Is a £40 million 'roads only' scheme in West Sussex fit for purpose?

West Sussex County Council (WSCC) Planning Committee have before them a planning application under reference WSCC/052/20  for a road scheme on land to the north of Eastergate and north-west of Barnham, PO22 0D at their Planning and Rights of Way Committee on Tuesday, 29th June, 2021 10.30 am -  in a few days time.

I respectfully suggest that this £40+ million road scheme should be referred back to be replaced by a sustainable transport version that will help us meet our climate change commitments and provide integrated bus and active travel support for walking and cycling. If you agree that the scheme should be referred back please send an email to the committee members - see the list below.

The estimated cost of the scheme, at out-turn prices (excluding non-recoverable VAT), is £54.2m. [For Phase 1 (North) the estimated cost is £11.6m and for Phase 2 (South) the estimated cost is £42.6m]. 

CLICK HERE to read the Business Case   

CLICK HERE for the committee papers 

CLICK HERE to read about the scheme and watch a video of the proposed road

The £40+ million could be better spent on providing better bus services, bus infrastructure, integrated green cycle and walking routes, safe crossing where pedestrians don't have to dodge traffic, green car free bridges, safer paths for access to schools and access to rail stations.   

More roads - More traffic

When a new road is built, new traffic will divert onto it. Many people may make new trips they would otherwise not make, and will travel longer distances just because of the presence of the new road. This well-known and long-established effect is known as 'induced traffic'.

Business Case - fit for purpose?

The business case focuses on car and lorry transport with all the tables of figures relating to proving the case for motorized vehicle transport. In the 161 page of the business case it only mentions buses twice, cycling on only six pages. It only mentions disabled users once and doesn't mention mobility users at all! The references to all of these have no serious infrastructure proposals. There are no substantial sustainable transport offerings.  

The business case does not offer solutions to increased roadside emissions. How are we going to meet the Government’s commitment to net zero emissions in less than 30 years with road schemes like this? Please remember transport accounted for 30% of all carbon dioxide emissions CO2. The large majority of emissions from transport are from road transport.

Pollution from vehicle emissions & tackling climate change

All of this must be set against the backcloth of the UK’s commitment to tackle climate change. In 2020 transport accounted for 29.8% of all carbon dioxide emissions CO2. The large majority of emissions from transport are from road transport! How can WSCC approve a road scheme that will encourage CO2 emissions?  

Councils must take account of latest Government policy

The rationale for the business case uses a government paper published in 2011. The business case should be revised taking account of:  

• UK Gov policy paper - A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment (pub Jan 2018) 
  
  
• DfT's policy paper - Decarbonising transport: setting the challenge (pub March 2020) 
  
  
• UK Gov policy paper: Gear change: a bold vision for cycling and walking (see below)

• Bus Back Better: national bus strategy for England (see below)
  
  

 >> See my background notes below for more information on the above

WSCC Planning Committee Members: 

CLICK HERE to see the committee members full details on WSCC web site. I have extracted their emails as below to help with emailing them:

Councillor Richard Burrett (Chairman)  richard.burrett@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Noel Atkins (Vice-Chairman) noel.atkins@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Zack Ali zack.ali@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Janet Duncton janet.duncton@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Ian Gibson ian.gibson@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Dawn Hall dawn.hall@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Julian Joy julian.joy@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Sean McDonald sean.mcdonald@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Pieter Montyn pieter.montyn@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Simon Oakley simon.oakley@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Ashvin Patel ashvin.patel@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Brian Quinn brian.quinn@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Sarah Sharp sarah.sharp@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Kevin Boram (Substitute) kevin.boram@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Richard Cherry (Substitute) richard.cherry@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Bruce Forbes (Substitute) bruce.forbes@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Charlotte Kenyon (Substitute) charlotte.kenyon@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Mike Magill (Substitute) mike.magill@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Gary Markwell (Substitute) Councillor Gary Markwell gary.markwell@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor John Turley john.turley@westsussex.gov.uk,

Councillor Sujan Wickremaratchi sujan.wickremaratchi@westsussex.gov.uk,

--------------------------------

 

BACKGROUND NOTES

 

WSCC Business Case 

 

References regarding buses, cycling and disabled users in the business plan.

On page 14 - 2.2.4 PROVISION FOR OTHER USERS

2.2.5 The scheme also provides opportunities for more journeys to be made by cycle and on foot through the provision of:

• Footways and cycleways;
• Links to existing Public Rights of Way (PROWs) as appropriate;
• Bus links; and
• Link to Barnham Railway Station.

And on page 14: Transport Operators (bus companies, freight associations)

Interest in issues surrounding transport companies such as route changes and disruption due to construction. WSCC’s senior manager or the Project Manager will meet with organisations as required.

Page 2: cycle and pedestrian facilities 

Page 5: Cycle, pedestrian and equestrian facilities along the route have also been considered. 

