Words into Action: Brighton and Hove budgets for sustainable transport, but is it enough to change people's transport habits?

Looking east along Old Shoreham Road: new cycle lane with raised kerb 20 Mar 2012

Brighton and Hove City Council released its 2012-13 Local Transport Plan capital budget on 15 March 2012 (link to download below). The budget lays out how £6.46m of capital will be spent over the next year with allocations for the following two years. This compares with £3.34m in 2011/12, £3.02m in 2010/11 and £5.79m in 2009/10. It is good to see progress - at a time when not much tangible seems to be happening - but I fear it won't be enough to show the benefits of sustainable transport. So the goal of a significant shift to sustainable transport won't happen. Yet.

Real priorities are funded in the Plan, including Lewes Road and Dyke Road cycle lanes, and expansion of area-wide 20 mph limits. The Plan contains real progress, but it doesn't promise a sustainable transport network throughout the city so I'm not convinced that it will improve public transport and cycling links enough to achieve a substantial 'modal shift' in the way people travel around the city.

Cycle lane - mixed use at bridge pinch point

I know it is a case of limited funds and limited political power. But we should remind ourselves of the objectives, and real possibilities that have worked in other cities. So I re-state the case for a East-West Sustainable Transport Corridor in Brighton and Hove (already outlined in the year 2000 Local Transport Plan 2).

Here is a (maybe radical) idea for testing the idea of a Sustainable Transport Corridor. We have already temporarily closed the Old Shoreham Road to construct a cycle lane. Can we extend the experiment by keeping the bridge over the railway (by Silverdale Road) closed to private cars? Only open to buses, cycles, walkers, taxis, local trades, emergency traffic etc. Introduce rapid (limited stop) buses along the route and make rapid public transport from Mile Oak to Brighton Central a realistic alternative to cars? We could show the public that sustainable transport is about more than just cycling.

There is already sustainable transport action in the city - I live near the Old Shoreham Road cycle lane construction scheme, and I (among others) have cycled along the new cycle lanes though they're not yet officially open. The widened cycle lanes give cyclists like me a much better feeling not just of safety but of room to "be" - a sort of confidence in being a cyclist, rather than a marginalised eccentric in a torrent of dangerous traffic. The space for car traffic is reduced. There may be complaints that this reduced space slows traffic. But right now it's closed and there is no traffic. The city survives. Boys play football on the Old Shoreham Road and it feels great to be car-free.

So this might be a good time to argue that the Old Shoreham Road should not be seen as an 'artery' for private motor traffic in greater Brighton-Hove-Portslade. We have the A27 bypass for people who want to drive between the suburbs. We want to reduce rat-run commuter traffic traffic in our residential areas because it is dangerous for children and cyclists. But it seems cars are the only fast way to get about town. We need a Rapid Bus Transport route. Could we re-propose the Old Shoreham Road become a Sustainable Transport corridor, where it's fast, safe and pleasant to cycle, walk and use buses? I guess these preliminary moves on Old Shoreham Road might turn out to be a first step in this direction. We don't need to jump at an untried 'Sustainable Transport Corridor' if we can implement and test it step by step.

We might make the transition easier if we engage motorists with planning alternative routes. I spoke to a lady who said it took an hour for her to drive from her home in Portslade to her job in Central Brighton the other day - including parking (in free-parking QP/Hanover). She says she lives too far from Portslade station to use the train. Can we show we do respect car drivers by talking to her of the alternatives: use the A27 and park for free. Or catch a bus and train... already we know that bus-train will involve long waits and slow buses... we're back to the need for a rapid bus. Likewise it can take an hour by bus from central Hove to Woodingdean or Moulescomb depending on your luck with traffic and connections.

So we need an east-west sustainable transport corridor, with feeds from the suburbs such as Mile Oak - maybe with with a fork running up the Lewes Road and to the Deans. It's not enough to say, as Mary Mears did, that there's a perfectly good cycle route along the coast. Most people don't live or work close to that route. It needs to be a transport backbone rather than on the edges of the city. There's stuff to work out. Lots of people don't like cycling. Try cycling to Woodingdean from central Brighton - the hills! Could we provide buses with cycle space? Many people don't cycle so rapid public transport is key to a sustainable transport corridor.

