	No.	%[4]
I received an information leaflet	276	30.8
I read about it on the council’s website	70	7.8
I read about it on social media	423	47.2
I attended an event	17	1.9
I heard about it by word of mouth	123	0.1
I read about it in the local press	87	9.7
Other includes: From my local councillor, through work, from a group I am a member of, from friends or family, local neighbourhood group or residents’ association	31	3.5

Results

Q1 How often do you use these forms of transport in the area?

	Every day, or nearly every day		2-3 days a week		Once a week		Less often but at least once a month		Less than once a month		Never
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Walk	411	48.1	178	20.8	99	11.6	83	9.7	46	5.4	38	4.4
Cycle[5]	107	12.6	203	23.9	90	10.6	97	11.4	107	12.6	246	28.9
Bus	9	1.1	74	9.0	99	12.1	164	20.0	227	27.8	245	30.0
Car/ van as driver [6]	193	22.5	253	29.5	128	14.9	82	9.5	66	7.7	137	15.9
Car/ van as passenger	32	4.2	89	11.6	128	16.8	110	14.4	183	24.0	222	29.1
Motorcycle/ moped	7	0.9	10	1.3	9	1.2	8	1.0	15	2.0	717	93.6
Wheelchair/ mobility scooter	5	0.7	5	0.7	7	0.9	4	0.5	4	0.5	739	96.7
Taxi/ Private Hire	3	0.4	16	2.0	47	6.0	108	13.7	300	38.1	313	39.8
Community Transport[7]	1	0.1	2	0.3	4	0.5	4	0.5	11	1.4	742	97.1
Other	10	1.6	6	1.0	3	0.5	6	1.0	11	1.8	580	94.2

Other includes electric scooter, running or jogging, roller-skating or skateboarding, adapted disability vehicles or blue badge vehicles, patient transport services and trains in the surrounding area. The graphs below show differences between those who eg cycle regularly and not so regularly.[8]

688 respondents (80.5%) walk in the area on a regular basis, compared to 574 (66.8%) regular car drivers and 400 (47.1%) cyclists.

Q2 To what extent do you agree with these proposals that aim to improve walking and moving around the area?

The following question asks about proposals that aim to provide improvements for walking and moving around the area. Results are given for all respondents and then by mode used.

	Strongly agree		Agree		Neither agree or disagree		Disagree		Strongly disagree		Don’t know
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Widen pavements	321	36.0	130	14.6	96	10.8	94	10.5	247	27.7	4	0.4
Improve pedestrian crossing points	342	38.6	250	28.2	114	12.9	61	6.9	114	12.9	6	0.7

Overall, 50.6% of respondents agree[9] with proposals to widen pavements in the area while 66.8% agree with the improvement of pedestrian crossing points.

Q2a Proposals to improve walking and moving around the area by main mode used

Widen Pavements:

Mode	Frequency	Strongly Agree		Agree		Neither agree or disagree		Disagree		Strongly Disagree		Don't know
Mode	Frequency	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Walk	Once a week or more	256	37.4	98	14.3	77	11.3	66	9.6	183	26.8	4	0.6
	Less often	48	37.2	16	12.4	12	9.3	20	15.5	33	25.6	0	0
	Never	3	7.9	6	15.8	2	5.3	5	13.2	22	57.9	0	0
Cycle	Once a week or more	238	59.6	60	15.0	23	5.8	20	5.0	57	14.3	1	0.3
	Less often	56	27.7	27	13.4	20	9.9	22	10.9	77	38.1	0	0
	Never	23	9.4	29	11.9	43	17.6	47	19.3	100	41	2	0.8
Car (as driver)	Once a week or more	130	22.8	82	14.4	67	11.8	76	13.3	212	37.2	3	0.5
	Less often	85	57.4	21	14.2	13	8.8	10	6.8	19	12.8	0	0
	Never	89	65.4	20	14.7	11	8.1	7	5.1	9	6.6	0	0
Bus	Once a week or more	63	34.6	22	12.1	25	13.7	16	8.8	55	30.2	1	0.5
	Less often	146	37.5	66	17.0	37	9.5	39	10.0	100	25.7	1	0.3
	Never	112	35.0	42	13.1	34	10.6	39	12.2	91	28.4	2	0.6

Respondents who say they walk regularly in the area tend to agree with proposals to widen pavements (over 53%), rising to 74.6% of regular cyclists. 37.2% of regular drivers agree that pavements should be widened, with 11.8% unsure.

Improved pedestrian crossing points by main mode used

Mode	Frequency	Strongly Agree		Agree		Neither agree or disagree		Disagree		Strongly Disagree		Don't know
Mode	Frequency	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Walk	Once a week or more	267	39.3	193	28.4	88	13	45	6.6	82	12.1	4	0.6
	Less often	56	43.4	33	25.6	15	11.6	9	7	16	12.4	0	0
	Never	5	13.2	12	31.6	5	13.2	3	7.9	12	31.6	1	2.6
Cycle	Once a week or more	230	57.9	86	21.7	33	8.3	14	3.5	31	7.8	3	0.8
	Less often	54	26.9	66	32.8	26	12.9	22	10.9	32	15.9	1	0.5
	Never	48	19.8	79	32.6	46	19	21	8.7	47	19.4	1	0.4
Car (as driver)	Once a week or more	146	25.8	175	31	92	16.3	50	8.8	98	17.3	4	0.7
	Less often	84	57.1	38	25.9	10	6.8	4	2.7	10	6.8	1	0.7
	Never	95	69.3	26	19	8	5.8	4	2.9	3	2.2	1	0.7
Bus	Once a week or more	71	39.2	46	25.4	28	15.5	8	4.4	27	14.9	1	0.6
	Less often	147	38.1	126	32.6	50	13.0	25	6.5	36	9.3	2	0.5
	Never	124	38.9	78	24.5	36	11.3	28	8.8	50	15.7	3	0.9

Respondents who regularly walk (67.7%) or cycle (79.6%) agree with the proposal to improve pedestrian crossing points. Regular drivers also agree with this proposal (55.8%).

Q3 To what extent do you agree with these proposals that aim to improve cycling in the area?

	Strongly agree		Agree		Neither agree or disagree		Disagree		Strongly disagree		Don’t know
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Improved cycle routes	348	39.1	61	6.9	19	2.1	77	8.7	383	43.0	2	0.2
Improved cycle crossing points	332	37.5	101	11.4	96	10.8	69	7.8	274	31.0	13	1.5
Increased cycle parking	287	32.4	175	19.8	132	14.9	54	6.1	226	25.5	11	1.2

For cycling proposals:

· When considering improved cycle routes, 46% of respondents agree with proposals, compared to 2.1% neither agree or disagree, and 51.7% disagree

· For improved cycle crossing points, 48.9% agree with proposals, compared to 12.3% neither agree not disagree / don’t know, and 38.8% disagree

· For increased cycle parking, 52.2% of respondents agree with proposals, compared to 16.1% neither agree or disagree / don’t know, and 31.6% disagree

Reactions to these proposals for cycling improvements were also explored to determine levels of agreement for proposals by different transport modes used in the area (Q3a), by disability (Q3b) and by gender (Q3c).

