a414 corridor strategy - summary consultation report · a414 corridor strategy - summary...

41

APPENDIX AA414 Corridor StrategySummary Consultation Report

Author: Lindsey Lucas

Date: August 2019

A414 Corridor Strategy - Summary Consultation Report [Publish Date]

42

IntroductionThis report presents a summary of feedback from the public consultation on the draft version of the A414 Corridor Strategy. The consultation in particular sought people’s views on the objectives of the plan and on the packages of scheme proposals that it put forward. Participants also had the opportunity to comment on any other aspects of the plan.

The ConsultationThe public and stakeholder consultation was open from 3 December 2018 to 25 February 2019.

The consultation materials were published on www.hertfordshire.gov.uk. Paper copies of the materials were also sent to local libraries and District Council Offices in the plan area. (Broxbourne Borough Council, Dacorum Borough Council, East Herts Council, St Albans City & District Council, Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council, Harlow Council and Essex County Council)

Key stakeholders were notified about the consultation via email. The consultation was promoted to the general public through a press release and social media.

The social media promotion included;

One Update me bulletin which reached 12,634 people.

10 tweets, reaching 25,943 people with 260 people clicking through to the online consultation page.

12 posts on Facebook reaching 43,055 people with 761 people clicked through to the online consultation page.

6 press releases (one countywide and five localised), generating 8 news stories in the print and web editions of the Welwyn Hatfield Times, St Albans Review, Watford Observer, Herts Advertiser and Hemel Gazette.

Participants were invited to respond through an online survey, or by email and post.

The consultation material made available was:

Draft A414 Corridor Strategy- full document Draft A414 Corridor Strategy Summary Report ‘Easy Read’ version of the plan - ‘Our

ideas for the A414 road in Hertfordshire and the roads and towns around it’ The 17 Appendices, which form part of the Full Document were available to view

independently The online survey A414 Corridor Strategy supporting papers:

o Evidence Reporto Equalities Impact Assessment

http://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/


43

o Draft Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Report including SEA Non- Technical Summary

o Habitats Regulations Assessment


44

Consultees and ParticipantsWe received 1,310 responses to the online consultation of which 692 were partially completed and 618 fully completed. We received 68 email responses, 39 from Stakeholders and 29 from individual residents.

94.3% of the online responses were from individuals, with the remainder responses on behalf of organisations.

Some participants responded by email as well as online; however they are counted as separate representations within this analysis.

563 participants provided the first part of their postcode and this allows us to see the area where they came from. Most participants lived within the A414 Corridor area. Table 1 gives the details. For the Hertford area this can be further split;

23 participants gave SG12 which includes Ware, Thundridge, Stanstead Abbots and Great Amwell as their postcode,

229 participants gave SG13 which includes Bayford, Brickendon and Hertford Heath as their postcode.

119 participants gave SG14 which includes Hertford, Hertingfordbury, Cole Green as their postcode.

Postcode area Number of participantsHertford 371St Albans 40Harlow 29Hemel Hempstead 28London Colney 14Watford 12Hatfield 11Sawbridgeworth 8Welwyn Garden City 7Hoddesdon 7Buntingford 4Ware 3Broxbourne 3Welwyn 3Rickmansworth 3Cheshunt 2Potters Bar 2Abbots Langley 2Bishops Stortford 2London 1Richmond 1Hitchin 1Bushey 1


45

Harpenden 1Purley 1Luton 1Radlett 1Kings Langley 1Letchworth Garden City 1Much Hadham 1Waltham Abbey 1

Table 1: Postcode data

The age profile of online participants is shown in Chart 1.

Chart 1- Age prof i le of part icipants to the onl ine survey

The gender profile of online participants is shown in Chart 2

Chart 2 - Gender prof i le of part icipants to the onl ine survey


46

Participants were asked why the used the A414 corridor to travel along. They were allowed to choose more than one option. The results are shown in Chart 3

Chart 3 – Reasons for using the A414 Corridor

Participants were asked what methods of transport they used to travel the A414 corridor. They were allowed to choose more than one option. The results are shown in chart 4.

Chart 4 – Methods of travel along the A414 Corridor


47

A list of the organisations that responded to the consultation is included below:

Broxbourne Borough Council

Dacorum Borough Council

East Herts Council

St Albans City & District Council

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

Abbots Langley Parish Council

Colney Heath Parish Council

London Colney Parish Council

St Stephen Parish Council

Aldenham Parish Council

Hatfield Town Council

Welwyn Parish Council

Great Amwell Parish Council

Hertingfordbury Parish Council

Ware Town Council

Eastwick & Gilston Parish council

Highways England

Herts Road Safety Partnership

Transport for London

Hertfordshire LEP

Gascoyne and Cecil Estates

Abbey Line Community Rail Partnership

Morgans School

Historic England

CPRE

South Herts Hikers


48

Canal and River Trust

Cycle Herts & St Albans cycle Campaign

Hertford Civic Society

WELHAT Cycling

Police Traffic Management Unit

British Pipeline Agency

Potters Bar & St Albans transport user group

Herts and Middlesex wildlife trust

Hunsdon, Eastwick and Gilston neighbourhood Plan Group

Swallow management Company Limited

Box Moor Trust

Swallow Grove Farm

The Roydon Society

Old Hatfield Residents Association; Also Mill Green Renewable Energy TrustSusie Hachett communication consultants LTD

Abfly

Transport Planning Associates

Hatfield Renewal Partnership

Rambler & St Albans District footpath society

People for Places

Bayford Estates

Crown Estates

LSCC

The Farmers Boy Public House

Sustainable Hertford Heath

Sandridge Parish Council

Hertfordshire Gardens Trust


49

Roydon Parish Council

Viaduct Ltd

Abbey Line Community Rail Partnership

Table 2- Names of organisat ion responders

Some of these organisations responded by email and others used the on line consultation form. Some responses were submitted on behalf of landowners or local developers.


