|
Report to: |
Cabinet
|
|
Date of meeting:
|
29 September 2022 |
|
By: |
Director of Communities, Economy and Transport
|
|
Title: |
Draft response to Transport for the South East’s (TfSE) Strategic Investment Plan (SIP)
|
|
Purpose: |
To advise Cabinet of the County Council’s response to TfSE’s consultation on their draft SIP. |
RECOMMENDATION:
Cabinet is requested to consider and approve the County Council’s draft proposed response to the TfSE consultation on their draft SIP as out in paragraphs 2.11 – 2.28.
1 Background Information
Establishment of TfSE
1.1 Transport for the South East (TfSE) is the Sub-national Transport Body (STB) for the South East of England. Established in 2017, TfSE is made up of 16 local transport authorities (including Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Kent, Medway, Portsmouth, Southampton, Surrey, and West Sussex and the six unitary authorities of Berkshire) five local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) plus representatives of district & borough authorities, protected landscapes, and national delivery agencies such as Network Rail and National Highways (formerly Highways England).
1.2 Its purpose is to determine the transport infrastructure needs required to boost the region’s economy and to communicate these priorities and the case for investment in the South East with ‘one voice’ to government.
TfSE Transport Strategy
1.3 The work of TfSE was launched with an initial focus on the development of an ambitious Transport Strategy. The County Council alongside other local authorities and key partners were critical in providing input into the development of this and it was published in summer 2020 - TfSE-transport-strategy-Summary-Document.pdf (transportforthesoutheast.org.uk).
1.4 The Strategy sets out a shared vision for a ‘better connected, more prosperous and a more sustainable South East by 2050’. The vision is underpinned by three strategic goals:
· Environment – protect and enhance the South East’s unique natural and historic environment including reducing carbon emission to net zero by 2050 at the latest
· Social – improve health, safety, wellbeing, quality of life and access to opportunities for everyone
· Economic – improve productivity and attract investment to grow our economy and better compete in the global marketplace
Area and thematic based studies
1.5 Following the adoption of their Transport Strategy, TfSE have undertaken a series of geographic based studies focussed on the most important economic corridors in the region alongside several thematic studies relating to Decarbonisation, Levelling Up, Rail, Bus Mass Transit & Shared Mobility, Strategic Active Travel & Micromobility and Highways. Fundamentally the outcome of the area studies and thematic studies have supported the identification of the transport interventions in specific areas of the TfSE geography and global policy initiatives which has formed the basis for the TfSE Strategic Investment Plan (SIP).
SIP’s Strategic Fit with Council Priorities
1.6 The SIP will be at the forefront of taking positive action to support several current and long-term challenges and opportunities including climate change, economic recovery and growth alongside supporting improvements to quality of life, health and wellbeing. This will provide opportunities and benefits to businesses and residents in East Sussex and the south-east, both immediately and in medium / long term future.
1.7 It will align with the County Councils’ four core priorities and will influence the emerging Local Transport Plan (LTP4). It also has good synergy with the Environment Plan, the East Sussex Climate Emergency Plan, the East Sussex Whole System Healthy Weight Plan, the Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan, the Bus Service Improvement Plan, the East Sussex Growth Strategy, as well as the District & Borough Local Plans.
2 Supporting Information
Introduction
2.1 TfSE’s SIP provides a framework for delivering their Transport Strategy by outlining the structure for investment in strategic transport infrastructure, services, and regulatory interventions to 2050. As set out in the legislation to establish STBs, the SIP as a regional plan is intended to provide advice to the Secretary of State for Transport on the investment priorities across the TfSE geography. This is underpinned by a robust evidence base which will also support and link to partner’s own local strategies and plans such as Local Transport Plans.
2.2 The SIP is supported by eight investment priorities. These comprise of four high level ‘policy-based investment priorities – ‘Decarbonisation & Environment; Adapting to a new normal; Levelling up left behind communities, and Regeneration & Growth’ - alongside four ‘transport related investment priorities - World class urban transport systems; Transforming east- west connectivity; Resilient radial corridors and Global gateways and freight’.
