A CAMPAIGN group has “strongly objected” to a draft plan that sets out funding for major road and rail investment projects in the region - including the A27 Arundel bypass.

Transport Action Network (TAN) has criticised the plan which includes the following projects: 

plans for the UK's longest road tunnel to help ease congestion on the A27 near Worthing 

  • a high-speed rail link from Ashford serving Hastings, Bexhill and Eastbourne
  • investment in the A259 South Coast corridor between Brighton and Eastbourne
  • plans for a high-quality public transport system along Brighton’s seafront, which would most likely involve more frequent and quicker bus services.

These ideas are included in a draft Strategic Investment Plan (SIP) which has recently been consulted upon.

The Transport for the South East (TfSE) plan outlines spending priorities for the region for the next 30 years, including rail and road packages worth millions of pounds.

TAN said the plan "fails to do much to help tackle climate change" and wants the draft rewritten to make it compliant with the Paris Agreement and "the need to reduce emissions by 68 per cent by 2030".

It said the plan “undermines” the target with plans for 91 road schemes, 50 of which TfSE wants delivered before 2030. 

“In contrast, public transport proposals are mostly going to be delivered after 2030 and are far less certain to be built,” a group spokesman said.

Chris Todd, director of TAN said the plan will be “highly damaging” for the South East.

“It will undermine the economy and waste public funds, while increasing traffic and failing to reduce carbon emissions fast enough,” he said.

“It’s like a slow-motion car crash, where the resulting destruction is inevitable.

“TfSE needs to ditch the greenwashing and the wishlist of road schemes. It needs to stop pretending these schemes will be good for all and prioritise public transport and active travel instead.”

Emma Tristram from Stop Arundel Bypass also accused the body of giving the “wrong information in an attempt to justify the Arundel Bypass”.

“It says that a majority of the traffic at Arundel is ‘long-distance’,” she said.

“This is untrue, since National Highways’ own figures show 75 percent is going under 15 miles. As well as ignoring climate change, they are giving false data to promote an extremely damaging road scheme.”

A spokesman from TsfE said they are in the process of reviewing feedback from 683 stakeholders, with the plan to present the final SIP to its partnership board in November.

They said the draft is the culmination of five years of technical work and stakeholder engagement of which TAN has been an “active member”.

Rupert Clubb, lead officer at Transport for the South East said the draft, while including highway schemes, is not about building new roads, but rather about making “better use” of existing assets and corridors.

He added that TfSE is “committed” to reducing emissions and the plan reflects this.

“Transport for the South East (TfSE) is committed to reducing emissions and achieving net zero carbon from travel in the region by 2050 at the latest,” he said.

“The SIP identifies a material contribution towards net zero carbon by supporting a reduction in the need to travel through integrated planning and increased use of digital technology; a generational shift to more sustainable modes of travel for both passengers and freight; as well as support for the accelerated roll out of zero emission technologies and vehicles.

“In addition to the SIP, TfSE has produced a transport decarbonisation thematic plan which builds on the Strategic Investment Plan and identifies the areas of intervention required to align to a budget-based approach to net zero carbon in line with the Paris Agreement.

“Once finalised the SIP will be a live document that is reviewed every five years.”

On the Arundel Bypass, Mr Clubb said: “TfSE has looked at the A27, which has its challenges, for the purposes of a regional transport corridor and its overall effectiveness in terms of strategic value.

“At this stage, we have not looked at, or assessed in detail, any spot interventions. This is a strategic plan, not scheme specific.”