Interventions - general:

Stakeholder workshops:

- A ‘mini Holland’ approach could lead to walking and bus growth

- When talking about Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in future, important to note that these are not new and there are many examples of ‘modal filters’ in the city where vehicular access has been restricted e.g. off Old Shoreham Road

- Need to mention existing car club in the plan as this is a good service for shared mobility, it’s not just about the newer solutions

- Support 20-minute / mixed use neighbourhoods, improving access to food and services for local people. Mixed use neighbourhoods would support communities being more resilient

- Neighbourhood facilities should reflect new work from home priorities seen since Covid-19

- Important to tackle everyday walking and cycling issues now as there are more pedestrians and cyclists and it’s already difficult to walk around the city. Concerns include bins on pavements, signs, safety, lighting, conflicts, and enforcement

- Car journeys are still the default and we need to change behaviour

- Cycle routes often obstructed by vehicles (parked or driving)

- The plan looks generally good but some things are missing. Park and ride is not universally a good idea, there needs to be a strict criteria with less parking in the city centre for this to work (and for it not to create additional demand for driving) and the placement of the Mill Road trial site near the A23 will conflict with access to the National Cycle Network 20. it obstructs the National Cycling route 20.

- Need stronger emphasis in the document about 20mph zones and designing out speeding

- Street lighting and safety is not good enough at night and might affect the travel choices you make. The weather is also a factor

Schools:

- Suggest a limit number of cars (congestion charge)

- Encourage more supermarket deliveries – often the only time people use their cars is for the ‘big shop’

- Suggestion of a tax on diesel and petrol cars via a ULEZ

- Support Park and Ride in city centre

Quality Bus Partnership:

- Consideration of congestion charging and city-wide ULEZ

- Mobility hubs are important and particularly for interchange – need to remember that walking is a key part of bus journeys. Mobility hubs are not the sole answer to connectivity issues

- A23 – could consider this as a sustainable transport corridor only for buses, pedestrians and cyclists with a strategic hub at the top?

- Questioned how Park & Ride is being taken forward following citizens’ Climate Assembly recommendations

- Could a workplace parking levy subsidise bus fares for workers

Brighton & Hove Economic Partnership:

- Suggestion that ULEZ includes exemptions for business owners

- Mobility hubs – can these help with the growth in delivery vans resulting from more online deliveries?

- Difficult to get political support for Park & Ride and cycling schemes

- Is a Workplace Parking Levy appropriate for the city?

Destination Experience Group:

- Need for a balance between resident and visitor improvements

- Support for Park & Ride

- Most visitors are from outside the city; need to think about getting people in from public transport from a distance; there is a need for coach parking

Equalities & Inclusion Partnership:

- It is good to hear that accessibility is part of the plans, but groups will want to hear the detail of schemes and see accessibility coming through in the details of plans

Local Access Forum:

- Liveable City Centre – consideration needs to be given to reducing availability of car parking space in the city centre as a key part of this project. Car ownership in the city is already fairly low so this concept should be largely welcomed. Need to work on education and information as part of this project.

- Lots of successful interventions elsewhere that we can learn from e.g. LTNs in London

- 20-minute neighbourhood principle falls into areas really well. Need to focus on access to schools and do more around journeys to school. Focusing on local neighbourhoods will encourage local retail – this reduces the need to travel

- Mobility hubs - use of a fringe car park (for both park & ride into the city and access to SDNP) for the SDNP would tick boxes for the whole estate plan

Local Action Team (LAT) forum:

- Concern that Valley Gardens Phase 3 works will cut off St James’s Street

- Valley Gardens bus gate causing diversion of traffic into North Laine

Taxi forum:

- How to actually reduce journeys? People need to travel

- How is the council’s electric refuse truck performing and are there plans to introduce more?

- Worldwide, Uber are looking at how they can connect to active travel including adapting vehicles to carry bikes, would be interested in hearing more on interventions

- Is a Congestion Charge being considered?

- Where are Red Routes proposed? Concern that taxis would have difficulty dropping off on Red Routes

- Difficult for taxis to be part of integrated payment solutions for multi-modal travel – most cars accept card now and this makes things easier, but likely that taxi payment would remain separate to public transport

- Look at 15-minute neighbourhoods?

Transport Partnership:

- Low and zero emission vehicles, need to make sure we are promoting only for essential trips rather than them replacing walking & cycling for example

- Any future Mobility Hub / Park & Ride parking needs to replace city centre parking rather than cause additional parking / trips

- Park & Ride is often used by politicians who misunderstand active travel and believe they have to 'give back' something to drivers in exchange for better cycling facilities - which misses the point that better active travel = less congestion = better for motorists

- Park & Ride could be promoted by price to deter cars using city centre car parks. All day parking costs around £30 in many city centre car parks, P&R could significantly undercut these prices so reducing the need for car parks in the city centre.

Youth Council:

- Limit deliveries to certain times – night time etc?

- Bus emissions are a concern

- Buses are only low emission inside the ULEZ and not elsewhere

- Too much pollution in the city

- Need more car free areas

- Need more ULEZ areas

- Car free areas need to accommodate cycling too

- More restrictions on general traffic

- Deliveries – smaller vehicles in the city itself – larger vehicles deliver to the edge of the city

- Improving driver safety and awareness of cyclists

- Educating ALL road users

- Show full cost of driving! Help people see the difference between public transport and driving

- Bike awareness sessions – follow on from Bikeability

- Mobility hub / Park and Ride at Amex stadium / Falmer area?

- Out of city park and ride for tourists

Disabled people focus group:

- Inclusive travel needs to include travel for people with sight loss

- Considerations such as ability to access the city centre, accessing disabled parking, accessing BTN Bikeshare

- Local mobility hubs for deliveries wouldn’t be useful for those who don’t drive

- Consideration of targets and how to measure success of the plans and what access to active travel / Electric Vehicle (EV) charging will be for disabled people, many of whom have to travel the first leg of their journey by car but will be active travellers (e.g. wheeling) at some point in their journey

- Many barriers to EV uptake including cost (particularly for large vehicles required for specific needs) and the challenges of charging. Need for home EV charging

- Cycle training and enforcement needed (including enforcement of e-scooters)

- Have a visual impairment and can’t drive - feel the focus is often on cycling and driving and not enough on walking and public transport

Older people focus group:

- Challenges of limited space and lots of different people needing to travel

- Challenges of having enough money to do everything needed

- Car clubs are a good idea. Will use this, more access to car clubs would be good

Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) focus group:

- Park & Ride with a free bus service would be a good idea, with a city tram in the longer term, linking the outskirts and busy routes. The tram has changed Birmingham, which has introduced a Clean Air Zone

- Cycle training via the women’s refugee cycling group has been great and enabled women to make more journeys by bike

Issues & interventions - public transport:

Stakeholder workshops:

- Suggestion of a shuttle bus (demand-responsive) around the Whitehawk area

- Some areas have limited transport connections. There are however issues with some routes not being commercially viable

- More orbital / cross-city bus routes should be considered

- Some passengers don’t want express services as they want to get off mid-route e.g. 25X tends to be less busy than the 25 service

- Consider reducing number of train stations in the west of the city? Would improve rail journey times for longer journeys

Schools:

- Buses are expensive – need cheaper buses

- Need to wait a long time for the bus, it’s not reliable

- Congestion on bus routes, bus delays

- Buses are really crowded, need additional buses on routes

- Buses are very crowded-I prefer to walk

- Bus journeys are delayed by drivers taking a break

- Bus drivers can be rude

- Buses are often dirty/messy

- Reliability of buses

- Unreliability of bus information screens – not always accurate. Would be good if they worked properly

- Bus stops further apart – encourage more walking

- More bus lanes

- More bus stops and routes

- Due to Covid, there has been more car use than buses due to the risk of catching covid from others on the bus – parents and pupils are concerned. Need to bring back masks on public transport

- Issues with bus payment and vouchers for refunds – vouchers aren’t easy to spend, would be better to get money back or credit electronically

- Wifi on buses doesn’t always work (young people don’t always have data) – needs to be better

- Vandalism at bus stops

- Lack of lighting around bus stops

- Lack of bus stops in Saltdean, and not enough late services

- Lights and CCTV at bus stops, especially at night, at the back of Saltdean and in Whitehawk

- More sheltered bus stops, CCTV and lighting

- More obvious cameras on buses to stop antisocial behaviour

- Transport police – presence on buses

- Some students are afraid to use buses

- Drug users can congregate on buses

- Many bus stops are in dangerous areas to walk at night e.g. quite isolated – Saltdean/Whitehawk areas

- Tricky to walk to bus stops, especially in the winter when it’s dark if you’re travelling home following an after-school club

- Buses aren’t regular in areas away from the main roads

- Make travel to school cheaper

- Lower cost of longer journeys by bus, increase cost of very short journeys, this would encourage walking and cycling. Also have a bus pass for people who can’t walk and cycle

- Need more electric or biofueled buses

- Less dirty emissions

- More posters with bus times

- More buses to places where elderly people go

- Dedicated school buses and extra services

- Bus routes to school aren’t direct or on time

- Train seats are very close together

- Train delays

- Promote more train usage

Disabled people focus group:

- Buses are often full – difficult for visually impaired passengers

Quality Bus Partnership:

- Need to review bus shelter locations as some are close together and possibly need to be rationalised

- The weather can make a huge difference, a lot more short trips are made by bus in bad weather

Bike It stakeholder meeting:

- Why are London’s bus fares so much cheaper than elsewhere? Expensive here

Destination Experience Group:

- Issues raised with trains - number of carriages, frequency, reliability and timing (e.g. late evenings)

- We must also accept that there is, currently with COVID still with us, significant reluctance to using public transport

Equalities and Inclusion Partnership:

- Bus fares would come down with greater competition for buses in the city, currently a monopoly

- LTP5 be used to influence transport providers on accessibility?

- Asked about the use of trams in the city

Local Access Forum:

- No 1 bus through Whitehawk – reduced access to care home as no dropped kerbs near the bus stop

- I have a car but would prefer to use the bus more

Taxi forum:

- Taxis and private hire to have use of bus lanes

- Buses to be fully electric

- Need for additional taxi ranks including part time ranks

Transport Partnership:

- The interventions are really clear and come through well. Final version – need more on the bus network in terms of the highway, e.g. the importance of bus lanes etc. This is an ambition in the Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) and the LTP5 needs to reflect this

Youth Council:

- Bus fares can be expensive – need to make buses more affordable

- Bus prices aren’t clear, charge different amounts each time - make bus prices clearer

- Issues with proving age on the bus – Bus ID is helpful though

- Buses stop early on certain routes which means it’s difficult to get home in the evening

- More diverse bus routes e.g. longer ones / residential places in Brighton to residential places in Hove

- More night buses

- More express buses (consider alternative routes for express buses)

- Maps and directions (touch screen) on street for destinations etc

- Not enough night buses for me to go home late – need more frequent bus routes at night

- Buses aren’t frequent and often full

- Different bus route styles needed e.g. not always having to go through the city centre

- Need better real-time bus information on screens (buses disappear from screen and don’t arrive), and paper posters at bus stops (keep up to date)

- Improved bus frequencies – difficult to visit friends currently e.g. number 2

- Buses can feel unsafe

- Bus app – issues with buying child tickets in the daytime / being asked for ID when buying child single – under 18’s don’t have ID

- Bus app isn’t always correct

- Use of renewable fuels for buses e.g. cooking oil

- Make trains cheaper

- Buses and taxis need to be cleaner

- More bus, taxi and cycle lanes

Disabled people focus group:

- Bus journeys are easier for longer journeys, but bus stops are not always in the right places for shorter trips

- Negative experience of buses and with the challenging topography of Hollingdean, with the bus often not stopping to pick up

- Reliability of the bus service is important as it can put people off using public transport and using their cars instead

- Buses are often too full and are unreliable

- Can there be community transport options for access to the seafront – a shuttle bus was used during Disabled Pride to Hove Lawns

- There is limited access to the seafront on public transport

- Not being able to use a bus ticket on any bus operator service is a barrier to using public transport

Older people:

- Have problems with my feet and when using public transport I need to walk to the bus stop – only a 10 minute walk but this can be offputting

- Grand Avenue is great for buses, so many and can rely on them as can’t walk far right now

- ‘One goes where the buses go’ – not always where you want to if difficult to get there e.g. two buses

- More public transport is needed in the city

- I’m new to the area and can’t drive, I can get around easily enough on the buses which is great

Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) focus group:

- Bus fares are expensive - walk most of the time to avoid these

- Some bus drivers are rude and not helpful (e.g. buggies) and can be racist (e.g. leaving people at the bus stop when space on the bus)

- Kids travel for free in London so why can’t they here

- Bus tickets are costly for low-income families and larger families

- Suggestion to improve the bus ticketing system and make it cheaper.