Investment Packages
2.3 The draft SIP outlines two types of investment packages. Firstly, the global policy interventions package which consist of national regulatory and policy activity which will be delivered across the South East such as:
· decarbonising transport to deliver a faster trajectory towards net-zero than current trends
· making the cost of public transport fares more attractivealongside ticketing integration between modes and providers
· new mobility such as electric bikes/scooter hire schemes in key towns and communities which are integrated with other modes
· virtual access to help reduce demand for transport services
· integration across and between all modes of transport in terms of infrastructure, services, ticketing, and accessibility
· road user charging as an alternative source of funding to fuel duty which will reduce from 2030 with the proposed ban on petrol/diesel vehicles being sold
2.4 Secondly there are the place-based packages of multi modal (highways, rail, mass transit/bus, active travel) interventions with three of the four area packages covering parts of East Sussex:
· Solent and Sussex Coast – A27/A259 and Coastway rail corridors
· London - Sussex Coast – M23/A23, A22, A26 and A272, and Brighton Mainline, Uckfield rail corridors
· Kent, Medway and East Sussex – A21, A259 east of Hastings and Marshlink rail corridors
2.5 The content of each of these packages is set out in Appendix 1.
2.6 The SIP highlights that the estimated total capital cost of the overall investment packages for the South East is £45 billion over 27 years. This equates to about £1.5bn a year, which is broadly in alignment with current investment levels in transport in the south east. This would deliver 21,000 additional new jobs; an additional £4bn in GVA each year by 2050 and result in a reduction of 1.4 mega tonnes of CO2 being emitted.
Funding and Financing
2.8 Interventions which support strategic connectivity are largely funded through use of farebox revenues and government grants or competitive bids. These funders are facing competing priorities, national challenges, and technological change in transport which will have an impact on their ability to provide future funding. However, the SIP recognises that an element of this funding is likely to remain, especially government funding for both rail (Network Rail) and road (National Highways) and local authority grant programmes for public transport and active travel.
2.9 Considering the likely funding challenges outlined above which the SIP is recommending more innovative funding solutions will need to be explored, A wide range of beneficiaries including the business sector, education sector, and local communities across the South East will benefit from a significant uplift across the South East in productivity and employment, a reduction in environmental impacts and improvements to quality of place as referred to in section 2.6.
2.10. Therefore, TfSE is recommending that the case be explored for developing a fair and proportionate contribution from the beneficiary groups identified above. However, this will require significant partnership working with the full spectrum of these beneficiaries alongside the likely need for nationwide reform of local funding powers. This would need to involve tools to enable the monetisation of the share of the specific value that a project would deliver to beneficiary groups to either supplement government funding or eventually replace this.
County Council response to TfSE SIP consultation
2.11 TfSE’s public consultation on its SIP commenced on 20 June 2022 and runs to 12 September 2022. A report will be presented to the County Council’s Cabinet on 29 September with the County Council’s proposed response. Given this is after the end of the consultation, the County Council’s proposed consultation response will be submitted by 12 September 2022 to TfSE as an interim response which will be updated as necessary following consideration by Cabinet. TfSE have been notified of this.
2.12 The County Council response to the TfSE SIP consultation is outlined in Appendix 2. The response is summarised below:
SIP making best case possible for investing in transport infrastructure
2.14 It is important to note that the TfSE Strategy and SIP will be reflected in the forthcoming review of our Local Transport Plan and will be used to help shape our transport policies and the inclusion of strategic interventions identified within the SIP investment packages.
SIP Investment Priorities
2.16 Regarding the outcome-based transport priorities, our proposed response highlights the importance of these in support of the integration between transport and land use planning across the county. Whilst we agree with the priorities, we do suggest that clarification is included in the SIP in relation to the differences and inter-relationship between the initial four policy-based priorities and the four transport related investment priorities.
SIP Place Based intervention packages
2.17 We are fully supportive of the place-based packages of interventions for the Solent and Sussex Coast area and agree that the proposed interventions will deliver the priorities of the SIP. We welcome the benefits that this package will provide for East Sussex in terms of strengthening east-west connectivity, the resilience of the strategic and local highway network, supporting wider strategies to level up our coastal communities and unlock opportunities for active travel to support greater social inclusion, health, and wellbeing.
