This is a picture of Bridleway Rye/17/1, which runs from Gibbets Marsh in Rye to Dumb Woman’s Lane. It’s part of the 1066 Country Walk and National Cycle Network Route 2. It could be a wonderful local walk for Rye residents and a scenic traffic-free path where families could cycle together between Rye and Winchelsea, avoiding the A259. The path has been in this state for years.
Last summer, East Sussex County Council (ESCC) obtained a quote of £150,000 to re-surface it. They asked Sustrans, a cycling charity, if they could pay for it. Yes, you read that right. By contrast, in the last three years ESCC has resurfaced 2,336 miles of roadway.
ESCC is currently consulting on the East Sussex Local Transport Plan 2024 – 2050. LTP4, as it is known, will set out how they intend to “plan and provide transport for residents, businesses and visitors in East Sussex now and for future generations”. It aims to “create healthier, safer, sustainable and inclusive communities and a high-quality environment”; “tackle climate change” and “encourage greater use of sustainable modes of transport”. But what, you may well ask, became of LTP3, which contained similar lofty ideals?
In terms of cycling provision, the answer is a big fat zero.
Active Travel England, the body charged with moving the country towards high quality infrastructure for walking, wheeling and cycling, rated every county council in England. East Sussex scored one (rumour has it, they only just scraped that). Our county council is amongst the worst performing in the country, with weak leadership and no overall plan – although those of us battling for safer cycling didn’t need to be told that. In fact, with the reduction in cycle provision in the recent Eastbourne town centre improvements, they’re literally going backwards.
Is it any wonder that, as LTP4 admits, the number of residents cycling has reduced by 33% in the last five years. Can anyone at county hall manage to join the dots here?
In the last five years, ESCC has spent £166 million on roads. In the same period they spent a total of £484,000 on “cycle route construction” although sadly this didn’t actually involve building anything, we assume it was spent on consultations. The last major scheme they built was in 2018, an off-road section of the Horsey Cycle Route in Eastbourne. But they didn’t pay for that either; the money came from a developer contribution.
In October 2020 ESCC published its Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) which set out “a proposed network of cycling and walking routes”. We were initially consulted on this in 2018. Not a single route has been built. ESCC’s only commitment to the LCWIP is to review it in 2024.
Can you guess what the council’s budget is for cycle infrastructure in 2023/2024? Nothing, literally nothing. You’d think, of the £42 million they’ve budgeted for roads in the same period, that some small crumbs would be available. “We rely on outside funding to pay for cycling infrastructure” they say. Why is that? As a citizen, I expect them to be spending my council taxes on what we need for a sustainable future, not going with a begging bowl to cycling charities and then using that as an excuse to do nothing.
Increased storms, flooding, heatwaves, droughts: climate change is here. We need to make changes, and we need to make them fast. That’s not a message that county hall seems to understand. Actions speak louder than words, and their lack of action speaks volumes.
In order to even begin catching up from their decade of inertia, ESCC need to start spending at least £5-10 million a year on active travel infrastructure from their own budget, starting now. They won’t, of course.
Do I have any faith that LTP4 will change anything? Not really. As Greta Thunberg once said, it’s just blah blah blah blah.
No doubt ESCC will respond to this article with fine words about “delivering a robust pipeline of walking and cycling schemes”. Indeed. But where is the evidence that they have the leadership, the capability or the willingness to do this? Just keep asking that one question, if you do nothing else. And bear these two simple figures in mind, covering the previous five years: roads budget £166 million. Cycle routes built: 0
————————————————————————————
The LTP4 consultation (closes February 25th) can be accessed here:
https://consultation.eastsussex.gov.uk/economy-transport-environment/local-transport-plan-4-2024-2050/
There’s a drop-in session at Rye Library on Friday, January 19 from 10am to 12:30pm and from 1:30pm to 4:15pm.
Image Credits: Nick Hanna .
Well said!
Absolutely agree with Tim’s comment above, very well said Nick. Sustainable transport is sadly neglected in East Sussex and the track to Dumb Woman’s Lane is a great (or not so great) example as Nick describes. The lack of a strategic, joined up approach in our county which with decent planning could be an exemplar of pleasant and safe cycling routes that enhance quality of life, health and the environment is a tragedy. I’m really pleased I spotted your letter in time for tomorrow’s consultation session Nick and I hope we all make our voices heard.
