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

Headline summary of the event-based feedback for the LCWIP is as follows:

· Feedback on issues when walking and cycling in the city currently eg pavement obstructions and poor surface conditions on pavements, roads and cycle lanes

· Support for improvements to walking and cycling in the city eg lack of a joined up network currently; the need for safer cycle routes, better pedestrian facilities and more separation between cyclists and pedestrians

· Feedback on wider issues in the city eg cost of public transport, general road safety and enforcement eg pavement parking / illegal parking

· Detailed comments on areas of the city and specific suggestions, which can be considered at detailed design stage where appropriate

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.

Headline summary of the workshop and focus group-based feedback for the LCWIP is as follows:

· Feedback shows a need for improved, separated facilities for both cyclists and pedestrians to design out conflicts and make it clear where each road user needs to be

· Feedback shows support for a complete network for improvements to active travel

· Feedback about personal safety issues when using active travel including as part of multimodal journeys

· As well as the LCWIP the council needs to focus on other key areas which affect active travel eg enforcement, safety and maintenance, as well as areas such as cycle parking, cycle training and security / lighting

· Detailed comments on areas of the city and specific suggestions, which can be considered at detailed design stage where appropriate

Feedback from these sessions relevant to the LCWIP has been presented by theme below:

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

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 eg 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 Cycling and Walking Plan (LCWIP) document / routes / areas:

Stakeholder workshops:

- Need to make it easier to walk, glad to see it is recognised that everyone is a pedestrian at some point in their journey

- Pleased to see route 32 included and raised the need for cross-city links for shorter journeys

Schools

- Reinstate Old Shoreham Road cycle path

Quality Bus Partnership:

- There could be a theme around holistic management of public realm – the council as highway authority taking a unified approach to the allocation of street space

- Area walking map looks good but Western Road / Church Road area missing

- This needs integration and can work well with benefits for buses / cyclists and pedestrians. It is challenging as there is limited road width and can’t accommodate all of it. Main strategic corridors – can you use a parallel secondary road? Has this been considered?

Local Action Team (LAT) forum:

- London Road – lots going on here including public transport, cars etc, this needs to be a focus but will be difficult

- St James’s Street – need this pedestrianised. Lots of empty shops here – use for consultation?

Local Access Forum:

- So many areas where routes are along main roads – you’re fighting with the noise, fumes, pavement parking etc, it’s not pleasant. This LCWIP network, combined with the reduction in combustion engine vehicles, is the way forward. Need to ensure pedestrians and cyclists don’t feel secondary to cars

- Need the word ‘enjoyable’ in there for LCWIP as well – a key thing to highlight for walking and cycling - would be good to mention in the vision – e.g. where we say safe, healthy – could we say enjoyable somewhere in this?

- The word ‘welcoming’ would be good – you feel this when places are accessible

- A good document, a bit glossy. Heartened to hear you will consider adding ‘enjoyable’ as well

- Need to add Ditchling Road to the cycle map – current scheme planned for there (Highways England funding)

- LCWIP boundary goes beyond the built-up city – need to tie in with the ROWIP

- ROWIP could be highlighted more in the document

Transport Partnership:

- Need more consideration of the Marina in the LCWIP, routes through it are awful for walking and cycling. Needs a lot of work and needs to be in the ambitions in the LCWIP

- Limited north-south links from the Seafront in the LCWIP network

- ‘Greening’ theme needs to include Sustainable Urban Drainage

- Need to introduce the concept of quality and inclusive public realm – bring together strands

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

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

Other:

Stakeholder workshops:

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

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

Schools:

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

- No car rallies

- No aeroplanes

Quality Bus Partnership:

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

Bike It stakeholder meeting:

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

Taxi forum:

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

Youth Council:

- Better communication is needed for travel schemes in the city

- More circular economy projects needed in the city

Older people focus group:

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

Your travel

Q Which method of travel do you MOST use for each of the following journey purposes? [4]

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	%[5]
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[6]

· 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[7]

· 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?[8] (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[9]

· 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 [10]
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	Total [10]
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%)[11] and lowest levels of concern relate to journey times (buses) 290 (36.8%) [12]There were some variations in the level of concerns according to the type of journeys undertaken by respondents, including[13]:

· Respondents who travel longer distances[14] 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[15]
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	Total[15]
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[16] 633 (72.9%), whereas getting across the city and leaving the city to neighbouring areas are almost equally difficult[17] 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.