2.18 For East Sussex, we welcome the inclusion of a comprehensive solution for the A27 Lewes – Polegate alongside multi modal measures for the A259 South Coast Corridor. We also support the inclusion of Sussex Coast Mass transit from Brighton through to Newhaven alongside active travel measures. This will align with the County Councils investment plans for Bus Service Improvement Plan, which recently secured over £41m of government funding and the East Sussex Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan.
2.19 Likewise we fully support the place-based packages of interventions for the London - Sussex Coast area and agree these will deliver the priorities in the SIP. We strongly support the benefits that this will bring in providing multi modal improvements across our networks especially for rail, supporting both greater connectivity, particularly for inter urban journeys and crucially providing greater resilience. For East Sussex we welcome the measures to provide an appropriate alternative option to the Brighton mainline.
2.20 We welcome the inclusion of the Lewes-Uckfield reinstatement and the potential strategic transport hub, linking rail, bus and road, near Eastbourne in this package. Highway improvements on the A22 corridor, which forms part of the Major Road Network, and mass transit improvements combined with measures for active travel on the key corridors of movement in the Eastbourne/South Wealden area will support housing and employment growth coming forward within these areas alongside improving access and safety for more rural settlements.
2.21 We also support the place-based packages of interventions for the Kent, Medway and East Sussex area, which will especially support the SIP priority of levelling up and addressing the multiple deprivation issues of our coastal communities. Therefore, we strongly agree with the inclusion of High Speed 1 ‘Marshlink’ Hastings, Bexhill & Eastbourne upgrade which will support levelling up the economy of these communities compared to our parts of the TfSE geography.
2.22 We also welcome the safety, community and economic benefits that this package will provide with the inclusion of the A21 safety improvements, the dualling of between Kippings Cross and Lamberhurst and the Flimwell and Hurst Green bypasses, which will remove strategic traffic away from local services, including a primary school, and reduce community severance.
2.23 The proposed inclusion of new highway interventions north of the Bexhill and Hastings area will open up place making opportunities, the promotion of active travel measures and reduce existing severance issues along the A259 coast road which traverses both settlements. Therefore, our response suggests that the active travel intervention packages for Bexhill, Hastings and Eastbourne also includes reference to place making as well in a similar vein to settlements (Dover, Medway, Canterbury) in Kent.
SIP Global Policy intervention package
2.26 Whilst the SIP is a strategic document, we have also highlighted that ongoing revenue funding will be required to incentivise and enable travel behaviour change. We have suggested that travel behaviour change is given greater prominence throughout the SIP in order to fully realise and compliment the benefits of the infrastructure, service improvements and regulatory interventions.
Costs and benefits of proposed packages
2.27 The SIP sets out the costs and benefits of the proposed packages. We agree that this has been captured adequately considering the current stage of design of the packages of interventions. However, the proposed response asks whether the impact of the Covid 19 pandemic has been factored into the assessments, that this is referenced in the SIP and suggesting that this is factored into future assessments. We also suggest that a caveat should be included within the SIP that the estimated costs are indicative and treated with caution, given the current economic conditions and the impact that this is having on the costs of scheme development and delivery.
Integrated Sustainability Appraisal
2.28 An Integrated Sustainability Appraisal has been undertaken as part of the development of the SIP, including a Strategic Environmental Assessment, Health Impact Assessment and Habitats Regulation Assessment. In the proposed response, we agree that the level of assessment undertaken is appropriate at this stage. We also welcome that this has been initiated from the outset and recognise the need for Local Transport Authorities, who are promoting schemes identified in the draft SIP, to undertake further and appropriate assessments on environment impact and equalities as they come forward. The response recognises the importance of this for East Sussex with its landscape and environmental designations, of both national and international significance.
3 Conclusion and Reasons for Recommendations
3.1 The transport and global policy interventions identified in the TfSE Strategic Investment Plan will deliver significant change in the county and support our key priorities specifically the levelling up of our communities who are most at need and importantly accelerate the delivery of the decarbonisation of transport. This will support greater strategic connectivity and resilience of our networks across the county and unlock opportunities for localised transport measures for public transport and active travel to support greater social inclusion, health, and wellbeing. As outlined in paragraph 2.13, the TfSE Strategy and SIP will also support policy development and the identification of strategic transport interventions as part of the current review of our Local Transport Plan, which will be undertaken during the next eighteen months.
