Councillor Matthew Lock (From The Argus)

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
12:34pm Fri 15 Aug 08

I live in Saltdean, and I can't vote you out of office. In a democracy do you think it is right that you have inflicted this road debacle on people that can't vote against you?

Each day when travelling home I'm having time stolen from my life for no good reason, how do you justify that?

Peter Usher

Report this post »

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
12:35pm Fri 15 Aug 08

As a county councillor it is my responsibility to look at issues over the whole county and to see how they will feed in to better infrastructure on a wider scale than just in one ward
In the consultation that took place at Rottingdean and Telscombe cliffs 1,100 attended of which 57 per cent of the people were in favour of this scheme. Based on this support and looking at the officers recommendations I made the decision to work with Brighton and Hove on bringing this scheme forward.

ML

Report this post »

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
12:51pm Fri 15 Aug 08

Councillor Lock, it is now quite clear that YOUR bus lane scheme has been a monumental mismanaged disaster and is not even finished yet. My question is;

I live in Peacehaven and during school holiday periods there is always a marked improvement in traffic flow westbound. However during this summer holiday period this has not been the case and this can be solely attributed to the ill thought out installation of traffic lights at Longridge Avenue Saltdean. I would therefore like to know what contingency plans have been put in place for when the school holidays end in September because Peacehaven will be gridlocked and you will have defeated the object of the exercise because the buses will be stuck in the traffic before they reach the bus lanes just as they are now on the eastbound route at evening rush hour due to the appalling new design and layout at Rottingdean lights. How could you and your planners have got it so wrong?

M T Powell

Report this post »

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
12:52pm Fri 15 Aug 08

It was decided that the construction phase would take place during the school holiday period when the roads are quieter than they normally would be. On Longridge Avenue I accept the point that you make that the traffic lights were delaying the traffic. We have since looked at this and re-phased the lights with MOVA system which detects the length of traffic queues and then alters the lights where the pressure points are occurring. We have also installed sensors in the kerb which detect when pedestrians have crossed which stops the lights staying on red for too long a period. We are continuing to monitor the site to see if more improvements are needed. Clearly we want the works completed by the time the schools go back. I spoke yesterday with Roger French, the managing director of Brighton and Hove Buses, who says the scheme is working brilliantly westbound for his buses, but we are working with him to relieve the congestion on the eastbound route.

ML

Report this post »

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
12:54pm Fri 15 Aug 08

Are you aware of the dangerous situation created by ESCC engineers at the road bridge on the B2112 on Ditchling Common? Someone will die unless immediate safety action is taken.

Don

Report this post »

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
12:55pm Fri 15 Aug 08

Please send details to me at cllr.matthew.lock@ea
stsussex.gov.uk and I will ask officers to look into your specific concerns.

Report this post »

Mike Benson, Saltdean says...
12:59pm Fri 15 Aug 08

What can you do to improve safety along this stretch? The narrow lanes are especially dangerous round the bus stops from Rottingdean to Saltdean. Here traffic is forced into the oncoming lane as soon as a small gap appears to get round a stationary bus.

It’s no good saying drivers shouldn’t do this. Just go and watch it happening all the time. After the frustrations of the delays before Rottingdean drivers find having to wait behind a stationary bus while the driver sells tickets and sorts out the change is too much and some of them will look for any small gap in the oncoming traffic to get past.

Also it’s now very dangerous for pedestrians to cross the road. I know that you have put in some islands but they are not near enough to bus stops. Again sensible people should use them but if you stand at the end of Chichester Drive West and watch often elderly half way across and waiting in the narrow hatched area in the middle you will see the reality of what is actually happening.

Report this post »

Mike Benson, Saltdean says...
1:07pm Fri 15 Aug 08

Can you explain the reasoning behind the speed bumps at the entrance and exit of the side roads?

As for as I am concerned they just make it more difficult to get out into the main road and make leaving it slower which only delays the traffic behind.

Also, along with the poor road surface where the old markings have been removed they make entering and leaving the main road a bumpy and unpleasant experience for all passengers.

Mike Benson

Report this post »

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
1:10pm Fri 15 Aug 08

The council has installed traffic lights to replace the mini roundabout at Saltdean and is in the processing of doing the same at the roundabout at Telscombe Cliffs. How is it envisaged this will speed up the flow of traffic? Roundabouts are generally recognised as keeping traffic flowing better which will enable car emissions to be minimised and traffic to move quicker. The problems experienced so far will become much worse when the schools go back and the volume of traffic increases, especially in the mornings.

