Themes	Sub-themes	Comments (top 10 for each theme)	No. of times raised
Active travel	Cycle network	Safe cycle network linking different parts of Brighton/ more segregated cycle lanes	41
General support	Active travel should be the main priority/ is an effective way to improve transport	34
Pedestrian	Pavement condition issues (e.g. tree roots growing through pavements, weeds, narrow)	26
Pedestrianisation & public realm	More designated pedestrian areas	26
Cycle network	Unsafe to cycle/ insufficient clear and safe cycle routes/ gaps within network	20
Cycle parking	More secure cycle parking including parking for e-bikes	20
Less focus	Stop prioritising cycling and red routes	12
General opposition	Active travel options are not always appropriate.	7
Pavement clutter	Obstructions block pavement	6
School streets	School streets are good and should expand	3
Micromobility	E-scooter	Legalise e-scooters	4
Public transport	Bus & train	Affordability - expensive fares	74
Bus	Dissatisfied with bus services - unreliable, delays, long journey times, live information not working, crowded, unsafe	62
Mass rapid transit scheme	Calls for trams, underground train systems	30
Bus	Improve coverage - more bus routes and bus stops to link up every part of Brighton	27
Inclusivity	Public transport is not accessible and inclusive enough (e.g. not everyone knows how to use app).	25
General support	Promote use of public transport	21
Ticketing	Lack of integrated ticketing on local trains and different bus companies	10
Rail connectivity	Improve regional connectivity	7
Carbon emissions	Support for low and zero emission public transport	6
Bus	Support for locally own buses/ public ownership	4
Congestion	Congestions	Congestion due to delivery vehicles, tourists, spaces for pedestrians and cyclists	47
Rat runs	Call to tackle rat runs	1
Maintenance	Roads	Roads condition issues (e.g. potholes)	42
General comments	Road maintenance is important but not as important as the others	3
General comments	Maintain existing roads before developing something new	2
Electric vehicles (EVs)	General opposition	EVs do not address congestion, road safety and wilder environment issues. Also, EVs are expensive.	38
EV chargepoints	Calls for affordable, accessible EV chargepoint network	17
Opposition to private EVs	Disagreement for EVs as private vehicles	7
Parking	Inclusivity	Parking stress - insufficient spaces, high parking cost, accessibility for disabled people and ease of parking (e.g. do not know how to use mobile phone)	18
Infrastructure	Better parking infrastructure such as underground/ off-street parking	8
Cost	Increase parking charges for visitors	6
Specific jobs	Some jobs such as social workers and traders require vehicles to function	6
Less parking spaces	Free up on-street parking spaces for protected cycle infrastructure and wider pavements	4
Park & Ride (P&R)	Support with suggestions	Calls for an affordable P&R and to restrict parking in the city centre	34
General opposition	Disagreement in P&R as it still involves vehicles.	7
General support	Support for P&R	4
Mobility hubs	General support	Support for mobility hubs	5
Environment	Air & noise pollution	Concerns about pollutions especially in the city centre	22
Street greening	Greater focus on greening our streets and showcasing our heritage	3
Car club	Accessibility	Efficient car club infrastructure/ car club on every street	5
Affordability	Not affordable	3
Informal car share	Support for informal car share	2
City centre	Congestion charge	Support for congestion charge/ car free city centre	28
Parking	City centre is unattractive to visit as it is difficult to park.	15
Parking	Reduce city centre parking/ reallocate parking spaces to residents' parking	11
General comments	City centre is accessible/ Valley Gardens makes the place safer	2
Crime	Enforcement	Suggested parking and speeding on 20mph roads enforced by CCTV and Traffic Regulation [JG7] Orders	7
Inclusivity	School travel	Concerns about transport inclusivity, accessibility and affordability for students	11
Council's responsibility	Council needs to actively consult and engage with the community	9
Council's policy	Red routes reduce accessibility to disabled people	8
Disabled parking	Insufficient disabled parking, parking duration	7
Access for all	Need a transport system that is inclusive regardless of income	4
Accessibility	More dropped kerbs	3
Private car	Reduce cars	Reduce cars and car journeys	34
Negative impacts	Concerns about car dominance/ car reliance/ high car ownership	24
Alternatives	Prioritise viable alternatives (safer, more accessible, cleaner)	19
Negative impacts	Vehicle size concerns - larger and heavier vehicles pay the same parking charge, but induce more pollution	9
A27 junctions	Improve A27 junction capacity	2
Education	Educate drivers on the Highway Code	2
Safety	Pedestrians	Concern about risks posed by e-scooters, delivery e-bikes and cyclist behaviour	23
Parking	Pavement parking creates safety issues and reduces spaces/ pedestrians	13
Cycling	Careless drivers make cycling dangerous	9
Cycle theft	Risk of bikes being stolen/ insufficient safe parking and cargo bike parking	5
Pedestrians	Concern about pedestrian safety/ unsafe crossings	8
Campaign for cyclists/ Powered-two-wheeled vehicles to obey road rules	6
Floating bus stops	Disagreement on floating bus stops	3
Lighting	Unsafe in unlit areas	3
Active travel	Properly segregate shared space	2
Traffic calming	Speed bumps, continuous/ zebra crossings to slow vehicle speeds	2
Safety concerns	Increasing anti-social behaviour[JG8]	2
Technology	General opposition	Never sure about technology being a clear positive/ costly	9
Driverless cars	Concern about their introduction (e.g. vague responsibility of collisions)	8
General support	Technology will be useful if it increases convenience for people	3
Our City Transport Plan 2035	General opposition	The plan will inconvenience car drivers	15
General support	Support for all objectives and want to see them to be executed	15
Online survey	Dissatisfied with the survey design	10
General support	Support for all challenges	7
Challenge 2	Traffic flow includes flow of people/ improve traffic flow has a limit and should not be the primary focus	7
General opposition	Too much emphasis on cycling - no more cycle lanes and narrow pavements and widening the roads	5
Document	Specific things such as disabled access and parking, neighbouring towns, transition away from car ownership has not been mentioned sufficiently in the document.	4
Follow-up	Great to have a follow-up with more quantified targets when time and funding allow	4
Objectives	Objectives are not appealing	3
Contradiction	Not realistic to improve traffic flow and safety at the same time/ improve traffic flow and rely on tourism	3
Scheme specific	Preston Village	Support for Renew Preston Village Campaign	31
Beryl Bike	Expensive, no nearby bike bay, bike design is too big for some people	10
A23 active travel scheme	Concern about Dyke Road/ Dyke Road drive layout/ complete safe cycle lanes along the road	4
School transport	Not mention enough about school transport/ call for school team to do a plan	3
Red routes	Support for more red routes	2
Parking companies	High charges	2
Other	Council policy	Council policy can cause congestion (e.g. Valley Gardens, A259 pier roundabout)	20
Funding	Make sure an even coverage of - city investment	4
Vision	Be ambitious on making the city cleaner and more active	3

Organisational responses

A wide range of organisations provided comments, including public bodies, neighbouring local authority, internal council teams and local stakeholder groups and local businesses. Their key points are summarised by organisation below, in alphabetical order. Full comments are provided in Appendix C - Organisational responses.

Bricycles

· Include reducing car journeys as a specific objective.

· Ensure the Park & Ride scheme is effective by removing city centre parking and reallocating spaces for residents and active travel infrastructure.

· Promote active travel through safe and secure cycling options, accessible to children, low-income residents, and disabled people.

· Support a car-free city centre in key areas (Lanes and North Laine) to improve walkability.

Brighton & Hove Bus and Coach Company

· [JG9] [SL10] Highlighted congestion is the biggest issue, harming bus speeds, reliability, and fares; called for stronger bus priority.

· Welcomed red routes and service improvements but raised concern that active travel schemes/traffic lights can slow buses.

· Noted challenges of converting depots to EVs.

· Called for fully accessible bus infrastructure, improved night bus services, and quicker rollout of bus priority at traffic lights.

Brighton & Hove City Council – Air quality

· Raise concern that emissions and air quality not specifically mentioned in the priority order.

· Recommend consistent reference to ultra-low and zero throughout the plan.

Brighton & Hove City Council – Planning Policy

· Strongly support the objective of giving more people the choice of active travel to manage impacts of new developments.

· Emphasised strong links between Our City Transport Plan 2035 and City Plan 2041

· Look forward to continued close working as both plans evolve.

Brighton and Hove Cycling UK

· Called for road traffic reduction with a monitored Key Performance Indicators and a car-free city centre, warning that EVs alone are not enough to cut emissions or danger.

· Welcomed current and planned active travel schemes (e.g. Valley Gardens, A23, A259) but stressed the need for a fuller, safer cycle network and better maintenance of road surfaces.

· Concerned Park & Ride will not cut traffic without removal of city centre parking; suggested demand-management measures such as road user charging instead.

· Highlighted land-use planning (15-minute neighbourhoods) and government lobbying (e.g. to ban pavement parking) as key to a low-traffic future.

· Warned against over-prioritising roadbuilding under the new Mayoral Authority; urged focus on sustainable and cycling schemes.

Brighton and Hove Clarion Cycling Club

· Stressed that EVs still produce emissions and risk encouraging driving over walking/cycling.

· Called for citywide 20mph limits, car-free areas (particularly the city centre, North Laine and the Lanes), and a full network of safe, segregated cycle lanes.

· Highlighted the need for wider, clutter-free pavements, more play streets, and street trees to improve safety, accessibility, and attractiveness.

· Suggested Park & Ride will only succeed if linked to reduced city centre parking and repurposed spaces for residents, cycling and public realm improvements.

Brighton and Hove Older Peoples' Council

· Highlighted accessibility and isolation issues; many cannot rely on active travel

· Raised concern about long distances between bus stops, lack of seafront bus service and high parking charge.

· Stressed that reliance on online systems (ticketing, parking permits, bike hire) disadvantages older people.

· Supported healthier lifestyles and clean air but warned about unsafe pavements, shared space and the cost barriers of EVs.

Brighton Buswatch

· Highlighted the importance of bus infrastructure such as red routes, bus lanes and real time information systems.

· Argued bus priority identified as the single most important factor helping bus services.

· Suggested creating a bus priority plan (like LCWIP) and adding priority at all signals.

· Criticised the transport plan for underplaying the role of buses in the city’s economy and carbon reduction, compared with walking/cycling.

· Concerned BSIP funding is focused on revenue (subsidies, fares) rather than capital improvements.

· Warned against relying on national averages (Carbon Playbook) which undervalue Brighton’s bus network

British Regional Transport Association (BRTA)

· Proposed a series of local and regional rail network improvements, reopening, upgrades and new links.

· Called for more direct bus/rail services to key destinations including the South Downs and more buses on Sundays.

· Proposed concessionary bus passes for under-30s and under-65s to boost ridership.

· Supported retrofitting low-carbon engines to existing bus fleets and further tram/ light rail schemes.

· Called for better accessibility standards, level boarding, kerbs. Autism/ dementia consideration.

Bristol Estate Leaseholders and Tenants Association (BELTA)

· Highlighted accessibility challenges at Bristol Estate, where steep geography and limited bus services restrict residents’ access to vital services such as GP surgeries.

· Raised concern about hospital access, stressing the importance of clear routes for emergency vehicles and the need for road design that are logical, consistent and do not unintentionally disadvantage other users.

CPRE Sussex, the countryside charity

· Welcomed active travel and public transport focus but says proposals are insufficiently bold.

· Called for stronger restrictions on private car use including ULEZ, reduced parking, space reallocation.

· Objected to Park and Ride, citing evidence it increases car use and harms countryside/urban fringe.

· Supported neighbourhood hubs and integrated policies that encourage modal shift.

· Highlighted need to protect countryside and green space when planning new schemes.

East Sussex County Council

· Supported initiatives to improve cross-boundary journeys between East Sussex and Brighton and Hove for residents, businesses and visitors, recognising Brighton’s visitor economy and the importance of maintaining and enhancing good connectivity by all modes, including bus, rail, active travel and freight.

· Stressed that the movement of goods is as important as the movement of people, welcomed opportunities to work jointly on freight strategy.

· Expressed willingness to collaborate on cross-boundary active travel and public transport corridors, highlighting previous joint schemes such as the A250 bus lanes and Falmer-Woodingdean cycle route.

· Emphasised the need for an inclusive transport network supported by equalities impact assessment (EqIA) and health impact assessment (HIA).

· Supported an increase in public transport trips across the border but cautioned that Park & Ride proposals should not divert users from existing public transport services.

· Requested further details on EV charging delivery, including private sectors involvement, grid capacity and renewable energy integration.

East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service

· Highlighted the plan does not demonstrate a proportionate strategy to cope and protect the increase of cyclists BHCC are promoting and urged considerations of physical controls across the city road networks to safeguard vulnerable road users.

· Expressed willingness to collaborate with the council on managing risks of implementing infrastructure of EV chargepoints including increase in substation capacity, access to these risk areas, noting [JG11] [SL12] the importance of a community risk management plan to support a timely emergency response.

· Emphasised the need to educate public access chargepoint users on safe usage to reduce risks

· Highlighted two major risks associated with EV parking in multi-storey car parks – the structural challenge due to heavier EVs (risk of building collapse) and the increased fire hazard as EVs are more volatile and thermal runaway incidents are harder to manage.

ELEVATE research team

· Expressed willingness to submit research evidence including Brighton & Hove resident feedback relevant to the consultation.

· Highlighted findings from the study showing that e-cargo bikes are a realistic and desirable form of mobility option, with the potential to reduce car use and associated emissions.

Historic England

· Supported for solutions and programmes that minimise the impacts of transport on the historic environment, heritage and townscape, delivering long-term environmental benefits.

· Emphasised integration of transport solutions into streetscape and the public realm, particularly in historically sensitive locations such as conservation areas and the setting of listed buildings.

Hove Civic Society

· Raised concerns about “land grab” from larger vehicles, including EVs, and loss of green space through paving drives.

· Proposed tiered parking fees by vehicle size and landscaping one space for each EV charger.

· Called for a better balance of investment in walking/cycling vs cars, including wider pavements in inner areas.

· Suggested greening all new highway works (trees, rain gardens, biodiversity net gain funding).

· Requested explicit recognition of Hove Station Neighbourhood Plan in the transport plan.

Living Streets Brighton and Hove

· Welcomed health and inclusivity aims but says the plan lacks detail on improving walkability.

· Called for a clear strategy to tackle pavement obstructions (bins, guard rails, EV boxes, signage, parking).

· Proposed removing all pedestrian guard railings, citing safety benefits.

· Concerned pavement maintenance receives far less funding than roads, despite new government allocations.

· Called for a new city-wide 20mph speed limit review and stronger enforcement.

· Welcomed proposed walkability and accessibility improvements in the city centre.

Metamorphosis Art Group and The Flamenco and Spanish Group

· Most people cannot afford electric cars, so widespread on-street chargers would be underused, create trip hazards, and should only be installed in purpose-built, out-of-town locations.

· Driverless cars are unlikely to be widely adopted, making investment unnecessary.

· Traffic used to flow more smoothly before 1980s changes (e.g. two-way side roads, no bus contraflow); current road layouts and bus lanes are seen as causing congestion and bottlenecks.

· Successive road planning decisions are viewed as worsening problems instead of addressing underlying issues.

· The council should avoid “vanity projects” and focus on maintaining a clean, reliable, and functional road and transport system.

National Highways

· Concerned about the safety, reliability, and operational efficiency of the Strategic Road Network (SRN), particularly the A27 and A23.

· Emphasised that the plan should reflect and align with DfT Circular 01/2022 – Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which set out the Government’s policy framework for the SRN and emphasise a vision-led approach to development that reduces traffic impacts by promoting sustainable and active travel and supporting internalised trips in larger developments.

· The Government’s Road Investment Strategy (RIS) sets investment priorities for the SRN. RIS2 concluded in March 2025. RIS3 will cover 2026–2031, with an Interim Settlement (2025/26) confirming that the focus will be on maintenance and renewal of the existing network. Not all schemes in the RIS2 pipeline will progress into RIS3.

· Welcomed the plan’s promotion of sustainable and active travel to help reduce car dependency and ease pressure on strategic routes such as the A23 and A27.

The Carers Centre for Brighton and Hove

· Emphasised that when targeting accessible, inclusive transport, it is important to include people whose mobility is so limited that they require door-to-door accessibility.

Transport Action Network

· Supports LTP’s overall vision but missing a Vision Zero approach to road safety and weak on climate adaptation (shade, SUDS, parking removal).

· Lacks strong demand management to reduce car use; criticism of park & ride for harming buses/rail and the South Downs.

· Too little focus on cycling, e-bikes, and mobility scooters (parking, charging, security).

· Pavement and path maintenance/accessibility issues (widths, kerbs, clutter, seasonal hazards); calls for a review and higher standards.

· Needs better rail improvements (e.g., Moulsecoomb, West Coastway), stronger support for active travel, and caution over autonomous vehicles.

Transport for South East

· Welcomed the strong alignment between the Our City Transport Plan 2035 and TfSE’s Transport Strategy and Strategic Investment Plan (SIP), particularly in relation to decarbonisation, inclusion, and sustainable growth.

· Shared a vision for a low-carbon, inclusive and accessible transport system that enhances quality of life and supports sustainable economic growth.

· Adopted consistent approach in planning closely mirrors TfSE’s approach to integrated, evidence-based transport planning.

· Appreciated the Plan’s explicit recognition of the regional role of the sub-national transport body and the inclusion of the TfSE Transport Strategy and SIP to demonstrate policy alignment.

· Suggested the plan could further align with the SIP by referencing additional regionally significant schemes, such as the A27 East of Lewes–Polegate improvements, the West Coastway Strategic Study, and Brighton Station capacity enhancements.