3.2 Overall, the County Council is supportive of TfSE’s SIP as outlined in our draft response in Appendix 2 and summarised in paragraphs 2.11 – 2.28 Cabinet is recommended to consider and approve the County Council’s draft proposed response which broadly supports the content of TfSE’s SIP.
Director of Communities, Economy and Transport
Contact Officer: Jon Wheeler
Tel. No: 01273 482212
Email: jon.wheeler@eastsussex.gov.uk
LOCAL MEMBERS
All
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
None
Appendix 1 – TfSE SIP Investment Packages
Global Policy Interventions
The following global policy interventions are designed to address the challenges and opportunities that affect the whole of the south east and the wider UK. These include existential challenges such as global warming and opportunities such as new mobility technologies.
The key global policy interventions that would help deliver the investment priorities in the south east are:
|
Intervention |
Measures |
|
Decarbonisation |
Involving rapid adoption of zero emission technologies to decarbonise transport |
|
Public Transport Fares |
Making the cost of public transport attractive compared to motoring |
|
New Mobility |
The use and promotion of technologies such as electric bikes and scooters to boost active travel |
|
Road User Charging |
Encourage the UK government to develop a national road user charging system. To provide an alternative source of funding to fuel duty. |
|
Virtual Access |
Provision for virtual working to reduce travel demand |
|
Integration |
Across and between all modes of transport - infrastructure, services, ticketing and accessibility. |
Area based SIP Investment packages
Solent and Sussex Coast
The geographic extent of this package is from the New Forest in the west to Hastings in the east. For East Sussex it will strengthen east-west connectivity and resilience of the strategic and local highway network with the inclusion of the A27 Lewes – Polegate, improvements to the A259 South Coast Road Corridor – Eastbourne – Brighton. It will extend Mass Transit along the Sussex Coast alongside local cycling and walking infrastructure to support strategic active travel.
|
Solent and Sussex Coast |
|
|
Type of measure |
Scheme & Location |
|
Mass Transit |
Falmer Strategic Mobility Hub |
|
Eastbourne/Polegate Strategic Mobility Hub |
|
|
Sussex Coast Mass Rapid Transit |
|
|
Eastbourne/ South Wealden Mass Rapid Transit |
|
|
Hastings/Bexhill Mass Rapid Transit |
|
|
A27 Falmer – Polegate Lay Bus Stop & Layby improvements |
|
|
Active Travel |
Sussex Coast Active Travel Enhancements – including LCWIPs |
|
Highways |
A27 East of Lewes – smaller interventions package (Roads Investment Strategy 1/2 scheme) |
|
A27 Lewes – Polegate (Roads Investment Strategy 3 pipeline scheme) |
|
|
A259 South Coast Road Corridor – Eastbourne to Brighton (existing Major Road Network scheme) |
|
|
A27 Falmer Junction Enhancements |
|
London - Sussex Coast
This package covers the key corridors between London and the Sussex Coast (from Chichester to Eastbourne) and includes five packages of interventions for this area. In East Sussex it will provide multi modal improvements across the network, supporting both greater connectivity, particularly inter urban, and crucially resilience.
Key schemes included for rail include Lewes – Uckfield reinstatement, the electrification (or other alternatives) of the Uckfield line between Uckfield and Hurst Green, and a potential strategic transport hub intercepting and linking road with rail, bus and active travel movements near Eastbourne. Highway improvements include the A22 corridor improvements in South Wealden and from Hailsham to Uckfield, and mass transit schemes on key corridors of movement. This is alongside improvements to strategic cycleways.