- Bus drivers don’t always have change so won’t always accept money and will give a voucher back instead of change

- Often need to wait 30-40 mins for route 48 in Bevendean. Need a more frequent route 23 to the hospital

- Problems with buses being on time – can be late to appointments or picking children up from school

- Young people don’t feel safe getting bus alone particularly females

- Buses need to be better prepared for summer, with air con; opening windows doesn’t help as they don’t open very far

- Sometimes have issues with buses the 2 / 2a is generally good and reliable though. Good access to buses in Western Road

- Bus routes 23/24/25/25X are often full when the unis are open; appointments are missed due to this. Suggests more buses from Lewes Road to the hospital

- Very low number of electric taxis compared to e.g. London – need more here

Dementia Action Alliance:

- Wolverhampton Wanderers FC use stickers on seat to help people remember where they are seated; could we do this on public transport?

Issues & interventions - walking and cycling - joint:

Stakeholder workshops:

- Seafront walking / cycling routes – there needs to be more clarity about where people need to be and less room for interpretation

- Need to separate cyclists and pedestrians and include tactile paving at all crossings

Schools:

- Needs to be more separation between cars, bikes and pedestrians

- Suggest adding more ramps for pedestrians in wheelchairs

- More lighting and cameras, including around bike parking

- Encourage more people to make more walking/cycling trips

- Make the streets safer to walk / cycle

Disabled people focus group:

- Cyclists make it more difficult for those with visual impairments to use the footway when it is shared space

- Need to be clearer on where bikes can come through places and where they can’t

- Cycling on the pavement, bikes chained to railings, narrow spaces and bikes left in the entrance hall all cause difficulty when getting around on foot with a mobility impairment

Local Access Forum:

- New walking & cycling route Woodingdean to Falmer – lovely to have 3m width – but there are still issues with traffic and fumes on this route

Local Action Team (LAT) forum:

- The way the cycle network is currently set up is asking for trouble, too much conflict with pedestrians. Need for cyclists to be able to maintain speed and be separate from pedestrians. Needs an education campaign

Transport Partnership:

- Marina – not good for walking and cycling. Approach in and out has been made worse by temporary works at Black Rock, but once inside it’s a case study on how not to design a pedestrian environment. Terrible to cycle through – one big car park.

Issues & interventions - walking:

Stakeholder workshops:

- Need to say more in the document to recognise the everyday problems that residents are facing now across the city, such as the need to remove obstructions for pedestrians, lower speed limits and safer pavements. Need to fit the everyday needs with the wider LTP vision

Schools:

- Walking feels dangerous

- Feel unsafe walking in the evening

- Pedestrian safety

- Trafalgar Street - hard to walk here, narrow pavements and cars come up from behind

- Pavements have lots of litter

- Pedestrianise areas

- Make it safer to walk in the dark

- Those living near to school should be encouraged to walk, those further afield get the bus

- School Streets needed outside Dorothy Stringer

- Lots of people walk to school, it’s difficult to cross roads. More traffic lights are needed

- Many parents are not allowing pupils to walk to school as they don’t feel it’s safe for children

- The Vale – private road – students use this and it’s muddy. It’s a good alternative to the Falmer Road which is very busy

- Road safety e.g. crossing main roads, traffic levels

- More zebra crossings especially near schools

- Maps on-street to help people find their way around, and encourage people to go on nice walks in the area. Information in other languages to help tourists

Equalities and Inclusion Partnership:

- Connectivity of routes – accessibility – needs highlighting more – for some people only part of the journey may be possible by active modes currently

Local Access Forum:

- Issues re pavements. I have a car but would prefer to use the bus more. In some places pavements don’t exist or are too narrow or have no dropped kerbs

Disabled people focus group:

- Some active travel schemes are making it difficult to walk, and walking needs to be considered more

- Need more places to sit and rest that don’t require buying food or drink

Youth Council:

- More signage on walking times to key destinations

- Wider pedestrian crossings

- More zebra crossings on Dyke Road

- More zebra crossings / traffic lights

- Need more School Street closures like at Brunswick Primary School

- Safer junctions / crossings near schools

- Signs to indicate populated areas e.g. schools

Older people focus group:

- It’s brilliant here, have lots on our doorstep and need to be able to walk there safely

Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) focus group:

- Wide pavements are great but need to consider space for other modes too e.g. bikes

Issues & interventions - cycling (including e-bikes):

Stakeholder workshops:

- Useful that the LCWIP notes the use of a green colour for cycle lanes (when a colour is needed) as it makes it easily identifiable and therefore preventing parking in it and improving safety

- Raised the need for secure cycle parking in the city

- 100 new cycle hangars are not enough and should be able to get one like a car permit – equality issue in terms of this difference in parking for different modes of travel

- Not everyone is doing a long cycling route - there should be consideration of connecting routes where people might move to a branching route midway

- Issue of rising cost of housing in the city and people moving further afield and travelling back in for work / leisure. E-bikes can help with this in terms of covering longer distances / hillier areas. The use of e-bikes and e-scooters for these types of journey shows the need for a joined-up network of separated cycle routes

Schools:

- Bike storage is an issue

- Bike security is an issue

- More e-bikes needed

- More cycle lanes, and make them a lot wider

- Instead of more roads, make more cycle lanes

- More BTN Bikeshare – make it cheaper, electric and in more locations, consider helmets and encouraging safe riding

- More cycle lanes

- More secure cycle parking – home and at the shops etc

- Cycle parking hubs around the city

- Tricky junctions – not safe for cyclists

- More secure bike racks needed

- Cycle lanes should not be on pavements

- Instant payment needed for BTN Bikeshare

- BIG cycle lanes

- Bikes should have right of way

- Bikes should have a separate lane so they can travel more safely

- Cycle lanes on every road

- Better bike security and parking

- Make it as easy to cycle as it is to drive

- Dutch roundabouts

- It’s scary to cross roads on a bike

- May get tired (e.g. older people) on bikes, so e-bikes are needed

- Solar powered e-bikes

Disabled people focus group:

- Cycle training is needed to educate cyclists

- Need different colour cycle lanes

- Could the BTN Bikeshare scheme be made more accessible with electric vehicles and trikes. This could help support a healthy lifestyle and support those who don’t have access to a bike

Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) focus group:

- Cycle training needs to be publicised more – specific women’s cycling project also available and has been very valuable

- Would cycle if there were more cycle lanes

- When trying to learn cycling and take it up as a hobby, protected lanes are valuable and essential

- Cycling is too dangerous, it’s scary / difficult cycling with other vehicles, especially when not confident on the road

- Sometimes there is no lane for bikes on the road and is concerned about cycle accidents with vehicles, including by Sainsbury’s Lewes Road and on London Road by the shops, these areas need more space for bikes

- Pavements are often very wide but there is no room for cycling, suggesting the need to make room for cyclists too, needs to be 50/50

- Does the council does risk assessments of new cycle lanes and noted the new Seafront cycle lane making traffic lanes narrow

- Many cyclists don’t follow the rules - poor cyclists are a very bad influence on new cyclists, Deliveroo / JustEat cyclists can be a particular problem as well as delivery motorcycles

- Issue of lack of safe cycle parking – when shopping this is an issue as bikes can be stolen

Quality Bus Partnership:

- A23 / A259 concerns with regards to space for both cycle paths and buses

Bike It stakeholder meeting:

- It’s really important to get the infrastructure right, and to build it well e.g. London cycle superhighway examples. Need to take schemes to communities early on and take them with us on the scheme development

- Concern about dangerous junctions for cyclists and that cycle paths often give up at difficult junctions. There needs to be a shift of priorities to active travel. It is good to have a LTP5 and LCWIP. It is important to get the infrastructure right, aligned to Gear Change, particularly around junctions using the government junction tool

- Need to do more on the principle of sharing space better between modes. Cycle network is currently very piecemeal. But with this work it feels like we are turning a real corner and there is reason for hope, for the first time in many years

- Give consideration to providing child sized bikes as part of the bike share scheme

Destination Experience Group:

- Cycle lanes are becoming quite dangerous due to the pavement width (when shared). The management of cyclists needs consideration including speed and behaviour

Local Access Forum:

- Cycle parking is really important – e-bikes are becoming more popular and are very expensive. Need residential bike parking like in London – cycle hangars, with charging points in them for e-bikes

Taxi forum:

- Is cycling proficiency still happening and are the council giving out free or subsidised helmets?

- Concerns about encouraging cycling without secure storage

Transport Partnership:

- Support new BTN Bikeshare hubs but need to consider how these reinforce the objectives – e.g. Need to attract new users. Need to target areas of the city to actively reduce car use

Youth Council:

- Lewes Road – bikes need priority by Coldean and BACA

- Worried to cycle on street without clearly marked cycle lanes

- Bike lane needed on Portland Road

- Cycling – need more Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) and clearer routes to get to the front of the traffic to get into the ASL

- More differentiation of cycle lanes -like Madeira Drive

- Better separation / marking of cycle lanes

- More cycle lanes

- Safer roads by putting in cycle lanes -residential areas to key destinations

- Bike stop repair stations

- Cycle / driver conflict

- Dangerous junctions to cycle through when travelling to Blatchington Mill School and BHASVIC

- Safety on bikes – dangerous drivers and leaving little space for bikes to manoeuvre

- I was knocked off my bike by a car, luckily moving slowly, turning left at a junction

- Some junctions are difficult to cross

- Hove Park Tavern / OSR junction - dangerous and poor indication from drivers here

- Clearer rules for cyclists on the road

- BTN bikeshare needs better cleaning – used for the naked bike ride!!

- More BTN Bikeshare in the suburbs

- E-bikes on BTN Bikeshare – either make it slightly more for e-bike journeys, or raise cost of all journeys by a smaller amount to take account of this

Older people focus group:

- Covid transport measures – we have been affected by these. Old Shoreham Road cycle lane caused congestion

- Are you measuring cycling levels? Need to keep an eye on routes that aren’t used. What if cycling doesn’t take off in the way you expect? It might not

- Before Covid I used to cycle, but parts of it were stolen while locked up on-street. Need to do more for bike storage

- Tried an e-bike once and gave it back, couldn’t get used to it

- Someone has repainted the Old Shoreham Road cycle lane and it’s unsafe

Issues & interventions - e-scooters:

Stakeholder workshops:

- Need to allow for passengers taking e-scooters on the bus

- Comments on legality of e-scooters and how they will be dealt with in the LTP5

Schools:

- License on e-scooters

- More e-scooters needed

Taxi forum:

- What is the council position on e-scooters?

Disabled people focus group:

- Are e-scooters / micro mobility taken into consideration in the LTP?

Youth Council:

- Allow e-scooters in bike lanes

Older people focus group:

- E-scooters riding on pavement are an issue. They come up from behind and can be very scary where you don’t see them coming and then they nearly knock you over

- E-scooters need to be the same as a car, test and registration etc

- Seafront – saw a lady on an e-scooter riding with a young child – very dangerous

Issues & interventions - Electric Vehicles (EVs):

Brighton & Hove Economic Partnership:

- There is a need for more EV charging points, noting that 25% of cars will be electric in 2025. Also noted the need for a more collective effort to deliver the plan

Schools:

- Not enough places to charge EVs

- More EV charging points needed

- More encouragement of EVs needed

- Different electric cars need different chargers – too many companies and it’s too confusing

- Non-EV cars parking in EV charging bays

Local Access Forum:

- EV charging is a massive issue, narrow streets, cables trailing, etc. Even where there are proper charging points on the pavement, this presents issues for pedestrians, taking up space that is already restricted. EV chargers need to be on the carriageway not the pavement. Need a policy around this, as this is a huge issue happening now, and is only going to get worse

Transport Partnership:

- Need consideration of EVs in the city centre – simply moving to EVs won’t help congestion issues

Disabled people focus group:

- What access to active travel / EV charging will be for disabled people, many of whom have to travel the first leg of their journey by car but will be active travellers (e.g. wheeling) at some point in their journey. Many barriers to EV uptake including cost (particularly for large vehicles required for specific needs) and the challenges of charging. Need for home EV charging

Issues & interventions - vehicles:

Schools:

- Too many cars on the road

- Parking – not enough space for all vehicles

- Noisy motorbikes

- Less dirty emissions

- More car parking needed around green spaces

- Tax on purchasing new petrol / diesel cars

- Signal countdown at traffic lights for drivers to reduce cars still running and burning fuel

- No cars at all?

