A337 Lyndhurst to Brockenhurst (route 120) active travel route feasibility study

Project details

Steve Sissons Bsc (Hons) MTPS
Managing Director
Hegsons Design Consultancy (UK) Limited

Dublin + Cork + London + Bedford + High Wycombe + Saint Denis Le Gast

Tel: +44 (0) 7786581620

Tel: +353 (0) 1 443 3437

Map copyrights

© Crown copyright and database rights 2025. Ordnance Survey AC0000849959

© OpenStreetMaps Contributors 2025

Local traders often have signs advertising their cycle parking

Cyclists using the Royden Woods cycle route as the only direct alternative to the A337 (link 120.6.8a)

1.0 Introduction and Context

Route 120 Strategic Route and Design appraisal

This report

This document provides information to support the funding and further development of strategic scheme designs for Route 120 between Lyndhurst and Lymington in New Forest National Park. It is set out as follows:

• This chapter provides context including an introduction to the authors, a summary of relevant local policies, local and national design guidance and design principles for proposed infrastructure on route 120. It provides an overview of data including collision maps for the route.
• Chapter 2 appraises various route options against criteria of ecology / cultural heritage, directness, gradient, accessibility for all, and road danger (safety). The chapter makes a hypothetical assumption that infrastructure of some kind is in place to enable a high level assessment of the potential impact of various route options, concluding by defining the route to be taken forward.
• Chapter 3 sets out design details drawing from LTN1/20 and emerging Rural Design Guidance from Active Travel England, Hampshire rural active travel design guidance.
• Chapter 4 Adds strategic design details to the selected route, whilst some route options remain - with two alternatives given for each of Lyndhurst and Brockenhurst. Sample designs have been added, showing draft concept junction layouts and other potential interventions.
• Chapters 5 and 6 provide an ecology and road safety audit report drawn from an assessment of route selection and design work undertaken in Chapters 2 and 4.
• Chapter 7 provides advice about statutory utlities.

About Hegsons Design Consultancy Limited

Hegsons Design Consultancy (UK) Limited (www.hegsons.com) is registered in Bedford with offices in Ireland, High Wycombe and France. As an Engineering Consultancy we provide complete engineering design solutions from concept to construction for its public and private sector clients in Transportation, Flood Management, Highway Infrastructure, Civil Environmental and Structural Engineering.

Hegsons is in association with ActivePlanning, a sole practitioner based in the New Forest.

ActivePlanning specialises in strategic transport and town planning with sectors including local authority transport and planning policy, masterplanning, active travel and design review. The business works ‘between’ built environment professions, often on the ‘client’ side - helping clients with project briefs, funding bids and acting as a strategist, creative visioneer and critical friend.

About City Infinity

City Infinity is a newly established highway engineering consultancy specialising in active travel and accessibility projects. We provide critical review, concept and feasibility design services influenced by national and international best practice, especially for the design of cycling infrastructure.

Accessibility

This document has been prepared in an accessible format for online reading, with 12-point text, 1.25 line spacing and narrow columns at A3 size to reduce eye movements. Maps are prepared using colour-blind friendly colour-ways.

Summary method

Hegsons-ActivePlanning and City Infinity were commissioned by New Forest National Park Authority to prepare a strategic route and infrastructure design report for Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan Route 120 incorporating comments from a specialist road safety auditor and ecologist.

The process of preparing the report involved an accompanied exploration of the core route and further site visits to identify and either accept or reject optional alternative route options.

Route segments are numbered approximately in accordance with the Sustrans LCWIP. A broad assessment was carried out to score each route segment against five impact criteria, the most prominent of which is ecology since the National Park is subject to a raft of international (RAMSAR) and national or local (SSSI, SPA, SAC) designations. This assessment helped to identify the most appropriate route alignment.

Following this, the report provides design principles as a prelude to a series of A3 design sheets giving strategic information about the types of infrastructure that would be supported by funders at Active Travel England applied to the identified route. A set of more detailed sample drawings are included showing typical treatments and a focus on ‘difficult places’ on the route.

An initial Road Safety Auditor’s opinion is included for the route, with a focus on particular areas of concern including the Brockenhurst Level Crossing.

An ecologist’s initial assessment is included to verify the impact assessment and provide commentary on likely additional constraints and mitigations. This was prepared in conjunction with the client’s own ecology and arboricultural team.

Initial commentary on the likely presence of utilities is included with a recommendation that detailed surveys should be undertaken to determine exact locations and alignments.

New Forest National Park DRAFT Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan

The New Forest Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan is currently a pre-publication draft which can be found on Hampshire County Council’s consultation site at https://documents.hants.gov.uk/transport/new-forest-district-lcwip.pdf.

The report identifies a network of routes crossing the New Forest which are prioritised based on an assessment of current and future demand (using 2011 Census data and school travel data). Route 120 is one of three ‘core’ priority routes and will, when completed end to end, connect Totton and Lymington via Cadnam, Lyndhurst and Brockenhurst. Other secondary and lower priority routes are also identified with smaller schemes brought forward to provide interim connectivity between networks of quieter roads and gravel tracks, such as crossings of the A35 at Holmsley (NCN2).

Extract from NFNPA LCWIP (for higher resolution please refer to LCWIP document)

Source and copyright: Hampshire County Council 2023

Local public houses appreciate customers arriving on foot or cycle (link 120.4.6e). A new parallel route on the A337 could give access to the front entrance (via link 120.4.8)

Protected landscapes, biodiversity and ecology

The New Forest has National Park status and is covered by a raft of protected landscapes covered by international (RAMSAR) and national (SPA, SAC and SSSI) designations, with further protections for priority woodland habitat. The designated RAMSAR, SPA, SAC and SSSI areas encompass the road network where it passes through the open New Forest, including the A337 between Lyndhurst and Brockenhurst and at Setley to the south of Brockenhurst.

Further information and commentary on ecology are included in Chapters 2 and 5.

“Magic Map” output showing RAMSAR, SPA, SAC, biodiverse woodlands and SSSI layered protections in the New Forest (source and copyright: DEFRA 2025).

© Crown copyright and database rights 2025. Ordnance Survey AC0000849959

2.0 Route options - impact appraisal

Route options were explored at an early stage of this study, initially using Google Satellite and Streetview imagery and then with the client team. This chapter sets out our strategic impact appraisal of a long list of options identified with a view to narrowing the list to a single route.

The New Forest is an outstanding landscape with extensive ecological, scientific and landscape protections and heritage assets which act as a justifiable barrier to construction projects. Any intervention therefore requires careful consideration in this context. The aim of the route finding exercise has therefore been to find solutions that best minimises any potential adverse impacts with mitigations as appropriate.

