station (refused but currently being considered on appeal by the Secretary of State) - 225 houses and also other uses including care home and car parking.

There are also permissions for a number of other smaller housing sites in Fair Oak & Bishopstoke, and a significant number of houses currently under construction in the Eastleigh town area giving a further circa 1,000 new homes for which Eastleigh station will be the local rail access point. There are also some smaller site permissions in the vicinity of Bursledon station.

Southampton Airport, which is well connected by north to south rail services and is one of south Hampshire’s key international gateways, generates around 1.8 million passenger journeys per annum. With several new airlines starting routes from the airport in 2016, the airport may begin to realise its aspirations for growth. This is also likely to generate new rail demand.

As a result of current and likely future development an increasing level of demand for rail travel is anticipated at all stations serving the Borough even assuming a scenario where service patterns remain unchanged.

The Council also considers that there is high potential (and an urgent need) for rail to increase its overall market share relative to other modes of travel, both for longer distance trips, and particularly for local journeys within South Hampshire. In common with other local stakeholders we see potential for rail to provide relief for congested parts of the road network, within the Borough and beyond.

Currently traffic congestion is a significant issue across the area and is directly linked to issues such as poor air quality and reduced economic competitiveness of the area. Working to tackle traffic congestion has been identified as a high priority in Eastleigh Borough Council’s corporate plan, and enhanced local rail services have been identified by the Council and many of our partners as one of the areas of with greatest potential for improvement.

The support of the new South Western rail franchise is clearly critical in working to achieve this. Therefore the new South Western franchise specification needs to provide improvements to local train frequency, connectivity, ticketing and on board offer, as well as station improvements.

This response has been prepared in consultation with Solent Transport (the formal partnership of Local Transport Authorities) in the South Hampshire Area, as we recognise that all authorities and stakeholders in the area need to work together on strategic rail issues. Many of the key issues and improvements we have identified are shared with other stakeholders across the area. Our broad aspirations for rail travel in the Borough

1. Service frequency

Our first aspiration for rail services in the Borough is that all stations serving the Borough have a service frequency where, for many journeys, rail represents a viable alternative to driving. It is our view that a minimum of a half hourly service frequency throughout the day in each direction is required to achieve this. An hourly service is unlikely to be an attractive service for most people who currently choose to drive.

Currently the only stations serving the Borough that achieve a minimum half-hourly service are Eastleigh and Southampton Airport Parkway. The remaining stations (Hedge End, Botley, Bursledon, Hamble, Netley, Chandlers Ford) do not have this level of service although some do receive additional services in the “peak direction” in the AM and/or PM peak, although this provision is variable.

We believe that provision of additional services to those stations not currently receiving a frequent train service will help significantly increase the attractiveness of rail as an alternative to driving for journeys where rail has potential to compete. We would also point out that most stations serving the Borough are within or adjacent to heavily developed areas with large populations, yet some receive a level of service little better than that at some stations in many rural and isolated areas.

Evidence from the 2011 Census Travel to Work dataset shows that for local travel flows which have a more frequent service, rail can capture a significant market share. For example journeys from Eastleigh town centre to Winchester have a 22.7% rail modal share with 2 trains per hour, and journeys from Eastleigh town centre to Southampton have a 16.6% rail modal share with 2 to 3 trains per hour. Where the frequency drops to hourly, the modal share drops notably. For example for journeys from Netley to Southampton rail only has a 4.2% modal share.

2. Service capacity

Our second aspiration is that extra capacity is provided to relieve existing overcrowding and high demand on some routes, such that all passengers either receive a seat or only have to stand for a short distance. Rail can only be an attractive alternative to use of other modes (particularly driving) if it offers a comparable or superior level of comfort, which at the most basic level means availability of adequate seating capacity, most of the time.

3. Access to Southampton Airport to and from the east

Our third aspiration is for improved rail access to Southampton Airport. There have been long-standing requests from the airport, the Borough Council and numerous partner organisations including the Solent LEP and Solent Transport regarding providing direct rail services to the east of the airport’s catchment (Fareham, Portsmouth, Havant, Chichester etc). Accessing the airport by train from these areas currently involves a change of train and slow, uncompetitive journey times compared to driving. The airport is one the three key international gateways in the South Hampshire area and already has a high rail mode share (20%) and we would like to see this improved upon in future. The airport occupies a constrained site, and future development of the airport will be eased if car based demand is reduced as far as possible (as this will reduce the amount of land required for car parking). A change to existing service patterns will be required in order to provide direct access to the airport from the east without additional investment in infrastructure.