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?[19]

	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? [20]

	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[21] 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?[22]

	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.

Your views on our draft Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP)

Q To what extent do you agree that improving the proposed routes and areas identified in the draft LCWIP will make your journey safer for:

	Strongly Agree		Agree		Neither agree nor disagree		Disagree		Strongly Disagree		Total
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Cycling	228	32.8	220	31.6	106	15.2	57	8.2	85	12.2	696
Walking	182	24.4	270	36.1	177	23.7	63	8.4	55	7.4	747

Walking:

More than half of all respondents agree[23] that improving the proposed routes and areas identified in the draft LCWIP would make journeys safer for walking 452 (60.5%). There’s not a great deal of difference to perceptions of safety for walking for males (207, 63.9%) compared to females (207, 63.9%). People with disabilities are less likely to perceive proposals in the LCWIP would make them feel safer (48.1%) compared to those without a disability (66.6%)

Cycling:

More than half of all respondents agree[24] that improving the proposed routes and areas identified in the draft LCWIP would make journeys safer for cycling 448 (64.4%). As for walking, there’s not a huge difference in perceptions of safety for males (217, 68.5%) and females (176. 67.2%). Those with a disability perceive that they would feel less safe. (60, 51.3%) compared to those without a disability (342, 70.8%).

Q Would improving the proposed routes and areas outlined in the draft LCWIP encourage you to walk or cycle more?[25]

	No.
Yes, I would walk more	293
Yes, I would start cycling	53
Yes, I would cycle more	349
No, I would walk the same as currently	322
No, I would cycle the same as currently	137
No, I wouldn’t cycle	125
No, I can’t cycle	74
Don’t know	42

A higher percentage of males would walk or wheel more 52.8% against 48.2% of females. 39.6% of those with a disability would walk or wheel more compared to 52.6% of those without a disability.

As for walking, a higher percentage of males would cycle more at 56.7%, compared with only 43.5% of females and, similar to walking 30.1% of people with disabilities would cycle more compared to 55.2% of people without a disability.

322 respondents would walk the same as currently and 137 would cycle the same as currently.

51.8% of females and 47.2% of males would walk the same as currently. 60.3% of those with a disability would walk or wheel the same amount compared to 47.4% of those without a disability.

14.6% of females and 18.4% of male respondents would cycle the same amount. There is a greater variation between those with and without disabilities who would cycle the same amount (12% compared to 19.2%).

Q Would improving the proposed routes and areas outlined in the draft LCWIP help you walk / cycle to the places you need to get to for everyday journeys (eg to work or to local shops and services)?

	No.	%
Yes	251	46.2
No	292	53.8
Total	543	100

There is a higher percentage of males (62.2%) who feel that proposed routes and areas outlined in the draft LCWIP would help walking or cycling for everyday journeys compared to only 53.7% of females. 41.4% of respondents with disabilities believe that proposals outlined in the draft LCWIP would help them to walk or cycle to places for everyday journeys compared to 61.7% of respondents without a disability

Respondents could leave further comments. These are as follows:

Comment (top 10)	No. of times raised
Not enough routes / suggestion for other locations	60
Consultation information confusing/ not enough detail/ difficult to read	29
Extend/ join up existing routes/ to W Sussex/ to South Downs/ Hassocks	12
Not necessary / too many/ waste of money	12
Support the routes / positive / would cover my journeys	9
Condition/ width of pavements	7
Don't agree with removal of Old Shoreham Road cycle lane	6
Need routes away from pollution/ traffic	4
Won't help walking for everyday journeys/ Ovingdean	4
Place cycle routes away from city centre / main access routes	4

Q Do you have any other comments on the proposed routes or areas identified for improvement?

Respondents left the following numbers of comments on cycle routes and walking areas. Comments have been taken into consideration as part of the final LCWIP network. Some comments were detailed comments on routes / areas / issues / suggestions, which will be utilised when routes / areas are taken forward for detailed design in future.