Drawing on both the ecological / heritage protection requirements and nationally defined route design and assessment criteria (attractiveness, directness, coherence, safety and comfort) we established an initial five point scoring mechanism as a ‘first sieve’ to identify the core route.

Impact scores were used to make a judgement about the relative potential impacts caused by each segment on the network, as follows:

• Does the segment have a slight, moderate or severe impact on ecology and / or archaeological and cultural heritage? For this criterion, a three-asterisk impact assumes a segment will cause replaceable damage to the RAMSAR, SSSI, SAC and SPA sites, woodland of high biodiversity value and scheduled monuments. Replaceable damage means damage that can be repaired using a land-swap or other means of habitat recreation preferably near to the damaged site. If, however, a segment would damage an identified irreplaceable ecological or heritage asset, it fails outright.
• Does the segment have a slight, moderate or severe impact on directness? This implies that a slight, one asterisk score is a minor diversion from the core route 120 alignment and a severe impact of two to three asterisks is a significant diversion.
• Does the segment include a steep gradient? We have assumed the steepest gradient is one that could reasonably be used by a mobility scooter or e-bike user but an unassisted cyclist may struggle without low gears. This would give a three-asterisk high adverse impact score. If, however, a user would have to dismount from their e-bike to continue the segment fails outright.
• Is the segment suitable for all users? We have assumed that if one of or a combination of steep gradients, steps, very tight geometry or the inability to provide an all-weather accessible surface is present, the segment would receive a three-asterisk high adverse impact score.
• Would the segment be made safe by new infrastructure? If the impact on safety is minor or substantially better than the original situation, a one-asterisk impact is given. If, however, the segment would still leave significant adverse impacts on personal safety and / or road danger it scores three asterisks for the high impact or a fail outright if critical issues are raised.
• Importantly a segment would fail outright if it would require access via private domestic gardens.

‘Attractiveness’ and ‘comfort’ were not included as criteria, partly because the New Forest is intrinsically attractive even along most of its major roads, and partly because the priorities for the route assessment are directness, safety and accessibility for all users and because there are other, highly attractive but far less direct route options available. Certainly, a well facilitated cycle route following the major roads will be much more attractive and comfortable to use than the main carriageway.

On the matter of coherence, the aim of this report is to recommend a utility cycling route and associated designs which have a consistent standard throughout, which is also well signposted and logical - within the physical and ecological constraints.

Route 120 options - map

Inset: Interim cycleway and signalised crossing connecting Furzy Lawn Lane, Lyndhurst Road and Brockis Hill Inclosure track for continuation of Route 120 north of Lyndhurst

Ecology impact similar to A337 south of Lyndhurst, a ** impact (yellow)

Copyright: Open Streetmap Contributors 2025

Brockis Hill Inclosure concept option in response to stakeholder comments.

Impact appraisal and Route Selection

Quick Notes

• For the purposes of this appraisal we have assumed a hypothetical future situation in which some kind of infrastructure is IN PLACE - that cycling and walking paths have been built.
• The appraisal is NEGATIVE - the higher the score, the more negative the potential impacts. A score equal to or above 12 is a FAIL.
• Links fail automatically if they would cross private gardens, or if the habitats crossed are not already damaged by gravel or hard surfaced tracks, or if they cannot be replaced via land swap.
• The route has been selected on this basis. However there are some sections that FAIL the appraisal but need to be included for continuity. Appropriate mitigations should be put in place.
• Some sections pass the appraisal but are still unsuitable. These have simply not been selected.

Key to impact score totals in this chapter

• Score = 5 (lowest adverse impact)
• Score = 6-11 (medium adverse impact)
• Score = 12-15 (significant adverse impact)
• Segment fails

Key to maps in this chapter

• Selected route alignment (thicker line)
• Route across third party land (all scores)
• Route through SSSI / RAMSAR / SPA (all scores)
• Segment end
• Segment number
• Not to scale
• Base map copyright Open Streetmap contributors 2025

Lyndhurst 120.4.1-11 and 113.4.1-2.4.

Route 120 and 113 via Sandy Lane / Pinkney Lane, and Shrubbs Hill and Clay Hill, Lyndhurst

Route 120 via farmland, Lyndhurst

Copyright: Open Streetmap Contributors 2025

Brockis Hill Inclosure concept option in response to stakeholder comments.

Route 120 via Appletree Court, Beaulieu Road and Beechen Lane, Lyndhurst

Clay Hill and New Park 120.5.1-120.6.1a and 113.5.1

Copyright: Open Streetmap Contributors 2025

Balmer Lawn 120.6.1-120.6.3

Route 113.5.2 via Black Knowl north of Brockenhurst

Brockenhurst 120.6.1e to 120.6.8 and 110.6.1

Route 120.6.2 b-g via North Road and Mill Lane in Brockenhurst

Copyright: Open Streetmap Contributors 2025

Route 120.6.3-6.6 a-g via Avenue Road and over-rail footbridge in Brockenhurst

Route 120.6.7 to 120.6.8 via the level crossing, Church Lane and A337 south of Brockenhurst

Route 113 via Rhinefield Road in Brockenhurst

Routes 110 and 113 via Sway Road (R110), Brookley Road and The Rise (R113) in Brockenhurst

Setley 120.7.1 to 120.7.6

Route 120 via Roydon Woods

Route 120 via Church Lane, Tilebarn Lane and Setley Road

Route 120 via Setley Nursery, Setley and A337

Boldre 120.7.7 to 120.7.9

Ampress Park and Lymington 120.7.10 to 120.7.18

Copyright: Open Streetmap Contributors 2025

Cycle hire is an important business in the New Forest. However, cyclists must negotiate busy roads to access safe routes (120.4)

3.0 Design principles

The following strategic design principles are summarised from HCC Countryside Access guidance and HCC Rural design guidance as well as LTN1/20 and Active Travel England’s emerging rural design guidance which establish geometric advice for active travel infrastructure design. Whilst LTN1/20 is advisory rather than compulsory, Active Travel England does expect a good effort to comply, with justifications for any departure from the guidance if they are to fund schemes.

On this basis, all scheme recommendations in this document assume “general conformity” with LTN1/20 as though it were a design standard.

All detailed designs should, as appropriate, be in general conformity with Government and then local active travel infrastructure design guidance as these are intended to maximise value for investment in making active travel infrastructure accessible to as many people as possible. This is because every significant compromise (such as a change from all-weather to gravel surfacing) leads to the exclusion of some potential users.