|
London – Sussex Coast |
|
|
Type of measure |
Scheme & Location |
|
Rail Package |
Brighton Mainline Improvements |
|
East Sussex Coastway Line – faster services |
|
|
Newhaven Port – Rail freight access |
|
|
Newhaven Port Capacity and Rail Freight Interchange |
|
|
Uckfield – Hurst Green Electrification |
|
|
Uckfield – Lewes Line Re-opening – Traction and Capacity Enhancements |
|
|
Uckfield – Lewes Line Re-opening – Reconfiguration at Lewes |
|
|
Eridge – Tunbridge Wells – re-opening of railway line – commercial service |
|
|
Active Travel |
Eastbourne/Hailsham Local cycleways |
|
Lewes/Newhaven Local cycleways |
|
|
East Sussex Inter urban cycleways |
|
|
Mass Transit
|
A26 Corridor Lewes – Tunbridge Wells (Rural bus service enhancements) |
|
A26 Corridor – Newhaven area rural bus service enhancements |
|
|
Highways |
A22 Corridor package (existing Major Road Network scheme) |
|
A22 Corridor Hailsham – Uckfield |
|
|
A22 Uckfield Bypass dualling |
|
|
A2270 – A2101 Corridor Movement and access package |
|
|
A26 Lewes – Newhaven re-alignment and junction improvements |
|
|
A26 Lewes -Uckfield enhancements |
|
Kent, Medway and East Sussex
This area covers Kent and Medway and the Hastings and Rother areas of East Sussex. For East Sussex it sets out a multi modal approach which supports regeneration and growth and levelling up, with the inclusion of the High Speed 1 ‘Marshlink’ Hastings, mass transit options for Bexhill and Hastings to encourage greater public transport usage. The package includes safety improvements on the A21 corridor as well as the dualling of the road between Kippings Cross and Lamberhurst and the Flimwell and Hurst Green bypasses.
|
Kent, Medway and East Sussex |
|
|
Type of measure |
Scheme & Location |
|
High Speed Rail |
High Speed 1/Marshlink’ Hastings, Bexhill & Eastbourne upgrade |
|
Active Travel |
Faversham – Canterbury – Ashford – Hastings – NCN enhancement |
|
East Sussex Local Cycleways |
|
|
East Sussex Inter urban cycle ways |
|
|
Tunbridge Wells - Hastings NCN enhancement |
|
|
Highways |
A21 Pembury – Hastings Safety enhancements (RIS2 scheme) |
|
A259 Level crossing removal – east of Rye |
|
|
A21 Kippings Cross – Lamberhurst – dualling and Flimwell and Hurst Green Bypasses |
|
|
Hastings and Bexhill distributor roads |
|
East Sussex County Council (ESCC)
(Draft) Response to the Transport for the South East (TfSE) Strategic Investment Plan (SIP)
12 September 2022
Contact Officer: Jon Wheeler, Team Manager – Infrastructure Planning & Place
(jon.wheeler@eastsussex.gov.uk)
The following response to these consultation questions will be presented to ESCC Cabinet on 29 September 2022. Therefore, subject to the outcome to Cabinet approval of our draft response, we may be required to provide further updates to our responses below.
___________________________________________________________________________
Consultation Questions
Section 2: Investment Priorities
a) Which of the above investment priorities do you feel are important for the SIP to deliver? (Tick all that apply)
·
Decarbonisation
& Environment 
·
Adapting
to a New Normal
·
Levelling
Up Left Behind Communities
·
Regeneration
and Growth
·
World
Class Urban Transit System
·
East
– West Connectivity 
·
Resilient
Radial Corridor
·
Global
Gateways and Freight
b) Do you have any further comments on the SIP’s investment priorities?
We agree with the inclusion of the eight investment priorities. The initial four high level ‘policy-based investment priorities’ are critical for the region and also East Sussex. We recognise that these provide the ‘golden thread’ between national, regional, and local policies and priorities and which are associated with national funding streams. We will look to incorporate these as part of the imminent update to their Local Transport Plan (LTP).
We also recognise that these investment priorities will support delivery which is aligned with a move towards an approach for ‘planning for people and places’ which underpins both the TfSE Transport Strategy, the SIP and future iterations of LTP’s within the region. In terms of their importance, we recognise that there will be a need for greater urgency and emphasis on these four investment priorities from the outset to support the overall delivery of the SIP.
Regarding the more ‘transport related investment priorities’ we recognise that these are also important as they will support more outcome-based strategic investment for transport. We agree that they will significantly support the integration between transport and land use planning across the County, providing both strategic and more localised multi modal benefits particularly within our key growth areas where considerable housing and employment growth is coming forward.
Section 3: Packages of Interventions
For the purposes of data gathering and analysis, the TfSE region has been split into four geographies. Which of the following geographic areas are you most interested in? Please be aware that some local authority areas appear in more than one of the geographies and you may need to select more than one of the geographies if this is the case for your specific area of interest. Choose all that apply.