Thanks for your comments. Simon is right, it’s a tragedy. ESCC is moving towards Net Zero with slightly less alacrity than a tree sloth on Valium. The main difference is that the tree sloth knows that it’s going backwards.
Is it surprising that not a single councillor has stepped forward to defend their performance? I fully expect Active Travel England to downgrade ESCC from 1 to 0 in their forthcoming review. ATE can hardly do otherwise given ESCC’s non-existent track record.
Without disagreeing that maintenance of this route would be a good thing the statement “ in the last three years ESCC has resurfaced 2,336 miles of roadway.” can’t be right, as any motorist will testify.
Andrew Mier you’re quite right, in fact ESCC is ‘responsible for maintaining’ 2,000 miles of roads. Apologies for being misleading, I’m still trying to find where that figure came from.
I totally agree with these comments, the cycling/wheeling/walking provision by ESCC is woefully lacking. In Bexhill we were promised three cycle routes connecting parts of the town and outlying areas, which was then reduced to one. It is clear that the proposed cycle route has never been ridden by a cyclist, it includes crossing a main road, narrow side streets and two twittens, one narrow and overgrown and the other narrow, steep and with a sharp bend, very difficult to cycle and impossible to share with other pedestrians, cyclists or walkers. I have been battling with ESCC for the last four years, suggestions I have made for improvements have been ignored, eg one way streets, 20mph speed limits and adjustments to the route. I am due to meet the local ESCC councillor (conservative) to discuss it further next week, he states that he has spent the last 20 years trying to improve cycling and at the rate ESCC are moving it will be another 20 years before progress is made. Sadly the priority seems to be the car, leaving cyclists with no safe road to go, even roads are dangerous with endless potholes, which can be fatal for a cyclist. No wonder cyclists are reduced to using the pavements!
In an age where the UK is spending more to service the nations credit card than is spent on the education budget. What a fab idea to build more cycle paths when the road network is crumbling away.
I travel from Rye to Rye Harbour each and every day for work and 40% of cyclist don’t even use the cycle path and it’s a perfect surface.
There are far more pressing issues to spend tax payers money on than “white elephant” cycle paths which in reality, would rarey be used. How about some genuinely affordable housing for local people?. Now that should be everyone’s priority.
Cllr Andrew Meir, I was right in the first place. Freedom of Information Request November 2022: ‘How many miles of road in East Sussex has been resurfaced in the last 3 years?’. 2,336.53 miles.
Remarkable Nick! That means one third of the total road surface in E Sussex has been resurfaced every year. I’m off to the opticians to have my eyes tested. More seriously could you email me the FOI Q&A? Would be interesting to see the actual words used. cllr.andrew.mier@rother.gov.uk
Just for the record it’s County Council (Highways England for A roads) which is responsible for highways in E Sussex – not Rother
Thanks for this info Polly, sorry to hear but we know that they’re incapable of delivering anything which meets Government standards under LTN1/20. You only have to look at the ridiculous cycle routes they’re proposing in LTP4. Cross country from Hastings to Tunbridge Wells. Really.
visit somewhere which does have cycle lanes, you will see that they are very heavily used, promoting a healthier and less polluting way of life. One reason people don’t use that cycle path is beause it provides less of a continuous ride than the road – it doesn’t even meet current design standards. You build crap routes (which ESCC is very good at, when they bother to build anything at all) and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. No-one uses it, so we don’t need cycle lanes! Bravo.
I noticed my posts in reply to Nick’s posts have been deleted by the moderator so I’ll try again.
Quote: “One reason people don’t use that cycle path is beause it provides less of a continuous ride than the road “. The cycle path was built 16yrs ago after the death of a young local man. It’s job is to keep cyclists safe , having an “uninterupted ride” should be lower down on anyones list of priorities. Safety first and cyclists are choosing to put themselves at risk by not using the cycle path which cost the local tax payers a lot of money.
Quote: ” doesn’t even meet current design standards.”. Why should it meet current standards when it was built 16yrs ago. My house was built in 1993 ,it met the Building regulations at the time of construction but doesn’t meet current building regulations but it’s a perfectly good house.
Hello Adrian, I’m afraid that if you’re a cyclist it does an absolutely terrible job of keeping you safe, and therefore like most ESCC cycle projects a failure in terms of financial value to the tax payer. At one end you’re unprotected at a notoriously dangerous junction and at the other you’re chucked into two lines of traffic between two lines of parked cars. Safe? Don’t make me laugh. If it wasn’t built to standard back then, why can’t they bring it up to spec now??
