Cycle Lewes Responds to East Sussex County Council’s consultation on proposed new Local Transport Plan for 2024-2050
Local transport plans, divided into full local transport plans (LTP) and local implementation plans for transport (LIP) are an important part of transport planning in England.
Strategic transport authorities such as East Sussex County Council, are expected to prepare them as forward-looking plans covering a number of years (typically five years), and present them to the Department for Transport (DfT). Much of Central Government’s transport related funding to East Sussex is dependant on agreed LTPs, and East Sussex is currently holding a consultation on its draft plan for the next five years (LPT4). The consultation ends on 25 February & East Sussex residents are encouraged to give their views via the consultation portal https://consultation.eastsussex.gov.uk/economy-transport-environment/local-transport-plan-4-2024-2050/
It should be acknowledged that whilst the previous LPTs had their merits, ESCC had an extremely poor record in applying for & receiving Central Government funding for Active Travel (Walking & Cycling). As is pointed out in Nick Hanna’s blog below, “In the last 5 years ESCC has spent £166 million on roads. In the same period they spent a total of £484,000 on ‘cycle route construction’ although sadly this didn’t actually involve building anything (we assume it was spent on consultations).”
Central & County Government policies may however change in the next 18 months (elections at National & County levels), so Cycle Lewes believes it is important to feed in our views on active travel to the LPT consultation.
Cycle Lewes response to ESCC’s LTP4 - January 2024
LTP4 Vision
An inclusive transport system that connects people and places is decarbonised, safer, resilient and supports our natural environment, communities and businesses to be healthy, to thrive and prosper”
LTP4 Objectives
• Deliver safer and accessible journeys
• Support healthier lifestyles and communities
• Decarbonise transport and travel
• Conserve and enhance our local environment
• Support sustainable economic growth
• Strengthen the resilience of our transport networks
LTP4 Themes
• Tackling climate change and enhancing our local environment
• Safer, healthier and more active travel
• Make public transport accessible for all
• Keeping East Sussex connected
Cycle Lewes Commentary
Insert under Vision, Objectives and Outcomes Section B in survey:
1. There is a dichotomy between keeping us connected across the County and place-making, especially when it comes to travel connections using motor vehicles. People want to get from A to B and 60% of journeys are by car. But communities also hate the increasing number of noisy, polluting cars rat-running and speeding through our towns and villages making it unpleasant to live and difficult to enjoy life and unsafe to walk or cycle or to allow our children to do so. This impacts on our health and pleasure in where we live; people feel unsafe to walk and cycle or to allow their children to do so
2. LTP4 goes some way to addressing this dichotomy by at least including place-making (under Safer, healthier and more active travel) and including conserving and enhancing our local environment as an objective. But it is the last objective and theme above which stands out, particularly improving journey times and reliability. This could be achieved by taking some cars off the roads. Instead it will mean more, bigger roads (A22 around Uckfield and A259 in particular get a mention) and so will mean more traffic moving through our towns and villages to the detriment of the people who live there.
3. Using public transport and active travel (walking and cycling) are the obvious answers but we are increasingly getting out of the habit of using those modes of travel as the car (and van deliveries) seems so convenient. And there is nothing promised in LTP4 to change this.
4. LTP4 does have an objective of increasing active travel but one is left feeling this was included – as was reducing carbon – because it is something that must be included rather than any real commitment to it.
Insert under Implementation Plans, Section D in survey
5. Are there any plans to get us anywhere close to the 15 minute neighbourhood by demanding a change in the way we design and locate our schools, services and shops and housing developments? It does not feel that way. Developments within existing urban areas, ideally on brownfield sites, should be prioritised over developments on greenfield sites to mitigate car use. Ok there is mention of “sustainable and well-connected housing and employment growth” but it really is only a mention. The ESCC (and National Highways) approach to the Human Nature development is symptomatic of their real approach – they want more parking and bigger roads and junctions (cycle lanes and pedestrian routes come second or third in consideration)
6. LTP4 includes improved rail and bus services but has precious little on how they will achieve that. It even includes re-opening the Uckfield to Lewes railway which seems like pure populism – easy to promise because it will never be delivered.
7. And even the lukewarm desire to get people out of their cars is not targeted at people currently travelling by car. It is about reducing future additional car journeys. And there are no real plans to achieve even that.
Insert under Support for LTP4, Section F in the survey
For LTP4 to effectively support active travel we propose:
1. The pay of the ESCC Director of Communities, Economy and Transport should be linked to getting East Sussex to improve its Active Travel ranking from 1 to at least 2 (East Sussex is one of the lowest ranked counties and should aim to up its game)
2. East Sussex, like Oxfordshire should have an ambition to create a comprehensive safe cycle network to rival the best in Europe by 2040 and that the LCWIP should be peer reviewed by officers in local authorities with high ranking Active Travel scores
3. That ESCC should say it wants to reduce the number of car journeys now and go public in saying it is favour of 15 minute neighbourhoods where services and shops are available within around a 15 minute cycle ride or walk in order to achieve this. They should be saying that the Human Nature scheme is a great example of what they want to achieve!
