Newhaven to Woodingdean Traffic - Strategic Model

rob shepherd made this Freedom of Information request to East Sussex County Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear East Sussex County Council,

You have a Strategic Model of the traffic flows for Newhaven that extends as far as Woodingdean (presumably covering the A259 to Rottingdean through the B2123 to Woodingdean).

(1) Did you commission your own traffic counts for Woodingdean & Rottingdean or did you use counts provided by Brighton and Hove City Council?

(2) Please list the traffic counts you provided to your model for these junctions.

(3) The report on your most recent traffic modelling for this area says there is "very limited headroom for additional westbound vehicles in the AM peak on the A259 west of Peacehaven"

This is presumably based on PRC, RFC or Saturation % values?

Please state the values you would use to report "no headroom".

Please provide the values your model calculated.

(4) Is your Strategic model based on SATURN?

(5) Is the Modelling your own work or do you use external consultants?

Yours faithfully,

rob shepherd

Freedom of Information, East Sussex County Council

 

 

Dear Mr Shepherd

 

FOI Request ref: 6364 / Newhaven to Woodingdean Traffic Count

 

Thank you for your request for information about the above. Your request
was received on 10/11/2015 and I am dealing with it under the terms of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.

We always aim to respond as quickly as possible, and in this case will do
so no later than 8/12/2015, which is the 20 working day deadline. The
deadline is counted from the first working day we receive it, not the date
a letter is written / posted or an email sent.

In some circumstances a fee may be payable and if that is the case, I will
let you know. A fees notice will be issued to you, and you will be
required to pay before we proceed in dealing with your request.

Please quote the above reference number in any communication regarding
this request.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Amilia Holland

Customer Information Adviser

 

East Sussex County Council

Communities Economy and Transport Directorate

W1D, County Hall

St Anne’s Crescent

Lewes

East Sussex BN7 1UE

 

Phone: 01273 482913
Fax: 01273 481208

email: [1][East Sussex County Council request email]   web: [2]www.eastsussex.gov.uk/foi

P  please consider the environment - do you really need to print this
email

 

 

This message is intended for the use of the addressee only and may
contain confidential or privileged information. If you have received it in
error please notify the sender and destroy it. You may not use it or copy
it to anyone else.

E-mail is not a secure communications medium. Please be aware of this
when replying. All communications sent to or from the County Council
may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with
relevant legislation.

Although East Sussex County Council has taken steps to ensure that this
e-mail and any attachments are virus free, we can take no responsibility
if a virus is actually present and you are advised to ensure that the
appropriate checks are made.

You can visit our website at http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[East Sussex County Council request email]
2. http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/foi

rob shepherd left an annotation ()

The junctions at Woodingdean and Rottingdean are notorious local bottlenecks. Long delays and queues of hundreds of cars are reported daily on local Traffic reports.

The scale of problem can be independently verified using Google's Historic Traffic data (which averages data over several months) or from TomTom's more detailed database.

Nevertheless, the local authority has not seemed concerned when Transport Assessments report these queues as 10-22 cars long and assess the impact of new housing as improbably low, using inaccurate congestion figures. It has also not reacted to other serious errors in Assessments, raising concern about the quality of checking.

These junctions are close to the county boundary and the Strategic Road Network, so they are affected by changes outside as well as inside the local authority's boundary, but the picture presented in Transport Assessments and in the City Plan is weak in assessing this.

All this has caused concern to several local residents groups, concerns that have resulted in numerous planning objections based on ignoring local congestion and pollution including the impact on public transport, petitions to the council and meetings between resident groups and council officials.

After some 18 months of trying to get to the bottom of these problems and feeling there has been little progress, a number of FoI requests have been submitted to obtain information about the traffic data and planning procedures and skills that inform our local Planning/Highways Authorities.

The aim is to establish an agreed base of facts that will make future communication more productive.

This is one of those FoI requests.

Freedom of Information, East Sussex County Council

 

 

Dear Mr Shepherd

 

FOI Request ref: 6364 / Newhaven to Woodingdean Traffic Count

 

Thank you for your request for information about the above, which has been
dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Your
request and our response are set out below. Please note that any
information we provide is subject to the copyright and reuse of
information terms and conditions set out at the bottom of this email.