With respect Nick, what you need to understand is that we need road vehicles to have any kind of prosperous economy. Your cycling utopia is a dream and will never happen because life comes with risks. The cycle path in question was built to standard and is excellant compared to what we had and whether you like it or not does keep cyclists safe compared to having no cycle path.
The Cycling lobby need to understand they are a financial cost to society, one that many are happy to pay for but your lobby needs to understand that we don’t have an endless pot of money.You’re now suggesting every cycle path built in the past should be upgraded to current standards and yet the roads continue to crumble. As I mentioned this country paid £100billion last year just to service the interest on the countries credit card. We have a road network which like it or not allows our economy to exist and yet is literally crumbling away. You want nice new ,shiny cycle paths which only a tiny minority of people will ever use and costs a fortune per Km to build. In an ideal world I would like to see cycle paths everywhere but the idea that cycle paths allow people to commute to work in any great numbers outside of the cities is laughable. 99% of cyclists never go out in the rain,wind or snow and are “fair weather” cyclists.
Call me old fashioned but I would take pragmatism over idealism any day
Incidentally, its obvious from examples all over the world that being able to experience an ‘uninterrupted ride’ is what persuades people to go out and about on bicycles. I mean, you have ‘uninterrupted roads’, right? You expect to be able to go out of your driveway and reach your destination (potholes notwithstanding) without your road suddenly turning into a farm track, yeah? ‘Uninterupted ride’ is not a luxury, its just the basic requirement for a cycle network.
I fully support Nick’s views. We are in a Climate Emergency and need to do our utmost to wean people away from ever bigger and more polluting cars. Cycling is not only far less polluting but also a healthy form of exercise, and electric bikes make it easier for the less able to enjoy the benefits of cycling. If you doubt the use of cycling, just look at Holland, where almost everyone cycles, with purpose built cycle lanes and cars giving way to cyclists. And their weather is no better than ours, so cyclists do go out in all weathers (except snow!)
Dear Adrian, please send me a link to any studies which show that speeding up road traffic grows the economy (apart from the value to road builders and car makers). On the contrary, we know that slowing down traffic and making more space for walking, wheeling and cycling benefits local economies, improves people’s mental and physical health, and strengthens communities. Can you show me a shiny new road which does anything except create more pollution? Numerous studies have shown that every £ spent on cycle infrastructure yields a multiple of 12 times that in health and social benefits. No other form of government spending comes close.
“Cycling has significant economic benefits—for individuals, cities, and society—and functions
as a low-cost, high-yield, scalable solution to climate and equity issues. Investments in cycling infrastructure also create jobs and opportunities to expand existing industries
or develop new ones.” Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, reference here: https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Making-the-Economic-Case-for-Cycling_6-13-22.pdf
With respect Nick, are you becoming blinded by the cause? Whether or not we like or agree with it, we are all dependent on roads in one way or another – whether for getting from A to B by private or public transport, or for delivery of goods and services essential to our existence. Whilst you may have a point in what you write, the same surely cannot be said of facilities which principally benefit just one relatively small group of users?
Dear John S, thank you for your message. We may all be dependent on roads, but we aren’t all dependent on cars, all of the time (I have a car). Anyone can ride a bicycle, whether old or young, disabled or super-fit. It isn’t ‘a small group of users’, it’s everybody – your auntie going to the beach, your nephew going to football, your grandparents cycling to the pub for lunch. Cyclists are not a separate breed of people (although some would brand us so, dismissing it as ‘the lycra brigade’), they are potentially all of us – given the choice, and safe routes. When good cycle facilities are in place, cycling rates shoot up from normal people making healthier choices in their lifestyles and reducing their impact on the planet. I am blinded, John, you’re right – by the science: 2023 was the hottest year on record (since 1860), and it’s becoming nearly impossible to meet the crucial Paris targets without rapid and aggressive efforts to reduce the greenhouse gases we are pouring into the atmosphere. So – more roads and more cars, anyone? The 8 billion people who depend on this one-and-only planet for their lives aren’t ‘a small group of users’. They are us.
Quite depressing reading about the neglect of our cycle routes by Nick as it only echoes comments I’ve been making for the last 20 years with no acknowledgment from ESCC particularly Cllr, Glazier.
Until ESCC has a change of leadership it will continue to remain the same.