4. Local passenger flows in the South Hampshire area

Our fourth aspiration is for rail services to play a greater role in providing local journey opportunities within the South Hampshire area, and in particular for rail to provide a more competitive alternative to driving in the peak hours on the heavily congested M27.

In light of the very complex and multi-centric travel flows in the area this means not only enhancing services along existing lines of route, but also providing rail services which more closely replicate travel flows enabled by the M27 but which are not currently served by direct trains. This could for example mean providing direct services between local origin-destination pairs, such as between Hedge End and Southampton Central, or between Netley and Eastleigh.

As an absolute minimum, the Council would like to see much more convenient connections at key interchanges such as Eastleigh, St Denys, Southampton Central and Fareham between services on these differing axes, although the reality is that only direct services will be attractive enough for rail to capture a significant share of currently unserved markets.

Our view, in common with many local partners, is that what is needed in the longer term is implementation of major improvements that might be viewed as a “Solent Metro”. This rail franchise offers an opportunity to take the first steps towards creating this.

We would like to point out that around 55% of all journeys on the M27 travel less than four junctions. It is a predominantly “local” motorway rather than a long distance link. Therefore the planning of rail services to provide a competitive alternative needs to replicate a similar level of shorter distance connectivity. This means that a balance between faster long distance services and more local services from suburbs to town and city centres is needed, rather than a predication towards fast, long distance services only, which will do little to serve much of the travel market that uses the M27.

Additionally, due to traffic congestion, journey times on the M27 (and many connecting and local roads) are slow at peak times, and journey time reliability is poor due to variations in congestion and accidents. Hence a competing rail service does not necessarily need to be especially fast, at least in the peak hours, in order to be a competitive alternative to driving. Providing a greater frequency of service and direct point to point connectivity, to reduce the “generalised journey time” for users, is likely to be more important in making rail an effective alternative for many potential users. This is backed up by Transport Focus’ research supporting the development of the franchise specification which has shown that whilst value for money is the most important single factor for rail passengers, frequency of train services is approximately three times as important to passengers as the end to end journey time.

The Council has sent representatives to two franchise consultation events in December 2015. From this we understand that DfT recognise that developing non-London markets is a major area of development for this new franchise. We are pleased that this has been recognised and reiterate our belief that if the product is right, there is much potential to grow the local rail market within Eastleigh and across the urban South Hampshire area more generally. At the same time the Council also accepts that London connectivity is by far the largest revenue generator for the railway and that improvements to South Hampshire services will need to be done in balance with the needs of this longer distance market.

Our comments on the consultation document/ questions

Passenger satisfaction Questions

We generally agree with the key priorities identified by Transport Focus, as set out in the consultation document.

Franchise Objectives Questions

We also generally agree with the franchise objectives that have been set out although we would like to see some more explicit recognition of the need to develop rail services which are attractive to people who currently do not generally travel by train, as part of the drive to grow rail’s modal share. This might include identifying an objective to provide rail services which more closely match patterns of local road travel demand and seek to provide a competitive alternative for as many of these travel flows as possible.

Also there is no explicit objective or aim regarding maximising the use and potential of existing infrastructure, despite this being identified in for example the McNulty Report on Rail’s Value for Money 1as being a key objective for the rail industry to work towards. Better serving currently unserved or under-served markets and stations could be seen as a means of working to maximise the benefit of the existing infrastructure.

Capacity

Are there particular services or routes where you believe there is a need to introduce additional capacity to address overcrowding?

We believe there is a need to provide additional capacity on the following (existing) service patterns:

 On AM peak London-bound services between Hedge End / Southampton Airport Parkway / Eastleigh and Winchester northwards towards London; and on PM peak services on the return commute from London;  On AM peak northbound arrivals into Winchester (from the south) between about 0800 and 0900, and on southbound PM peak services leaving Winchester between about 1600 and 1800 towards Eastleigh, Southampton and Hedge End. This is required to better cater for local (non–London) commuter and student demand which does not coincide with times that additional capacity is provided on peak services to/from London;  On late evening services from London to the south coast, especially at weekends. These trains are currently typically only 5 carriages in length and demand clearly exists for more capacity on some of these trains;

1 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4203/realising-the- potential-of-gb-rail-summary.pdf  On services to / from London at various points across the day on Saturdays to better cater for leisure demand;  On Sunday afternoon / evening services to and from London to better cater for leisure and visitor demand;  On peak hour local services between Romsey, Chandlers Ford, Eastleigh and local stations in Southampton, and vice versa. These services are currently operated by Class 158 (2 car) DMUs which are routinely overcrowded in the peaks. We believe that this overcrowding is now stifling growth in usage at many local stations for which this is the main service (eg Chandler’s Ford);  On services between Chandler’s Ford, Eastleigh and Southampton before and after Southampton FC home matches at St Marys.