· Encouraged continued collaboration to ensure Brighton & Hove’s proposals remain fully integrated within the wider South East investment framework and contribute to delivering a resilient, inclusive, and net-zero transport system for the region.

University of Brighton

· University of Brighton supports the identified challenges.

· Accessibility at Moulsecoomb station remains a significant barrier for wheelchair users and those with mobility difficulties.

· Challenge 5 (cycling/active travel) is important, and red routes have had a positive impact.

· Cost and convenience are the main barriers to sustainable transport uptake, with more emphasis needed on reducing public transport costs and improving facilities.

Renew Preston Village Campaign

· Renew Preston Village, backed by 1,500 residents, 19 businesses, and community groups, seeks inclusion in the City Transport Plan 2035 to turn Preston Village into a neighbourhood mobility hub.

· The A23 divides the village, leaving it traffic-dominated, unsafe for walking/cycling, flood-prone, and unattractive despite its heritage and role as a city gateway.

· Proposals (8 priorities):

1. Flood resilience – Install rain gardens/SUDs to address repeat flooding.

2. Crossings – Safer east–west toucan crossings and north–south raised junctions.

3. Active travel hub – Cycle lanes, wider pavements, bike hire, bus stops, and rail links.

4. Air & noise reduction – Trees, landscaping, narrower carriageways for calmer traffic.

5. Economic growth – Support shops, attract investment, connect heritage and events.

6. Public realm – Heritage-sensitive upgrades with greenery to improve pride and safety.

7. Community cohesion – Create welcoming, people-centred communal space.

8. Events infrastructure – Improve capacity for major Preston Park events and capture local spend.

About you

Q How are you responding to this survey?

Many of the respondents were residents, 10% work or study here, 6% represented a business or organisation, 3% reported as a visitor and 2% were an owner of a business.

Figure 5: Results of question: How are you responding to this survey?

Q How did you hear about this consultation?

Nearly one-third of respondents heard about this consultation through social media. Around 10% heard by word of mouth. Smaller proportions heard through the council website, email or selected ‘other’. Six percent heard through local press, 4% from an information leaflet and 2% because they attended an event.

Figure 6: Results of question: How did you hear about this consultation?

Postcode map

Respondents were invited to provide postcode on an optional basis. These postcodes were categorised by areas and the number of responses in each area was recorded and illustrated indicatively in . A small number of postcodes fell outside the map area, which are likely to have be provided by visitors.

A map of a city AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure : Postcode map

Equalities information

Q What gender are you?

Around one-third of respondents identified as female and one-third as male, while 5% identified as non-binary and 1% selected ‘other’.

Figure 8: Results of question: What gender are you?

Q Do you identify as the sex you were assigned at birth?

Sixty-nine percent of the respondents identified with the sex they were assigned at birth, while 1% did not.

Figure 9: Results of question: Do you identify as the sex you were assigned at birth?

Q What is your age?

The age of respondents is broadly evenly distributed between 35 and 65+ ranging from 15%-17%. Younger adults were less represented with 9% aged 25-34 and only 3% aged 18-24.

Figure 10: Results of question: What is your age?

Q What is your ethnic group?

Around 64% of respondents are white. Ethnic groups other than white are less represented with a total of around 5%.

Figure 11: Results of question: What is your ethnic group?

Q Do you have a health problem or disability?

There are 17% of respondents have a lot or a little health problem or disability.

Figure 12: Results of question: Do you have a health problem or disability?

Q Your condition(s)

Among whom responded ‘Yes, a lot’ and ‘Yes, a little’ to the health condition question, they were asked to tell their condition. They could select more than one impairment that apply to them.

Two-thirds of the respondents reported having a physical impairment, one-third reported a long-standing illness, one-quarter reported a mental health condition, 17% were on autistic spectrum and 10% reported a sensory impairment. In addition, 6% reported having a developmental condition and 6% a learning disability/ difficulty.

Figure 13: Results of question: Your condition(s)

4 Public exhibition feedback

4.1 Summary

A public exhibition was in place at the Foyer Gallery in Jubilee Library for a week between 30 June and 6 July 2025. Members of the public were able to view information about the consultation, take information away and leave comments, in response to three key questions, by sticking post-it notes on the wall of the exhibition. Figure shows the exhibition with a close up of the ‘Have your say’ wall.

A room with posters on the wall AI-generated content may be incorrect. A desk and chair with many sticky notes on the wall AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure : Public exhibition in the Foyer Gallery at Jubilee Library with the ‘Have your Say’ wall

During the exhibition week, a drop-in session was held at Jubilee Library to engage people in conversation about the consultation. For those unable to stop and talk, officers handed out postcards inviting people to go online to have their say (around 100 were distributed during the 2-hour session).

4.2 Feedback on the ‘Have your say’ wall

Comments from the exhibition were based around three key questions. Responses have been sorted into themes which are summarised below.

Question 1 – How do you usually travel around the city, and what works well (or not so well) about it?

Mode of transport for getting around the city	Number of times mentioned
Walking	11
Cycling	6
Taking buses	13
Driving	2

Table 4: Results of Question 1

Themes	Comments	Number of comments
Walking	Walking is good exercise and reliable	2
	Narrow pavements	1
	Unsafe walking environment	1
	Too hot to walk in summer	1
	Satisfied with green scenery	1
	Car free city centre	1
	Total	7
Cycling	Cycling areas in Valley Gardens and Preston Park much improved	2
	Gaps in the cycling routes and bad design are making cycling dangerous	2
	Greater awareness from pedestrians to stay out of the cycle lanes is needed	2
	More cycle lanes needed especially to link to the seafront	2
	The behaviour of car divers makes cycling dangerous	1
	Cycling should be a priority in our transport plan as it is healthy	1
	Total	10
Bus	Satisfied with bus services – lots of bus routes, comfortable, Wi-Fi, frequent, nice bus drivers	5
	Cheaper bus services	2
	Dissatisfied with bus services - cleanliness, crowded	2
	No air conditioning on buses	2
	Too many buses through city centre and long waiting times	2
	Make window open on Big Lemon	1
	More digital timetable boards on more bus stops as not all people have a phone	1
	Total	15
Congestion	Busy roads - congestion at Churchill Square, North Road, London Road	2
	Congestion zone in city centre (perks if car share)	1
	Total	3
Enforcement	Vans not abiding by double red lines on Lewes Road	1
Enforcement	Total	1
Roads and pavements	Some roads and cycle lanes are very bumpy	1
Roads and pavements	Total	1
Other public transport	Call for tram	1
Other public transport	Total	1

Table 5: Respondents’ comments for Question 1 by themes

Question 2 – Are there any changes that would make your daily journeys easier or better?

Themes	Comments	Number of times mentioned
Walking	More sitting areas for longer walking journeys	2
	More safe crossings	1
	Wider pavements	1
	Dropped kerbs at crossings	1
	Total	5
Cycling	More protected cycle lanes	2
	Car drivers to respect cyclists	2
	Better and more joined up cycle network	2
	More safe bike parking	1
	Public subsidy of Beryl Bike scheme	1
	Total	8
Bus	Cheaper bus services	3
	More frequent and reliable buses	2
	Air conditioning on buses	1
	Training for bus drivers on understanding deaf community	1
	Satisfied with bus services and drivers	1
	Accessibility seating at bus stops	1
	Free for students for bus services	1
	Total	10
Enforcement	Speed cameras on residential roads	1
Enforcement	Total	1
Restriction	More car free areas - e.g. only public transport on North Road	1
Restriction	Total	1

Table 6: Respondents’ comments for Question 2 by themes

Question 3 – If you could improve one thing about transport in your area, what would it be?

Themes	Comments	Number of times mentioned
Cycling	Better and more joined up cycle network	2
	More safe cycle parking	1
	Total	3
Bus	More direct routes	1
	Better inclusivity including inclusive drivers	1
	Working electronic timetables	1
	Cheaper bus services	2
	More zero emission buses	1
	Total	6
Congestion	Congestion charge during weekends and summer	1
Congestion	Total	1
Enforcement	Speed bumps or cameras on residential roads	2
Enforcement	Total	2
Other public transport	Call for tram	1
Other public transport	Total	1
Integrated transport system	Support for Park & Ride	1
Integrated transport system	Total	1

Table 7: Respondents’ comments for Question 3 by themes

4.3 Feedback received in drop-in sessions

Some residents attended the drop-in sessions and talked about their feedback on the city’s transport. Table 2 summarises their feedback and suggestions.

Themes	Comments
Cycling	More protected cycle lanes to encourage cycling[JG13] [SL14] [JG15] .
Cycling	Link up the cycle network – current gaps discourage use.
Public transport	Timetables: buses on same route often arrive together, reducing efficiency.
	Western Road/ North Street: suggested spreading bus stops to other roads to reduce bottlenecks.
	Direct connections: Rottingdean ↔ Universities (Falmer) needed via Falmer Road.
	Saltdean issues: - Low usage and frequency (routes 27, 47). - Roadworks and parked vehicles disrupt service.

	General Suggestions[JG16] : - Smaller buses during low-demand periods. - Circular routes linking neighbourhoods to main corridors. - App-based demand-responsive transport to improve connectivity.
Congestion	Concerns from A259 Action Group about congestion.
	A259 traffic congestion causes delays and poor air quality.
	A259/High Street junction, Rottingdean: tight turning radius for buses, forcing them into adjacent lanes.
	Suggestion: optimise traffic signals (e.g. with SCOOT) to improve flow and reduce idling emissions.
Parking	Insufficient disabled parking
Parking	Safety concern: disabled parking adjacent to cycle lanes – unsafe when opening doors as cyclists don’t slow down.
Enforcement	Speeding on 20mph roads, but no enforcement.
Environment	Suggestion: biogas-powered vehicles as an alternative to electric vehicles:
	- Lower-cost conversions of existing fuel buses.
	- EVs criticised for high production and end-of-life carbon footprint.
	Develop a streetscape design code for transport projects and maintenance to improve quality of the public realm.

Note that they are all one-off comments.

Table 8: Feedback from residents

5 Workshop/ meeting feedback

5.1 Summary

Five workshops were held in five schools listed below and also in Annex 1 – List of events, workshops and poster distribution in June 2025. These took place before the public consultation started to better match with school schedules to avoid exams and before their end of term. In total, 71 students from years 7 to 10 were engaged. In the workshops, they were asked if they feel safe to getting around Brighton alone, and to vote for the greatest challenge they think the city faces and the objective they think is the most important. There were discussion sessions for them to raise questions and reflect their concerns and needs. The workshops took place at:

· Cardinal Newman Catholic School

· Brighton Aldridge Community Academy (BACA)

· Portslade Aldridge Community Academy (PACA)

· Longhill High School

· Dorothy Stringer School [JG17]

These five schools were chosen because of their catchment areas: Cardinal Newman is a large faith school with a wide catchment; BACA is located to the north of the city, PACA to the west, Longhill to the east and Dorothy Stringer is relatively close to the city centre. Together, students from these schools were able to provide feedback that reflected concerns and needs from across different parts of the city.

5.2 Feedback

Most students felt safe to get around the city alone, but they also mentioned it would depend on areas and time of the day. For examples, they felt less safe getting around in the city centre, London Road and when it is dark.

The greatest challenge they thought the city faces is Challenge 1: Enabling people to live safer, healthier and more active lives and the most important objective went to Objective 3: deliver a safe, inclusive and integrated transport system.

Feedback from these school workshops is also presented by themes in Table .Where pupils have made suggestions as to how things could be improved, we have included these within the table.[JG18]

Themes	Comments	Number of times mentioned
Walking & Cycling	Lack of safety for cyclists due to traffic	8
	Unsafe walking conditions – lack of lighting or poor road visibility	8
	Pavements too narrow and crowded	4
	Cycle lanes too close to roads	2
	Calls for better active travel choices and public spaces	2
	Feels unsafe crossing the road	2
	Total	23
	Suggested improvements:
	Safer cycling infrastructure - better marked and separated cycle lanes	5
	Encourage people to walk or cycle for short trips to reduce traffic on roads	2
	More secure bike storage and cheaper rental bikes	1
	Prioritise pedestrians and cyclists	1
	Total	9
Public transport	Bus frequency & reliability - not matching school timetables, long waits, delays, buses not turning up	23
	Affordability of fares - too expensive for regular use	20
	Passenger safety and behaviour on buses - unsafe or uncomfortable environments	8
	Accessibility - difficult for older people, children, and disabled passengers	5
	Needing multiple buses to reach destinations	3
	Bus driver behaviour - rudeness, inconsistent fare charges	3
	Crowded buses or trains	3
	Tree branches brushing buses	2
	Total	67
	Suggested improvements:
	Free or cheaper bus fares or expanding free bus ID eligibility	5
	Increased frequency and route variety	3
	Improve safety and atmosphere on buses	3
	Better real-time tracking/ more real-time information screens needed	3
	Total	13
Congestion	Congestion	11
	Narrow two-way roads increasing congestion	1
	Road works impacting journey times	1
	Total	13
Roads and pavements	Poor road surface is a major problem - potholes	27
	Uneven pavements	4
	Total	31
Electric vehicles	Insufficient EV charge points, especially for those without driveways	1
	Confusion about how e-bikes work	1
	Total	2
Technology	Support for smart technology to improve transport planning and operations	7
Technology	Total	7
Parking	Expensive parking costs	8
	More car parking in busy places, e.g. London Road	1
	Total	9
Inclusivity and accessibility	Support transport to be inclusive and accessible for all	13
Inclusivity and accessibility	Total	13
Environment	Concern about CO₂ emissions and environmental impact	7
Environment	Total	7

Table 9 Students’ feedback by themes[JG19] [SL20]

Additionally, officers attended six meetings during the consultation to give an overview of the Our City Transport Plan 2035 and collect feedback from the stakeholders including disabled people from Possibility People - GIG. Full details of meetings attended and focus groups held are detailed in Annex 1 – List of events, workshops and poster distribution.

Feedback from these meetings is presented by themes in Table 10.

Themes	Groups	Comments
Walking	Transport Partnership	Make good use of public rights of way network
	Destination Experience Group	Better city centre walkability as there are too many cars
	Local Access Forum	Street clutter including pavement parking, signage, recycling bins, and EV chargepoints was highlighted as a major barrier for pedestrians, especially those with buggies or wheelchairs.
	Local Access Forum	Pavement parking enforcement is key to ensuring safe and accessible pedestrian spaces[JG21] .
	Possibility People - GIG	Wider pavement by narrowing streets for better accessibility for disabled people.
	Healthy Weight Programme Board	Looking to get people out to the South Downs, etc to enjoy the countryside and all its benefits.
Cycling	Local Access Forum	The cycle hanger scheme is popular, but waiting times are long, indicating strong demand.
		More safe, well-located, and well-lit cycle parking is needed, ideally with CCTV, especially important for women and others concerned about safety.
		Criticised capital allocated for delivering Public Right of Way Improvement Plan which is seen as insufficient.
	Possibility People - GIG	People with sight loss feel unsafe at around floating bus stops and unclear cycle lanes.
		At Preston Park, cyclists do not stop at zebra crossings, posing risks to pedestrians.
		Dotted crossings unsafe for people with learning difficulties.
		Suggestions: add clearer markings or dedicated crossings for cycle lanes, and better education for cyclists and stricter use of cycle lanes.
Public transport	Transport Partnership	Priority for buses
	Destination Experience Group	The focus needs to be on getting around the city by public transport, bus and train as Brighton is too hilly for cycling.
	Local Access Forum	Bus frequency and affordability were highlighted as priorities.
	Local Access Forum	Higher bus fare and lower parking fees in the city discourage shift to public transport.
	Possibility People - GIG	Long gaps between bus stops are challenging, especially in areas like between Norfolk Square and Waitrose, or from The Pavilion to St Peter’s Church.
		Lack of a stop at Clarence Square.
		Newer buses may not accommodate all wheelchair sizes, and drivers often don’t wait at the raised parts of stops.
		Issues with real-time tracking for certain services (e.g. Compass buses in Patcham) makes journey planning difficult.
Congestion	Transport Partnership	Road traffic reduction
	Destination Experience Group	Gridlock in the city centre, especially during events. Call for a strategic plan to get rid of cars, so people would get on buses or active travel.
	Destination Experience Group	Suggestion: better use of wayfinding and digital messaging/ intelligence to improve traffic flow.
	Local Access Forum	Eastern section of the A259 was missing from the plan. Call for improvement on traffic congestion.
Roads and pavements	Possibility People - GIG	Street clutter (like cycle parking or café/restaurants furniture) create barriers for those with visual impairments who rely on a kerb or building lines to navigate.
		Uneven surfaces, steep cambers (e.g. Gardner Street), and potholes on pavements are dangerous for wheelchair users. It also requires expensive maintenance of chair outside of the usual cycle regularly
		Wheelchair users end up in the road owing to pavement congestion on some streets such and Ship Street.
		The incline at Eye Hospital makes access difficult for the mobility impaired, though benefitting the visually impaired.
Electric vehicles	Local Access Forum	Electric vehicles still produce emissions from tyre and brake wear.
Parking	Local Access Forum	Consider parking charges based on vehicle weight to discourage excessive car use.
Parking	Possibility People - GIG	Require accessible parking spaces near GP, workplaces or shops, so they can be able to work and live independently. End of twinning blue badges with yellow lines and red routes created issues for people who are disabled car users.
Restriction	Possibility People - GIG Action Group	Wheelchair users reported taxi drivers avoiding pickups due to their perception it is difficult to stop or turnaround on red routes.
Shared space	Possibility People - GIG	Shared spaces rely too much on social understanding; some users (cyclists, e-scooter riders) don’t yield to pedestrians.
Shared space	Possibility People - GIG	Large delivery vehicles at Middle Street make it uncomfortable for pedestrians to share space.
Our City Transport Plan 2035 document	Transport Partnership	Traffic includes non-motorised vehicles eg cycles and also pedestrians.[JG22] [SL23] [JG24]
	Possibility People - GIG Action Group	The plan seems to prioritise cycling.
	Local Access Forum	Members believed tackling challenge 1 could help address several of the other challenges too.
		Challenge 1 deserves more detailed coverage within the plan.
		Walking should be considered part of the overall traffic flow.
		The plan is still too focused on vehicles.
		Referenced Gear Change: a bold version for cycling and walking, the national strategy for walking and cycling. Urged the council to adopt a similarly bold approach.
		While all six objectives were supported, attendees recognised that delivery depends heavily on funding. They hoped that more of the plan could be implemented beyond statutory duties.
Valley Gardens	Destination Experience Group	Valley Gardens is great. The council needs to ensure it is maintained and remains a welcoming space.
Valley Gardens	Destination Experience Group	Valley Gardens focuses too heavily on cyclists.[JG25] [SL26] [JG27]
City gateways and connectivity[JG28]	Destination Experience Group	Improve access into the city for visitors – both public and private transport.
		Support for a good quality P&R facility which would be good for visitor economy.
		Improve gateways to the city both visually and in terms of functionally with gateways working as smooth transition points into the city. For example, coach and train station.
		Better east-west connectivity.
Environment	Local Access Forum	Attendees also raised concerns about the growing number of large SUVs, which take up more space and create more emissions.
Other	Possibility People - GIG	Conditions of the roads for blind and partially sighted people, flat surfaces useful for mobility needs are difficult for people with vision impairments owing to use of lips and raised curbs to navigate.
		Concerns over a lack of learning from previous projects, like Elder Place, where accessible planning was not fully considered.[JG29] [SL30]
		Inconsistent standards across council departments when it comes to accessibility.
		Consultation processes are often inaccessible, lack of notice and insufficient work done to survey opinions from people with learning difficulties — Your Voice surveys are not enough, and more time and better formats are needed.