Page 14; A combined cycleway/footway green corridor for the entire length of the A29 realignment. In some locations where development is only planned on one side the combined cycleway/footway will provide infrastructure that side of the development only;  Provision of verges and planting of trees between the carriageway and combined cycleway/footway; 

Page 29: Phase 1 (Northern Section) – Delivered first. Provision of new cycle and pedestrian facilities; 

Page 30; Phase 2 (Southern Section) – Construction following completion of Phase 1 (North) Provision of cycle and pedestrian facilities; and connection to a new dedicated pedestrian / cycle link planned as part of the associated strategic development; 

Page 90: 4.8.18.1 Physical activity

4.8.19 The volume of cyclists and pedestrians affected by the scheme (based on informal observations) is not anticipated to be significant. However, improved cycle and pedestrian facilities will be provided by the scheme with a shared cycle/pedestrian path proposed along the route benefiting those who do use them. Appropriate crossing facilities will also be incorporated at intersections or provided by the associated strategic development. 

Page 121: Interest in promoting equestrian, cyclists and walkers use within the scope of the A29 scheme. A variety of communications tools will be used including face to face meetings, letters, press releases, website and public exhibition. (page 121)

Page 121: Disabled Group/s - Interest in creating a more accessible environment through scheme development and design. A variety of communications tools will be used including face to face 

Transport Emissions:

All of this must be set against the backcloth of the UK’s commitment to tackle climate change. The government has set “historic” targets on the climate crisis but has failed so far to come up with the policies needed to reach them, the Government’s independent advisers on theclimate have warned. 

The Climate Change Committee (CCC) published two progress reports on Thursday, showing the UK lagging behind on its key goal of 78% cuts to greenhouse gases by 2035 and making recommendations on how to get back on track. 

The government is to host vital UN climate talks this November in Glasgow, called Cop26, at which all countries will be asked to come up with concrete plans to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. The CCC chair warned that if the UK did not have its own clear roadmap and policies, other countries would not come forward with credible plans. Greenhouse gas emissions plunged last year, but because of the impacts of the pandemic rather than policy. The committee found that while emissions from energy generation had fallen sharply in recent years, those from other key sectors – transport, buildings, industry and agriculture – were not coming down in line with the targets.

In 2020 transport accounted for 29.8% of all carbon dioxide emissions CO2. The large majority of emissions from transport are from road transport. See: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/972583/2020_Provisional_emissions_statistics_report.pdf 

 

Gear change: a bold vision for cycling and walking 

This document opens by saying: 

Actions, not just words

To make England an active travel nation, we need to take action to tackle the main barriers. We need to attract people to active travel by building better quality infrastructure, making streets better for everyone, and we need to make sure people feel safe and confident cycling. To deliver this, we need to ensure active travel is embedded in wider policy making, and want to encourage and empower local authorities to take bold decisions.

 

It goes on to say:

Putting cycling and walking at the heart of transport, place-making, and health policy (page 23)

Direct routes for cycling in towns and cities, physically separated from pedestrians and volume motor traffic, serving the places that people want to go. (page 16)

Cycles must be treated as vehicles, not as pedestrians. New cycle provision which involves sharing space with pedestrians, including at crossings, will no longer be funded. Again, we want many of the existing facilities to be upgraded with physical separation. Clear and regular direction signing is key to getting people walking and cycling, and to helping people understand that, particularly in urban areas, it really isn’t that far. (page 17)

For example, a small number of routes from key suburbs into a city could become bus and cycling corridors, while the other main roads remained through routes for motorists. (page 17)

Inadequate cycling infrastructure discourages cycling and wastes public money. Much of the cycling infrastructure in this country is inadequate. It reflects a belief, conscious or otherwise, that hardly anyone cycles, that cycling is unimportant and that cycles must take no meaningful space from more important road users, such as motor vehicles and pedestrians. It offers little protection from motor traffic and gives up at the points where any difficulty is faced or inconvenience to motorists is risked. These are often, of course, precisely the places where cycling provision is most needed. (page 20)

Key design principles

Cycling is or will become mass transit and must be treated as such. Routes must be designed for larger numbers of cyclists, for users of all abilities and disabilities. (page 21)

To receive Government funding for local highways investment where the main element is not cycling or walking improvements, there will be a presumption that all new schemes will deliver or improve cycling infrastructure to the new standards laid down, (Page 24)

Aspects of cost-benefit analysis may still undervalue cycle schemes’ longer term benefits, such as journey quality benefits from segregated cycle lanes and health benefits. (page 25)

While many local plans already say the right things, they are not always followed consistently in planning decisions. Developments often do little or nothing meaningful to enable cycling and walking. Sometimes they make cycling and walking provision worse. We want new developments to be easily and safely accessible and navigable by foot and bike, and to make existing cycling and walking provision better. (page 26)

Bus Back Better: national bus strategy for England

References: 

By the end of October 2021 each LTA will need to publish a local Bus Service Improvement Plan. Each plan will need to be updated annually and reflected in the authority’s Local Transport Plan  (Page 2)  

Outside London, with a few exceptions, that lesson has not been learned. For governments of all colours before this one, the bus has been last in the queue, with a fraction of the investment and political attention given to other, shinier things. Traffic has increased, but bus priority has stagnated, and some councils are actually taking bus lanes out. As services get slower, they become more expensive to run and less attractive to passengers. (page 4)

There should be significant investment in bus priority – bus lanes, at a minimum. (page 45)

We expect to see plans for bus lanes on any roads where there is frequent bus service, congestion, and physical space to install one. Bus lanes should be full-time and as continuous as possible. They should be part of a whole corridor approach, including other physical measures such as:

• Traffic signal priority;

• Bus gates, which allow buses to enter a road that prohibits access to other

traffic; and;

• Clear and consistent signage. (page 46)