 

REQUEST

 

(1) Did you commission your own traffic counts for Woodingdean &
Rottingdean or did you use counts provided by Brighton and Hove City
Council?

 

(2) Please list the traffic counts you provided to your model for these
junctions.

 

(3) The report on your most recent traffic modelling for this area says
there is "very limited headroom for additional westbound vehicles in the
AM peak on the A259 west of Peacehaven"

 

This is presumably based on PRC, RFC or Saturation % values?

 

Please state the values you would use to report "no headroom".

 

Please provide the values your model calculated.

 

(4) Is your Strategic model based on SATURN?

 

(5) Is the Modelling your own work or do you use external consultants?

 

RESPONSE

 

(1)  The Newhaven model has been developed, calibrated and validated using
traffic count data within the Newhaven Study Area - the boundary of
the study area on A259 west of Newhaven is east of Peacehaven. To enable
the model  to best represent route choices into / out of / through the
study area from areas outside the study area, the highway network extends
beyond the study area and to the west includes Falmer Road, the A259 to
Brighton and the A27. That part of the highway model is only there to
enable those alternative route choices to be made. Not all actual
movements on the external network are modelled (not those which never
enter or leave Newhaven as part of their journey) and so model flows
cannot be compared in any meaningful way with observed flows. No observed
flows on that part of the external highway network were used in the model
and none were obtained from Brighton and Hove City Council or commissioned
by East Sussex County Council.

 

(2)  Please see response to question 1.

 

(3)  The Newhaven model is a SATURN model but the study area does not
include Peacehaven other than as part of the external highway network.
Detailed modelling for Peacehaven, which was not based on SATURN but was
based on a manual approach, was separately carried out (report on LDC CS
website).

 

(4)  In the Peacehaven modelling, the methodology to determine 'headroom'
is set out in the report on the Lewes District Council website In summary,
actual existing flows are compared to estimated capacity based on DMRB
TA79/99 (capacity of urban roads).

 

(5)  Modelling work for Newhaven is undertaken by external consultants and
the interpretation of the data to inform the transport modelling note was
undertaken by County Council officers. East Sussex County Council did the
Peacehaven modelling and report itself.

 

I hope that this answers your enquiry. If you believe that the County
Council has not complied with the FOI Act in responding to your request,
you may ask for an internal review. If you wish to do so, please set out
the grounds of your appeal in writing to:

 

Philip Baker, Assistant Chief Executive, East Sussex County Council,
County Hall, St Anne’s Crescent, Lewes, East Sussex. BN7 1UE.

or by email to him at [1][email address]

 

Please quote the FOI reference number in any communication regarding this
particular request.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you then
have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. Generally, the Information Commissioner cannot make a decision
unless you have exhausted the County Council’s internal review procedure
as described in the previous paragraph. The Commissioner can be contacted
at: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. Tel: 0303 123 1113.  [2]www.ico.org.uk

 

Yours sincerely

 

Amilia Holland

Customer Information Adviser

 

East Sussex County Council

Communities, Economy and Transport

W1D, County Hall

St Anne’s Crescent

Lewes

East Sussex BN7 1UE

 

Phone: 01273 482913
Fax: 01273 481208

email: [3][East Sussex County Council request email]   web: [4]www.eastsussex.gov.uk/foi

P    please consider the environment - do you really need to print this
email

 

 

 

Copyright and Re-Use of information

1. Providing you with documents under the Freedom of Information Act does
not give you an automatic right to re-use those documents in a way that
would infringe copyright – for example by making multiple copies, or by
publishing / issuing copies to the public.

2. Copyright in the information is owned by East Sussex County Council
and/or its contractor(s) unless otherwise stated. Brief extracts of the
material can be reproduced under the “fair dealing” provisions of the
Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988 (S.29 and S.30) for the purposes of
research for non-commercial purposes, private study, criticism, review and
news reporting.

