Appendix A: Future Transport Scenario Planning Report
Introduction
As part of the development of the East Sussex Local Transport Plan (LTP), a series of stakeholder workshops was held between January – September 2023 to help develop the strategy including alternative future scenarios, a preferred scenario, and vision and objectives, around which the strategy was formed.
This appendix summarises the rationale, methodology and outcomes from the scenario planning process workshops, and how it has influenced the development of the LTP so far.
Why scenario planning?
By considering how different futures may come about and their implications, using a scenario planning approach allowed East Sussex County Council and its key stakeholders to understand how different versions of the future may support or hinder local visions coming to fruition.
Scenario planning is useful for:
- understanding the uncertainty of the future and what that could mean for transport and travel;
- identifying alternative versions of the future – plausible, hypothetical alternatives – not target-seeking or visionary alternatives;
- helping provide insights into the issues and opportunities different corridors or areas may face and a need for intervention; and
- helping shape a preferred scenario or vision testing the resilience of a vision and plan
This not only enabled the development and confirmation of a joint, stakeholder approved future preferred scenario which aligns to the vision, but also enabled planners to fully think through the components of their vision, what is needed to achieve it both what is within their control and what external factors may be outside their control. A better understanding of this uncertainty was intended to improve and assist future investment and policy making decisions; and ensure the Local Transport Plan proposes actions that represent ‘no regrets’ decisions.
Stakeholder engagement workshops
Seven sets of workshops were held between January and September 2023 during the development of the LTP.
The bullet points below outlines the key discussions that took place at each of these workshops to inform our preferred and alternative scenarios, and how these informed our vision, objectives and packages of interventions for the area and how these were presented in the strategy.
- Identifying drivers of change (January – February 2023)
- Importance and certainty of drivers that will influence a strategy
- Axes of uncertainty – what are the extremes of factors that are important and uncertain
- Scenario Refinement (February – March 2023)
- Likely transport, social, environmental and economic outcomes
- What is the preferred future (March 2023)
- Agree characteristics of the identified scenarios that should appear in our preferred scenario / the future
- Informed by modelling of the four scenarios
- Vision, objectives and options generation (April 2023)
- What interventions could be delivered to achieve the preferred scenario?
- Shortlisting packages of interventions (May 2023)
- What packages should be our priority in the short- (0-5 years), medium- (5-10 years) and long-term (10+ years)
- The strategy (Sumer 2023)
- Confirmation of the vision and objectives in relation to options and packages
- Deciding what will underpin our strategy (e.g. principles)
- Draft strategy for consultation (November 2023 – February 2024)
- Final draft and seek political approval / adoption (Spring / Summer 2024)
This note focuses on documenting the outcomes of the first four workshops centred around scenario development, refinement and defining a preferred future.
For each of the stages, Steer facilitated workshops with the following three sets of stakeholders:
- East Sussex County Council Member Reference Group – cross party comprising eight councillors from the Council’s Place Scrutiny Committee, chaired by Councillor Redstone;
- East Sussex County Council officers – comprising officers from different teams both within the Communities, Economy and Transport directorate (e.g. Road Safety, Transport Hub, Asset Management, Culture & Tourism) and other departments in the County Council (e.g. Public Health); and
- East Sussex local stakeholders – comprising of stakeholders with a vested interest in the future transport in the area. This group included local planning authorities (districts, boroughs and South Downs National Park), representatives from Transport for the South East, strategic transport providers, protected characteristic group representatives, access and user groups and representatives from the business, culture and voluntary sectors.
Findings between workshops were consolidated and presented for confirmation at the subsequent workshop to ensure key discussions points were captured and there was stakeholder alignment across the groups.
Workshop 1 – Introduction, Driver Mapping and Axes of Uncertainty
Steer has developed and refined a four-step process for producing bespoke scenarios tailored to a geography and importantly using the views of stakeholders in that geography, which were followed in the initial workshops. Stakeholders were asked what factors, both within the control of the public sector and outside of their control, could impact on what the future brings for the region.
Step 1: Driver Mapping
Stakeholders were asked to identify key drivers of future uncertainty using a PESTLE framework (Political, Economic, Social, Technology, Legal, Environment). The conversation was steered towards seeking those drivers which will impact on the demand for movement and the choices people and businesses will make when travelling.