The text in this section is a ‘starter’ guide to cycle infrastructure design and a position statement, establishing key principles and a commitment to delivering value and quality. Designers should refer to official national and local published guidance to inform further work.

Design cycle

LTN1/20 establishes the concept of a ‘design cycle’ represented by a cargo-bike which is capable of carrying children or large items. Many cyclists use ‘non-standard’ cycles as mobility aids. These cycles generally have wider turning circles and are not capable of negotiating tight corners or ‘access barriers’ intended to exclude motorcycles.

A feature of cargo bikes is the cargo box is often in front of the rider. This causes the rider to be sat further back on the cycle. Visibility splays and stopping sight distances should take this into consideration.

Stopping distances are set out in LTN1/20 and should also be considered in relation to both flat and sloping topography. Stopping distances for an e-bike may be longer than for a standard cycle.

Types of infrastructure related to the volume of motor traffic

Table 4.1 in LTN1/20 and Hampshire’s rural design guidance shows the different types of infrastructure solutions in response to motor traffic volumes on any given street.

In general, where motor traffic volumes exceed 2,000 vehicles per day and above 20mph some kind of physical or visual separation should be achieved between motor traffic and cycles becomes necessary.

LTN1/20 Table 4.1 shows circumstances in which cycle infrastructure should be provided to make routes suitable for most people. Higher resolution version together with other assessment and design parameter tables in LTN1/20.

Dedicated infrastructure

Preference should always be given first to separating cycles from pedestrians so that each mode has its own infrastructure.

The absolute minimum width of a two-way cycle track is 2.5m, with an optimal minimum of 3.0m. Effective usable width should be considered, noting that 0.5m is needed adjacent to hard boundaries such as fences, hedges, drainage and walls. It may be necessary to include this dimension as part of a 3.0m track.

The general minimum width of a one-way with-flow cycle track is 2.0m, with an optimal minimum of 2.3m which gives more space for sociable cycling. In constrained areas, the division between footway and cycle track may be flush so that some ‘shared use’ can occur when pedestrians are not present.

LTN1/20 suggests that 3m shared use paths may be suitable for flows of up to 300 pedestrians and cyclists per hour. The emerging Rural Design Guidance indicates that pedestrian density or potential for conflicts becoming an issue are the key factors. Alternatively, where appropriate, designate lightly used shared use paths as a ‘cycleway pedestrians may use’.

Buffers should be provided between dedicated and shared use paths and the main carriageway wherever possible. LTN1/20 and the emerging Rural Design Guidance links their width to speed limits, indicating that a 1m buffer is desirable against traffic moving at 40mph or above.

Surfacing should always be “all-weather” including water-permeable bitumen, non-slip resin-bound treatment, concrete and specialist surface treatments such as non-slip boardways.

Bus stop bypasses

Accessible bus stops should normally be provided as part of any segregated cycle scheme. Careful design of cycle tracks bypassing the rear of bus stops should ensure people with visual impairments are guided to the crossing point, which should be well marked either with coloured surfacing or as a zebra crossing. It may be necessary to include temporary advisory text signs stating pedestrians have priority.

Rural shared use path with buffer - Hampshire. This could be designated as a ‘cycleway pedestrians may use’

Bus stop bypass with uncontrolled marked pedestrian crossing, Blackfriars Road London.

Priority junctions

The Highway Code is clear that pedestrians and cyclists have priority across the bellmouth of side roads at priority junctions. This is little known, so the situation needs to be made obvious and reinforced by the design and layout of junctions:

• Junction geometries should be tightly defined, with acceptance that larger vehicles may need to enter the opposite lane to make the turn.
• The bellmouth should be raised to create a continuous footway and / or cycleway or shared use path which has clear and unambiguous priority over drivers entering and leaving. This means the raised platform should accommodate the entire length of a large car so drivers know they are in ‘borrowed’ space. Ramps into the raised area should be as steep as possible to slow drivers.
• Side road zebra crossings without Belisha beacons and zig zags should be installed if or when the Department for Transport adds them to a future revision of TSRGD.
• On busier roads, right turn pockets should be specified so drivers have somewhere to wait and make the turn with less haste.

Crossings

Preference should be given to crossings that give priority or assistance to active travel modes. This includes:

• Signalised and zebra parallel crossings where the pedestrian and cycle crossing are separated.
• At signalised junctions, cycle movements should be accommodated with first preference for full segregation and second preference for continuity through shared nearside lanes and two-stage right turns.
• Two-stage uncontrolled crossings with refuges which should be a minimum of 3m wide.
• As traffic volumes and speeds increase, the types of suitable crossing will change, with more emphasis on signal control and then grade separation, as set out in Table 10.2 of LTN1/20.

Continuous footway treatment, London

Parallel zebra crossing, Bournemouth.

Cycle streets

Cycle streets reinforce cyclists’ priority over motor traffic along the length of a street. Treatments include a central area of coloured surfacing with cycle logos - clearly indicating cyclists may use the space directly in front of following drivers.

This treatment should be combined with 20mph speed limits and, in general, low volumes of motor traffic. However, there may be circumstances in which a short section of ‘cycle street’ treatment needs to be applied on a busier road to improve the visibility and safety of cyclists and discourage overtaking.

Where there is insufficient space for cycle lanes, consideration may be given to:

• Having no cycle lanes, but instead using cycle logo markings together with a lower speed limit and, if possible, motor traffic reduction measures.
• Having one cycle lane for cyclists going uphill. In the downhill direction, cycle logos placed centrally in the general traffic lane. Where the uphill carriageway curves to the left it may be necessary to give physical protection to the cycle lane to prevent drivers cutting the corner.

Cycle lanes

Cycle lanes should be considered mainly as a tool for ensuring drivers give appropriate space to cyclists when overtaking, rather than having the single purpose of accommodating cyclists. A cycle lane that is too narrow will cause drivers to pass cyclists too close - which is both uncomfortable and dangerous.

Cycle lanes should not be less than an optimal minimum of 2m wide except for short sections where an absolute minimum of 1.5m may be acceptable.

LTN1/20 is clear that cycle lanes should be mandatory (and accompanied by parking and loading restrictions). However, where motor traffic volumes are low and a degree of subjective protection is required, wide cycle advisory lanes may be accompanied by single central motor vehicle lanes with the clear expectation that drivers will move into the cycle lanes to pass each other.

Cycle lanes with single central general lane, Calmore, Hampshire.

Cycle-street, Deventer, Netherlands. Cycles have priority over motor vehicles (‘cars are guests’).