Note: no comments were received from the Taxi Forum for this consultation

Table 10: Stakeholder meetings’ feedback by groups and themes

5.3 Survey results from respondents with health issues

83 respondents reported that their day-to-day activities are limited by a health problem or disability lasting, or expected to last, at least 12 months. Their responses were extracted for analysis to compare with the overall results in Section 4.2.

Travel habits

Q What mode of travel do you mostly use different types of trips?

· Commuting to work: 46% said not applicable. Among the rest, 18% use car, 12% use train, 8% walk, 8% use bus and 5% cycle.

· Education: 79% said not applicable. Of the remainder, 8% walk, around 5% use car, 3% cycle; and 2% travel by bus and train each.

· Shopping: 30% use bus, 28% walk, 25% travel by car and 10% cycle.

· Leisure: Walking is 30%, but more respondents cycle (17%), while bus and car use are 23% and 20% respectively.

· Visit the city: Walking and taking bus are similar to shopping trips, 13% use car and 12% cycle.

· Other modes (Taxi or private hire vehicle, mobility scooter or wheelchair): each account for around 1%-3% across all trip purposes with no one takes taxi or private hire vehicle to school and shopping and no one uses motorbike or moped for all trip purposes.

Compared with the results from Section 4.2, there are slightly higher proportion of respondents reported they are not studying or working. In general, they use more car. Proportion who walk for education and visiting the city is similar as well as cycling for visiting the city.

Transport challenges

Q Do you agree or disagree that these 5 challenges are what we should focus our resources on tackling?

Figure shows the percentage of respondents who selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ with the identified transport challenges. Similar to the results in Section 4.2, at least 70% of respondents expressed agreement across all key challenges, but the ranking of the challenges is different. Challenge 4 instead of Challenge 1 received the strongest support with around 84% of respondents in agreement. Challenge 2 instead of Challenge 3 received the least support.

Figure : Percentage of respondents who selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ with the identified transport challenges

Transport objectives

Q Do you agree or disagree that these objectives will address the challenges facing the city?

Figure shows the percentage of respondents who selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ with the proposed objectives. The results are broadly consistent in term of ranking to those in Section 4.2, with over half of the respondents expressed agreement across Objective 1 to 5. Objective 4 received the strong support with around 78% of respondents in agreement while Objective 6 received the least support with 47% of respondents in agreement and around 26% of respondents expressed neither agree or disagree[JG31] [SL32] [JG33] . The only different in ranking compared with Section 4.2 is between Objective 1 and 3: here, Objective 3 is ranked third and Objective 1 is ranked fourth, whereas their positions were reversed in Section 4.2.

Figure : Percentage of respondents who selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ with the proposed objectives

Project types

Q Please rank the project types below in order of importance to you.

The ranking of the seven project types is presented below. Similar to the results in Section 4.2, Subsiding public transport to make it more affordable receiving the strongest support while Installing electric vehicle chargepoints receiving the least support. The ranking between 2 and 5 are slightly different from those in Section 4.2.

		Average Score
1.	Subsidising public transport to make it more affordable	3.0
2.	Maintenance of our roads and pavements	3.4
3.	Supporting and encouraging residents, visitors and businesses to use public transport and active travel	3.9
4.	Improving the accessibility of our streets	4.0
5.	Improving safety with new crossings for pedestrians, targeted improvements at junctions and outside schools	4.1
6.	Providing local transport hubs where a range of transport modes can be accessed	4.3
7.	Installing electric vehicle chargepoints	5.4

Table 11: Ranking of project types

The average scores range from 3.0 to 5.4 which is relatively wide, suggesting that respondents expressed strong differences in their priorities across the project types.

Major schemes

Q Please rank the below major schemes in order of importance to you.

Similar to project types, the ranking of the six major schemes with the average score shown alongside each type.

		Average Score
1.	Improving the look and feel of the city centre to make it more pedestrian friendly	3.1
2.	Improving bus journeys times in the city through bus lanes and red routes	3.3
3.	Improving priority routes for active travel (walking, wheeling and cycling)	3.3
4.	Sussex Coast Mass Rapid Transit – an express bus or tram that provides quicker connections between Brighton & Hove and other nearby coastal towns	3.7
5.	Improving to access the city centre	3.8
6.	New transport hubs at the city’s edge offering Park & Ride, EV charging, vehicle hire and help reduce city truck traffic	3.8

Table 12: Ranking of major schemes

Among the six major schemes, Improving the look and feel of the city centre to make it more pedestrian friendly received the strongest support instead of Improving priority routes for active travel (walking, wheeling and cycling) compared with Section 4.2. Again, new transport hubs at the city’s edge offering Park & Ride, EV charging, vehicle hire and help reduce city truck traffic received the lease support.

Compare with the average scores of project types, the variation in the scores of major schemes is smaller ranging from 3.1 to 3.8, indicating that respondents viewed all six major schemes as having relatively similar importance.

From the above results, respondents with health issues broadly shared the same views as those in Section 4.2. The slight differences are that they placed higher priority on creating a more inclusive transport system and making the city centre more pedestrian friendly.

Written responses

Some of the comments from disabled people reflected the same views as the wider public, such as concerns about the affordability of public transport, traffic congestion, the need to reduce vehicle numbers, calls for Park & Ride and a more reliable public transport system (e.g. trams), high parking costs, the need for more buses and routes, and greater provision for pedestrianisation and safer cycle networks.

Specific concerns were raised about insufficient disabled access and parking, with some noting that additional double yellow lines and red routes make the city less accessible. Some felt very strongly that for certain groups, such as disabled people, tradespeople and social workers, active travel and public transport are not accessible for everyone. Some also highlighted barriers related to digital exclusion, noting that not everyone has a phone or the skills to use one, which makes parking or accessing other transport options more difficult.

5.4 Youth survey results

Apart from the school workshops held to engage with young people, a youth survey was also created and carried out using ‘Your Voice’ for gathering feedback from those aged 10 to 18. This survey was promoted during the workshops and distributed more widely through emails to schools across the city. A few schools also supported by featuring the survey in their newsletters. 29 responses were received in Your Voice.

Travel habits

Respondents were asked about their travel habits before moving onto questions specific to the transport plan.

Q Tell us how happy or unhappy you feel about traveling on your own without an adult.

· Walk: 0% said not applicable. 77% of the respondents selected ‘Very happy’ and ‘Happy’.

· Bus: 14% said not applicable. Of the remainder, 50% selected ‘Very happy’ and ‘Happy’, 21% said ‘OK’ and 15% reported they were ‘Unhappy’ and ‘Very unhappy’ taking bus on their own.

· Cycle: 44% said not applicable. Among the rest, 32% were ‘Very happy’ and ‘Happy’, 8% said ‘OK’ and 16% were ‘Unhappy’.

· Scooter: Two-thirds said not applicable. No one was ‘Very happy’, 17% selected ‘Happy’, 8% were ‘OK’ and another 8% were ‘Unhappy’.

· Train: 40% said not applicable. 32% selected ‘Very happy’ and ‘Happy’, 8% were ‘OK’, 4% reported ‘Unhappy’ and 16% said ‘Very happy’.

· Other (e.g. as a passenger in vehicles): Two-thirds said not applicable. 11% reported ‘Very happy’ and ‘Happy’, 17% were ‘OK’ and 6% selected ‘Very unhappy’.

Overall, respondents predominantly use sustainable modes of transport such as walking, cycling, buses and trains when travelling on their own with walking be the happiest way. It is noted that 15% -20% of the respondents felt unhappy or very unhappy when cycling, taking bus or train. According to their feedback in the later sections, the main reasons are likely to be long travel times to schools caused by incompatible bus and school timetables as well as expensive bus fares.

Figure : Satisfaction of respondents to use different mode of travel

Transport challenges

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the key transport challenges using a four-point scale: agree, not sure, disagree and no answer. They were invited to provide their thoughts on each challenge.

Q Do you agree or disagree that we should help people be healthier and have picked the best way to do it?

Nearly 80% agreed that the council should help people be healthier, 14% reported they were not sure, 3% disagreed and 3% had no answer.

Figure 18: Results of question: Do you agree or disagree that we should help people be healthier and have picked the best way to do it?

Comments	No. of times raised
Walking and cycling
Unsafe cycle network, particularly near schools and parks	2
Make walking and cycling safer	1
Total	3
Public transport
Long travel times to schools	2
Insufficient public transport, especially buses during school hours	2
Expensive bus fares	1
Total	5
Environment
Suggested to improve environment by planting more trees and enhance scenery to make journeys more pleasant and potentially reduce congestion	1
Total	1
Council policy
Reported the new secondary school admissions policy could lead to students travel longer journeys to schools	1
Most young people only move if there is an incentive	1
Total	2

Table 13: Respondents’ comments for by themes

Q Do you agree or disagree that we should focus on improving journeys for buses and bicycles and have picked the best way to do it?

Nearly 60% agreed that the council should focus on improving journeys for buses and bicycles, 21% reported they were not sure, 17% disagreed and 3% had no answer.

Figure 19: Results of question: Do you agree or disagree that we should focus on improving journeys for buses and bicycles and have picked the best way to do it?

Comments	No. of times raised
Walking and cycling
Safer/ protected cycle lanes and calls for a full cycle network	5
Clearly separate pedestrians and cyclists	1
Unsafe cycle network, particularly near schools and parks	1
Total	7
Public transport
Better bus connectivity to schools	2
Supported for bus lanes	1
Welcomed Park & Ride	1
Cheaper bus fares	1
Total	5
Environment
Believed public transport and cycling can help reduce the city's carbon emission	1
Total	1
Council policy
Concerned that parents will give their children a lift to school if students need to travel long journeys, especially bus timetables not matching with school timetables	1
Total	1
Driving
Reduce cars	1
Total	1
Inclusivity
Bus is not access for all, mainly for elderly and disabled people	1
Good public transport is important as not everyone has a car	1
Total	2

Table 14: Respondents’ comments for by themes

Q Do you agree or disagree that we should reduce pollution have picked the best way to do it?

Around 60% agreed that the council should reduce pollution, 21% reported they were not sure, 10% disagreed and 7% had no answer.

Figure 20: Results of question: Do you agree or disagree that we should reduce pollution have picked the best way to do it?

Comments	No. of times raised
EVs
Need more chargepoints, fast chargers in accessible areas and affordable	3
Nota a viable option as EVs are not affordable to everyone	2
EVs cannot reduce congestion in the city	2
Supported for EVs to reduce air pollution	1
EVs damage roads and are unsafe as they are quiet	1
Total	9
Environment
Vans are big polluters	1
Total	1

Table 15: Respondents’ comments for by themes

Q Do you agree or disagree that we should make transport better for everyone and have picked the best way to do it?

Around 76% agreed that the council should make transport better for everyone, 10% reported they were not sure, 7% disagreed and 7% had no answer.

Figure 21: Results of question: Do you agree or disagree that we should make transport better for everyone and have picked the best way to do it?

Comments	No. of times raised
Public transport
Cheaper bus fares/ free for students	2
Need more areas for wheelchair users	1
Extra bus services to allow students joining school clubs	1
Total	4
Parking
Parking is difficult	1
Total	1
Pavements
Rough pavements	1
Total	1

Table 16: Respondents’ comments for by themes

Q Do you agree or disagree that we should improve roads and pavements and have picked the best way to do it?

Sixty-nine percent agreed that the council should make improve roads and pavements, 14% reported they were not sure, 10% disagreed and 7% had no answer.

Figure 22: Results of question: Do you agree or disagree that we should improve roads and pavements and have picked the best way to do it?

Comments	No. of times raised
Roads and pavements
Fix the road, so safer for everyone	4
Pavements are full of weeds and rough	2
Better pavements for everyone (e.g. runners, wheelchair users)	2
Focus on more sustainable routes rather than renovating old roads	1
Total	9
Public transport
Cheaper fares	1
Call for tram	1
Total	2
Cycling
Reduce cycle lanes	1
Total	1
Suggestion
Residents probably wouldn't mind fundraising themselves with community events and donations	1
Total	1

Table 17: Respondents’ comments for by themes

About you

Q What is your connection to Brighton & Hove?

Almost all of the respondents were residents, 3.4% visit Brighton & Hove regularly and 3.4% reported other.

Figure : Results of question: What is your connection to Brighton & Hove?

Q What is your age?

Over half of the respondents were 13 to 16 years old, one-third of them were 10 to 12 years old, around 7% were 17 to 18 years old and preferred not to say each.

Figure 24: Results of question: What is your age?

Street map

Respondents were invited to provide the street they live on an optional basis. These streets were illustrated indicatively in Figure .

A map with blue points on it AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure : Street map

Feedback and suggestions

Q We want to continue hearing from young people like you. What are the best ways to get your feedback and ideas in the future?

Over half of the respondents reported joining a discussion at their schools is the best way to get their feedback in the future, 17% reported ‘No answer’, 10% selected ‘Completing a survey on Your Voice’, 7% chose TikTok, 3% Instagram and 3% selected ‘Other’ who elaborated that on a multitude of social media platforms would be the best way. They thought surveys and school visits can be useful, but not as many people may pay attention to them. No one selected Facebook and X.

Figure 26: Results of question: We want to continue hearing from young people like you. What are the best ways to get your feedback and ideas in the future?

6 Annex 1 – List of events, workshops and poster distribution

Public events

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

· 30 June (Monday) – 6 July (Sunday) 2025

Drop-in sessions were held at libraries on:

· Jubilee Library – 1 July 2025 (Tuesday)

· Patcham Library – 8 July 2025 (Tuesday)

· Hangleton Library – 10 July 2025 (Thursday)

· Rottingdean Library – 14 July 2025 (Monday)

· Portslade Library – 16 July 2025 (Wednesday)

· Jubilee Library – 19 July 2025 (Saturday)

· Hove Library – 21 July 2025 (Thursday)

The consultation was also promoted at the following wider events:

· Charge and Drive Experience Day – 21 June 2025 (Saturday)

· A259 Active Travel Scheme drop-in sessions:

- King Alfred Leisure Centre Ballroom – 3 July 2025 (Thursday)

- South Portslade Community Centre – 10 July (Thursday)

Workshops/ meetings

Workshops facilitated by officers:

· Cardinal Newman Catholic School – 4 June 2025 (Wednesday)

· Brighton Aldridge Community Academy – 5 June 2025 (Thursday)

· Portslade Aldridge Community Academy – 9 June 2025 (Monday)

· Longhill High School – 12 June 2025 (Thursday)

· Dorothy Stringer School – 12 June 2025 (Thursday)

Meetings attended by officers:

· Taxi Forum – 9 June 2025 (Monday)

· Transport Partnership – 10 June (Tuesday)

· Destination Experience Group – 16 June 2025 (Monday)

· Local Access Forum – 24 July 2025 (Thursday)

· Healthy Weight Programme Board – 28 July 2026 (Monday)

· Possibility People - GIG – 28 July 2025 (Monday)

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

· Brighton Met College, Pelham Street	· The Ledward Centre
· Amex	· Patcham Community Centre
· Royal Sussex County Hospital	· The Edge Community Centre
· Brighton General Hospital	· Crowhurst Community Centre
· Hove Polyclinic	· Cornerstone centre
· BUPA Brighton Clinic	· Hanover Community Centre
· Prince Regent Swimming Pool	· Legal and General
· St Luke's Swimming Pool	· Amex Stadium
· Brighthelm Centre	· New England House
· King Alfred Leisure Centre	· Jubilee Library
· Moulsecoomb Leisure Centre	· Coldean Library
· Withdean Leisure Centre	· Hangleton Library
· Stanley Deason Leisure Centre	· Hollingbury Library
· Portslade Sports Centre	· Moulsecoomb Library
· Hollingdean Community Centre	· Patcham Library
· Hangleton Community Centre	· Hove Library
· Kemptown Crypt Community Centre	· Rottingdean Library
· Community Base	· Portslade Library
· The Phoenix Community Centre	· Saltdean Library
· West Hill Hall	· Westdean Library
· Millwood Community Centre	· Whitehawk Library
· Bmecp Centre	· Woodingdean Library
· The Hop 50+	· University of Sussex
· Vallance Community Centre	· University of Brighton
· Old Boat Corner Community Centre	· University of Sussex Library
· Meadowview Community Centre	· Exeter Street Hall
· University of Brighton, Grand Parade	· St Peter’s House Library University of Brighton

7 Appendix A – Online survey questions

1. Firstly, how are you responding to this survey? Multiple choices

As a resident

I work or study here

On behalf of a business or organisation

As a visitor

As the owner of a business

2. Please tell us your postcode. Short answer

3. What mode of travel do you mostly use different types of trips? Matrix of trip purposes against mode of travel?

Trip purposes	Mode of travel
Commuting to work	Not applicable
For education	Walk
For shopping	Cycle
For leisure	Bus
Visit the city	Train
	Car
	Taxi or private hire vehicle
	Mobility scooter or wheelchair
	Motorbike or moped

4. What is the name of the business or organisation you're representing? Short answer

Only respondents who selected On behalf of a business or organisation and As the owner of a business needed to answer this question.