50

Summary of Responses

Objectives

The objectives proposed in the consultation document were as follows:

The participants were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the objectives and there was an opportunity to provide comments.

436 419320

453 416

304 328 325383

490 468

71 83

91

6583

105137 108

95

37 5553 54

14141 56

14289 115

7127 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

agree disagree not sure

Do you agree or disagree with the following objectives?

Chart 5 - Views on the object ives

All of the 11 objectives had a majority responding in support of the proposed objective. Of the objectives with the least support, objectives 3, 6, 7 and 8, these also had more participants whose response was to say they were unsure. However these still have more


51

than 50% support. Comments were provided by 242 participants to the online consultation. Email responses relating to the objectives were received from 11 stakeholders and 3 individuals. The comments on the objectives were wide ranging and covered matters on all aspects of the Corridor Strategy as well as those beyond the control of Hertfordshire County Council. Some felt that although the objectives were good they should be prioritised and targets should be included for achieving modal shift. There were some requests for the objectives to be prioritised; however as different segments of the corridor have different roles it would be difficult to prioritise the objectives to suit all the sections. The comments can be summarised as follows:

Table 3- summary of comments on object ives

Comments Frequency

Support objectives 14

Support objectives but concern that proposals do not support objectives/how they will be achieved

20

Objectives are too vague and can be interpreted in different ways 4Objectives should be prioritisedThe principle relating to enhancing the sense of place needs to be amended to take account of planned as well as existing settlements

1

The focus should be on better using the A414 to provide inter urban travel through MRT.

1

Proposals especially road building do not support objectives 2

Objectives should give cars priority on A414 1

Concern that objective to improve inter-urban connectivity could support road growth

1

Concern that it is unrealistic to achieve objective 7 Public Transport in rural areas

1

Emphasis should be on sustainability in sustainable growth 1

Enhance sense of place and town centre viability” should be reworded to the following: “…but well-designed roads with attractive landscaping and high quality materials can create a locally distinctive sense of place while enhancing the built, historic and natural environments.

1

Enhanced PT is important 2Main objective should be for behaviour change to get people out of their cars

2

Main objective should be health and safety 1

Main objective should be to improve roads 1

More consideration should be given to improving air quality 2


52

Comments on the Segments and proposals

The Consultation then allowed participants to consider the proposals for all or some of the Segments of the corridor. Table 4 shows how many people said they would like to respond to each Segment. This allowed them to click through to that particular segment. Further analysis of the data shows that not all these people then continued to answer the more detailed questions. The number of actual responses is given in the report in each Segment.

Some scheme proposals appear in more than one segment. For the purpose of this report, the results are shown by segment and if a person chose to respond to the same package in both Segments their responses are counted in both as sometimes they would vary slightly. As there was no way to identify individuals responding both online and by email, all emailed responses have been counted as a new respondent.

Please select the Segment of the proposals you would like to respond about?

Answer Choice Response Percent

Response Total

1 Segment 1: Hemel Hempstead 7.3% 42

2 Segment 2: Hemel Hempstead-St Albans-Park Street 7.2% 41

3 Segment 3: Watford-Garston 3.3% 19

4 Segment 4: Bricket Wood Triangle 3.5% 20

5 Segment 5: Park Street-How Wood-Chiswell Green 3.7% 21

6 Segment 6: Park Street-St Albans-London Colney 5.8% 33

7 Segment 7: St Albans-London Colney-Hatfield 9.8% 56

8 Segment 8: Hatfield 5.8% 33

9 Segment 9: Welwyn Garden City-Hatfield 5.2% 30

10 Segment 10: Hatfield-Welwyn Garden City-Hertford 16.6% 95

11 Segment 11: Hertford 66.6% 381

12 Segment 12: Hertford-Rush Green 40.6% 232

13 Segment 13: Broxbourne Towns 3.5% 20

14 Segment 14: Harlow 9.8% 56

15 Mass Rapid Transit 14.7% 84

16 None of the Packages individually 3.8% 22

answered 572

skipped 46Table 4 – responses for the segments


53

Segment 1 Hemel Hempstead

12.5%

25.0%20.0%

37.5%

5.0%

Agree Partially agree Partially Disagree

Disagree Don't Know

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the proposals for Segment 1.

Chart 6 – Segment 1 Hemel Hempstead

40 participants chose to answer the questions for this segment, with 37.5% in support and 57.5% disagreeing with the proposals for this segment.

The comments reflect some of the feedback that was received last year to the SouthWest Growth and Transport Plan. There are two packages in the Segment which received mixed levels of support

Package1: Hemel Hempstead East-West Corridor – 28 responses

The aim of Package 1 is to form an east-west, cross-town corridor which facilitates attractive and convenient journeys on foot, by bike, by bus and also by car between Hemel Hempstead railway station.

35.7%

57.1%

7.1%

Agree with proposalDisagree with proposalDo not want to comment on this individual scheme / project

Package 1: Hemel Hempstead East-West Corridor

Chart 7- Package 1


54

Package 2: Maylands and East Hemel Hempstead - 28 responses

The overarching aim of Package 2 is to provide improved access to the Maylands Enviro-Tech Enterprise Zone and the wider East Hemel Hempstead Garden Community from within and Hemel Hempstead by all modes of transport

50.0%

21.4%

28.6% Agree with proposalDisagree with proposalDo not want to comment on this individual scheme / project

Package 2: Maylands and East Hemel Hempstead

Chart 8- Package 2

The comments for Segment 1 and packages 1 and 2 can be summarised as follows.