·
Solent and
Sussex Coast (Hampshire, Southampton, Portsmouth, Littlehampton,
Worthing, Brighton, Isle of Wight)
·
London –
Sussex Coast (Chichester to Eastbourne, Surrey, West Sussex and
East Sussex excluding the Hasting Area)
· Wessex Thames (Berkshire, Hampshire and Surrey)
·
Kent, Medway
and East Sussex (Kent, Medway, Hastings and Rother areas of East
Sussex)
Solent and Sussex Coast
a) To what extent do you agree that the packages of interventions for the Solent and Sussex Coast area will deliver on the priorities of the SIP?
·
Definitely
agree
· Somewhat agree
· Neither agree nor disagree
· Somewhat disagree
· Definitely disagree
· I’m not sure
b) Please select all of the packages for the Solent & Sussex Coast area that you feel are important in achieving the priorities of the SIP. Tick all that apply.
· South Hampshire Rail (Core)
· South Hampshire Rail (Enhanced)
· South Hampshire Mass Transit
· Isle of Wight (two Packages)
·
Sussex Coast
Rail
·
Sussex Coast
Mass Transit
·
Sussex Coast
Active Travel
·
Solent and
Sussex Coast Highways
c) Do you have any further comments on the Packages of Interventions for the Solent and Sussex Coast area?
We are fully supportive of the Solent and Sussex Coast Package as this will strengthen east-west connectivity and resilience of the strategic and local highway network from Southampton across to Eastbourne.
The inclusion of the A27 Lewes – Polegate is critical. We continue to lobby for a more comprehensive solution to come forward for this part of the strategic road network between the two towns which would support the levelling up of our coastal communities compared to our neighbours and enabling the unlocking of opportunities for sustainable transport and reducing severance for communities along the existing A27. Equally we are supportive of improvements identified for the A259 South Coast Road Corridor – Eastbourne – Brighton, which requires a multi modal approach. This will build upon the current business case being developed for the corridor for Major Route Network funding from DfT to kickstart this approach.
We welcome the evidence at this stage to extend Sussex Coast Mass transit into East Sussex alongside Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure (LCWIP) active travel measures. These measures will be a critical element of supporting the housing and employment growth coming forward in areas such as Eastbourne and South Wealden and provide a sensible and attractive approach towards supporting travel behaviour change towards public transport and active travel.
This will also align with the investment plans in bus priority and bus services coming forward as part of the ESCC Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP), which successfully secured over £41m of funding alongside a pipeline of schemes coming forward from the East Sussex LCWIP, which was approved by the County Council in September 2021.
We strongly support improvements to the urban public realm which will remove barriers to active travel, increase social inclusion, accessibility and health and wellbeing benefits. To that end, it is suggested the reference to Sussex Coast active travel enhancements (H1) is widened to include ‘Placemaking’ as well.
London – Sussex Coast
a) To what extent do you agree that the packages of interventions for the London – Sussex Coast area will deliver on the priorities of the SIP?
·
Definitely
agree
· Somewhat agree
· Neither agree nor disagree
· Somewhat disagree
· Definitely disagree
· I’m not sure
b) Please select all the packages for the London - Sussex Coast area that you feel are important in achieving the priorities of the SIP. Tick all that apply
·
London - Sussex
Coast Rail (2 Packages)
·
London - Sussex
Coast Mass Transit
·
London - Sussex
Coast Active Travel
·
London - Sussex
Coast Highways
c) Do you have any further comments on the Packages of Interventions for the London - Sussex Coast area?
We support the comprehensive London - Sussex Coast package. This provides multi modal improvements across our networks within this area of the county, supporting both greater connectivity, particularly inter urban, and crucially resilience.
We strongly support the improvements to the rail network both in and outside the county – such as improvements at East Croydon - which will benefit passengers and freight travelling within, and to/from East Sussex. We also welcome the inclusion of the Lewes – Uckfield reinstatement in the draft SIP, which would significantly increase resilience and provide an appropriate alternative option to the Brighton mainline, as well as the electrification of the Hurst Green – Uckfield section of the line. We also support the proposal for a potential strategic transport hub near Eastbourne, which opens up opportunities for intercepting journeys into Eastbourne and its hinterland, which otherwise would be undertaken by car and moving them into either bus or rail.