Q3a proposals that aim to improve cycling in the area by main mode used

Improved cycle routes by main mode used:

Mode	Frequency	Strongly Agree		Agree		Neither agree or disagree		Disagree		Strongly Disagree		Don't know
Mode	Frequency	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Walk	Once a week or more	273	40.1	46	6.8	13	1.9	57	8.4	290	42.6	2	0.3
	Less often	55	42.6	11	8.5	3	2.3	10	7.8	50	38.8	0	0
	Never	3	7.9	1	2.6	1	2.6	6	15.8	27	71.1	0	0
Cycle	Once a week or more	273	68.6	29	7.3	4	1	14	3.5	78	19.6	0	0
	Less often	60	29.9	15	7.5	2	1	17	8.5	107	53.2	0	0
	Never	11	4.5	12	4.9	9	3.7	40	16.4	170	69.7	2	0.8
Car (as driver)	Once a week or more	136	24.0	40	7.1	16	2.8	55	9.7	320	56.4	0	0
	Less often	100	67.6	10	6.8	1	0.7	13	8.8	24	16.2	0	0
	Never	96	70.1	9	6.6	1	0.7	6	4.4	23	16.8	2	1.5
Bus	Once a week or more	58	32.0	17	9.4	4	2.2	18	9.9	84	46.4	0	0
	Less often	166	42.7	28	7.2	8	2.1	33	8.5	153	39.3	1	0.3
	Never	124	38.9	16	5.0	7	2.2	26	8.2	145	45.5	1	0.3

319 (46.9%) respondents that walk regularly in the area agree with the proposals to improve cycle routes, along with to 302 (75.9%) respondents that cycle regularly in the area. . In terms of respondents that drive regularly in the area, this is 31.1% (176 respondents)

Improved cycle crossing points by main mode used

Mode	Frequency	Strongly Agree		Agree		Neither agree or disagree		Disagree		Strongly Disagree		Don't know
Mode	Frequency	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Walk	Once a week or more	263	38.8	78	11.5	77	11.4	45	6.6	202	29.8	12	1.8
	Less often	50	38.8	16	12.4	14	10.9	12	9.3	37	28.7	0	0
	Never	3	8.1	2	5.4	1	2.7	7	18.9	24	64.9	0	0
Cycle	Once a week or more	258	65.2	53	13.4	19	4.8	11	2.8	53	13.4	2	0.5
	Less often	56	28	19	9.5	29	14.5	24	12	70	35	2	1
	Never	13	5.4	20	8.3	40	16.5	30	12.4	131	54.1	8	3.3
Car (as driver)	Once a week or more	126	22.4	71	12.6	72	12.8	54	9.6	230	40.9	10	1.8
	Less often	95	64.6	14	9.5	12	8.2	9	6.1	17	11.6	0	0
	Never	95	69.3	12	8.8	8	5.8	4	2.9	15	10.9	3	2.2
Bus	Once a week or more	57	31.7	24	13.3	18	10.0	12	6.7	68	37.8	1	0.6
	Less often	154	40.0	54	14.0	46	11.9	31	8.1	93	24.2	7	1.8
	Never	121	37.9	23	7.2	32	10.0	26	8.2	112	35.1	5	1.6

When respondents are split by frequency of mode usage results are as follows

· 311 (78.6%) regular cyclists agree with proposals to improve cycle crossing points

· For those regularly walking in the area 50.3% (341 respondents) agree with proposals to improve cycle crossings, compared to 13.2% neither agree or disagree / don’t know, and 36.4% disagree

· For regular car drivers35% (197 respondents) agree with proposals to improve cycle crossings, with 14.6% neither agree or disagree / don’t know, and 50.5% disagree

Increase cycle parking by main mode used:

Mode	Frequency	Strongly Agree		Agree		Neither agree or disagree		Disagree		Strongly Disagree		Don't know
Mode	Frequency	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Walk	Once a week or more	232	34.3	131	19.4	109	16.1	35	5.2	161	23.8	8	1.2
	Less often	42	32.6	29	22.5	17	13.2	8	6.2	32	24.8	1	0.8
	Never	1	2.6	4	10.5	3	7.9	6	15.8	23	60.5	1	2.6
Cycle	Once a week or more	224	56.7	82	20.8	37	9.4	8	2.0	38	9.6	6	1.5
	Less often	47	23.5	46	23.0	32	16.0	19	9.5	55	27.5	1	0.5
	Never	12	4.9	34	13.9	55	22.5	23	9.4	117	48.0	3	1.2
Car (as driver)	Once a week or more	115	20.4	101	17.9	107	19.0	41	7.3	193	34.2	7	1.2
	Less often	83	56.5	30	20.4	14	9.5	6	4.1	13	8.8	1	0.7
	Never	74	54.0	36	26.3	7	5.1	5	3.6	12	8.8	3	2.2
Bus	Once a week or more	50	27.8	45	25.0	27	15.0	7	3.9	50	27.8	1	0.6
	Less often	142	36.9	75	19.5	62	16.1	25	6.5	76	19.7	5	1.3
	Never	95	29.8	55	17.2	43	13.5	22	6.9	99	31.0	5	1.6

When looking at respondents by frequency of mode use, views on the proposals to increase cycle parking are as follows:

· 306 (77.5%) regular cyclists agree, compared to10.9% neither agree or disagree / don't know and 11.6% disagree

· For regular walkers 363 respondents (53.7%) agree with this proposal, compared to 17.3% neither agree or disagree / don't know and 29% disagree

· 216 (38.3%) of regular car drivers agree with the proposal to increase cycle parking, with 20.2% neither agree or disagree / don't know and 41.3% disagree

Q4 To what extent do you agree with these proposals that aim to improve access to and within the area?

	Strongly agree		Agree		Neither agree or disagree		Disagree		Strongly disagree		Don’t know
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
More provision of disabled parking bays	217	24.4	261	29.4	228	25.6	56	6.3	100	11.2	27	3.0
More/ improved loading bays	105	11.9	223	25.2	352	39.8	82	9.3	92	10.4	31	3.5
More public space outside businesses (eg for seating)	243	27.4	256	28.8	163	18.4	97	10.9	115	13.0	14	1.6

Overall, there is a high level of agreement that there should be more public space outside businesses (56.2%) and more provision of disabled parking bays (53.8%) than for more or improved loading bays (37.1%). However in regard to the loading bay 39.8% said they nether agree nor disagree.