Identified drivers were then mapped based on two key factors how important each driver is and how uncertain its future trajectory might be. The aim was to identify drivers which considered to be both important and uncertain, and hence influence alternative scenarios.
For example, population growth in an area may be very important to how we plan transport for the future, but some may view that it’s trajectory should be reasonably certain because of the detailed forecasts and modelling done by the Office for National Statistics. Hence that may not be considered a key driver of future uncertainty. Conversely, there could a driver for which the future is very uncertain but in terms of its impact on planning for transport it may not be deemed particularly important, such as the impact of robotics and AI in industry.
The figure and table below summarises the mapping of drivers from stakeholders.
Results of stakeholder driver mapping
- More important and more certain
-
- Demographics
- Transport integration
- Transport policy
- New zero policies
- Clean transport technologies
- Impacts of climate change
- Attitudes to shared mobility
- Other environmental policies
- New transport technologies
- More important and less certain
-
- Integrated spatial planning
- Transport pricing
- Government spending and priorities
- Economic shocks
- Attitudes to the environment
- Changes in working patterns
- Automation of transport
- Attitudes to health
- Changes in remote activities
- Changing role of town centres
- Less important and more certain
-
- Data and connectivity
- COVID-19 recovery pathway
- Energy sources
- Less important and less certain
-
- Robotics / AI in industry
- Energy / fuel prices
Step 2: Axes of Uncertainty
After identifying the most important and least certain drivers, stakeholders were next asked to create an uncertainty axis specific to each driver.
The aim of the activity was to describe the situation at the two ends of an axis which considered how that driver might either have a ‘positive contribution’ to the local transport plan vision, or at the other end how it might ‘negatively impact’ and put the vision at risk.
The table below summarises the possible future extremities of the six drivers identified.
| Axes of uncertainty | One extreme | Other extreme |
|---|---|---|
| Government spending and priorities | Inconsistent and lacking | Consistent and plentiful |
| Changing role of our town centres and integrated spatial planning | Renaissance of town centres | Dispersal of town centres |
| Changes in working patterns and changes in remote activities | Remote and automated | In-person and specialist |
| Transport policy | Increasing mobility | Reducing mobility and Net Zero Transition |
| Economic shocks | Environmental transition | Rising inequality |
| Automation in transport | More individualised transport | More public transport |
Workshop 2 – Alternative scenario development and refinement
Step 3: Scenario development and refinement
In workshop 2, stakeholders were asked to develop a ‘reference’ case scenario, which would be (i.e. a trend-based forecast, or ‘Business as Usual (BAU)). This was the scenario against which the chosen alternative futures would be compared against.
Next, the six drivers were considered, and four alternative scenarios were developed which mapped four extremities of how the future may be different from the BAU and how this may influence transport and socio-economic outcomes.
This was an important part of the process, as if the final scenarios developed were not sufficiently different from each other or the reference case, then they would not be usable as tools in the uncertainty testing of strategies, policies and investment choices for the LTP process.
The four alternative scenarios developed during these workshops are summarised below.
- Scenario 1: Slow economic recovery (a future with no or slow economic growth)
- Reduced level of government spend
- Transport and the environment are lower priorities
- Reduced population
- Increased use of private transport compared to public transport – car, walk/wheel and cycle/scooters
- Scenario 2: Rapid net zero (a future where achieving net zero carbon emissions is our top priority)
- Industrial strategy aimed at decarbonisation
- Improved health outcomes
- Environmentally focused technology investment
- Car and van/HGV use is disincentivised and increased use of sustainable modes
- Scenario 3: Individualistic behaviour (a future where the policy focus is primarily on the needs and wants of the individual)
- Economic growth is strong but unstable
- Rising inequality
- Convenience driven tech-solutions
- Connected and autonomous vehicle networks become commonplace
- Scenario 4: Connected communities (a future where there is an increased focus on community cohesion)
- Growth in town centres and investment in local specialisms
- Focus on quality of life and equity
- Reduce importance of technology
- Reduce use of private transport
Workshop 3 and 4 – Identifying and refining a preferred scenario and quantifying the future
Step 4a: Identifying and refining a preferred scenario and quantifying the future
Workshop participants were next invited to discuss the implications of each of the alternative scenario hypotheses, identify the ideal outcomes and develop a preferred scenario which would inform the future vision, desired outcomes and package of interventions for the LTP.