Table 5- Segment 1 comments

Comments Frequency

Magic roundabout cycle flyover and bus priority are ridiculous ideas/ do not support changes at Magic Roundabout

8

Support cycling and pedestrian improvements 5

Support for improvements at junction 8 4Support for Northern Hemel distributor Road/ routing of distributor road needs to be carefully chosen

3

Concern that bus lanes would remove capacity for vehicles 3Support for MRT/ needs to connect to rail station 3

Concerns that improvements to A4251and A414 for pedestrians and cyclists will cause delays for cars

2


55

Segment 2: Hemel Hempstead-St Albans-Park Street

Chart 9 – Segment 2 Hemel Hempstead-St Albans-Park Street


The comments were generally supportive of improvements to cycle links, however concerns were raised about congestion at Park Street roundabout.

Package 3: Hemel Hempstead - Park Street - St Albans Connectivity – 18 responses

The aim of Package 3 is to maintain the A414 ‘s role as an inter-urban corridor facilitating medium and longer distance trips, and providing greater mode choice across both the A4147 and A414 to help mitigate the effects of increased traffic, including that arising from planned housing and employment growth in the surrounding area.

72.2%

16.7%

11.1%


Package 3: Hemel Hempstead - Park Street - St Albans Connectivity

Chart 10 - Package 3 Schemes


56

The comments for Segment 2 and package 3 can be summarised as follows.


Segment 3: Watford-Garston

Chart 11 – Segment 3:Watford-Garston


The comments were generally supportive of improvements to cycle links, however concerns were raised about removing road space on the A405 and how the Abbey Line would relate to any Mass Rapid Transit system.

Package 4: St Albans-Watford Corridor -12 responses

The aim of Package 4 is to transform the A405 into a multi-modal road by diverting strategic traffic onto the motorway network, freeing up space for more local journeys by bus, bike or by car.

Comments Frequency

Support for A4147/A414 cycle links between Hemel and St Albans / need to make sure it links to King Harry Lane cycle route

8

Park Street roundabout congestion will get worse/ should be grade separated

4

Air quality will get worse 2Should be concentrating on using the Nickey Line rather than spending money on new cycle routes

2


57

75.0%

16.7%

8.3%


Package 4: St Albans-Watford Corridor

Chart 12 - Package 4 Schemes



Comments frequency

A405 cycle route needs to link into Watford/Garston 5

How will proposals work with the Abbey Line?/Abbey Line must remain/ improve Abbey Line

4

A405 should be for local traffic/ need to reduce speed limit 3

Downgrading A405 totally inappropriate 2

Don’t close subways on A405 1


58

Segment 4: Bricket Wood Triangle

Chart 13 – Segment 4


The comments were generally supportive of improvements to cycle links, however concerns were raised about removing road space on the A405 and how the Abbey Line would relate to any Mass Rapid Transit system.

Package 4: St Albans-Watford Corridor -12 responses

The aim of Package 4 is to transform the A405 into a multi-modal road by diverting strategic traffic onto the motorway network, freeing up space for more local journeys by bus, bike or by car

The comments were similar to those from Segment 3. Some of the participants commented in both sections with slightly different comments.


59

75.0%

25.0%

0.0%

Agree with proposal

Disagree with proposal

Do not want to comment on this individual scheme / project

Package 4: St Albans-Watford Corridor

Chart 14- Package 4 Schemes



Comments Frequency

A405 cycleways are a good idea 5

Should improve Abbey Line rather than provide buses 2

Reallocation of road space to buses is a good idea 2

New M1/M25 slips and A405 downgrade are a good idea 2

Do not support M1/M25 slips- loss of greenbelt and impact on ROWs 2

Downgrading A405 will make access to Bricket Wood worse 1


60

Segment 5: Park Street–How Wood–Chiswell Green

50.0% 15.0% 0.0% 25.0% 10.0%


Disagree Don't Know

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the proposals for Segment 5.


20 participants chose to answer the questions for this segment, with 65% in support and 25% disagreeing with the proposals for this segment.

There were concerns about the level of congestion at Park Street roundabout and some participants raised concern about the proposed development at Radlett Rail Freight, which has planning permission.

Package 5: Park Street-How Wood-Chiswell Green – 10 responses

The overarching aim of Package 5 is to improve connectivity between Chiswell Green, Park Street and St Albans, and reduce through traffic on the B4630 corridor. Comments related to the frequency of trains on the Abbey Line, concerns about congestion at Park Street roundabout and support for a cycle route through Chiswell Green.

60.0%

40.0%

0.0%


Package 5: Park Street-How Wood-Chiswell Green



61



Segment 6: Park Street- St Albans- London Colney

58.1%

12.9% 9.7% 12.9% 6.5%


Disagree Don't Know

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the proposals for segment 6

Chart 17– Segment 6

31 participants chose to answer the questions for this segment, with 71% in support and 22.6% disagreeing with the proposals for this segment. There was support for the sustainable cycle bridge at London Colney and safe crossings on the A414. Concerns were raised about existing accesses onto the A414 that were substandard

Comments Frequency

Cycling on B4630 should be segregated not on road 5

Support improvements at Park Street roundabout/ improvements must include bus priority/ improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

3

Don’t support B4630 interventions to reduce traffic 2

Support for interventions to reduce traffic on B4630 1

A405/B4630 junction changes need to ensure cycle provsion 2

Park Street should be a flyover 1


62

Package 6: South of St Albans and London Colney Cycle and Public Transport Improvements -12 responses

The overarching aim of Package 6 is to provide enhanced east-west connectivity to the south of St Albans including improved public transport and active travel connections via London Colney.

83.3%

8.3%8.3%


Package 6: South of St Albans and London Colney Cycle and Public Transport Improvements


Package 7: St Albans-Hatfield Alban Way Enhancements – 14 responses

The overarching aim of Package 7 is to enhance the Alban Way and promote it as a safe, convenient and attractive option for trips between St Albans and Hatfield. There were mixed views on whether there should be lighting on the Alban Way.