Q4a Proposals that aim to improve access to and within the area by main mode used

More provision of disabled bays by main mode used

Mode	Frequency	Strongly Agree		Agree		Neither agree or disagree		Disagree		Strongly Disagree		Don't know
Mode	Frequency	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Walk	Once a week or more	159	23.3	194	28.4	189	27.7	45	6.6	75	11	20	2.9
	Less often	30	23.6	43	33.9	27	21.3	9	7.1	12	9.4	6	4.7
	Never	16	42.1	7	18.4	5	13.2	0	0	10	26.3	0	0
Cycle	Once a week or more	118	29.6	115	28.8	113	28.3	17	4.3	24	6	12	3
	Less often	32	16	57	28.5	58	29	14	7	30	15	9	4.5
	Never	49	20.2	72	29.6	53	21.8	23	9.5	42	17.3	4	1.6
Car (as driver)	Once a week or more	95	16.7	161	28.3	160	28.2	50	8.8	87	15.3	15	2.6
	Less often	54	37	48	32.9	29	19.9	5	3.4	6	4.1	4	2.7
	Never	56	40.9	37	27	33	24.1	1	0.7	2	1.5	8	5.8
Bus	Once a week or more	41	22.8	54	30	46	25.6	9	5	20	11.1	10	5.6
	Less often	99	25.6	118	30.5	99	25.6	24	6.2	36	9.3	11	2.8
	Never	77	24	89	27.7	83	25.9	23	7.2	43	13.4	6	1.9

256 regular car drivers (45%) agree with the proposal to provide more disabled bays and to 233 regular cyclists (58.4%) and 353 (57.5%) regular pedestrians. Across all regular mode users there are high levels of neither agree or disagree / don't know responses (30.6% of regular walkers, 31.3% of regular cyclists and 30.8% of regular drivers).

More/ improved loading bays by main mode used

Mode	Frequency	Strongly Agree		Agree		Neither agree or disagree		Disagree		Strongly Disagree		Don't know
Mode	Frequency	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Walk	Once a week or more	76	11.2	168	24.8	274	40.0	64	9.4	72	10.6	24	3.5
	Less often	15	11.7	35	27.3	52	40.6	10	7.8	10	7.8	6	4.7
	Never	2	5.3	8	21.1	15	39.5	5	13.2	8	21.1	0	0
Cycle	Once a week or more	63	15.8	105	26.4	158	39.7	31	7.8	29	7.3	12	3.0
	Less often	17	8.6	44	22.2	86	43.4	19	9.6	24	12.1	8	4.0
	Never	17	7	56	23	96	39.5	30	12.3	36	14.8	8	3.3
Car (as driver)	Once a week or more	42	7.4	136	24.1	225	39.8	68	12.0	78	13.8	16	2.8
	Less often	29	19.7	39	26.5	59	40.1	7	4.8	8	5.4	5	3.4
	Never	29	21.3	35	25.7	52	38.2	6	4.4	4	2.9	10	7.4
Bus	Once a week or more	23	12.8	39	21.8	79	44.1	9	5.0	21	11.7	8	4.5
	Less often	46	11.9	112	29.0	149	38.6	35	9.1	33	8.5	11	2.8
	Never	36	11.3	72	22.6	124	38.9	38	11.9	37	11.6	12	3.8

As with the previous proposal for more provision of disabled bays, there are high levels of neither agree nor disagree / don't know responses for increasing or improving loading bays, and this is true across all frequent mode users (43.5% of regular pedestrians, 42.7% of regular cyclists and 42.6% of regular car drivers).

Aside from these figures levels of agreement are higher than levels of disagreement for this proposal; 36% of regular pedestrians, 42.2% of regular cyclists and 31.5% regular car drivers agree

More public space outside businesses (eg for seating) by main mode used

Mode	Frequency	Strongly Agree		Agree		Neither agree or disagree		Disagree		Strongly Disagree		Don't know
Mode	Frequency	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Walk	Once a week or more	193	28.4	199	29.3	118	17.4	70	10.3	90	13.2	10	1.5
	Less often	35	27.1	40	31	24	18.6	13	10.1	14	10.9	3	2.3
	Never	2	5.3	9	23.7	11	28.9	7	18.4	9	23.7	0	0
Cycle	Once a week or more	167	42	125	31.4	47	11.8	22	5.5	30	7.5	7	1.8
	Less often	42	20.9	55	27.4	42	20.9	24	11.9	35	17.4	3	1.5
	Never	29	11.9	62	25.5	60	24.7	44	18.1	45	18.5	3	1.2
Car (as driver)	Once a week or more	110	19.5	157	27.8	118	20.9	72	12.7	102	18.1	6	1.1
	Less often	58	39.2	47	31.8	23	15.5	10	6.8	7	4.7	3	2
	Never	62	45.3	42	30.7	15	10.9	10	7.3	3	2.2	5	3.6
Bus	Once a week or more	46	25.4	60	33.1	28	15.5	17	9.4	24	13.3	6	3.3
	Less often	115	29.7	116	30.0	68	17.6	41	10.6	44	11.4	3	0.8
	Never	82	25.7	80	25.1	67	21.0	39	12.2	46	14.4	5	1.6

When looking at respondents by frequency of mode use, views on the proposal to provide more public space are as follows, in all instances the highest proportion of responses agree with this proposal.

· 292 (73.4%) regular cyclists agree, compared to 13.6% neither agree or disagree / don't know and 13.0% disagree

· For regular walkers 392 respondents (57.7%) agree with this proposal, compared to 18.9% neither agree or disagree / don't know and 23.5% disagree

· 267 (47.3%) regular car drivers agree with the proposal to increase public space, with 22% neither agree or disagree / don't know and 30.8% disagree

Q4b Proposals that aim to improve access to and within the area by disability

	Disability	Strongly Agree		Agree		Neither agree or disagree		Disagree		Strongly Disagree		Don't know
	Disability	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Disabled Parking Bays	Yes, a little	25	28.4	23	26.1	15	17	5	5.7	18	20.5	2	2.3
	Yes, a lot	30	56.6	8	15.1	6	11.3	2	3.8	5	9.4	2	3.8
	All Disability	55	39.0	31	22.0	21	14.9	7	5.0	23	16.3	4	2.8
	No	153	22.5	208	30.6	189	27.8	43	6.3	64	9.4	22	3.2
More / Improved Loading Bays	Yes, a little	11	12.6	18	20.7	31	35.6	8	9.2	16	18.4	3	3.4
	Yes, a lot	6	11.3	9	17	24	45.3	4	7.5	6	11.3	4	7.5
	All Disability	17	12.1	27	19.3	55	39.3	12	8.6	22	15.7	7	5.0
	No	85	12.6	182	26.9	268	39.6	61	9	58	8.6	22	3.3
More Public Space Outside Businesses	Yes, a little	20	23	18	20.7	19	21.8	14	16.1	15	17.2	1	1.1
	Yes, a lot	8	15.1	19	35.8	16	30.2	6	11.3	3	5.7	1	1.9
	All Disability	28	20.0	37	26.4	35	25.0	20	14.3	18	12.9	2	1.4
	No	210	31	207	30.5	112	16.5	64	9.4	75	11.1	10	1.5

86 (61%) respondents with a disability agree with the proposal aim to increase provision of disabled parking bays, 30 (21.3%) disagree. 44 (31.4%) respondents with a disability agree with the proposal of more provision/improved loading bays, and 34 (24.3%) disagree and 62 (44.3%) neither agree nor disagree/ are not sure.

65 (46.4%) respondents with a disability agree with the proposal to create more public space outside businesses, 38 (27.2%) Disagree and 35 (25%) nether agree nor disagree.

Those respondents with disabilities are supportive of increased disabled parking bays than those without (over 70% for those with more severe disabilities). Over 50% of respondents without a disability are in favour of this proposal. Respondents without a disability are also supportive of increased public space and improved provision of loading bays.

Q5 Do you think these proposals will improve safety for:

	Yes		No		Not sure
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Pedestrians	419	47.1	377	42.4	94	10.6
Cyclists	404	45.6	370	41.8	112	12.6
People with disabilities	370	41.9	293	33.1	221	25.0

The highest single numbers of responses to this question are that proposals will improve safety for pedestrians (47.1%), cyclists (45.6%) and people with disabilities (41.9%), with high numbers of ‘not sure’ responses for all options.

Q5a Do you think these proposals will make it safer - by main transport modes used

Safety for pedestrians by main mode used

Mode	Frequency	Yes		No		Not Sure
Mode	Frequency	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Walk	Once a week or more	326	47.8	294	43.1	62	9.1
	Less often	63	49.2	43	33.6	22	17.2
	Never	6	15.8	27	71.1	5	13.2
Cycle	Once a week or more	290	72.9	85	21.4	23	5.8
	Less often	77	38.3	102	50.7	22	10.9
	Never	38	15.5	164	66.9	43	17.6
Car (as driver)	Once a week or more	180	31.7	309	54.4	79	13.9
	Less often	111	75.0	32	21.6	5	3.4
	Never	109	79.6	22	16.1	6	4.4
Bus	Once a week or more	77	43.0%	84	46.9%	18	10.1%
	Less often	190	48.8%	153	39.3%	46	11.8%
	Never	152	47.4%	139	43.3%	30	9.3%

72.9% of regular cyclists and 47.8% of regular pedestrians (the highest single number of responses for these groups) state that they feel that the proposals will improve safety for pedestrians.

Safety for cyclists by main mode used:

Type of group	Disability	Yes		No		Not Sure
Type of group	Disability	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Walk	Once a week or more	318	47.0	276	40.8	83	12.3
	Less often	61	47.3	49	38.0	19	14.7
	Never	5	13.2	27	71.1	6	15.8
Cycle	Once a week or more	283	71.	94	23.8	18	4.6
	Less often	72	35.6	104	51.5	26	12.9
	Never	38	15.6	149	61.3	56	23.0
Car (as driver)	Once a week or more	166	29.4	311	55.0	88	15.6
	Less often	111	75.0	26	17.6	11	7.4
	Never	109	79.6	17	12.0	11	8.0
Bus	Once a week or more	75	42.1%	69	38.8%	34	19.1%
	Less often	189	49.0%	156	40.4%	41	10.6%
	Never	140	43.6%	144	44.9%	37	11.5%

Safety for people with disabilities by main mode used:

Mode	Frequency	Yes		No		Not Sure
Mode	Frequency	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Walk	Once a week or more	288	42.5	216	31.9	173	25.6
	Less often	53	41.4	39	30.5	36	28.1
	Never	11	28.9	24	63.2	3	7.9
Cycle	Once a week or more	245	62.0	58	14.7	92	23.3
	Less often	64	32.0	81	40.5	55	27.5
	Never	51	20.9	130	53.3	63	25.8
Car (as driver)	Once a week or more	170	30.1	243	43.1	151	26.0
	Less often	92	62.6	22	15.0	33	22.4
	Never	91	66.9	15	11.0	30	22.1
Bus	Once a week or more	71	40.1%	59	33.3%	47	26.6%
	Less often	172	44.4%	108	27.9%	107	27.6%
	Never	127	39.8%	125	39.2%	67	21.0%

Q6 Would the proposals encourage you to:

	Yes		No		Not sure
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Use the new cycle lane	369	41.5	496	55.8	24	2.7
Visit businesses and/ or amenities in the area	375	42.1	446	50.1	69	7.8
Visit the beach/ seafront	374	42.2	453	51.1	59	6.7

Of all respondents, 369 (41%) people would be encouraged to use the new cycle lane, 375 (42%) would be encouraged to visit business and local amenities in the area and 374 (42%) would be encouraged to visit the beach/seafront.

Q6a Would the proposals encourage you to use the new cycle lane, visit businesses and/ or amenities in the area or visit the beach/ seafront by mode?

Use the new cycle lane (by mode)

Mode	Frequency	Yes		No		Not Sure
Mode	Frequency	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Walk	Once a week or more	295	43.3	369	54.1	18	2.6
	Less often	54	42.5	68	53.5	5	3.9
	Never	3	7.9	35	92.1	0	0.0
Cycle	Once a week or more	293	73.6	99	24.9	6	1.5
	Less often	65	32.2	126	62.4	11	5.4
	Never	8	3.3	231	95.5	3	1.2
Car (as driver)	Once a week or more	156	27.4	399	70.1	14	2.5
	Less often	102	69.9	39	26.7	5	3.4
	Never	96	70.6	35	25.7	5	3.7
Bus	Once a week or more	64	35.6	107	59.4	9	5.0
	Less often	179	46.1	200	51.5	9	2.3
	Never	126	39.4	188	58.8	6	1.9

73.6% of regular cyclists say they would be encouraged to use the new cycle lane and to only 27.4% of regular car users would also be encouraged.

3.3% of people who never cycle and 32.2% of irregular cyclists say they would use the new lane.

Visit businesses and / or amenities in the area by mode

Mode	Frequency	Yes		No		Not Sure
Mode	Frequency	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Walk	Once a week or more	297	43.5	339	49.6	47	6.9
	Less often	54	42.2	61	47.7	13	10.2
	Never	9	23.7	26	68.4	3	7.9
Cycle	Once a week or more	270	67.8	104	26.1	24	6.0
	Less often	62	30.8	121	60.2	18	9.0
	Never	35	14.3	188	77.	21	8.6
Car (as driver)	Once a week or more	162	28.5	362	63.7	44	7.7
	Less often	101	68.2	37	25.0	10	6.8
	Never	99	72.3	28	20.4	10	7.3
Bus	Once a week or more	73	40.3	95	52.5	13	7.2
	Less often	174	44.8	183	47.2	31	8.0
	Never	128	40.0	167	52.2	25	7.8

Visit the beach/ seafront by mode

Mode	Frequency	Yes		No		Not Sure
Mode	Frequency	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Walk	Once a week or more	299	44.0	346	50.9	35	5.1
	Less often	50	39.4	62	48.8	15	11.8
	Never	8	21.1	27	71.1	3	7.9
Cycle	Once a week or more	273	68.8	102	25.7	22	5.5
	Less often	61	30.3	126	62.7	14	7.0
	Never	31	12.9	193	80.1	17	7.1
Car (as driver)	Once a week or more	159	28.1	372	65.8	34	6.0
	Less often	101	68.7	37	25.2	9	6.1
	Never	101	73.7	28	20.4	8	5.8
Bus	Once a week or more	72	40.4%	91	51.1%	15	8.4%
	Less often	172	44.4%	194	50.1%	21	5.4%
	Never	130	40.6%	167	52.2%	23	7.2%

Q Do you have any other comments on the proposals?[10]

Mode	Comment	No. of times mentioned
Walking	Concerned about pedestrian and cycle conflict / crossing cycle lanes / want clearer separation and markings of pedestrian and cycle areas/ difficult for bus passengers alighting into cycle lane / floating bus stops	56
	Promenade is already wide enough / wrong place to widen pavements / not needed / wouldn't want to sit there	23
	Not enough improvements for walking / more crossings needed	18
	Support wider pavements / need more	17
	Parklet unnecessary / unclear what it is/ will encourage anti-social behaviour	9
	Concerned wider pavements will increase street clutter/ seating will block pavements / block disabled access/ extra seating not needed here	6
Traffic/ Driving	Removal of traffic lane will cause congestion / pollution / turnoffs will cause traffic queues/ bus delays	206
	Some people have to travel by car/ unfair /anti-motorist / no longer shop or visit Brighton/ local businesses	44
	Removal of traffic lane will create more accidents / dangerous/ right turn out of St Aubyns	23
	Support removal of traffic lane / would like less traffic in the area / currently too congested / in favour of prioritising walking / cycling over traffic / reduce to 2 lanes	21
	Traffic will use adjoining roads and cut throughs / will push traffic to side streets / dangerous for side streets	17
	Concerned about the impact for emergency vehicles	15
Disability	Will make it difficult for disabled parking / discourage visiting / bays next to cycle lanes unsuitable	27
	Need more disabled parking/ for wheelchair assisted vehicles / in King's Esplanade	18
	More disabled bays not needed / already enough provision / some not used	9
	Disabled parking should be on the south side	8
	Need more dropped kerbs / accessible pavements / priority for disabled access / wheelchair suitable surfaces	6
Cycling	There is already enough provision here for cyclists / lanes underused / westbound lane not necessary / not enough cyclists to warrant this/ no more or remove cycle lanes	168
	Widen / improve existing lane instead / want 2-way lane on prom or pavement	40
	Cyclists don't obey laws / need training / don't stop at lights / no lights/ behaviour needs enforcing/ go too fast	35
	Cyclists still use/ will use the wrong lane / unclear which is westbound / eastbound / still ride on prom / enforce directions	33
	Cyclists want to cycle on the prom / near the sea / road lanes too close to traffic / polluted / dangerous near traffic	26
	Scheme will make cycling safer/ currently dangerous	24
	Need more segregation than wands / wands are unattractive	18
	Dangerous crossing for cyclists / blind junctions / Kings Esplanade area	16
	Too much focus on cycling / cyclists are a minority / already provide enough for cyclists	15
	Put all cycling on the road / 2-way track on Kingsway / remove all prom and pavement lanes	14
	There are better routes for cycling / other routes that need priority	14
	Scheme will encourage more cycling / encourage me to cycle	10
	Need more secure bike storage / unsafe to lock bikes anywhere	9
	Lane will be subject to traffic lights / slow / want to avoid lights / separate crossings	8
	I would prefer the route on road rather than prom / less windy / away from peds / dogs/ kids	7
	Make it easier to join or leave cycle lane from side roads / more cycling infrastructure in side roads	7
	Extend cycle lane further West / need lane to the West of the current one	6
Parking	Loss of parking will lead to loss of income for local businesses	42
	Loss of parking will restrict access for visitors / tourists	34
	Concerned about loss of resident parking places / unfair on those paying for a permit	22
	Don't want parking next to cycle lane / concerned about access to properties / businesses / dangerous when exiting vehicles	18
	Parking will be displaced to side roads / private car parks / too many parking spaces lost	15
	Concerned about loading / unloading / deliveries for businesses/ want longer hours for loading bays	7
	Loss of parking will lead to loss of income for council	6
	Enforce parking contraventions eg parking in loading bays/ disabled bay fraud/ overnight parking	5
Misc.	Plans look good / support the proposals / need to support sustainable travel	67
	Waste of money / spend elsewhere / no change needed / waste of time / spend money on other priorities	64
	Plans are unclear / incorrect / consultation issues / biased/ data used is unclear / questioning data	48
	Critical of council policy / decisions	39
	Disagree with / opposed to the proposals	29
	Views have been / will be ignored / previous results show opposition	26
	Remove the existing on-road lane / doesn't work	22
	Will be good for businesses in the area / people will visit the area more	11
	Need clear signage	9
	Need more trees, greenery, shaded areas, parklets	7
	Need improved public transport system	7
	Don’t remove bus stops/ you've already removed the one by bowls club	6
	Enforce e-scooter use	5

Regular Mode use	Top 5 comments	Number of times mentioned[11]
Walking (at least once a week)	Removal of traffic lane will cause congestion / pollution / turnoffs will cause traffic queues/ bus delays	167
	There is already enough provision here for cyclists / lanes underused / westbound lane not necessary / not enough cyclists to warrant this/ no more or remove cycle lanes	133
	Plans look good / support the proposals / need to support sustainable travel	55
	Waste of money / spend elsewhere / no change needed / waste of time / spend money on other priorities	48
	Concerned about pedestrian and cycle conflict / crossing cycle lanes / want clearer separation and markings of pedestrian and cycle areas/ difficult for bus passengers alighting into cycle lane / floating bus stops	47
Cycling (at least once a week)	Plans look good / support the proposals / need to support sustainable travel	50
	Removal of traffic lane will cause congestion / pollution / turnoffs will cause traffic queues/ bus delays	47
	There is already enough provision here for cyclists / lanes underused / westbound lane not necessary / not enough cyclists to warrant this/ no more or remove cycle lanes	39
	Scheme will make cycling safer/ currently dangerous	21
	Plans are unclear / incorrect / consultation issues / biased/ data used is unclear / questioning data	18
	Support removal of traffic lane / would like less traffic in the area / currently too congested / in favour of prioritising walking / cycling over traffic / reduce to 2 lanes	18
Car as driver (at least once a week)	Removal of traffic lane will cause congestion / pollution / turnoffs will cause traffic queues/ bus delays	179
	There is already enough provision here for cyclists / lanes underused / westbound lane not necessary / not enough cyclists to warrant this/ no more or remove cycle lanes	141
	Waste of money / spend elsewhere / no change needed / waste of time / spend money on other priorities	50
	Plans are unclear / incorrect / consultation issues / biased/ data used is unclear / questioning data	37
	Concerned about pedestrian and cycle conflict / crossing cycle lanes / want clearer separation and markings of pedestrian and cycle areas/ difficult for bus passengers alighting into cycle lane / floating bus stops	35

Equalities Monitoring information

Gender	No.	%	Citywide %^{^[12]}
Female	347	42.6	50.2
Male	463	56.8	49.8
Non-binary	4	0.5	-
Other	1	0.1	-
Total	815	100	100

Age	No.	%	Citywide %
16 and under	0	0.0	17.2
17-24	10	1.2	15.0
25-34	80	9.7	16.4
35-44	163	19.8	16.0
45-54	235	28.5	13.1
55-64	193	23.5	9.3
65-74	108	13.1	6.4
75 and over	34	4.1	6.7
Total	823	100	100

Ethnicity		No.	%	Citywide %
Arab	Arab	0	0.0	0.8
Asian/ Asian British	Bangladeshi	1	0.1	0.5
	Chinese	5	0.7	1.1
	Indian	1	0.1	1.1
	Pakistani	1	0.1	0.2
	Any other Asian background	3	0.4	1.2
Black/ Black British	African	1	0.1	1.1
	Caribbean	2	0.3	0.3
	Any other black background	2	0.3	0.2
Mixed	Asian and white	6	0.8	1.2
	Black African and white	4	0.5	0.7
	Black Caribbean and white	0	0.0	0.8
	Any other mixed background	6	0.8	1.0
White/ White British	English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish	626	81.5	80.5
	Irish	22	2.9	1.4
	Gypsy or Irish Traveller	0	0.0	0.1
	Any other white background	82	10.7	7.1
Other	Any other ethnic group	6	0.8	0.7
Total		768	100	100

Disability	No.	%	Citywide %
Yes, a little	88	10.7	7.5
Yes, a lot	53	6.4	8.8
No	685	82.9	83.7
Total	826	100	100

Disability type^{^[13]}	No.
Physical impairment	98
Sensory impairment	11
Learning disability/ difficulty	4
Long standing illness	35
Mental health condition	21
Developmental condition	0
Autistic spectrum	6
Other	3

Summary of feedback from consultation open days - themes

Open days:

· Saturday, 4^th December 2021 from 10am to 4pm – Estimated 54 attendees

· Tuesday, 7^th December 2021 from 12pm to 7pm – Estimated 38 attendees

An estimated total of 92 residents attended the open days and left a total of 70 post it notes. Not all attendees left comments. Saturdays open day saw the most people attend leaving the most comments.

Themes emerging from the comments are as follows:

Challenges in the area?

Theme	Number of times mentioned
Medina Terrace/Kings Esplanade junction	2
Poor cycling behaviour/e-scooters	2
Pavement parking	1
Not enough dropped kerbs for pedestrians	1
Poor road condition	1
Punishment passes	1
Cycling is scary	1
Cycle priority needed over vehicles	1
Improve connection between phase 1 and old cycle lane	1

What do you think?

+/- ?	Theme	Number of times mentioned
Positive	General positive	10
	Connectivity	4
	Pavement widening	2
	Cycle access filter roads	2
	Consultation	2
	Air Quality	1
	Congestion	1
	Parklet	1
Negative	Road safety/dangerous/left hooks	8
	Congestion	6
	Floating parking/reduced parking	6
	Air quality/pollution	4
	Single Carriageway	3
	General negative	3
	Waste of time/money	3
	Already existing lane/wide enough	3
	Consultation	1
	Cyclists not using lane	1
	Footfall and retail sales	1
	Bus journey times	1
	Traffic displacement	1
	Resident access	1

Total of 23 positive comments from 15 post it notes. Total of 42 negative comments from 23 post it notes.

Suggestions/Improvements?

Theme	Number of times mentioned
Improve signage/markings	4
Additional cycle parking	4
Additional dropped kerbs	3
Bi-directional cycle lane	3
Widen existing cycle lane	3
Improve visibility/signage Medina Kings Esplanade junction	2
Improve wheelchair accessibility	2
Additional green spaces/improve street scape	2
Additional pedestrian crossings	2
Make car free	2
Replace wands	1
Improve north side of pavement	1
Disabled bays at KA leisure centre	1
Additional Parklets	1
Conduct port survey	1
Improved loading bays	1
Park and Ride	1
Cycle priority lights	1
Existing lane	1
Segregate cycle route	1
Extend cycle lane further	1
Alternative route	1

Summary of stakeholder feedback

Stakeholder type	Feedback Provided	How was the feedback provided?	Response to feedback in proposed recommendations
Active and Inclusive Travel Forum – Cycling UK and Brighton Active Travel (BAT) Member	South end of Medina Terrace is a blind corner and dangerous for cyclists.	Stakeholder workshop on Monday 6^th December 2021	Raised table is now proposed at this junction to address this concern.
AITF Member – Bricycles and BAT	The cycle lane on the Kings Esplanade is often obstructed by deliveries, camper vans, etc		Will look into parking enforcement in the area.
AITF Member – Guide Dogs	Detectable kerb between the cycle lane and the pedestrian walkway on the promenade needs to be considered for disabled persons. This needs to be at least 16mm.		Detectable kerb have been be included in proposals
AITF Member – Guide Dogs	Does not support bus boarders for disabled people. Need to use tools to ensure cyclists will stop for pedestrians. Enforcement at bus boarders is needed.		Bus board hybrid solution has been developer to create better pedestrian safe zones.
AITF Member - BADGE	Appreciates the parking being kept on the south side of the street on the Kings Esplanade.		Welcomed
AITF Member - BADGE	Does not support bus boarders for disabled people.		Bus board hybrid solution has been developer to create better pedestrian safe zones.
AITF Member – Community Engagement Officer	Provide tactile differentiation between the cycle lane and the pedestrian path on the Kings Esplanade.		Detectable kerb have been be included in proposals
AITF Member – Community Engagement Officer	Do not restrict time of stay at blue badge bays.		Disabled bays will not have time restrictions on in these proposals. .
AITF Member – Community Works	Lack of ambition in these plans – does not go far enough.		Officers continue to work hard to provide high quality design and balance schemes to provide for all residents and visitors
AITF Member – Community Works	Cycle lane should be protected, segregated, and enforced to stop parking on the lane.		All effort has been made to provide protected cycle lanes where possible
AITF Member – Community Works	Marrocco’s raised crossing.		Raised crossing have now been included in these proposals.
AITF Member – Community Works	Do not use orange wands.		Orange wands will not be used and an alternative will be found.
AITF Member – Community Works	All crossings should be zebra.		This is not feasible with in the scoop on this scheme
AITF Member	Ensure disabled bays have a clearance for ramp and the mobility device.		All disabled bays will be designed with clearance.
AITF Member	Crossing timings from north to south on Kingsway need to be looked at.		Agreed
AITF Member – Stage Coach Bus	There is a need to promote bus usage as well as walking and cycling.		Agreed
AITF Member – Stage Coach Bus	Bus priority at Wharf Road.		This is not feasible as part of these proposals, a redesign of the wharf road junction would be required.
AITF Member – Stage Coach Bus	Does not support bus boarders.		Bus boarder hybrid solution has been developer to provide safe boarding and disembarking.
AITF Member – Stage Coach Bus	The scheme will slow bus times.		All effort has been made to avoid this and monitoring of bus times will be ongoing.
AITF Member – Stage Coach Bus	Need to consider bus ramps at stops.		Bus board hybrid solution has been developer, which provides space for ramps to extend
AITF Member – Shared Practice	Good parts of the scheme such as additional space for pedestrians and side road crossings.		Agreed
AITF Member – Shared Practice	Scheme needs to look at north south pedestrian movements on the Kingsway.		An additional crossing will be introduced by St Aubyn’s South. Additional crossings will be investigated for future schemes.
AITF Member – Shared Practice	Reduce speed limit to 20mph.		Not feasible within the scope of this scheme, this would need to be considered as a city wide policy.
AITF Member – Brighton and Hove Friends of the Earth	Two-way segregated cycle lane is needed along the whole stretch.		This remains a future aspirations, however it is out of scope of these proposals.
AITF Member – Brighton and Hove Friends of the Earth	Raised crossing at Marrocco’s.		Raised crossing have now been included in these proposals.
AITF Member – Cycling UK, BAT	Suggested contraflow on St Aubyns South.		This has been included in these proposals
Businesses and Residents - Sugardough	Double yellow lines need to be used for loading by all shops.	Stakeholder Workshop on Monday 6^th December 2021	Significant increase in loading bays is included as part of these proposals.
Sugardough	The project will take away customer income.		Studies show Increased footway and cycle provision increase footfall and visitors to local businesses by up to 40%
Sugardough	The loading bays are not enough and too far away.		Additional loading now provided in response to this concern
Sugardough	Suggested short term parking along the Victoria Terrace be implemented.		This is now included in these proposals
Bath Court Resident Association	Make it residential parking only on the Kings Esplanade.		This was not considered appropriate for this area.
Sugardough	10m loading bay is not long enough.		16.5metre bay now proposed to meet demand.
Sugardough	Parking restrictions need to be in place before 8am.		This will be considered at the detailed design phase.
Kernel of Hove and Capri Ices	Suggested to widen the cycle path on the Kings Esplanade		Insufficient space to wide path to meet national standards, without creating significant pedestrian/cycle conflict.
Kernel of Hove and Capri Ices	Questioned why a direct route is needed for westbound cyclists but not eastbound?		Like with all modes of travel, the traveling will use the most direct route available to them.
Kernel of Hove and Capri Ices	Do not move the bin at the top of Medina Terrace.		A different location for the bin will be found.
St Aubyns Mansions	Junction at St Aubyns South and Kingsway is dangerous, suggests having a traffic light system at this junction.		A Crossing at this point have been included in these proposals
St Aubyns Mansions	Bollards are needed to prevent illegal/pavement parking at St Aubyns south/Kingsway junction.		This issue will be considered in the detailed design phase.
St Aubyns Mansions	Improving disabled crossings and the addition of a Parklet is good.		A raised tabled is now proposed to improve the new disabled compliant crossing.
St Aubyns Mansions	Suggested raised crossing at Marrocco’s.		Included
Kingsway and West Hove Residents’ Association and Friends of Hove Lagoon	Pedestrians walking in between two cycle lanes is dangerous.		Measures have been taken to improve pedestrian and cyclist sightlines.
Kingsway and West Hove Residents’ Association and Friends of Hove Lagoon	Making the cycle lanes one directional will increase cycle speed which is dangerous for pedestrians.		Measures have been taken to improve pedestrian and cyclist sightlines.
Bath Court Residents Association	Stated there are 12 left hooks for vehicles across the proposed cycle lane which is dangerous.		This in not correct, in the Victoria Terrace area there is only 4 left hook. A CLoS (cycling level of service assessment) was conducted which shows that the raised tables proposed will improve cycle safety for the area.
Bath Court Residents Association	The project will impact emergency services negatively.		Emergency services area consulted for all transport scheme, no serious concern was raised during this consultation.
Kernel of Hove and Capri Ices	Use Section 106 money to improve the St Aubyns South and Kingsway junction		Funding has been identified.
Sugardough	Cyclists will not stop at pedestrian crossing points which is dangerous.		Additional signage and markings are proposed.
Sugardough	Disagreed with loss of parking.		Loss of parking details has been included in the report submitted to ETS committee.
Emergency Services - Police	There is a need for appropriate signage to ensure cycles do not go the wrong way on the cycle lanes.	Stakeholder Workshop on Wednesday 8^th December 2021	Additional signage and markings are proposed.
Police	Reducing the lane down to one may cause issues for large emergency fire vehicles. Police and Ambulance vehicles should be okay.		The situation will be monitored
Police	A259 congestion has been causing issues for emergency vehicles.		Additional alterations to the phase 1 section along the A259 have been identified to reduce congestion and shall be implemented in the near future.
Police	The project is a good idea.		Welcome
Police	Ensure no new street furniture is planned for the area.		Agreed
Police	Parklet seating needs to be designed to eliminate long stay residents.		Agreed
BHCC Internal – Highway Regulation Manager	Remove the parking south of King Alfred car park as it is being abused.	Stakeholder Workshop on Tuesday 14^th December 2021	Discussions are underway with the Parking team regarding this area.
Traffic Control Systems Manager	Add low-level cycle lamps into designs.		This suggestion has been included in the designs
Traffic Control Systems Manager	Issues with vehicles parking in the cycle lane.		The council is actively enforcing the cycle lanes to avoid this, this will continue and design measures have also been included as part of these plans.
Principal Transport Planner	Wayfinding signage is needed to highlight direct/scenic routes and destinations.		Detailed design phase will look at this, but we will be including signage along the route.
Flood Risk Manager	Coop loading bay was designed like this due to sightlines – this may need to be revisited in designs.		The design was revisited and alteration are proposed as part of these plans.
Flood Risk Manager	South corner on Medina Terrace is dangerous – addition of a raised table to slow cars and make more aware of cycle lane here.		This suggestion has been included in the designs
Flood Risk Manager	Drainage needs to be looked at.		A drainage assessment will be conducted at the detailed design phase.
Highway Inspector	Conflict points at the Lagoon Café as there is a vehicle service road. This area needs to be made easier for HGVs to pull in and out off.		This issue will be considered in the detailed design phase.
Highway Inspector	Widen service road		Not public highway, this suggestion has been passed to the seafront team.
Highway Inspector	Addition of a BikeShare hub along the Victoria Terrace		Insufficient space, but we have included a BikeShare Hub out side the King Alfred Leisure centre.
Transport Planner	Cycle safety needs to be looked at of the south end of Medina Terrace.		A raised tables to reduce speed and additional signage will be included to improve cycle safety.
Transport Planner	Contraflow on Kings Esplanade is narrow and often blocked – more signage needed.		We were unable to widen this contraflow due to the narrow width of the road. An enforcement option is considered more feasible.
Stakeholders – Friends of Hove Lagoon	Cyclists fail to stop for pedestrians at the servicing road by Hove Lagoon.	Email received 8^th January 2022 and via the online consultation	Additional signage is being included to make cycle aware that pedestrians have right of way, we are also cutting the walls back to improve sight lines for pedestrians.
Friends of Hove Lagoon	One-way cycle lanes will increase the speed of cycles. This is dangerous for pedestrians, especially small children, people with wheelchairs or push chairs and dogs.		Additional signage is being included to make cycle aware that pedestrians have right of way, we are also cutting the walls back to improve sight lines for pedestrians.
Friends of Hove Lagoon	Prioritisation for pedestrians must be clearly established.		Additional signage is being included to make cycle aware that pedestrians have right of way, we are also cutting the walls back to improve sight lines for pedestrians.
Friends of Hove Lagoon	One lane of vehicle traffic will make it difficult to cross the Kingsway North/south.		There will be one lane for general traffic and one cycle lane as apposed to two lanes of general traffic, this will make it easier to cross and crossings are available.
Friends of Hove lagoon	Lagoon users do not support the project in terms of pedestrian safety.		Additional signage is being included to make cycle aware that pedestrians have right of way, we are also cutting the walls back to improve sight lines for pedestrians.
Brighton and Hove Cab Trade Association	Cause disruption to traffic – two into one doesn’t go.	Email received 9^th January 2022	There maybe an increase in congestions, however this is part of a wider aspiration to offer people a safe and sustainable alternative to the motor vehicle to reduce carbon emission and resolve the climate emergency
Brighton and Hove Cab Trade Association	Orange traffic wands have poor aesthetics		Orange wands will not be used for segregation of the cycle lane in this section.
Brighton and Hove Cab Trade Association	Objects to bus boarder designs		Bus boarder hybrid solution has been developer to provide safe boarding and disembarking.
Brighton and Hove Cab Trade Association	Enough space already for cyclists.		The current cycle lane that runs between Hove Street and Wharf Road does not meet design standards as outlined in LTN 1/20. This scheme also aims to reallocate space on our street for use of sustainable transport, as part of reducing the citys carbon emissions and contributions towards the climate emergency
Living Streets	Little in the proposed changes to this route that directly benefits pedestrians.	Email received 6^th January 2022	A major part of this scheme is aimed at improving crossings, extending footways and bring the area into design standards for disabled persons.
Living Streets	Good to see improvement to pavements by Victoria Terrace shops.		This remains as part of this scheme.
Living Streets	Good to see improvements to crossings at side roads.		This remains as part of this scheme.
Living Streets	Good to see motor traffic lane reduced from two to one lane.		This remains as part of this scheme.
Living Streets	Reduce the speed and dominance of motor traffic.		No changes to speed limits are proposed as part of this scheme
Living Streets	Remove pedestrian obstructions.		Significant guard rails and obstructions will be removed.
Living Streets	Install more pedestrian crossings.		An additional crossing is proposed at St Aubyns South
Living Streets	Tackle dangerous shared space on Hove Street South.		We have design out the west bound cyclist from using this space, however the east bound cyclist will still use this space. As part of the Kings Ways to the Sea project we will also design out the east bound and remove the share space altogether.
Living Streets	Tackle pavement parking.		We have made all efforts to design out the ability to park on the pavement.
Living Streets	Two-way protected cycle track across whole stretch from West Street to Wharf Road.		This remains as aspiration to provided 2 way protected lanes, however we are unable to do this as part of this scheme but will be looked at as part of the next phase in designs.
Living Streets	Confusing to have eastbound cycle lane closest to the pedestrian walkway.		Signage and markings will be improved along with sight lines for pedestrians.
Living Streets	Bus boarders are dangerous, measures need to be included that protect pedestrians and ensure that cycles stop – traffic lights to control.		Bus boarder hybrid solution has been developer to provide safe boarding and disembarking.
Bricycles	Full width, high quality, bi-directional stepped cycle track needed replacing current traffic lane along entire stretch of the Seafront.	Received via online consultation	This remains as aspiration to provided 2 way protected lanes, however we are unable to do this as part of this scheme but will be looked at as part of the next phase in designs.
Bricycles	Four lane arrangement reduced to two lanes. Central reservations removed and replaced with planting.		This can be considered in future schemes
Bricycles	Physical protection is needed on the cycle lane on the Kings Esplanade.		This can be considered in future schemes
Bricycles	St Aubyns made two way for cycles.		This suggestion has now been included as part of these proposals
Bricycles	Reduce parking on the Kings Esplanade.		Some parking has been reduced to provided for additional loading facilities and a Parklet
Bricycles	Improve cycle accessibility from north/south routes – dropped kerbs, breaks in central reservation, protection for people cycling through each junction.		This suggestion has now been included as part of these proposals
Bricycles	Wharf road junction needs amending for cyclists.		Improvements have been included, however a more focused scheme is advised to improve the junction as a whole.
Bricycles	Improve visibility for cycles and pedestrians at service roads.		Areas of walls will be cut back to improve sightlines.
Bricycles	Support widening of the pavements.		Agreed
Bricycles	Introduce 20mph speed limit.		No proposals to alter the speed limit are proposed and this would need to be done from a policy level.
Bricycles	Full pollution monitoring before and after installation of project.		This is currently being done and Air Quality monitoiring stations have been active for over 6 months in the Victoria terrace area.
Kingsway and West Hove Residents’ Association	Conflict between pedestrians and cyclists at service road at Hove Lagoon.		Signage and markings will be improved along with sight lines for pedestrians.
Kingsway and West Hove Residents’ Association	Prioritisation for pedestrians should be clearly established, stop signs for cyclists.		Signage and markings will be improved along with sight lines for pedestrians.
Kingsway and West Hove Residents’ Association	Congestion will be caused from two vehicles lanes reducing to one.		There maybe an increase in congestions, however this is part of a wider aspiration to offer people a safe and sustainable alternative to the motor vehicle to reduce carbon emission and resolve the climate emergency
Kingsway and West Hove Residents’ Association	Continuous traffic makes it difficult for pedestrians to cross the Kingsway North/south movements.		Pedestrian facilities are available and an additional crossing facility is proposed as part of this scheme.

[1] Throughout this report: agree = strongly agree or agree, disagree = strongly disagree or disagree, unless stated otherwise.

Regular pedestrians, cyclists, car drivers or bus users = those who use this mode in the area once a week. Respondents with more severe disabilities are defined as those who have ticked ‘yes, a lot to the disability question in the Equalities Monitoring section and less severe as those who have ticked ‘yes, a little’ to the same question.

[2] When looking at responses from households, rather than individuals, the response rate from within the mailout area is 3.8%. 342 responses from 307 households.

[3] The questionnaire asked for names and addresses, in order to be able to identify and remove duplicated responses. Responses without this information were labelled invalid and removed from the analysis.

[4] %'s will not equal 100% as respondents could choose more than one option

[5] Includes BTN Bikeshare, e-bike, cargo bike, e-cargo bike, adapted bike, tricycle

[8] Throughout this report regular = once a week or more, not so regular/ irregular = less than once a week, unless stated otherwise

[9] Throughout this report: agree = strongly agree or agree, disagree = strongly disagree or disagree, unless stated otherwise

[10] Comments listed are 5 or more mentions on the subjects

[11] Respondents can appear multiple times in this table if they use a range of modes more than once a week

[13] Respondents could choose more than one disability type

	No.	%
As an individual	884	98.7
As a representative of a business, organisation or group	12	1.3