3. We do not give permission for this information to be used for the
purposes of direct marketing.

4. If you wish to use this information then, in accordance with the
Regulations on the Re-use of Public Sector Information 2015, you must
first ask our permission. Such re-use may or may not involve the granting
of a licence and the application of a Fee.

 

 

 

This message is intended for the use of the addressee only and may
contain confidential or privileged information. If you have received it in
error please notify the sender and destroy it. You may not use it or copy
it to anyone else.

E-mail is not a secure communications medium. Please be aware of this
when replying. All communications sent to or from the County Council
may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with
relevant legislation.

Although East Sussex County Council has taken steps to ensure that this
e-mail and any attachments are virus free, we can take no responsibility
if a virus is actually present and you are advised to ensure that the
appropriate checks are made.

You can visit our website at http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.ico.org.uk/
3. mailto:[East Sussex County Council request email]
4. http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/foi

Dear East Sussex County Council,

Thank you for your response. Except in one important respect your reply was most helpful.

I assume in response to (3) that LDC CS website refers to your Core Strategy?

On that assumption I have been unable to locate the information I requested in (3), which to amplify a bit in case there is any confusion, means I wanted to know exactly how much headroom your modellers say is available. (My own view is there is negative headroom)

Please provide this information or if it is recorded on your website, provide a more explicit reference.

Yours faithfully,

rob shepherd

Dear East Sussex County Council,

To clarify my earlier note on your response.

I am familiar with the paragraph below based on your DMRB calculations, but find it odd that you assume 100% flow is achievable which suggests you believe there is no variation in flow (I.e. no need for headroom to cater for normal demand variation).

(100 extra cars erodes much more capacity at 90% flow than it does at 40% flow)

For example with signalised and un-signalised junctions, saturation levels of 90% or 80-85% respectively are considered to have no headroom (zero PRC).

This report also does not cover the junctions on this road - whose saturations would have to be below the levels quoted above, for there to be any headroom.

Are you saying the junctions were not assessed and it was also assumed there is PRC until 100% Flow is achieved?

If this is true, then the basis of your capacity assessment appears to be unsafe, so may I ask you to check the figures and assumptions are as set out in Para 12 below.

Thank you.

12. Difference between current flow and link capacity = 270 vehs/hour.

Current volume : capacity ratio is therefore 80%. Allowing 10% for

‘natural growth’ (application of TEMPRO [see Note below] fuel and
income factors over the period to 2030), that leaves remaining
‘headroom’ for new development in Peacehaven of 10% .

Yours faithfully,

rob shepherd

Freedom of Information, East Sussex County Council

Dear Mr Shepherd

Thank you for your email. I have passed your queries over to the team who provided the response to your request.

We will respond by the original deadline date 8/12/2015.

Yours sincerely

Amilia Holland
Customer Information Adviser

East Sussex County Council
Communities Economy and Transport Directorate
W1D, County Hall
St Anne’s Crescent
Lewes
East Sussex BN7 1UE

Phone: 01273 482913
[mobile number]
Fax: 01273 481208

show quoted sections

Dear East Sussex County Council,

With respect to the outstanding piece of information requested in my FoI, if your Traffic Modellers will confirm:

(1) They have assumed road links should be run at 100% flow

(2) They have assumed flows are not restricted by local junctions or the nearby network (including the flow from Rottingdean)

... then the information supplied will satisfy the request.

It would be prudent to pass them the following note with its DMRB and TfL references, to ensure there is no misunderstanding about the confirmation sought and itscontext..

*****

I stated that the DMRB capacity calculation in TA 79/99 should be treated with extreme caution in the context of other congestion on the A259. The key reference in TA 79/99  is copied below.

DfT - DMRB

VOLUME 5 ASSESSMENT AND PREPARATION OF ROAD SCHEMES SECTION 1 PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PART 3 TA 79/99 AMENDMENT NO 1 TRAFFIC CAPACITY OF URBAN ROADS

2.3 The potential capacity of a link will not be reached if either the capacity of junctions along the link or the capacity of the adjoining network is lower than the link in question. The flow on an urban road may also be affected by turning movements restricting the mainline capacity. Such constraints should be identified at an early stage.