Views on potential for changes to configuration of rolling stock to provide more capacity

The Council would like to highlight the continued unpopularity of 3+2 seated trains (Class 450s) when used on longer distance services. Whilst we can understand and to a degree accept the reasons why this occurs, passenger comfort on these trains is poor compared to that on other rolling stock and has been a cause of complaint for many years now. The use of these trains on longer journeys also erodes some of the convenience benefits of rail travel, for example use of laptop computers is difficult due to the lack of tables at many seats.

Rolling stock cascades mean that an increasing number of longer distance services are moving over to Class 450 operation as these are the units that are being released through provision of additional suburban rolling stock. Additionally operation of more services in future with 2x444 units will reduce the overall number of individual services that can be operated by Class 444s given the small size of the fleet. This will likely result in class 450s being used increasingly on 1.5 hour plus duration journeys - a similar journey time to, for example, London to Birmingham or London to Bristol - where use of a 2+3 seated suburban train would be viewed as entirely unacceptable.

In the absence of new long distance rolling stock (which may be a preferable but costly option) we believe that this new franchise gives an opportunity to improve the on board product on the Class 450s. These units will be 20 years old by the middle of the franchise period, and whilst they are very well-kept (a credit to SWT’s maintenance regime), there may be an opportunity for internal refurbishment of these trains.

Our suggestion would be that these units could be refurbished to provide 2+2 seating and tables in some (but not necessarily all) carriages– similar to the configuration of some Class 377s operated by Southern; or alternatively that a sub –fleet of units with 2+2 seating and tables throughout is created and allocated to longer distance services in order to offer a comparable level of comfort to the other longer distance rolling stock used by the franchise. A near-intercity level on board product is achievable with this type of train with a different internal configuration- as is demonstrated by London Midland’s Class 350 units.

Future impacts on demand

As previously noted, future residential development in our Local Plan (and those of neighbouring authorities) will result in increased population in the Borough and in surrounding areas, and some new patterns of demand may develop. We expect that existing demand at all stations in the Borough will rise, and some stations, for example Hedge End, will see substantial increases in demand compared to the present.

Also as previously noted, traffic congestion and journey time unreliability on the M27 and some connecting routes also is perceived as a potential driver towards more rail demand. Whilst additional road capacity is likely in some locations within the life of the new franchise (including a “managed motorways” scheme on the M27) many congestion hotspots will still remain especially in the AM & PM peaks and some of the new road capacity will probably be rapidly be filled by demand from new development.

There is also likely to be significant disruption during the construction of additional road capacity which may afford an opportunity for rail to capture some new market share.

Train Service Specification

Where, if anywhere, would you like to see changes to first and last trains?

For the most part the Council is satisfied with the timings of last trains serving stations in the Borough although we believe there is a case for a later last service from Southampton to Netley, Bursledon and Hamble. The last service to these stations currently leaves Southampton Central at 2242, which is too early for some potential passengers attending events at Southampton city centre venues, for example.

Additionally we do have the following comments regarding late evening services:

 The Eastleigh to Fareham line needs a better mid to late evening service Monday to Saturday. There is currently no northbound service departing Hedge End between 2235 and 0005, and no southbound service from Eastleigh calling at Hedge End or Botley between 2137 and 2256. These stations thus have one of the lowest levels of evening train service of any station in Hampshire. Currently many mid-evening passengers intending to travel to Hedge End get a taxi or a lift from Southampton Airport Parkway or Eastleigh, or drive to these stations instead, due to the lack of a train for their full journey. The 80 minute gap in southbound service needs to be addressed in the new train service specification.

 We also believe that journey times (and capacity) in the later evening from Waterloo need to be improved. Currently journeys to the south coast become significantly slower after 2235, and there are often issues with overcrowding (due to short trains and passenger demand to intermediate stations such as Woking and Farnborough). We would like to see the operation of some later evening fast services to Eastleigh, Airport Parkway and Southampton Central to help improve late evening journey times and provide additional capacity.

