Our attention has been drawn to the ‘East Sussex Local Transport Plan 3 – Consultation Draft’ and although we were invited by East Sussex County Council (ESCC) to submit any comments, we refuse to take part in this charade. However, as comment has been made in the media that ESCC shows ‘continued support’ for the reinstatement of the Lewes-Uckfield rail link because it appears in this latest plan, it was decided to run through the 182-page document.

Despite the use of subliminal green ink, we remain unconvinced that this particular leopard has changed its spots, whilst the document is predictably littered throughout with tedious jargon. For example, we counted 49 instances of ‘challenges’; 70 of ‘partnerships’; 68 of ‘climate change’ and a wearisome 136 of ‘sustainable’. There were also 25 uses of ‘connectivity’ which is something we don’t need to be told that East Sussex lacks – most obviously the famous gap in the county’s rail network. However, this ghastly word is applied only once to railways with the 24 remaining associations being applied to ever-more expansion of the road system. What a surprise.

It all aims to sound very impressive and ‘green’, as in this example:
‘The LTP3 strategy will need to help improve access to employment centres. This in turn will help to maximise job opportunities, reduce the financial and social costs of unemployment and improve people’s quality of life. The challenge is to find and implement cost effective, innovative solutions which contribute most to reducing localised congestion and provide journey time reliability for both business and personal journeys. We must also recognise the importance of the strategic links to London and to interconnectivity between other employment centres in the South East such as Brighton, Worthing, Tunbridge Wells and the Gatwick/ Crawley areas.

Businesses will benefit in terms of reduced costs and a reduced carbon footprint, from the promotion of travel by non car modes through better information on travel choices and where appropriate as part of workplace travel planning solutions. This will also contribute to reducing congestion and therefore increasing journey time reliability.’

Of course, we all know what the real solution would be, but ESCC would have us believe it supports reinstating East Sussex’s former rail links to Tunbridge Wells and between the County Town of Lewes and the Uckfield Line:
‘The potential re-opening of the Lewes / Uckfield / Tunbridge Wells railway – despite the outcomes of the Network Rail study in 2008 on the Lewes – Uckfield reinstatement, which identified a low cost-benefit ratio, the County Council remains supportive of the reinstatement. The Council will continue to support and work with neighbouring authorities to lobby for the reinstatement of the line as part of the Route Utilisation Strategy process which is led by Network Rail and the wider need to deliver rail infrastructure capacity improvements in the south east over the next 15 years in order to meet increasing demand.’

Having witnessed for ourselves in 2009 ESCC’s ‘lobbying’ at the Houses of Parliament with the All Party Parliamentary Rail Group, we can be forgiven for wondering whether this is advisable, especially given the plainly evident self-satisfaction expressed that evening over the derailing of the 2008 Lewes-Uckfield Rail Study. Further on in the document we find this:
‘The County Council continues to support the aspiration to reinstate the Uckfield to Lewes railway line, which would significantly improve sustainable access to the major towns in the county and to London, although the most recent Network Rail study in 2008, concluded that although it is technically feasible, there is currently no economic case for rebuilding the line when appraised against the Government’s current major scheme assessment criteria. These criteria are currently being reviewed by Government in order to provide greater parity in assessing road and rail schemes. Work has recently been undertaken by a local campaign group looking at the benefits of a new railway line between Brighton and Uckfield and beyond to London, utilising existing infrastructure where appropriate. This work merits further investigation and this will be sought from Network Rail via the London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) process.’

We intentionally excluded ESCC from the BML2 Project, but from this statement we can be certain that BML2 will be afforded exactly the same treatment as ‘Lewes-Uckfield’ by this local authority. Of course, if ESCC was honestly committed to reinstating the rail link then it would be more than prepared to honour the documented pledge it made to fund the A22 road bridge over the re-opened railway. The fact that this was solemnly given to us and all concerned 32 years ago makes no difference whatsoever, but their word is not their bond, as we shall see again if they are allowed to have their way. This brings us to the nub of the matter:
‘In Uckfield, future housing growth is likely to further exacerbate the existing congestion problem in the town centre. Therefore, the implementation of a suitable town centre traffic management scheme will help to address this issue.’

The spectre of ESCC’s gyratory road scheme is raised yet again. This would swallow up the station site and effectively block the critical rail corridor between the South Coast and London. ESCC refuses to consider a bridge over the route and wishes to sever the trackbed, whilst it now intends to find a wealthy partner to pay for its road-building ambition in the centre of Uckfield: ‘As the traffic situation in the town centre will continue to deteriorate with further development, financial contributions will be sought to finance the implementation of a suitable scheme, taking into account any future reinstatement of the Uckfield to Lewes railway line.’

But ‘taking into account’ merely means acknowledging, with copious amounts of crocodile tears, that the 2008 Study proved reopening the line wasn’t justified. And no one should be fooled into a false sense of security by these honeyed words: ‘Investigate potential town centre traffic management options to facilitate the additional traffic generated by housing and business growth in and around Uckfield coming forward through the LDF, without prejudicing the future reinstatement of the Uckfield to Lewes line.’

We’ve heard it all before. We had that in 1978. You have been warned.