4.8 County Road Network
4.9 Case Study - West Sussex County Road Network
4.9.1 Current Situation
4.9.2 Analysis and Evaluation
4.9.3 Proposed Solution
Map 4.2 West Sussex
County Road Network
Please note - the map does take a long time to download
Please save once downloaded
Back to
Commercialising the UK Road Network Contents
Back to Contents
Home
(4.8) COUNTY ROAD NETWORK
This will consist of all roads with more than local significance. This will include most A roads, although the definition would state “Roads where most of the traffic is through traffic of more than local significance but not part of the National Trunk Road Network”. In essence, this is any road not part of the Local Road Companies or Trunk Roads.
All the citizens resident within the County boundary will be invited to vote in a referendum to formalise their ownership of the County Road Network. If they vote yes the County Road Network will become a Public Limited Company, the assets and liabilities (outstanding debts incurred by the council as allocated to these roads) will become the responsibility of the shareholders.
The County Road PLC will pay all its costs both direct and external (see 4.5
Managing Road Companies) out of the Shadow Toll income; any surplus could
be invested for example on improving the County Road Network or other
initiatives – also to provide a dividend for shareholders as decided at the
Annual General Shareholders Meeting.
Top
(4.9) CASE STUDY: - WEST SUSSEX COUNTY ROAD NETWORK
(4.9.1) The Current Situation
West Sussex is a diverse County on England’s South Coast containing two Trunk Roads the M23/A23 London – Brighton Trunk Road and the A27 South Coast Trunk Road.
There is a comprehensive network of main A roads linking all the major towns
and urban centres within the county, the Highways Agency Network and the major
generators of traffic in neighbouring counties.
Top
(4.9.2) Analysis and Evaluation
Looking at the road map the A22 main London Eastbourne road briefly passes through the County, but serves only one West Sussex town East Grinstead. Therefore it would be better for this road together with the A264 east of its junction with the A22 to be included in the East Sussex County Road Network where the vast majority of its users will have originated or ended their journeys with the people of East Grinstead and surrounding parishes being shareholders of the East Sussex County Road Network but not the West Sussex County Road Network.
Most of the A roads would be included, although I would expect some A roads in Crawley to be included in the Crawley Local Road Network as only the M23, A23 & A264 will have significant through traffic not destined or originating in Crawley. Similar situations exist in Worthing and Chichester.
The area around Petworth where the A roads are totally unsuitable for LGVs has resulted in the widening of former country lanes to avoid the town centre. These non-A roads used by significant through traffic would need to be included in the West Sussex County Network and possibly the current A roads passing through Petworth town centre transferred to the Petworth Local Road Network.
Map
(4.2) The West Sussex County Road Network
Please note - the map does take a long time to download
Please save once downloaded
Many West Sussex residents are lobbying for increased road capacity in
the belief this will reduce congestion and journey times. There
is also lobbying for bypasses to relieve local communities
of the intimidation of traffic. The most vociferous demand is to
dual the A24 between Horsham and the County boundary, a twisting
road with a high accident rate. The Government has repeatedly turned
down the County Council in its request for funds.
If the people of West Sussex became the responsible shareholders, they would be free to expand this road, but would have to take financial responsibility. They may decide that the accident rate, - often given as the major reason for the proposed duelling, - can be dealt with more economically be enforcing the laws of the road and introducing lower speed limits. The proposed increase in capacity would have to be financed (under laws of supply and demand) through forecast of future revenue from commercial road use charging. However, the volume of traffic may not generate enough revenue, due to higher charges diverting traffic on to the many different routes, A29, A281, A264/M23 depending on origin and destination. At least the shareholder residents will have made the decision themselves, and so will no longer be able to blame the Government.
One by-pass that local people desperately want is Petworth. Due to the
narrow streets with sharp corners Petworth is very difficult for LGVs to
negotiate. There have been plans for a by-pass for many decades but due to the
sensitivity of the countryside and necessity for a tunnel this is not regarded
as affordable, and Petworth suffers as a consequence. A lorry route has been
devised by widening some country lanes, which has helped to alleviate the
symptoms. However, it does not solve the problem, which would need LGVs to be
taken right away from this rural area. The volume of traffic in this area is
highly unlikely to ever justify the expense of building a by-pass economically,
therefore if County residents were the responsible shareholders they may decide
to look at innovative or controversial proposals to divert traffic away. These
might include increasing the cost punitively of LGVs using roads to pass through
this area to divert them to other routes. This is feasible as the area is very
rural with few LGV journeys originating or destined for this area (for which
special arrangements could be made) where there are not more suitable
alternative routes. This however is likely to be very unpopular with areas
where the LGVs are diverted to. If LGVs continue to use roads in the Petworth
area enough revenue may be generated to build a by-pass.
Top
(4.9.3) PROPOSED SOLUTION
Ø Define the West Sussex County Road Network, and after consultation transfer the A22 and part of the A264 to the East Sussex County Road Network. Offer a referendum to the people of West Sussex (excluding East Grinstead and surrounding parishes) for the following proposal.
Ø Give every resident of West Sussex (except East Grinstead and surrounding parishes) an equal shareholding (similar to the way building society shares were distributed to their members).
Ø Set up the opening balance sheet showing all assets and liabilities.
Ø Set up a constitution for electing a board of directors and officers who will be responsible for managing the West Sussex County Road Network, complying with legislation and the wishes of the shareholders.
Ø Set up a financial system to allocate and pay all the costs imposed on the West Sussex County Road Network both direct and externalities, e.g. set up noise monitors to detect noise pollution, then pay those affected appropriate compensation.
Ø Use Global Positioning Technology to charge for road use see 4.14 Technology for Road Pricing Update.
Ø Set up contracts for the maintenance of the roads with standards set for safety, ensuring all property has constant access etc, with penalty clauses for failing to meet agreed standards set by West Sussex Roads PLC or national requirements.
Ø Obtain legislation for law enforcement to recover all of its costs from those convicted of breaking the law. Taxpayers, shareholders and law abiding motorists should not be expected to pay for a law enforcement system that would not be required if people did not break the law.
Ø Buy-in police services, e.g. from Sussex Police or British Transport Police, to meet agreed policing standards.
Ø Change speed limits as requested by shareholders. Install comprehensive coverage of speed enforcement cameras.
Ø AGM to decide how to spend profits, how much to distribute as dividend for shareholders? How much to spend on road improvements, or whatever the shareholders decide?