5. What is your name and position within the organisation?

Only respondents who selected On behalf of a business or organisation and As the owner of a business needed to answer this question.

6. Do you agree or disagree that these 5 challenges are what we should focus our resources on tackling? Matrix of challenges against level of agreement

Challenges	Level of agreement
Challenge 1: enabling more people to live safer, healthier and more active lives	Strongly agree
Challenge 2: improving the flow of traffic on our roads	Agree
Challenge 3: supporting the transition to low and zero emission vehicles	Neither agree nor disagree
Challenge 4: creating a transport network that is more inclusive	Disagree
Challenge 5: maintaining our roads and managing them as efficiently as possible	Strongly disagree

7. Do you wish to share any comments to support your answers? Long answer

This is a follow-up question to question 6.

8. Do you agree or disagree that these objectives will address the challenges facing the city? Matrix of objectives against level of agreement

Objectives	Level of agreement
Objective 1: increase public transport use	Strongly disagree
Objective 2: enable the uptake and use of low and zero emission vehicles	Disagree
Objective 3: deliver a safe, inclusive and integrated transport system	Neither agree nor disagree
Objective 4: create well-maintained streets and pavements	Agree
Objective 5: provide active travel choices for all and excellent public spaces	Strongly agree
Objective 6: promote and use technology to reduce and manage travel

9. Do you wish to provide any comments to support your answer? Long answer

This is a follow-up question to question 8.

10. Please rank the project types below in order of importance to you. Ranking

Subsidising public transport to make it more affordable

Maintenance of our roads and pavements

Supporting and encouraging residents, visitors and businesses to use public transport and active travel

Improving the accessibility of our streets

Improving safety with new crossings for pedestrians, targeted improvements at junctions and outside schools

Providing local transport hubs where a range of transport modes can be accessed

Installing electric vehicle chargepoints

11. Please rank the below major schemes in order of importance to you. Ranking

Improving the look and feel of the city centre to make it more pedestrian friendly

Improving bus journeys times in the city through bus lanes and red routes

Improving priority routes for active travel (walking, wheeling and cycling)

Sussex Coast Mass Rapid Transit – an express bus or tram that provides quicker connections between Brighton & Hove and other nearby coastal towns

Improving to access the city centre

New transport hubs at the city’s edge offering Park & Ride, EV charging, vehicle hire and help reduce city truck traffic

12. Please share any other comments about Our City Transport Plan 2035. Long answer

13. How did you hear about this consultation? Multiple choices

Social media

Word of mouth

The council’s website

By email

Local press

Information leaflet

I attended and event

No answer

Other

14. What gender are you? Multiple choice

Male

Female

Non-binary

Other

Prefer not to say

No answer

15. Do you identify as the sex you were assigned at birth? Multiple choices

Yes

Prefer not to say

No answer

16. What is your age? Multiple choices

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

No answer

17. What is your ethnic group? Multiple choices

White

Asian/ Asian British

Mixed/ multiple ethnic groups

Black/ African/ Caribbean/ Black British

Other ethnic group

Prefer not to say

No answer

18. Do you have a health problem or disability? Multiple choices

Yes, a lot

Yes, a little

Prefer not to say

No answer

19. Your condition(s) Multiple choices

Physical Impairment

Long-standing Illness

Mental Health Condition

Autistic Spectrum

Sensory Impairment

Learning Disability / Difficulty

Developmental Condition

Other

No answer

8 Appendix B – Youth survey questions

1. What is your age? Multiple choices

10 to 12 years old (an adult is completing for me)

13 to 16 years old

17 to 18 years old

Prefer not to say

2. What is your connection to Brighton & Hove? Multiple choices

I live in Brighton & Hove

I visit Brighton & Hove regularly

Other (please specify below)

3. What is the street you live on? Short answer

4. Tell us how happy or unhappy you feel about traveling on your own without an adult. Matrix of mode of travel against level of happiness

Mode of travel	Level of happiness
Walk	I don’t travel this way
Bus	Very happy
Cycle	Happy
Scooter	OK
Train	Unhappy
Other	Very unhappy

5. Do you agree or disagree that we should help people be healthier and have picked the best way to do it? Multiple choices

Yes, I agree

No, I disagree

I’m not sure

No answer

6. Do you have any thoughts on this? Long answer

This is a follow-up question to question 5.

7. Do you agree or disagree that we should focus on improving journeys for buses and bicycles and have picked the best way to do it? Multiple choices

Yes, I agree

No, I disagree

I’m not sure

No answer

8. Do you have any thoughts on this? Long answer

This is a follow-up question to question 7.

9. Do you agree or disagree that we should reduce pollution have picked the best way to do it? Multiple choices

Yes, I agree

No, I disagree

I’m not sure

No answer

10. Do you have any thoughts on this? Long answer

This is a follow-up question to question 9.

11. Do you agree or disagree that we should make transport better for everyone and have picked the best way to do it? Multiple choices

Yes, I agree

No, I disagree

I’m not sure

No answer

12. Do you have any thoughts on this? Long answer

This is a follow-up question to question 11.

13. Do you agree or disagree that we should improve roads and pavements and have picked the best way to do it? Multiple choices

Yes, I agree

No, I disagree

I’m not sure

No answer

14. Do you have any thoughts on this? Long answer

This is a follow-up question to question 13.

15. We want to continue hearing from young people like you. What are the best ways to get your feedback and ideas in the future?

Joining a discussion at your school, college or university

Completing a survey on Your Voice

Tiktok

Instagram

Facebook

Other

No answer

Respondents selected Other can write down their suggestion(s).

9 Appendix C - Organisational responses

Bricycles

The challenge of reducing the number of car journeys should be specifically included - not just increasing public transport and active travel and switching to zero-emission vehicles.

The park and ride plan to increase public transport use can only succeed if it also removes city centre visitor parking, to make the P&R the more attractive option. If drivers can still easily park in the centre, they will not choose the public transport option. There also needs to be signs at/before the P&R location to indicate when any city centre parking is full and the P&R is the only option. City centre parking spaces that are replaced by P&R spaces should be reallocated to resident’s permit holders to free up on-street parking spaces to be reallocated to protected cycle infrastructure and wider pavements. Objective 5 (to provide active travel choices) should include introducing new residents' bike hangars in areas with high demand until there are no waiting lists and also secure cycle parking at the destination - repurpose unused city centre shops to provide secure, guarded cycle parking during peak shopping and visit.

Active travel is key to addressing inequalities.

Safe cycling gives freedom to children that are too young to drive

For low/no income residents, the bus is likely to be expensive

Disabled people can also benefit from cycling investment. For some people with disabilities, cycling is more achievable than walking. Mobility scooters have been using cycle lanes, too, which is welcome.

The ‘Major scheme to improve city centre walkability’ which the plan refers to, needs to be a car-free city centre, covering at least the Lanes and North Laine areas (with the usual allowances for deliveries, residents and blue badges). This was the number one recommendation of the Climate Assembly in 2020 and has been shown to work really well in so many European cities.

Brighton & Hove Bus and Coach Company

Challenge 1 should also note that bus users walk to and from the bus stops so are closely associated with active travel.

Challenge 2 highlights the issue of congestion and the need to improve traffic flows. This is absolutely critical for bus services as slow bus operating speeds and poor reliability very negatively impact on bus use. The city has the highest bus use in the country outside London by a significant margin and much of this has been achieved by delivering bus priority measures in the city so buses can be attractive and reliable as every survey of bus users shows that this is the most important thing to them. It is vital for the plan to further recognise the importance of bus priority over private cars as this is a key factor in the city's exceptionally high bus use. Other measures such as lower speed limits, active travel schemes and additional traffic lights have slowed bus speeds in the city in recent years, increasing the cost of operating the service (and therefore fare levels) and making it less attractive than it would otherwise be. It is key that we do not stop developing further bus priority schemes. Without more bus priority there is a serious risk of bus patronage falling.
The first two red routes have been excellent and the planned additional schemes will improve the service for bus users, as will traffic offence enforcement on buses.
Express services are deemed highly desirable has been demonstrated by the 1X launch in 2024 and enhancement in 2025. Another new limited stop service is being launched in 2025 and it is important to appreciate the importance of people's time that is saved by getting people to their destination more quickly.

Challenge 3 stresses the importance of switching to zero emission vehicles and this will include buses. A challenge with this is being able to convert bus depot infrastructure to electric vehicles as well as range challenges with them. There will be significant electric buses coming to the city in 2026/27 and beyond.
As noted in the detail, shifting journeys on to public transport is a way of making major reductions in emissions and the action of prioritising buses is the single biggest way to support this.

Challenge 4's ambition of an inclusive transport network is wholly embraced by Brighton & Hove Buses who are the UK's only bus company who are Leader status in the DfT's Inclusive Transport scheme and winner of the Best Practice in Diversity, Inclusivity and Accessibility Award at the National Transport Awards. It is vital that the infrastructure supporting bus services is fully accessible and we continue to advise strongly against the use of bus stop bypasses, especially where they are less than the DfT's minimum recommended width in LTN 1/20.
Although the city has one of the best Night Bus networks in the country (operated wholly commercially), there is scope to improve inclusion in the city by improving this further to help access to jobs and grow the night-time sector.
Enabling safe travel on public transport is key as inclusivity is damaged by some potential users feeling unsafe on buses and trains as well as getting to and from stops and stations. The provision of Travel Safe Officers on the bus network and CCTV and better lighting key bus stops could really help here.
New and improved bus services can help reduce inequalities in the city and planned service improvements in September 2025 help to provide new links to some of the areas identified as having some of the biggest challenges.
The price of bus services is determined by the cost of operation, which increases significantly when bus speeds worsen. Bus priority and faster bus operating speeds can keep fares lower for everyone.

Objective 1 includes an outline of the summary of the BSIP which we strongly support. However, there are other projects that could also help to increase public transport use such as more frequent commercial services, more Night Buses and safer travel initiatives (Travel Safe Officers and CCTV/better lighting at bus shelters) which also relates to Objective 3. There is a lot of joint work that we are keen to partner with the City Council on to improve safety on buses, especially in relation to Violence Against Women and Girls. Objective 6 mentions bus traffic light priority which is very welcome but it would be good if this could be expediated - East Sussex has rolled it out across almost all traffic lights in the county over a very short period of time.

The document refers to buses being suitable for short trips but buses can also play a key role in longer journeys, as is demonstrated by the large number of bus users travelling from Brighton & Hove to regional destinations including Eastbourne, Newhaven, Worthing, Lewes, Uckfield, Tunbridge Wells, Crawley, Haywards Heath etc. Brighton & Hove Buses is keen to further develop these links.

The Transport funding section on page 38 in the bus section should also refer to the investment made by transport operators. For example, Brighton & Hove Buses is investing nearly £50 million in the city between 2024-2026 in 117 new buses and totally rebuilding the depot in Hove to be able to run EVs and additional buses. Likewise, the narrative about bus service should make the point that the city has an exceptionally high proportion of bus service operated commercially, without taxpayer support. The statement on page 44 that funding for bus services is historically high isn't correct in comparison with other areas which also generally have much poorer provision.

The BSIP refresh includes further development of proposals for bus priority or improvements that will help buses at Downs Hotel junction in Woodingdean and in Rottingdean. These aren't listed in the plan.

Brighton & Hove City Council - Principal Emissions and Air Quality

Road safety appears to be higher up the hierarchy than reducing pollution - a much higher risk factor for health

Social responsibility that maintained roads and pavements only use ultralow or zero vehicles and machinery

Relating to transport projects to objectives achieve: emissions and air quality not specifically mentioned in the priority order. Risk this is not part of pre-scheme discussion and assessment. Something added on as a secondary after thought or in reaction to public and Cllr enquiry. Low emission is not the wording used with bus-ULEZ and the AQAP and is incorrect. LTP needs to refer to ultra-low and zero throughout. Low emission is polluting and backward compared to the 2025 situation. Low emission has been available for twenty years and is not the future.

Brighton & Hove City Council – City Plan

As recognised in the draft LTP our road network struggles to cope when there are lots of people on the move at the same time and there are very limited opportunities to increase the capacity for motorised vehicles. Through the emerging City Plan 2041 we will be allocating additional development sites with the aim of meeting as far as possible the city’s needs for additional housing and employment space. Further development could place additional demands on the existing transport infrastructure, in particular the road network. We therefore strongly support the objective of giving more people the option of choosing active travel so that additional development does not cause unacceptable impacts on the existing transport infrastructure. In particular, the junctions on the strategic road network along the A27 are all known to be near capacity with limited scope for upgrade without major works which are not currently funded. Additional traffic movements caused by significant new development risks the operation of these junctions becoming unsafe in the view of National Highways.

It is important that strong connections are made between the LTP and the City Plan 2041. We note that this connection is explicitly made in the draft and we look forward to continuing working closely together as both plans evolve.

Brighton and Hove Cycling UK

There is too much motor vehicle traffic everywhere and we need Road Traffic Reduction in Brighton and Hove, quantified and monitored as a KPI. A Liveable (car free?) City Centre was expected, but this does not appear.

The big question is how you interpret the challenges and the objectives and the subsequent actions. We welcome Brighton and Hove City Council's good work in extending the cycle network e.g. Valley Gardens Phase 3, the A23 Phases 1a and 1b, Better access to the Marina, continuing the roll out of bike hangars and bike share, also speed reduction, School Streets, cycle training and other work. We look forward to improved cycling/wheeling/walking facilities on the A259 and the A23 Phases 2 and 3 and other Active Travel schemes.

We are glad to see that you will continue to enable “active travel (walking, wheeling, cycling) and public transport” However, we are concerned that there is no major headline about Road Traffic Reduction or about a Liveable (car free) city centre in LTP5. We support strongly decarbonisation, but switching to electric vehicles isn't enough. Your own document says: “The graph shows that while Our City Transport Plan 2035 policies will make a positive impact on reducing carbon emissions there remains some way to go to get close to the CCC balanced pathway.” And “more needs to be done to reduce emissions”.

We need more than electric vehicles to reach carbon emission targets. We need Road Traffic Reduction. We also need this for air quality improvements and to reduce road danger. Reduction in motorised vehicle mileage should be included in your Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). “Balancing” essential carbon reduction against other policies an relying on national measures or other stricter authorities is not dealing with the issue. There needs to be consideration in the LTP of the need for a clear limit for road traffic coming into the city.

Given the current objectives in the LTP, the streets of Brighton and Hove might simply fill up with electric cars, EV charging places and buses, probably stuck in traffic jams. Even Objective 6 “Promote and use technology to reduce and manage travel” does not put forward a limit for car trips and seems to be more about managing high levels of motor traffic. It is very unfortunate that the government subsidies for electric vehicles do not provide the opportunity for people to switch to an e-bike and public transport i.e. no car as a first and cheaper option. Perhaps something along these lines can be introduced at local level? Research is showing that when people switch to EVs, they do more mileage because home charging is cheap. People are also choosing to buy bigger and heavier cars (43% SUVs) that are more likely to kill or seriously injure people (especially children), take up more road space, cause more damage to roads and infrastructure.

The permeability of the city by cycle is reducing. Roads like North Street are heavily trafficked and therefore unattractive, while the quieter streets are being used for café tables, trader equipment or closed for events, as are parks like Preston Park. We do need to see clear passage for cycling and cargo bikes if they are to replace deliveries by van and HGVs. Challenges 1-5 – points below. Challenge 1. Very strongly support the active travel schemes mentioned on page 19. It is well know that there is under reporting of cycling injuries this needs factoring in. Sussex Police are no longer in the SSRP. Does the council get full and timely data about collisions? Besides ensuring good provision for walking, wheeling and cycling, and public, shared and community transport, councils should seek to manage travel demand, both in general (e.g. through land-use planning policies and/or investing in digital connectivity) and specifically by private motor vehicles.

Land-use planning policies should ensure that the location and design of new developments support a low traffic future, reflecting the ‘15 minute neighbourhood’ principle, where key destinations (schools, shops, healthcare, etc) can be reached within a short walk/wheel or cycle ride of people’s homes. Challenge 2. "Improving the flow of traffic on our roads" is not necessarily a good thing at all if you are talking about motor vehicles! (The term traffic can also apply to cycling and walking.) Having fewer motor vehicles on roads and streets is desirable. Sometimes traffic needs to be held back because it is stopping people cross the road, degrading the streets, deterring active travel, causing infrastructure damage and preventing social contact due to noise, obstruction, emissions etc. Also, it has the capacity to kill and injure especially at higher speeds.