71.4%

21.4%

7.1%

Agree with proposal



Package 7: St Albans-Hatfield Alban Way Enhancements



63

Package 8: St Albans City Station Accessibility – 14 responses

The overarching aim of Package 8 is to improve accessibility by active modes to St Albans City station, particularly through strengthened connectivity between the station and the city centre.

57.1%

14.3%

28.6%Agree with proposal



Package 8: St Albans City Station Accessibility


Package 9: A0157 Hatfield Road Corridor (St Albans) – 13 responses

The overarching aim of Package 9 is to transform Hatfield Road into an attractive and inviting high street and enhance its function as an efficient public transform corridor. Comments referred to Hatfield Road not really being a high street and concerns about congestion. Any proposals need to recognise that Hatfield Road is a key high frequency bus corridor and any measures should support this role.

69.2%

23.1%

7.7%


Package 9: A0157 Hatfield Road Corridor



64

Package 10: London Road Corridor (St Albans) – 13 responses

The overarching aim of Package 10 is to make London Road a more attractive place for pedestrians and cyclists and improve reliability of journeys along the corridor.

69.2%

15.4%

15.4%


Package 10: London Road Corridor (St Albans)


Package 11: A414 Highway Improvements (South of St Albans) – 13 responses

The overarching aim of Package 11 is to enhance the function of the A414 as a strategic east-west route in south central Hertfordshire through capacity and reliability upgrades.

69.2%

23.1%

7.7%


Package 11: A414 Highway Improvements (South of St Albans)



65

Package 12: London Colney Inter-Urban Connectivity – 13 responses


76.9%

15.4%

7.7%


Package 12: London Colney Inter-Urban Connectivity


The comments for Segment 6 and packages 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 can be summarised as follows.


Comments Frequency

London Colney pedestrian cycle bridge over the A414 is a good idea 4

Should concentrate on making Alban Way the main cycling route- improve safety and should be lit/ co-ordinate with Alban Way Greenspace Action Plan

4

Need safe crossings along A414 Cycle route 3

Changes at London Colney roundabout must not be detrimental to north south traffic

2

Need to improve Napsbury junction and other substandard accesses onto A414/short slip roads

2


66

Segment 7: St Albans-London Colney-Hatfield

50.0%26.9% 5.8% 11.5% 5.8%

Agree Partially agree Partially Disagree Disagree Don't Know




Improvements on the Alban way were well supported with requests for it to be lit. There was support for the Coopers Green Lane proposals. Some comments related to the recent Minerals and Waste Plan consultation.


67

Package 9: A0157 Hatfield Road Corridor (St Albans) – 23 responses

The overarching aim of Package 9 is to transform Hatfield Road into an attractive and inviting high street and enhance its function as an efficient public transport corridor.

65.2%13.0%

21.7%Agree with proposalDisagree with proposalDo not want to comment on this individual scheme / project

Package 9: A0157 Hatfield Road Corridor (St Albans)


Package 12: London Colney Inter-Urban Connectivity – 24 responses


66.7%8.3%


Package 12: London Colney Inter-Urban Connectivity

Chart 27 – Package 12 Schemes


68

Package 13: St Albans-Hatfield Local Connectivity – 25 responses

The overarching aim of Package 13 is to enhance local transport between St Albans and Hatfield and facilitate growth along the Sandpit Lane-Coopers Green Lane corridor.

64.0%

28.0%

8.0%


Package 13: St Albans-Hatfield Local Connectivity


The comments for Segment 7 and packages 9, 12 and 13 can be summarised as follows.


Comments Frequency

Should concentrate on improving the Alban Way- lighting is needed 10

Need safe crossings of A414 (both across and at side junctions) for cyclists 5

Coopers Green Lane Active travel Corridor is a good idea/ needs to tie in with ROW/ consider land ownership issues/ needs to be segregated

5

Concerns about traffic from Mineral extraction in the area affecting proposals

4

Coopers Green Lane proposals will change character of road/ lead to more congestion

3

Need a bypass for Hatfield to link A414 directly to A1M j3 3

Tie in with ROWs/improve ROW to provide access across A1M and A414 2

Concern on impact on businesses and shops on Hatfield Road/ not really a high street

2


69

Segment 8: HatfieldSegment 8: Hatfield – 29 responses

48.3% 34.5%3.4% 13.8% 0.0%


Please Indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the proposals for segment 8


29 participants chose to answer the questions for this segment, with 82.8% in support and 17.2% disagreeing with the proposals for this segment. Comments related to improving cycling provision and some concern was expressed regarding downgrading Comet Way.

Package 14: Hatfield - College Lane/Cavendish Way Corridor – 15 responses

The overarching aim of Package 14 is to reduce severance and improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists along the College Lane/Cavendish Way corridor, enhancing connectivity between the university campuses and Hatfield town centre.


70

80.0%

0.0%

20.0%


Package 14: Hatfield - College Lane/Cavendish Way Corridor

Chart 30– Package 14 Schemes

Package 15: Hatfield - Cavendish Way/Queensway Corridor – 15 responses

The overarching aim of Package 15 is to reprioritise the main transport corridor through Hatfield town centre to reduce the dominance of motorised vehicles, improve connectivity to the surrounding area and make a more attractive entrance to the town centre.

60.0%

0.0%


Package 15: Hatfield - Cavendish Way/Queensway Corridor



71

Package 16: Hatfield - French Horn Lane Corridor – 15 responses

The overarching aim of Package 16 is to increase active transport provision between Hatfield town centre and the train station by improving facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.