Paul Haynes

Report this post »

usher44, Saltdean says...
1:12pm Fri 15 Aug 08

What evidence will it take for you to admit this scheme is wrong. Will it take an accident Westbound at the Rottingdean lights where traffic has to swerve into the inside lane in front of buses, or, an emergency vehicle heading East in the evening rush hour that can't get past the stationary jammed traffic from Roedean to Saltdean.

Report this post »

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
1:12pm Fri 15 Aug 08

In answer to Paul Haynes

This scheme has come about due to the congestion of cars on this road and we are seeking to reduce the amount of vehicle movements. The purpose of this scheme is to encourage people to use other forms of transport - using the lights we can give priority to the buses and reliability to the timetable.

I would hope that when Beddingham is completed, some traffic using the A259 will convert over to the A27, thus reducing congestion at the lights.

In relation to the schools going back we are seeking to encourage more parents to allow their children to access school by public transport rather than piling them in the car and thus adding to traffic jams.

ML

Report this post »

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
1:19pm Fri 15 Aug 08

I am very supportive of the A259 bus Corridor but am rather surprised that the whole plan was not put through a computer model so that any difficulties could have been anticipated and planned for accordingly.

Graham

Report this post »

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
1:20pm Fri 15 Aug 08

This scheme was put through a computer model which was at the consultation held in 2004. At the moment we still have construction taking place and so won’t really know the full benefits until all the work is completed. We will then continue to monitor and make adjustments.

ML

Report this post »

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
1:22pm Fri 15 Aug 08

My travelling time to & from work per week has almost doubled, either by car or bus and there are many others affected also.

Do you consider this scheme a success?

Jeff Burns

Are there any palns for the road layouts to be revised?

Report this post »

Mike Benson, Saltdean says...
1:29pm Fri 15 Aug 08

I saw the computer model at the consultation and it showed a well organised traffic flow through the Rottingdean junction with east bound traffic neatly in one lane. However I asked to be shown what happened further back to get this traffic into one lane and was told that the model didn't cover this, though the engineer demonstrating it did admit that it would show severe congestion had they chosen to include it in the model.
Does this really indicate that the consultation was fair and unbiased?

Report this post »

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
1:30pm Fri 15 Aug 08

Mr Burns, I apologise for the inconvenience that this is causing you at this time. During construction phase it's frustrating to everyone when delays occur.

I do believe this is the correct scheme for this section of road, but it is too early to know the full benefits until we have given it time to bed in. I can assure you that we will be regularly monitoring this road so that all users will benefit from the changes.

Report this post »

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
1:34pm Fri 15 Aug 08

I would like to thank all readers of The Argus who have sent questions in today. Unfortunately, we have not had time in this hour to answer all your enquiries.

I have asked for all your comments and questions to be sent to me so that I can personally answer them and send my replies back to The Argus.

I will ask The Argus to post the answers on the site and again would be happy to answer any questions that my answers may raise.

Councillor Matthew Lock

Report this post »

panda_electrical, Peacehaven says...
8:28pm Fri 15 Aug 08

Friday Inquisition wrote:
In answer to Paul HaynesThis scheme has come about due to the congestion of cars on this road and we are seeking to reduce the amount of vehicle movements. The purpose of this scheme is to encourage people to use other forms of transport - using the lights we can give priority to the buses and reliability to the timetable. I would hope that when Beddingham is completed, some traffic using the A259 will convert over to the A27, thus reducing congestion at the lights.In relation to the schools going back we are seeking to encourage more parents to allow their children to access school by public transport rather than piling them in the car and thus adding to traffic jams.ML

Or put another way we timed this so we can blame the traffic stagnation in September on parents taking their children to school. Deflecting the blame from the council where it should really lay because as we all know public servants (and I use the term laughingly) .never make mistakes (or don’t admit to them).

Report this post »

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
11:15am Thu 28 Aug 08

Sent after the Friday Inquisition

To Cllr Lock

As I cannot get any response form the Friday Inquisition I have attached a powerpoint presentation regarding the safety aspects of installing crash barriers on a public footpath. I am a pensioner who can no loger get to the bustop in safety. What do you intend to do? A public answer would be appreciated, as people will die if this situation is not resolved.