The agreed characteristics of this preferred scenario are:
- Net zero carbon
- Highly productive economy
- Improved health outcomes
- Focus on protecting and enhancing the environment
- Growth in town centres
- Increased virtual access
- Enhanced digital connectivity
- Investment in public transport for both urban and rural areas
- A comprehensive active travel network
- Rural mobility hubs
- National road pricing
- Faster roll out of infrastructure to support zero-emission vehicles
- Rapid transition to decarbonised freight
This preferred scenario was refined further with stakeholders by considering the specific impacts of what could happen in this preferred future, and how these may influence transport and wider socio-economic outcomes.
Stakeholders identified the land use, telecommunications and transport planning characteristics of this preferred scenario, which informed the types of interventions that will be required to get us to that preferred scenario.
A summary from these characteristics is presented in Appendix 1.
The preferred scenario and alternative scenarios were quantified using the South East Economy and Land Use Model (SEELUM). SEELUM simulates the interaction between how transport responds to changes in how people live and work (land use) and how people live and work in response to changes in transport. Steer developed this for Transport for the South East for use in their Transport Strategy, programme of Area Studies, and their Strategic Investment Plan.
The model outputs report changes in:
- the number of journey and by which mode (including freight)
- population change
- employment and GVA change
- change in carbon emissions
The preferred scenario captured the following characteristics:
- Reduced public transport fares and improved journey times
- Enhanced active travel infrastructure
- National road pricing
- Focus of growth in town centres
- Increased virtual access
The below bullet list summarises the impacts of the preferred scenario. Note, all results are for the year 2050 and compared to a ‘business as usual’ forecast of the future in 2050 and not to today.
- 19% fewer trips by private car or van
- 38% more trips by train
- 63% more trips by bus
- 43% more trips by walking, wheeling or cycling
- 4% less trips to East Sussex
- 15% less trips from East Sussex
- 3% more trips within Eats Sussex
- 3% (5,000) reduction in total trip
The preferred scenario reduces longer-distance personal transport trips, and increases rail, local bus and active travel trips. This scenario results in an overall 3% reduction in travel trips and a 19% reduction in carbon vs a BAU scenario in 2050, and a positive contribution to population, employment and GVA vs a BAU scenario in 2050.
A full set of modelling results of the preferred and alternative scenarios is presented in Appendix 2.
Next Steps
How the scenarios have informed the LTP process
The preferred scenario informed subsequent workshops focussed on developing and defining a vision statement of ambition for the East Sussex Local Transport Plan and a set of objectives which outline what the LTP desires to achieve to realise the vision.
During this process, stakeholders were continually reminded to reflect the desires from the preferred scenario, and thus have informed the strategic narrative, interventions and policy actions outlined in the LTP.
Other potential uses of the defined preferred and alternative scenarios
The preferred and alternative scenarios could have a number of uses for East Sussex County Council and partner Local Authorities going forward:
- They can be referenced in future to understand the opportunities and threats to the vision and action plans laid out in the East Sussex Local Transport Plan.
- They can be used as part of future detailed strategic planning of movement and connectivity in the region to understand how future uncertainty might impact decision making and prioritisation.
- They could also be used as a means of ‘stress-testing’ the strategic and economic case for specific schemes considered for the region, and support local decision making.
Appendix 1 - Preferred scenario characteristics
Characteristics by theme
The table below summarises the key characteristics which underpin the preferred scenario for the East Sussex area. These characteristics of the Completely Connected Communities preferred scenario were developed and discussed with stakeholders involved in the scenario planning process. These characteristics have informed the types of interventions and policies presented in the Local Transport Plan.