Changes to Weekend trains

We have already outlined elsewhere in this response our view that additional capacity needs to be provided on services to/from London at weekends and especially in the mid/ late evenings, and also on Sunday afternoons. We also would like to see additional capacity on local services on Southampton FC home match days. Would you support a specification which is flexible enough to allow the operator to review how station calls are allocated to train paths in order to improve overall line capacity? What impact might this have on passengers?

The Council is very cautious about this proposal. Our concern is that connectivity towards London in particular could end up being prioritised to the detriment of more local services and at smaller stations. Whilst London is accepted as the key revenue market for the railway, the total number of journeys (across all modes) between areas of our Borough and London are small in comparison to the numbers of more local journeys across all modes. As we wish to see a higher proportion of these local journeys made by rail, service provision at local stations needs to be maintained rather than sacrificed for the operational convenience of a market that represents only a small part of the local travel demand within our Borough.

For example a major concern of ours would be that local services between Southampton Central and Eastleigh could end up being degraded to provide more fast train capacity on this constrained section of line. This hypothetical scenario might provide operational benefits for the railway, especially “further up the line”, but it would come at a cost to local connectivity and access to employment, education, services etc for many of our residents.

Another concern would be that some locally important and time-sensitive flows that operators may not be aware of could be inconvenienced by timetable changes for operational benefits. An example from within the Borough would be the high level of usage by Hamble College students of the 0812 arrival at Hamble from Southampton Central, and the 1516 departure towards Southampton Central. Typically 70 to 80 school pupils per day use these two services (travelling from/to Netley, Sholing and Woolston) and we estimate that school traffic makes up 40% to 50% of the total weekday use of the station. Timetable alterations which resulted in this flow being less well-served by rail could result in significant problems for travel to Hamble College.

We would only be supportive of giving operators significant flexibility to review station calls etc if the franchise specification mandates a minimum level of service and train frequency that at least matches the current level of service at all stations.

Respondents are invited to propose any changes to the current service pattern which they feel should be considered, and to explain their rationale, for example by identifying specific local factors which might influence the future level of passenger demand which should be reflected in a revised specification

Our answer to this question primarily refers back to the introduction to this response where we have identified our four aspirations for rail services, and in particular aspirations 1, 3 and 4 (respectively: improved frequency of service at all stations; improved links from Southampton Airport to the east; and rail connectivity improvements to more closely replicate M27 connectivity).

There is a definite need for improved connectivity from Southampton Airport to the east, and for improved cross-Solent connectivity in general. This was identified as a gap and options for improvement were explored in some detail in Network Rail’s London & South East Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) (2011) Solent and South Hampshire section2.

2 http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies Some of the options presented were found to be economically positive (indeed one option was included in a previous Southern rail franchise specification but was never implemented by the operator), and not all options were fully explored. Some options were recommended for further investigation, which has not occurred to date. We would expect that development in the intervening period, as well as additional future development planned in the area and other factors such as traffic congestion, will act to further improve the business case for changes similar to those explored in the RUS.

It is unfortunate that the current Wessex Route Study did not expand further on the Solent and South Hampshire chapter in the 2011 RUS. As a result we have a limited evidence base from within the rail industry beyond that presented in the 2011 RUS with which to provide specific justification or recommendations/ requests for changes to the service pattern.

Some local appraisal work has been undertaken on how service on some routes could be improved. The provision of “skip stop” services between Portsmouth and Southampton was considered and appraised as an intervention the 2012 Transport for South Hampshire (the former name for Solent Transport) Transport Delivery Plan. This used the Sub Regional Transport Model (SRTM) to appraise a 20 minute interval service between Portsmouth and Southampton, with skip stopping at the minor stations on the Netley Line, but still providing them with at least two trains per hour.

The SRTM outputs showed that the proposal would offer good value for money. However, the proposal did have some deficiencies especially regarding uneven service patterns and relatively limited improvements to journey times. This suggests that whilst a 20-minute skip-stop timetable is one potential option for improvement on the Netley line, it is questionable whether it is an ideal option for improved end to end journey times and increased service frequency.

Work currently being progressed by consultants to update the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) Spatial Strategy also identifies a similar case for improvements to local rail connectivity and in addition east-west links within South Hampshire. Whilst the final version of this work is yet to be published, it does provide a further item of evidence supporting the need for local rail connectivity improvements within and beyond the Borough.

Ultimately, what is clear is that there are likely to be economically positive options that would help realise aspirations for improved local connectivity (which we share with many stakeholders in the area), and that many of these options would require significant changes in service patterns compared to what is currently operated.