D.W.McBeth (Mr)

Reply:

The installation of safety fencing at Ditchling Common Railway Bridge has been carried out to reduce the risk of vehicles veering off the highway onto the London to Lewes railway, which could result in a large loss of life. This work is part a nationwide programme that was instigated by the government following a well-publicised accident at Great Heck, Selby in 2001 which resulted in 10 fatalities.
Risk assessments have been carried out at all sites where the road is carried over the railway and Ditchling Common Railway Bridge was identified as one of three high risk sites in East Sussex. It was the last of the high risk sites to be protected because of the difficulties in achieving a suitable scheme. In order to minimise the the visual effect of barriers on the adjacent common we decided to keep all of the works within the highway verges.

The 70mph speed limit was evaluated by an experienced engineer which we reviewed and concluded was right for the location. We do not consider the provision of a lesser level of safety, by reducing the designed length of safety fence, to be desirable.

A rights of way officer has viewed the site and is satisfied that the footpath entrances are easily accessible by the public using the new ramps provided and that these also provide safe routes for walkers on the highway verge behind the safety barriers. She considers that installing stiles could compromise the safety of pedestrians and actually lead to accidents on the road.

This scheme has also been reviewed by a safety engineer who considers that adequate provision has been made for pedestrians. Work is not yet fully completed and we acknowledge that some of the existing sign supporting posts need to be moved to behind the barriers. We are also liaising with the Ditchling Common and Tenantry Down Company to determine an acceptable way of maintaining an access to the common at the southeast approach to the bridge... East Sussex County Council will be seeking an independent safety assessment of the works once they are completed and will review the scheme in the light of any issues raised.

Sent after the Friday Inquisition To Cllr Lock As I cannot get any response form the Friday Inquisition I have attached a powerpoint presentation regarding the safety aspects of installing crash barriers on a public footpath. I am a pensioner who can no loger get to the bustop in safety. What do you intend to do? A public answer would be appreciated, as people will die if this situation is not resolved. D.W.McBeth (Mr) Reply: The installation of safety fencing at Ditchling Common Railway Bridge has been carried out to reduce the risk of vehicles veering off the highway onto the London to Lewes railway, which could result in a large loss of life. This work is part a nationwide programme that was instigated by the government following a well-publicised accident at Great Heck, Selby in 2001 which resulted in 10 fatalities. Risk assessments have been carried out at all sites where the road is carried over the railway and Ditchling Common Railway Bridge was identified as one of three high risk sites in East Sussex. It was the last of the high risk sites to be protected because of the difficulties in achieving a suitable scheme. In order to minimise the the visual effect of barriers on the adjacent common we decided to keep all of the works within the highway verges. The 70mph speed limit was evaluated by an experienced engineer which we reviewed and concluded was right for the location. We do not consider the provision of a lesser level of safety, by reducing the designed length of safety fence, to be desirable. A rights of way officer has viewed the site and is satisfied that the footpath entrances are easily accessible by the public using the new ramps provided and that these also provide safe routes for walkers on the highway verge behind the safety barriers. She considers that installing stiles could compromise the safety of pedestrians and actually lead to accidents on the road. This scheme has also been reviewed by a safety engineer who considers that adequate provision has been made for pedestrians. Work is not yet fully completed and we acknowledge that some of the existing sign supporting posts need to be moved to behind the barriers. We are also liaising with the Ditchling Common and Tenantry Down Company to determine an acceptable way of maintaining an access to the common at the southeast approach to the bridge... East Sussex County Council will be seeking an independent safety assessment of the works once they are completed and will review the scheme in the light of any issues raised.

Report this post »

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
11:17am Thu 28 Aug 08

Answered after the Friday Inquisition

----

Hi Matthew, Where do you stand on congestion charging?

I've heard there could be plans to bring in the London-style charges to other towns and cities across the UK.

I'm fed up of sitting in car queues all day long, especially when the kids are giving me an ear-bashing and the wife's having a right old nag.

So personally I'm in favour of it in our busier towns.

Teddy

Reply:
Road user charges can play a role in managing traffic. The feasibility of introducing this would need to be thoroughly investigated. We would need to consider the impact on the rest of the road network and of course the economic regeneration programmes in East Sussex. We will evaluate the results of road user charging schemes that are being introduced elsewhere in the country before considering them for East Sussex.