Key characteristics which underpin the preferred scenario for the East Sussex area
- Economy, business and employment
-
- Industrial strategy is significantly more focussed on decarbonisation and green technologies
- Public sector investment is focussed in most deprived areas, supporting local specialisms, and skills accordingly
- Higher and more stable growth, including in jobs
- High employment and wages, particularly in public/third sectors and construction
- Health and society
-
- Safety and accessibility for all is priority
- Communities planned for people of all ages and abilities
- Mental health valued as much as physical health
- More active lifestyles
- Higher outcomes for health, social cohesion and quality of life
- Environment
-
- Reduction in non-renewable energy/heavy industry
- Environmental protection/enhancement and decarbonisation the highest priority, including for adaptation
- Everyone has access and the ability to spend time in local green spaces and other natural assets in the county
- Higher outcomes for the environment, as a result to higher levels of local economic activity
- Technology
-
- Environmentally focussed technology solutions and rapid decarbonisation of transport such as renewable energy production, green hydrogen, and zero emission vehicles
- Faster roll-out / ubiquitous provision of gigabit broadband, 5G mobile digital connectivity (and successors)
- Very fast adoption of technologies that make our lives easier/require less effort
- More help available for those with lower technological skills levels
- Technology can enable interpersonal encounters for people (particularly vulnerable people)
- Digital technology assists accessibility and reduces the need to travel – virtual access to work, retail, and other services
- Data and smart technologies, including apps) improve the planning of journeys, user experience, and traffic management
- Use of digital technology to better co-ordinate freight movements and deliveries
- Mobility-as-a-Service to better integrate and link up journeys, help provide more options (e.g. bike and scooter hire) and lower average fares
- Use of data and smart technologies supports better spatial and transport planning
Characteristics by mode and/or sector
The information below summarises the key transport characteristics which underpin the preferred scenario for the East Sussex area. These characteristics were also developed and discussed with stakeholders involved in the scenario planning process. Four movement types were developed to understand and reflect the unique geographic opportunities and constraints, how they may impact different movements, and require different solutions in a future scenario. These characteristics have informed the types of interventions and policies presented in the Local Transport Plan.
Active travel
- Regional and longer distance travel for personal travel
-
- Increased active travel infrastructure across the county
- Coastal areas and moving east-west along the coast
-
- Increased active travel infrastructure across the county, this may be easier in coastal areas
- Active tourism - A27 as a strategic transport corridor, most journeys are shorter distance
- Market towns and rural areas
-
- Increased active travel infrastructure across the county
- Schemes are accessible to all
- Rights-of-way should be maintained by land owners
- Active travel integrated with public transport
- Rural road safety for vulnerable road users is increased encouraging active travel
- Freight and the needs of business
-
- Increased provision of active travel infrastructure locally and town centre public realm
Public transport
- Regional and longer distance travel for personal travel
-
- Re-prioritisation of some road investment to increase investment in public transport across the county (increased frequency, bus priority, new routes, reduced fares and zero emission buses)
- Coastal areas and moving east-west along the coast
-
- Re-prioritisation of some road investment to increase investment in public transport across the county (increased frequency, bus priority, new routes, reduced fares and zero emission buses)
- Less need for bus subsidies in coastal areas
- New models of on-demand services in urban areas
- Improved rail connections along the coast
- Market towns and rural areas
-
- Re-prioritisation of some road investment to increase investment in public transport across the county (increased frequency, bus priority, new routes, reduced fares and zero emission buses)
- New models of on-demand services in rural areas (dial-a-ride, etc.)
- Disincentives to using private vehicles
- Freight and the needs of business
-
- Re-prioritisation of some road investment to increase investment in public transport across the county (increased frequency, bus priority, new routes, reduced fares and zero emission buses)
- Key freight routes are retained
- Investment in rail freight
Private transport
- Regional and longer distance travel for personal travel
-
- Increased road capacity to meet rising demand
- Faster roll out of EV charging points
- Coastal areas and moving east-west along the coast
-
- Road space and kerb-side reallocation to more sustainable modes in urban areas and some inter-urban corridors
- Use of pricing mechanisms (e.g. parking tariffs, ULEZ)
- Prioritising vulnerable road users (for parking – blue badges)
- Faster roll out of EV charging points (including for those without driveways)
- Market towns and rural areas
-
- Road space and kerb-side reallocation to more sustainable modes in urban areas and some inter-urban corridors
- Use of pricing mechanisms (e.g. parking tariffs, ULEZ)
- Faster roll out of EV charging points
- Prioritising vulnerable road users
- Accessible parking space still needed in the centres of towns