Quiet streets and lanes

The National Bikeability Curriculum has three essential levels of ‘bikeability’ relating to a combination of skills and confidence.

• Level 1: complete beginner cyclists and those who will only cycle in parks and other motor-free spaces.
• Level 2: intermediate experience and confidence, with most of these cyclists being confident on quieter roads and through simple junctions. The Department for Transport funds Bikeability in schools up to this level.
• Level 3: experienced and confident cyclists who may have benefited from tutoring to enhance their safety in most road traffic situations.

The three levels can be applied to the road network as follows:

• Quiet streets and lanes with traffic volumes below 2,000 vehicles per day and a speed limit below 20mph are generally suitable for cyclists who have reached Bikeability Level 2. In this situation drivers and cyclists can co-exist with each having time to react to the other.
• At speeds of 20-30mph, a higher level of Bikeability Level 2 or Level 3 skills are required and this may exclude some cyclists, particularly older people and children and families.
• At speeds of 40mph and above, the street or lane will be unsuitable for most people, leaving the most experienced and confident Level 3 cyclists.

Off-road paths

Off-road paths may be provided for the purposes of continuity, permeability or to link surrounding areas to the core network. These should be designed to the same standard as a two-way cycle track.

Every opportunity should be taken, where feasible, to make existing off-road paths that connect people to the core network accessible for cycling. This includes:

• Widening existing paths to the minimum 2.5m or 3.0m for shared or segregated use.
• Removing ‘anti-motorcycle’ barriers and replacing them with bollards at 1.6m centres.
• Providing signage and lighting as appropriate to counter personal safety risks.

Rural cycleway in France - a “cycleway pedestrians may use”.

4.0 Route design

Route designs have been set out in this chapter as either text descriptions or conceptual drawings showing what could be possible with the application of LTN1/20 and other design guidance for rural areas.

Colour-coded lines on the maps differentiate the suggested infrastructure giving priority to dedicated cycleways which may be used by pedestrians, and connecting shared use paths where available space is limited and pedestrian flows are likely to be higher.

The aim of the designs is to enable people with a diversity of physical abilities to travel in the New Forest. As a benchmark, routes used by people on foot, cycle and wheelchair or mobility scooter should be able to use a network comprising wide, well-surfaced, all-weather paths.

Speed limits

Speed limits are not shown on the maps, however, we recommend reducing speeds to 20mph in the villages, 30mph on rural lanes, and reviewing prevailing limits on the A337, including consideration of a 40mph limit stepping down to 30mph on village approaches.

Design work

Design principles are set out in Chapter 3 above and have been used as a guide. A balance has been sought between the need to deliver quality, safe, attractive and accessible infrastructure with the importance of the New Forest National Park’s landscape and ecological value.

The final route selection and associated concept designs reflect a process undertaken for Chapter 3 together with a road safety auditor’s opinion.

We have incorporated ecology advice from the National Park Authority and an independent ecologist to identify the “least-worst” options and make a commitment to replicating or replacing lost habitat and grazing from farmland which is currently not part of the RAMSAR, SSSI or SPA designation.

Key to maps in this chapter

• Dedicated cycleway infrastructure pedestrians may use.
• Shared use path infrastructure
• On-road section with motor traffic speed and volume reduction measures.
• Other route choices not selected
• Route across third party land (all infrastructure types)
• Route through SSSI / RAMSAR / SPA protected area (all infrastructure types)
• Segment end (all infrastructure types)
• Segment number
• Selected scheme with description of potential measures only
• Selected scheme with drawings and designer's notes
• Trip attractor
• DfT traffic count (selected points)
• Not to scale
• Base map copyright Open Streetmap contributors 2025

Copyright: Open Streetmap Contributors 2025

Lyndhurst

Description

Lyndhurst is heavily traffic dominated due to its role as a ‘roundabout’ junction of three major roads. The village has a largely impermeable network of streets with limited connectivity. A ‘long list’ of possible village routes are indicated on the map.

Constraints

Third party land tight up against the back of narrow footways on Clay Hill approach south of Goose Green. Lyndhurst gyratory limits the availability of routes and accessibility within the village. Steep gradient to high street.

Annual Average Daily Traffic flow

Site 28278 (note: one way flow)

• New crossing at Shrubbs Hill Road to connect a new route from the central car park to Sandy Lane
• New shared use cycleway linking Sandy Lane and Deerleap Farm.
• New cycle track on Shrubbs Hill Road.
• New crossing of Chapel Lane from two way cycle track to new cycleway on A337
• New crossing at A337 / Beechen Drive.
• Widen footway for shared use by narrowing and / or moving carriageway to west. Install acoustic fencing as required.
• [North of Lyndhurst] Provide interim connecting cycleway and signalised crossing to connect with an upgraded gravel track in Brockis Hill Inclosure
• Cycleway possibly on eastern side of A337, with informal crossing to access Coxlease school

Interim crossing of A337 north of Lyndhurst between Furzy Lawn Lane and Lyndhurst Road, and Brockis Hill Road

• A 3m refuge in line with the advice in the emerging ATE Rural Design Guide S10.5.
• Carriageway locally widened to 3.1m to accommodate the refuge.
• 3m shared-use cycle track with a 2m verge buffer which is better than the desirable minimum of 1.5m for a 40mph road.
• A speed limit of 30mph would be desirable but potentially hard to achieve, so 40mph might be more feasible for a longer section rather than just 30mph at the crossing.
• As people leave the site to the east, the crossing is to the north so they head towards traffic before crossing.

Crossing of Shrubs Hill Road at Sandy Lane (spur to Pinkney Lane and LCWIP route 113)

This proposal reduces Shrubbs Hill Road to one traffic lane to enable a shared-use path to be provided on the northern side which will provide onward access to Lyndhurst centre. It would also continue south towards the Goose Green junction.

To access Sandy Lane, a parallel crossing is used to access an enlarged splitter island which enables people cycling to join and leave Sandy Lane. An alternative would be to use a toucan crossing, but traffic volumes are likely to be in the range where parallel crossings are appropriate as advised in Table 10.2 of LTN 1/20.

Interim R120 A337 crossing north of Lyndhurst and 120.4.5b Shrubbs Hill Road / Sandy Lane

A337 Shrubs Hill Road junction with Sandy lane

Possible interim crossing of A337 between Furzy Lawn Lane and Brockishill Inclosure (in response to stakeholder comments: see inset map on page 36).

© Crown copyright and database rights 2025. Ordnance Survey AC0000849959

Provision of a cycle route along the eastern side of A337

The proposals here provide continuity for a shared-use path on the eastern side of the A337 from Shrubbs Hill Road to the north.