Similar to the Sussex and Solent Coast package, we welcome the evidence to include both highway improvements, such as the A22 corridor improvements in South Wealden and from Hailsham to Uckfield, and mass transit schemes on key corridors of movement in the county. This will support housing and employment growth coming forward within these areas alongside improving access and safety for more rural settlements. This aligns with the bus infrastructure and service improvements coming forward as part of our BSIP.
We also support improvements to the urban public realm and placemaking in the likes of Eastbourne and Newhaven which will remove barriers to active travel, increase social inclusion, accessibility reducing health inequalities and providing health and wellbeing benefits. This would build on recent and planned investment in placemaking in Eastbourne, Hailsham and Newhaven town centres through transport or economic regeneration projects. To that end, it is suggested the reference to Eastbourne/Hailsham Local Cycleways (M3) and Lewes/Newhaven Local Cycleways (M6) are widened to include ‘Active Travel and Placemaking’ as well.
Kent, Medway and East Sussex
a) To what extent do you agree that the packages of interventions for the Kent, Medway and East Sussex area will deliver on the priorities of the SIP?
·
Definitely
agree
· Somewhat agree
· Neither agree nor disagree
· Somewhat disagree
· Definitely disagree
· I’m not sure
b) Please select all of the packages for the Kent, Medway and East Sussex area that you feel are important in achieving the priorities of the SIP. Tick all that apply.
·
Kent, Medway,
and East Sussex Classic Rail
·
Kent, Medway,
and East Sussex High Speed Rail (two Packages)
·
Kent, Medway,
and East Sussex Mass Transit
·
Kent, Medway,
and East Sussex Active Travel
· Lower Thames Crossing
·
Kent, Medway,
and East Sussex Highways
c) Do you have any further comments on the Packages of Interventions for the Kent, Medway and East Sussex area?
We are supportive of the Kent, Medway, and East Sussex area package as it sets out a multi modal approach which supports regeneration and growth and levelling up within this area of the county.
The inclusion of the High Speed 1 ‘Marshlink’ Hastings, Bexhill & Eastbourne upgrade will provide considerable economic benefits to this area of the county, levelling up these coastal communities compared to our neighbouring authorities, with a significant reduction in journey times between Bexhill / Hastings and London which will increase the attractiveness of this part of the county to both live, work and visit. We also support the inclusion of considering mass transit options for Bexhill and Hastings to encourage greater public transport usage in and between the two towns.
From a safety perspective and to enable localised active travel measures to be brought forward we welcome the inclusion of the highway’s element of the package, particularly the A21 safety improvements, the dualling of between Kippings Cross and Lamberhurst and the Flimwell and Hurst Green bypasses, which will remove strategic traffic away from local services, including schools, and reduce community severance.
We recognise the importance of improving the strategic cycleways alongside local and inter urban cycleways to provide a cohesive and accessible network within this area of the county. Therefore, we are supportive of this element of the package as it is in alignment with the East Sussex LCWIP and the partnership with Sustrans to support improvements to the National Cycle Network.
We also support improvements to the urban public realm and placemaking in the likes of Hastings and Bexhill which will remove barriers to active travel, increase social inclusion, accessibility reducing health inequalities and providing health and wellbeing benefits. Schemes to reduce traffic on the A259 through Bexhill and Hastings enable greater placemaking opportunities to come forward in these two settlements.
Global Policy Package of Interventions
a) Which of the above Global Policy Interventions do you feel are important for the SIP to support? (Tick all that apply)
·
Decarbonisation
·
Public
Transport Fares
·
New
Mobility
·
Road User
Charging
·
Virtual
Access
·
Integration
b) Do you have any further comments on the SIP's Global Policy Interventions?
We agree with the inclusion of the Global Policy Interventions as they cut across the eight key investment priorities, enabling change, adding greater value to the delivery of the priorities, and potentially supporting a faster pace of delivery. We appreciate that the level of impact of these may vary across the south east, depending upon whether they are delivered individually or in combination, or they may be required at different times throughout the plan period. Therefore, they all possess a level of importance to the overall delivery of the SIP.
