Transport for the South East - Strategic Investment Plan

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Transport for the South East - Strategic Investment Plan

Post by jervi »

Transport for the South East have opened a consultation on their 30 year investment plan for transport in the South East of England.
https://transportforthesoutheast.org.uk ... Jun-22.pdf

It includes schemes/packages relating to rail, mass transit, highways, active travel & ferries.
It appears to includes hundreds of overly vague scheme titles, and too many to post here, but I might make a wiki page later listing all of them and relevant information I know about them and what I can find on the internet about them.

Some of the schemes include:
Waterside Branch Line Reopening
M27/M271/M275 Smart Motorway(s)
Isle of Wight Railway Extensions
M23 J8a (New Junction & Link to Redhill)
M23 J9 Enhancements
New London - Brighton National Cycle Network Corridor
A22 Smart Road Trial Proposition Study
A27 Worthing (Long Term Solution) - in addition to the current Worthing & Lancing improvments
Sussex Coast Mass Transit System
Sussex Coast Active Travel Enhancements
Pretty much every A27 Junction
Uckfield - Lewes Wealden Line Reopening
Crawley Fastway (rapid bus) Extensions to Redhill, East Grinstead & Haywards Heath - Burgess Hill
A26 Lewes - Newhaven Realignment & junction enhancement
And loads more...
phil gollin
Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:56

Re: Transport for the South East - Strategic Investment Plan

Post by phil gollin »

Very little for the M25 (!) - only noted Junctions 1a and 5 ???

It would seem that Heathrow's new runway won't be going ahead !

( And Junction 6 and the A3 mess aren't there ? )

.
User avatar
trickstat
Member
Posts: 8738
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 14:06
Location: Letchworth Gdn City, Herts

Re: Transport for the South East - Strategic Investment Plan

Post by trickstat »

phil gollin wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 09:59 Very little for the M25 (!) - only noted Junctions 1a and 5 ???

It would seem that Heathrow's new runway won't be going ahead !

( And Junction 6 and the A3 mess aren't there ? )

.
A possible complication with the Heathrow runway is that I assume that much of it is in Greater London while that section of the M25 is in the South East.
User avatar
JohnnyMo
Member
Posts: 6982
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 13:56
Location: Letchworth, Herts, England

Re: Transport for the South East - Strategic Investment Plan

Post by JohnnyMo »

trickstat wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 10:16
A possible complication with the Heathrow runway is that I assume that much of it is in Greater London while that section of the M25 is in the South East.
I assume any changes to the M25 to accommodate Heathrow expansion would be funded by the airport not the public sector.
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Transport for the South East - Strategic Investment Plan

Post by KeithW »

I see lots of ideas for high cost investment but little or no funding identified, to take just one example this is is what they say about upgrading the Isle of Wight ferry system

The Isle of Wight is served by three main
ferry operations: Red Funnel, Wightlink
and Hovertravel. Although there is some
competition between operators, in practice
this is limited.
During the pandemic, parts of the UK’s
competition laws were suspended to allow
the ferry companies to work together to
maintain minimum service levels. This was
revoked in 2021.
The scheme envisaged in the SIP includes
increased frequency and longer operating
hours on existing routes, a new route
between Ryde and Southampton (requiring
three or four vessels) and improved
integration with public transport networks on
both the island and the mainland.
It is assumed there will be no requirement for
new port infrastructure.
For the purposes of the SIP, no costs have been
accounted for as it is assumed any investment
will be privately sourced. This is based on the
assumption that the current non-regulated and
non-subsidised commercial market will continue
to operate
Classic hand waving in fact.

Then they seem to be claiming credit for ongoing investment that they were not involved with including the Lower Thames Crossing and Bluebell Hill upgrades

So a little digging shows that its a pressure group formed by local transport authorities trying to get funding from central government.
What we do
Our role is to add strategic value by making sure that funding and strategy decisions about transport in the South East are informed by local knowledge and priorities. At the heart of this is our transport strategy, which was published in summer 2020 and sets out our partnership’s shared vision for a better connected, more prosperous and more sustainable South East.