- Stop drivers beeping at cyclists

- Need less fumes

- People who need to use their cars - make them pay more for petrol

- Better road safety education

- Permits to be able to use cars

- Filtration system for vehicle fumes

- Less angry drivers

- Noise cameras

- Concerned about CO2 emission problems

Disabled people focus group:

- Car use / journeys have been side-lined and residents have limited parking options at destinations, often driving to Eastbourne or Worthing for trips out as it is considered easier

Older people focus group:

- There is only finite space on our roads, for many different users

- Need to treat the artery roads different to other routes, these roads carry a lot of traffic

- Loss of parking can be an issue

Youth Council:

- Driving license checks every 10 years

- Improve driver attitudes and driving culture

Transport Partnership:

- Simply moving to EVs won’t help congestion issues, need to do more

Local Action Team (LAT) forum:

- Need to stop some driving and bad parking

Local Access Forum:

- City centre car parking needs to be reduced. Consideration of selling central car parking space in order to fund schemes? At the moment the amount of car parking in central Brighton encourages car use, as pricing in itself only does so much – need a further restriction mechanism

Destination Experience Group:

- Concerns about the replacement of the Palace Pier roundabout with a junction as part of Valley Gardens Phase 3 since it won’t allow for u-turns

Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) focus group:

- The road lane layout can be difficult for drivers; easy to end up in the bus lane and be fined (Lewes Road)

- Problem on traffic congestion on the Seafront, noting that the main car parks are located here e.g. the lanes, Regency Square

- The congestion is creating more carbon, especially with slow-moving traffic waiting to reach city centre car parks

- It’s difficult for visitors to navigate across the city, so they head for the main car parks and the seafront

- Difficulties in finding a place to park in Zone C, even with a resident permit, especially when coming home from work late at night. Questioned why permits are issued when there’s not enough space and concern about the large increase in permit costs

- Difficulty in driving along some roads due to people parking on both sides, also the difficulty for pedestrians especially those with buggies or wheelchairs.

Issues & interventions - disabled parking:

Equalities and Inclusion Partnership:

- Consideration of disabled parking not only in the city centre but across the city

Disabled people focus group:

- Suggestion of a map for disabled car parking locations in the city

- Need more of a focus for disabled parking in areas where services are located e.g. Morley Street which is near several health-related destinations

- The topography of the city needs to be considered and that disabled parking spaces on hills such as the one at the hospital are not ideal as it is difficult to get in and out of the car safely

- Best practice for locating disabled bays should be embedded into the plan

- If disabled bays need to be closed, a temporary alternative must be put in place as people rely on these

- Need enough room in disabled parking bays to open doors and manage equipment

- Suggestion for drop off and pick up priority bays for taxis and disabled passengers - would be helpful in the city centre as often you don’t need to park

- Issue of people with mobility issues who are not blue badge holders - need to be considered in ’car free’ areas considered by the council as not everyone who needs to drive has a blue badge but may still legitimately need access. Awareness of these people is necessary as it’s not always a clear issue. Is there a way the council could assess access requests for things like the Liveable City Centre and open to more than blue badge holders?

- Suggestion that Brighton & Hove become a destination city for disabled people

- The attitudes towards disabled drivers is shocking, e.g. drivers pulling in ‘just for five minutes’ and becoming abusive when politely asked to move as the space is needed

Older people focus group:

- Car journeys in the city can be difficult. Parking can be difficult when I don’t have my husband with me (who has a blue badge). I avoid central Brighton as get lost in the one-way systems, Hove is ok though

Operational (maintenance / enforcement / obstructions / pavement parking / lighting):

Stakeholder workshops:

- Maintenance is an issue – need to keep up the basics

- Need to build in the expectation of less traffic once routes are installed, and incorporate into messaging

- Pavement lighting and surfacing issues

- Street clutter is an issue, council needs to adhere to accessibility standards e.g. new RNIB guidance

- Pavement parking is an issue

Schools:

- Roads are busy and the paths are muddy when in school uniform

- Short cuts can be very poorly lit

- Pavements can be broken, uneven and difficult to walk on

- Concerns about elderly people e.g. seen some fall on pavements

- More lighting, also on London Road

- Make pavements more even to encourage walking

Equalities and Inclusion Partnership:

- Need to look at a joined-up approach with issues like weeds, bins on the pavement and maintenance incorporated. Need to look at what we already have

- Important to ensure the width of pavements provide for everyone. At least 1.5m passing space is needed, currently there are many obstructions

Local Access Forum:

- Pavement parking on Wilson Avenue is a problem

Local Action Team (LAT) Forum:

- Sydney Street / Gardner Street – problems caused by parked delivery vans obstructing pedestrian movements

Taxi forum:

- Enforcement of taxi ranks is a big issue – particularly for part time bays (e.g. Church Street) – lots of abuse by private vehicles. Better signage could help – e.g. the type of signage used at Hove station. Could enforcement officers finish later in the evening?

Transport Partnership:

- Pavement quality and provision is an issue

- Need to get the basics right e.g. traffic speeds stopping people from walking and cycling, reducing speeds and enforcing speed limits

Youth Council:

- Need better maintenance – lots of overgrown, dirty alleyways

- Cars blocking pavements and pedestrian routes

- More street lighting needed in darker areas, better street lights needed

Disabled people focus group:

- Conditions of pavements are an issue when getting around the city – uneven surfacing, broken kerbs. topography

- Pavement obstructions and obstructions in parking bays e.g. skips are a problem

- Enforcement of disabled bays is an issue

- The reality of using some disabled bays in practice is difficult e.g. Sydney Street / Gardner Street with obstructions from pedestrians and café tables / chairs. Issue of street licensing – while understanding the need to support the economy, there have been issues with compliance by businesses, and enforcement by the council. Many businesses are encroaching on pavement space e.g. The Ivy blocking the pavement – very difficult for mobility scooters to find a way around. The law is clear but in reality it’s a different story and not adhered to

- Enforcement needed for those cycling where they shouldn’t – e.g. George Street Hove

Older people focus group:

- Pavements in Hove – awful surface quality – bumpy when pushing a wheelchair. Big issues in particular around the greyhound stadium

- Need something done about the weeds on the pavements – they are an issue when walking with a wheelchair

- One participant recently had surgery on their foot and has had difficulty getting around – more difficult when pavements are bumpy / obstructed

- Need to get the basics right for maintenance of pavements

Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) focus group:

- Pavements in Moulsecoomb are not level and the plants on Lewes Road are not looking nice or welcoming to visitors and residents

- Concerns about the road surface quality causing vehicle damage

- Obstructions on roads can be an issue – parked or loading vehicles etc. This also impacts on buses. Suggestion to only have parking on one side of narrow roads e.g. Hodshrove Road

- Pavement parking is a problem, particularly for disabled people and carers

Dementia Action Alliance:

- Signage on streets should be simple and kept brief

Local Transport Plan 5 (LTP5) consultation document:

Stakeholder workshops:

- Welcome the document but it doesn’t go far enough

- Enforcement should be included as a theme

- The outcomes could reflect 20-minute neighbourhood concept better – e.g. minimising the need to travel by placing services closer to residential areas / closer together

Transport Partnership:

- ‘Develop streets and places’ intervention – missing the point about existing issues / problems – need to get the basics right e.g. traffic speeds stopping people from walking and cycling, reducing speeds and enforcing speed limits

- Principle two (shift how people travel) – needs more focus on freight – people AND goods

- Need to highlight the importance of public transport for short journeys in the second principle

- What is the realistic capability of BHCC and its partners to deliver the full list of interventions by 2030? Raised expectations need to be managed, or disappointed - else it's worthy but disempowering. is there a delivery plan coming?

- Reduce the need to travel – do we mean reduce the need to drive? Need to be clearer

- Use of word ‘vehicle’ – should be ‘motor vehicles’ as cycles are a vehicle?

- Rather than try and get everything in the key principles, we could cover these points in accompanying text

- Clarification on short / long journeys as part of ‘shift’ principle – need to reframe this principle as need to explain this too much e.g. to people in this session. Keep it simple

- Drop short / long journeys element in principles wording.

- Need to prioritise those who have the option

- First principle – we do want more ‘shared’ private vehicles and this needs to be made clear - we need the word ‘private’ in there somewhere to differentiate this, especially given the increase in shared transport options in recent years

- Add to wording – safe and ‘enjoyable’ (and for LCWIP)

- Need to keep ‘short’ in the context of short car trips needing to be reduced – clarify this in the ‘reduce’ principle

- ‘Reduce’– it’s important to talk about reducing across the board – as one cycle journey one day could be a car journey tomorrow

- Need cooperation with causes of journeys e.g. planning and school selection processes, employment patterns

- Need to mention health in principles

- Use of terminology e.g. mixed use neighbourhoods – needs to be clearer

- 3^rd principle – cleaner vehicles – needs to be about walking and cycling as well. Need to reduce congestion as this is a big issue. E.g. the new Falmer – Woodingdean walk / cycle path – it’s great but there is still the issue of pollution from the busy road here. Walking close to traffic should be a no-no. Need to take routes away from traffic

- Need more mention of visitors

- It’s confusing where we talk about ideas and principles, then talk about other plans

- Nothing about cycle lanes / better bus stops

- Need to draw out the LCWIP / BSIP principles in the LTP document and rural to urban connectivity

- Need to normalise inclusivity within the document – not have it as its own section. Need to make it mainstream

- Need to see more about celebrating small businesses, economy, local shopping streets, with clearer messaging to get support from them

- Most important thing for targets is to keep it simple, SMART and review targets regularly. Don’t do outputs, need outcomes. Find out what people are doing, what they think, how they use things. Got to be much more open about data – need to do better. Even WSCC have open source traffic count data which is available in real-time

- Need to gather data now, not just when we put schemes in

- How will carbon impacts be assessed? This will be critical to showing the necessary progression towards 2030

- Need to say somewhere in the principles about safer streets, as road danger is a big concern locally

- Need to think about safer roads, not just crossings

Quality Bus Partnership:

- ‘Shift how people travel’ principle - many will make short journeys by public transport and this needs to be considered

- The priority areas, and 2030 carbon reduction commitment, are really bold, so if we are serious about these and the 2030 carbon neutral commitment we need to increase public transport routes significantly to achieve these

Equalities and Inclusion Partnership:

- Messaging also needs to be clear that it is safe for disabled people

- Link with this work and the Accessible City Strategy

- How will the document be governed and the will residents be updated? Is there a commitment to ongoing communications and reassurance?

Bike It stakeholder meeting:

- The LTP5 could link more with the Carbon Neutral agenda and be more explicit about the contribution that cycling and walking will make. How will the plan be measured and will targets be set as part of the process?

Destination Experience Group:

- Safety needs to be included as an outcome

- LTP5 has too much emphasis on walking and cycling – need to consider visitors coming from outside the city and supporting them using public transport / coach parking

- Need for more comprehensive engagement including with the Brighton Tourism Alliance

- We will face difficulty and the devil is in the detail. Suggested highlighting the consequences of not doing something

Local Access Forum:

- Pollution and congestion – until we get cars out of the city centre this will continue. EVs can help, but still leave particulates from tyres, which are dangerous. Need priorities, targets and timescales for this

- At night time, my wife and daughter don’t feel safe walking around – safety is a big issue. Need recognition of safety in the document as this is a big issue. Could consider projects such as women only buses, security guards walking women to their cars at a Park & ride site in future, etc, noted the university example of ‘safety buses’ for women at night

Local Action Team (LAT) forum:

- Important to consult widely

- Consultation – difficult to engage on such broad topics, suggest tweaking to make more local

- Need to work with football club. Problems with parking here. Add to stakeholder list

- Add St James Business Alliance to list

- Residents will want to use their cars – needs to be about more than just bikes

- Safe spaces needed, need to involve others e.g. community support, enforcement

Taxi forum:

- Support for the principles and would like information on the detail of schemes

Disabled people focus group:

- Need to be mindful of the wording used in publicity and documents so not to alarm disabled people

- The council should consider a statement on accessibility in the LTP5 / LCWIP which says that no-one will be left behind when it comes to travel in Brighton & Hove, also setting out what active travel means for disabled people

- Some disabled people might be concerned by the headlines of the plan and not read the small print. The messaging needs to be considered carefully

- The document has too much ableist language/wording and that there needs to be an awareness of the language used, this currently sends out a negative message

- Suggestion for a page in the document on what Active Travel means for disabled people

- How will schemes be carried out going forward, and do we have funding?

- Consideration of targets and how to measure success of the plans

Older people focus group:

- The council is doing the right thing and things will be great in about 10 years – lots will change in the end, but it’s the next 10 years or so that will be difficult.

Dementia Action Alliance:

- Need a simpler version of the documents/priorities, without the use of acronyms - a simplified version of the priorities and proposals for people affected by dementia to comment on. For many with language or cognitive impairment, the full documents could be too heavy, acronyms can be a problem too. For example - "Brighton Council wants to improve paths and walkways across the city. What challenges do you have when walking? What would make it easier for you to walk around Brighton?"

- The council is also developing an Age and Dementia Friendly Action Plan

Other:

Stakeholder workshops:

- Other plans and strategies don’t have adequate consideration of transport e.g. Hove station Neighbourhood Plan

- Need to consider the impact of future funding on the decision on the temporary Old Shoreham Road cycle lane

Schools:

- Suggestion of helpers on street e.g. for deaf and blind people and those with mobility issues

- No car rallies

- No aeroplanes

Quality Bus Partnership:

- Questioned the promotion of reducing travel by working from home when this can have a higher environmental impact (heating etc) – there is an argument against this?