Route / area	Number of responses from survey	Themes emerging (brackets show number of times this theme emerged within these responses; number of themes may be more than number of responses in previous column)	Summary of responses
Strategic route 1 – Church Street	2	· Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (2)	· This is a dangerous route for cycle / pedestrian conflict – quote from feedback ‘not sure what can be done other than complete segregation or no cars’ · Cycle lane is on the wrong side of the Old Steine to link with this route
Strategic route 2 – North Street / Dyke Road	8	· In support of route (7) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (6) · Not in support of route (1) · Cycle lanes need to be segregated (1) · Cycle lanes cause congestion (1)	· Cycle safety issues on Dyke Road – improvement needed · Cycle safety issues at roundabout at the top of Dyke Road – improvements needed in order to link to South Downs · Need better protection for cyclists, from Seven Dials upwards · Need more separation for cyclists on North Street and in general · One comment relating to not putting cycle lanes on main thoroughfares as they cause congestion
Strategic route 3 – Lewes Road	7	· In support of route (7) · Cycle lane enforcement needed (2) · Cycle lanes need to be segregated (1) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (1)	· This is a key route for the LCWIP · Protection is needed for cyclists on the whole route · Enforcement of cycle lanes is needed – lots of abuse by parked and moving vehicles currently · Middle section (The Vogue to The Level) is dangerous for cycling · Extend route to Plumpton College (Stanmer Park, off Stony Mere Way)
Strategic route 4 – A23	5	· In support of route (4) · Cycle lanes need to be segregated (2) · Not in support of route (1) · Cycle lanes cause congestion (1) · Route needs to be higher priority in LCWIP (1)	· Route 4c to be short term rather than medium · Need to connect Valley Gardens to the seafront · Cycle safety issues on this route – segregation needed · Concern re cycle lane causing congestion especially for visitors to the city
Strategic route 5 – Eastern Road / Edward Street	5	· In support of route (1) · Route needs to be higher priority in LCWIP (1) · More north-south linkages needed (1) · Alternative route needed (1) · Cycle lanes need to be segregated (1) · Further measures are needed (1)	· Further north-south links are needed to connect this route to destinations · Further measures are needed around the hospital e.g. restriction of (non-emergency) vehicles, cycle parking for staff, pedestrian walkways and bridges · One comment that an alternative route is needed, though no suggestion given
Strategic route 6 – A259 west	11	· In support of route (8) · Cycle lanes need to be segregated (3) · More north-south linkages needed (2) · Not in support of route (3) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (1) · Cycle lanes cause congestion (1) · Keep cycle lane on prom (2)	· Support for route generally · Further north-south connections are needed to connect this route to destinations · Connections to neighbouring areas also needed · A couple of comments suggesting the cycle lane remains on the promenade and that cycle lanes cause congestion
Strategic route 7 - Chesham Road. St George's Road, Bristol Road and St James's Street	4	· Alternative route suggested (2) · In support of route (1) · Route needs to be higher priority in LCWIP (1) · Cycle lanes need to be segregated (1)	· Higher priority needed for routes in east Brighton · Suggestions of Mount Pleasant and also making St George’s Road a Low Traffic Neighbourhood instead of a strategic route
Strategic route 8 - Buckingham Pl / Terminus Rd / Queens Rd / West St	1	· In support of route (1) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (1)	· Route from station is polluted, noisy and needs to be more welcoming. · Need to prioritise pedestrians. Potentially have a guided bus service up and down Queens Road
Strategic route 9 – A259 east (and Marine Parade)	15	· In support of route (11) · Cycle lanes need to be segregated (3) · More north-south linkages needed (4) · Not in support of route (2) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (1) · Higher priority needed for the east of the city (1) · Keep cycle lane on prom (1) · Do not reduce carriageway space (1) · Route not safe after dark (1)	· Support for route generally · North-south connections needed to connect with this route in order to reach communities and destinations sufficiently · Cycle safety issues on this route, protection needed · Better access to Marina needed