As previously noted, our ultimate aspiration, in line with that of many other local stakeholders, is for the creation of a network of frequent and direct local services which could be viewed as a “Solent Metro”. Whilst many of the desired service improvements would require infrastructure investment that is unlikely to be forthcoming within the timescales of this new franchise, some initial service improvements which would start to pave the way towards realisation of this vision could be delivered as part of this new franchise using the existing infrastructure.

We also make the following points:

/rus%20generation%202/london%20and%20south%20east/london%20and%20south%20east%20route %20utilisation%20strategy.pdf  Some elements of the existing service pattern in the South Hampshire area are extraordinarily inefficiently organised. In particular the Waterloo to Poole stopping service is very inefficiently scheduled, taking seven hours for a round trip Waterloo-Poole-Waterloo with extended waits at various stations en-route. The Portsmouth to Southampton stopping service as well as being very slow also requires three units for operation, with one unit spending 54 minutes of every hour sat at Portsmouth and Southsea station.

 There may be opportunities to schedule these services more efficiently and/or provide better local connectivity through better utilisation of currently wasted resources deployed on these services. This could for example be achieved through speeding up these services to release rolling stock to enable additional frequency or new service patterns, or through incorporation of additional station calls within existing schedules.

 We also accept that any future service patterns will still be highly London- centric and that improvements to cross-Solent local connectivity will largely need to fit around service to this core market.

This means that South Hampshire service patterns are to a fair extent dictated by availability of train paths into Waterloo. In order to work around this effect we believe there may be opportunities for splitting and joining some trains en route for example at Eastleigh or Southampton Central, with different portions then working on to different destinations (or the same final destination but with a different stopping pattern). This practice occurs regularly on Southern services (eg at Haywards Heath and Horsham) and results in an improved level of service at “country end” stations.

Its implementation in the new South Western franchise could help provide improved levels of service in the Borough and surrounding parts of South Hampshire whilst working within the constraints imposed by pathing into central London.

Performance and Reliability

In general we feel South West Trains are an adequate performer on service performance and reliability compared to some other train operators. We feel the new franchise specification should require at a minimum that current levels of performance and reliability are maintained and preferably that performance and reliability are improved where possible.

The only significant issue for this franchise within the Borough regards services to/from Chandler’s Ford and on the Salisbury to Romsey route. We note that the Salisbury to Romsey service is regularly several minutes late, especially in the peaks but sometimes also in the off peaks. We believe that this is largely down to the design of the Class 158 DMUs used on this route:

 Only three doors are opened at stations (the first set of doors in the leading carriage is not opened on these units) thus increasing station dwell times;  The doors on these units are narrow and are at the carriage ends, again extending loading/unloading times compared to some other units;  These services are normally overcrowded in the peaks due to the short units used, further exacerbating dwell time issues; and  These units are slow to accelerate meaning overall journey times and ability to recover from delays is reduced.

We believe that the Class 170 units previously used on this service were in fact more suitable for the mostly urban nature of this route than the Class 158s which were originally designed for limited stop regional and intercity services.

Additionally at Chandler’s Ford there is a perception that at times of disruption, this station is the “first to lose its service”. Although we do not have any data to hand to verify this claim we have observed that sometimes trains operating between Eastleigh and Romsey which are running particularly late or are otherwise disrupted are terminated at Eastleigh and wait there to pick up the return working. In addition to removal of the already fairly limited service at Chandler’s Ford, this also blocks a platform at Eastleigh and has sometimes been observed to create further disruption for other services.

The Council requests that the future franchise operator works with Network Rail to investigate if facilities could be provided to turn back trains at Chandler’s Ford, thus meaning that even in times of disruption, a service to Chandler’s Ford is maintained, and platform occupancy at Eastleigh is reduced.

Finally, now that the third track between Southampton Airport Parkway and Eastleigh has been commissioned, this may provide opportunities for some improvements to reliability and service provision if it is more fully utilised.

Stations

We would like to see the following enhancements at stations serving the Borough:

Eastleigh

 Extension to platform canopy on platform 2/3 to provide more shelter for passengers waiting at the “country” end. Currently the canopy on Platform 3 in particular is very short and this platform is very exposed to the elements, hence passengers tend to board trains in wet weather through only a few doors under the canopy and do not use the full length of the train. As well as being unpleasant for passengers this practice can also result in delays to trains.

 We would like to see toilets provided on Platform 2/3. At present there are toilets provided in the main building on Platform 1, but these are somewhat remote from Platforms 2 & 3 (and require a trip over the footbridge bridge- which may be difficult for users with mobility issues or luggage). Additionally Platforms 2 & 3 are actually used by significantly more trains than platform 1.

