Uckfield - Lewes and TfSE

[Meerkat]

It could be more integrated and its not just trains service but Bus as well to ensure connectivity and ease of travel

That doesn't need TfSE with all its overheads. There are already too many levels of government in the area.

 

[Minstral25]

That doesn't need TfSE with all its overheads. There are already too many levels of government in the area.

Take the overheads out from the other levels of Government.

TfSE to take the transport brief completely from Surrey, both Sussexes, Brighton, Hampshire and Kent - then economies of scale. Would need better management than currently though, but I wonder how much of the weaknesses like reproposing is caused by too many councils sticking their oar in.

 

[RichJF]

If it's taken since 1987 (when East Grinstead was electrified) for BR/Railtrack/Network Rail & the govt to decide on paper that 3rd rail is the best option for Uckfield without doing anything, then how long is it going to take to actually build any of this TfSE waffle?

You may as well link Uckfield & the MASSIVELY expanding Hailsham (more so than Uckfield) to Eastbourne along the line of the old Ouse Valley Railway!

 

[zwk500]

You may as well link Uckfield & the MASSIVELY expanding Hailsham (more so than Uckfield) to Eastbourne along the line of the old Ouse Valley Railway!

This isn't a totally mad idea, although it should be noted the Ouse Valley Railway only built a handful of earthworks and some abutments before being cancelled. There is not a complete trackbed to use.

 

[Meerkat]

Take the overheads out from the other levels of Government.

TfSE to take the transport brief completely from Surrey, both Sussexes, Brighton, Hampshire and Kent - then economies of scale. Would need better management than currently though, but I wonder how much of the weaknesses like reproposing is caused by too many councils sticking their oar in.

What economies of scale? There is no real geographic reason to merge them, they just aren't that linked, and they are each big enough such that you would probably be just adding a layer of management and bureaucracy on top of what already exists. You just end up with political rows as the money gets concentrated in a few areas and the rest lose out. (I'm convinced TfN was deliberately set up so that the different city regions would bicker - divide and rule).

 

[swt_passenger]

What economies of scale? There is no real geographic reason to merge them, they just aren't that linked, and they are each big enough such that you would probably be just adding a layer of management and bureaucracy on top of what already exists. You just end up with political rows as the money gets concentrated in a few areas and the rest lose out. (I'm convinced TfN was deliberately set up so that the different city regions would bicker - divide and rule).

As a resident of South Hants, do I really have any interest in the transport requirements in the furthest east of Kent? Might as well lump us in with Birmingham, it’s about the same distance…

 

[Mollman]

Take the overheads out from the other levels of Government.

TfSE to take the transport brief completely from Surrey, both Sussexes, Brighton, Hampshire and Kent - then economies of scale. Would need better management than currently though, but I wonder how much of the weaknesses like reproposing is caused by too many councils sticking their oar in.

The problem is the government doesn't like to impose new structures like that, you would need the TfSE area to become a Mayoral Combined Authority, however the Greater Lancashire one fell apart as the proviso was that district councils be abolished - unsurprisingly the districts didn't like the idea so refused to support it.

 

[Minstral25]

What economies of scale? There is no real geographic reason to merge them, they just aren't that linked, and they are each big enough such that you would probably be just adding a layer of management and bureaucracy on top of what already exists. You just end up with political rows as the money gets concentrated in a few areas and the rest lose out. (I'm convinced TfN was deliberately set up so that the different city regions would bicker - divide and rule).

One planning authority for transport, one contracting organisation etc instead of 7.

As a resident of South Hants, do I really have any interest in the transport requirements in the furthest east of Kent? Might as well lump us in with Birmingham, it’s about the same distance…

What does South Tottenham transport requirements have with Kingston Upon Thames or Dartford or Hayes etc within TfL.

It's just creating a body big enough to have power to implement decent changes that passengers need. TfSE is no good at County level alone.

The problem is the government doesn't like to impose new structures like that, you would need the TfSE area to become a Mayoral Combined Authority, however the Greater Lancashire one fell apart as the proviso was that district councils be abolished - unsurprisingly the districts didn't like the idea so refused to support it.