Strategic route 10 – Western Road / New Church Road / Church Road	18	· In support of route (11) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (5) · Cycle lanes need to be segregated (4) · Not in support of route (2) · Route needs to be higher priority in LCWIP (3) · Cycle lanes cause congestion (2) · Route needs to be lower priority in LCWIP (1) · Route important for children travelling to school (1) · Alternative route needed (1)	· Support for this route in the comments, with many respondents citing unsafe facilities for cycling journeys currently · Comments about conflicts between modes on this route – cars / buses / pedestrians / cyclists · Some calling for higher priority of this route and one respondent calling for lower priority compared to Portland Road (due to access to the shops) · One comment that Lansdowne Road / Upper North Street should be considered as alternative to Western Road
Strategic route 11 – Queens Park Road	3	· In support of route (1) · Cycle lanes need to be segregated (1) · Alternative route needed (1) · Extension needed (1)	· Cycle safety issues generally noted – the need for more segregation · Suggestion to explore alternative route through Hanover or Freshfield Road
Strategic route 12 - Old Shoreham Road / New England Road / Viaduct Road / Upper Lewes Road	55	· In support of route (34) · Cycle lanes need to be segregated (20) · Not in support of route (16) · Route important for children travelling to school (14) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (7) · Route needs to be higher priority in LCWIP (6) · Cycle lanes cause congestion (4) · Do not reduce carriageway space (2) · Alternative route suggested (1) · Cycle lane enforcement needed (1)	· Support for this route in the comments, with many comments mentioning respondents feeling unsafe when cycling on this route currently, with segregation from motor vehicles mentioned · Many comments cited key links to schools via this route · Some comments cited lack of alternative safe cycling routes from this area and that since the temporary lane was removed cycling has not been possible here · Surface issues currently a problem · Addressing junctions on this route is key · Some comments not in support of route, some of these citing cycle lanes as the cause of congestion, and some don’t want carriageway space reduced
Strategic route 13 – Ditchling Road	11	· In support of route (7) · Route needs to be higher priority in LCWIP (4) (NB these comments are all in relation to 13b) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (2) · Not in support of route (1)	· Higher priority for southern end of Ditchling Road (13b) needed as this reaches more people and connects to more places · Better surfacing needed at northern end as well as more space to accommodate all users
Strategic route 14 – Upper Hollingdean Road	2	· In support of route (2) · Cycle lanes need to be segregated (1) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (1)	· This route is noted as a useful link for the network in general · Bottleneck at railway bridge – suggestions for wider or second bridge here
Strategic route 15 – Union Road	2	· In support of route (2) · Cycle lanes need to be segregated (1) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (1)	· Comments suggesting segregation for safer cycling here · Suggestion for more cycle parking in this area
Strategic route 16 – Nevill Road / Sackville Road / King George VI Avenue	6	· Not in support of route (4) · In support of route (1) · Alternative route needed (1) · Route needs to be higher priority in LCWIP (1) · Route important for children travelling to school (1) · Cycle lanes cause congestion (1)	· Some concerns cited about this route, mainly due to the topography on the northern section (King George VI Avenue) · One respondent suggesting higher priority for Sackville Road section due to links with schools, another suggesting that Cycling route 2 is a better way to reach Kling George VI Avenue · Multiple new developments along this route mentioned in terms of the potential for increasing congestion here · Two comments mentioned the Old Shoreham Road temporary cycle lane and that usage levels needs to be considered in future schemes
Strategic route 17 – Wilson Avenue	1	· Alternative route needed (1)	· Suggestion for alternative route through Whitehawk which would be closer to people’s homes and on roads with slower speeds