 We believe there is a case for provision of ticket gates at Eastleigh station. There is frequent fare evasion on local services to/from Eastleigh and provision of gates here would help to reduce this. Many other stations in the area of similar size and function to Eastleigh now have ticket barriers.

 It has been observed that staff cover, especially in the evenings and at weekends at Eastleigh is minimal and sometimes non-existent. Eastleigh needs better weekend cover given its interchange status and also during engineering works and when rail replacement buses are operating, with staff available to direct passengers to buses. At present we sometimes observe traincrew having to help passengers during these periods due to the absence of station staff.

 We believe there are also longer term infrastructure opportunities at Eastleigh, potentially including provision of a 4th platform to support reversing trains and higher levels of rail traffic, and also creation of an eastern entrance (facing Bishopstoke). These improvements however would probably not be feasible unless linked to possible regeneration of the Barton Park industrial area to east of station. This is an option that we may carry forward in our final Local Plan but these improvements may not be within the timescale or scope of the next franchise.

Southampton Airport Parkway

 There may be a case for additional ticket checks here as we believe that some fare evasion happens between local stations and this destination; however as a very “open” station and with limited other options for crossing the line we appreciate that installing ticket barriers here would be difficult to achieve and in comparison to other locations the level of fare evasion is probably fairly low.

Hedge End

 We would like to see provision of an accessible footbridge between the platforms at this station. Hedge End is well used and will see further growth in usage in future as a result of nearby housing development. At present, crossing from platform 1 to platform 2 is very difficult for those with luggage, pushchairs etc and impossible for those with mobility difficulties. The alternative “level access” route involves an approximately 340 metre walk along a narrow, unlit rural road with no footway, including a crossing of a “blind” humpbacked bridge.

 We additionally would like to see passenger waiting facility improvements on both platforms at Hedge End including provision of toilets, and also covered waiting on the station frontage for passengers waiting for taxis and to be picked up. Passenger numbers at Hedge End have now reached a level where the very basic passenger facilities provided are insufficient.

Hamble

 The Council has an aspiration for provision of car parking and improved pick up/drop off, waiting facilities and ticket retail at this station. At present Hamble is somewhat remote from the residential areas of the settlements it serves and local car parking and pick-up/ drop-off facilities are limited. Provision of a station car park would help to improve access to the station. We have recently undertaken some design and feasibility work on how a car park could be provided at this station and we believe there may be opportunities for the Council to work with the new franchise holder on how this scheme might be implemented. Other passenger facility enhancements at all stations: We would like to see improvements where needed to features such as benches, covered waiting facilities, and cycle parking (including secure cycle parking). We also appreciate that there may be a need to provide additional car parking at stations where existing car parking supply is limited and are supportive of this so long as its provision is sensitive to local issues and priorities.

Longer ticket office opening hours: Many Borough residents and many of our elected Members have requested longer ticket office opening hours / staffing hours at stations in the borough which are staffed. We believe there may be a particular case at Hedge End and Chandler’s Ford for extended ticket office hours than at present.

Door to door journeys

We believe there could be opportunities to improve door to door journey opportunities and experiences through inclusion of the following in the franchise specification:

Provision of cycle hubs at some stations (specifically for EBC: Eastleigh station). Research undertaken by EBC has shown that around 25% of people in the Borough who currently cycle for commuting journeys do not have adequate changing or storage facilities at their destinations. These destinations are primarily workplaces but railway stations are also a key destination for cycle journeys. In many cases, smaller and older town centre shops and offices are unable to accommodate improved shower and changing facilities. Our research also shows that lack of shower/changing/locker facilities is the most significant factor after concerns about road safety that puts many people off cycling for commuting journeys.

Many rail stations are reasonably central to the towns that they serve and are often the number one individual destination for cycle trips. We believe that at Eastleigh station, and probably at many similar stations elsewhere there is potential to provide a high quality “cycle hub”, providing not just secure cycle parking facilities but also shower, changing and locker facilities and perhaps even cycle retail/repair, café facilities etc. We believe that that these facilities would be of benefit not just to rail users but also to workers at town centre businesses who cycle to work (or might start cycling if changing facilities were provided). This higher specification cycle hub concept has already been implemented at some stations elsewhere- two examples we are aware of are at Haywards Heath3 and Brighton4 (Southern). Implementation of this concept at stations on the South Western route may provide opportunities for improved use of station land and buildings. It may also help to increase the community benefits of railway stations.