66.7%6.7%

26.7%


Package 16: Hatfield - French Horn Lane Corridor


Package 17: Hatfield - Wellfield Road Corridor – 14 responses

The overarching aim of Package 17 is to implement sustainable transport improvements along the Wellfield Road corridor, providing greater mode choice for trips between the Hatfield Business Park and the town centre.

78.6%

0.0%

21.4%


Package 17: Hatfield - Wellfield Road Corridor



72

Package 18: Hatfield - St Albans Road East/Hertford Road Corridor – 14 responses

The overarching aim of Package 18 is to reduce severance in north east Hatfield and enhance connectivity between The Ryde residential area, the town centre and railway station.

50.0%

0.0%

50.0%


Package 18: Hatfield - St Albans Road East/Hertford Road Corridor


Package 19: St Albans-Welwyn Garden City Connectivity – 15 responses

The overarching aim of Package 19 is to form a sustainable transport corridor between St Albans and Welwyn Garden City, facilitating attractive and convenient journeys on foot and by bike between the towns with links to the Symondshyde and North West Hatfield developments, as well as Hatfield Business Park.

53.3%

20.0%


Package 19: St Albans-Welwyn Garden City Connectivity



73

Package 20: A1(M) Junction 4 (North of Hatfield) – 15 responses

The overarching aim of Package 20 is to reduce congestion and increase reliability for inter-urban trips at A1(M) Junction 4 and adjoining links and junctions on the A414.

40.0%

46.7%

13.3%


Package 20: A1(M) Junction 4 (North of Hatfield)


The comments for Segment 8 and packages 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 can be summarised as follows.


Comments Frequency

Support cycle and pedestrian improvements/ should be done properly, not just lines on the road/ need good signing

4

Include bus priority in schemes 2

Need to improve pedestrian access across the A1M 2

Support cycle hire and more cycle parking 2

Concerns on downgrading Comet way to one lane as this is the diversion route for the A1M

2

A new pedestrian route over the A1M is expensive –should look at other options

1


74

Segment 9: Welwyn Garden City - Hatfield

40.0%48.0%

4.0% 4.0% 4.0%




30 participants chose to answer the questions for this segment, with 88% in support and 8% disagreeing with the proposals for this segment. The main focus for comments was for improved cycling links between Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City.



50.0%

33.3%

16.7%





75

Package 21: Hatfield-Welwyn Garden City Connectivity – 12 responses

The overarching aim of Package 21 is to strengthen local connections between Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City by active travel modes, encouraging modal shift from private car and improving recreational facilities within the Green Corridor running between the towns.

83.3%

16.7%

0.0%


Package 21: Hatfield-Welwyn Garden City Connectivity


Package 22: Welwyn Garden City Bridge Road Transformation – 12 responses

The overarching aim of Package 22 is to transform Bridge Road into a sustainable spine that enhances connections on foot, by bike and by bus between the Welwyn Garden City town centre and the employment zone east of the rail line, and reduce the dominance of motorised traffic.

75.0%

16.7%

8.3%


Package 22: Welwyn Garden City Bridge Road Transformation



76

The comments for Segment 9 and packages 20, 21 and 22 can be summarised as follows.


Segment 10: Hatfield- Welwyn Garden City -Hertford

40.9%25.0% 14.8% 12.5% 6.8%




88 participants chose to answer the questions for this segment, with 65.9% in support and 27.2% disagreeing with the proposals for this segment. The proposals for Hertford bypass and the cycle network between Hatfield and Hertford were the main focus of comments.

Comments Frequency

Link from Hatfield to Cole green Way is a god idea/ opportunity to remove barriers between Alban Way and Cole Green Way

5

Good ideas to improve Bridge Road 3

No evidence that improvements to J3 and J4 will reduce rat running on local roads/ need to separate A414 and A1M traffic

2

Signalisation of A6129/B197 seems unnecessary 1

Need to improve A1000/A414 junction 1

Should concentrate on removing the large number of HGV’s 1


77



47.5%

32.5%

20.0%






Comments Frequency

Make sure improve cycle network between Hatfield and Hertford/ link with WHBC Green Corridor

8

Concerns on building a bypass/ new roads lead to more traffic 7

Concerns on road safety at Oldings Corner/ lane discipline and along A414 4

Should have walking and cycling routes through the Hatfield House Estate 2

Should prioritise solving congestion at J4 1

Need to consider the needs of pedestrians and cyclists at Oldings Corner 1


78

Segment 11: Hertford

39.0%17.6% 6.5% 34.7% 2.2%




This Segment received the majority of responses and comments both on line and by email. 369 participants chose to answer the questions for this segment, with 56.6% in support and 41.2% disagreeing with the proposals for this segment. Comments on the proposals in package 23 were influenced by opinions on package 24.

Package 23: Hertford Sustainable Travel Improvements – 242 responses

The overarching aim of Package 23 is to provide a step change in sustainable travel connectivity across Hertford through the transfer of A414 traffic out of the town centre and the provision of high quality pedestrian and cycle links, crossings and public transport.

54.5%37.6%

7.9%


Package 23: Hertford Sustainable Travel Improvements



79

Package 24: Hertford Bypass -253 response

The overarching aim of Package 24 is a bypass to the south of Hertford to attract through-traffic out of Hertford town centre and im-prove journey time reliability.

40.7%

56.5%

2.8%


Package 24: Hertford Bypass


The comments for Segment 11 and packages 23 and 24 can be summarised as follows. Some participants wrote several comments with slight variations in text. The frequency should not be seen as absolute numbers but an indication of how frequently certain comments appeared.