Strategic route 18 – Springfield Road	2	· In support of route (2) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (2) · Cycle lanes need to be segregated (1)	· Suggestion for cycle parking in this area · Support for route in terms of its links alongside route 19 / 4 at gyratory · Support for protecting cyclists via segregation
Strategic route 21 – Elm Grove / Warren Road	5	· In support of route (5) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (2) · Cycle lanes need to be segregated (1) · Extension needed (1) · Route needs to be higher priority in LCWIP (1)	· Support for route, with one respondent suggesting higher priority needed · Suggestion for extension to link with Lewes Road
Strategic route 23 – Boundary Road, Hangleton Road	3	· Extension needed (2) · In support of route (1) · Cycle lanes need to be segregated (1) · Cycle lane enforcement needed (1)	· One comment suggesting linking routes 23 and 24 better · One comment suggesting an extension to link this route with Old Shoreham Road (route 12) near Hove Park
Strategic route 25 – Vernon Terrace / Montpelier Road	1	· In support of route (1) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (1)	· Suggestion for quieter routes away from traffic
Strategic route 26 – The Avenue (Bevendean)	1	· Extension needed (1)	· Suggestion for extension of route – a ramp next to the existing steps to cut through to Woodingdean, avoiding the need to go via Bear Road
Strategic route 28 – Portland Road	4	· In support of route (3) · Extension needed (2) · Route needs to be higher priority in the LCWIP (1) · Cycle lanes need to be segregated (1)	· A couple of suggestions that the route needs to continue to the east (Blatchington, Eaton, Lansdowne, Upper North Street) for better connections including to Hove station · A few comments in support of the route, one stating it needs to be higher priority than New Church Road due to the amount of shops here
Strategic route 29 – Basin Road South	1	· For detailed design stage (1)	· Comment re issue on route including at lock gates (further west of BHCC area)
Strategic route 31 – Carden Avenue	3	· In support of route (2) · Extension needed (2) · Route important for children travelling to school (2) · Route needs to be higher priority in LCWIP (1) · Alternative route needed (1)	· Two comments asking stating the importance of school connections and needing to extend the route accordingly – Winfield Avenue and schools in Patcham / Hollingbury · One suggestion for the route to go north and connect with the bridleway near the Upper Lodge at Stanmer Park
Strategic route 32 – Coldean Lane	2	· In support of route (2) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (2)	· Important route for linking key destinations · Surfacing issues and narrow pavements currently, speed limit 40mph
Strategic route 35 – The Upper Drive	2	· In support of route (1) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (1) · Route important for children travelling to school (1)	· Support for better cycling provision on this wide route which also connects with schools
Strategic route 38 - Rottingdean High Street and Falmer Road	5	· In support of route (2) · Not in support of route (2) · Extension needed (1) · Route needs to be higher priority in the LCWIP (1) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (1)	· Three comments about the challenging topography of this route and how it would be off-putting to cyclists · Further extension to Ovingdean mentioned by one respondent · One suggestion that the route needs to be higher priority as this is a busy car route so could be potential for modal shift
Strategic route 39 - Barcombe Place and Lucraft Road	1	· In support of route (1)	· This area is difficult to navigate on foot and by bike from Coldean Lane heading towards the Brighton Falmer campus, as crossing to the eastbound side of Lewes Road to access this area is difficult
Prioritised area 4 – Knoll / West Blatchington	3	· Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (3)	· Make this area a liveable streets scheme · Measures outside schools – discouragement for drivers parking illegally · Make School Road and Marmion Road one-way · Make Knoll Park a focus point as it is an under-used green space, more cycle parking in Knoll Park · Include Friends of Knoll Park in future consultations