4. Speed limits should NOT be set by drivers (which is ESCC current policy and is reaffirmed in para 6.71 which opposes 20mph and lower speed limits generally unless they are “reasonable to drivers and reflective of the environment through which the road passes.”). Lower speed limits with signs only has been proven to work elsewhere and is a very cost effective at making streets safer for active travel.
5. If we really want to get people walking it is not just potholes that need repairing but also pavements. And pavements need to be kept free of signs, bins, vehicles and other clutter. And many pavements need to be widened to achieve a 2m minimum width. In some villages (e.g. Crowhurst) ESCC need to put footways in place because none exist forcing more people into cars to stay safe. We need to see a programme to achieve these pavement enhancements. The public realm generally requires investment and improvement, encouraging people to stay local.
6. The plan should include carbon reduction targets (for 2030, 2040 and 2050) and that all schemes then be assessed in terms of their ability to contribute positively towards the achievement of this target before funding is released – which should help to prioritise active travel schemes and make it more difficult for road schemes.
Sheila O’Sullivan
Acting Chair, Cycle Lewes
info@cyclelewes.org.uk
Nick Hanna is Chair of Sussex Greenways & a leading member of Cycle East Sussex; a coalition of cycle groups across the county. The following is taken from his blog on LPT4.
ESCC’S LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN:
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH?
By Nick Hanna
“This is a picture of Bridleway Rye/17/1, which runs from Gibbets Marsh in Rye to Dumb Woman’s Lane. It’s part of the 1066 Country Walk and National Cycle Network Route 2. It could be a wonderful local walk for Rye residents and a scenic traffic-free path where families could cycle together between Rye and Winchelsea, avoiding the A259. The path has been in an appalling state for years.
Last summer East Sussex County Council (ESCC) obtained a quote of £150,000 to re-surface it. They asked Sustrans, a cycling charity, if they could pay for it. Yes, you read that right. By contrast, in the last three years ESCC has resurfaced 2,336 miles of roadway.
ESCC is currently consulting on the East Sussex Local Transport Plan 2024 – 2050. LTP4, as it is known, will set out how they intend to “plan and provide transport for residents, businesses and visitors in East Sussex now and for future generations.” It aims to “create healthier, safer, sustainable and inclusive communities and a high-quality environment”; “tackle climate change”; and “encourage greater use of sustainable modes of transport.” But what, you may well ask, became of LTP3, which contained similar lofty ideals?
In terms of cycling provision, the answer is a big fat zero.
Active Travel England, the body charged with moving the country towards high quality infrastructure for walking, wheeling and cycling, rated every county council in England. East Sussex scored one (rumour has it, they only just scraped that). Our county council is amongst the worst performing in the country, with weak leadership and no overall plan – although those of us battling for safer cycling didn’t need to be told that. In fact, with the reduction in cycle provision in the recent Eastbourne town centre improvements, they’re literally going backwards.
Is it any wonder that, as LTP4 admits, the number of residents cycling has reduced by 33% in the last five years. Can anyone at County Hall manage to join the dots here?
In terms of providing healthy, sustainable transport choices ESCC is moving with slightly less alacrity than a tree sloth on Valium. The main difference is that the tree sloth knows that it’s going backwards.
In the last five years, ESCC has spent £166 million on roads. In the same period they spent a total of £484,000 on ‘cycle route construction’ although sadly this didn’t actually involve building anything (we assume it was spent on consultations). The last major scheme they built was in 2018, an off-road section of the Horsey Cycle Route in Eastbourne. But they didn’t pay for that either; the money came from a developer contribution.
In October 2020 ESCC published its Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) which set out “a proposed
network of cycling and walking routes”. We were initially consulted on this in 2018. Not a single route has been built. ESCC’s only commitment to the LCWIP is to review it in 2024.
Can you guess what the council’s budget is for cycle infrastructure in 2023/2024? Nothing, literally nothing. You’d think, of the £42 million they’ve budgeted for roads in the same period, that some small crumbs would be available.
‘We rely on outside funding to pay for cycling infrastructure’ they say. Why is that? As a citizen, I expect them to be spending my council taxes on what we need for a sustainable future, not going with a begging bowl to cycling charities and then using that as an excuse to do nothing. Increased storms, flooding, heatwaves, droughts: climate change is here. We need to make changes, and we need to make them fast. That’s not a message that County Hall seems to understand. Actions speak louder than words, and their lack of action speaks volumes.
In order to even begin catching up from their decade of inertia, ESCC need to start spending at least £5-10 million a year on Active Travel infrastructure from their own budget, starting now. They won’t, of course.
Do I have any faith that LTP4 will change anything? Not really. As Greta Thunberg once said, it’s just blah blah blah blah.
You can expect that Active Travel England will downgrade ESCC from 1 to 0 in their forthcoming review of local councils – they can hardly do otherwise given ESCC’s non-existent track record.
No doubt ESCC will respond to this article with fine words about ‘delivering a robust pipeline of walking and cycling schemes’. Indeed. But where is the evidence that they have the leadership, the capability or the willingness to do this? Just keep asking that one question, if you do nothing else. And bear these two simple figures in mind, covering the previous five years:
Roads budget: £166 million.
Cycle routes built: 0