(This point is recognised in LDC CS  but not expanded on ...
11. Network capacity is a function of both junction capacity and link capacity.)

I also stated that at 80% / 90% load, it is incorrect to assume there is 20% / 10% spare capacity (headroom).

Exponential drop off in headroom as you reach full load is a standard part of queueing theory (and practice). TfL's use of Number Plate Recognition technology to mix theory with practice, together with the strength of peer review in their publications, makes their reference to capacity tailing off at 80% something that should not be ignored.

Their Traffic Model guidelines makes similar points re signalised and un-signalised junctions, as do DMRB V12 S2 and the LinSig user guide.

TfL

ROADS TASK FORCE Thematic Analysis Technical Note 11

To what extent is congestion and unreliability on the road network caused by factors ...

A model shows that as an example road link saturates above a level of 80 per cent of potential traffic carrying capacity, journey time reliability decreases. In this example, 100 per cent saturation provides a JTR of 77.7 per cent. ...

******

Yours faithfully,

rob shepherd

Freedom of Information, East Sussex County Council

1 Attachment

 

 

Dear Mr Shepherd

 

Further to our email of 20/11/2015, the team have now returned with a
response to your follow up questions:

 

A copy of the 2012 East Sussex County Council advice to LDC is attached
which should be on the LDC Core Strategy website. 

 

The report makes it clear that the target maximum ratio of flow to link
capacity (RFC) adopted here is 95% specifically to allow for acceptable
operation at key junctions. It also makes it clear that improvements would
be required at those key junctions and elsewhere (extract from advice
below) for the recommended maximum new housing numbers to be acceptable in
terms of transport impact:

 

'This recommended level of development would also be contingent on a
number of infrastructure improvements being delivered – improvements to
the operation of Telscombe Cliffs Way junction and the Sutton Avenue
roundabout, improvements to junctions around the Newhaven ring road
specifically including the South Way / South Road junction, and the
infrastructure elements of bus services enhancement along the A259 as well
as within Peacehaven linking to the coast road. Any specific allocation to
large sites would also have to demonstrate overall sustainable
accessibility. '

 

Therefore, the East Sussex County Council’s advice refers to maximum
levels of additional development that would give rise to a maximum link
RFC not exceeding 95% 'to enable the key junctions to operate
satisfactorily'. In the circumstances such an approach was, and remains,
reasonable.

 

I do hope that the above is of use to you. Should you have any further
questions or queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Kind regards

 

Amilia Holland

Customer Information Adviser

 

East Sussex County Council

Communities Economy and Transport Directorate

W1D, County Hall

St Anne’s Crescent

Lewes

East Sussex BN7 1UE

 

Phone: 01273 482913

[mobile number]

Fax: 01273 481208

This message is intended for the use of the addressee only and may
contain confidential or privileged information. If you have received it in
error please notify the sender and destroy it. You may not use it or copy
it to anyone else.

E-mail is not a secure communications medium. Please be aware of this
when replying. All communications sent to or from the County Council
may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with
relevant legislation.

Although East Sussex County Council has taken steps to ensure that this
e-mail and any attachments are virus free, we can take no responsibility
if a virus is actually present and you are advised to ensure that the
appropriate checks are made.

You can visit our website at http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk

Dear Freedom of Information,

Thank you Amelia for such an informative reply, there are however a few points where the information provided appears to be contradictory or confusing, so

(A)

For the sake of clarity, will you confirm that as you use 95% to represent full flow, but already have 80% base plus 10% Tempro, that you calculate there is 5% headroom?

i.e. the headroom statement below in your report is incorrect.

12. Difference between current flow and link capacity = 270 vehs/hour.
Current volume : capacity ratio is therefore 80%. Allowing 10% for
‘natural growth’ (application of TEMPRO [see Note below] fuel and
income factors over the period to 2030), that leaves remaining
‘headroom’ for new development in Peacehaven of 10% .

(B)

Also for the sake of clarity, will you confirm this headroom is based on the unverified assumption that there is adequate headroom in local junctions, as per TA79/99 (DMRB)?