Prioritised area 7 – Hollingdean	2	· In support of walking route / area(s) (2) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (1) · Route important for children travelling to school (1)	· Suggestion for pedestrian improvements, including crossings, on Brentwood Road · Children using the route to get to school, safety measures needed
Prioritised area 9 – West Hove	1	· Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (1)	· High levels of air pollution in this area – especially in Portland Road, Blatchington Road, Sackville Road, etc. due to vehicles - a holistic approach to this plan is needed
Prioritised area 13 – Kemptown and Black Rock	1	· Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (1)	· Area very unsuitable for emergency vehicles · Suggestion of red route along Bristol Gate for the hospital
Prioritised area 14 – Queens Park	1	· Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (1) · Route important for children travelling to school (1)	· Suggestions for pedestrian crossing locations / widening pavements / bin locations · Three schools in the area, safety measures needed to reduce speeding
Prioritised area 15 – London Road station	4	· New area for area-based treatment suggested (4) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (4) · Route important for children travelling to school (1)	· Four suggestions for considering the Round Hill area as a walking area for improvement · Suggestion for lighting and police presence in the cat creep (twitten) between Wakefield / Richmond Road and Round Hill Crescent due to anti-social behaviour · Pavement quality poor in this area · Improvements needed for pupils walking to school
Prioritised area 25 - Ovingdean	5	· In support of walking route / area(s) (5) · Area needs to be higher priority in LCWIP (5) · Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (2) · New walking route suggested (1)	· Support for this area and for the area to be prioritised higher · Support for pavement on Roedean Road (walking route CC within this area) · New walking route suggested for Greenways (no footway in place currently) · Speeding issues on Greenways and Ovingdean Road
Walking areas 7 and 8 - West Blatchington & Hangleton and Portslade	1	· In support of walking route / area(s) (1) · Extension suggested (1)	· Better connections between areas needed
Walking area 24 – Preston	2	· Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (2) · Route important for children travelling to school (1) · In support of walking route / area(s) (1)	· Area is very pedestrian un-friendly, particularly crossing main roads – crossings needed · Many roads eg Hamilton Road used as cut-throughs for journeys to school and need to be made safer for pedestrians · More needed in this area to give pedestrians right of way · Port Hall Road area – used as a rat run – speed reduction and traffic calming needed
Walking area 26 – Patcham west	1	· Comments for consideration at detailed design stage (1)	· Consider Patcham Peace Park for local mobility hub location · Patcham Peace Park is in a poor state and due attention
Walking area 32 – Rottingdean west	1	· In support of walking route / area(s) (1)	· Route needs to be safer for pedestrians
Walking route FF – Albourne Close (link to racecourse)	1	· In support of walking route / area(s) (1)	· Key connection for Whitehawk residents to destinations
Walking route W – Lower Rock Gardens	1	· Extension suggested (1)	· Extend route to Queens Park
South Downs National Park	1	· Detailed comments (1)	· Better links needed with the South Downs National Park
Marina (not in draft network)	1	· Detailed comments (1)	· Better access to Marina needed for both walking and cycling
Undercliff (not in draft network for improvement)	4	· Detailed comments (4)	· Three comments mention pedestrian / cycle conflict on the Undercliff, with one suggesting banning cycles from this route · One comment about the importance of this leisure cycling route and it needing to remain despite improvements planned on A259 itself
Misc	1	· Detailed comments (1)	· South of London Road station also needs considering
Misc	1	· General comment for LCWIP (not area or route-specific) (1)	· A holistic approach to all routes is needed
Misc	1	· General comment for LCWIP (not area or route-specific) (1)	· Traffic lights with cycle facilities / lights are really helpful · Schemes like Lewes Road and Old Shoreham Road by Cardinal Newman are well designed and user friendly - more of these please
Misc	1	· General comment for LCWIP (not area or route-specific) (1)	· Consider local opinions when developing improvements for local areas