There may also be opportunities for cycle hire based at cycle hubs, which may provide a benefit for onward journeys.

Car club / car hire integration: We would like to see franchise bidders explore the potential for partnerships with car club / car hire operators, to provide access to car club / hire vehicles at “destination” stations for onward travel to final destinations which are remote from the actual station and which may not be walkable or accessible via public transport.

3 http://www.southernrailway.com/southern/news/book-your-space-at-haywards-heaths-new-cycle-hub/ 4 http://www.southernrailway.com/southern/news/new-850000-cycle-hub-for-brighton-station/ Within the Borough we feel there may be opportunities for this at Southampton Airport Parkway in particular, and possibly also at Eastleigh.

Carplus, the national organisation for car club operators (of which the Council is a member) is particularly keen to see better integration of car clubs with rail services5. There could be opportunities for this integration to occur as part of the booking process and also via smart cards. One example of good integration is that on SNCF, the French rail operator, whereby car hire options are offered as part of the rail ticket booking process6.

Electric Vehicle charge points: We would like to see the franchise specification set some requirements regarding provision of EV charge points at railway stations. At present none of the stations within the Borough offer this facility. As a Borough with four Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) we view more widespread adoption of electric vehicles as being one measure which will help to tackle air quality issues- however infrastructure needs to be put in place to support their adoption, including at railway stations.

Fares and Ticketing questions

Regarding smart cards and ticketing innovations, we believe the franchise specification should require the operator to provide rail options as part of the Solent Go smart card. This smart card, which was set up using LSTF funding from the DfT, currently covers all bus operators, as well as ferry and car club operators, in the South Hampshire area.

The card cannot achieve its full potential until rail ticketing options are provided. We believe that if suitable rail ticketing options were provided on Solent Go, this could be a potentially “transformational” level change in the way the local public transport offer is viewed and used by residents.

In particular we believe that ticketing options which help make multi-destination off-peak and weekend journeys around the South Hampshire area more attractive and affordable than at present could have potential to grow the market at times when there is spare capacity.

An example of a possible use scenario might be, for example, example ticketing options which would enable a hypothetical weekend leisure user to travel from Chandler’s Ford to Gunwharf to go shopping in the morning, to Southampton for the football in the afternoon, to Winchester in the evening to meet friends for dinner, and back to Chandler’s Ford by bus from Winchester.

At present such an itinerary would require purchase of multiple rail tickets and a bus ticket, and would cost significantly more than the cost of driving and parking at these destinations. Some form of unlimited use travelcard in the off-peak and at weekends might help generate some new patronage as at present this type of multi centric leisure journey would typically be made by car.

We also feel that more could be done to maximise off peak utilisation or spare capacity. This could include a more permanent off peak discounted travel offer. Whilst SWT have run various offers and promotions in recent years, these have tended to be London-

5 http://www.carplus.org.uk/what-is-shared-mobility/door-to-door/ 6 https://agence.voyages-sncf.com/location-voiture/promotion-europcar oriented. We feel that a more general off peak ticket similar to the Southern “Daysave” ticket might help to increase utilisation of trains for leisure travel.

Finally with regard to part time season tickets, the Council requests that the franchise specification mandates bidders to at least commit to a trial of part time season tickets (as has been the case on several recent rail franchise extensions). Alternatively discounted carnet tickets may offer a solution that could be implemented via smart card. Part time workers make up around a quarter of the working population and this proportion is growing. At some workplaces in the Borough we are aware that as many as a third of staff work part time. The number of staff who work from home and hence are only in the office “part time” is also growing.

The current rail offer for these semi-regular commuting groups is often uncompetitive and may result in some of these groups choosing not to use the railway for their journeys at present due to cost, even though it may be more convenient for them than other modes.

Managing disruption

The Council appreciates that this is a difficult area for train operators to address. One suggestion, based on observations made to us, is that mobile apps that “push” information actively to passengers may have some benefits in terms of pre-emptively warning passengers about disruption on their regular journeys before they travel.

Whilst Journeycheck does this via email/ SMS at present it is considered that this sometimes isn’t very accurate or convenient. Also apps give more opportunities to provide additional content and links than SMS in particular provides. Apps also provide a convenient “front end” that may enable users to set modify their information requirements more flexibly, as and when they need to, with greater convenience than is possible with Journeycheck.