If handled right a Sustainable Transport Corridor might be acceptable to motorists and cyclists as an experiment, especially considering the road is already closed. Rapid buses would need to be provided. It would be good to show that the vision behind sustainable transport is more than a cycle lane in congested traffic.

Link to Brighton and Hove City Council Local Transport Plan Capital Programme 2012/13

Brighton's Lewes Road Corridor sustainable transport project given the go ahead with £4m of government funding

Cllr Davey leads cycle campaign Feb 2011

5 July 2011. Brighton's Lewes Road Corridor project secured £4m funding from the Department for Transport's Local Sustainable Transport Fund, it was announced today.

The Brighton project was one of 39 sustainable transport schemes across England that were given the go ahead as part of a £155 million Government investment aimed at boosting economic growth and reducing carbon emissions.

Cabinet member for transport in Brighton and Hove City Council, Green councillor Ian Davey, expressed joy at the news. He said the scheme had been suggested by Greens during the previous Tory administration, and it was good news that it was won under the new Green administration: “One of our key aims is to give the city the infrastructure it needs to be open for business. A crucial part of that is sustainable transport, enabling people and goods to move around without spoiling our streets or the air we breathe.

“This is a great opportunity for the council to work with residents and business to alleviate some of the transport problems in the area, particularly poor air quality caused by congestion.”

A Brighton and Hove City Council spokesperson said: “It’s part of our ambition to make the city one of the greenest in the UK. Some 66 councils bid for a pot of £155m the government made available. 37 authorities were successful."

With external partnership and council funds, plus support from the local community, the project will be worth approximately £6 million over four years. Key partners in the bid include Southern Rail, Brighton & Hove Buses, Sussex and Brighton Universities, the Primary Care Trust, and the Engineering and Physical Research Council. 

"It will be used to help local people make more eco-friendly transport plans for themselves. Physical alterations to the road will include upgrades to public transport infrastructure, cycling improvements, traffic signal upgrades, pedestrian improvements and improved links to the new South Downs National Park.

An exact timescale for the project has yet to be fixed, but work should start this year. 

The judging panel included buses and transport expert Tony Depledge, Ian Drummond from local government body ADEPT, Stephen Joseph from Campaign for Better Transport, Adam Marshall from the British Chambers of Commerce, Lynn Sloman from Transport for Quality of Life.

Brighton Pavilion's Green MP Caroline Lucas said the news was "fantastic" and a "step in the right direction".

39 projects won funding as part of the first allocation from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. They cover eight regions and a total of 37 local authorities, with many more as partners. All have been judged to be effective against the fund’s two key objectives of creating growth and cutting carbon.

The successful schemes also include a variety of measures such as smart ticketing, the promotion of infrastructure for electric vehicles, bus and rail improvement measures, cycling and walking and are designed to link together to create a sustainable transport package that delivers economic growth.

Transport Minister Norman Baker said: “I am delighted to be able to fund these excellent projects.

“All the winning schemes have one thing in common – they will help build strong local economies while addressing the urgent challenge of climate change.

“We have empowered local authorities to create packages of sustainable initiatives that are tailored for their local areas, and this is only the beginning – even more funding will be announced next summer following a second round of bids.”

For details of the Brighton and Hove's bid for DfT funds, click here
http://russellhoneyman.blogspot.com/2011/05/brightons-lewes-road-63m-sustainable.html

More on this story from the DfT - http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-releases/dft-press-20110705

On Thursday, will Greens accept the Local Transport Plan made by the old Tory-led council?

Core Development Areas (LTP3-App 3)

24 May. The delayed Local Transport Plan (LTP) will be presented to a Special meeting of Brighton and Hove City Council on Thursday 26 May 2011.

This LTP was devised under the just-demised Tory leadership of the council. So is the LTP full of plans to remove cycle lanes and turn green spaces into parking spaces? Not at all. In fact, the Plan makes it sound like the Tories had a Road to Damascus Moment and converted to the Green Cause. Here is the vision statement:

“To deliver an integrated, accessible and balanced transport system that supports economic growth and enables people to travel around and access services as safely and freely as possible while minimising damage to the environment and contributing to a safer, cleaner, quieter and healthier city.”

OK, no mention of the "sustainable" word in the vision statement, but plenty inside.