11. Network capacity is a function of both junction capacity and link capacity.

(C)

Although perhaps not strictly part of the original FoI request, can you confirm the extensive queues seen at these junctions are compatible with your implicit assumption about junction capacities?

(Superficially they suggest -ve PRCs & Saturation > 100%)

(If you prefer me to cover this last point in a new FoI, please let me know soon)

Yours sincerely,

rob shepherd

Freedom of Information, East Sussex County Council

Dear Mr Shepherd

Thank you for your email. I have returned to the team and asked that they provide me with a response to your follow up questions (A) and (B).

With regards to your question (C) as it is not part of your original FOI request we do require that this be dealt with as a new FOI. If you are happy for me to do so, I will register it today.

Kind regards

Amilia Holland
Customer Information Adviser

East Sussex County Council
Communities Economy and Transport Directorate
W1D, County Hall
St Anne’s Crescent
Lewes
East Sussex BN7 1UE

Phone: 01273 482913
[mobile number]
Fax: 01273 481208

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom of Information,

Thank you Amelia,

If it is to be a new FoI, then I think a few supplementary words are needed and please do register it.

(C)

Can you confirm the extensive queues seen at these junctions are
compatible with your implicit assumption about junction capacities?

(Superficially they suggest -ve PRCs & Saturation > 100%)

In that context, two recent measured Traffic counts at Rottingdean (BH2014/02589 & BH2015/03394 which you can view on B&HCC Planning web site) recorded 30%-40% higher Traffic volumes than you estimated at Telscombe Cliffs (Para 10) via your ADDT calculation. This is much higher than can be explained by extra Traffic joining at Saltdean.

The 60:40 split for the major/minor Traffic flows was also not supported in these counts.

Can you provide details of the counts you actually recorded, the date and the basis on which you determined a 60:40 split was appropriate for Traffic so dominated by commuting where the major employment locations and Transport hubs lie in one direction?

Yours sincerely,

rob shepherd

Freedom of Information, East Sussex County Council

 

 

Dear Mr Shepherd

 

EIR Request ref: 6455 / Newhaven to Woodingdean (C)

 

Thank you for your request for information about the above. Your request
was received on 30/11/2015 and I am dealing with it under the terms of the
Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

We always aim to respond as quickly as possible, and in this case will do
so no later than 30/12/2015, which is the 20 working day deadline. The
deadline is counted from the first working day we receive it, not the date
a letter is written / posted or an email sent.

In some circumstances a fee may be payable and if that is the case, I will
let you know. A fees notice will be issued to you, and you will be
required to pay before we proceed in dealing with your request.

Please quote the above reference number in any communication regarding
this request.

 

Kind regards

 

Amilia Holland

Customer Information Adviser

 

East Sussex County Council

Communities Economy and Transport Directorate

W1D, County Hall

St Anne’s Crescent

Lewes

East Sussex BN7 1UE

 

Phone: 01273 482913

[mobile number]

Fax: 01273 481208

 

 

This message is intended for the use of the addressee only and may
contain confidential or privileged information. If you have received it in
error please notify the sender and destroy it. You may not use it or copy
it to anyone else.

E-mail is not a secure communications medium. Please be aware of this
when replying. All communications sent to or from the County Council
may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with
relevant legislation.

Although East Sussex County Council has taken steps to ensure that this
e-mail and any attachments are virus free, we can take no responsibility
if a virus is actually present and you are advised to ensure that the
appropriate checks are made.

You can visit our website at http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk

Freedom of Information, East Sussex County Council

2 Attachments

 

 

Dear Mr Shepherd

 

Please find the responses to your follow up question below.

 

FOLLOW UP REQUEST

(A) For the sake of clarity, will you confirm that as you use 95% to
represent full flow, but already have 80% base plus 10% Tempro, that you
calculate there is 5% headroom? i.e. the headroom statement below in your
report is incorrect.

     12. Difference between current flow and link capacity = 270
vehs/hour. Current volume : capacity ratio is therefore 80%. Allowing 10%
for ‘natural growth’ (application of TEMPRO [see Note below] fuel and
income factors over the period to 2030), that leaves remaining ‘headroom’
for new development in Peacehaven of 10% .

