Hampshire County Council have recently released a draft strategy and consultation for public transport across the Gosport and Fareham area. This public consultation is something of a long-term aspiration of the Council, covering some 70 different idea and spanning the next 25 years of transport development; and focused on cutting emission and alternatives to car travel.
So – before I go on a rambling rant about something I have not even read yet – I would suggest you start at the HCC consultation briefing page. That means that as I write my rambling rant, you can follow along too. Once I have had my rambling rant, I will probably format it into a friendlier tone (or ask ChatGPT to) and send in my response.
This consultation is the next step in Hampshire County Councils Local Transport Plan 4, so let’s get into it.
The Quick Demographic Overview
The draft strategy points out some things about Gosport that did not surprise me, but at the same time did surprise me that Gosport is listed as the second most deprived borough in Hampshire. Despite having a low car ownership rate compared to the rest of Hampshire, I am not surprised that there is a high-level of commuting out of the town.
So the council needs to balance the reduction in the carbon footprint (despite the low car ownership) with providing transport for high levels of adult obesity – their words, not mine.
You would think that on that basis, the plan would be to reduce commuting in to the Fareham and Gosport area, for the naval support establishments, and the business and industry out at Segensworth.
Quite a few things have already been achieved by HCC over the last few years – the Busway for the Eclipse bus services, the bus gate near Fareham Bus Station and the upcoming work to close the M27 and install a new underpass. So we have to have faith in the plans.
The Problems
So I think that Hampshire County Council have had a good think about the problems in the Gosport peninsula, but I think that they have also missed some out.
Ironically after I drafted this precise section and said but I think that they have also missed some out then an article appeared in my feed from the Daily Echo where Dame Caroline Dinenage MP was calling for better local control of waterbus services following the withdrawal of the Gosport “Night Ferry” at the start of the year.
I have not been young enough, or fancy free enough to need to use the night ferry for a long time; but I am sure that the youngsters would still use it.
Buses
Priority Routes
There is a lot of talk in the draft about bus priority routes and roads across a large number of different bullet points. Frankly I think that some of the 28 Bus Bullet Points are duplicates of each other and I am surprised the proof-readers did not (along with checking spelling errors) try and condense them a little:
- Bus Priorities from Portchester Precinct (Castle Street Roundabout) along the A27, through Fareham and out towards Southampton Road / Segensworth – (B1 / B4 / B5 / B6 / B28)
- Improvements to the Eclipse Bus corridor on the A32 and Stoke Road (B7 / B8 / B18)
- Extensions to the Eclipse Busway in Gosport and Fareham (B14 / B15)
Although I suspect that the 5 different B-codes for the A27 is down to 5 different projects; I think it is clear that it needs to be an all-or-nothing to prevent simply moving the bottleneck. It’s almost like we have a massively padded out table of things to make it look better, especially when you consider the timeline:
| Period | Priority Actions |
|---|---|
| Short (0–5 yrs) | – East/west bus priority network setup (B27) – Bus priority Delme roundabout, Fareham & junction upgrades (B4, B6) – Modal filter, Fishers Hill (C1) – Priority bus corridor to West/Southampton (B6) |
| Medium (5–15 yrs) | – At-grade pedestrian crossings at Portchester (W4) – Walking zone/crossings at Station Rd/Brook Lane (W6, W9) – Westward bus priority (B6) |
| Longer (15+ yrs) | – Full A27 bus corridor extension east to Portsmouth boundary (B4) – Step-free/rail station improvements Portchester/Fareham/Swanwick (R3, R5, R6) – South East Hampshire Rapid Transit network expansion (B28) |
Eclipse Services
With the massive success that the Eclipse bus services appear to have been – for some at least – there are proposals to extend these and improve them.
The existing E1 and E2 services would benefit from the proposed Bus priorities between the top of Henry Cort Way and Fareham bus station, by introducing a dedicated BRT route from Redlands Lane to the railway station.
Now this is where I get a little confused because if you look at Figure 9 – Page 33 you can see the highlighted bus priority along Redlands Lane towards the traffic lights at The Harvester. But that is the existing Eclipse bus route – to make it a dedicated route are they proposing the top of Redlands Lane towards bus a bus road / bus gate? By dedicated route my logical mind would say they are proposing to use the old track bed somehow, which is not actually marked on the map.