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

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

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

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

Concerns - Traffic Congestion:

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

Concerns with traffic congestion split by gender:

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

Concerns with traffic congestion split by disability:

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

Concerns - Journey times (general traffic):

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

Concerns with journey times (general traffic) split by gender

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

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

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

Concerns - Journey Times (buses):

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

Concerns with journey times (buses) split by gender:

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

Concerns with journey times (buses) split by disability:

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

Concerns - Air Pollution:

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

Concerns with air pollution split by gender:

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

Concerns with air pollution split by disability:

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

Concerns - Noise Pollution:

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

Concerns with noise pollution split by gender:

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

Concerns with noise pollution split by disability:

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

Concerns - Road Safety:

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

Concerns with road safety split by gender:

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

Concerns with road safety split by disability:

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

Concerns - Climate Change:

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

Concerns with climate change split by gender:

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

Concerns with climate change split by disability:

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

Concerns - Personal Safety:

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

Concerns with personal safety split by gender:

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

Concerns with personal safety split by disability:

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

Q To what extent do you agree that improving the proposed routes and areas identified in the draft LCWIP will make your journey safer for cycling or walking? (Split by gender and disability)

Safer for cycling by gender:

	Strongly Agree		Agree		Neither agree or disagree		Disagree		Strongly disagree		Total
Gender	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Female	88	33.6	88	33.6	39	14.9	21	8.0	26	9.9	262
Male	114	36.0	103	32.5	47	14.8	20	6.3	33	10.4	317

Safer for walking by gender:

	Strongly Agree		Agree		Neither agree or disagree		Disagree		Strongly disagree		Total
Gender	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Female	78	26.2	113	37.9	72	24.2	20	6.7	15	5.0	298
Male	82	25.3	125	38.6	71	21.9	26	8.0	20	6.2	324

Safer for cycling by disability:

	Strongly Agree		Agree		Neither agree or disagree		Disagree		Strongly disagree		Total
Disability	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Yes, a little	18	22.5	26	32.5	17	21.3	6	7.5	13	16.3	80
Yes, a lot	7	18.9	9	24.3	7	18.9	4	10.8	10	27.0	37
No	183	37.9	159	32.9	65	13.5	34	7.0	42	8.7	483

Safer for walking by disability:

	Strongly Agree		Agree		Neither agree or disagree		Disagree		Strongly disagree		Total
Disability	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Yes, a little	15	16.7	30	33.3	27	30.0	10	11.1	8	8.9	90
Yes, a lot	8	19.5	10	24.4	10	24.4	6	14.6	7	17.1	41
No	143	27.8	200	38.8	110	21.4	36	7.0	26	5.0	515

Q Would improving the routes and areas outlined in the draft LCWIP help you to walk or cycle more? (split by gender and disability)

Cycle more by gender:

	Yes, I would start cycling		Yes, I would cycle more		No, I would cycle the same as currently		No, I wouldn't cycle		No, I can't cycle		Total
Gender	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	Total
Female	23	7.8	128	43.5	43	14.6	54	18.4	46	15.6	294
Male	22	6.7	185	56.7	60	18.4	40	12.3	19	5.8	326

Walk more by gender:

	Yes, I would walk more		No, I would walk the same as currently		Total
Gender	No.	%	No.	%	Total
Female	120	48.2	129	51.8	249
Male	140	52.8	125	47.2	265

Q Do the proposed routes and areas outlined for improvement in the draft LCWIP provide direct walking and cycling links for your everyday destinations? (split by gender and disability)

By gender:

	Yes		No		Total
Gender	No.	%	No.	%	Total
Female	139	53.7	120	46.3	259
Male	176	62.2	107	37.8	283

By disability:

	Strongly Agree		Agree		Total
Disability	No.	%	No.	%	Total
Yes, a little	35	45.5	42	54.5	77
Yes, a lot	13	33.3	26	66.7	39
No	274	61.7	170	38.3	444

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

[6] Highest and lowest percentage of respondents

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

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

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

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

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

[19] Respondents could choose more than one option

[20] Respondents could choose more than one option

[22] Respondents could choose more than one option

[23] Agree or strongly agree excluding don’t know

[24] Agree or strongly agree excluding don’t know

[25] Respondents could choose more than one option

[26] Respondents could choose more than one option

[28] Respondents could choose more than one disability type

Comment (top 10)	No. of times raised
Positive/ implement quickly/ needs to go further	49
Waste of money / unnecessary/ negative	30
Consultation: Not enough detail / too long / jargon/ biased/ needs more data/ wider consultation	20
Potential routes missing	12
Reduce cars/ traffic/ don't side with motoring lobby	9
Too focussed on cycling/ focus more on walking	8
Want segregated/ wide/ safe lanes	6
Consider needs/ accessibility/ disabled / pushchairs	6
Don't use arterial routes/ use quieter routes/ residential routes/ greener routes	6
Better pavements	5

1. Summary

2. Public event feedback

2.1. Summary

2.2. Feedback

3. Workshop / focus group feedback

4. Online survey feedback

Annex 1 – List of events, workshops and poster distribution

Annex 2 – Cross-tabulations from survey data

Gender	No.	%	Citywide %[27]
Female	363	48.9	50.2
Male	368	49.5	49.8
Non-binary	8	1.1	-
Other	4	0.5	-
Total	743	100	100

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

Disability type[28]	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