Bike It stakeholder meeting:

- Provide more accessible versions of surveys in future to engage better with young people filling in the survey

Taxi forum:

- Asked about the central pedestrian refuge strip included in the proposed Western Road improvements and felt it could be a trip hazard

Youth Council:

- Better communication is needed for travel schemes in the city

- More circular economy projects needed in the city

Older people focus group:

- People used to be law abiding, now this is disappearing rapidly, the respect has gone

Your travel

Q Which method of travel do you MOST use for each of the following journey purposes? [3]

Respondents were asked to choose one main method of travel, used for the longest distance part of the journey.

	Walk		Wheelchair or mobility scooter				Cycle		Bus			Taxi or private hire vehicle		Community transport		Train				Car/ van as driver			Car/ van as passenger					Motor-cycle or moped
	No.	%		No.	%	No.		%		No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%			No.		%			No.		%			No.		%
Commuting to/ from work	169	18.5		1	0.1	204		22.4		93	10.2	10	1.1	3	0.3	106		11.6	168		18.4			33		3.6			9		1.0
Travel as part of work (eg deliveries or visits)	79	8.7		1	0.1	96		10.5		51	5.6	12	1.3	2	0.2	59		6.5	133		14.6			28		3.1			6		0.7
Getting to school/ college/ university or training	82	9.0		0	0	73		8.0		27	3.0	4	0.4	2	0.2	20		2.2	51		5.6			13		1.4			0		0.0
Local shops (eg bakery, convenience store, green grocer)	668	73.2		9	1.0	142		15.6		43	4.7	4	0.4	0	0	1		0.1	90		9.9			29		3.2			1		0.1
Food shopping (weekly shop)	187	20.5		2	0.2	98		10.7		55	6.0	6	0.7	0	0	1		0.1	335		36.7			82		9.0			0		0.0
City Centre shopping	260	28.5		3	0.3	190		20.8		276	30.3	14	1.5	0	0	27		3.0	98		10.7			38		4.2			1		0.1
Visiting parks, play-grounds or open spaces	615	67.4		7	0.8	195		21.4		71	7.8	4	0.4	3	0.3	22		2.4	165		18.1			53		5.8			2		0.2
Visiting health facilities	370	40.6		7	0.8	174		19.1		99	10.9	14	1.5	2	0.2	7		0.8	197		21.6			59		6.5			3		0.3
Visiting leisure / sports facilities	238	26.1		5	0.5	214		23.5		91	10.0	8	0.9	2	0.2	15		1.6	216		23.7			51		5.6			4		0.4
Meeting friends or relatives / socialising	383	42.0		7	0.8	227		24.9		200	21.9	67	7.3	1	0.1	103		11.3	244		26.8			87		9.5			4		0.4

Other travel modes: Online shopping x11, run x2, socialise online x1

A number of respondents stated that they don’t make these type of journeys (top 5):

I don’t make this type of journey	Number	%[4]
Getting to school/ college/ university or training	338	37.1
Travel as part of work (eg deliveries or visits)	259	28.4
Commuting to/ from work	200	21.9
Food shopping (weekly Shop)	82	9.0
Visiting leisure / sports facilities	67	7.3

Main transport modes used, by journey purpose[5]

· Walking: 73.8% to local shops, 8.7% travel as part of work (eg deliveries or visits)

· Cycling: 24.9% meeting friends or relatives / socialising, 8.0% getting to school/ college/ university or training[6]

· Public transport:

· Bus: 20.3% for city-centre shopping, 3% getting to school/ college/ university or training

· Train: 11.6% commuting to/ from work, 0.1% for each of local shops and food shopping (weekly shop),

· Car/ van as driver or passenger: 45.7% food shopping (weekly shop), 7% Getting to school/ college/ university or training

Low numbers of young people responding does not give a clear picture of how they are travelling. Knowing how hard it can be to engage with young people, the project team held meetings with the Youth Council and held sessions with four local secondary schools to seek out and engage with younger people. A summary of these discussions can be found in section 3 of this report where the workshop and focus group feedback is summarised.

Q Which method of travel do you MOST use for each of the following journeys?[7] (Respondents were asked to choose ONE main mode for each journey type)

	Walk		Wheelchair or mobility scooter			Cycle			Bus		Taxi or private hire vehicle			Community transport				Train		Car / van as driver			Car/ van as passenger			Motorcycle or moped
	No.	%		No.	%		No.	%	No.	%		No.	%		No.	%	No.		%		No.	%		No.	%		No.	%
Around your local neighbourhood	731	80.2		11	1.2		120	13.2	18	2.0		2	0.2		1	0.1	1		0.1		85	9.3		27	3.0		5	0.5
Into the city centre	262	28.7		2	0.2		229	25.1	283	31.0		32	3.5		2	0.2	24		2.6		134	14.7		38	4.2		8	0.9
Getting across the city (eg Patcham to Portslade)	17	1.9		1	0.1		208	22.8	246	27.0		26	2.9		0	0.0	20		2.2		331	36.3		71	7.8		7	0.8
Leaving the city into neighbouring areas	11	1.2		0	0.0		76	8.3	99	10.9		14	1.5		4	0.4	262		28.7		470	51.5		119	13.0		8	0.9

Other modes include e-scooter/ skateboard x3, Car club x1

Numbers of respondents not making these journeys are very low: (less than 2% of all respondents for all categories.

Main transport modes used for different distance journeys[8]

· Walking: 80.2% around the local neighbourhood, 1.2% outside of the city into neighbouring areas

· Cycling: 25.1% into the city centre, 8.3% leaving the city into neighbouring areas

· Public transport:

· Bus: 31% into the city centre, 2% around the local neighbourhood

· Train: 28.7% leaving the city into neighbouring areas, 0.1% around the local neighbourhood

· Car/ van as driver or passenger: 64.5% leaving the city into neighbouring areas, 12.3% around the local neighbourhood

Your concerns and ease of travel

Q How concerned are you about each of the following in the city?

	Extremely concerned		Moderately concerned		Somewhat concerned		Slightly concerned		Not at all concerned		Total [9]
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	Total [9]
Traffic congestion	365	41.7	235	26.9	137	15.7	65	7.4	73	8.3	875
Journey times (general traffic)	172	20.2	257	30.2	152	17.9	114	13.4	155	18.2	850
Journey times (buses)	124	15.8	231	29.4	142	18.0	117	14.9	173	22.0	787
Air pollution	463	52.9	179	20.4	91	10.4	80	9.1	63	7.2	876
Noise pollution	297	33.9	224	25.6	122	13.9	105	12.0	127	14.5	875
Road safety	414	47.2	203	23.1	101	11.5	78	8.9	82	9.3	878
Climate change	521	59.5	151	17.2	81	9.2	47	5.4	76	8.7	876
Personal safety	296	33.7	218	24.8	141	16.0	118	13.4	106	12.1	879

Levels of concern:

Highest levels of concern overall relate to climate change 672 (76.7%)[10] and lowest levels of concern relate to journey times (buses) 290 (36.8%) [11]There were some variations in the level of concerns according to the type of journeys undertaken by respondents, including[12]:

· Respondents who travel longer distances[13] are more concerned about traffic congestion than those travelling more locally

· Air pollution, noise pollution, climate change and road safety are of least concern to those respondents using a car or van for all distance journeys.

· Personal safety is of most concern to respondents who walk or cycle for all journeys lengths asked about (around local neighbourhood, into city centre, across the city and leaving the city).

· Females generally have higher levels of concern than males, in particular relating to air pollution (7.2 percentage points more females extremely or moderately concerned), climate change (7.0 percentage points more) and personal safety (13.1 percentage points more).

· Respondents saying that they have a disability generally show lower levels of concern about the issues listed in the table above; the main exceptions being journey times for general traffic and personal safety. Respondents who do not have a disability expressed similar levels of concern for all concerns listed in the table above.

Q How easy do you find making the following journeys by methods other than driving (eg public transport, walking, cycling)?

	Very easy		Easy		Neither easy nor difficult		Difficult		Very difficult		Total[14]
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	Total[14]
Around your local neighbourhood	379	43.7	254	29.3	113	13.0	79	9.1	43	5.0	5.0
Into the city centre	183	21.3	306	35.7	150	17.5	147	17.1	72	8.4	8.4
Getting across the city	55	6.7	127	15.4	203	24.5	253	30.6	189	22.9	22.9
Leaving the city into neighbouring areas	47	5.6	146	17.4	223	26.6	222	26.5	201	24.0	24.0

This group of respondents (who are not driving for these journeys) find getting around the local neighbourhood to be the easiest[15] 633 (72.9%), whereas getting across the city and leaving the city to neighbouring areas are almost equally difficult[16] 442 (53.4%) and 423 (50.4%) respectively.

Respondents are mostly using sustainable modes for journeys around the local neighbourhood and into the city centre but we also know from the table above (method of travel by journey distance types) that the number of journeys using a car or van in the local neighbourhood is low, rising to 18.9% into the city centre so there is potential to encourage more sustainable modes for local trips.

Local Transport Plan 5

Q How important do you think our transport priority areas are?

	Very important		Important		Neither important of not important		Not very important		Not at all important		Total[17]
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.
Create an inclusive and integrated transport system	499	57.6	227	26.2	67	7.7	36	4.2	37	4.3	866
Develop streets and places that encourage and enable active travel	502	58.4	165	19.2	77	9.0	60	7.0	56	6.5	860
Increase public transport use	449	51.4	256	29.3	90	10.3	32	3.7	46	5.3	873
Reduce car use	480	55.2	137	15.8	83	9.6	46	5.3	123	14.2	869
Promote and facilitate the use of low and zero emission vehicles	392	45.2	253	29.1	102	11.8	54	6.2	67	7.7	868
Promote and use technology to reduce and manage travel - eg remote working / video conferencing	235	27.6	268	31.5	197	23.1	76	8.9	76	8.9	852

At least 70% said that they are all important or very important, with the exception of ‘promote and use technology to reduce and manage travel’ (59.1%).

Q Which of these key principles could you easily contribute to?

	I already do/ have done this		I could do this in future		I could do this in future with support		I could not do this in future		Total[18]
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Avoid or reduce the length of trips made by car or van	569	70.0	56	6.9	55	6.8	133	16.4	813
Change some / more of my short journeys to walking, wheeling or cycling	641	75.9	45	5.3	49	5.8	110	13.0	845
Make some / more of my longer journeys by public transport	409	48.3	149	17.6	103	12.2	185	21.9	846
Change my car or van to a zero or low emission vehicle	122	18.3	172	25.9	254	38.2	117	17.6	665

The survey asked respondents which of the key principles people could easily, or already are, contributing to. The following is a summary of the responses:

· At least 70% said that they have already avoided, or reduced the length of, trips made by car or van and changed some or more of their short journeys to walking, wheeling or cycling. Almost half (48.3%) said that they already do, or have made some or more, of their longer journeys by public transport, and nearly one in five (18.3%) have changed their car or van to a zero or low emission vehicle.

· 38.2% said they could change their car or van to a zero or low emission vehicle with support; the most common support suggested was less expensive electric vehicles (145 comments), easier access to charging / dedicated charging bays (79 comments) and car club / shared electric vehicles (11 comments).

· 12.2% said they could make some or more of their longer journeys by public transport with support; the most common support suggested was cheaper/ free public transport (41 comments) and a range of improvements to services (36 comments) including more direct bus routes, improved integration of public transport, improved journey times, reliability, and outer/orbital bus service provision.

· The most commonly suggested type of support by the 5.8% who said that they could change some / more of their short journeys to walking, wheeling or cycling was more / improved cycle lanes and network (21 comments), and more / better cycle parking provision (10 comments).