We observe the administrations enthusiasm for park and ride, described as “purpose built”. This will be an additional car park somewhere on the city edge and will not reduce road traffic unless an equivalent number of car parking spaces are removed from the city centre. This is also an expensive way to reduce driving in the town centre, with the cost of a car park and subsidised bus fares. Road user charging schemes are needed to tackle congestion and pollution, by managing demand for private motor vehicle trips. Motor vehicle traffic restrictions should be considered to improve the ambience in the town centre, to reduce carbon and air pollution, the domination of streets, collisions and casualties. We strongly support the reduction of HGVs in the city. They are a danger to people. But there will need to be careful planning and management to ensure that “mobility hubs” on the edge of town do not simply become a big car park, adding to the many car parks already in the City.

Cars are also getting bigger and taking up more space. What will be the cost of providing Park and Ride? If Park and Ride is introduced, we need removal of an equivalent or greater number of parking places in the city centre or we will simply be adding to parking and motor vehicle movements, and also subsidising them with the £7 charge which covers both (all day?) parking and bus transport for all passengers. This would encourage more journeys along the A27 and from elsewhere to take advantage of a cheap rate. The Park and Ride site could be a car trip generator when we instead need investment in better end-to-end public transport and more safe, connected active travel routes.

We support the council to urgently and strongly lobby government for powers to stop pavement parking. There is a cycle route (Regional Route 90) running from Brighton-Falmer- Lewes. More Park and Ride motor traffic can bring hazard. We note there was a major collision at Knights Gate Road/Falmer Road in May 2025 which left a mass of debris and demolished a solid flint wall as the crash crossed a cycle track. We have asked BHCC for details Challenge 3 is not optimised. The best transition is not to another motor vehicle. EV's are only emission-free at the point of use, and a lot of carbon is used to manufacture electric cars. There are also Lithium mining issues as well as the ongoing toll of road injuries, and domination of public space due to car driving. It is unclear how exactly and to what extent Brighton will contribute to “60% of the UK fleet being fully battery electric by 2035” and a “9% car trip reduction by 2035”.

Vehicle scrappage schemes can help people give up older and more polluting cars or vans. However they should offer alternatives to another car, i.e. public transport season tickets, new e-bikes or cargo bikes etc. Yes, to cargo bikes instead of HGVs. but Brighton centre is becoming less permeable to cycling, especially if taking a cargo bike through Ship Street, Black Lion Street, parts of North Laine etc. Because people are buying larger cars (SUVs) fuel efficiencies are being negated. Electric cars also contain large heavy batteries.

Challenge 4 It is good to review bus services but also to review the potential for cycling. Regarding your point on P.28 that “Walking and cycling are the modes with the least pronounced variation by household income…A transport network that prioritises walking and bus users is one that helps to make it more inclusive for all.” It is unclear how the “areas at risk” of TRSE equate to the number of people/households actually at risk in the area. Buses cannot run everywhere all the time, but cycling (like walking) is unlimited by timetables and so is absolutely irreplaceable for those who do not or cannot drive. The point you make also refers to *current* transport choice, but cycling has been greatly disadvantaged over many years by the growth in motor vehicle traffic, increased road danger and the severance of cycle routes. Your conclusion does not consider the potential for cycling to replace motorised journeys or for cycling plus public transport to replace car trips once a fuller cycling network has been established. Currently we do not have such a network. Improved accessibility for disabled people also needs to be taken forward by the train service providers due to steps at many stations.

Challenge 5. Potholes and poor road surfaces are a hazard for active travel and we are strongly supportive of good maintenance. OTHER POINTS Neighbours: TfSE has a big roads agenda, and our closest neighbours (WSCC and ESCC) show little ability to build cycling infrastructure. We note two TfSE Active Travel routes listed in LTP5, H1 Sussex Coast and M11 Brighton to London, NCN. We support these of course, but there is no detail. Most funding is going to infrastructure for driving. Being in a single Mayoral Authority with ESCC and WSCC will expose the Brighton and Hove area to the roads agenda favoured by the county councils and therefore more road traffic being delivered via the major A roads.

TfSE was in favour of the Lower Thames Crossing, an expensive, traffic generating scheme. Brighton and Hove City Council has not yet fully distanced itself from this counterproductive agenda. We note that the LTP says: “this plan does not advocate extensive new roadbuilding” and we strongly support a switch from funding road schemes to active travel infrastructure instead. This will also benefit nature and biodiversity. Funding: When there is such a mixed bag of schemes, it is important to ensure that the more sustainable and cycling schemes are not deferred, while the less sustainable (road upgrades) are taken forward. Joined up planning: From Brighton & Hove Physical Activity and Sport Strategy 2024 to 2034 “We need to widen access to opportunities to be active in our parks, the South Downs and on the seafront to harness the unique potential of our city’s location and the benefits of being active outdoors and in nature.” Whilst the LCWIP and ROWIP are separate documents for administrative and governmental purposes, we need to see some joined up planning, with ambitions for active travel combined in one plan.

The two council departments (ROW and Highways/transport) need to be brought much closer together so that routes for cycling are looked at holistically, and that the lack of safe crossings over major A-roads like the A23 and A27 or paths along these roads are given more attention. For example, as NCN20 (still within the BHCC boundary) turns left at Patcham’s Mill Road, it goes through a two-way narrow rail bridge onto a 60 mph (NSL) speed limit road where a right turn is expected to continue. Fast traffic needs to be slowed and narrow, dangerous areas for walking/wheeling & cycling need to be improved.

This survey limits the respondent far too much by offering only selected choices. It is designed to seek endorsement rather than views. Tiny linear text boxes in this survey for responses on these transport issues are inadequate.

Brighton and Hove Clarion Cycling Club

Low emission vehicles (i.e. electric cars) seem to be prioritised here over the importance of no emission vehicles such as bicycles and electric bikes (very small amount of emissions). Electric cars produce emissions, not least tyre particulates. Furthermore they encourage the use of car driving instead of walking and cycling, with roads designed for car use, not active travel use.

Instead of a bland 'improving the flow of traffic on our roads' we need to see a 20mph speed limit throughout the entire city. Not doing this and/or not enforcing this is in direct contradiction of challenge 1.

https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pb-0065/

We also need to see much greater emphasis of making many more streets car free, particularly in the centre, North Laine and all of the Lanes for example.

There should be a target of a minimum width for pavements of two metres everywhere in the city. Brighton and Hove should pressure central government for a total ban on pavement parking and this should be enforced.

Pavements should also be freed up from bins and other street clutter. Bins, signs etc should be placed in the road.

There is nothing in the city plan which encourages the development of play streets. Many parts of the city have small or no gardens. Children have never been balloted about the denial of space for streets to play on.

https://playingout.net/

Other countries take play streets for granted and it is hugely disappointing that Brighton and Hove council do not have any vision for this.

Park and ride will only succeed if city centre parking is removed. There should be signs to say that city centre parking is full and park and ride is the only option. City centre parking spaces should then be freed up for residents which in turn, would free up space for cycle parking, trees, pocket parks and so on.

Empty city centre shops could be re-purposed as cycle parking.

There is no mention of the importance of trees in making pleasant and attractive walking and cycling routes. Trees are hugely important in the regulation of temperature caused by climate change. They also encourage people to use streets as active travel thoroughfares.

Disabled people and children benefit massively from safe cycling and walking routes. Over a third of Brighton and Hove residents do not have access to a car and although bus fares have been pegged, they are still expensive. Many disabled people can cycle even if they can't walk. Children would benefit if they had access to completely safe cycle lanes (Paint is not Protection).

20 mph throughout the city. Prioritising active travel, cycling and walking, rather than electric vehicles. Making much more of the city car free especially the city centre, North Laine and the lanes. Making it much easier to cross roads by narrowing street entrances rather than having them convex. Provide a full network of segregated cycle lanes to the latest design specifications. Implement a series of play streets only open to residents at 5mph giving children the freedom to play out. Plant more trees in the streets.

Introduce low traffic areas and re-install the Old Shoreham Road bike land along with many other bike lanes

Brighton and Hove Older Peoples' Council

Transport and Parking Issues for Older People reported as consistent accessibility themes to Brighton and Hove Older People’s Council.
Please take this submission into account with the transport strategy review and for the Equalities Impact Assessment
Sept 2025

Background
• Social Isolation remains a huge issue for older people in our City - Older people reporting social isolation are high, both nationally and locally.
• Reducing isolation needs continued attention- Accessibility issues mentioned below , exacerbate isolation, and lack of independence and well-being- (also closely linked to housing , community development, & health issues.)

• Health problems affect mobility for many older people, who do not qualify for a blue badge, but can not walk far or are concerned about falls. Issues affecting older people with mobility problems often intersect with issues affecting people registered as disabled.

• ‘Active transport’ is impossible for many of us. Car use remains essential for many older people’s access to our City, resources and opportunities. Accessible parking (not all relying on having smart phones) therefore continues to be a huge issue for many older people and we believe it should be considered within any transport policy.

• Only 25% of older people over 75 have IT access.

1. Public Transport
1. You can only get cheaper transport tickets if online.
2. We welcome many considerations to promote accessibility issues on B&H buses. Also continued opening of rail ticket offices.
3. We need shorter bus stop intervals. Also on more outlying areas.

4. We need a bus along the seafront. Older people, and others with with mobility issues are excluded from vibrant hubs of central seafront. Could at least one of the 12 bus go along the lower promenade and up Dukes Mound rather than along the upper seafront road. Also 700 to start at the Steine and go along the seafront.( we appreciate it may need to go up to Churchill square at some point to be financially viable).

5. There are too long distances between bus stops , especially from Old Steine to St. Peters Church- renders North Laine area inaccessible. Also Churchill Sq to Waitrose on Western Rd renders shops along that stretch inaccessible. Please reinstate bus stops at King and Queen and Western Rd eg Clarence Square. We have concern about new seafront cycle paths reducing access by car and permanently ruling it out as a bus route?
6. We need beach access for people with mobility problems. This needs addressing urgently if a City promoting diversity and equalities.
7. Door to door community transport eg for shopping is good, but very limited
8. It would be great if new buses don’t jolt as they stop- this is a falls risk.
9. Accessible Park and Rides would be welcomed.

2. Car Use is still necessary for many with mobility issues and disability-
1. Distance between bus stops makes reliance on buses difficult for many, especially in more outlying areas.
2. Mobility within the buses (However well adapted) is not possible for some. But wheelchair spaces and reserved spaces are welcome.
3. We appreciate the need to reduce traffic queues and pollution but for people with disability/blue badges no stopping red lines have stopped our access to shops and facilities in some are as further exacerbating our disadvantage.
4. Car use is not only needed for people with physical health issues, but also for many with mental health issues, eg anxiety, and neurodiversity. Cars can be a ‘safe space’ to enable access to the City and resources, where public transport or active transport is not possible.

3.Parking
1. Needing phones/apps to park discriminates against those who don’t have can’t use IT.
2. We need to be able to park without having to have Smart phones - For Older people without, or who can’t manage, phones, & poorer people who may not be able to afford phone credit. Inability to park increases reluctance to go out, increases isolation and exclusion. We welcome the return of some pay by card meters. This needs extending to all areas. It is said this will be reviewed, but We would like involvement, to be heard, in review of this.

3. There could be scratch off vouchers you can buy in multiples of a £1 could be sold in shops with advertising space on the back to minimise council cost. Also it may result in increased revenue as more people use them

4. Visitor parking permits were really hard to apply for online. It has actually improved recently, hopefully as a result of feedback. Thanks. The system appears to have improved recently for online, but there is no encouragement of application in Council reception areas or by post. These alternatives need promoting.
5. Parking permits are hard to apply for- have to upload documents, then wrong size etc. (Again, this has improved a bit recently if you have already provided documentation. Thanks). Need to be able to take documents in. We have security and data protection concerns about the amount of personal information held by the council for parking permits. Eg Bank statements & utility bills.
6. Visitor permits are expensive and only for 24 hours- we need shorter cheaper ones- expensive, longer visitor permits stop people ‘popping in’- increasing isolation.
7. Parking charges and fees remain relentlessly high. We welcome revision of these, at least in city car parks.
-

4.Active travel, electric vehicles and pedestrian safety

We appreciate the need to encourage healthy lifestyles and clean air.
Unfortunately with some mobility issues for the majority of older people, at some point active travel is no longer possible.

Opportunities for walking for our health and access to facilities and green spaces is generally welcomed by older people. Walking outside is a safety issue frequently reported to us through uneven pavements, especially with tree routes, pavement furniture ( signs and tables) etc. This is especially the case in the dark and for people with sight impairments, or who are unsteady.

Shared spaces for cycles and pedestrians are particularly hazardous.
Use of electric Brighton bikes requires internet access.
Whilst electric vehicles are positive for clean air, they remain very expensive, so to reduce parking spaces further for the less well off at this stage is a tension. Wires to houses for charging vehicles can be a trip hazard, although we understand that the Council is taking steps to reduce this hazard.

Brighton Buswatch

Starting with some praise: Much of the current LTP4 has basically offered a cycle and pedestrian only transport policy, with few positives for bus users, apart from some accessible kerbs. This has all changed with Trevor Muten becoming the lead Transport councillor, with his keen interest in bus services.

    Since when, we are likely to obtain several red routes, two short bus lanes, and an updated real-time information system (although we cannot blame Trevor for its poor implementation). However, the key concern is- the LTP5 shows little sign of these positive ideas continuing beyond this brief golden age, with its current short-term programme. Especially if we have a change of Administration responsible for the transport portfolio.
Beyond this brief positive window, the council’s ongoing programme, only relates to items such as supporting bus routes, fare subsidies etc. None of the infrastructure that pays for itself over and over again is mentioned.

   So, for Buswatch, the LTP5 is a hugely disappointing document. Whereas other councils let key stakeholders see the later drafts – so as to iron out important issues, before general publication; this was not the case in Brighton & Hove. It has stated that some consultation took place in 2021. Given the policies listed, there are question marks over how much input those connected with bus services had into the drafting of the document.

     The main bus company has repeatedly stated that bus priority offers the single greatest help to bus services. This is barely mentioned, and does not appear at all in the forward programme (post 2025/6) at all! Let us first start by examining what a success Brighton’s bus services have been:-

Over recent decades, most cities outside London have suffered a substantial drop in bus usage, whereas Brighton has seen at least a 50% increase, to what was the highest ever bus usage. Part of this success has been the unified network, built on positive ideas from the local bus companies. However none of this would have been possible without the positive infrastructure, such as the bus lanes, to make buses acceptably reliable (plus other measures such as the best bus real-time information system available, accessible bus stops etc.).

      This increased bus usage has underpinned the regeneration of the city, from the run down eighties, to the vibrant buoyant city we see today.

      This public transport solution has prevented more severe congestion problems, had a more car based approach to regeneration been pursued. Worsening traffic congestion within the city would have likely stifled this growth.

       Buses are positive in so many other ways, offering a high quality all inclusive travel modes, including for those with disabilities. The high frequency on many bus routes makes it an attractive alternative to using a car, or even needing to own a car. Because Brighton has a lower car ownership rate than most cities, the bus often makes better sense- combined with the good rail connections.

     And by offering such an attractive alternative to using the car, it reduces the city’ Carbon emissions. All this has been achieved for many years, without any significant council subsidy, including a good night bus network- boosting the evening and night-time economy.

    So how does the LTP5 respond to this golden transport mode, which is so essential to the social and economic fabric of the city? In a couple of words- very poorly.

    While the report does mention that the city has the highest bus usage (pro-rata) outside London, this appears to be in isolation, not suggesting how this has been achieved, and could be maintained. We only need to look at the success of the express bus routes (1X, 12X, 13X etc.) to see how these could be further developed, if we had even more radical bus priority measures.

     There is no mention as to how increased use of bus services has transformed the city. The only other mention of bus usage is to mention that bus usage has reduced slightly since the pandemic. What it does not mention is that bus usage has reduced less here, than in most other areas!

    Also the main report fails to mention that the council’s household survey showed that for shopping, or personal business- almost half (45%!) of respondents travelled into the central area by bus!, which is at least twice of that who travelled in by car. This important fact reinforces the vital importance buses play in the city’s economy, and further emphasises the deficit in current policies towards buses, covered in the LTP5.
This information was hidden deep within the supporting Evidence base (P35).

    Looking at LTP5: Starting in the Executive summary:

   Challenge 1: should have been encouraging bus usage: This has so many advantages- economically and socially. Conversely if bus services are undermined by poorly designed policies and proposals; then this also undermines so many other bus positives- such as inclusivity, affordability, lowering toxic and Carbon emissions etc.

     So where is encouraging bus usage in the list of challenges- it is not listed!

    On supporting the transition to Low and zero Carbon vehicles (Challenge 3), the report concentrates on replacing diesel and petrol vehicles, with pure electric vehicles. These scenarios rely heavily on the public being willing to change their propulsion mode, for which there are increasing signs of resistance. Also there is the need for buses to have sufficient range, so that they can comfortably operate all day, without needing a recharge (otherwise there is substantial extra cost from duplicate buses- while the buses are being recharged; and extra staffing costs).

      There is no mention of how the current high bus usage significantly lowers the city’s Carbon emissions, and how this should be encouraged. Especially as the Carbon reduction from increased bus usage is underreported, as covered later in this document. This will provide a guaranteed reduction in Carbon emissions.