     (B) Also for the sake of clarity, will you confirm this headroom is
based on the unverified assumption that there is adequate headroom in
local junctions, as per TA79/99 (DMRB)?

     11. Network capacity is a function of both junction capacity and link
capacity.

FOLLOW UP RESPONSE

The LDC website lists two reports (as attached) comprising the highway
authority's advice. 

The 2011 advice is what is quoted - that advice did indeed consider the
maximum development headroom in Peacehaven to be related to a maximum 100%
link capacity. That 2011 advice was a Position Statement at the time but
was superseded by our final advice to LDC in 2012 which updated the
analysis, adopted a lower maximum development headroom based on link
capacity not exceeding 95%, and accounted for the 'in-combination' effects
of development in both Peacehaven and Newhaven. 

It was the 2012 advice that LDC took into account in preparing the final
proposals in the submission draft CS.  Therefore, the outstanding
questions are dealt with in the text of the 2012 advice. 

Kind regards

 

Amilia Holland

Customer Information Adviser

 

East Sussex County Council

Communities Economy and Transport Directorate

W1D, County Hall

St Anne’s Crescent

Lewes

East Sussex BN7 1UE

 

Phone: 01273 482913

[mobile number]

Fax: 01273 481208

 

 

This message is intended for the use of the addressee only and may
contain confidential or privileged information. If you have received it in
error please notify the sender and destroy it. You may not use it or copy
it to anyone else.

E-mail is not a secure communications medium. Please be aware of this
when replying. All communications sent to or from the County Council
may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with
relevant legislation.

Although East Sussex County Council has taken steps to ensure that this
e-mail and any attachments are virus free, we can take no responsibility
if a virus is actually present and you are advised to ensure that the
appropriate checks are made.

You can visit our website at http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk

Freedom of Information, East Sussex County Council

1 Attachment

 

 

Dear Mr Shepherd

 

EIR Request ref: 6455 / Newhaven to Woodingdean (C)

 

Thank you for your request for information about the above, which has been
dealt with under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations
2004. Your request and our response are set out below. Please note that
any information we provide is subject to the copyright and reuse of
information terms and conditions set out at the bottom of this email.

 

REQUEST

 

     (C)

    

     Can you confirm the extensive queues seen at these junctions are

     compatible with your implicit assumption about junction capacities?

    

     (Superficially they suggest -ve PRCs & Saturation > 100%)

    

     In that context, two recent measured Traffic counts at Rottingdean

     (BH2014/02589 & BH2015/03394 which you can view on B&HCC Planning

     web site) recorded 30%-40% higher Traffic volumes than you

     estimated at Telscombe Cliffs (Para 10) via your ADDT calculation.

     This is much higher than can be explained by extra Traffic joining

     at Saltdean.

    

     The 60:40 split for the major/minor Traffic flows was also not

     supported in these counts.

    

     Can you provide details of the counts you actually recorded, the

     date and the basis on which you determined a 60:40 split was

     appropriate for Traffic so dominated by commuting where the major

     employment locations and Transport hubs lie in one direction?

 

RESPONSE

 

Can you confirm the extensive queues seen at these junctions are
compatible with your implicit assumption about junction capacities?

 

(Superficially they suggest -ve PRCs & Saturation > 100%)

 

You are referring to the 2011 advice note by ESCC to LDC which was
superseded by a 2012 advice note (which has been provided in the previous
response). 

 

Nonetheless, the flow estimate for A259 westbound in the AM peak quoted in
the 2011 note remained the same at 1015 vehicles/hour in the 2012 note.
The estimate was based on an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) value for
that part of the A259, derived using a permanent automatic traffic counter
and other counts. The factoring to peak hour used explicit values derived
from national and local experience for a road of this type is all
explained in the 2012 Advice Note.  

    

In that context, two recent measured Traffic counts at Rottingdean
(BH2014/02589 & BH2015/03394 which you can view on B&HCC Planning web
site) recorded 30%-40% higher Traffic volumes than you estimated at
Telscombe Cliffs (Para 10) via your ADDT calculation.

This is much higher than can be explained by extra Traffic joining at
Saltdean.