Mode	Comment (top 10 for each mode)	No. of times raised
Cycling	Cycle lanes: More/ safe/ segregated/ better routes/ quieter routes/ joined up/ better planned/ improve links to South Downs	147
Cycle parking: more/ secure/ adapted bikes/ cycle hangars/ e-cycle parking/ city centre/ reduce cycle theft	48
Enforce cycling regulations/ cyclists need training/ helmets/ insurance/ number plates/ pay road tax/ must use lane if there is one	30
Cycle lanes: waste of money/ no more/ in wrong place/ remove/ negative comments about the A259 cycle lane	27
Reinstate / keep / install Old Shoreham Road cycle lanes	18
E-scooters: keep off roads/ pavements/ cycle lanes, clarity needed/ regulate/ hire scheme, no skateboards	15
Enforce parking in cycle lanes/ remove obstacles	15
BTN Bikeshare: e-bikes/ e-cargo/ cargo bikes needed/ e-scooters	9
Don’t remove cycle lanes (general)	8
Don’t remove cycle lanes (Old Shoreham Road)	8
Cycle maintenance or training: free / cheap/ taster days/ community-based	8
It's dangerous to cycle in the city/needs to be safer for children	7
Encourage e-bikes/ for deliveries/ e-bike charge points	7
Support the removal of the Old Shoreham Road cycle lanes	6
Driving	Reduce/ charge/ restrict cars/ into city/ traffic free city centre/ EV's only/ install Low-Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs)/ stop prioritising cars/local traffic calming	68
Park & Ride: with free bus pass /stop tourists driving into city	34
Congestion: blocking off routes / Rottingdean/ improve traffic flow/ into city centre/ through routes just for cars / LTNs cause congestion	27
Speeding: enforce/ more 20mph areas/ traffic calming	26
EV charging points: more/ free / at Park & Ride	18
Have to drive / for work/ disability/ late at night/ carrying heavy goods/ schools	10
Parking: want cheaper / more parking / less CPZs	9
Parking: enforce illegal parking	9
Reduce car/ cycle conflict/ educate drivers how to share the road	9
More car club vehicles/ e-car club vehicles	5
EVs: Promote/ incentivise	5
Don't reallocate road space for walking and cycling	5
Public Transport	Buses: expensive/ subsidise/ free (for school children)/ cheaper for Electric buses	87
Buses: frequency/ reliability/ to outer areas/ orbital routes/ nearby towns/ schools/ universities	48
Buses: too slow/ trams/electric trams/ express buses	21
Bus station needed/ don't want all buses into the centre/ remove buses from North Street/ restructure routes/ want seafront route	16
Step free access at rail stations/ Preston Park station	14
Multi-modal ticketing/ include bikeshare/ more ticket outlets needed	11
Better interchange at bus stops/ train stations and journey links	7
More bus lanes/ bus priority/ enforcement	7
Better/ more bike carrying on trains and buses	6
Nationalise/ Local Government run public transport/ pay for from council taxes	5
Buses unsafe: Covid/ masks	5
Train fares are too expensive	5
Walking	Pavements: better/ safer/wider /more/ weeding/ maintain/ dementia friendly	56
Pavements: remove street clutter/ bins/ scaffolding	23
Crossings: better/ safer/ at junctions/ pedestrian priority/ wheelchair users/ more dropped kerbs	19
Pavement parking: enforce/ stop	18
Personal safety: CCTV/ streetlights/ with sensors/ underpasses/ pedestrian bridges/ The Level/ women	17
Pedestrianise city centre/ more areas/ like New Road/ Rottingdean High Street	11
Keep vehicles/ cycles/ e-scooters off pavements/ seafront/ undercliff	7
More walking routes/ segregated/ away from pollution/ greener	6
Subsidise walking equipment for people eg jackets and shoes	4
Misc	Greener streets/ more trees/ planting	25
Consider everyone: young people/ elderly/ people with disabilities/ with low incomes	11
Manage road works	11
Water taxis/ electric cable car system/ automated personal transport	9
More consultation: with disabled/ outlying areas/ Old Shoreham Road cycle route needed more consultation	6
Transport: holistic/ better planned	5
Active travel: prioritise/ fund/ promote / financial incentives	5
Reduce the need to travel/ more local amenities/ 15-minute neighbourhoods	4
Support School Streets	4
Subsidise travel for disabled	5

	Number	%
The condition of pavements is poor	402	44.1
Obstructions on pavements (eg bins, seating, signage)	350	38.4
Pavements are not wide enough	238	26.1
Parking on pavements	304	33.3
Vehicles are inconsiderately parked	280	30.7
Not enough dropped kerbs	114	12.5
Poor driver behaviour towards pedestrians	233	25.5
Poor cyclist behaviour towards pedestrians	192	21.1
Difficult to cross the roads at junctions	228	25.0
Not enough pedestrian crossings	190	20.8
Pedestrian crossing signals take too long	143	15.7
Poor street lighting	181	19.8
Not enough routes to where I need to get to	52	5.7
Traffic is too fast	231	25.3
Feel unsafe walking in my local area	91	10.0
Poor air quality	206	22.6
Traffic noise	198	21.7
Traffic congestion	195	21.4
Not enough seating or resting points	115	12.6
Not enough greenery or planting	200	21.9
Not enough travel information / maps on street	52	5.7
Local shops/ services/ schools are too far to walk to	38	4.2
Other includes (top 5): Litter / dog mess / weeds/ tree roots/ unkept pavements / obstructions Difficulties crossing roads Conflict with scooters/ cyclists/ mopeds Routes: lack of/ disjointed/ no pavement Anti-social behaviour / fear of crime/ not enough lighting	95 47 17 15 14 11	10.4

	Number	%
Cycle routes have good quality surfaces	80	8.8
Cycle lanes are wide enough	78	8.6
Good separation of cycle lanes from traffic	50	5.5
Cycle routes are safe	64	7.0
Routes are joined up and take me where I need to go	37	4.1
Good amounts of cycle parking near to routes	32	3.5
Cycle routes are away from busy roads	26	2.9
Other includes: City Centre/ Valley Gardens/ seafront routes are good Many roads/ side streets are for safe cycling I know how to cycle safely Good Bikeshare scheme Pre-Covid routes are good There are lots of cyclists around	55 5 4 2 1 1 1	6.0

	Number	%
Lack of safe cycle routes	402	44.1
Driver behaviour towards cyclists	351	38.5
Conflict with pedestrians	206	22.6
Junctions that are dangerous for cyclists	310	34.0
Cycle lanes end abruptly	388	42.5
Traffic speeds are too high	227	24.9
Feel unsafe cycling in the city	226	24.8
Cycle lanes are too narrow	218	23.9
Cycle lanes are not protected	296	32.5
Parked cars/ loading in the cycle lanes	346	37.9
Poor street lighting	75	8.2
Poor air quality	211	23.1
Traffic noise	124	13.6
Traffic congestion	192	21.1
Current cycle routes don’t go where I need to get to	293	32.1
Gaps in current cycle network/ routes	387	42.4
Barriers on routes eg bollards/ railings	85	9.3
Not enough cycle parking at destinations I need to get to	222	24.3
Not enough secure cycle parking near my home	161	17.7
Not enough BTN Bikeshare hubs	55	6.0
Fear of cycle theft	258	28.3
Poor road surfaces	286	31.4
Poor signage	86	9.4
Other includes: Cyclists don't obey Highway Code/ jump red lights/ need training/ need ID Remove cycle lanes from pavements Don't remove cycle lanes/ bring back Old Shoreham Road cycle lane Hills Cycle lanes cause displacement traffic/ congestion	88 16 6 8 5 5	9.6

	No.	%
I read about it on the council’s website	111	12.2
I read about it on social media	386	42.3
I heard about it by word of mouth	139	15.2
I read about it in the local press	37	4.1
I heard about it at an event (eg Car Free Day)	9	1.0
I saw a poster	17	1.9
Other - Top 5: Local councillor School Local group Employer/ at work Jubilee Library	177 40 27 23 15 14	19.4

Ethnicity	No.	%	Citywide %
Arab	Arab	0	0.0	0.8
Asian/ Asian British	Bangladeshi	1	0.1	0.5
Chinese	1	0.1	1.1
Indian	3	0.4	1.1
Pakistani	0	0.0	0.2
Any other Asian background	0	0.0	1.2
Black/ Black British	African	3	0.4	1.1
Caribbean	2	0.3	0.3
Any other black background	3	0.4	0.2
Mixed	Asian and white	4	0.6	1.2
Black African and white	1	0.1	0.7
Black Caribbean and white	3	0.4	0.8
Any other mixed background	16	2.3	1.0
White/ White British	English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish	565	79.5	80.5
Irish	20	2.8	1.4
Gypsy or Irish Traveller	0	0.0	0.1
Any other white background	81	11.4	7.1
Other	Any other ethnic group	11	1.5	0.7
Total		711	100	100

Q How concerned are you about each of the following in the city?

Results are shown split by the journey modes respondents use for travelling in and around the city.

Concerns - Traffic Congestion:

Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	Extremely Concerned			Moderately Concerned		Somewhat Concerned		Slightly Concerned		Not at all Concerned		Total
Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	No.	%	No.		%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Around your neighbourhood	Walk or wheelchair	308	42.2	204		28.0	115	15.8	50	6.9	52	7.1	729
	Cycle	59	49.6	29		24.4	16	13.4	7	5.9	8	6.7	119
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	40	37.4	18		16.8	21	19.6	13	12.1	15	14.0	107
	Public Transport	4	25.0	6		37.5	2	12.5	2	12.5	2	12.5	16
Into the city centre	Walk or wheelchair	113	43.0	75		28.5	39	14.8	17	6.5	19	7.2	263
	Cycle	105	47.3	60		27.0	28	12.6	14	6.3	15	6.8	222
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	63	38.0	41		24.7	31	18.7	17	10.2	14	8.4	166
	Public Transport	114	36.7	88		28.3	62	19.9	28	9.0	19	6.1	311
Getting across the city (eg Patcham to Portslade)	Walk or wheelchair	11	61.1	4		22.2	1	5.6	1	5.6	1	5.6	18
	Cycle	100	49.0	51		25.0	30	14.7	11	5.4	12	5.9	204
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	140	35.6	108		27.5	74	18.8	36	9.2	35	8.9	393
	Public Transport	118	47.4	65		26.1	24	9.6	21	8.4	21	8.4	249
Leaving the city to neighbouring areas	Walk or wheelchair	6	54.5	2		18.2	2	18.2	1	9.1	0	0.0	11
	Cycle	41	54.7	20		26.7	9	12.0	2	2.7	3	4.0	75
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	212	36.7	156		27.0	100	17.3	55	9.5	54	9.4	577
	Public Transport	167	47.6	97		27.6	50	14.2	17	4.8	20	5.7	351

Concerns with traffic congestion split by gender:

	Extremely concerned		Moderately concerned		Somewhat concerned		Slightly concerned		Not at all concerned		Total
Gender	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Female	163	45.7	88	24.6	62	17.4	27	7.6	17	4.8	357
Male	139	38.4	106	29.3	49	13.5	26	7.2	42	11.6	362

Concerns with traffic congestion split by disability:

		Extremely concerned		Moderately concerned		Somewhat concerned		Slightly concerned		Not at all concerned
		No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	Total
Disability	Yes, a little	41	39.4	30	28.8	18	17.3	7	6.7	8	7.7	104
Disability	Yes, a lot	24	41.4	13	22.4	10	17.2	6	10.3	5	8.6	58
No disability	No	248	42.5	154	26.4	90	15.4	44	7.5	48	8.2	584

Concerns - Journey times (general traffic):

Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	Extremely Concerned			Moderately Concerned		Somewhat Concerned		Slightly Concerned		Not at all Concerned		Total
Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	No.	%	No.		%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Around your neighbourhood	Walk or wheelchair	133	18.8	226		31.9	131	18.5	90	12.7	128	18.1	708
	Cycle	29	25.7	25		22.1	25	22.1	15	13.3	19	16.8	113
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	35	32.7	27		25.2	14	13.1	14	13.1	17	15.9	107
	Public Transport	5	31.3	5		31.3	0	0.0	4	25.0	2	12.5	16
Into the city centre	Walk or wheelchair	42	16.7	70		27.9	42	16.7	46	18.3	51	20.3	251
	Cycle	33	15.3	67		31.0	45	20.8	26	12.0	45	20.8	216
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	50	30.3	51		30.9	25	15.2	20	12.1	19	11.5	165
	Public Transport	57	19.3	100		33.9	62	21.0	37	12.5	39	13.2	295
Getting across the city (eg Patcham to Portslade)	Walk or wheelchair	6	33.3	4		22.2	1	5.6	3	16.7	4	22.2	18
	Cycle	28	14.5	59		30.6	36	18.7	27	14.0	43	22.3	193
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	89	22.7	125		31.9	70	17.9	51	13.0	57	14.5	392
	Public Transport	44	17.6	75		30.0	41	16.4	38	15.2	52	20.8	250
Leaving the city to neighbouring areas	Walk or wheelchair	3	27.3	2		18.2	1	9.1	4	36.4	1	9.1	11
	Cycle	15	21.7	21		30.4	9	13.0	10	14.5	14	20.3	69
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	119	20.8	174		30.5	117	20.5	74	13.0	87	15.2	571
	Public Transport	60	18.1	102		30.7	64	19.3	43	13.0	63	19.0	332

Concerns with journey times (general traffic) split by gender

	Extremely concerned		Moderately concerned		Somewhat concerned		Slightly concerned		Not at all concerned		Total
Gender	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Female	64	18.7	99	28.9	68	19.9	51	14.9	60	17.5	342
Male	62	17.3	112	31.3	60	16.8	44	12.3	80	22.3	358

Concerns with journey times (general traffic) split by disability:

		Extremely concerned		Moderately concerned		Somewhat concerned		Slightly concerned		Not at all concerned
		No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	Total
Disability	Yes, a little	17	16.8	30	29.7	23	22.8	9	8.9	22	21.8	101
Disability	Yes, a lot	17	30.4	16	28.6	6	10.7	8	14.3	9	16.1	56
No disability	No	99	17.4	171	30.1	107	18.8	83	14.6	109	19.2	569