   While some valid points are made in ‘creating a more inclusive network’ (Challenge 4) particularly for disabilities, the disproportionate coverage of low income families (with some questionable graphics, and the overuse of national data) may not reflect local realities.
The over reliance on this criteria, is likely to generate policies that undermine the overall needs of bus passengers.

Objectives:

    It is good to see Increase public transport usage is ‘Objective 1’. However that is where the good news ends.

      If you look at both short term and long term priorities- you will not see bus priority (especially bus lanes) listed at all. The list relies heavily on rail schemes, for which the council has little mandate, and big schemes, for which the council has a particularly poor record.

    Even looking at BSIP priorities for 2025 to 2030, bus priority does not appear on the four listed priorities. It is only within one of the eight ‘actions’ on page 32, that bus lanes (and other priorities) are mentioned. This is hardly a ringing endorsement within the council priorities. There is no other bus priority measure listed beyond this coming year, whereas the A259 Active travel scheme is listed perhaps to 2028.

      The council does have a programme of suggestions for cycle and pedestrian enhancements (LCWIP). In addition, by the speed at which the new cycle lanes were introduced during the pandemic, this may indicate that council officers had already spent money on creating these designs, as these were ready to roll out, with weeks.

   If only the same was true for bus priority. We have been reliant on Council Muten and the bus companies pushing for the bus lanes, red routes etc. that have been created over the past couple of years.

There was a document, misleadingly called the ‘Bus network review’, containing a number of bus lane proposals. While it could be argued that this document could have been far better, at least some priority was on the cards. The impression has been gained that this document has been dropped, leaving no bus lane priority measures in the pipeline. This action document is certainly not listed within the Council plan’s 2023-27 decision documents, on page 16, whereas LCWIP is.

     While signal priority is being considered for the Eastern Road corridor, this is tiny compared to the overall need (and may not be indicative of the best results achievable).      At modest cost, East Sussex County council (covering a far larger area); is in the process of adding bus priority to every traffic signal in the county, where buses run. This should be a huge embarrassment to a city that is so reliant on its bus services.

   Projects chart: The funding chart could be regarded as misleading.

    The figure given is for BSIP funding. By leading with bus lanes etc. (rather than revenue funding- which represents most expenditure), this may leave a casual observer thinking the council for 2025/6, is spending ten times as much on bus schemes, than most other items listed. This is highly misleading, as the vast majority of this money is being spent on revenue items such as supporting bus services, subsidising fares etc.

       While the group are yet to obtain actual figures, the total money spent on bus lanes (etc.), is probably less than £1.5 million. Especially as only 10% of the Western Road scheme is positive for buses, with the rest of the scheme being slightly negative for bus services.

    It was also understood that perhaps 29%? Of say £9 million BSIP expenditure should be allocated to capital items. If so, this £1.5 million figure works out at less than half of this allocated figure.

     More importantly, this money only covers one or two years. There are no planned bus priority measures for future years, whereas the A259 Active Transport scheme may cost perhaps £6 million. This would be perhaps four times as much spent on bus priority, and is likely to be just one of many schemes.

     Thirdly, it should be remembered this is almost the first significant sum spent towards helping buses in many years, whereas the council boasts about its many recent cycle (etc.) enhancement projects. While these environmental improvements can be positive, the needs of bus users also need to be respected.

    Valley Gardens 3 could prove to be the most negative scheme for buses, in many years, with the LTP document inaccurately implying bus users will gain from the scheme.

    Many potential bus priority schemes can also help cyclists/pedestrians and enhance the environment (especially a possible London Road and Lewes Road shopping area improvement scheme).

     No wonder the council wanted to include BSIP funding, within its LTP funding envelope, because it is probable that none of these positive bus measures would have taken place without this BSIP funding, which should be another embarrassment. With the DfT national funding being cut by 5% a year, future BSIP funding could be at risk, certainly in the medium term.

    Reducing bus punctuality problems: It has been noted that the main document also omits information about deteriorating bus punctuality.
     This non frequent bus service punctuality figure has fallen from 89% in 2011/2 to 75% in 2023/4; in the face of traffic congestion, minimal new bus priority, and road-works.

    It is good that the council is trying to reduce these problems. However, instead of trying to eliminate the congestion problems at source, with bus lanes and other priority measures; the chosen solution has been to add extra buses on a route. While the bus companies have been forced to adopt this costly solution, the council does have a choice.

     Whereas providing a bus lane is a one off cost, the provision of extra buses is an annual expense. If you were to assume an extra bus costs £250,000 per year to run; over 20 years that would amount to £5 million, and that is just one bus, on one route. This figure needs to be multiplied many times for the whole network.

     The council has recently used BSIP funding to finance an extra bus on each of the 24, 26 and 46 routes (totalling say £15 million over 20 years). If the council had not stepped in, this would have to be financed through higher bus fares, which passengers do not appreciate, or allowing unacceptably unreliable services to persist.

      However, while a bus is more likely to turn up, adding these extra buses has resulted in more generous timetables, with buses sometimes unnecessarily waiting at bus stops to keep to the timetable. This can make the bus journey excessively slow, annoying passengers, and makes it more likely intending passengers will return to using a car. And, we thought the council wanted to encourage bus usage.

   The forward capital programme beyond 2025/6 certainly does not mention Bus lanes or any other bus priorities.

    Something that is mentioned (and has the potential to become a serious bus issue), is improving city centre walkability.

    If this only refers to pedestrianizing St. James Street, this would not be so bad. However, when the council previously attempted to remove buses from the vital Churchill Square/ Western Road area, they tried to push buses on to the congested seafront. If that is what is intended by improving city centre walkability, that would be disastrous for the city and its bus services.

Quantifying Carbon emission reduction.

   There is a risk that over reliance on the Carbon Assessment Playbook could also undermine the provision of bus services.

     Firstly, it is fairly likely that the data used for this playbook is based on national averages. The city’s bus network is far from average. For a start we have almost the highest bus usage, and run a number of hybrid vehicles, which further reduces the Carbon footprint of our local buses. Our bus lanes are generally in the right position, which is not always true in other areas. This tool has the potential to be quite crude, and unrepresentative. Especially as the background CCC National balanced pathway, does not give improved model choice, as a separate heading towards reducing Carbon emissions.

     Secondly, the city will also soon be getting a number of electric buses, presumably using Carbon neutral electricity- so further reducing the Carbon footprint of buses.
And as the years roll by, this number of electric is likely to multiply (so further reducing overall footprint, of buses). With this plan we are looking towards 2035, so also need to look forward, with buses playing an increasingly important part.

     Thirdly, nationally, the government previously suggested that three people in a small car produce less Carbon emissions, than the same people travelling by bus. This is ridiculous.

        As the bus is already running, so the Carbon emissions have already been accounted for, by existing passengers. So the extra Carbon cost of having three additional passengers using the bus is tiny.

     On the other hand, the entire Carbon footprint of running an extra car would need to be added to the city’s total. So the suggestion that car passengers can ever produce less Carbon per passenger mile than when travelling by bus, is ridiculous.

      Similarly cycling and walking may have gained over prominence in policy. When the national average Carbon footprint is utilised for comparison with buses the marginal Carbon footprint should be used instead, as it better reflects reality.

      If a cyclist chooses to instead use a bus (perhaps because it is raining), then the extra Carbon produced would be minimal, because the bus is already running, and the Carbon footprint has already been assigned to the passengers already on the bus.

     The opposite is also true. If we lose a bus passenger, the Carbon footprint of the bus would remain almost the same; but use of some alternative travel modes may well add to the city’s Carbon footprint.

Given the unbalanced nature of this LTP5 document; which does not recognise the essential nature of bus services to the city; it is difficult for Brighton Buswatch to give this Local Transport Plan our full support.

British Regional Transport Association (BRTA)

I am a member of the British Regional Transport Association (BRTA), which is a small unincorporated voluntary association which subject to resources, seeks to advance towards better public transport across the United Kingdom. Indeed, we are very keen to see a rolling programme of local line reopenings, rebuilds and select new builds of conventional railways for passenger and freight. We also campaign for an environmentally friendly, integrated, comprehensive, inclusive and affordable transport system including buses, cycling and pedestrian facilities.

Website: https://brtarail.com/

1. The three main items include Climate Change; Local Environmental Impacts and Transport Network Performance Issues. Active Travel(walking and cycling) is also very important.
2. Several disused railway lines should be re-opened where the old trackbeds survive plus also existing(or future) railway infrastructure improvements:
•    Lewes-Uckfield;Tunbridge Wells-Eridge and Horsham-Shoreham which will all bring much-needed capacity to the Brighton Main Line. All these lines will serve areas with housing developments.
•    BML2 - Purley - Elmers End (including spurs at Edenbridge), and then Lewisham - Stratford.
•    A curve should be built at Arundel linking the Mid-Sussex Line with the Coastway Line.
•    The Wealden Line and the Marshlink Lines should both be fully electrified.
•    The Polegate-Stone Cross curve should be re-instated to allow through Brighton-Ashford/Hastings rail services, plus links with wider Kent and the Channel Tunnel(and vice versa) . It could also include possible freight benefit(including Channel Tunnel/Newhaven/Shoreham/Portsmouth/Southampton). Meanwhile the A259 South Coast(Brighton-Eastboune) along the west approach of Seaford Exceat Bridge with narrow links is causing pedestrian/cyclists creating traffic flows with vehicles, together with climate change impacts and would discourage active travel such as walking and cycling. Furthermore 1500 new homes in Newhaven and 500 in Seaford would benefit for this new rail link.
•    A new railway line linking Gatwick with the Redhill-Tonbridge line is needed to enable direct trains between Kent and Gatwick Airport and will also bring capacity to the M25.
•    Haywards Heath-Horsted Keynes - to connect with Bluebell Railway.
•    Gatwick Airport Station upgrade.
•    Croydon bottleneck.
3. Delays caused by congestion in your city are one of the highest outside London
4. Pavement parking is very high in your city.
5.More direct train and bus services to key destinations such as protected buildings and landscapes, including the South Downs National Park.
6. More trains and buses on Sundays
7. Raised kerbs for bus stops to encourage disabled people
8. All new trains should have level boarding, and that station platforms need to be adjusted. Also non-visible disabilities such as autism and dementia need to be addressed.
9. All operators should be joined with Southern Railway's KeyCo. smart card initiative, with rail fares with bus trips added on at both ends of the journey.
10..Requesting free and subsidised train and bus fares for all young people 18-30 years.
11. Rolling out under-65s concessionary bus passes would boost ridership making the case more for retention of bus services
12.Retrofit low-carbon engines to existing bus vehicles
13.Electric cars can still emit 2.5PM particles thereby shifting towards public and community transport.
14. Trams and light rail schemes could help deliver a sustainable transport network.

Bristol Estate Leaseholders and Tenants Association (BELTA)

Areas like Bristol Estate suffer from two main challenges, firstly, the geographical location, being at the top of the steepest hill in Brighton, compounded by a limited bus route, creates an access issue to many residents to vital services, such as the nearest GP surgery (Over an hour via public transport).

Secondly, the hospital provides a unique challenge as traffic flow is important in and out, and currently, it doesn't follow the typical design of other hospitals, such as Red Routes on the hospital approach to prevent impediment of emergency medical vehicles.

A common criticism received when talking about road design is that it doesn't always follow good, logical design, or typically has some major flaws in how it would be implemented. For example Kingsways road-based cycle lane, next to the pavement-based cycle lane, doesn't add to a cyclists capacity to travel, but on balance negatively affects motorists.

Red Routes tend to be unpopular by nature, but they do have a very strong effect on clearing traffic from those areas so far. Residents have stated that they are quintessential to keeping hospital routes open and clear, and to prevent loopholes from double yellow sections.

CPRE Sussex, the countryside charity

It's right that the plan aims to encourage active travel and public transport, and to cut carbon emissions.

But we're concerned that the actions proposed are insufficient to deliver these bold ambitions - and there is little vision about the potential for creating better places if we take cars out of more of the city centre, and worrying little attention paid to the impact on the urban fringe and our precious countryside.

If we're to deliver on climate, air quality and congestion, and to create spaces for people, we need to see private car use falling in the city - while ensuring that protections are in place for people who need to use cars, and decarbonising the car use that remains.

Shifting journey use to active travel and public transport will likely need bolder policies around Low Emission Zones, a reduction in parking places in the urban centre and so on, and the reallocation of 'road' space to other uses (walking/wheeling, places for sitting, pocket parks and green infrastructure, etc). Charging measures are likely to be needed to generate the funding for transport alternatives.

We remain unconvinced that Park and Ride will deliver on critical transport aims. A recent evidence review on Park and Ride found that it increases car kilometres travelled and has a negative impact on modal split – i.e. Park and Ride means people use their cars more, rather than less. Https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/CXC-Reducing-car-use-through-parking-policies-August-2023.pdf

Furthermore, we would strongly object to the creation of Park and Ride sites that have a negative impact on the National Park or its setting, or on the urban fringe or green spaces.

We would support local neighbourhood hubs if they are combined with other transport policies that encourage modal shift towards active travel and public transport, and reduce overall car use.

East Sussex County Council

We support initiatives and interventions that help improve journeys for businesses, residents and visitors between the local authority areas of East Sussex and Brighton and Hove. This is particularly given the close relationship between Brighton and our coastal communities of East Saltdean, Telscombe, Peacehaven and Newhaven, and also those that use the A27 corridor to access the city from Lewes and central East Sussex.

You may wish to draw attention to keeping the city connected. Brighton has a thriving visitor economy, and connectivity by road, rail, air (Gatwick) and maritime (proximity to Newhaven, Shoreham etc.) is important to ensure visitors and goods can get to/from the city. We have learnt through our recent consultation on the draft East Sussex Freight Strategy that the movement of goods can be considered as important as the movement of people and can be overlooked or not fully appreciated. As such, there should be reference to freight beyond some references to consolidation centres. It would be useful to understand how you see freight moving around - whether that be strategic movements (most likely to/from or through Brighton & Hove, or deliveries to retailers or personal addresses, particularly in communities where you reallocate road space towards active travel. As a neighbouring authority we would be happy to work with you on freight opportunities that may benefit both residents, visitors and businesses of East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, particularly along the coast towards Newhaven and Seaford or via the A27 towards Lewes.

We are in the process of reviewing and updating our Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP). We would be keen to work with you on cross-border trips along the A27 and A259 to help our communities undertake active travel trips for both leisure and commutes on these corridors. We have successfully worked together before on cross border trips with the A259 bus lanes from Peacehaven to Rottingdean, which has contributed to improved bus journey times for passengers along this popular cross authority corridor, and the Falmer to Woodingdean cycle route improvement providing an active link to/from the Amex Stadium.

We note that whilst you emphasise an inclusive transport network, there is no reference to the importance of undertaking an equalities impact assessment (EqIA). An EqIA can help support the justification for interventions and initiatives and help understand what and where other challenges are for people who identify as having one or more protected characteristics. Likewise, we suggest that a health impact assessment (HIA) is also undertaken to support your strategy. When developing the East Sussex Local Transport Plan 4 (adopted October 2024), we used both the EqIA and HIA to inform the development of the strategy. We’re happy to work with you and learn from any items that arise from these studies that affect cross boundary journeys between our local authorities.

We have shown support for your objectives where they align with the fourth East Sussex Local Transport Plan (adopted October 2024), and any support is focused on cross-boundary connections, rather than specific considerations elsewhere in the city. An inclusive transport network is a key strand of our Local Transport Plan and we welcome that within yours, as this will support cross boundary journeys for all users. We support the principle of increasing the number of public transport trips that cross the border between our authorities along the A259 (‘Coaster’ bus services) and A27 (‘Regency’ bus services and rail route) corridors. We note the reference to park and ride at Falmer and would welcome further study / information into this aspiration/proposal to ensure that any park and ride opportunity does not extract existing cross-border public transport trips from the Regency bus routes (28/29/29a) between Brighton and Lewes (with direct through links to other large towns in East Sussex) or train services between Brighton and Lewes (with direct through connectivity to towns along the coast as far east as Ore). Any extraction from the existing public transport offer would increase private vehicle use within East Sussex, bringing its own challenges for our authority and only benefit Brighton and Hove in terms of public transport trips, when users transfer to a park and ride offer. We note the scale and ambition for expanding your EV charging network. It would be beneficial to understand how you plan to deliver the 100 rapid chargers and whether you need any support from the private sector. We would also welcome references on how you will meet the increased electricity demand and how the grid will cope or renewable energy will be used. In developing the fourth East Sussex Local Transport Plan, we established that modal choice was important for our communities, both urban and rural. Whilst we appreciate the challenges that Brighton and Hove faces are different to those faced by East Sussex, we feel it is still important to provide cross-boundary modal choice of people travelling between our geographies. The public transport (bus and rail) networks are focused on the A259 or A27/A270 corridors into Brighton, with people requiring a change of bus or train to continue to communities in Hove or north Brighton, which adds journey time, making these modes less competitive against the private car. Modal choice is important for residents, visitors and commuters who have limited modes available to them for a variety of reasons including disabilities and other commitments where their needs are not met by shared or active transportation modes.

We have chosen not to rank your projects to achieve your objectives, as we appreciate that these are matters that largely impact the city of Brighton & Hove. That said, we support initiatives and interventions that support cross boundary journeys by all modes (walking, wheeling, cycling, bus and private vehicle).
With regard to Sussex Coast Mass Rapid transit, this is something that is not explicitly mentioned in LTP4. We refer to these as bus enhancements and faster rail journeys. Both rail and bus provide mass transit opportunities at present with turn up and go frequencies (up to every 15 minutes) between Brighton and Lewes (by bus and rail) and along the A259 (by bus to Peacehaven, Newhaven, Seaford and Eastbourne). Furthermore, the term mass rapid transit often evokes visions of light rail (tram) or heavy rail modes (train) within the UK, and there is a need to undertake further studies to understand what this ‘mass transit’ intervention could look like.