The LTP is a truly awesome document in hundreds of pages. A quick scan (link below) shows how transport planning impacts many aspects of our lives - housing, how we go to school, work and shop, what our cities look and feel like. Air quality affects our health, traffic affects our enjoyment of the urban environment. Our economy depends on how transport flows - not just how quickly, with billions being lost by traffic jams - but also how enjoyable the experience is, with some high streets being blighted by noisy dangerous traffic, and others boosting retail trade with safe enjoyable pedestrian areas like New Road in Brighton.

UK's local authorities are supposed to work to 12 year strategic plans, and the last one (LTP2) was drafted in 2000. So a new one (LTP3) was supposed to be agreed by the end of March 2011. But the council administration was in a turmoil - with the possibility of council opposition defeating the LTP just weeks before the May local election - so everyone agreed to delay considering the LTP until after the election.

Well, as we now know, the Tories lost, and the Greens won the election by a margin that surprised everybody.

So the LTP becomes almost the second major policy document to be debated by a the Green-led council. (The first item on the agenda is councillors' allowances - Green promised to scrap these as part of thier election promises).

Although created under the demised Tory administration, the LTP is supposed to be non-political, being drawn up in the best interests of the city by council officers. But, as we experienced over four years of Tory admin, council officers are susceptible to political pressure - as the sad demise of Old Shoreham Road Cycle Freeway, Valley Gardens project, etc etc bears witness. Many of these were components of the last (2000) LTP2.

Back in November I did query the questions asked in the public consultation that formed part of the LTP. For example, there was no clear question that asked: Do you favour a clear commitment to Sustainable Transport?" The closes we got was:

"To reduce the need to travel  - and enable people to travel more sustainably."

The the above, 73% agreed,  21% neither agreed nor disagreed, 6.5% disagreed. So what part of that sentence did they disagree to? This is a trickster question. It is important, because the the LTP bases it's priorities on the results of public consultation. Other policies had higher approval so these get given priority.

My sources tell me this new LTP3 is masterpiece of worthy generalisation, which would have allowed a Tory administration to adapt the sustainable-sounding plan to its nefarious ends, while still being fit for the purpose of securing government funding.

But the good thing about this vague kind of Plan is that it allows the incoming Green administration an equal flexibility.

The word is that it will be adopted by council on Thursday.

In any event, delay would be extremely uncomfortable - government funds will not be forthcoming until the LTP is agreed. Local highway authorities have a statutory requirement to produce a Local Transport Plan [LTP] as part of the process to secure government grant funding. The current LTP expired at the end of March 2011 and the third LTP [LTP3] for Brighton & Hove was supposed to be in place by the beginning of April 2011.

Click link here for downloadable copies of LTP3. The details are in Appendix 3 and 4.

The future Brighton: Motor City or Green City?

Pic: sustainablecitiesnet.com

City launches public consultation over Local Transport Plan
Brighton & Hove has launched a public consultation to discuss the future of transport. It seems to avoid asking the crucial question: should we to prioritise sustainable transport or not?

Most people say they would would prefer to use fast public transport, but private motor car is simply safer and easier to use in Brighton & Hove. Our streets are clogged with polluting cars, while public transport takes way too long and cycling is unsafe on many routes. We are stuck thinking there is no way ahead. Yet some European cities have shown there is a different way.

We need a policy decision to change things for the better, and we now have the chance. On October 29, the City Council opened a public consultation to discuss its forthcoming "Local Transport Plan". This will close on December 10. The Plan is the strategy document that will define how planners will develop infrastructure for roads, buses, cycling, rail and other ways of getting about for the coming decades.

Sitting on the Fence: Green City or Motor City?
I answered the on-line Plan consultation questionnaire. I found it frustrating. I mean, who needs to be asked: "Should we create safe and attractive streets and places that everyone can enjoy?" Surely everyone's the answer to that is: "Yes!"

The real question that needs to be asked is: "Do you want sustainable transport? Should Brighton & Hove to be a Motor City or a Green City?"

The City needs to make a fundamental decision: should the Plan give priority to sustainable transport, as has been done in other cities? My opinion is we do not want to continue to prioritise motor transport, for reasons of air pollution, personal fitness and safety, let alone climate control and global warming.

We need a bold policy decision to rearrange transport priorities resulting in fast public transport and safe cycling. At present, buses take over an hour to travel a few miles from one end of the city to the other. Cycle routes are crowded out by traffic and children have to cycle to school on the pavement. This needs to change. Priority needs to be given to sustainable transport. This is not rocket science. Look at any number of cities in Germany, Netherlands, Denmark. Cycling is an important component, but the key is fast, reliable public transport.