Concerns - Journey Times (buses):

Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	Extremely Concerned			Moderately Concerned		Somewhat Concerned		Slightly Concerned		Not at all Concerned		Total
Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	No.	%	No.		%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Around your neighbourhood	Walk or wheelchair	102	15.3	208		31.3	119	17.9	102	15.3	134	20.2	665
	Cycle	22	21.2	31		29.8	18	17.3	16	15.4	17	16.3	104
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	16	19.0	16		19.0	14	16.7	7	8.3	31	36.9	84
	Public Transport	3	17.6	5		29.4	4	23.5	2	11.8	3	17.6	17
Into the city centre	Walk or wheelchair	25	11.1	69		30.7	45	20.0	42	18.7	44	19.6	225
	Cycle	31	19.3	71		44.1	16	9.9	9	5.6	34	21.1	161
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	25	19.1	31		23.7	23	17.6	10	7.6	42	32.1	131
	Public Transport	55	18.5	81		27.2	56	18.8	50	16.8	56	18.8	298
Getting across the city (eg Patcham to Portslade)	Walk or wheelchair	2	13.3	6		40.0	2	13.3	3	20.0	2	13.3	15
	Cycle	19	10.6	78		43.6	30	16.8	30	16.8	22	12.3	179
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	53	15.6	91		26.8	60	17.6	40	11.8	96	28.2	340
	Public Transport	41	15.8	76		29.3	51	19.7	41	15.8	50	19.3	259
Leaving the city to neighbouring areas	Walk or wheelchair	1	12.5	3		37.5	0	0.0	4	50.0	0	0.0	8
	Cycle	8	13.1	23		37.7	12	19.7	10	16.4	8	13.1	61
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	71	13.9	137		26.9	90	17.7	78	15.3	133	26.1	509
	Public Transport	68	20.2	124		36.8	62	18.4	43	12.8	40	11.9	337

Concerns with journey times (buses) split by gender:

	Extremely concerned		Moderately concerned		Somewhat concerned		Slightly concerned		Not at all concerned		Total
Gender	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Female	46	14.4	97	30.4	65	20.4	52	16.3	59	18.5	319
Male	52	15.9	96	29.3	55	16.8	45	13.7	80	24.4	328

Concerns with journey times (buses) split by disability:

		Extremely concerned		Moderately concerned		Somewhat concerned		Slightly concerned		Not at all concerned
		No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	Total
Disability	Yes, a little	12	12.8	30	31.9	24	25.5	11	11.7	17	18.1	94
Disability	Yes, a lot	10	21.7	9	19.6	10	21.7	4	8.7	13	28.3	46
No disability	No	81	15.3	162	30.6	92	17.4	82	15.5	112	21.2	529

Concerns - Air Pollution:

Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	Extremely Concerned			Moderately Concerned		Somewhat Concerned		Slightly Concerned		Not at all Concerned		Total
Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	No.	%	No.		%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Around your neighbourhood	Walk or wheelchair	401	55.0	160		21.9	76	10.4	57	7.8	35	4.8	729
	Cycle	84	70.6	19		16.0	7	5.9	7	5.9	2	1.7	119
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	21	20.0	12		11.4	19	18.1	28	26.7	25	23.8	105
	Public Transport	6	35.3	2		11.8	3	17.6	5	29.4	1	5.9	17
Into the city centre	Walk or wheelchair	146	55.9	58		22.2	19	7.3	25	9.6	13	5.0	261
	Cycle	166	73.8	42		18.7	13	5.8	2	0.9	2	0.9	225
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	47	28.7	30		18.3	25	15.2	36	22.0	26	15.9	164
	Public Transport	157	51.6	69		22.7	40	13.2	23	7.6	15	4.9	304
Getting across the city (eg Patcham to Portslade)	Walk or wheelchair	13	72.2	2		11.1	2	11.1	0	0.0	1	5.6	18
	Cycle	156	43.3	65		18.1	46	12.8	53	14.7	40	11.1	360
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	147	38.2	76		19.7	60	15.6	62	16.1	40	10.4	385
	Public Transport	151	51.0	67		22.6	39	13.2	24	8.1	15	5.1	296
Leaving the city to neighbouring areas	Walk or wheelchair	10	90.9	0		0.0	0	0.0	1	9.1	0	0.0	11
	Cycle	58	77.3	9		12.0	3	4.0	3	4.0	2	2.7	75
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	255	44.4	114		19.9	72	12.5	73	12.7	60	10.5	574
	Public Transport	222	63.6	66		18.9	32	9.2	19	5.4	10	2.9	349

Concerns with air pollution split by gender:

	Extremely concerned		Moderately concerned		Somewhat concerned		Slightly concerned		Not at all concerned		Total
Gender	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Female	212	58.9	72	20.0	37	10.3	29	8.1	10	2.8	360
Male	182	50.6	76	21.1	40	11.1	30	8.3	32	8.9	360

Concerns with air pollution split by disability:

		Extremely concerned		Moderately concerned		Somewhat concerned		Slightly concerned		Not at all concerned
		No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	Total
Disability	Yes, a little	59	56.2	18	17.1	15	14.3	10	9.5	3	2.9	105
Disability	Yes, a lot	29	50.0	4	6.9	6	10.3	11	19.0	8	13.8	58
No disability	No	321	55.0	127	21.7	57	9.8	41	7.0	38	6.5	584

Concerns - Noise Pollution:

Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	Extremely Concerned			Moderately Concerned		Somewhat Concerned		Slightly Concerned		Not at all Concerned		Total
Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	No.	%	No.		%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Around your neighbourhood	Walk or wheelchair	260	35.7	199		27.3	101	13.9	84	11.5	85	11.7	729
	Cycle	57	47.9	32		26.9	13	10.9	8	6.7	9	7.6	119
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	13	12.1	11		10.3	20	18.7	18	16.8	45	42.1	107
	Public Transport	5	29.4	1		5.9	1	5.9	5	29.4	5	29.4	17
Into the city centre	Walk or wheelchair	105	40.5	62		23.9	34	13.1	34	13.1	24	9.3	259
	Cycle	108	48.2	69		30.8	28	12.5	8	3.6	11	4.9	224
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	28	17.1	30		18.3	21	12.8	25	15.2	60	36.6	164
	Public Transport	93	30.0	91		29.4	49	15.8	44	14.2	33	10.6	310
Getting across the city (eg Patcham to Portslade)	Walk or wheelchair	12	70.6	2		11.8	2	11.8	1	5.9	0	0.0	17
	Cycle	115	56.4	50		24.5	25	12.3	10	4.9	4	2.0	204
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	80	20.4	92		23.5	64	16.3	63	16.1	93	23.7	392
	Public Transport	97	36.9	77		29.3	36	13.7	27	10.3	26	9.9	263
Leaving the city to neighbouring areas	Walk or wheelchair	8	72.7	1		9.1	0	0.0	1	9.1	1	9.1	11
	Cycle	39	53.4	15		20.5	13	17.8	3	4.1	3	4.1	73
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	146	25.5	148		25.8	88	15.4	78	13.6	113	19.7	573
	Public Transport	167	46.6	87		24.3	42	11.7	35	9.8	27	7.5	358

Concerns with noise pollution split by gender:

	Extremely concerned		Moderately concerned		Somewhat concerned		Slightly concerned		Not at all concerned		Total
Gender	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Female	125	35.0	101	28.3	57	16.0	41	11.5	33	9.2	357
Male	126	34.8	90	24.9	46	12.7	41	11.3	59	16.3	362

Concerns with noise pollution split by disability:

		Extremely concerned		Moderately concerned		Somewhat concerned		Slightly concerned		Not at all concerned
		No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	Total
Disability	Yes, a little	38	36.9	25	24.3	16	15.5	15	14.6	9	8.7	103
Disability	Yes, a lot	15	26.3	10	17.5	10	17.5	8	14.0	14	24.6	57
No disability	No	211	36.0	158	27.0	79	13.5	63	10.8	75	12.8	586

Concerns - Road Safety:

Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	Extremely Concerned			Moderately Concerned		Somewhat Concerned		Slightly Concerned		Not at all Concerned		Total
Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	No.	%	No.		%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Around your neighbourhood	Walk or wheelchair	343	46.5	193		26.2	85	11.5	68	9.2	48	6.5	737
	Cycle	77	64.7	22		18.5	8	6.7	4	3.4	8	6.7	119
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	200	37.0	122		22.6	70	12.9	62	11.5	87	16.1	541
	Public Transport	5	29.4	3		17.6	3	17.6	4	23.5	2	11.8	17
Into the city centre	Walk or wheelchair	121	46.5	68		26.2	27	10.4	24	9.2	20	7.7	260
	Cycle	155	68.6	48		21.2	12	5.3	7	3.1	4	1.8	226
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	55	32.5	28		16.6	29	17.2	16	9.5	41	24.3	169
	Public Transport	122	40.4	79		26.2	44	14.6	38	12.6	19	6.3	302
Getting across the city (eg Patcham to Portslade)	Walk or wheelchair	8	44.4	7		38.9	1	5.6	2	11.1	0	0.0	18
	Cycle	150	73.2	41		20.0	6	2.9	6	2.9	2	1.0	205
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	128	40.6	95		30.2	63	20.0	14	4.4	15	4.8	315
	Public Transport	124	47.3	63		24.0	33	12.6	27	10.3	15	5.7	262
Leaving the city to neighbouring areas	Walk or wheelchair	7	63.6	2		18.2	0	0.0	2	18.2	0	0.0	11
	Cycle	49	65.3	17		22.7	4	5.3	1	1.3	4	5.3	75
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	222	38.4	141		24.4	73	12.6	67	11.6	75	13.0	578
	Public Transport	191	53.5	89		24.9	39	10.9	25	7.0	13	3.6	357

Concerns with road safety split by gender:

	Extremely concerned		Moderately concerned		Somewhat concerned		Slightly concerned		Not at all concerned		Total
Gender	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Female	179	49.9	86	24.0	42	11.7	31	8.6	21	5.8	359
Male	167	46.1	89	24.6	36	9.9	31	8.6	39	10.8	362

Concerns with road safety split by disability:

		Extremely concerned		Moderately concerned		Somewhat concerned		Slightly concerned		Not at all concerned
		No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	Total
Disability	Yes, a little	48	45.7	29	27.6	13	12.4	6	5.7	9	8.6	105
Disability	Yes, a lot	23	39.7	12	20.7	7	12.1	4	6.9	12	20.7	58
No disability	No	293	50.1	134	22.9	62	10.6	52	8.9	44	7.5	585

Concerns - Climate Change:

Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	Extremely Concerned			Moderately Concerned		Somewhat Concerned		Slightly Concerned		Not at all Concerned		Total
Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	No.	%	No.		%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Around your neighbourhood	Walk or wheelchair	450	61.6	136		18.6	61	8.4	34	4.7	49	6.7	730
	Cycle	96	80.7	13		10.9	4	3.4	3	2.5	3	2.5	119
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	29	26.6	13		11.9	24	22.0	13	11.9	30	27.5	109
	Public Transport	6	35.3	2		11.8	2	11.8	5	29.4	2	11.8	17
Into the city centre	Walk or wheelchair	169	64.8	49		18.8	17	6.5	11	4.2	15	5.7	261
	Cycle	183	81.7	32		14.3	3	1.3	3	1.3	3	1.3	224
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	54	32.1	30		17.9	24	14.3	26	15.5	34	20.2	168
	Public Transport	175	57.9	55		18.2	38	12.6	15	5.0	19	6.3	302
Getting across the city (eg Patcham to Portslade)	Walk or wheelchair	14	77.8	2		11.1	0	0.0	2	11.1	0	0.0	18
	Cycle	176	85.4	22		10.7	3	1.5	2	1.0	3	1.5	206
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	180	45.5	65		16.4	54	13.6	37	9.3	60	15.2	396
	Public Transport	171	65.0	51		19.4	20	7.6	10	3.8	11	4.2	263
Leaving the city to neighbouring areas	Walk or wheelchair	9	90.0	1		10.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	10
	Cycle	60	81.1	7		9.5	3	4.1	2	2.7	2	2.7	74
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	298	51.6	95		16.4	72	12.5	42	7.3	71	12.3	578
	Public Transport	244	68.5	65		18.3	20	5.6	7	2.0	20	5.6	356

Concerns with climate change split by gender:

	Extremely concerned		Moderately concerned		Somewhat concerned		Slightly concerned		Not at all concerned		Total
Gender	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Female	241	67.1	61	17.0	33	9.2	13	3.6	11	3.1	359
Male	214	59.1	65	18.0	26	7.2	20	5.5	37	10.2	362

Concerns with climate change split by disability:

		Extremely concerned		Moderately concerned		Somewhat concerned		Slightly concerned		Not at all concerned
		No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	Total
Disability	Yes, a little	63	58.9	21	19.6	11	10.3	6	5.6	6	5.6	107
Disability	Yes, a lot	32	54.2	5	8.5	6	10.2	5	8.5	11	18.6	59
No disability	No	376	64.6	101	17.4	44	7.6	23	4.0	38	6.5	582

Concerns - Personal Safety:

Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	Extremely Concerned			Moderately Concerned		Somewhat Concerned		Slightly Concerned		Not at all Concerned		Total
Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	No.	%	No.		%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Around your neighbourhood	Walk or wheelchair	238	32.6	193		26.4	120	16.4	97	13.3	82	11.2	730
	Cycle	56	47.1	25		21.0	16	13.4	12	10.1	10	8.4	119
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	42	38.2	20		18.2	12	10.9	11	10.0	25	22.7	110
	Public Transport	7	41.2	2		11.8	4	23.5	3	17.6	1	5.9	17
Into the city centre	Walk or wheelchair	74	28.5	64		24.6	44	16.9	47	18.1	31	11.9	260
	Cycle	108	47.8	64		28.3	25	11.1	18	8.0	11	4.9	226
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	62	36.7	28		16.6	24	14.2	19	11.2	36	21.3	169
	Public Transport	92	30.7	86		28.7	49	16.3	41	13.7	32	10.7	300
Getting across the city (eg Patcham to Portslade)	Walk or wheelchair	11	61.1	2		11.1	1	5.6	3	16.7	1	5.6	18
	Cycle	100	48.5	57		27.7	23	11.2	19	9.2	7	3.4	206
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	122	30.8	88		22.2	60	15.2	61	15.4	65	16.4	396
	Public Transport	78	29.9	72		27.6	48	18.4	35	13.4	28	10.7	261
Leaving the city to neighbouring areas	Walk or wheelchair	8	72.7	1		9.1	0	0.0	1	9.1	1	9.1	11
	Cycle	30	40.5	26		35.1	9	12.2	5	6.8	4	5.4	74
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	188	32.4	133		22.9	93	16.0	78	13.4	88	15.2	580
	Public Transport	128	36.2	90		25.4	66	18.6	43	12.1	27	7.6	354

Concerns with personal safety split by gender:

	Extremely concerned		Moderately concerned		Somewhat concerned		Slightly concerned		Not at all concerned		Total
Gender	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Female	139	38.7	98	27.3	50	13.9	44	12.3	28	7.8	359
Male	106	29.2	86	23.7	61	16.8	56	15.4	54	14.9	363

Concerns with personal safety split by disability:

		Extremely concerned		Moderately concerned		Somewhat concerned		Slightly concerned		Not at all concerned
		No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	Total
Disability	Yes, a little	34	33.0	24	23.3	16	15.5	15	14.6	14	13.6	103
Disability	Yes, a lot	23	39.7	15	25.9	6	10.3	7	12.1	7	12.1	58
No disability	No	203	34.5	148	25.2	93	15.8	80	13.6	64	10.9	588

Q How important do you think our transport priorities areas are?

Results are shown split by the journey modes respondents use for travelling in and around the city.

Importance - Inclusive and integrated transport:

Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	Very Important			Important		Not very Important		Not important at all		Neither Important or not important		Total
Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	No.	%	No.		%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Around your neighbourhood	Walk or wheelchair	432	60.2	191		26.6	19	2.6	25	3.5	51	7.1	718
	Cycle	82	71.3	27		23.5	1	0.9	1	0.9	4	3.5	115
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	27	26.7	23		22.8	19	18.8	15	14.9	17	16.8	101
	Public Transport	9	56.3	4		25.0	3	18.8	0	0.0	0	0.0	16
Into the city centre	Walk or wheelchair	160	61.1	77		29.4	7	2.7	7	2.7	11	4.2	262
	Cycle	163	74.1	49		22.3	0	0.0	1	0.5	7	3.2	220
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	47	29.2	50		31.1	20	12.4	19	11.8	25	15.5	161
	Public Transport	191	64.7	65		22.0	9	3.1	5	1.7	25	8.5	295
Getting across the city (eg Patcham to Portslade)	Walk or wheelchair	15	78.9	2		10.5	2	10.5	0	0.0	0	0.0	19
	Cycle	160	78.4	39		19.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	5	2.5	204
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	161	41.9	119		31.0	26	6.8	35	9.1	43	11.2	384
	Public Transport	178	68.5	64		24.6	5	1.9	2	0.8	11	4.2	260
Leaving the city to neighbouring areas	Walk or wheelchair	10	90.9	1		9.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	11
	Cycle	55	74.3	13		17.6	0	0.0	1	1.4	5	6.8	74
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	275	48.8	164		29.1	31	5.5	40	7.1	54	9.6	564
	Public Transport	236	67.2	84		23.9	5	1.4	6	1.7	20	5.7	351

Importance - Develop streets and places that encourage and enable active travel:

Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	Very Important			Important		Not very Important		Not important at all		Neither Important or not important		Total
Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	No.	%	No.		%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Around your neighbourhood	Walk or wheelchair	432	60.2	147		20.5	44	6.1	34	4.7	61	8.5	718
	Cycle	97	83.6	11		9.5	1	0.9	0	0.0	7	6.0	116
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	21	21.4	10		10.2	20	20.4	25	25.5	22	22.4	98
	Public Transport	8	50.0	3		18.8	3	18.8	1	6.3	1	6.3	16
Into the city centre	Walk or wheelchair	160	61.5	67		25.8	9	3.5	11	4.2	13	5.0	260
	Cycle	189	85.5	27		12.2	2	0.9	1	0.5	2	0.9	221
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	47	29.2	28		17.4	23	14.3	34	21.1	29	18.0	161
	Public Transport	166	57.4	58		20.1	19	6.6	7	2.4	39	13.5	289
Getting across the city (eg Patcham to Portslade)	Walk or wheelchair	15	83.3	2		11.1	1	5.6	0	0.0	0	0.0	18
	Cycle	185	89.8	18		8.7	1	0.5	1	0.5	1	0.5	206
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	159	41.8	65		17.1	47	12.4	52	13.7	57	15.0	380
	Public Transport	166	64.6	61		23.7	6	2.3	4	1.6	20	7.8	257
Leaving the city to neighbouring areas	Walk or wheelchair	8	72.7	3		27.3	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	11
	Cycle	63	85.1	8		10.8	0	0.0	1	1.4	2	2.7	74
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	281	50.2	102		18.2	56	10.0	57	10.2	64	11.4	560
	Public Transport	234	66.7	75		21.4	6	1.7	12	3.4	24	6.8	351

Importance - Public transport use is increased:

Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	Very Important			Important		Not very Important		Not important at all		Neither Important or not important		Total
Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	No.	%	No.		%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Around your neighbourhood	Walk or wheelchair	388	53.6	216		29.8	26	3.6	28	3.9	66	9.1	724
	Cycle	71	61.2	38		32.8	2	1.7	0	0.0	5	4.3	116
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	26	24.8	23		21.9	9	8.6	16	15.2	31	29.5	105
	Public Transport	12	70.6	3		17.6	0	0.0	1	5.9	1	5.9	17
Into the city centre	Walk or wheelchair	141	53.6	85		32.3	11	4.2	4	1.5	22	8.4	263
	Cycle	140	63.6	65		29.5	1	0.5	1	0.5	13	5.9	220
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	41	25.2	42		25.8	14	8.6	30	18.4	36	22.1	163
	Public Transport	183	61.8	83		28.0	5	1.7	3	1.0	22	7.4	296
Getting across the city (eg Patcham to Portslade)	Walk or wheelchair	12	66.7	5		27.8	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	5.6	18
	Cycle	130	63.4	64		31.2	0	0.0	0	0.0	11	5.4	205
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	145	37.3	116		29.8	24	6.2	42	10.8	62	15.9	389
	Public Transport	181	69.1	64		24.4	5	1.9	3	1.1	9	3.4	262
Leaving the city to neighbouring areas	Walk or wheelchair	7	63.6	4		36.4	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	11
	Cycle	44	58.7	23		30.7	2	2.7	1	1.3	5	6.7	75
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	253	41.0	163		26.4	79	12.8	43	7.0	79	12.8	617
	Public Transport	238	67.4	87		24.6	10	2.8	5	1.4	13	3.7	353

Importance - Reduce car use:

Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	Very Important			Important		Not very Important		Not important at all		Neither Important or not important		Total
Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	No.	%	No.		%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Around your neighbourhood	Walk or wheelchair	415	57.6	122		16.9	35	4.9	79	11.0	70	9.7	721
	Cycle	91	78.4	14		12.1	0	0.0	3	2.6	8	6.9	116
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	13	12.5	10		9.6	13	12.5	51	49.0	17	16.3	104
	Public Transport	8	47.1	3		17.6	2	11.8	2	11.8	2	11.8	17
Into the city centre	Walk or wheelchair	159	60.9	54		20.7	11	4.2	19	7.3	18	6.9	261
	Cycle	184	84.4	27		12.4	1	0.5	1	0.5	5	2.3	218
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	32	19.4	22		13.3	19	11.5	67	40.6	25	15.2	165
	Public Transport	156	52.7	53		17.9	16	5.4	28	9.5	43	14.5	296
Getting across the city (eg Patcham to Portslade)	Walk or wheelchair	15	83.3	1		5.6	1	5.6	0	0.0	1	5.6	18
	Cycle	176	85.9	24		11.7	1	0.5	1	0.5	3	1.5	205
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	132	33.8	61		15.6	39	10.0	101	25.9	57	14.6	390
	Public Transport	179	68.8	41		15.8	5	1.9	11	4.2	24	9.2	260
Leaving the city to neighbouring areas	Walk or wheelchair	9	81.8	1		9.1	0	0.0	1	9.1	0	0.0	11
	Cycle	60	80.0	7		9.3	0	0.0	4	5.3	4	5.3	75
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	246	43.2	91		16.0	44	7.7	117	20.5	72	12.6	570
	Public Transport	250	71.4	47		13.4	10	2.9	21	6.0	22	6.3	350

Importance – Promote and facilitate the use of low and zero emission vehicles:

Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	Very Important			Important		Not very Important		Not important at all		Neither Important or not important		Total
Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	No.	%	No.		%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Around your neighbourhood	Walk or wheelchair	345	47.9	210		29.2	41	5.7	40	5.6	84	11.7	720
	Cycle	62	54.9	32		28.3	5	4.4	1	0.9	13	11.5	113
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	15	12.4	25		20.7	24	19.8	33	27.3	24	19.8	121
	Public Transport	8	44.4	4		22.2	3	16.7	3	16.7	0	0.0	18
Into the city centre	Walk or wheelchair	131	50.2	79		30.3	20	7.7	10	3.8	21	8.0	261
	Cycle	121	55.3	65		29.7	12	5.5	2	0.9	19	8.7	219
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	31	17.9	45		26.0	20	11.6	38	22.0	39	22.5	173
	Public Transport	150	50.5	79		26.6	14	4.7	19	6.4	35	11.8	297
Getting across the city (eg Patcham to Portslade)	Walk or wheelchair	11	64.7	5		29.4	1	5.9	0	0.0	0	0.0	17
	Cycle	109	54.0	64		31.7	11	5.4	1	0.5	17	8.4	202
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	139	35.6	105		26.9	28	7.2	55	14.1	63	16.2	390
	Public Transport	147	56.5	76		29.2	10	3.8	6	2.3	21	8.1	260
Leaving the city to neighbouring areas	Walk or wheelchair	10	90.9	1		9.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	11
	Cycle	37	50.0	24		32.4	2	2.7	3	4.1	8	10.8	74
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	222	39.2	168		29.6	35	6.2	66	11.6	76	13.4	567
	Public Transport	192	54.4	87		24.6	23	6.5	17	4.8	34	9.6	353

Importance – promote and use technology to reduce and manage travel:

Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	Very Important			Important		Not very Important		Not important at all		Neither Important or not important		Total
Distance mode	Journey Main Mode	No.	%	No.		%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Around your neighbourhood	Walk or wheelchair	207	29.2	232		32.8	65	9.2	51	7.2	153	21.6	708
	Cycle	42	36.8	36		31.6	7	6.1	6	5.3	23	20.2	114
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	14	13.9	22		21.8	10	9.9	26	25.7	29	28.7	101
	Public Transport	5	31.3	2		12.5	2	12.5	4	25.0	3	18.8	16
Into the city centre	Walk or wheelchair	88	34.1	80		31.0	24	9.3	16	6.2	50	19.4	258
	Cycle	67	30.6	77		35.2	17	7.8	6	2.7	52	23.7	219
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	29	18.2	44		27.7	10	6.3	34	21.4	42	26.4	159
	Public Transport	88	30.4	95		32.9	25	8.7	22	7.6	59	20.4	289
Getting across the city (eg Patcham to Portslade)	Walk or wheelchair	8	44.4	7		38.9	2	11.1	0	0.0	1	5.6	18
	Cycle	65	32.0	73		36.0	13	6.4	5	2.5	47	23.2	203
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	84	22.0	118		30.9	37	9.7	55	14.4	88	23.0	382
	Public Transport	90	35.4	77		30.3	24	9.4	13	5.1	50	19.7	254
Leaving the city to neighbouring areas	Walk or wheelchair	6	54.5	4		36.4	0	0.0	1	9.1	0	0.0	11
	Cycle	21	28.4	29		39.2	3	4.1	5	6.8	16	21.6	74
	Car/ van as driver or passenger	140	25.3	167		30.1	45	8.1	70	12.6	132	23.8	554
	Public Transport	109	31.2	114		32.7	31	8.9	23	6.6	72	20.6	349

[3] Respondents were advised to only choose one option, but some indicated more than one mode for each type of journey, therefore percentages may not add up to 100

[5] Highest and lowest percentage of respondents

[6] Low numbers of Under 25s responded to the survey – 0.8% were aged 16 and under and 1.9% were aged 17-24 compared to 17.2% and 15.0% respectively at the 2011 Census

[7] Respondents were advised to only choose one option, but some indicated more than one mode for each type of journey. Percentages given are of the total number of respondents to the survey.

[9] Excludes those who answered ‘don’t know’

[13] Getting across the city or leaving the city into neighbouring areas

[14] Excludes ‘I don’t make this type of journey’

[20] Respondents could choose more than one option

[21] Respondents could choose more than one option

[23] Respondents could choose more than one option

[24] Respondents could choose more than one option

[26] Respondents could choose more than one disability type

Comment	Number of times mentioned
Road Safety: Dangerous roads / dangerous driving / delivery drivers	7
Road Safety: More 20mph areas / enforce / speeds too high	5
Road Safety: More restrict parking / enforce access restrictions	4
Road Safety: Cyclists jump traffic lights	1
TOTAL: Road Safety	17
Walking: Pavements in poor condition / narrow/ uneven / flooded	14
Walking: Less street clutter/ A-boards/ signs/ bins / diversions	11
Walking: Shared cycle lanes conflict with pedestrians	7
Walking: Pavement parking	7
Walking: E-scooters on pavements / should be licensed	4
Walking: City is overcrowded / summer	1
TOTAL: Walking	44
Cycling: Roads and cycle lane condition poor / potholes	13
Cycling: Illegal parking in cycle lanes / car dooring	9
Cycling: feels dangerous / unsafe vulnerable to cars / driver attitudes	6
Cycling: Cycle lanes not continuous / gaps in network	6
Cycling: Too many hills	4
Cycling: One-way systems confusing	2
Cycling: Difficult to make a junction turns as a cyclist	2
TOTAL: Cycling	42
Driving: Too much pollution / too much traffic	7
Driving: Car club is expensive and for longer journeys	3
Driving: Difficult to park	2
Driving: Parking is too expensive	2
Driving: Car required for work (care)	1
Driving: Pinch points	1
TOTAL: Driving	16
Bus: Fares are too expensive / cheaper to drive / want lower fares	25
Bus: Poor service / routes / frequency	14
Bus: Don't keep to schedule / unreliable /slow	9
Bus: More flexible bus tickets / discounts for carers / disability	4
Bus: Overcrowded / unclean	4
Bus: Difficult to board / alight with prams	2
TOTAL: Bus	58
Train: Tickets too expensive / want cheaper fares	4
TOTAL: Train	4

Comment	Number of times mentioned
Stapley Road: Need crossing point / cut through	2
Downs Junior: Want zebra crossing	1
Fiveways: Improve crossing	1
Western Road: Crossing needed	1
Varndean school: More crossings	1
Nevill Road: Crossing needed	1
Upper North St: Want ped crossings	1
Balfour School: Better crossing needed	1
Surrenden Road: Zebra crossing needed	1
Blatchington Road: Need crossing	1
TOTAL: Pedestrian crossing requests	11
Sackville Road: Cycle lane needed	2
Lewes Road: Unsafe	1
Seven Dials: Unsafe for cycling	1
Ditchling Rd: Cycle advanced lights needed	1
Hollingdean: No cycle lane provision	1
Edward St: Dangerous bike lane at junctions	1
Preston Circus: Difficult for cyclists	1
London Road: Cycle safety	1
TOTAL: Cycling unsafe / no cycling provision	9
Lewes Road: Illegal parking / difficult to cycle	3
Dyke Road: Parking in cycle lane	1
Boundary Road: Illegal parking	1
Kings Esplanade: Reduce parking	1
TOTAL: Illegal / inconsiderate / too much parking	6
East Brighton: More BTN Bikeshare hubs	1
Queens Park Road: Cycle parking	1
Cycle parking: North St	1
TOTAL: Requests for more cycle parking	3
North St: Too much traffic	1
Varndean school: Lower traffic speed	1
New Road: Restrictions not enforced	1
Steyning Road: One way	1
Prestonville: Want Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN)	1
Porthall Street: Reinstate School Street	1
Stanford Junior: School Street	1
Old Shoreham Road: Reduce traffic speed	1
TOTAL: Want traffic calming / traffic restrictions / LTN / School Streets	8
A259 East: No lighting on road	1
The Level: Dangerous at night	1
TOTAL: Issues after dark	2
Cycle / ped conflict at pier junction / seafront / link to Valley Gardens	6
Cycle route to Lewes / stops / ped conflict	2
Surrenden: Cycle / pedestrian conflict	1
TOTAL: Cyclist and pedestrian conflict	9
Madeira Drive: Cyclists use pavement / narrow	1
Frederick St: Cyclist behaviour	1
TOTAL: Poor cycling behaviour	2
Old Shoreham Road: Reintroduce / prioritise cycle route	22
Madeira Drive: Preferred when traffic free	2
Hollingdean: Poor pavements / dropped kerbs	2
Boundary Road: Higher priority, needs more work	2
Elm Grove: Investment needed	1
Davigdor Road: Reintroduce scheme	1
TOTAL: Areas to be prioritised / reintroduce schemes / why have they been removed	30
Ditchling Rd / New England Road: Potholes	2
OSR: Poor Road surface	1
TOTAL: Poor road surfaces	3
Valley Gardens: better pedestrian routes needed	1
Ditchling Road: unsafe to walk	1
TOTAL: Unsafe walking / no provision for walking	2
Olive Road: Dangerous / rat run	2
Blatchington Road: Improve junction safety	1
TOTAL: Dangerous junctions / rat runs	3
County Oak school: Improve access	1
Improve seafront cycling/ lower prom access	1
TOTAL: Areas needing better access	2
Fleet Street: pollution	1
Valley Gardens: displacement of traffic	1
Stanford Ave: hilly	1
TOTAL: Misc Issues	3

Comment	Number of times mentioned
More plants and greenery	8
More seating and resting	1
TOTAL: Greenery / amenities	9
Better / more cycle routes	23
More cycle parking / secure cycle parking / less bike theft / easier to request	15
Clearer cycle routes / separation / better signage / coloured surface	7
Cheaper BTN Bikeshare	1
TOTAL: Cycling specific	46
More safe spaces / police presence / ped priority areas / more like Valley Gardens	12
Better lighting	7
Cycle friendly crossings	2
Emergency buttons at bus stops	1
TOTAL: Safety and Security	22
More crossing points / more time to cross / pedestrian priority at crossings	10
Increase walking / healthwalks	2
More walking routes	1
TOTAL: Walking specific	13
Make car free /pedestrianise / less traffic	14
Better cycling behaviour	4
TOTAL: Misc	18

Comment	Number of times mentioned
Better bus routes to suburbs / beyond city / use minibuses	7
Want park and ride	5
Introduce trams / cable car	5
Bus service is good	4
Integrated public transport ticketing / contactless ticketing	1
Better lit bus stops / nighttime security	1
BTN bikeshare is good	2
TOTAL: Public transport	25
More promotion / comms / car free day / incentives	8
Specific comments on LCWIP document	6
Increase information / promotion on carbon neutral / reducing emissions	4
Need clearer wording in LTP5	3
More events to promote cycling / more workshops / buddy scheme	3
Consultation not wide or inclusive enough	2
TOTAL: Consultation / engagement / comms and promotion	26
Affordable e-bikes / e-bikes as part of BTN Bikeshare / financial help for Electric vehicles	5
More Electric Vehicle (EV) charging points	4
E-scooter hire	2
TOTAL: Electric vehicles	11
Map of motorbike parking spaces	2
Permit motorcycles in bus lanes	1
TOTAL: Motorcycles	3
Encourage car sharing	3
More car free developments	1
TOTAL: Reducing traffic	4
Outdoor gym equipment	1
Introduce public art	1
TOTAL: Facilities / public art	2
Clearer / better signage	5
Focus on outer areas not just the centre	2
TOTAL: Other	7

Key Principle		Comment	No. of times raised
Avoid or reduce the length of trips made by car or van		School Buses Inadequate/ have to drive	1
		Park and Ride	1
		Driving: cost of car club hire	1
		Concerns about Covid	1
Change some / more of my short journeys to walking, wheeling or cycling	Cycling	Cycle lanes: Better/ more/ protected/ enforced/ joined up	21
		Cycle parking: more/ secure/ at stations	10
		Access to a cargo/ e-cargo bike	4
		Extend BTN Bikeshare	1
		Too much pollution	1
	Walking	Better/ more/ maintained pavements	8
		Better/ more crossings	2
		Safer routes	2
		Less street clutter	1
	Walking & Cycling	If I had better health	1
Make some / more of my longer journeys by public transport		Cheaper/ free	41
		Better/ integrated/ more reliable / faster/ express/ outlying areas/ orbital routes/ journeys take too long/ all buses into centre/ more direct routes	36
		Accessibility/ difficult for people with disabilities	5
		Want more bike carrying on trains/ buses	5
		Unsafe due to Covid-19	3
		Too much to carry	2
		Unsafe anti-social behaviour	1
		More frequent local trains	1
		Better interchanges: cycle/ train/ bus	1
Change my car or van to a zero or low emission vehicle		Electric Vehicles (EVs) are expensive	145
		Easier access to charging/ dedicated charging bays	79
		Car club/ shared electric vehicles	11
		EVs with increased range	4
		Greener options / hydrogen / worried about impact	2
		Govt scrappage scheme/ incentives	2
		Wheelchair accessible EVs/ Motability	1
		Larger EVs/ vans	1
		Not changing car for a few years	1
		Not enough repair/ maintenance places	1

1. Summary

2. Public event feedback

2.1. Summary

2.2. Feedback

3. Workshop / focus group feedback

4. Online survey feedback

Annex 1 – List of events, workshops and poster distribution

Annex 2 – Cross-tabulations from survey data

	Strongly Agree		Agree		Neither agree nor disagree		Disagree		Strongly Disagree		Total[19]
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.
Local neighbourhood mobility hubs	277	33.7	249	30.3	194	23.6	54	6.6	48	5.8	822
Strategic mobility hubs	277	34.4	255	31.6	176	21.8	53	6.6	45	5.6	806
Liveable City Centre	430	51.7	181	21.8	97	11.7	58	7.0	65	7.8	831
Expanded Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ)	394	46.0	160	18.7	80	9.3	86	10.0	137	16.0	857
Low Traffic Neighbourhoods	402	46.9	172	20.0	77	9.0	87	10.1	120	14.0	858
School Streets	415	49.0	206	24.3	104	12.3	61	7.2	61	7.2	847
Behaviour Change programmes	331	39.4	213	25.3	131	15.6	66	7.8	100	11.9	841

	No.	%
Very satisfied	87	9.9
Satisfied	199	22.7
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	101	11.5
Dissatisfied	370	42.2
Very dissatisfied	120	13.7
Total	878	100

	Number	%
The condition of pavements is good	113	12.4
Pavements are wide enough	171	18.8
Good quality crossings	109	12.0
Pedestrian crossings are where I need them	137	15.0
Routes have enough seating and resting points	36	3.9
Routes have enough greenery	119	13.0
Routes are joined up and take me where I need to go	154	16.9
I feel safe walking in my local area	220	24.1
Routes are well lit	97	10.6
Walking routes are away from the busy roads	49	5.4
Other includes: Green space/ sea nearby Air quality is good Roads are attractive	43 6 1 1	4.9

Gender	No.	%	Citywide %[25]
Female	363	48.9	50.2
Male	368	49.5	49.8
Non-binary	8	1.1	-
Other	4	0.5	-
Total	743	100	100

Age	No.	%	Citywide %
16 and under	6	0.8	17.2
17-24	14	1.9	15.0
25-34	82	11.0	16.4
35-44	158	21.1	16.0
45-54	179	23.9	13.1
55-64	178	23.8	9.3
65-74	104	13.9	6.4
75 and over	27	3.6	6.7
Total	748	100	100

Disability type[26]	No.
Physical impairment	100
Sensory impairment	26
Learning disability/ difficulty	6
Long standing illness	44
Mental health condition	33
Developmental condition	0
Autistic spectrum	12
Other	55