East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service

Challenge 1 stated there were 146 serious injuries or deaths by collision recorded in 2023. The prospect of the road safety action plan to reduce the number of KSI's sounds timely as BHCC are heavily promoting to increase the volume of cyclists by providing additional parking and a suite of schemes as detailed in the transport plan.

A core response function statistically of the fire service is for rescue activity's related to RTC's (road traffic collisions). The plan does not demonstrate a proportionate strategy to cope and protect the increase of cyclists BHCC are promoting. The project "improving safety" under objective "deliver a safe, inclusive and integrated transport system" does not outline what risk mitigation BHCC hope to employ. With reference to figure 13, it would appear this is a community driven scheme rather than infrastructure enhancements. While education for road users is important (as currently delivered by the bikeability scheme), this is not as effective as physical controls. We would urge you to consider what physical controls can be implemented throughout the city road network to better protect this group of vulnerable road users.

Challenge 3 - For consultation purposes, ESFRS hope to collaborate and see BHCC demonstrate a robust plan to manage EV risk when setting out to achieve its carbon neutral goals. While BHCC have stated they are currently developing a separate and dedicated electric vehicle charging plan, on the consultation homepage BHCC have stated a three-year plan to install 1600 charge points in addition to the current BHCC funded "lamp post" charging points.

It is a core requirement of each fire service to undertake a community risk management plan which forensically examines statutory requirements and local risks within a fire services core operating area through historic data and consultation. In this assessment of risk, collaborative working is key so the fire and rescue service can understand the potential risk to the public by BHCC implementing this infrastructure. HV-rapid chargers (currently in operation to support public and taxi use), increasing substation capacity's of volume change the type of risk within the city. Considering access to these risk areas and proportionate remote isolation when things go wrong is key for a quick emergency response.

While the plan is still being developed, there is no evidence of what BHCC have planned to do in respect of education for public access charging point users. Education on safe use for these points is key to reduce points of failure.

Parking - EV parking in multistorey car parks carry's a great risk in two strengths which we are confident BHCC are considering. For purpose of consultation;

1. Building collapse - EV's are heavier by design and with recent plans to increase B category licence weights to 4.25 tonnes for van derived EV vehicles, compounded by a general higher volume of heavier vehicles this means multi-story carparks need to have a robust assessment of what structural integrity these buildings can offer. Building owners (private or LA) must manage the safe working loads of said structures robustly to prevent a building collapse.
2. Fire - fires in multistorey car parks are very challenging to manage with a standard ICE vehicle (internal combustion engine) EV powered vehicles are extremely volatile which ramps up when thermal runaway begins. Fire prevention measures in buildings should be considered due to how volatile this technology is.

ELEVATE research team

On behalf of the ELEVATE research team I would like to submit research evidence including Brighton & Hove resident feedback relevant to the ‘Our City Transport Plan 2035’ consultation.

Our 5 year research project (2021-26) carried out national and local level data collection focusing on the cities of Brighton and Hove, Oxford and Leeds. We conducted national, city and neighbourhood-level surveys to investigate interest in and use of e-cargo bikes and other e-micromobility modes. Our focus neighbourhoods in Brighton and Hove were Preston Park and Hove Park. A major part of the research involved loaning e-cargo bikes to 49 households (15 in B&H) living in our study neighbourhoods for one month during summer 2023 and to 11 of those households (4 in B&H) for a further 6 months the following winter. Our findings show that e-cargo bikes represent a realistic and desirable form of mobility, with the potential to reduce car use and associated emissions.

Historic England

Historic England would support solutions and programmes that minimise the impacts of transport on the historic environment, heritage and townscape and that seek solutions that deliver long-term environmental benefits. We would also support integration of transport solutions into streetscape and the public realm, particularly in historically sensitive locations such as conservation areas and within the setting of listed buildings and other heritage assets (e.g. registered parks and gardens).

Historic England’s guidance on public realm in historic locations, ‘Streets for All’, which has been developed in conjunction with the Department for Transport, includes practical case studies and can be viewed at: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/streets-for-all-south-east/.

Historic England welcomes the opportunity to comment on the City Transport Plan due to:
• the role the historic environment can play in influencing a plan’s objectives, as for example enhancing public realm in historic centres and streets;
• the potential direct and indirect impact of a plan’s proposals and programmes on historic remains, features, sites, townscapes, and landscapes; and
• the opportunities for new transport measures to promote and enhance access to and enjoyment of the historic environment.

Hove Civic Society

The Trustees of Hove Civic Society have considered the consultation documents for the City Transport Plan 2035 and make the following comments:

There is much to commend in the consultation document, here we comment on those matters that we feel need to be improved.

Land grab by increasingly larger vehicles
The Transport Plan consultation document is silent on the central issue of land use and the growing space requirements of cars. The growth in length, width and weight of cars, not least the electric vehicle fleet, puts an increasing pressure on our streets and makes traffic movements and road safety more difficult. New cars are increasingly too large for standard parking spaces, extend into the highway and take excessive space from adjoining parking spaces. The growth in vehicle sizes in effect reduces car parking availability.
In this context we are deeply concerned about the continuing development of vehicle cross-overs across pavements, parking in front gardens and conversion of private green areas throughout the city for parking purposes. This trend undermines efforts to green up the city. It is an issue that affects both transport and city planning.
We would urge the council to look at the land use impact of these developments – an effective “land grab” – and look at solutions to deal with this. We cite the efforts of the city of Basle that has varying parking fees according to the size of cars, where only the smallest cars are charged a normal fee with larger cars double and very big cars treble parking fees.
Regrettably some of the largest and heaviest cars on the road now are electric. One way of compensating for that additional pressure would be to remove an existing adjoining parking space for each electric charging point and landscape it. This would demonstrate that electric vehicles are not just a substitute for traditional vehicles but that they signify an environmental change, which brings a more sustainable environment with it.

Better balance between investment for car-based and other modes of transport
As set out in the consultation document, transport planning should contribute to net-zero policies, health considerations and equality considerations. Most importantly, we believe, it should also reflect the makeup of transport users and transport modes in the city and give appropriate attention and budget to the approx. 40% of households in the city that do not have access to a car. Walking is an important mode of transport!
We should create a better balance between policies for cars and walking and cycling -especially in our inner urban areas with the emphasis swinging towards the more sustainable modes of transport.
This means for example: better and wider pavements at the cost of reduced car parking.

Transport planning can help create a greener city
We would suggest that any highways work such as widening of pavements or other “build outs” should by default optimise landscaping and new trees. The cumulative impact of such a policy would over the years fundamentally improve the climate resilience of our built-up areas without adding significantly to costs. We would also suggest some creative thinking - coupling this approach with the requirements for biodiversity net gain for new developments, helping to secure funding for greening up including rain gardens and associated maintenance.

This might require some changes in the City Council’s highways’ contracts and also in the procedures leading up to approval of highways projects. In essence we believe all improvements to ground surfaces in the city should by default be heavily influenced by landscaping advice.

Explicit recognition of transport planning provisions in the Hove Station Neighbourhood Plan
We draw your attention to the need to recognise the policies and provisions for transport in the Hove Station Neighbourhood Plan which are set out below. The plan is a statutory document which has been subject to exacting public consultation requirements including a public referendum.

Other comments
Once again we make the plea for plans to improve Church Road (our own Hove Boulevard) to be accelerated, as a demonstrator for more sustainable urban living.
And we would welcome your suggestions, albeit at an embryonic stage, for a Sussex Coastal Mass Transit.

Living Streets Brighton and Hove

The city is still poor on pedestrian safety. Vehicles are given priority in terms of access and speed. This is in spite of walking (and wheeling in wheelchairs etc) being the universal mode of transport, and the most vital for the poorest and most vulnerable in society.

New technology is unlikely to help pedestrians.

There is a lot to admire in the objectives and principles of the Plan. The only serious omission from our perspective is the lack of detail on proposals to improve the walkability of the city, especially safety.

Our City Transport Plan 2035 – Response from Living Streets Brighton and Hove

We welcome the opportunity to contribute to the development of Brighton & Hove City Council’s Transport Plan 2035 (LTP5). We were actively involved in earlier drafts of the Plan in 2021.

Living Streets Brighton and Hove1 is primarily concerned with creating safer, cleaner, greener streets and neighbourhoods to create a better walking environment and inspire people to walk more. We have therefore only commented on issues for walking (which we always mean to include wheelchairs etc.).

We warmly welcome the emphasis in LTP5 on “Enabling more people to live safer, healthier and more active lives” (Challenge 1) in view of now extensive research showing the physical and mental health benefits of walking. We are also pleased to see a focus in the objectives on delivering a safe and inclusive transport system (objective 3) and creating well-maintained streets and pavements (objective 4). We are glad that Objective 5 recognises the importance of providing
active travel choices for all and excellent public spaces.

However, while there are useful suggestions in principle to support walking in the city, there is currently very little focus in the plan on practical steps to tackle the everyday problems which reduce people’s willingness and ability to walk, and insufficient funding for this vital aspect of mobility around the city.

Inclusivity
There is some recognition in the Plan of the importance of walking in creating an “inclusive” transport system. The Plan recognises that “20% of households in the lowest income bracket typically make the most trips on foot and are the only income group that make more walking trips than car trips” (page 27). It also states that while feedback on the ease of use of pavements and footpaths by people with disabilities is in line with the national average, at 41% this is a low overall score (p28).

As the Plan makes clear, “A transport network that prioritises walking and bus users is one that makes it more inclusive for all” (p28). In spite of the recognition of the importance of walking, especially to the poorest and most vulnerable people, the only specific measure to improve the situation mentioned in the Plan is dropped kerbs at crossing points, which is very disappointing.

Pavement obstructions
There is welcome recognition that “Better pavements in the city, that are free of obstructions” help make walking an attractive option (p19). However, the Plan does not spell out what these obstructions may be, nor include any proposals for dealing with them. As we pointed out in our earlier input to the development of this Plan, pavement obstructions include pedestrian guard railings, wheelie bins on the pavement, communal bins blocking crossing points and sight lines to avoid oncoming traffic, excessive signage – almost always for motor vehicles - which blocks pavements, traffic signal control boxes, electric vehicle fast charging boxes and associated signage and pavement parking. There is not a single mention in the Plan of any of these issues, although there are plans to extend EV charging points.

A very simple, inexpensive and immediately noticeable action would be removing the pedestrian guard railings at road crossings and elsewhere (often apparently installed for no apparent reason). There is now clear evidence that removing pedestrian barriers significantly reduces collisions: a fall of 56% in pedestrians being killed or severely injured (KSI) and a fall of 48% in the number of all KSI collisions - https://content.tfl.gov.uk/pedestrian-railings-removal-report.pdf. It would make a major contribution to creating safe and welcoming streets to remove all pedestrian barriers across the city as a priority. Removing them would show residents and visitors alike that the city welcomes people walking.

All obstructions on pavements are dangerous and discourage people from walking – people are so often forced off the pavement into the road simply because the pavement has become too narrow to use safely.

We recognise that it is part of the character of much of the city that we have narrow streets with narrow pavements. That is part of the charm and attractiveness of the city. But the lack of any strategy to tackle obstacles on pavements for people walking – especially those in wheelchairs, pushing buggies, children, those who have disabilities and/or visual impairment, or
are just elderly and more anxious about falling and more likely to be seriously injured in a fall – is simply no longer acceptable in our city.

Safety and funding
We welcome proposals for a new Road Safety Action Plan that “sets out targets on reducing casualties on our roads and what actions we will take to achieve this” (p16). Unfortunately, there is no further information about what this might cover, nor how this might affect pedestrians beyond a mention that it will include an “annual programme of accessibility improvements for pedestrians”. We very much hope there will be sufficient consultations with all the relevant
groups to develop this plan, including ourselves, so that the benefits to pedestrians are fully considered as well as those to cyclists and drivers.

We are also pleased to see that the Safer Better Streets programme is ongoing, part of meeting Objective 4 to “Create well-maintained streets and pavements” (p30). However, we note that almost all the proposals focus on roads, except for the final sentence which promises to “ensure that pavements on the most important active travel routes are considered in the maintenance schedules” (p34), our emphasis added. This is really not sufficient attention to the importance of maintaining pavements in creating safe and attractive routes for people to walk.

The lack of importance in the Plan of pavement quality and the needs of pedestrians is amplified by the budget allocations under this objective: £415,000 for Safer Better Streets; £3,950,000 for carriageway maintenance. This is in spite of an increase of central government funding for maintaining roads and pavements for 2025/6 of 83%, to a total of £5.3 million. It seems that the maintenance of pavements will receive only a tiny fraction of that funding, in spite of their importance for everyone in the city.

Finally in terms of safety for pedestrians, we note that there are no proposals to reduce speed limits throughout the city. The Plan says that “Most of the city’s residential roads are now 20mph” (p13), emphasis added. This is a surprise given that it has been very difficult in the past to find detailed information about which roads are actually 20mph.

No new roads have become 20mph since the last review in 2015, since when the case for reducing the speed limits in towns and cities has been widely accepted in terms of safety, and 20mph default speed limits are now used in urban residential areas throughout the UK. The problem with the situation in Brighton and Hove currently is that there is very poor enforcement of speed limits
and dangerous driving, and the use of 20mph speed limits is extremely piecemeal, with drivers being unsure of which roads have this speed limits.
We recognise that lowering the speed limit is not an immediately popular move politically but, given the benefits of lower accident rates, fewer deaths and fewer and less serious injuries caused by speeding traffic, we suggest that things must change. People are put off walking because of fear of dangerous driving as the Plan recognises: “fears about road safety are a significant barrier
for many people adopting more active travel” (p4 and p19).

The last review of a city-wide 20mph speed limit was in 2010 and a great deal has changed in Brighton and Hove over the past 15 years. It is clearly time for another review.

Looking forward
Finally, we are very pleased to see that the focus of the “next major scheme” to improve travel and transport in the city will be to “deliver city entre walkability and accessibility improvements”, focusing on key locations such as “routes between the train station and the seafront” (p7 and p35). This will be a very welcome development.

We look forward to hearing more in due course about that walkability scheme among other improvements and hope that we can assist in the development of specific proposals.

the carers centre for brighton and hove

When targeting accessible, inclusive transport, it is important to include people whose mobility is so limited that they require door-to-door accessibility

Metamorphosis Art Group and The Flamenco and Spanish Group

People who drive vehicles cannot afford electric ones. Only very few can. So over supplying electric charging machines which will add pavement furniture when far fewer electric cars than catered for will be using these machines, will be both an obstruction, causing injuries with leads everywhere for disabled and pedestrians, and a waste of money. You can only put these machines in designated out of town locations which are purpose built so as not to cause possible tripping injuries or obstructions for pedestrians and mobility vehicle users. Don't over compensate because you think we should be using all these electric vehicles and yet won't be, in most cases.

Very few will use driverless cars. The road system needs to be taken back to its pre 1980s system whereupon all side roads from the Level to the seafront were both way traffic so traffic could filter in and out and we did not have that huge queue down the centre of Brighton, as no one can exit side roads easily. The problems arose when the Council decided to put in the bus contraflow system from the seafront up towards London and Lewes Road and blocked many of the side roads off and made many on way. All this encouraged was traffic unable to exit and join and having to go all around a long one way system to get to where they wished through he side roads. Adding the bus lanes on ancient roads built for horses and carts was not practical and unviable. You cannot squeeze large trucks, bikes, buses and other transport all into one lane in many cases, without creating standstill and bottle necks. Subsequent road planners have each made a pig's ear of their "improvements" as they had a poor design to start with. The traffic used to run like a Scale Electrix track figure of 8 where the crossover for all traffic was at St. Peter's Church in both directions. Traffic all ran down the left hand road to the Steine using both lanes and then curved around at the bottom of the Steine and all traffic came back up on the western side of the road. The London Road and Ditchling Road were two way to all traffic. The main bus depot and waiting room and toilets for the drivers and conductors were at the Steine. This meant visitors as well as residents could easily access most of the buses from the seafront in both directions coming and leaving town.

There is NO money for vanity projects which usually don't work (i360 comes to mind when the public said waste of money beforehand).
Just concentrate upon a clean and well run and maintained road and transport system without adding too many bells and bows, which never work and waste money.

National Highways

We are concerned about the safety, reliability, and operational efficiency of the Strategic Road Network (SRN), in this case the A27 and the A23.

We have reviewed the Plan.

We would like to highlight that in in terms of national transport policy, you need to be mindful of the Department for Transport’s (DfT’s) Circular 01/2022 ‘Strategic road network and the delivery of sustainable development’ (December 2022) which is the government’s policy for the SRN: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/strategic-road-network-and-the-delivery-of-sustainable-development/strategic-road-network-and-the-delivery-of-sustainable-development.

This sets the policies and priorities for the SRN. It emphasises the need for a vision-led approach to development that manages down traffic impacts by promoting sustainable and active travel and internalising movements for larger developments. This vision-led approach to development now features in the government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2.

There is also the government’s Road Investment Strategy (RIS) which sets the priorities for investment in the SRN. RIS 2 concluded in March this year. RIS 3 will cover the five-year period from 2026-2031. The government published the interim settlement for 2025/26 in March this year: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/strategic-road-network-interim-settlement-2025-to-2026.