At present people jump into their cars to make short journeys to the shops, beach, school. When people find their car is less convenient, they will use fast buses, or safe, fast, cycle routes. We can develop tailor made solutions for our city - buses or trams for steep hills, beachfront rail, etc. At this stage, planning is more the key than money, but in later stages investment in pubic transport may help revive the city economy.

But policy half measures and lip service to the vision of sustainable transport are strangling public transport in Brighton at present.

Brighton's claim to being a city of excellent cycling and public transport: lip service
Take a look at Old Shoreham Road by Hove Park during the rush hour. School kids struggling to cycle along "pedestrian only" foot paths while aggressive drivers push and shove their cars along the narrow roadway. Public transport is at a standstill. It takes an hour by bus to travel the few miles from Aldrington to Patcham. Fifteen minutes by car. The solution seems obvious. If everyone uses cycles or public transport, it will be safe and fast to get to work on the bus or bike.

The council is effectively controlled by a Tory minority, and they are pro-motor car. The 2009 public consultation about the Old Shoreham Road Cycle Lane showed the public wanted a cycle lane, but the public also warned the scheme as planned was unsafe. The Council was suggesting that 7,000 school-kids would use the Cycle Lane to get to school, but the lane was simply lines painted on the road amid heavy traffic. Traffic simply ignores these painted lines in most other parts of the city. The public wanted the scheme improved to include protected cycle lanes. This would mean reducing room for motor cars. Cars would have to use the bypass, taking longer to get about the city. Rather than improve the scheme, the Council scrapped it.

You only have to read the text below, from an academic paper, to see why Old Shoreham Road (OSR) scheme could not have succeeded: "separate cycling facilities along heavily travelled roads and at intersections" are needed. The paper was from 2007. So why did Brighton planners put together a scheme that would fail because of safety? Was it planned to fail, by a Tory controlled council who need to show lip service to sustainability but don't really believe in it?

Local Transport Plan: opportunity for a real sustainable transport plan
Brighton & Hove should become the city of excellent public transport and safe cycling that it claims to be. Others have blazed the trail for us. The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany have made public transport fast - the route of choice - and cycling is a safe, convenient and practical way to get around their cities. The key to achieving high levels of cycling appears to be the provision of separate cycling facilities along heavily travelled roads and at intersections, combined with traffic calming of most residential neighbourhoods. Extensive cycling rights of way in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany are complemented by ample bike parking, full integration with public transport, comprehensive traffic education and training of both cyclists and motorists, and a wide range of promotional events intended to generate enthusiasm and wide public support for cycling. In addition to their many pro-bike policies and programmes, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany make driving expensive as well as inconvenient in central cities through a host of taxes and restrictions on car ownership, use and parking. Moreover, strict land-use policies foster compact, mixed-use developments that generate shorter and thus more bikeable trips. It is the coordinated implementation of this multi-faceted, mutually reinforcing set of policies that best explains the success of these three countries in promoting cycling. Compare with the marginal status of cycling in the UK and the USA, where only about 1% of trips are by bike.

Sounds to good to be true? I didn't make it up. The paragraph is paraphrased from a 2007 academic paper called "Making cycling irresistible". You can download the paper from
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a790578015~tab=content

Sustainable transport could become a flagship of policy in Brighton if the council had the vision or the will. Will it alienate motor car users? I think most of them would welcome viable alternatives to car transport, especially if it is promoted properly. Will it cost money? Not necessarily - significant engineering work might be needed on schemes like OSR, but mostly it is a matter of road use policy and planning.

Note: the Local Transport Plan
Brighton & Hove City Council's new Local Transport Plan (LTP) will set out how it proposes to maintain and improve the city’s transport network. It will outline priorities for transport up to 2026 and how to achieve them. Producing an LTP is a legal requirement and must be completed by April 2011.
The plan will include a 15-year, long-term transport strategy and a short term, three-year delivery plan of specific schemes. Brighton & Hove’s plan will be supporting the five national transport goals: supporting economic growth; tackling climate change; promoting equality of opportunity; contributing to better safety, security and health; and improving quality of life.
The Public Consultation was opened 29 October and closes 10 December 2010.
For more information, and to complete the questionaire, go to: More on the Local Transport Plan