We don’t replace or replicate the work of our local transport authority partners. Our aim is to become a statutory body with powers drawn down from central government rather than up from local government.
Big talk but no money.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Transport for the South East - Strategic Investment Plan

Post by KeithW »

As a follow up I decided to find out who the author of this document is, here is what I discovered on twitter
https://twitter.com/cllrglazier wrote: Keith Glazier
@CllrGlazier
I am the Leader of East Sussex County Council and I represent the residents of Rye and Eastern Rother.
Pett East Sussex
Joined December 2011
675 Following
1,132 Followers
see also
https://democracy.eastsussex.gov.uk/mgU ... spx?UID=15

On the negative side
https://ryesown.co.uk/tag/keith-glazier/

In his own words


As the old saying has it - talk is cheap.

He appears to be a master of the art of appearing to promise great things without any firm backing, detail or resources.

For example.

Councillor Keith Glazier, Chair of Transport for the South East says: “Our strategy covers the movement of freight by road, rail, air and sea, providing a framework for strategic planning and policy development and not forgetting, the investment decisions needed to give private sector organisations the long-term stability they need to plan for sustainable growth.

“We haven’t just stopped with the strategy. As with our work on future mobility, this strategy comes with an action plan which sets out a series of strategic actions so that together with our stakeholders we can deliver a more sustainable freight and logistics network for the South East and the rest of the UK.”

Councillor Keith Glazier, Chair of Transport for the South East says: “Our strategy covers the movement of freight by road, rail, air and sea, providing a framework for strategic planning and policy development and not forgetting, the investment decisions needed to give private sector organisations the long-term stability they need to plan for sustainable growth."
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Transport for the South East - Strategic Investment Plan

Post by jackal »

You have to take everything from sub-national transport bodies with a big pinch of salt. I believe only TfN have a statutory basis and government policy has since changed so the others will never get any actual power. And TfN are pretty infamous for dilly dallying, e.g., being the big cheerleaders for the Trans-Pennine Tunnel and M62 relief road, but then deciding they didn't want them after all. Strategies of other STBs are little more than an unfunded wishlist of the prevalent opinion of councils' in their area at a particular time.

That said, they do generate interesting proposals from time to time, and when they match the focuses of NHs/DfT something might actually happen. Here are a couple of the more interesting ones:
Description
A34 Junction and Safety Enhancements
The A34 is a major highway running for over
150 miles from the A33 and M3 at Winchester
in Hampshire, to the A6 and A6042 in Salford,
Greater Manchester. It forms a large part of
the major trunk route from Southampton,
via Oxford, to Birmingham, the Potteries and
Manchester.
Alongside the M3 and M4, the A34 is a
significant corridor upon on which the Wessex
Thames area is dependent for passenger and
freight movements.
This scheme is made up of a series of
improvements (lanes, slip roads, junctions etc)
on the A34 within the TfSE geography.
The scheme includes climbing lanes for larger
vehicles on hills, remodelling of the A34/A303
junctions and capacity enhancements of A34/
M3 junction.
For the purposes of the SIP, a cost of around
£800m is assumed for this scheme, to be
delivered between 2029 and 2033.
A27 Long Term Worthing Solution
Description
The A27 through Worthing and Lancing is used
for local journeys but is also an important route
for long-distance traffic.
Despite some improvements along the route
in recent years, there are many long-standing
challenges around capacity, delays, journey time
and reliability, safety and environment.
As a result of these difficulties, traffic diverts away
from the A27 to alternative routes that are less
suited to high volumes. Additionally, bus and
active travel journeys are held up by congestion
in Worthing.
A number of options for the corridor have been
put forward, and National Highways plans to
hold a public consultation later in 2022.
A potential “long-term” solution is the construction
of a new stretch of road, much of which would be
within a 4-5km tunnel, potentially making it the
longest road tunnel in the UK.
For the purposes of the SIP, a cost of around £2
billion is assumed for this scheme, to be delivered
between 2045 and 2050, although this figure may
vary as it is highly dependent on detailed design,
especially if the solution were to involve a tunnel
which would have options for different lengths and
configuration (e.g. single or multiple bore).
User avatar
danfw194
Member
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 23:26
Location: Leicester

Re: Transport for the South East - Strategic Investment Plan

Post by danfw194 »

KeithW wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 10:53 I see lots of ideas for high cost investment but little or no funding identified, to take just one example this is is what they say about upgrading the Isle of Wight ferry system
I did laugh at that. "It is assumed any investment will be privately sourced". Pretty easy for anybody to come up with pie-in-the-sky schemes with that caveat.