Replacing first/last trains with buses: The appropriateness of regular bus replacement depends on factors such as the time of the service, the market served, numbers of passengers and the distance travelled by bus. Most rail passengers generally expect to travel by train when they have purchased a train ticket and on some routes the bus journey time is considerably extended compared to the train journey time. In the case of late night bus substitutions, this extended journey time occurs at a time when people just want to get home. Regular “bustitution” may result in some passengers choosing not to use rail.

Additionally the last train service is often quite economically important for town centres. Eastleigh town centre has been working to develop its evening economy. This form of economic development is proving difficult but the presence of a good late evening service from Eastleigh station is a definite benefit and the latest train departures are quite well used especially by younger users on Friday and Saturday nights. The Council would be concerned that if some of these services regularly became buses, there could be negative effects on the town centre’s evening economy.

Community Rail and Other Partnerships

Eastleigh Borough Council is an active member and financial sponsor of the Three Rivers Rail Partnership, which has adopted all the stations serving the Borough except Hedge End and Botley.

The Partnership has proven very valuable in recent years, undertaking a variety of community work based around stations as well as providing local support, intelligence and lobbying that the Council would have struggled to achieve otherwise. We also believe that the work of the Partnership does help to raise the profile of rail services at smaller stations and in areas which rail operator’s own marketing and development efforts sometimes miss.

The Three Rivers Partnership have a detailed business plan and we are supportive of any assistance that prospective franchisees can provide (either through the franchise specification or through non-mandatory enhancements to bids) to help them deliver this. Provision of sufficient funding and also support and co-operation from the franchise operator will clearly be essential.

The Partnership is currently particularly interested in bringing disused station buildings back into use for the benefit of the community. Within the Borough there are currently unused buildings at Netley station that they are working to bring back into use and we feel it would be helpful if they are supported in these efforts through the new franchise.

Passenger Information

Whilst the Council accepts that online provision of information will be the key form of information provision in future it is important that printed information is still available for the significant proportion of the population that is not online.

In addition to the current printed timetables for individual lines, we believe the franchise specification should require the operator to continue to print the complete SWT timetable guide book. Additionally we would like to see this all lines timetable made available at more medium sized stations (eg Eastleigh, Fareham) than it is currently available at.

We also would like to see a wider roll-out of the “how busy is my train” posters which provide a summary of how busy each peak hour departure from each station is by means of a colour coded diagram. In locations such as ours where there is still spare capacity on some trains at peak times these posters may have significant potential to encourage better distribution of demand.

Service Quality

Whilst we have no direct suggestions on how service quality could be better monitored we do have several suggestions on items which we would like to see delivered by the new franchise which would improve on the quality of service provided ( beyond the items detailed elsewhere in our response). These are:

 Provision of wi-fi at stations, especially those where there are high levels of interchange, to help make waiting time more productive for passengers;  Provision of media servers on trains providing streaming entertainment and information to smartphones and tablets (as has been committed in the new Transpennine Express franchise). This type of enhancement could provide an important “differentiator” which may help draw new users to train services

 Provision of online shopping pickup points at key stations. This has already been implemented (via Waitrose “click & collect” grocery shopping lockers) at Southampton Airport Parkway but we would like to see this type of facility rolled out to other stations with high levels of commuter traffic (Eastleigh in particular but possibly also Hedge End and Netley). Also we would prefer to see more provision of parcel pickup points which are not retailer specific, for example via Doddle points, as have been provided recently at Southampton Central and Basingstoke.

As well as being a convenience feature for rail users, local research undertaken by the University of Southampton has demonstrated that missed online shopping deliveries and trips to collection centres generate increased highway demand and that collection delivery points may offer an opportunity to reduce the vehicle mileage generated by online shopping delivery activities by as much as 80%7.

 Provision of connection/ change information on trains: We believe that there could be an opportunity, particularly linked to new rolling stock procurement or refurbishment, to provide enhanced on-train information, especially with regards to connections to other train services and whether planned / advertised connections are still viable in light of disruption etc. We understand that forthcoming new train fleets are will offer this information via their Passenger Information Systems.

Connections are a significant disincentive to many users to travel on non- direct journeys and improved provision of platform and train running information to passengers prior to the connection taking place may help to reduce this disincentive somewhat.

We are grateful for the opportunity to respond to this consultation and hope that as many of the points we have raised as possible can be taken into account when finalising the specification for this important new rail franchise. Please use the officer contact details at the top of this letter should you wish to enter into further correspondence regarding any aspect of this letter.

Yours Sincerely,

Cllr David Airey Cabinet Member for Transportation and Streetscene

7 eprints.soton.ac.uk/69714/1/collectpoint_v7_30-5-06_draft.doc