- Broadly a shift towards shared transport with promotion of private micromobility/ active travel
- Freight and the needs of business
-
- Increased road capacity to meet rising demand
- Faster roll out of EV charging points
- Road space and kerb-side reallocation to more sustainable modes in urban areas and some inter-urban corridors
Freight
- Regional and longer distance travel for personal travel
-
- Rapid transition to decarbonised freight – rail/ZEV
- Focus on sustainable last mile freight solutions
- Driverless vehicles/ platooning of HGVs
- Coastal areas and moving east-west along the coast
-
- Focus on sustainable last mile freight solutions – especially coastal
- Sustainable and intelligent delivery (freight consolidation)
- Rapid transition to decarbonised freight – rail/ZEV
- Delivery hubs – will look different between coast and rural
- Market towns and rural areas
-
- Rapid transition to decarbonised freight – rail/ZEV
- Focus on sustainable last mile freight solutions (cargo bikes, lockers)
- Maybe reduce freight by sourcing things more locally/ moving to a more circular economy
- Freight and the needs of business
-
- Rapid transition to decarbonised freight – rail/ZEV
- Focus on sustainable last mile freight solutions
- Driverless vehicles/ platooning of HGVs
- Sustainable hydrogen production
- Improving e-bike range
Land Use
- Regional and longer distance travel for personal travel
-
- Focus on concentrating new development in town centres and where public transport connectivity is highest
- Coastal areas and moving east-west along the coast
-
- Focus development in town centres and where public transport connectivity is highest
- Support for mixed use and higher density development
- Net zero / climate positive developments
- An increase in services and amenities that are available locally
- Market towns and rural areas
-
- Focus new development in town centres and where public transport connectivity is highest
- Support for mixed use and higher density development and focus on regeneration
- Net zero / climate positive developments
- Working with developers to develop sites near public transport and amenities
- Supporting sustainable farming and greener food distribution (e.g. electric vehicles)
- An increase in services and amenities that are available locally
- Freight and the needs of business
-
- Focus on concentrating new development in town centres and where public transport and freight connectivity is highest
- Focus on regeneration
- Support for mixed use and higher density development
- An increase in services and amenities that are available locally
Digital
- Regional and longer distance travel for personal travel
-
- Rapid deployment of digital technology and faster adoption
- Coastal areas and moving east-west along the coast
-
- Business and public service providers encouraged to provide online functions, and households and business encouraged to use them
- Provision of support / assistance in roll out of technology (for particular users e.g. seniors)
- Rapid deployment of digital technology and faster adoption
- 100% coverage of high speed digital
- Market towns and rural areas
-
- Roll out and adoption keeps base with current forecasts
- Business and public service providers are encouraged to provide online functions, and households and other business encouraged to use them
- Investment distributed across the county
- Digital first but not digital only, there should be alternative options maintained as well
- Freight and the needs of business
-
- Rapid deployment of digital technology and faster adoption
- Business and public service providers are encouraged to provide online functions, and households and other business encouraged to use them
- Roll out keeps pace with current forecasts
Appendix 2 - Modelling results of preferred and alternative scenarios
This appendix presents the headline transport and socioeconomic outcomes from modelling the preferred and alternative scenarios through the South East Economy and Land Use Model (SEELUM).
SEELUM simulates the interaction between how transport responds to changes in how people live and work (land use) and how people live and work in response to changes in transport. Steer developed this for Transport for the South East for use in their Transport Strategy, programme of Area Studies, and their Strategic Investment Plan.
Quantifying the four alternative scenarios informed and validated the ideal characteristics of a preferred scenario.
In addition to the preferred scenario, two sensitivity tests were also modelled to understand the potential impact of introducing urban area parking restraints (a preferred scenario ‘plus’), and delivering initiatives which promote the concept of liveable neighbourhoods (a preferred scenario ‘max’),
Note, all results are presented in 2050 and compared to a ‘business as usual’ forecast of the future in 2050 and not to today.
Transport outcomes from the alternative and preferred scenarios
- Slow economic recovery scenario
-
- No change in total trips
- 2% less car trips
- 8% less rail trips
- 11% less bus trips
- 13% more active travel trips
- Rapid net zero scenario
-
- 4% less total trips
- 17% less car trips
- 42% more rail trips
- 21% more bus trips
- 36% more active travel trips
- Individualistic behaviour scenario
-
- 3% more total trips
- 6% more car trips
- 8% less rail trips
- 11% less bus trips
- 57% less active travel trips
- Connected communities scenario
-
- 3% more total trips
- 3% less car trips
- 17% less rail trips
- 47% more bus trips
- 20% more active travel trips
- Preferred scenario
-
- 3% less total trips
- 19% less car trips
- 38% more rail trips
- 63% more bus trips
- 43% more active travel trips
The preferred scenario resembled characteristics of the rapid net zero and individualistic behaviour alternative scenarios.