 

The 60:40 split for the major/minor Traffic flows was also not supported
in these counts.

 

Can you provide details of the counts you actually recorded, the date and
the basis on which you determined a 60:40 split was

appropriate for Traffic so dominated by commuting where the major
employment locations and Transport hubs lie in one direction?

 

BH2014/02589 does include a one-day traffic count at Rottingdean
Crossroads. The count in May 2014 showed 1472 vehicles/hour westbound
approaching the lights. We do not accept that traffic joining from
Saltdean could not constitute all or the main part of the difference
between the 2014 count at Rottingdean and the 2011 estimated flow at
Telscombe – the junction is signalised to better provide for the volume of
traffic accessing the A259 from Longridge Avenue and, as with Peacehaven
it could be expected that the major draw for such traffic would be towards
Brighton.

 

The other reference given, BH2015/03394, appears to be incorrect.

 

The 2012 Advice Note explicitly states its terms of reference as
addressing issues on the A259 within East Sussex (including the A259 /
Longridge Avenue junction which technically lies (just) in Brighton & Hove
but which principally serves East Saltdean, a large residential area in
Lewes District, East Sussex). Nonetheless, the broad consequences for
Rottingdean crossroads were set out, together with the geographical limits
of the Advice Note, within the Introduction to the 2012 Advice Note –
extract below.

 

[1]cid:image002.png@01D13424.479F8A40

As the extract above from the ESCC 2012 Advice Note states, part of the
solution / mitigation must include ‘further substantial shifts from car to
bus’. The requirement for prospective developers of new sites in
Peacehaven remains that they must demonstrate the practicality of and a
commitment towards providing / funding the necessary infrastructure &/or
service enhancements to achieve that aim.  

 

 

I hope that this answers your enquiry. If you believe that the County
Council has not complied with the EIR in responding to your request, you
may ask for an internal review. If you wish to do so, please set out the
grounds of your appeal in writing to:

 

Philip Baker, Assistant Chief Executive, East Sussex County Council,
County Hall, St Anne’s Crescent, Lewes, East Sussex. BN7 1UE.

or by email to him at [2][email address]

 

Please quote the EIR reference number in any communication regarding this
particular request.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you then
have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. Generally, the Information Commissioner cannot make a decision
unless you have exhausted the County Council’s internal review procedure
as described in the previous paragraph. The Commissioner can be contacted
at: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. Tel: 0303 123 1113.  [3]www.ico.org.uk

 

Kind regards

 

Amilia Holland

Customer Information Adviser

 

East Sussex County Council

Communities, Economy and Transport Directorate

W1D, County Hall

St Anne’s Crescent

Lewes

East Sussex BN7 1UE

 

Phone: 01273 482913
Fax: 01273 481208

email: [4][East Sussex County Council request email]   web: [5]www.eastsussex.gov.uk/foi

P    please consider the environment - do you really need to print this
email

 

 

 

Copyright and Re-Use of information

1. Providing you with documents under the Freedom of Information Act does
not give you an automatic right to re-use those documents in a way that
would infringe copyright – for example by making multiple copies, or by
publishing / issuing copies to the public.

2. Copyright in the information is owned by East Sussex County Council
and/or its contractor(s) unless otherwise stated. Brief extracts of the
material can be reproduced under the “fair dealing” provisions of the
Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988 (S.29 and S.30) for the purposes of
research for non-commercial purposes, private study, criticism, review and
news reporting.

3. We do not give permission for this information to be used for the
purposes of direct marketing.

4. If you wish to use this information then, in accordance with the
Regulations on the Re-use of Public Sector Information 2015, you must
first ask our permission. Such re-use may or may not involve the granting
of a licence and the application of a Fee.

 

 

 

This message is intended for the use of the addressee only and may
contain confidential or privileged information. If you have received it in
error please notify the sender and destroy it. You may not use it or copy
it to anyone else.

E-mail is not a secure communications medium. Please be aware of this
when replying. All communications sent to or from the County Council
may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with
relevant legislation.

Although East Sussex County Council has taken steps to ensure that this
e-mail and any attachments are virus free, we can take no responsibility
if a virus is actually present and you are advised to ensure that the
appropriate checks are made.