Comments Frequency

Concerns on environmental impact of building a bypass/destruction of Greenbelt/impact on biodiversity,

66

We need a bypass/ long over due 55

Support package 23 for sustainable transport measures 33Bypass will lead to more new homes in Hertford, severance between Hertford and villages, particularly Hertford Heath

27

Should be looking at making changes now to promote modal shift and improve walking/cycling and public transport and improve AQ Shouldn’t be dependent on bypass /why do you need a bypass to facilitate model shift

24

Building a bypass is contrary to LTP4/ against delivering change in behaviour/ will lead to more car traffic

15

Traffic would be reduced if County Council and EHDC sorted out their parking and travel to work

15

Evidence seems to be lacking/ need to ensure all options have been considered/ transport impacts on level of traffic in Hertford need to be fully understood

14

Concerns on lack of detail of bypass route 14Generally traffic in Hertford isn’t that bad/ traffic congestion only at peak 12


80


Of particular relevance is the response from East Herts District Council. The East Herts Local Plan Policy WARE2 states that delivery of the final 500 dwellings is dependent on “suitable mitigation measures to identified constraints on both the local and wider strategic road networks”. A bypass would deliver these suitable mitigation measures and would be benefits to Strategic traffic in the area.

East Herts DC and many local residents acknowledge that one of the key aims of the strategy is to engender modal shift, if this is the case it is questioned whether the investment in the MRT should be prioritised over the building of a new road for private motorised journeys and if the Strategy is being radical enough. East Herts Councillors have asked HCC to investigate whether an MRT could be introduced in advance or instead of a bypass.

Segment 12: Hertford – Rush Green

35.9% 12.6% 7.2% 39.5% 4.9%




232 participants chose to answer the questions for this segment, with 48.5% in support and 46.7% disagreeing with the proposals for this segment. Several participants repeated their

times.Bypass route is too close to Hertford 10Do not build a bypass- no reasons given 9MRT and improved public transport should not be dependent on a bypass 9How would it be funded? Concerns that it would require new housing to provide funding/ not good use of funds

7

Should be a tunnel 7Concerns on funding/ would need new housing to fund bypass 5Much of the traffic is local and will not re-route 5Should be a bypass on the northern route 4It is important to ensure that all options have been fully considered in advance of decision making on building a bypass.

4

The town centre changes should only occur when the bypass is built 4


81

comments on Segment 11 here. The other main issue was the traffic at Rush Green roundabout and the traffic related to McDonalds.

Package 24: Hertford Bypass – 119 responses

The overarching aim of Package 24 is a bypass to the south of Hertford to attract through-traffic out of Hertford town centre and im-prove journey time reliability

29.4%

70.6%

0.0%


Package 24: Hertford Bypass




Comments Frequency

Concerns on environmental impact of building a bypass/destruction of Greenbelt/impact on biodiversity,

39

We need a bypass/ long over due 14

Rush Green Roundabout problems related to McDonalds/ need to address Rush Green issues whether or not there is a bypass/ bypass wont solve problems

14

Bypass should route to A10 at Hoddesdon/ don’t link bypass to Rush Green 10

Evidence seems to be lacking/ need to ensure all options have been considered/ transport impacts on level of traffic in Hertford need to be fully understood

10

Need to change behaviour rather than build roads/ need to have more Public transport

8

Generally traffic in Hertford isn’t that bad/ traffic congestion only at peak times.

7

Need to look at cycling opportunities between Hertford and Ware 3

Should be making use of future technologies 3


82

Segment 13: Broxbourne TownsSegment 13: Broxbourne Towns - 16 responses

50.0%6.3% 6.3% 18.8% 18.8%




16 participants chose to answer the questions for this segment, with 56.3% in support and 25.1% disagreeing with the proposals for this segment. There was support for improvements to public transport and for cycling. Some people felt that reliance on the car would only be reduced by enforcement.

Package 25: Brookfield Connectivity – 7 responses

The overarching aim of Package 25 is to provide transport improvements to facilitate better connectivity and access between major growth planned at Brookfield and the wider Broxbourne area.


83

57.1%

42.9%

0.0%


Package 25: Brookfield Connectivity


Package 26: Broxbourne Public Transport Improvements – 7 responses

The overarching aim of Package 26 is to provide a range of enhancements to public transport services and infrastructure which encour-age a modal shift from private car for journeys within, into and out of the Broxbourne area.

71.4%

28.6%

0.0%


Package 26: Broxbourne Public Transport Improvements



84

Package 27: Park Plaza improvements (Cheshunt) – 7 responses

The overarching aim of Package 27 is to provide a combination of highway and public transport improvements to facilitate planned employment-led development at Park Plaza.

14.3%

28.6%57.1%


Package 27: Park Plaza improvements (Cheshunt)


Package 28: Local Road Improvements across Broxbourne – 6 responses

The overarching aim of Package 27 is to improve the local highway network across Broxbourne to help manage traffic congestion and support sustainable economic growth.

66.7%0.0%

33.3% Agree with proposalDisagree with proposalDo not want to comment on this individual scheme / project

Package 28: Local Road Improvements across Broxbourne



85

Package 29: Enhancement for pedestrians and cyclists across Broxbourne – 9 responses

The overarching aim of Package 29 is provide enhanced connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists making local journeys within the Broxbourne towns through the provision of new/improved, attractive walking and cycling routes.

85.7%

14.3%

0.0%


Package 29: Enhancement for pedestrians and cyclists across Broxbourne


The comments for Segment 13 and packages 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 can be summarised as follows.