It will never happen for exactly the reasons you say, but it is the only way to get to that sweet spot, big enough to matter, small enough to care. TfL does that wonderfully most of the time for London. (not 100% but look at how good it is to travel round London in normal circumstances)

 

[Meerkat]

One planning authority for transport, one contracting organisation etc instead of 7.

Which they then cut to prove the savings and the service collapses as its too big for them to deal with.

What does South Tottenham transport requirements have with Kingston Upon Thames or Dartford or Hayes etc within TfL.

They are all in the London travel to work area IIRC, closely linked economically. Thanet and Andover are not.

It's just creating a body big enough to have power to implement decent changes that passengers need.

What changes are too big for present arrangements?

it is the only way to get to that sweet spot, big enough to matter, small enough to care.

What isn't currently big enough? And it would far too big to care what was going on in the far corners.

 

[zwk500]

One planning authority for transport, one contracting organisation etc instead of 7.

Which appears to be accomplishing nothing except telling people things they want to hear, or things they already know.

Bin it, save the costs and let the good people find jobs at actual consultancies in the private sector.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

It doesn't seem to matter how often someone tries to light a bonfire of the QUANGOs they just keep popping up. TfSE is utterly pointless - its area is not a cohesive zone of any description. Just another case of the middle classes creating jobs for each other - executive directors, directors, PR people, and their powerpoint pirate mates churning out these things full of vision, transformation, and other buzzwords. To maintain their existence they have to throw a bone to all the local authorities - and so Uckfield-Lewes gets yet another run out.
I would laugh if it wasn't wasting public money. To demonstrate how preposterous they are their strategy includes putting more railway, and mass transit, on the Isle of Wight!

Transport for the South East / TfSE appears to me being a cut price version of Network South East, just with more suit, tie/necklaced up. I honestly think that the whole Uckfield to Lewes, Wealden Line, U2L, L2U or whatever other fancy name applied won't happen, there's more chance of the Ouse Valley Railway being completed by 2487.

Its easy doing pointpoint presentations with stratigic this that and the other but I want to see action with spades in the ground, cuttings cleared, tunnels/viaducts/other infrastructure strengthened and not to mention the compensation to the Lavender Line whose tourist attraction would be lost if the line ever reopened. I bet they'd be estactic.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Mar 2023 ==

The problem is the government doesn't like to impose new structures like that, you would need the TfSE area to become a Mayoral Combined Authority, however the Greater Lancashire one fell apart as the provison was that district councils be abolished - unsurprisingly the districts didn't like the idea so refused to support it.

This would mean both West Sussex, East Sussex and Brighton & Hove City Council agreeing on a single Sussex Combined Authority, which I cannot see West Sussex and the seven districts within ever agreeing. Then there's the issue of the unitary authorities of Berkshire agreeing and even then Berkshire's Shire Hall in Shinfield has been sold off so the main headquarters for a potential Berkshire Combined Authority would no doubt be Reading Town Hall (I am suprised that Berkshire wasn't given a Passenger Transport Executive from the get go).

Kent County Council doesn't have the cash to be funding a Combined Authority looking at the recent funding cuts, Surrey and Hampshire County Councils wouldn't be interested as it'd mean that they'd have to fund extra peasant wagons for the local carless peasantry (even through TfSE is rail). Then there is Transport for London who wouldn't be happy as the funding for London alone would be cut and given to the Home Counties Combined Authorities and Transport for the South East instead.

Maybe TfSE should look at how its done in the North should they ever wish to go down this route. Interestingly Transport for the South East is headquarted in County Hall, Lewes - possibly East Sussex County Council's idea replicating Transport for the North?

 

[Meerkat]

My personal opinion is that we should let go of counties as areas of local government - so many of them are outdated and bear little resemblance to modern economic/social/population geography (ie Hampshire - what do the Solent cities and Basingstoke/Aldershot have to do with each other?).
Let the smallest main units - unitaries and districts - decide how they want to group up with many based around cities - eg Greater Brighton doesn't have to include all the Sussex districts. They wouldn't even have to group the same for different issues - police forces can be for much wider areas than travel to work areas for example.
Many of the groupings can then be just committees of the elected parts, rather than an expensive central bureaucracy always trying to justify itself.
The biggest scale I consider relevant for 'Tf' organisations in the TfSE area are those which roughly correspond to the current TOCs - Southeastern, Southern, South Western - minus the London metro services.