The shared-use path on the eastern side of Goose Green is set back from Clay Lane with a large buffer and it crosses the southbound Gosport Lane slip road via a toucan crossing which is 4m wide in line with the advice in Chapter 6 of the Traffic Signs Manual.

A toucan crossing has been chosen as most likely to be compatible with traffic flows and speeds. The radius of the Gosport Lane slip road has been tightened to create space for a “landing” on the eastern side and the traffic island off the southern end of Goose Green has been removed to provide space for the crossing.

The shared-use path increases to 3.5m to provide clearance to the wall to the eastern side of Clay Lane and around 20m south, land is required beyond the highway boundary.

A further development of Goose Green could be to widen Clay Lane to provide two-way traffic with the A35 Gosport Lane junction redesigned and with the potential for wider changes to traffic circulation in Lyndhurst. This would enable most of the southbound Gosport Lane slip road to be removed giving better access to Good Green itself. The shared-use path has been aligned to permit such work.

120.4.7 Goose Green and Lymington Road

Watfords Goose Green - proposed Toucan crossing and shared use path on eastern side of A337.

© Crown copyright and database rights 2025. Ordnance Survey AC0000849959

Crossing of Clay Hill between Beechen Lane and Foxlease Park

Traffic flows are expected to be relatively high and driver speed over 30mph. Therefore a toucan crossing is preferred in line with the advice given in Table 10.2 of LTN 1/20. The crossing is the minimum width of 4m in line with the advice in Chapter 6 of the Traffic Signs Manual.

The shared-use paths on both sides of the A337 are at least 2.8m wide to remain within the highway boundary. It is desirable for them to be wider and that requires additional land on both sides to be acquired. Additional land would enable horizontal separation to be provided.

120.4.7, 120.4.5e, 120.4.6f A337 Clay Hill / Beechen Lane

Proposed toucan crossing at Beechen Lane giving access to Foxlease Park estate

© Crown copyright and database rights 2025. Ordnance Survey AC0000849959

Crossing of Chapel Lane between Sandy Lane and Pinkney Lane, connecting 113.4.2 and 120.4.9

This proposal seeks to connect Sandy Lane to Pinkney Lane via Chapel Lane.

The arrangement provides continuous treatments at the side roads to help people cycling turn left and right as appropriate and the shared-use cycle track on the southern side is accessed via a parallel crossing near Sandy Lane. Traffic volumes are likely to be in the range where parallel crossings are appropriate as advised in Table 10.2 of LTN 1/20.

Sandy Lane has no footway and so a ramped access is provided for southbound cyclists to access the parallel crossing and for northbound pedestrians to be walking towards oncoming traffic from a protected starting position.

120.4.5d Chapel Lane / Sandy Lane / Pinkney Lane crossing

Shared use path on south side of Chapel Lane connecting Sandy Lane and Pinkney Lane.

© Crown copyright and database rights 2025. Ordnance Survey AC0000849959

Initial consideration of potential changes to Lyndhurst Gyratory

While identifying the proposed route we have looked at the existing Lyndhurst Gyratory, which we observe is regularly congested in the summer months due to the ‘funnel’ effect of all motorised traffic going west to east along the High Street and the signalised convergence of flows from the A337 Romsey Road. The funnel includes all motor traffic coming from Lymington and Christchurch going towards Ashurst and Southampton using the A35.

In view of this we suggest that splitting the Lymington traffic flow at Goose Green would have the effect of reducing the funnel effect. Our initial thoughts are that this would entail the following measures:

• Creation of a new signalised junction at the junction of Clay Hill, Chapel Lane and Shrubbs Hill Road, including making the carriageway on the west side of Goose Green two-way with turning lanes.
• Creation of a new shuttle signal system at the top of Gosport Lane, encompassing the existing car park entrance on Gosport Lane and retaining the car park entrance and exit on the High Street.
• Creation of a new shuttle signal system at the top of the High Street, at the Romsey Road junction, with a single lane capable of accommodating HGV movements and delivering wider footways.

Given the nature of Lyndhurst’s roads and the limited scope for changes we recognise this would come with some disbenefits including increased traffic flows on Gosport Lane, the retention of two-way traffic on the high street east of Gosport Lane and the retention of motor traffic access along the high street to and egress from the car park.

Any potential benefits of this proposal as an add on to the proposed route would need to be looked at in more detail as a separate project.

120.4 Lyndhurst Gyratory

Lyndhurst High Street looking towards church

Clay Hill and New Park

Description

The A337 is a busy ‘A’ road carrying motor traffic at the national speed limit between Clay Hill and Hollands Wood Campsite. Topography is generally rolling with some steeper gradients. Each side has a wide verge falling away to drainage ditches or the base of the road’s embankments. This verge is uneven and has a different topographic profile to the roadway itself. Some sections of verge are wet ground.

Constraints

The entire length of A337 between Clay Hill and Brockenhurst is covered by RAMSAR and SSSI designations. However, the verges are not used as grazing.

Soft ground and lateral slopes are a significant engineering challenge and will require land to be built up to provide a shared use path at carriageway level - to avoid the need for unattractive safety barriers.

Annual Average Daily Traffic flow

Count site 26961

Habitat mitigations

Lost habitat should be compensated by the purchase of third party land or reassignment of land to open Forest from New Park and other publicly owned Forestry areas.

• Shared use path on eastern or western side, minimum 3.0m wide, with buffer or safety barrier and all weather surface.
• Crossing to New Park. Consider link to Hollands Wood camping site. Improve bus stops (accessibility).
• Ecological mitigation - release compensatory land to open forest, emphasising grazing.

120.5.1 A337 Lyndhurst Road New Park to Hollands Wood

Addition of shared use path to A337 mainline with a variety of options. Consideration of access to opposite side of A337 in some key locations including Coxlease School and New Park.

In general, there appears to be a greater width of highway verge to the east of the A337 alignment. The verge is relatively flat in many parts, but there are some where there is evidence of an embankment to the road and for the initial assessment, a 1 in 3 gradient has been assumed. In some cases, retaining structures will be required in order to keep the alignment within the highway.

The speed limit for this section is 60mph and LTN 1/20 recommends that a desirable horizontal separation (buffer) of 1.0m provided (or 0.5m absolute minimum). A greater separation would create more comfortable conditions, but this will likely require land beyond the highway boundary.