Comments Frequency

There is over- reliance on the car/ only enforcements measures will reduce car use

3

Support improvements to public transport / public transport needs to be fast/cheap

2

Support cycling measures 2

Need to address congestion from Goffs Oak to Cuffley/ need to address rat running on rural roads

2


86

Segment 14: A10 - Harlow

11.8% 21.6% 15.7%43.1%

7.8%




51 participants chose to answer the questions for this segment, with 33.4% in support and 58.8% disagreeing with the proposals for this segment. Most comments related to the wording in the Strategy that the existing A414 River Stort Crossing will be closed to general traffic and a new Stort crossing would be re-designated as the A414. This was an error in detailed wording. It is intended that the existing Stort crossing is widened to accommodate sustainable transport options whilst continuing to maintain the existing capacity for general vehicles. No decision has yet been made over any potential reclassification however in reality the new route will better serve trips trying to access the M11, especially once the new M11 Junction 7a is operational, this could result in the more strategic trips re-routing away from the existing route and onto the new Eastern Road, with the existing route left to serve more local trips. Further work will be required to fully explore this issue with stakeholders, the intention is to undertake analysis of existing transport modelling to confirm our working assumption that the Eastern Crossing will become the more strategic route.

Package 30: Harlow and Gilston Garden Town Transport Improvements – 34 responses

The overarching aim of Package 30 is to provide a package of multi-modal transport improvements and brand new facilities to help facilitate large-scale sustainable development in and around Harlow.


87

20.6%

76.5%

2.9%


Package 30: Harlow and Gilston Garden Town Transport Improvements




Comments Frequency

Do not realign the A414/ existing Stort crossing must cater for existing traffic/don’t put A414 through Pye Corner and Gilston/ don’t increase traffic pass Terlings Park

14

Objections to housing at Gilston 5

Need a bypass for Harlow from the A414 to M11 3

Support cycle links/ should be off road/ make use of tow paths for cycling and walking

3

Strategy should consider impact on wider area – Sawbridgeworth, Roydon, Stanstead

3


88

Mass Rapid TransitThe online consultation

Chart 56 – Mass Rapid Transit

Comments were provided by 43 participants to the online consultation. Email responses relating to MRT were received from 21 stakeholders and 4 individuals. Overall there was support for MRT from the majority of those adding comments. The comments can be summarised as follows:

Comments Frequency

Support development/great idea/modern/new/like idea/improves connectivity.

36

Should be tram or light rail or rail rather than bus. Need to consider all options fully

19

Needs to be frequent and reliable/ better journey times than the car. Need long operating hours

8

MRT needs to link town centres and railway stations 6

Bus Lane and MRT route will lead to more congestion 5

Routes should be continuous without the need for change/ Interchanges- could cause delays and could make journey times longer

5


89

Table 19- MRT comments

The responses were generally positive but participants want more details of how the scheme will operate and what vehicles are going to be used. There was no consensus on vehicle type with some preferring buses and others trams or heavy rail. Although there was some support for the shorter interchanging routes, these shorter routes also raised concerns about putting passengers off and increasing journey times. It was felt that not serving town centres such as St Albans and Welwyn Garden City could make it less viable.

Too expensive, just invest more in buses. How will it be funded? 5

Concerns over the Abbey Line being undermined as a heavy rail route 4

Need for integrated ticketing 4

Should be bus based in short term to get services started and idea of bus priority across to the public. Bus can be developed more quickly

4

MRT should be extended to serve the A10, should link to Stansted/ need to look at links beyond Hemel and Harlow.

3

Concern how it will be successful as County don’t have control of bus operations

3

The car is better 2

Provision of MRT should not be dependent on Hertford bypass 2

Be ambitious 2

Needs to be given priority over other modes/ need to be segregated 2

No evidence that people will use it 1

Need to design a future proof system/ take a long term strategic view for future routes.

1

How do we know there will be the necessary level of demand? 1

Interchanges- could cause delays and could make journey times longer 1

Bus Lane and MRT route will lead to more congestion 1

Provision of MRT should not be dependent on Hertford bypass 1

Appears to be focused on inter-urban journeys rather than a major change in travel behaviour

1

Needs to be affordable 1


90

General CommentsA number of the comments related to details that will be picked up as packages are taken forward through the design process. Other comments related to growth and redevelopment that is outside the scope of this document. There was concern that some of the proposed measures would lead to increased road capacity and this seemed contrary to LTP4. Concerns were also raised on costings and how the proposals would be funded.

There were a number of comments from participants relating to the content and format of the consultation materials and also the promotion of the consultation to the public. Some of the themes that emerged:

Difficultly in understanding the content of the plan and some comments and queries about technical language

Dissatisfaction with the length and complexity of the survey Some participants were concerned that the consultation questions were not open

enough Some participants feel the consultations need to be promoted better

These are not particular just to this consultation and there is ongoing work to ensure that we consult with residents in the appropriate manner.

Key stakeholder responsesRepresentations were received from Broxbourne Borough Council, East Herts District Council, St Albans District Council, Watford Borough Council and Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council among the key stakeholders. Several Parish councils provided detailed responses. All responses are captured in the previous section but it is worth summarising the comments from the Local Planning Authorities as key partners in the A414 members Group and the development of the strategy

Summaries of Local Planning Authority responses are provided below.

Broxbourne Borough Council

Welcome consideration of the A10 in Broxbourne as part of the A414 Corridor Strategy.

The measures set out on the A10 within Broxbourne must enable the continued function of the local road network and provide for growth within Broxbourne

Concern that not all packages in the Broxbourne Transport Strategy had been incorporated in the A414 Corridor Strategy. Asked to reconsider details in Package 25, Package 26, package 27, package 28 and Package 29.

Support the identification of a MRT system for the A414/A10 to Brookfields and possibly as far as Waltham Cross.

Concern that MRT is only likely to be deliverable in combination with a Hertford Southern Bypass and therefore could be many years away. Give a qualified welcome to the Hertford bypass, subject to clarification of the impacts on Broxbourne borough.

Would like to continue to work with Hertfordshire County Council through the forthcoming South-east Hertfordshire Growth and Transport Plan and the ongoing


91

A414 Group in order to understand and plan for future growth and transport proposals affecting Broxbourne.