The preferred scenario characteristics reduces longer-distance personal transport trips and supports mode shift to rail (as per the rapid net zero scenario), and promote local trips which can be undertaken by bus and active travel (as per the connected communities scenario).
Transport outcomes from the preferred, preferred ‘plus’ and preferred ‘max’ scenarios
- Preferred scenario ‘core’
-
Modelled interventions are reduced public transport fares and improved journey times, enhanced active travel infrastructure, national road pricing, focus of growth in town centres and increased virtual access.
- 3% less total trips
- 19% less car trips
- 38% more rail trips
- 63% more bus trips
- 43% more active travel trips
- Preferred scenario ‘plus’
-
Modelled interventions are as per preferred scenario ‘core’ and urban area parking restraint (price and availability).
- 3% less total trips
- 21% less car trips
- 41% more rail trips
- 636% more bus trips
- 46% more active travel trips
- Preferred scenario ‘max’
-
Modelled interventions are as per preferred scenario ‘plus’ and liveable neighbourhoods in urban areas
- 5% less total trips
- 25% less car trips
- 46% more rail trips
- 72% more bus trips
- 52% more active travel trips
Capturing the potential impact of introducing urban area parking restraints (a preferred scenario ‘plus’) and delivering initiatives which promote the concept of liveable neighbourhoods (a preferred scenario ‘max’) results in a greater reduction in private car trips, and a modal shift to rail, bus and active travel trips.
Socioeconomic outcomes from the alternative and preferred scenarios
- Slow economic recovery scenario
-
- No change in total trips
- No change in population
- No change in employment
- No change in Gross Value Added (GVA)
- 1% less carbon
- Rapid net zero scenario
-
- 4% less total trips
- No change in population
- 2% less employment
- 2% less Gross Value Added (GVA)
- 8% less carbon
- Individualistic behaviour scenario
-
- 3% more total trips
- No change in population
- 2% more employment
- 3% more Gross Value Added (GVA)
- 7% less carbon
- Connected communities scenario
-
- 3% more total trips
- No change in population
- 5% more employment
- 5% more Gross Value Added (GVA)
- 5% less carbon
- Preferred scenario
-
- 3% less total trips
- 1% more population
- 4% more employment
- 3% more Gross Value Added (GVA)
- 19% less carbon
The preferred scenario results in an overall 3% reduction in travel trips and a 19% reduction in carbon vs a BAU scenario in 2050, and supports a positive contribution to population, employment and GVA vs a BAU scenario in 2050.
Socioeconomic outcomes from preferred, preferred ‘plus’ and preferred ‘max’ scenarios
- Preferred scenario ‘core’
-
Modelled interventions are reduced public transport fares and improved journey times, enhanced active travel infrastructure, national road pricing, focus of growth in town centres and increased virtual access.
- 3% less total trips
- 1% more population
- 4% more employment
- 5% more Gross Value Added (GVA)
- 19% less carbon
- Preferred scenario ‘plus’
-
Modelled interventions are as per preferred scenario ‘core’ and urban area parking restraint (price and availability).
- 3% less total trips
- 1% more population
- 3% more employment
- 2% more Gross Value Added (GVA)
- 23% less carbon
- Preferred scenario ‘max’
-
Modelled interventions are as per preferred scenario ‘plus’ and liveable neighbourhoods in urban areas
- 4% less total trips
- No change in population
- No change in employment
- No change in Gross Value Added (GVA)
- 30% less carbon
Introducing urban area parking restraints (a preferred scenario ‘plus’) and delivering initiatives which promote the concept of liveable neighbourhoods (a preferred scenario ‘max’) result in a greater reduction in trips and carbon emissions. This is due to a greater shift away from longer-distance private car trips to local trips undertaken by sustainable modes. Under these scenarios, sustainability outcomes are advanced without negatively impacting other socioeconomic outcomes vs a BAU scenario in 2050.