The proposal also includes a plan to extend the BRT south from Rowner Road (where Eclipse currently heads across to and from the Fort Brockhurst roundabout) to Lees Lane (behind the old Criterion cinema / Crown Bingo) presumably along the old railway line. It may, if I remember the area correctly, mean the end of the old railway platform at Station Road which I am sure is still there in the undergrowth.
New Services
There are also new Bus Rapid Transit route being proposed, both BRT related and otherwise:
- Welborne Garden Village and North Fareham would gain a new link to Fareham. I find this a little ironic in that Stagecoach South already runs the 69 near to the village, however Hampshire County Council only recently removed funding from First Solent’s 20. Funding services for North Fareham might have been better served by keeping the 20 running in some format?
- A new Eclipse service is proposed for the Daedalus Solent Enterprise Zone. This could be a number of plans, whether using the BRT to Newgate Lane partly restoring what used to be the 36 to Cherque Farm and Lee-on-Solent, or using the BRT to Fort Brockhurst and running along Rowner Road.
- A new service is also proposed for the Haslar Peninsula. I have a brilliant idea … bear with me … it could run from Gosport, over the Haslar Bridge, past Fort Blockhouse and up to Alverstoke Village. It could be called the 9, or the 19, or the 29, or the 30.
- Finally – although I am not sure we can call it a new service but… – there are a few references to night buses which are tangentially attached to things like 24 hour access to the bus way for cycles. Now frankly cycles are able to use the busway at any time anyway as it is not like there are barriers at every bus stop. It does appear that there might be a plan for funding at least some element of a night time bus service….. I know, lets connect it up to a late night ferry like the one that closed due to increased pier fees.
The Timetable
What concerns me the most though, is the timeframes that seem to be suggested:
| Period | Priority Actions |
|---|---|
| Short (0–5 yrs) | – Bus priority at Quay Street Roundabout, Fareham (B1) – 24-hr cycle access to Eclipse busway (C5) – Fareham–Welborne BRT rapid bus link (B16) – Journey time improvement network (B27) |
| Medium (5–15 yrs) | – Eclipse priority: Stoke Road & A32 (B7, B8) – Cycle access to Fareham/Gosport bus stations (B23, B22) – Upgrade walking/cycle links to bus stops/hubs (C12) |
| Longer (15+ yrs) | – Extend Eclipse busway north to Fareham station (B15) – New bus service to Haslar Peninsula and Daedalus (B12, B17) – Gosport busway extension (B14) |
I get that the Welbourne development is rapidly becoming a desirable place to run a bus to, but maybe Daedalus should be launched at the same time?
Ferries
Which brings me on to the proposals for ferry services. Alongside a proposal to enhance the ferry terminal at Gosport (the recently refurbished side) there is also an aspiration to introduce a ferry link to Fort Blockhouse.
In reality there are some potential quick wins in the strategy – upgrading and integrating the cycle and footfall opportunities can quite easily be managed into the bulldozing of the old Gosport Bus Station.
This is one big open space just ripe for something special (and expensive) to showcase the plans
But there is a long-term plan spearheaded by Gosport Borough Council to develop the current MOD area into mixed-use hosing and development. The time and cost of development and “repairs to the historical buildings” have been an issue, according to a recent report in The News. There are also issues with the man made sea wall which flanks the site along the Solent.
I also mentioned above that the Gosport late night weekend ferry closed at the start of 2025. I also linked above that Dame Caroline was interested in getting control of the water in the harbour. When you drill down to the fact that it could take 15 years or more, Dame Caroline might not ever see it:
| Period | Priority Actions |
|---|---|
| Short (0–5 yrs) | – Upgrade Gosport ferry terminal/waiting facilities (F2) – Cycle parking and active travel improvements near ferry terminals (C14) |
| Medium (5–15 yrs) | – Walking/cycling access improvements to Gosport ferry interchange (C9) – Heritage trail waterfront connectivity (W1) |
| Longer (15+ yrs) | – Expansion of ferry services: Haslar/Fort Blockhouse, integrated ticketing (F1) |
Rail
….. and then we come to the one thing that Hampshire County Council has aspirations for, but in reality probably very little control.