East Hertfordshire District Council

Welcome the introduction of the Strategy both to help address the impact of development on the corridor to 2031 and beyond and to engender a shift to sustainable travel modes.

Supports the introduction of MRT to help achieve modal shift to sustainable modes and reduce the impact of planned development and background growth along the corridor.

Urges HCC to include the extension of the MRT route from Hatfield beyond its currently proposed end destination of Harlow/Gilston Area to serve Stansted Airport from the outset of the scheme, and to work with the Stansted Airport Transport Forum in this regard.

In respect of the need for a strategic intervention at Hertford, considers that a further option of introducing the MRT without the delivery of a southern bypass should be modelled and considered before any decision is taken on the introduction of bypass scheme and that the Council therefore reserves its position on the potential provision of a bypass until the outcome and implications of such work are known.

Should a bypass for Hertford should be delivered, the sustainable travel schemes for the town need to be delivered concurrently to ensure that green travel patterns are established at the outset.

Potential environmental and heritage implications, along with possible physical constraints to the delivery of dedicated roadspace along the A414 corridor connected with delivery of the MRT scheme, should be both acknowledged and discussed prior to decisions being taken on their implementation.

The outcome of any modifications to the Broxbourne Local Plan should inform consideration of whether any revision to currently proposed mitigations is required in the A414 Strategy.

St Albans City and District Council

Many aspects are supported in principle. Welcome proposals for new cycleways & improvements to existing cycleways. MRT is likely to be a good travel option for those communities close to MRT

interchanges or hub. The A414 route should benefit proposed new. development at in St Albans draft Local Plan& existing settlements near A414.

Concerns about impact of MRT on strategic role of A414. Lane reduction on A405 unlikely to be supported locally in absence of M25J21 all

movement junction. Would like references for Radlett Rail Freight changed to Park Street Garden Village

where applicable.

Watford Borough Council

Welcome the emphasis placed on sustainable travel and the recognition of the importance of improving east west connectivity in Hertfordshire in this regard.

Welcome any improvements in alternatives to private vehicle travel to service the A414 and feeder roads including the A405 and the A412 (St. Albans Road).

Support the general approach of making the corridor more attractive for walking, cycling and public transport provision.


92

The objectives could be strengthened to make reducing the reliance on the private car more explicit. Terms such as non-car user could be clearer to include those who make chose to not use the car in the future.

Safety concern is a big barrier for potential cyclists especially near higher speed roads with large vehicles.

The overall attractiveness of public transport needs improving and the objectives relating to this are welcome.

Some concerns on the details in package 3 particularly The cycle network should be improved in the Watford- Garston area and issues on how the proposals will complement the Abbey Line.

Agree with the vision of the Mass Rapid Transit System which needs to operate relatively free from the impacts of congestion, be competitive and successful in attracting patrons. Its potential for supporting park and rides services in towns is supported.

Support for a bus based MRT but concern about access into town centres Concern about the relationship between the Abbey Line and MRT and a request that this

specific route option is discussed further and clarified. Stated that they would object to a proposal which may have a negative impact on the

Abbey Line’s sustainability.

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

Broad support for the A414 Strategy and for the balance between essential highway capacity improvements and investment in encouraging use of sustainable modes and active travel.

The Council would welcome close involvement with the County Council (and Highways England where necessary) in the development of options and routes for the MRT in Welwyn Hatfield, as well as with the identified schemes to mitigate congestion around Coopers Green Lane and the A1(M) motorway junctions 3 and 4 in particular.

The A414 Corridor Strategy should be a ‘living’ document that is updated on a regular basis in response to new Local Plan growth targets and development sites, and as segments, packages and interventions are investigated in more detail.

Welcome the opportunity to continue to be involved in the A414 Group Look forward to working with the County Council in prioritising schemes and putting

together funding profiles to make use of the various sources of infrastructure funding available.

The strategy should take full account of the need to accommodate HGV traffic from proposed long term mineral extraction and restoration developments;

Comments on SEA, HRA and Equality AssessmentThere were some comments received relating to the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) mainly relating to the bypass and impact on the environment. These will be considered by the SEA consultant and issues would be addressed on a scheme by scheme basis as proposals are developed.

There was one set of feedback on the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) and this too related to the bypass.

There were no specific comments about the Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA).


93

ConclusionThe public consultation attracted 1,310 responses to the online consultation of which 692 were partially completed and 618 fully completed. 68 email responses, 39 from Stakeholders and 29 from individual residents were also received. The vast majority of responses focused around Hertford and the concept of a Hertford Bypass

The consultation indicated that although there is a good level of support among the public for improving sustainable transport options, there is some concern regarding the implications for traffic levels and reduced road capacity for cars. There was concern across all segments that unless buses/ MRT was high frequency, there could be empty bus lanes and increased congestion for cars.

All of the 11 Corridor objectives were supported. Most of the package aims were supported and there was support for the concept of a Mass Rapid Transit system

Generally key stakeholders supported A414 Corridor Strategy on improving sustainable modes; however there is divergence between some of the local planning authorities on some aspects. The proposals for a southern bypass for Hertford received a mixed response and there was a keenness to see this delivered only when other interventions have been tried.

The tone of the feedback and the support for MRT indicate that the strategy needs to make the role of an MRT the central focus of the Strategy and the 30 packages of multi-modal measures should be considered and designed as building blocks positively contributing to the introduction of a MRT system.

Key stakeholders have highlighted their desire to continue to work with the county council on investigating and developing proposals in the A414 Corridor Strategy.

The consultation results underline a need for the County Council to consider how it communicates with the public about transport plans and scheme proposals and the messages being given around the county council’s policy direction on transport.

a414 corridor strategy - summary consultation report · a414 corridor strategy - summary...

Documents