A series of sections have been proposed which generally extend the existing carriageway width on one or both sides of the road with buffer features added. This approach will, in general, allow existing surfaces to drain as they do currently which is largely to the verge. Options include:

• A timber-clad vehicle restraint system (VRS) which provides physical protection.
• An intermittent kerbed buffer 0.5m in width which uses preformed units.
• An intermittent kerbed buffer 1.0m in width using traditional kerbs.

Where the road sits on embankment, two options have been generated. One widens the carriageway as above with with a retaining structure to the rear of the cycle track and the other sets the cycle track at a lower level with a lower retaining structure. The former appears simpler to construct and is the section required where the route crosses the existing underpasses which will require modification.

In general, the carriageway is set at 6.5m and the cycle track is set at 3.0m, with some additional buffers to vertical and edge features.

A key disadvantage of the general approach is that premises and attractors (including bus stops) on the western side are not directly served by the cycle track and so localised works would be desirable to provide crossing points, but these will require additional space.

Wood cladding used to improve the appearance of safety barriers - Ashurst railway bridge

Balmer Lawn to Brockenhurst College

Description

The A337 highway envelope narrows considerably as it enters Brockenhurst from the north side. Narrow footways are hemmed in by private property boundaries, particularly on the western side.

Constraints

• The existing concrete road bridge over the Lymington River has insufficient width to deliver a safe shared use path.
• South of the bridge the footway narrows, although there is scope to widen it to at least 2.5m.
• Bridge House boundary wall and fence narrow the footway to less than 1.3m and there is insufficient space to extend the carriageway into the opposite footway.
• The only viable option (other than going through an area of likely higher ecological value) is to take a new shared use path behind Bridge House, emerging at the entrance driveway to Bridge Farm.
• From Bridge Farm driveway south, third party land would be required to widen the footway to 4m including a 1m buffer. This widening would continue southbound past Careys Manor Hotel, from which further land would be needed.

Traffic flows

See previous sheet.

Habitat mitigations

Replace RAMSAR / SSSI / SPA via land compensation.

If the use of segment 120.6.1d is required, the loss of grazing and RAMSAR and SSSI protected land will need to be mitigated land compensation.

• Junction tightening, cycle and pedestrian crossing and new 20mph speed limit.
• Extend bridge parapet and footway width to 3.0m (including 0.5m flush buffer)
• Shared use path on eastern side. Strip of third party land required from Careys Manor hotel and Bridge farm
• New parallel or toucan crossing giving access to college with possible traffic management measures
• Widen eastern footway to 3m with 0.5m buffer using opposite footway and short section of third party land, and reduce carriageway to minimum 5.5m. Include dropped kerb for Meerut Road.

120.6.2 Brockenhurst village A337 northern approach (Bridge Farmhouse)

Provision of cycle route along eastern side of A337

The highway boundary of the A337 is constrained between the Lymington River and the northern fringe of Brockenhurst at Bridge Farmhouse. With a general proposal for a shared-use path on the eastern side of the A337 between Lyndhurst and Brockenhurst, the route either needs to pass behind Bridge Farmhouse or land acquired adjacent to the A337.

This proposal maintains the eastern highway boundary as Bridge Farmhouse close to it, but moves it west on the western side which requires a strip of the gardens to the properties to the west.

The general cross section would be a 3.5m shared-use path to the east (including 0.5m clearance to the wall), a 6m carriageway and a 2m footway to the west which requires up to 2.5m of land, plus working space.

The carriageway is locally realigned to the north and south of this section. A dropped kerb would be installed to give access to Meerut Road.

View of narrow footway by Bridge Farmhouse

120.6.2 / 3 Crossing point outside Brockenhurst College campus

Provision of a parallel crossing near the entrance to Brockenhurst College campus

The nearest DfT traffic count site (26961) suggests an AADT of just over 14,000 vehicles per day and when reviewed against Table 10-2 of LTN 1/20, a signalised solution appears to be the most appropriate.

A toucan crossing would respond to the local context and also provide a route for people cycling to access Brockenhurst from the north.

In order to provide a direction connection to Waters Green, there is a need to restrict traffic movements to a right turn out only. this would work with Grigg Lane to the north still being available to deal with left turn traffic coming from the west of the A337.

It would be desirable for some work within the college to provide a direct cycle link for students which could be developed further in the future.

Brockenhurst parallel crossing concept option updated in response to site investigation and safety audit.

© Crown copyright and database rights 2025. Ordnance Survey AC0000849959

Brockenhurst village

Description

Village streets provide a relatively suitable network for cycling and walking, although infrastructure is generally of poor quality, particularly for pedestrians.

The village currently has a 30mph speed limit. Sway Road and Grigg Road are important ‘cut-throughs’ for motor traffic from Sway, and drivers avoiding the level crossing gates.

At certain times, all routes are busy with students going to and from Brockenhurst College.

The level crossing is a significant barrier as it has a very narrow envelope which is devoted to motor traffic and minimal footway provision. There is no space here for dedicated cycle infrastructure and conflicts exist particularly on the northern side.

Church Lane, to the south of Brockenhurst, is very quiet. A steep hill towards the church is a challenge for some cyclists if they are not using electrically-assisted cycles.

An alternative to the level crossing is the use of Sway Road including a modal filter at the railway bridge (see pages 49 and 50). Whilst indirect in relation to the A337, this option would avoid the hill on Church Lane up to St Nicholas’ Church and the need to purchase third-party land as well as connecting to future route 110 and the railway path to Burley.

Constraints

The A337 does not have sufficient space for dedicated cycle infrastructure (or, if it does, there would be considerable challenges around parking and loading). The level crossing is a point of conflict where solutions are challenging. There is some limited space for shared use provision to the south of the level crossing.

Habitat mitigations

None required.

Options for cycle route continuity and conspicuity at level crossing. Options tpo provide local ‘unbundling’ of cycling with motoring routes to provide quieter cycle route

The carriageway at the level crossing is constrained at approximately 8.5m, including narrow painted pedestrian walkways and as such, it is not physically possible to add cycle lanes or protected cycling space. Traffic volumes here are likely to be high enough that cycling is mixed traffic is unlikely to be suitable for most people as advised in Figure 4.1 of LTN 1/20.

In order to mitigate this, it is proposes that a short section of “cycle street” treatment is provided on both sides of the level crossing to make the presence of people cycling as conspicuous as possible and this should be supported with a 20mph speed limit within the village core.

In order to connect two-way cycling over the level crossing with Church Lane, it is proposed to use a toucan crossing which allows northbound cyclists to cross the A337 and join it for a short section just before the level crossing. The toucan crossing also provides access to Church Lane from the station.