You can visit our website at http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk

References

Visible links
2. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.ico.org.uk/
4. mailto:[East Sussex County Council request email]
5. http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/foi

Dear Freedom of Information,

Thank you for your response.

Sorry my reference to BH2014/03394 should have read 03108, I am prone to typos - in fact the counts are not that different to 02589 so delete that reference.

(1) You did not respond to the EIR question about assuming a 60:40 split for this tidal flow. As you will have seen 02589 recorded a 67:33 split, which is substantially different.

You may not have noticed that many of the West bound vehicles are stuck in a 400 car queue at that time, whereas none of the East bound vehicles are, so if you include a portion of that queue, the split will be even further from 60:40 ... certainly over 70:30, so I would appreciate your response to this point.

(2) I note your suggestion that the peak time volume counts discrepancy may be accounted for by a lot more traffic joining at Saltdean, than leaves, notably at Longridge Avenue (and no doubt such traffic might also affect the 60:40 split).

However at the time of the 02589 counts there were large queues at Longridge and relatively few cars could join the A259. More priority has now been given to that lane and the situation is much better for Saltdean residents, however if 300 cars join at Saltdean, the effect would be to extend the 400-450 car queue substantially - historic stats do not suggest this has happened, so this assumption is unsafe.

Please bear this in mind when responding to (1) above.

Thank you for you patient and comprehensive response to the other matters.

Yours sincerely,

rob shepherd

Freedom of Information, East Sussex County Council

Dear Mr Shepherd,

Thank you for your email. I have passed it to the officer that drafted our original response. We will get back to you as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

Jeremy Coleman
Customer Information Officer
East Sussex County Council
Communities Economy and Transport Directorate
W1D, County Hall
St Anne’s Crescent
Lewes
East Sussex BN7 1UE

Phone: 01273 482913
Fax: 01273 481208

email: [East Sussex County Council request email]   web: www.eastsussex.gov.uk/foi
  please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom of Information,

Just a little reminder that the outstanding part of the response is due

Yours sincerely,

rob shepherd

Freedom of Information, East Sussex County Council

Dear Mr Shepherd

Thank you for your email. I have chased the relevant team and asked that they respond as soon as possible. I apologise for the delay in getting the response to you.

Kind regards

Amilia Holland
Customer Information Adviser

East Sussex County Council
Communities Economy and Transport Directorate
W1D, County Hall
St Anne’s Crescent
Lewes
East Sussex BN7 1UE

Phone: 01273 482913
[mobile number]
Fax: 01273 481208

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information, East Sussex County Council

 

 

Dear Mr Shepherd

 

EIR Request ref: 6455 / Newhaven to Woodingdean (C)

 

Please see the response to your further question below. I apologise for
the delay in getting the response to you.

 

The East Sussex County Council report specifically only dealt with the
A259 within East Sussex and not in Brighton & Hove.

 

The 60:40 split was typical from count data available at the time. It is
confirmed by data covering the whole of last year from the automatic
traffic counter site at Telscombe Tye. This showed total weekday average
2-way flow over the period 0700-0900 (which would cover the main commuting
period) of 2958 vehicles of which 1825 (or 61.7%) were travelling
westbound.

 

I do hope that the above answers your request.

 

Kind regards

 

Amilia Holland

Customer Information Adviser

 

East Sussex County Council

Communities Economy and Transport Directorate

W1D, County Hall

St Anne’s Crescent

Lewes

East Sussex BN7 1UE

 

Phone: 01273 482913

[mobile number]

Fax: 01273 481208

 

 

This message is intended for the use of the addressee only and may
contain confidential or privileged information. If you have received it in
error please notify the sender and destroy it. You may not use it or copy
it to anyone else.

E-mail is not a secure communications medium. Please be aware of this
when replying. All communications sent to or from the County Council
may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with
relevant legislation.

Although East Sussex County Council has taken steps to ensure that this
e-mail and any attachments are virus free, we can take no responsibility
if a virus is actually present and you are advised to ensure that the
appropriate checks are made.

You can visit our website at http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk