Consultation report

Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) consultation - autumn 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

1.      Summary. 2

2.      Public event feedback. 4

2.1.       Summary. 4

2.2.       Feedback. 4

3.      Workshop / focus group feedback. 10

4.      Online survey feedback. 19

Annex 1 – List of events, workshops and poster distribution. 53

Annex 2 – Cross-tabulations from survey data. 55

 


1.    Summary

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

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

·         Draft Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Consultation postcard

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: Consultation poster


2.    Public event feedback

2.1.  Summary

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3: Public event / exhibition in Jubilee Library foyer

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

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

2.2. Feedback

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


 


4.    Online survey feedback

Respondents were invited to answer a series of questions on general travel habits, principles, priorities and on detail contained within the draft LCWIP. Respondents were able to make suggestions for further interventions and to also make comments on individual cycle routes and walking improvements proposed in the draft LCWIP document. Paper copies of the consultation documents and the questionnaire were also available on request.

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

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

Headline Results

General background

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

Everyday travel:

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

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

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

 

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

 

Concerns:

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

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

 


 

Views on walking and cycling in the city:

·                55% of respondents expressed levels of dissatisfaction[1] with the walking environment in the local area. This shows that we need to make improvements. The top 3 comments relating to this refer to the condition of pavements, obstructions and clutter on pavements, and pavement parking.

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

 

LCWIP:

More than half of respondents agree that improvements to the routes and areas proposed in the draft LCWIP would make journeys safer for walking and cycling in the city.

A higher percentage of males think that the proposed routes and areas in the draft LWCIP would encourage them walk/ wheel[2] or cycle[3] more than females. This difference is higher for cycling at around 7 percentage points more, whereas for walking it’s around 4 percentage more.

People with disabilities are less likely to say that would walk or cycle more as a result of proposals in the LCWIP. This difference is 12 percentage points less for walking and 25 percentage points less for cycling.


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.

%

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.

%

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.

 


 


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

 

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Total[18]

 

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

Local neighbourhood mobility hubs

277

33.7

249

30.3

194

23.6

54

6.6

48

5.8

822

Strategic mobility hubs

277

34.4

255

31.6

176

21.8

53

6.6

45

5.6

806

Liveable City Centre

430

51.7

181

21.8

97

11.7

58

7.0

65

7.8

831

Expanded Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ)

394

46.0

160

18.7

80

9.3

86

10.0

137

16.0

857

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

402

46.9

172

20.0

77

9.0

87

10.1

120

14.0

858

School Streets

415

49.0

206

24.3

104

12.3

61

7.2

61

7.2

847

Behaviour Change programmes

331

39.4

213

25.3

131

15.6

66

7.8

100

11.9

841

 

 

 

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


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

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

Mode

Comment (top 10 for each mode)

No. of times raised

Cycling

Cycle lanes: More/ safe/ segregated/ better routes/ quieter routes/ joined up/ better planned/ improve links to South Downs

147

Cycle parking: more/ secure/ adapted bikes/ cycle hangars/ e-cycle parking/ city centre/ reduce cycle theft

48

Enforce cycling regulations/ cyclists need training/ helmets/ insurance/ number plates/ pay road tax/ must use lane if there is one

30

Cycle lanes: waste of money/ no more/ in wrong place/ remove/ negative comments about the A259 cycle lane

27

Reinstate / keep / install Old Shoreham Road cycle lanes

18

E-scooters: keep off roads/ pavements/ cycle lanes, clarity needed/ regulate/ hire scheme, no skateboards

15

Enforce parking in cycle lanes/ remove obstacles

15

BTN Bikeshare: e-bikes/ e-cargo/ cargo bikes needed/ e-scooters

9

Don’t remove cycle lanes (general)

8

Don’t remove cycle lanes (Old Shoreham Road)

8

Cycle maintenance or training: free / cheap/ taster days/ community-based

8

It's dangerous to cycle in the city/needs to be safer for children

7

Encourage e-bikes/ for deliveries/ e-bike charge points

7

Support the removal of the Old Shoreham Road cycle lanes

6

Driving

Reduce/ charge/ restrict cars/ into city/ traffic free city centre/ EV's only/ install Low-Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs)/ stop prioritising cars/local traffic calming

68

Park & Ride: with free bus pass /stop tourists driving into city

34

Congestion: blocking off routes / Rottingdean/ improve traffic flow/ into city centre/ through routes just for cars / LTNs cause congestion

27

Speeding: enforce/ more 20mph areas/ traffic calming

26

EV charging points: more/ free / at Park & Ride

18

Have to drive / for work/ disability/ late at night/ carrying heavy goods/ schools

10

Parking: want cheaper / more parking / less CPZs

9

Parking: enforce illegal parking

9

Reduce car/ cycle conflict/ educate drivers how to share the road

9

More car club vehicles/ e-car club vehicles

5

EVs: Promote/ incentivise

5

Don't reallocate road space for walking and cycling

5

Public Transport

Buses: expensive/ subsidise/ free (for school children)/ cheaper for Electric buses

87

Buses: frequency/ reliability/ to outer areas/ orbital routes/ nearby towns/ schools/ universities

48

Buses: too slow/ trams/electric trams/ express buses

21

Bus station needed/ don't want all buses into the centre/ remove buses from North Street/ restructure routes/ want seafront route

16

Step free access at rail stations/ Preston Park station

14

Multi-modal ticketing/ include bikeshare/ more ticket outlets needed

11

Better interchange at bus stops/ train stations and journey links

7

More bus lanes/ bus priority/ enforcement

7

Better/ more bike carrying on trains and buses

6

Nationalise/ Local Government run public transport/ pay for from council taxes

5

Buses unsafe: Covid/ masks

5

Train fares are too expensive

5

Walking

Pavements: better/ safer/wider /more/ weeding/ maintain/ dementia friendly

56

Pavements: remove street clutter/ bins/ scaffolding

23

Crossings: better/ safer/ at junctions/ pedestrian priority/ wheelchair users/ more dropped kerbs

19

Pavement parking: enforce/ stop

18

Personal safety: CCTV/ streetlights/ with sensors/ underpasses/ pedestrian bridges/ The Level/ women

17

Pedestrianise city centre/ more areas/ like New Road/ Rottingdean High Street

11

Keep vehicles/ cycles/ e-scooters off pavements/ seafront/ undercliff

7

More walking routes/ segregated/ away from pollution/ greener

6

Subsidise walking equipment for people eg jackets and shoes

4

Misc

Greener streets/ more trees/ planting

25

Consider everyone: young people/ elderly/ people with disabilities/ with low incomes

11

Manage road works

11

Water taxis/ electric cable car system/ automated personal transport

9

More consultation: with disabled/ outlying areas/ Old Shoreham Road cycle route needed more consultation

6

Transport: holistic/ better planned

5

Active travel: prioritise/ fund/ promote / financial incentives

5

Reduce the need to travel/ more local amenities/ 15-minute neighbourhoods

4

Support School Streets

4

Subsidise travel for disabled

5

 

 


 


Views on walking and cycling in your local area

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

 

No.

%

Very satisfied

87

9.9

Satisfied

199

22.7

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

101

11.5

Dissatisfied

370

42.2

Very dissatisfied

120

13.7

Total

878

100

 

 

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


Q Do you have any additional comments on other elements of the draft LCWIP?

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

 

About you

Q How have you heard about this consultation?[26]

 

No.

%

I read about it on the council’s website

111

12.2

I read about it on social media

386

42.3

I heard about it by word of mouth

139

15.2

I read about it in the local press

37

4.1

I heard about it at an event (eg Car Free Day)

9

1.0

I saw a poster

17

1.9

Other - Top 5:

Local councillor

School

Local group

Employer/ at work

Jubilee Library

177

40

27

23

15

14

19.4

 

Q How are you responding to this consultation

·         824 people responded as individuals

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

 

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

Postcode map of respondents

Map  Description automatically generated

Equalities Monitoring information

 

Gender

No.

%

Citywide %[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

 

Ethnicity

No.

%

Citywide %

Arab

Arab

0

0.0

0.8

Asian/ Asian British

Bangladeshi

1

0.1

0.5

Chinese

1

0.1

1.1

Indian

3

0.4

1.1

Pakistani

0

0.0

0.2

Any other Asian background

0

0.0

1.2

Black/ Black British

African

3

0.4

1.1

Caribbean

2

0.3

0.3

Any other black background

3

0.4

0.2

Mixed

Asian and white

4

0.6

1.2

Black African and white

1

0.1

0.7

Black Caribbean and white

3

0.4

0.8

Any other mixed background

16

2.3

1.0

White/ White British

English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish

565

79.5

80.5

Irish

20

2.8

1.4

Gypsy or Irish Traveller

0

0.0

0.1

Any other white background

81

11.4

7.1

Other

Any other ethnic group

11

1.5

0.7

Total

 

711

100

100

 

Disability

No.

%

Citywide %

Yes, a little

108

14.2

7.5

Yes, a lot

59

7.8

8.8

 

 

 

 

No

591

78.0

83.7

Total

758

100

100

 

Disability type[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


Annex 1 – List of events, workshops and poster distribution

 

Public events

Public events were held at the Jubilee Library on:

·         Wednesday 6 Oct - 10am-5pm

·         Friday 8 Oct - 10am-5pm

·         Tuesday 26 Oct - 12pm-7pm

·         Saturday 30 Oct - 10am-5pm

 

The consultation was also promoted at the following wider events:

·         Car Free Day – Wednesday 22 September

·         Road Safety Awareness, Old Steine – Saturday 23 October

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

 

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

·         Monday 4 October – Saturday 9 October 2021

·         Monday 25 October – Saturday 30 October 2021

Workshops

Stakeholder workshops were held on:

·         Tuesday 12 October

·         Thursday 28 October

 

Additional meetings also attended by officers:

·         City Management Board – Tuesday 5 October

·         Quality Bus Partnership – Thursday 7 October

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

·         Destination Experience Group – Wednesday 13 October

·         Dementia Action Alliance meeting – Monday 18 October

·         Brighton & Hove Economic Partnership – Monday 18 October

·         Sustrans Bike It stakeholder meeting – Tuesday 19 October

·         Equality & Inclusion Partnership – Wednesday 20 October

·         Transport & Public Health Group – Thursday 30 October

·         Transport Partnership – Tuesday 2 November

·         Local Access Forum – Thursday 4 November

·         Taxi forum – Thursday 25 November

Focus groups facilitated by officers:

·         Youth Council – Saturday 16 October

·         Disabled people – Thursday 28 October

·         Cardinal Newman school – Wednesday 10 November

·         Dorothy Stringer school – Wednesday 10 November

·         Older people – Wednesday 10 November

·         Longhill School – Thursday 11 November

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

·         Brighton Aldridge Community Academy – Tuesday 16 November

Poster distribution

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


·         Brighton Met College, Pelham Street

·         University of Brighton, Grand Parade

·         Amex

·         Police Station, John Street

·         Regency Surgery, Old Steine

·         Prince Regent Swimming Pool

·         Brighthelm Centre

·         Morrison's St James's St

·         King Alfred Leisure Centre

·         Moulsecoomb Leisure Centre

·         Withdean Leisure Centre

·         St Luke's Swimming Pool

·         Stanley Deason Leisure Centre

·         Portslade Sports Centre

·         Old Steine Café

·         YHA

·         Hollingdean Community Centre

·         Hangleton Community Centre

·         The Level Community Centre

·         Kemptown Crypt Community Centre

·         Royal Sussex County Hospital

·         Brighton General

·         Legal and General

·         BUPA Brighton Clinic

·         Lloyds North Street

·         Sussex University

·         University of Brighton

·         Amex Stadium

·         New England House

·         Sainsbury Lewes Road

·         Tesco Hove

·         Asda Hollingbury

·         Asda Marina

·         Hanover Community Centre

·         Racecourse

·         Café at the level

·         Chalet Café Preston park

·         Rotunda Café, The Rose Garden Preston Park

·         YMCA

·         Brighton Youth Centre

·         Trust for Developing Communities


Annex 2 – Cross-tabulations from survey data


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

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

Concerns - Traffic Congestion:

Distance mode

Journey Main Mode

Extremely Concerned

Moderately Concerned

Somewhat Concerned

Slightly Concerned

Not at all Concerned

Total

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Around your neighbourhood

Walk or wheelchair

308

42.2

204

28.0

115

15.8

50

6.9

52

7.1

729

Cycle

59

49.6

29

24.4

16

13.4

7

5.9

8

6.7

119

Car/ van as driver or passenger

40

37.4

18

16.8

21

19.6

13

12.1

15

14.0

107

Public Transport

4

25.0

6

37.5

2

12.5

2

12.5

2

12.5

16

Into the city centre

Walk or wheelchair

113

43.0

75

28.5

39

14.8

17

6.5

19

7.2

263

Cycle

105

47.3

60

27.0

28

12.6

14

6.3

15

6.8

222

Car/ van as driver or passenger

63

38.0

41

24.7

31

18.7

17

10.2

14

8.4

166

Public Transport

114

36.7

88

28.3

62

19.9

28

9.0

19

6.1

311

Getting across the city (eg Patcham to Portslade)

Walk or wheelchair

11

61.1

4

22.2

1

5.6

1

5.6

1

5.6

18

Cycle

100

49.0

51

25.0

30

14.7

11

5.4

12

5.9

204

Car/ van as driver or passenger

140

35.6

108

27.5

74

18.8

36

9.2

35

8.9

393

Public Transport

118

47.4

65

26.1

24

9.6

21

8.4

21

8.4

249

Leaving the city to neighbouring areas

Walk or wheelchair

6

54.5

2

18.2

2

18.2

1

9.1

0

0.0

11

Cycle

41

54.7

20

26.7

9

12.0

2

2.7

3

4.0

75

Car/ van as driver or passenger

212

36.7

156

27.0

100

17.3

55

9.5

54

9.4

577

Public Transport

167

47.6

97

27.6

50

14.2

17

4.8

20

5.7

351

 

 

 

Concerns with traffic congestion split by gender:

 

 

Extremely concerned

Moderately concerned

Somewhat concerned

Slightly concerned

Not at all concerned

Total

Gender

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

 

Female

163

45.7

88

24.6

62

17.4

27

7.6

17

4.8

357

Male

139

38.4

106

29.3

49

13.5

26

7.2

42