Southbound cyclists will access Church Lane with a small slip road from the A337; and additionally this will also be useful to some people wishing to access the station via the toucan crossing.

A short section of shared-use path continues into Church Lane where people rejoin the carriageway away from the junction with the A337.

The arrangement is dependent on land being acquired from the station car park and the adjacent premises. It should be noted that mapping suggests a gas governor in this area which requires further investigation.

The toucan crossing is 4m wide in accordance with the advice given in Chapter 6 of the Traffic Signs Manual.

View towards level crossing from Church Lane

Approach to level crossing from north (station access road). Note the constrained space.

120.6.7 A337 Lymington Road - Brockenhurst Level Crossing and local link to Church Lane

© Crown copyright and database rights 2025. Ordnance Survey AC0000849959

Setley and Sway Road / Setley Road

Description

This section bypasses the A337, using historic routes through the hamlet of Setley and an area of RAMSAR and SSSI protected Forest outside the fenced ‘perambulation’. At the southern end, a verge measuring approximately 2.5m provides a link to Sandy Down.

Third party land would be required to deliver most of this route. In the interim it would divert from Setley Ridge Nursery, across the A337 to Tilebarn Lane and then to Church Lane via a new crossing - these interventions would continue to offer value if segment 120.7.1 is completed.

The junction of the A337 with Setley Road would be amended and a modal filter would be provided at the Setley Road railway bridge to reduce motor traffic to LTN 1/20 recommended levels.

Constraints

RAMSAR and SSSI designations affect approximately a quarter of this section of north-south route and all of Setley Road and Sway Road.

Annual Average Daily Traffic flow

DfT count point 6935

Habitat mitigations

Lost habitat will need to be replaced elsewhere, ideally nearby and with land producing similar conditions.

Crossing of A337 Lymington Road between Church Lane and Tilebarn Lane

A toucan crossing is proposed given the expected traffic volumes and driver speeds in line with the advice in Table 10.2 of LTN 1/20.

In order to provide “landings” for the crossing it is proposed to “filter” the eastern end of Tilebarn Lane and the the southern arm of the Church Lane junction.

Motor traffic would access the A337 from Tilebarn Lane via the Setley Road junction. Motor traffic would access the A337 from Church Lane via a remodelled northern arm of the junction.

The crossing is skewed due to the alignment of the side roads and as such will require longer crossing times than would be otherwise required. There would also need to be work on the hedgerows and trees locally to ensure that sufficient forward visibility is available.

The toucan crossing is 4m wide in accordance with the advice given in Chapter 6 of the Traffic Signs Manual.

Modal filter on Sway Road railway bridge (in response to stakeholder comments)

A filter is proposed at the southern end of Sway Road (Brockenhurst) where it crosses the railway line to reduce motor traffic to below the 1,000 pcu/day levels within the 30mph speed limit zone consistent with advice in Table 4.1 of LTN1/20.

There are various options available for how the filter would operate. We have shown a section of bus and taxi only street with a turning head and access-only section.

The section shows a possible physical layout where permitted vehicles entering the bus-and-taxi only street will give way to any permitted traffic leaving the area, with a bypass for cycles. This is intended to discourage accidental access.

120.6.8a Tilebarn Lane / Church Lane crossing

Toucan crossing connecting Tilebarn Lane and Church Lane across the A337.

Modal filter on the railway bridge on Sway Road

Sway Road bridge modal filter concept option in response to stakeholder comments.

© Crown copyright and database rights 2025. Ordnance Survey AC0000849959

Junction redesign options to provide crossing of A337 between Setley Road and track to south of Filly Inn.

Two concepts have been developed for the junction which make use of the wide carriageway and available carriageway space.

The first concept is a traditional priority junction with ghosted right turn lanes into Setley Road and the lane south of the Filly Inn. The arrangement permits a refuge island to be placed at each end of the section to provide crossing points. The refuges are fed with shred-use paths which operate orbitally in the clockwise direction to allow cyclists to cross west to east and east to west without having to cross two lanes of traffic in the side roads. The refuges are 3.5m wide to maximise comfort for those crossing. Drivers turning right from the side roads have to cross two lanes of traffic to complete their turns into the third lane which can be awkward when main road flows are high.

The second is a priority square junction which removes the need for drivers turning right having to cross several lanes of traffic. The arrangement operates with all traffic turning left with those wishing to move ahead or right entering a right turn lane and then joining the opposing traffic stream where there is a gap. Overrun areas are provided for larger vehicles.

Cycle traffic uses orbital cycle tracks as with the first concept, but the central reserve is much wider and more comfortable than the refuge island. The layout also locally manages driver speed with the horizontal alignment.

The key disadvantage is that the traffic volume and speed is likely to exclude some people as advised in Table 10.2 of LTN 1/20. A solution to this would be to signalised the junction and incorporate signalised crossings, but this may be incongruous with the local context.

120.6.8g Setley Road / A337 Southampton Road junction (spur from main route)

Option 1: Simple priority junction with ghosted right turn lanes

Option 2: Priority square junction incorporating over-run areas for larger vehicles.

© Crown copyright and database rights 2025. Ordnance Survey AC0000849959

Boldre

Description

Sandy Lane is a quiet country lane, although occasional vehicles can travel along it quite quickly and arrive in groups. When there are problems on the A337, the lane becomes quite busy as drivers try to avoid the situation.

Constraints

There are no specific constraints on this route.

Habitat mitigations

None specific.

• Introduce 30mph speed limit on lanes together with traffic reduction measures if possible.
• Modify junction to reduce conflict between cycles and motor vehicles.
• Introduce 20mph speed limit.
• Introduce 20mph speed limit.

Options for cycle route continuity and conspicuity through junction

The cycle route runs north-south through the staggered crossroads between Royden Lane and Boldre Lane, but the junction priorities favour the east-west movement between Rope Hill and Rodlease Lane.

Two concepts have been developed to change the junction priorities in favour of the cycle route. The first option uses traffic signs and road marking as is the current case and the second option reinforces this with a “cycle street” style arrangement with overrun edges and central median that can be used by vehicles and especially agricultural traffic. A 20mph speed limit within the hamlet is also recommended.

Traffic calming might be a further enhancement, but this is likely to be limited to road humps as physical horizontal measures are not usually compatible with agricultural traffic.

120.7.8 Boldre cross-roads

Cycle-street treatment with median overrun by passing motor vehicles

Simplified version of cycle-street with no coloured asphalt or over-run median.

© Crown copyright and database rights 2025. Ordnance Survey AC0000849959

Ampress Park and Lymington

Description

The A337 enters Lymington near Ampress Park, an industrial estate. The proposed cycle route diverts to Lymington town centre via Lower Buckland Road as the most direct available route. A spur is incorporated to serve the hospital.