We particularly welcome the benefits that these interventions will provide in reducing carbon emissions, but note that many of these interventions will require, particularly local authorities, to adopt a policy of travel demand management. They may also require innovative funding solutions and certainly ongoing revenue funding to incentivise travel behaviour change. Therefore, it is suggested that this is identified more clearly in the SIP.
Section 4: Benefits and Costs
a) Do you think that the SIP captures the benefits and costs of the proposed packages of interventions adequately? Choose any one option.
·
Yes
· No
b) Please explain your answer to the above question here.
We agree that the SIP demonstrates that robust assessments have been undertaken to capture an appropriate level of benefits and costs, when considering the current stage of design of the packages of interventions. Notably the assessments to determine the costs and benefits have been developed through the utilisation of a transport and land use model which has specifically been developed for TfSE’s Strategy and SIP.
This model does appear to be both comprehensive and robust. However, it would be helpful to understand whether the impact of the Covid 19 pandemic has been factored into the reports including changes to travel patterns, volumes of movement, and mode share. If not, we would suggest that the SIP considers including a statement that requires the respective scheme promoters - local authorities, key strategic partners such as Network Rail and National Highways, or other partners such as Sustrans and potentially TfSE itself -to consider this as part of any further modelling or assessments as schemes come forward and developed in further detail.
It is also noted that the costs of interventions have been estimated using historic project data/industry standard data and adjustments to input costs. In view of the current economic conditions and the impact that this is having on materials, scheme delivery costs, labour costs and availability and the ongoing maintenance of schemes, it is suggested that the SIP should include a much clearer caveat that partners and stakeholders should consider these estimated costs with caution and that further work would be required to refine these cost estimates (up or down) as schemes come forward and are developed in more detail.
Section 5: Delivery of the SIP
a) To what extent do you agree that, as a whole, the packages of interventions will deliver on the priorities of the SIP?
·
Definitely
agree
· Somewhat agree
· Neither agree nor disagree
· Somewhat disagree
· Definitely disagree
Section 6: Integrated Sustainability Appraisal and Conclusion
a) Do you have any comments on the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal?
The ISA combines several assessment processes including Strategic Environmental Assessment, Health Impact Assessment, and the Habitats Regulation Assessment. Taking into consideration the stage of the interventions identified in the SIP, we would agree that the level of assessment undertaken is appropriate.
The integrated Sustainability Appraisal is comprehensive and importantly it demonstrates that it was initiated at an early stage of the development of the SIP during the evidence base review to enable areas of concern to be identified early in the ISA process.
It clearly demonstrates that an appropriate methodology has been utilised where relevant local environmental policy was identified for each Area Study alongside relevant social, economic and transport data. We agree how this information has been used as part of a Multi-Criteria Assessment Framework (MCAF) to determine how well national and regional sustainability policies aligned with each of the interventions, and how this has supported further appraisal to inform mitigation.
We welcome the recognition, alongside the mitigation of the mechanisms required, for undertaking further assessments and appraisals as individual or packages of schemes come forward. East Sussex is covered by landscape and environmental designations, of both national and international significance, and we recognise the necessity of undertaking further assessments to either remove or reduce impacts to these environments and on our population’s health as and when transport interventions identified in the SIP are developed in the county. It is acknowledged that as a high-level plan the overall SIP will have generally positive impacts on health and wellbeing.
b) Overall, to what extent do you agree that the SIP makes the best case possible for investing in transport infrastructure in the South East?
·
Definitely
agree
· Somewhat agree
· Neither agree nor disagree
· Somewhat disagree
· Definitely disagree
· I’m not sure
Additional comments
Equalities and Inclusion
We request greater reference to equalities and inclusion for people with protected characteristics during the development and delivery of infrastructure measures and interventions. It is recommended that this is referred to as early as possible within the document, but certainly in relation to the investment packages.
Travel Behaviour Change
The SIP does mention the ongoing revenue funding which will be required to incentivise and enable travel behaviour change specifically within the Global Policy Package of Interventions section. However, whilst we realise that this is a strategic document with travel behaviour change being critical to the success of several of the interventions, it is recommended that the need for travel behaviour change is mentioned earlier in the document within the introductory section.
Consultation
Just a brief comment in regard to consultation and the opportunities to consult with young people, particularly in regard to interventions within the Global Policy Package of Interventions, focussed on smarter mobility and the influence of this on future travel and transport.