Plus with this specific example, is it really needed? I know obviously the summer months are busy, but it doesn't strike me as though extra ferry capacity is desperately needed. Maybe I'm wrong. And I would have thought that their assumption of "It is assumed there will be no requirement for new port infrastructure", is very optimistic. You might be ok at the Southampton end, but Fishbourne is not blessed with a lot of capacity as it is. Never mind the fact that a second ferry route would bring about a lot more traffic straight into Fishbourne village.
A320Driver
Member
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 19:11
Location: Leatherhead

Re: Transport for the South East - Strategic Investment Plan

Post by A320Driver »

South facing slips at M23 J8a would be very useful, although the topography and vertical alignment will be challenging.
Formerly ‘guvvaA303’
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Transport for the South East - Strategic Investment Plan

Post by jervi »

A320Driver wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 16:57 South facing slips at M23 J8a would be very useful, although the topography and vertical alignment will be challenging.
Do you mean J10a as that currently has only north facing slip roads?
Might be useful, for those in Maidenbower and Pound Hill, but the all-movement junction between B2036 and A2011 should make Southbound traffic from those neighbourhoods easier, once its built in the next few years.

The J8a in this document is a new junction at either the A25 or near Redhill Aerodrome (with a new link road to the A23). Of which I'd imagine it would latter since the M23 is in a massive cutting at the A25, plus is closer than the 2km from the M25 junction (standards suggest no close than 2km for major junctions)
A320Driver
Member
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 19:11
Location: Leatherhead

Re: Transport for the South East - Strategic Investment Plan

Post by A320Driver »

jervi wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 18:28
A320Driver wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 16:57 South facing slips at M23 J8a would be very useful, although the topography and vertical alignment will be challenging.
Do you mean J10a as that currently has only north facing slip roads?
Might be useful, for those in Maidenbower and Pound Hill, but the all-movement junction between B2036 and A2011 should make Southbound traffic from those neighbourhoods easier, once its built in the next few years.

The J8a in this document is a new junction at either the A25 or near Redhill Aerodrome (with a new link road to the A23). Of which I'd imagine it would latter since the M23 is in a massive cutting at the A25, plus is closer than the 2km from the M25 junction (standards suggest no close than 2km for major junctions)
Thanks for the patronising geography lesson…

Yes 8A would be the proposed junction, and yes south facing slips only due to proximity of J8 and the fact that there wouldn’t be that much of a demand as journeys can still be made through Redhill and Merstham,
And yes, the road is in a cutting.

Maybe you should have read my post more thoroughly.
Formerly ‘guvvaA303’
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Transport for the South East - Strategic Investment Plan

Post by jervi »

A320Driver wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 20:22
jervi wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 18:28
A320Driver wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 16:57 South facing slips at M23 J8a would be very useful, although the topography and vertical alignment will be challenging.
Do you mean J10a as that currently has only north facing slip roads?
Might be useful, for those in Maidenbower and Pound Hill, but the all-movement junction between B2036 and A2011 should make Southbound traffic from those neighbourhoods easier, once its built in the next few years.

The J8a in this document is a new junction at either the A25 or near Redhill Aerodrome (with a new link road to the A23). Of which I'd imagine it would latter since the M23 is in a massive cutting at the A25, plus is closer than the 2km from the M25 junction (standards suggest no close than 2km for major junctions)
Thanks for the patronising geography lesson…

Yes 8A would be the proposed junction, and yes south facing slips only due to proximity of J8 and the fact that there wouldn’t be that much of a demand as journeys can still be made through Redhill and Merstham,
And yes, the road is in a cutting.

Maybe you should have read my post more thoroughly.
Well mentioning south facing slip roads explicitly would suggest there are currently north facing slip roads, don't get worked up about it, only trying to be helpful and you responding with a confrontation. Maybe you should have read my post more thoroughly.
Post Reply