Mismatch between vision for sustainability and road building projects

CPRE Sussex response to the consultation on the draft Transport for the South East transport strategy 

We are deeply concerned by the apparently yawning gulf between the largely commendable vision, goals and principles set out in the main strategy document, and the proposed projects seemingly to be delivered under it, as set out in the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal.

We very much welcome the visionary focus on world-leading sustainable and network zero connectivity, and the proposed shift from ‘predict and provide’ to ‘vision and validate’, modal shift based on a hierarchy that prioritises pedestrians, cyclists and public transport over cars, and with environmental net gain at its heart.

It is hard to see how these principles would lead to a focus on high levels of additional road building, especially along an A27 corridor that has already seen significant investment, while east-west rail, bus services and walking/wheeling/cycling infrastructure has languished. Yet this is seemingly still a significant focus, with little evidence provided as to the supposed economic benefits.

 At CPRE Sussex, the peace and tranquility of our countryside, the preservation of dark skies, and the protection of our rural landscapes – including, but not limited to, the South Downs National Park and the National Landscapes in the High Weald and Chichester Harbour are paramount. There is seemingly little recognition of the huge value (not only in direct economic terms, but to health and wellbeing) contained within the projects apparently prioritised under the strategy.

 Likewise, with climate change representing the biggest single threat to the countryside, rapid decarbonisation – and adaptation to the changes that are unavoidable – must be a key priority. Unless we address these realities, any short term economic growth will prove illusory. This is seemingly recognised in the strategic principles, and yet discarded in the projects that will apparently be delivered under it.

 There also appears to be a disproportionate focus on grand building schemes and longer distance connectivity over more localised investment in safer active travel schemes and public transport such as rural bus services. Restoring Sussex’s much depleted village and town bus services and enabling more people to walk and cycle safely from villages to nearby towns will open up greater economic and wellbeing opportunities for those most in need, and for a lesser cost, than major projects to shave a few minutes off major car commutes.

 Finally, we are concerned about the lack of read-across from this transport strategy to wider housing and planning proposals for the region. We commend and endorse the response to the consultation from the Transport Action Network overall, but would particularly reiterate their comments on this issue:

“We strongly support the need to site new development with high quality public transport and active travel links, or with the potential to extend high quality links to the site, not just tokenistic provision as happens all too often at present. But what does focussing development in areas with ‘robust transport infrastructure’ mean? It should be defined as public transport infrastructure in the first place, or this could lead to developments near large roads, away from services, resulting in a big increase in car journeys. The main outcome that we question in this section is the focus on locating new development within 1,500m of high-frequency public transport. Aside from there being no definition of high frequency – we would suggest a minimum of 5 services an hour (one every 12 minutes) – 1,500m is too far. The high frequency public transport needs to extend to the edge, if not come through a development site, so that all houses (and workplaces) are less than 400m from high frequency bus services. A longer distance might be acceptable for a railway station, but then high quality active travel and high frequency bus services need to be provided to the station. Otherwise the public transport offer will be ignored and people will drive.”

In short, we would like to see the bold vision and principles set out in the draft strategy followed through to their logical conclusion in terms of implementation. To our mind this would a de-prioritisation of major road schemes, and a focus on integrated active travel and public transport investment (plus infrastructure such as superfast rural broadband that reduces the need for travel) that emphasises the needs of lower-income rural communities, protects and enhances our beautiful landscapes and places the wellbeing that flows from net zero and nature ahead of unfocused and abstract ‘growth’.

We trust that this logical realignment will be realised in the final version of the Strategy.