Report this post »

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
11:27am Thu 28 Aug 08

Aside from the exhibitions that were held in 2004 information packs were delivered to all premises with frontages to the works. This was done before the scheme started. These packs included information on where to view the plans, including websites and at civic centres.

We gave as much information as possible. But some was needed from the contractor and wasn’t available until the scheme started. However the contractor and the County Council’s site supervisor did visit businesses directly affected by the temporary road closures.

There is no time limit on changing the system back to how it was but there is no plan to do so. An independent safety audit will take place when the scheme is finished which is normal practice. If the scheme needs to be modified on safety grounds it will be. We will be regularly monitoring the scheme and again make adjustments if necessary.

Compensation to business owners is set out in the Government publication “Compulsory Purchase and Compensation (booklet two) Compensation to business and Owners and Occupiers”. Claims should be submitted to:

Land & Property Group
Transport & Environment Department
East Sussex County Council
St. Anne’s Crescent
Lewes BN7 1UE

The temporary closure of Telscombe Cliffs Way was necessary for health and safety. There were signs up telling people of the closure. Unfortunately some people chose to ignore it.

The delays in the works of Telscombe Cliffs Way junction were because of the location of some of the existing services and some of the concrete was found to be up to 600mm thick which slowed down progress.

Report this post »

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
11:28am Thu 28 Aug 08

Why could the work not start at 7am and end at 7pm 7 days a week to speed this up?

Charles C

No work is allowed on the carriageway during the peak traffic hours of 7.30 to 9.00 am and 4.30 to 6.00 pm when temporary traffic control is necessary; This is to prevent added congestion on the road. However work can, and does, take place off road.

Work generally starts at 7.30 am and can go on to 7pm but there are complex Working Time Regulations which prevent operatives working 12 hour shifts for any extended time period. This impacts on work taking place at weekends

Report this post »

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
11:30am Thu 28 Aug 08

Answered after Friday Inquisition
-----

The original plan, which you consulted on, included widening the road and having a separate cycle/pedestrian path. The road has not been widened making very narrow, dangerous lanes. Why were the plans changed without further consultation.

Also, ESCC has approved plans for the sewage plant at Peacehaven. How will the A259 cope with additional construction (materials for the site and transportation of the tunnel spoil) traffic?

Helen

Reply:
The feasibility design plans shown at the exhibition did reflect the original concept of widening the road where necessary to incorporate the bus priority measures and included a separate footway/cycle route on the south side of the road.

Once the scheme advanced into the preliminary design stage, the cost of road widening and the difficulties of intruding into the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) on the south side of the road became apparent. It was then that the decision was made to accommodate the scheme within the existing highway boundary. The revised lane widths that have been introduced conform to the required standards and are sufficient to accommodate both HGVs and buses.
With regard to the proposed sewage treatment works, the traffic impacts of this proposal were considered as part of the planning application. It was determined that suitable routing plans were in place such that the traffic generated by this development during its construction and operation could be accommodated on the highway network.

Report this post »

Friday Inquisition, Brighton says...
11:31am Thu 28 Aug 08

Answered after the Friday Inquisition
----
Apart from commenting on the very dangerous narrow lanes on the A259 where buses and large lorries actually are straying into the car and bus lanes, is anything going to be done to improve the appalling surface of the road where the old road markings have been removed?

Gillian B

Reply:
The condition of the road surface between Longridge Avenue and Cranleigh Avenue has been brought to the attention of Brighton & Hove City Council, who are partners in the scheme. We understand that this section of road cannot be resurfaced at this moment in time due to budgetary constraints.

Report this post »

King from Hove, Hove says...
8:55am Fri 5 Sep 08

Nightmare journey.Long traffic queues.Dangerous narrow roads.The whole scheme is pathetic.Travelling times have doubled.Councillor Lock would never ever get reelected if he was standing for any of the locsl wards.Fortunately for him he is in Hastings where no doubt he will make a mess of their roads

Report this post »

Your Argus

Friday Inquisition RSS Feed

Councillor Matthew Lock

Your Say YourThe Argus

In this section

Sponsored Links

Local Advertisers

Local Information

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars


Name:	Email:
Your question:

Your Argus

Friday Inquisition RSS Feed

Councillor Matthew Lock

Share this article

Your Say YourThe Argus

In this section

Essential Links

Sponsored Links

Local Advertisers

Local Information

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars