Consultation report

Local Transport Plan 5 (LTP5) initial direction of travel document consultation - autumn 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

1.      Summary. 2

2.      Public event feedback. 4

2.1.       Summary. 4

2.2.       Feedback. 4

3.      Workshop / focus group feedback. 9

4.      Online survey feedback. 27

Annex 1 – List of events, workshops and poster distribution. 52

Annex 2 – Cross-tabulations from survey data. 54

 


1.    Summary

A public consultation was held by the council between 30 September and 15 November 2021, on two strategic transport documents:

·         Initial direction of travel document for the new Local Transport Plan 5

·         Draft Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan

The consultation was promoted at local events, advertisements on bus stops, advertisements on council screens such as libraries, through the council’s website and social media, by sending posters to various organisations across the city, and by sending information via email to local stakeholder groups. A full list of events, poster distribution and workshops / focus groups is shown in Annex 1. Project managers also worked with local interest groups and schools in the city, and staged an exhibition and public drop-in sessions in Jubilee Library, to obtain as wide a coverage as possible. Focus groups were also held with specific groups – younger people, older people, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) people and disabled people.

An online survey was available on the council’s consultation portal, Citizen Space. Consultation documents were available to read online or via paper copies.

The summary of engagement activity during the consultation is as follows:

·         Approximately 250 people engaged via the four public events at Jubilee Library

·         Eight focus group sessions held, enabling more in-depth discussion of issues and feedback on proposals

·         Fourteen workshops / meetings with stakeholders across the city, from general workshops with stakeholders to attending meetings such as the Equalities & Inclusion Partnership, Quality Bus Partnership, Local Access Forum and the Destination Experience Group to name a few (full list available in Annex 1)

·         Over 900 responses to online survey – considered a very good response rate to an unsolicited consultation (ie information was not mailed directly to households)

Materials developed for the consultation included posters to promote the consultation, postcards to give out at events and to partners organisations, and paper copies of the consultation documents and questionnaire. Translations and large print / other formats of the documents were also available on request. Examples of consultation materials are shown in Figures 1 & 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Consultation postcard

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: Consultation poster


2.    Public event feedback

2.1.  Summary

Public events were held at Jubilee Library on 6, 8, 26 and 30 October – with times and dates incorporating evenings and weekends. In addition to the events, the event exhibition was in place for two weeks in the Jubilee Library foyer - for the week of 4 October and the week of 25 October. At the exhibition, members of the public were able to view information about the consultation, take information away, and contribute to the displays on the wall of the exhibition, even while staff were not present at the exhibition. Figure 3 shows the exhibition and public event taking place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3: Public event / exhibition in Jubilee Library foyer

Members of the public were asked to put their views on Post-it notes on three key questions on the exhibition display, these questions also formed the basis for discussions with officers.

Across the four events approximately 250 people were engaged in conversations relating to the consultation, with further people handed postcards if they were unable to stop and talk to staff.

2.2. Feedback

Comments from the events were based around three key questions, responses have been sorted into themes which are summarised below.

Question 1 - Do you encounter any problems with how you currently travel around the city? This could be by foot, cycle, mobility aid, bus, train, car or taxi or other means.

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

 

Question 2 - Thinking about your local area, do you have any concerns about using the streets?

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

 

Question 3 - What would enable you to make some or more shorter journeys in the city by walking or cycling?

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

 


 

Other comments outside of the above questions were as follows:

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

 


 

3.    Workshop / focus group feedback

Two stakeholder workshops were held during the consultation, with a range of stakeholders across the city invited to attend, including elected members.

Additionally, officers attended 14 meetings / workshops to present on the consultation & proposals and collect feedback.

Focus group discussions were also held with specific groups, across eight sessions including schools & the Youth Council, disabled people, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) people and older people.

Full details of meetings attended and focus groups held are detailed in Annex 1.

Feedback from these sessions has been presented by theme below:


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

-          3rd 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


 


4.    Online survey feedback

Respondents were invited to answer a series of questions on general travel habits, principles, priorities and interventions proposed for LTP5, as well as make suggestions for further interventions. Paper copies of the consultation documents and the questionnaire were also available on request.

·         The consultation ran from 30 September to 15 November 2021.

·         912 responses were received which is a very good response rate to an unsolicited consultation (ie information was not mailed directly to households). 910 (97.8%) were received online and 2 were received by mail (2.2%).

Headline Results

General background

Some general questions about travel habits were asked before moving onto questions specific to the LTP. General questions covered a wide range of topics such as choice of transport mode for different journey purposes and concerns about transport related issues in the city.

Everyday travel:

·                Walking is particularly high in local neighbourhood areas at 80.2% of respondents and 73.8% of respondents walk to local shops.

·                The car is used by 12.3% of respondents to travel around the local neighbourhood

·                64.5% of respondents are using the car to leave the city into neighbouring areas compared to only 28.7% by train, 45.7% of respondents are also using the car to do the weekly food shop

 

Respondents are mostly using sustainable modes for journeys around the local neighbourhood and into the city centre. Car or van use for journeys in the local neighbourhood is low, rising to nearly 20% for journeys into the city centre so there is potential to encourage more sustainable modes for local trips.

 

Concerns:

·                Over 70% of respondents are concerned with climate change (70.6%), air pollution (73.3%) and road safety (70.3%)

·                Females generally have higher levels of concern about the transport related issues than males, in particular relating to air pollution, climate change and personal safety.

 


 

Local Transport Plan initial direction of travel

 

Transport Priorities: At least 70% of respondents said that all of our transport priorities are important[1], with the exception of ‘promote and use technology to reduce and manage travel’ (59.1%).

Key Principles: At least 70% of respondents 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.

 

Views on walking and cycling in the city:

·                55% of respondents expressed levels of dissatisfaction[2] with the walking environment in the local area. This shows that we need to make improvements. The top 3 comments relating to this refer to the condition of pavements, obstructions and clutter on pavements, and pavement parking.

·                54% of respondents show levels of dissatisfaction with the cycling environment in the city. This shows that we need to make improvements. The top 3 comments are: a lack of safe cycle routes, cycle lanes end abruptly, and there are gaps in current cycle network / routes.

 


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.

%

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.

%

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).

 


Q If you answered "I could do this in future with support" please tell us what type of support would enable you to make these changes

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

 


Q To what extent do you agree with each of the following projects proposed for the city?

 

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

 

 

 

At least 64% of respondents stated that they strongly agree or agree with all priorities, with over 70% for School Streets (73.3%) and Liveable City Centre (73.5%). Fewer than 20% either disagree or strongly disagree with all measures except Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (24.1%) and the expanded Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) (26%).


Q What else could the council and transport providers do to help you travel more safely, sustainably, and easily?

Respondents tended to not answer the question as written but comments have been coded into the following themes:

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

 

 


 


Views on walking and cycling in your local area

Q How satisfied are you with the current walking environment in your local area?

 

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

 

 

Q If you answered SATISFIED or VERY SATISFIED why do you feel this way about the current walking environment in your local area?[20]

 

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

 

 

 

 

Q If you answered DISSATISFIED or VERY DISSATISFIED above why do you feel this way about the current walking environment in your local area? [21]

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55% of respondents who express levels of dissatisfaction[22] with pavements in the local area. This shows that we need to make improvements. The top 3 comments relating to this refer to the condition of pavements, obstructions & clutter on pavements and pavement parking.

Conversely, 286 respondents show satisfaction with the local walking area. Their top 3 comments relate to respondents feeling safe walking in their local area, pavements are wide enough, and routes are joined up and take me where I need to go

Q How satisfied are you with the current cycling environment in the city?

 

No.

%

Very satisfied

52

7.3

Satisfied

81

11.4

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

89

12.5

Dissatisfied

325

45.7

Very dissatisfied

164

23.1

Total

711

100

 

 


 

Q If you answered SATISFIED or VERY SATISFIED why do you feel this way about the current cycling environment in the city?[23]

 

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

 

Q If you have answered DISSATISFIED or VERY DISSATISFIED why do you feel this way about the current cycling environment in the city? 3

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

489 respondents show levels of dissatisfaction with the cycling environment in the city. Their top 3 comments relating to this are: that there is a lack of safe cycle routes, cycle lanes end abruptly, and gaps in current cycle network / routes.  Conversely, 133 people are satisfied with the cycling environment. Their top 3 comments are that cycle routes have good quality surfaces, lanes are wide enough and cycle lanes are safe.



About you

Q How have you heard about this consultation?[24]

 

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

 

Q How are you responding to this consultation

·         824 people responded as individuals

·         29 people responded as a representative of a business, organisation or group

 

Comments received from organisations that took part in stakeholder workshops have been added to that report and not reported on here.

Postcode map of respondents

Map  Description automatically generated

Equalities Monitoring information

 

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

 

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

 

Disability

No.

%

Citywide %

Yes, a little

108

14.2

7.5

Yes, a lot

59

7.8

8.8

 

 

 

 

No

591

78.0

83.7

Total

758

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


Annex 1 – List of events, workshops and poster distribution

 

Public events

Public events were held at the Jubilee Library on:

·         Wednesday 6 Oct - 10am-5pm

·         Friday 8 Oct - 10am-5pm

·         Tuesday 26 Oct - 12pm-7pm

·         Saturday 30 Oct - 10am-5pm

 

The consultation was also promoted at the following wider events:

·         Car Free Day – Wednesday 22 September

·         Road Safety Awareness, Old Steine – Saturday 23 October

·         Various local events to promote the Hanover & Tarner Liveable Neighbourhood project in October 2021

 

A public exhibition was also in place at the Jubilee Library on:

·         Monday 4 October – Saturday 9 October 2021

·         Monday 25 October – Saturday 30 October 2021

Workshops

Stakeholder workshops were held on:

·         Tuesday 12 October

·         Thursday 28 October

 

Additional meetings also attended by officers:

·         City Management Board – Tuesday 5 October

·         Quality Bus Partnership – Thursday 7 October

·         Local Action Team (LAT) Forum – Tuesday 12 October

·         Destination Experience Group – Wednesday 13 October

·         Dementia Action Alliance meeting – Monday 18 October

·         Brighton & Hove Economic Partnership – Monday 18 October

·         Sustrans Bike It stakeholder meeting – Tuesday 19 October

·         Equality & Inclusion Partnership – Wednesday 20 October

·         Transport & Public Health Group – Thursday 30 October

·         Transport Partnership – Tuesday 2 November

·         Local Access Forum – Thursday 4 November

·         Taxi forum – Thursday 25 November

Focus groups facilitated by officers:

·         Youth Council – Saturday 16 October

·         Disabled people – Thursday 28 October

·         Cardinal Newman school – Wednesday 10 November

·         Dorothy Stringer school – Wednesday 10 November

·         Older people – Wednesday 10 November

·         Longhill School – Thursday 11 November

·         Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) people – Thursday 11 November

·         Brighton Aldridge Community Academy – Tuesday 16 November

Poster distribution

Posters for the consultation were posted to the following organisations with a letter asking the recipients to display in their premises where possible. Postcards were also distributed to some larger venues eg leisure centres:


·         Brighton Met College, Pelham Street

·         University of Brighton, Grand Parade

·         Amex

·         Police Station, John Street

·         Regency Surgery, Old Steine

·         Prince Regent Swimming Pool

·         Brighthelm Centre

·         Morrison's St James's St

·         King Alfred Leisure Centre

·         Moulsecoomb Leisure Centre

·         Withdean Leisure Centre

·         St Luke's Swimming Pool

·         Stanley Deason Leisure Centre

·         Portslade Sports Centre

·         Old Steine Café

·         YHA

·         Hollingdean Community Centre

·         Hangleton Community Centre

·         The Level Community Centre

·         Kemptown Crypt Community Centre

·         Royal Sussex County Hospital

·         Brighton General

·         Legal and General

·         BUPA Brighton Clinic

·         Lloyds North Street

·         Sussex University

·         University of Brighton

·         Amex Stadium

·         New England House

·         Sainsbury Lewes Road

·         Tesco Hove

·         Asda Hollingbury

·         Asda Marina

·         Hanover Community Centre

·         Racecourse

·         Café at the level

·         Chalet Café Preston park

·         Rotunda Café, The Rose Garden Preston Park

·         YMCA

·         Brighton Youth Centre

·         Trust for Developing Communities


Annex 2 – Cross-tabulations from survey data


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

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

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

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.