Firstly, I have no idea was the rail task R1 was going to be. Whether it is a typo that the proof-reader missed, whether it was later deemed not a great idea and withdrawn, or was it simply “We will take over South Western Railway and Network Rail and call it HantsRail” or something?
So there are multiple ideas that are all envisaged to take 15 years or more.
The area-wide aspiration of improve train service and frequencies at Fareham, Portchester, and Swanwick railway stations is going to very heavily rely on the ongoing work that Network Rail are doing.
For our area the plan is to move all of Hampshire’s signalling and control systems (along with Surrey, Dorset, South London and the Isle of Wight) (maybe not the Isle of Wight, can’t see the cost vs benefit myself) into a big shiny windowless room in Basingstoke.
Now, with varying levels of success, Network Rail has already done quite a bit towards this work. Over the October half-term the section of line between Havant and Guildford all but finished the £129 million work to close signal boxes at Petersfield, Haslemere (with Daniele Mandelli closing the signal box out on its last night) and Farncombe (which has already been ripped down).
Back in 2020-ish when Network Rail was talking about the current Control Period 6 (up to 2029) there was no mention of re-signalling Fareham to Southampton which would be essential to increase the services from what they are now unless both GWR and Southern stopped running it’s faster stopping patterns. Indeed I am not sure I have even seen anything mentioned for the 2029 to 2034 period either.
We digress though.
- Hampshire County Council want to re-double the line between Fareham and Botley. This will probably only be considered at the same time as the Eastleigh / Southampton re-signalling because of the cost and effort needed to achieve this properly.
- Improvements to Fareham, Portchester and Swanwick stations; which will be a Network Rail thing.
- Improve access to Fareham, Portchester and Swanwick stations.
At the moment the only thing that I can see Hampshire County Council doing, without having a long planning meeting with coffee and garibaldi at Network Rail, would be to improve the area around the stations. Funding bus connections for Swanwick station for example (although HCC recently slashed funding for buses) would probably be the most achievable.
My Random, Ranting Conclusion
I would love for Hampshire County Council to be able to achieve all of this and more, however I feel that there are a number of things that are put in the draft strategy that they have either put as a bit of nice PR to try and sound good, or know are simply not something that they can achieve but have thrown it in anyway.
I am not convinced that the BRT extension to Fareham Railway Station will be achievable unless the Council wins the National Lottery or gets substantial funding from an external or central Government source. If Network Rail funds and develops an overhaul of Fareham Railway Station then it may be plausible to see a dedicated area for a bus interchange, perhaps under the current Railway Station footprint, but that would probably need substantial land grabs from the garages, self-storage units and fire station around it.
The extended and new bus services will probably need to rely on developer or other external funding. I am not substantively familiar with the progress of Welborne to understand when it will need a bus service, and the decimation of supported bus services across Hampshire generally should be remembered.
There are however some cheaper and more viable quick hits that the Council will probably count as a foregone success before they are even published in the “not draft” strategy; so they will earn their bons, pat on the back and a lavish party at a luxury hotel somewhere.
Have Your Say!
The draft strategy and the invitation to comment is open until Sunday 21st December.
You can see the Hampshire County Council call for consultation responses on their website along with a summary of the draft strategy, and you can also download the PDF of the strategy from the same page.
I am now off for a stiff whisky before I consider how shorten this long piece into something more direct for HCC to read.
Still waiting for the rapid transport scheme to reach Whiteley as it was mentioned by Hampshire wayyyyy back in the late 1990’s!
Very ironic regarding HCC actually coming up with the consultation when Hampshire as we know it will be broken up once local Govt reorganization & all that comes along in about 2 years. Just reeks of tick box exercise. More so that HCC cut the 20 bus to Funtley & if it wasn’t for developers section 106 money Whiteley would be bus less now! HCC should be looking after the money to develop routes as specified in the Whiteley planning document & signed by HCC & the development consortium, but if it wasn’t for Whiteley Town Council kicking butt, HCC would’ve done nothing!
Ahhhhh but Whiteley is technically under Winchester City Council, isn’t it? So would not fall under this strategy.
Maybe they will release a similar tick box exercise for rural Winchester City Council.
