Full details of the results obtained are available in the Consultation report in the appendices of the main document. This report was presented to the Joint Member Transport Policy Group for Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch on 24 March 2000. A brief summary of the results is shown below.

Questionnaire Response

The response indicated that Public Transport and Walking came out as top priorities, whilst measures to improve car travel were overwhelmingly considered the lowest priority.

As shown below, there were also strong views, for and against, the more controversial methods available to Local Authorities (i.e. Road User and Workplace Charging) to tackle congestion.

Generally, the Councils current plans fell in the middle ground of public opinion and are therefore more likely to be implemented.

These views were also reflected in other surveys of public opinion on local transport issues.

The Bournemouth Citizens Panel results clearly expressed a desire for 'something to be done' but tended to prefer options such as encouraging car sharing, Green Transport Plans, more walking to school, etc.

Summary of Discussion Groups and Written Representations

Looking overall at the comments - and in particular at those of the general public and non-specific groups - it is apparent that there is an acceptance of what the Councils are trying to do in the LTP. However, if a real impact is to be made in the reduction of traffic growth, then QUALITY, CONVENIENT AND SAFE alternatives to the private car are needed.

QUALITY refers to the provision of public transport as well as cycling and walking. Issues here that have been raised include:

• Maintenance of the highway network, specifically footways and cycleways
• Driver training
• Better information on services
• Shelters
• Better design of buses
• Better access for disabled
• Improved signing
• Improved ticketing systems - smart cars, etc.

CONVENIENT refers to the "whole journey" provision, at times when the traveller requires the service and not on routes that serve the provider rather than the user. Examples include:

• Better integration of transport modes
• Bus routes to hospitals
• Fast commuter buses
• Direct cycle routes
• "on-line" pedestrian crossings not where they suit the motorist

SAFETY is something the traveller feels most of all in the motor car. This needs to be addressed in the obvious sense with cycling and walking but also the "fear of crime" element on public transport (trains and buses) should be tackled for elderly people, young people and for women travelling at non-peak times who can be intimidated when travelling alone. Examples include:

• Better enforcement of speed limits (cameras, etc.)
• Improved lighting
• More pedestrian/cycle crossings where needed and not where convenient for traffic flow
• CCTV at rail/bus station and town centre locations
• Provision for cyclists at junctions
• Provision of conductors on specific bus routes
• Traffic calming
• Development control policy - improved design and layout of new estates
• Maintenance of the highway, e.g. skid resistance, winter maintenance

Conclusion and Recommendations