Written evidence submitted by Transport Futures East Sussex (SRI0053)

Transport Futures East Sussex is an ‘interest’ and pressure group campaigning for integration of sustainable transport and land use policies supporting delivery of multiple policy objectives. Through evidence based interventions and an eye on ‘best practice’ these would deliver quality of life improvements. Benefits would include:

        a healthier population and one less burdensome on services

        sustainable housing and commercial developments

        more ‘space for nature’

        enhanced and conserved landscapes

        humane and kinder living environments less dominated by traffic

        much greater space and freedom for children

        better air quality through regulation, technology and expansion of ‘shared transport’

        localised services supporting local economies

        social equity through accessibility to jobs, healthcare, education, recreation, leisure, shops, etc.

Our comments relate to East Sussex schemes, particularly the A27 ‘East of Lewes’ patch.

How effectively the RIS2 enhancements portfolio has been managed to date;

As a first observation: the ‘£75m scheme ‘became a ‘£72m scheme’ as £3m was ‘abstracted’ to fund a study into an ‘off-line’ A27 feasibility study which attracted a ‘poor value for money’ assessment at the first attempt at development of a ‘business case’.

It would be relevant to reflect on how the the current almost complete junction safety improvements and parallel cycle infrastructure might have been usefully complemented by £3m worth of bus infrastructure improvements along this section. Currently, bus stops are only occasionally served and of poor quality. 

We believe a regular A27 bus service between (Eastbourne/Hailsham) Polegate - Falmer - Brighton would make good use of (optimise) the road capacity. There are no regular bus services at all east-west.

Together with parallel rail service enhancements, these could reduce traffic and underpin and make more viable ‘car free’ housing developments (whereas RIS3 would promote mobility - and therefore car dependency) . Other local traffic demand management measures - particularly at the eastern end - would increase viability of such measures .

As it stands, the performance of the soon to open RIS2 scheme should be monitored in terms of performance with an up to date ‘origin/destination’ component in the protfolio along with ‘vehicle occupancy’ stats for private vehicles and mode split of vehicle types.

Whether risks to the enhancements portfolio for the remainder of the RIS2 period are being well managed;

Arundel Bypass remains controversial with alternative interventions not investigated  We believe there is a conspicuous absence of origin/destination/journey purpose data which could usefully be presented in a clear non-technical summary that would give clarity on necessary future sutainable transport options.

Bus enhancements/rail enhancements (sustainable transport links between Ford and Arundel; a ‘west to north curve’ on the Coastway line) are too easily dismissed while intra-urban transport in coastal towns remains undeveloped leading to cars being the first mode of choice for both short and medium distance travel. This has not been the case in Brighton where sustainable modes have succeeded in reducing congestion pressures (successful bus priority and an ambitious bus operator).

We have great reservations around the ‘mono-modal ‘nature of studies in RIS2/3. Significant expansion of  sustainable travel options in all our urban areas - with good rural/urban connections and demand management - would reduce pressure on road networks. The growing component of LGVs in traffic could be reduced with rail based parcels transported on recently adapted trains with last mile deliveries by electric cycles.

What the impacts of delays and cost overruns are on the overall programme, and whether the revised programme can be delivered to schedule and on budget;

We can only comment on the RIS2 A27 ‘East of Lewes’ scheme. It was delayed during the discussions over abstraction of the £3m for the study of an ‘off-line’ scheme so now opening in March 2023.

What progress is being made on planning for the next Road Investment Strategy;

Funds have been secured (we understand £6m) for the RIS3 pipeline ‘off-line’ A27 studies and preparation of a new business case. For reasons given in our response to the next section, we think this is an inappropriate use of scarce public funds and that the RIS3 scheme itself is at best irrelevant and at worst highly damaging to the South Downs National Park and its setting.

What lessons from RIS2 need to be incorporated into RIS3 to ensure it is achievable and delivers on policy objectives;

Package approaches to approaching and identifying appropriate transport interventions to improve accessibility/solve congestion have been almost universally adopted  since 1997, and calls for integration of ‘land use’ and ‘transport planning’ present in policy documents for at least as long or longer. The RIS label obscures the need to continue striving for  that integration and also for multi-modal and cross policy objective delivery. RIS3 should be subsumed into a much more multi-modal approach which must take account of climate change and biodiversity issues along with a need to deliver mental and physical health dividends to relieve pressure on health services and create high quality living spaces.

Whether the Government’s current and forthcoming roads investment programme is meeting the current and future needs of consumers and business;

Whether the Government’s roads investment programme aligns with other policy priorities, such as decarbonisation, levelling up, productivity and growth;

How RIS3 should take account of technological developments, and evidence on ways of increasing capacity on the Strategic Road Network (such as smart motorways and potential alternatives to them).

We would like to respond to the above three investigations by taking them together.

Post Covid travel patterns are fluid as work practices have changed, are evolving and will continue to do so. In the light of this - and other uncertainties about traffic growth/credible pathways to net zero - the answer cannot be known until data/modelling are updated: RIS3 should at least be suspended if not cancelled.

Assumptions about the scale of take-up of electric vehicles cannot safely be made while there are discrepancies between demand and National Grid supply capacity.

Technology Select Committee advice cautions against simply exchanging petrol/diesel vehicles for electric, and advocates an increased role for ‘shared’ transport and ‘healthy modes’ (‘Active Travel’).

Compliance with Cop 27 (Climate Change) and Cop 15 (Biodiversity) recommendations will require more extensive and deeper appraisal techniques relating to impacts of RIS3 proposed measures and oppportunities for expansion of alternatives. 

The RIS3 pipeline may be wholly inappropriate in that the higher level of ’sensitivity tests’ that must be applied with the objective of compliance with Cop15/27 and ‘value for money’ and other principles ( such as those supporting public health) will have to be so wide ranging that these actually become the scheme in the form of a mosaic of interventions!  These could be highly beneficial in terms of ‘value for money’ and social equity. Maybe this could be a Transport Investment Strategy (TIS3 not RIS3!)

In the context of the A27 off-line RIS3 ‘pipeline’, in East and West Sussex there is huge scope for development of sustainable modes of transport in all coastal and nearby settlements, especially outside of Brighton where exemplary good practice is far more evident.

In our view, optimisation of potential for better ‘value for money’ alternative options for investment should be sought, including the potential to better meet decarbonisation and biodiversity and many other policy goals. This would better secure ‘car free’ lifestyles and deliver more humane living spaces for young and old through responsible, less wasteful ‘land use’. Better accessibility - less mobility.

The A27 is not a corridor of movement. It is characterised by more local journeys around employment, services,education, healthcare, retail and cultural activity, tourism and social life. Public transport plays an important role but one far below its potential.

February 2023