The NECA summary document lacks virtually all context and jumps directly to the policies and proposed projects.
Our overview is that the aims and objectives are unobjectionable ‘motherhood and apple pie’. All good, what’s not to like! The focus on improved services, integrated services, better sustainable travel and lower environmental impacts is fine, apart from a sweeping statement that the NE has above average trips per person which is ‘good’, but even more trips are desirable as it would improve the regional economy! Travel is generally considered a necessary evil consuming people’s money and time, not a ‘good’: if high levels of trips lead to a better economy, and the NE already has higher levels than average, how come the NE des not have a stronger economy? This whole line of reasoning lacks any substance.
There is no analysis of how the conversion of objectives to policies is undertaken. The first priority is apparently to create a ‘Transport NE’ unified identity – no doubt great for politicking by the Mayor but not necessarily any pragmatic benefit in terms of travelling around the region, let alone making journeys outside the region.
More substantial issues are in relation to investment in improved roads (including dualling the A1 and improving the A19) and creating improved road freight access to the airport and regional sea ports. Nothing in the background papers suggests any requirement for this, though a single sentence suggests these investments will somehow reduce CO2 emissions from road transport.
There are fanciful and unquantified promises to increase the range of Public Transport Services to serve all communities, and to increase the level of service to cover journeys from early morning to late at night. These policies are seemingly universal and are uncosted.
Of more practical benefit are proposals for a single travel information source, for creation of transport hubs with provision for sustainable travel including bike hire and all available modes of public transport and community facilities (whatever they may be). The proposal to improve the quality of walking and cycling routes is welcome and sits alongside a commitment to repair potholes. A recognition of the need for people to feel safe and secure – even if limited to women and girls – and the inclusion of road traffic accident reduction goals has to be welcome. We do wonder where the boundary is between the actions and policies of the mayor, and the responsibilities of the Local Councils: we were told the Mayor is to have powers cascaded down from central government, but much of this looks like duties being moved up from local councils; ie, the exact reverse of devolution.
There is a suggestion of a welcome link to planning policy, emphasizing that new development must incorporate high quality walking and cycling routes, and support existing public transport services. Beyond that it is proposed that major new development should be concentrated along the Leamside Railway line to maximise the accessibility benefits. We are not clear whether the NECA has the planning powers to ensure these policies can be brought about, especially as they may not align with the proposed relaxation of Planning controls currently being floated by the government or local housing targets..
Finally there is the cost of it all. Many of these policies are expensive, some of them unlimited in their aspirations and expensive to deliver. The Plan makes only one reference to money in stating that the Mayor has been granted additional funds for the region – but we are certain those funds scarcely touch the edges of the ambition in this document. If it cannot all happen, what are the priorities?
We urgently suggest that priorities for implementation should be:
SO AS TO STRENGTHEN ACTIVE TRAVEL
Introduction of a default 20mph within all settlements throughout the region, so that safety of more vulnerable road users is recognised as paramount. This speed limit should only be varied by prior approval and in certain very specific circumstances (eg dual carriageways where controlled crossings – or bridges or tunnels – are provided at regular internal)
A minimum percentage of all annual highways budgets throughout the region –10% or more – to be ringfenced to provide physical infrastructure to enable active travel, or to make it safer (eg separated cycle lanes, widening pavements, narrowing of carriageways)
ALL individual interventions on the A1 through Northumberland to include infrasturcture to allow non-motorised traffic to cross from east to west without entering onto the carriageway (ie, bridges or tunnels)
SO AS TO IMPROVE PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Increase bus services throughout the region (and including cross-border services to adjacent regions and to Scotland) both within settlements and between settlements
In such rural areas, the vast majority of bus journeys cannot by their nature be truly door-to-door: therefore, so as to enable the “last mile” of more journeys, ensure that ALL bus services that extend beyond a single settlement should include space for at least two cycles
See below for the link to the NECA transport plan
https://www.northeast-ca.gov.uk/how-we-work/transport/transport-plan