Constraints

The A337 highway is restricted before and after it passes under the A337 railway bridge.

Restricted space for shared use path between the railway bridge and roundabout junction with Marsh Lane, and on the section between the service road south of the roundabout and Lower Buckland Road.

Annual Average Daily Traffic flow

Site 990588

Site 36990

• Consider modal filter banning either right turns ‘in’ or left turns ‘out’ to improve safety and provide space for pedestrians and cycles.
• Minor improvements to existing shared use path under railway line.
• Consider potential route alongside electricity substation as shown.
• Bring existing cycleways up to LTN1/20 standard. Consider one-way cycle tracks or two way cycle track with continuous footway treatments and crossings as required.
• Bring existing two way shared path up to LTN1/20 standard. Introduce “Dutch” style roundabout treatment with tighter corner radii and parallel crossing on eastern arm.
• Bring existing two way shared path up to LTN1/20 standard and introduce buffer where possible.
• Introduce 20mph speed limit on this route and Lymington as a whole.
• Introduce junction treatment to improve safety and visibility of cycle crossing.
• Add “Except Cycles” plate under no-entry signs on New Street.
• Introduce 20mph speed limit on this section and Lymington as a whole.
• Route 200 (east to west) - possible future connection.

Upgrading of existing arrangements including link from Wellworthy Road to Southampton Road

The proposals here seek to upgrade the existing provision between Boldre Lane and Lymington New Forest Hospital.

The junction of the A337 with Boldre Lane has been further restricted to motor traffic so that a right turn into Boldre Lane is the sole permitted movement. For Boldre Lane itself, this would most likely become eastbound for general traffic with cycling in contraflow as far as Tweed Lane. It would be possible to retain two-way traffic for this section is motors were prohibited “except for access” to off street premises, but there remains a risk that a driver of a large vehicle may proceed without an easy way to turn.

The redesign permits a smooth transition to and from Boldre Lane for cycle traffic accessing the existing cycle track which would be locally realigned, but with space taken to the east beyond the highway boundary.

In order to maintain cycle priority, a humped “cycle priority crossing” of Ricardo Way is proposed which is likely to be compatible with traffic flows and speeds given in Table 10.2 of LTN 1/20.

Just north of the junction of Wellworthy Lane and Ampress Lane there is an uncontrolled crossing of Wellworthy Lane. It is proposed to introduce a parallel crossing to provide priority to cyclists and pedestrians where the existing shared-segregated cycle track crosses. It is further proposed that the shared-segregated cycle track be changed to shared-unsegregated use as the width of the spaces provided are narrow.

The junction access to Maple Court has been updated so it is laid out as priority junction with dropped kerbs and tactile paving, to give easier access to the existing shared use path on the eastern side of the A337 from this junction to the south.

120.7.10, 120.7.11, 120.7.12 Boldre Lane and Ampress Park

120.7.12 Maple House junction with A337 south of branchline railway bridge

120.7.11 Wellworthy Road - parallel crossing

120.7.10 Access to Boldre Lane

© Crown copyright and database rights 2025. Ordnance Survey AC0000849959

Brockenhurst is an important hub for public transport and cycle hire. It is also a popular centre for starting longer rides.

5.0 Ecology

Ecologist’s notes

Ecology and landscape are important facets of what makes the New Forest National Park special. During this project we have taken into account the various protections in the Forest, namely:

• RAMSAR which applies to wetland sites designated to be of international importance under the Ramsar Convention 1971. The Convention on Wetlands provides for the implementation of national action and international co-operation regarding the conservation of wet land and sustainable use of its resources. Member states are expected to promote the conservation of wetlands included in the list of sites and promote the wise use of this resource.
• SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) are the basic building blocks of UK national conservation designations.
• A SPA (Special Protection Area) is defined in the EU’s Habitat Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds. This is still marked on the designations map following the UK’s exit from the European Union.
• A SAC (Special Area of Conservation) is designated under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) in England and Wales. The regulations require the establishment of a network of important high-quality conservation sites that will make a significant contribution to conserving habitats and species of wild fauna and flora in response to the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). They protect habitat types most in need of conservation to protect a list of species.

Account has been taken of the existence of these European and National designations in the New Forest, which include carriageways and ungrazed fenced verges where roads cut through the Forest perambulation.

Mitigation is suggested in the form of releasing replacement land to the Forest from surrounding third party and publicly owned enclosed land.

However, in our strategic assessment, where a habitat is judged likely to be ‘irreplaceable’, a suggested route segment option is deemed to fail outright and, though still marked, is not considered further.

This is to be read in conjunction with the ecologist’s supplementary report.

Shared use path sign on the Lyndhurst to Ashurst route.

6.0 Safety Opinion

Our design lead has set out some initial considerations for highway, construction and operational safety. More detailed independent road safety comments will appear in this chapter when the final route is agreed.

A337 Mainline

There are Department for Transport Count Points within the project area and for the A337, they indicate AADFs of between 10,000 and 14,000 vehicles per day. Of this, LGV traffic (under 3.5 tonnes) is around 16% of flows, and HGV (including buses and coaches, over 3.5 tonnes) traffic is around 2.5%.

The carriageway width is highly variable along the route and is between 6m and 8m, which some junctions wider. In terms of traffic composition, this is generally compatible with the relatively low percentage of HGVs and which requires the drivers of such to drive in accordance with the conditions. Where provide, footways are often narrow and certainly often 1.5m or less which when combined with LGV and HGV traffic, does create the risk of pedestrians being hit by wing-mirrors.

Where the route follows the A335, the horizontal separation proposed in Table 6.1 of LTN 1/20 has been adopted. At 30mph, 0m is the absolute minimum which has been used, but in all situations where land needs to be acquired, separation in excess of LTN 1/20 provides for better subjective and objective safety.

The carriageway alignment is also highly variable and in many places, forward visibility can be relatively poor and in many cases, impacted by vegetation. The further development of the various proposals set out in this report to a more detailed stage should consider local visibility, preferable using topographic information.

There is no granular traffic flow data currently available and no speed data at all. It is recommended that traffic surveys are undertaken and while they are unlikely to change the design responses from a flow perspective, they might from a speed perspective, especially in crossing choice and horizontal clearance.

Having a cycle route on the eastern side of the A337 means that attractors and premises on the western side are harder to access. For example, there are bus stops along the mainline which will be better served by the shared-use path, but those on the western side will remain difficult to access and so