 

[Minstral25]

Which appears to be accomplishing nothing except telling people things they want to hear, or things they already know.

Bin it, save the costs and let the good people find jobs at actual consultancies in the private sector.

So you want to remain with the hopeless arrangement of each County/unitary authority planning and running local transport, as most transport needs cross authority borders then little actually happens. However the cost to taxpayers is several Transport teams in each county rather than an over-arching one.

Simply spend more get less

 

[zwk500]

So you want to remain with the hopeless arrangement of each County/unitary authority planning and running local transport, as most transport needs cross authority borders then little actually happens. However the cost to taxpayers is several Transport teams in each county rather than an over-arching one.

Simply spend more get less

Transport is simply one symptom of a broken local government system. Appointing Tf<region> doesn't help unless you give them power, but the only people who could bestow the powers are the Westminster government, who don't want to give funding without retaining control.

If you were doing it properly, you would have new regions that would be approximately the size of 3-4 current administrative counties, and they would be a properly constituted form of local government, directly elected under some form of STV/AV/PR (multi-member lists, so that the members are thinking of the region at-large not individual seats). They would then deal directly with Cities and districts. But this won't ever happen.

Better option then is to have the Trunk road network, Rail network and other such critical infrastructure beholden to a national-level body and tell county councils to focus on the local road, bus, cycle, foot, canals etc. County councils would need only a small team to interact with the national TfUK on passenger demand for local trips and other things that need local advocacy.

 

[dastocks]

Better option then is to have the Trunk road network, Rail network and other such critical infrastructure beholden to a national-level body

That's pretty much the way it works now. National Rail handle the railways and National Highways deal with the "Strategic Road Network", which is the motorways and certain major A-roads in England. IMHO National Highways should probably be dealing with more of the A-roads.

 

[zwk500]

That's pretty much the way it works now. National Rail handle the railways and National Highways deal with the "Strategic Road Network", which is the motorways and certain major A-roads in England. IMHO National Highways should probably be dealing with more of the A-roads.

Yes, I would give National Highways (or whatever they're called this week) the Trunk Road network as well, and get proper consultation structures in place for both of them to talk to each other and to the local governments in a productive manner.

 

[snowball]

Yes, I would give National Highways (or whatever they're called this week) the Trunk Road network as well, and get proper consultation structures in place for both of them to talk to each other and to the local governments in a productive manner.

(All remarks below apply only to England.)
National Highways are responsible for the trunk road network. "Strategic road network" is not a different concept, but another name for the trunk road network - "trunk road" remains the term used in legislation. However the strategic, or trunk, road network is a lot smaller than it was 25 years ago - a lot of roads were detrunked in the early years of the century, following a review in about 1999.

This map that I just found on their website has at least two major errors - it fails to show the upgrade of the A1 which became A1(M) between Dishforth and Barton about 5 years ago; and it shows the M4/M48 Severn crossings as still tolled.

https://nationalhighways.co.uk/media/qe1cjb2b/nh-simplified-srn-map-2021-inc-a14-update.pdf

 

[leytongabriel]

One planning authority for transport, one contracting organisation etc instead of 7.



What does South Tottenham transport requirements have with Kingston Upon Thames or Dartford or Hayes etc within TfL.

It's just creating a body big enough to have power to implement decent changes that passengers need. TfSE is no good at County level alone.



It will never happen for exactly the reasons you say, but it is the only way to get to that sweet spot, big enough to matter, small enough to care. TfL does that wonderfully most of the time for London. (not 100% but look at how good it is to travel round London in normal circumstances)

South Tottenhham and Kingston? Quite a lot really, as it wasn't till Tfls Oystercard came in and was usuable on trains too that attractivity and usage really picked up.