When North Whiteley was being planned a grand document was planned & produced & signed between Winchester, HCC & the developers (consortium) setting out what buses should be running, service levels etc by certain dates. These service levels are not in place. Neither is the Steering Group which should have been set up as one of the Section 106 conditions. Whiteley Town Council are actually funded by Winchester but HCC controls the pot of money!
Also, it should also be recalled that part of Whiteley which would also benefit from an improvement in service is in fact Fareham BC controlled. The GP surgery & the Post Office are in the Fareham side. The Whiteley shopping centre on Winchester side.
The whole North Whiteley issue is certainly something that you would hope is not replicated in Welborne, however I am sure I have seen a figure somewhere that the infrastructure changes are not fully considered until there are a few thousand houses built and occupied (or available to be occupied).
I wonder if the should talk to Basingstoke and Deane Council where the new Vyne Park estate gets what appears to be a better service than Whiteley, multiple years quicker.
Swanwick already has buses. 28 & 28A although only hourly at best
Whiteley is a classic case of how not to provide an area with bus services. The bus provision was so slow getting off the ground that by the time there was anything like a usable bus service in the town (and to be honest I don’t think that necessary level of service has ever been reached anyway!) everyone had bought a car to get around. The lesson for Welborne has to be that as soon as people have moved in, there’s a bus service for them, not 5 years later.
Regarding rail, under devolution (which takes effect on 1st April 2027) the new mayor of Hampshire will have competency powers over transport and local infrastructure, and will receive government funding for them, so will have significant control. And don’t forget that by then (or shortly afterwards) all rail will be ‘Great British Railways’ and so it may be easier to bring forward infrastructure improvements – because as you say, many of the rail aspirations need expensive infrastructure improvements first; unlike buses, you can’t have trains overtaking each other unless there’s the track and signalling to allow them to do so!
I agree with you on the Whiteley bus service provision. When you consider that back in the days of People’s Provincial and Musterphantom (or Solent Blue Line) it would have been plausible to think that Whiteley could have been served potentially by a combination of the 26, 48C and 78! Brijan might have even been interested.
In terms of the railway, I fear that alongside this consultation, the role of the Mayor of Hampshire is not going to be all empowering as Hampshire County Council will like. Not because Network Rail / GBR / TOCs will be obstinate, but because the Mayor will try and implement things to make themselves look good that simply will not work. In my opinion even Andy Burnham, seen as a success story with the Bee Network, has not done much more than advocate so far in terms of rail infrastructure. Even if the Mayor of Hampshire was to get unlimited funds to bring forward the re-control of the Eastleigh Area Signalling Centre; it would still have to wait in line.
The busway extension at the north end (B15) is to extend the busway further along the line of the former railway and come out onto the A27 alongside the railway bridge by the station. I have a feeling that will be in the ‘way too difficult’ pile for many years as the area required is well overgrown, has a river in it, and backs onto people’s gardens – not that the latter stopped the original busway, but only after significant delay and legal challenge – and unlike further south, the north end will need significant structures to hold it up as it descends to A27 level. Not nice having woods at the bottom of your garden replaced by a concrete wall.
The bus interchange at Fareham railway station is already pretty good with well specified bus stops on the A27 directly adjacent to the station, I hope they have learned the lesson of QA Hospital (or even Asda at Havant) and don’t divert services off-route into the forecourt, as that delays everyone NOT wanting access to the station and makes the service less convenient and attractive for a significant proportion of passengers.
I too agree that the extension of the BRT – cited in the strategy as being in the “Longer Term” – will end up in the pile of “too difficult.”
If it ever does go ahead though, I would like to think that rather than diverting into the forecourt, that consideration would be given for the interchange to be placed on the Gosport side of The Avenue, with dedicated cycle parking and a lift / escalator / walkway up to the railway station. It would remove the congestion of buses merging into and out of traffic on The Avenue, particularly with bunching, and could even be to a new second entrance on the Platform 1 side of the station.
Thinking even further out of the box, with the draft strategy referring to “drive-in/drive-out” bus bays, maybe a larger build at Fareham Railway Station would do better to serve as the layover location for buses and the existing bus station to be something akin to Southampton’s Pound Tree Road?