We are drawing this to your attention because the interim settlement is clear that for RIS 3 the focus will be on maintenance and renewal of the existing network (see para. 4.3). Not all schemes listed in the Pipeline in RIS2 and considered during Road Period 2 will be progressed as Pipeline schemes in the next road period. An updated list of Pipeline schemes will be published in RIS3.

Given this context, we welcome the promotion of sustainable and active travel. This can help support a shift away from the car as the main mode of transport which can help alleviate pressures on the roads, including the SRN.

The Carers Cantre for Brighton and Hove

When targeting accessible, inclusive transport, it is important to include people whose mobility is so limited that they require door-to-door accessibility.

Transport Action Network

Please see below for my comments on Brighton & Hove's Local Transport Plan to 2035.

Overall there is much to commend in the plan and I broadly welcome its priorities and focus to make a more equitable and fairer transport network, to reduce transport's negative impacts and to make it more attractive to travel in the city.

However, there are some serious issues that are not addressed, or only partially addressed, which need greater thought if the 5th LTP is to deliver the changes required.

Key issues with the LTP include that it appears to give no consideration of:
1. A Vision Zero approach to road safety
2. The need for greater adaption measures for climate change - the need for more shade from street trees and greater SUDS for example - where is the strategy to reduce on-street car parking to enable this?
3. Demand management measures particularly with regards to cars entering the city, such as through car parking costs and numbers.
4. Park & ride's impacts on regular public transport services (rail and bus) and transport related social exclusion as well as the South Downs National Park
5. On and off street cycle parking for traffic generators and improving its security
6. Promotion of e-bikes and mobility scooters and their charging needs (it shouldn't be just about buses and cars)
7. Better spring and summer maintenance of shared paths (cutting back green growth)
8. Better autumn and winter maintenance of all pavements for the benefit of elderly people to make sure they do not become trapped indoors.
9. A full pavement review and the need for better standards for pavement widths and dropped kerbs, better bin control and action to ensure that the large rollout of EV chargers does not lead to them being placed on pavements apart from in exceptional circumstances
Below are some comments, positive and negative on the various elements of the LTP:

Challenge 1 - there is a good acknowledgment of the issues but the key omission is any clear ambition to reduce casualties to zero, i.e. there is no mention of Vision Zero and of designing out road danger at a systems level. This is important if we are to drive real change to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on our streets. There is also the wrong categorisation of incidents as accidents.

Challenge 2 - welcome the acknowledgment that buses and cycling can improve traffic flows and are more efficient ways of moving large numbers around the city. While it is acknowledged that building wider roads just increases traffic, this is also true for other ways of increasing capacity/improving flow such as more efficient signalling. In addition, while parking in the centre remains attractive with many thousands of parking spaces, people will continue to drive there. In short some demand management measures will be needed to achieve the desired outcomes.

The idea behind the mobility hubs is sound but it would be useful to understand how many are envisaged for the city and their distribution. Regarding the larger park & ride sites, it is disappointing to see this being pursued yet again when it wastes so much time and energy and delivers very little. None of the downsides of park & ride, such as how it undermines existing public transport and only works for people who drive into the city are considered. Neither is the impact it would have on the National Park due to its location within the National Park or its setting and the increased traffic flows it would generate through the South Downs.

By undermining existing public transport it potentially increases transport related social exclusion as rural people reliant on buses (and possibly trains) will have less choice while people without a car who want to access areas outside the city are similarly negatively impacted. It would be far better to link park & ride to train stations around the region, to boost services rather than undermine them. This would create pressure on the train operating companies (around until April 2028) for better weekend services to serve visitors and tourists. Thereafter thought needs to be given as to how improvements could be achieved. However, this will only be affordable by increasing passenger numbers and not deterring people travelling by trains into the city.

Regardless of where or how park & ride is developed, without demand management measures to dissuade people from driving into the city centre, such as more expensive parking and reduced spaces, there will be few space and congestion benefits from this policy and it will likely increase car use. Only by taking out space for cars, will the city be made more attractive for visitors and residents alike.

As part of this challenge it would be good to see a long term reduction on on-street parking, incrementally delivered to enable more street trees, SUDS, EV chargers, etc, especially in the central area. Doing it in this way would enable people to see the benefits and build support for it.

Challenge 3 - It is wrong to say there is uncertainty over whether heavy vehicles will follow a hydrogen or electric path. The consensus is that electric is the way to go apart from some bespoke vehicles. Therefore the city needs to be planning on that basis. What is disappointing in this section is that there is no mention of e-bikes of mobility scooters. Both are likely to increase in use, especially mobility scooters with an ageing population, yet no thought is given as to how to provide charging for these vehicles. Given their smaller footprint and more effective use of space, they should be a priority over private cars.

Challenge 4 - transport related social exclusion will be prevalent in many areas, not just in the areas where it is most prevalent. It's not just about subsidised bus services in a few areas but better buses all over and in particular cheaper fares.

Better active travel is also important as these are low cost solutions but people are deterred from using them, particularly cycling where a perception of road danger is real disincentive.

Challenge 5 - It should be recognised fewer motor vehicles would reduce wear and tear on the city's roads and reduce maintenance costs. Fewer crashes and injuries through a Vision Zero approach would also reduce costs.

Objective 1 - fully support apart from park & ride which is likely to undermine regular bus and train services and worsen transport related social exclusion. Would also like to see greater ambition on influencing rail services especially longer term such as faster services on West Coastway to help reduce the number of cars coming into the city.

Objective 2 - Fully support, but this should include e-bikes and mobility scooters. Currently there is no consideration as to the needs of these modes.

Objective 3 - Fully support but it needs to go further and advocate Vision Zero to deliver real and lasting change. Also, the transport hierarchy needs following placing the needs of people walking and cycling at the top of all considerations. There should also be some 20mph extension, such as up Ditchling Road from Fiveways to past Varndean and the park entrance opposite, to reduce road danger. Alongside this more measures should be implemented to address areas where the 20mph speed limit is being regularly flouted.

In terms of improving accessibility to rail stations, Moulsecoomb stands out as urgently needing attention, especially because of its importance for students and staff working at the University of Brighton.

Objective 4 - Fully support but this would benefit from traffic reduction measures and making the link would be helpful here.

Regarding cycle routes and shared paths, there needs to be better maintenance of plant growth in spring and summer that reduces the usable width of routes pushing people walking, wheeling and cycling into conflict. This needs to be better managed than at present. Routes most affected include those in less central areas. In terms of surfaces, the Level is extremely poor.

Regarding pavements, the removal of leaves and ice needs to be prioritised where there are more older people as falls by the elderly can be terminal, even if not immediate. This means considering more than just priority central areas. At present it is often safer for people to walk in the road, even if this exposes them to other dangers and of course many elderly people won't do this, so in effect can become trapped indoors.

Objective 5 - Fully support but this needs to go further to commission a full pavement review and revise standards to be more inclusive. A 2m width should be the minimum width considered for new pavements as with lamp posts, signs and bollards this is reduce down to around 1.5m. That's before considering the impact of A-boards, bins and other obstructions such as EV chargers. Regarding the latter these should be banned from pavements unless the pavements are wide enough to leave a 2m clear width with the charger installed.

Dropped kerbs should be 2m as standard for greater inclusivity. 1.2m and 1.6m are not wide enough to comfortably allow people to cross at the same time in opposite directions, and often don't reflect the width of the pavement either (see the A259 proposals).

On street cycle parking for destinations such as shopping areas, gyms, supermarkets, hospitals, needs to be part of the plan yet is not mentioned despite, for example, the cycle parking at the Royal Sussex County Hospital being virtually full up most of the time. It also needs to be more secure so that people can be sure that they will find their bike still there when they return. Combining this with e-bike charging also needs to be considered. Otherwise without better and more cycle parking the current situation risks being a constraint on increasing the numbers of people cycling.

Finally, there has been no mention of the need for adaption at a time of increasing climate change. One of the key things that will be needed in the future to keep people walking is more shade from street trees. Also there is a need for more SUDS to reduce water run-off during heavy rainfall. Removal of some on-street parking will be essential to enable these features.

Objective 6 - Fully support but would urge caution over autonomous vehicles and the potential negative impact they could have for people walking and cycling.

I trust these comments are helpful and I am happy to follow up with further comments or evidence if needed.

Transport for South East

1. Introduction

This document is the draft Transport for the South East (TfSE) response to the consultation on the Brighton & Hove City Council’s draft ‘Our City Transport Plan 2035’. This is a draft officer response that will be presented to our Partnership Board in January 2025 for approval. A further iteration may therefore follow.

TfSE is the sub‑national transport body (STB) for the South East of England. Our principal decision‑making body, the Partnership Board, brings together representatives from our 16 constituent local transport authorities, district and borough authorities, protected landscapes, business representatives, National Highways, Network Rail and Transport for London.

We have a vision‑led Transport Strategy in place to influence government decisions about where, when and how to invest in our region to 2050. Our Strategic Investment Plan (SIP) provides the delivery framework for this strategy, setting out the infrastructure and policy interventions needed across the region over the next three decades. This is in the process of being refreshed.

TfSE welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation on the draft ‘Our City Transport Plan 2035’. We trust that our response will add value to the development of the City Council’s plan and form the basis for continued engagement as we strengthen the ‘golden thread’ between the local and regional strategies.

2. Approach

The draft ‘Our City Transport Plan 2035’ is structured around six objectives and a set of guiding principles reflecting active and healthy travel, efficient road networks, the transition to zero-emission vehicles, inclusive access, and well-maintained streets. This approach is closely aligned with the principles underpinning TfSE’s Transport Strategy. Both emphasise evidence-based prioritisation, integration of transport with wider policy areas, and the need to balance economic, social and environmental outcomes in decision-making.

There are several common elements in the way the two documents have been developed. Each draws on the ‘avoid–shift–improve’ framework, promotes a ‘Movement and Place’ approach that balances the movement of people and goods with the role of streets as public spaces and incorporates aspects of ‘Triple Access Planning’ which integrates physical mobility, digital connectivity and spatial proximity in access planning. Both documents also support data-led monitoring to inform investment decisions.

3. Vision

The vision in the Brighton & Hove draft LTP5 is strongly aligned with the 2050 Vision in TfSE’s Transport Strategy. Both commit to a low‑carbon, inclusive and accessible transport system that enhances quality of life and supports sustainable economic growth. The shared emphasis on reducing emissions, improving connectivity, and creating healthier places provides a robust foundation for partnership working. Table 1 below sets out the alignment between the two vision statements.

Table 1: Alignment between the ‘Our City Transport Plan 2025’ and the 2050 vision in TfSE’s Draft Transport Strategy

‘Our City Transport Plan 2035’ Vision	TfSE Transport Strategy 2050 Vision
A transport system that enables everyone to move around and access what they need easily, affordably and safely, while improving health and wellbeing, reducing carbon emissions, and enhancing the city’s environment and economy.	Our vision is for the South East to offer the highest quality of life for all and be a global leader in achieving sustainable, net zero carbon growth. We will develop a resilient, reliable and inclusive transport network that enables seamless journeys and empowers residents, businesses and visitors to make sustainable choices.

4. Alignment between Brighton & Hove Objectives and TfSE’s Missions

Table 2 presents an assessment of alignment between the objectives of the ‘Our City Transport Plan 2035’ and the five missions of TfSE’s Transport Strategy. The analysis shows strong overall alignment, particularly in relation to decarbonisation, inclusion, and sustainable growth.

Table 2: Alignment between objectives of ‘Our Transport Plan 2025’ and TfSE’s five Missions

Brighton & Hove ‘Our Transport Plan 2035’ objectives	TfSE’s Missions
Brighton & Hove ‘Our Transport Plan 2035’ objectives	Strategic Connectivity	Resilience	Decarbonisation	Inclusion & Integration	Sustainable Growth
1. Increase the use of public transport and active travel.	X		X	X	X
2. Support the transition to zero‑emission vehicles.			X
3. Ensure safe, inclusive and affordable transport options for all.			X	X
4. Maintain streets and public spaces to high standards.		X			X
5. Integrate transport with new housing, jobs and regeneration.	X			X	X
6. Harness technology and data to improve travel and reduce emissions.	X		X		X

As shown in Table 2, the objectives of ‘Our Transport Plan 2035’ are broadly consistent with TfSE’s missions. Notably, the emphasis on mode shift and zero‑emission vehicles supports TfSE’s Decarbonisation Mission, while the focus on inclusion and accessibility aligns with the Inclusion & Integration Mission. The Council’s approach to technology, data and public realm improvements complements TfSE’s Resilience and Sustainable Growth missions.

TfSE welcomes the clear recognition in ‘Our City Transport Plan 2035’ of the regional role played by Transport for the South East and the inclusion of both the TfSE Transport Strategy and the Strategic Investment Plan (SIP) to demonstrate alignment with regional priorities. The Plan usefully reproduces the TfSE Strategic Investment Plan map, illustrating the alignment between Brighton & Hove’s local priorities and the wider regional network. It also identifies several shared priority schemes, including the Sussex Coast Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) concept, Brighton Main Line resilience and capacity improvements, A27 and A23 corridor enhancements, and the strategic mobility hubs proposed at Falmer, Shoreham, and the A23/A27 junction.

There is scope to strengthen the alignment between the two documents by referring to a small number of additional schemes from the Strategic Investment Plan that are directly relevant to the city’s wider connectivity. These include the A27 East of Lewes to Polegate improvements, which would enhance east–west resilience and improve access between Brighton and Hove, Eastbourne and the wider coastal area; and the West Coastway Strategic Study, which aims to reduce rail journey times between Brighton, Lewes, Eastbourne and Hastings. Reference could also be made to the proposed additional platform at Brighton Station, which will increase capacity and improve the reliability of services to and from the station and the reinstatement of direct Cross Country services between Brighton, London and the Midlands to reduce journey times for long-distance travelers and support inbound tourism. Finally, reference to TfSE’s electric vehicle charging infrastructure and wider decarbonisation work areas, in which the City Council has already been involved, would further demonstrate consistency with regional initiatives to reduce emissions.

Recognising these additional linkages would give a more complete picture of how Brighton and Hove’s proposals fit within the wider regional investment framework and would help strengthen the case for future joint funding and delivery.

5. Conclusion

The draft ‘Our City Transport Plan 2035’ demonstrates a strong alignment with TfSE’s Transport Strategy, notably through its recognition of the role of the Transport Strategy and Strategic Investment Plan. TfSE welcomes this clear acknowledgement of the regional context and the City Council’s commitment to collaboration on future investment. There is an opportunity to build on this by incorporating explicit references to several regionally significant schemes beyond the city boundary, which would further anchor Brighton & Hove’s proposals within the regional investment framework. Doing so would underline the City’s contribution to delivering a resilient, inclusive and net-zero transport system for the South East.

University of Brighton

These challenges are accurate and are supported by UOB.
Accessibility is a current barrier to sustainable travel at our Moulsecoomb campus, with the train station being inaccessible to wheelers and those with mobility challenges. We have worked hard and continue to make our campus more accessible and the train station access is a significant barrier.
Challenge 5 is a significant challenge to uptake of active travel and cycling in particular. The adoption of red routes across the city has had a significant, positive impact and have been welcomed by our cycling community.

Cost and accessibility are the biggest challenges to uptake of sustainability transport modes. Our annual travel survey highlights costs and convenience being the two driver factors of mode share choice. A bigger emphasis on addressing public transport costs and physical public transport facilities would strengthen the action to address these challenges

Renew Preston Village Campaign

Renewing Preston Village presents a prime opportunity to develop a Neighbourhood mobility hub and deliver upon 4 of 6 CTP 2035 objectives.

At General Council on Thursday 10th July 2025, Cllr Trevor Muten requested that the Renew Preston Village input into the City Transport Plan.

Renew Preston Village are calling for changes consistent with our campaign material (as available at www.prestonvillage.org) to be included within the 2035 City Transport Plan.

The following has been compiled by the local resident team leading the campaign.

A copy of this document including supporting images will be sent to Cllr Trevor Muten directly on email.

Overview and introduction

Renew Preston Village is a campaign group supported by 1,500 residents, 19 businesses, two churches, one school and a range of community groups including Friends of Preston Park and The Brighton Society.

Preston Village is one of the oldest neighbourhoods in Brighton and Hove - it is the original gateway to the city and it is rich in cultural heritage and local identity. But today, most people experience it as little more than a noisy, six-lane carriageway, wedged between a Shell garage and a Sainsbury’s Local on the A23.

Renew Preston Village is campaigning for changes which are deliverable under existing City Council policy so that Preston Village can once again become a thriving, walkable, and welcoming part of our city.

Preston Village has been split in half by the A23 and suffers from limited space for walking, air and noise pollution, flooding and high traffic speeds that makes it unattractive for residents and visitors.

Renew Preston Village is campaigning for;

- Street trees and rain gardens to mitigate flooding and prevent damage to property.

- Improved crossings to create a safer environment for anyone wheeling or walking

- Protected cycle lanes and more space for pedestrians to encourage active travel and create a place for the community to gather.

- Bus stops located to integrate with local facilities.

- Parking & loading bays to support local business.

Collectively, these simple changes can begin to knit Preston Village back together and create a distinctive place that is thriving, safer, protecting from flooding, walkable and people centred.

The following 8 items sets out the case for changes to transport and infrastructure in Preston Village on the A23:

1. Rain gardens to mitigate flooding

Preston Village is in a chalk valley on the route of the seasonal Wellsbourne river which has been culverted under the A23 roadway. Poor drainage has caused 5 surface flooding events between South Road and North Road in Preston Village since 2018 which have seriously impacted business and home owners.

Renew Preston Village is proposing the installation of SUDs (Sustainable Urban Drainage) rain gardens in order to mitigate flooding as part of a wider public realm improvement. Design of the SUDs should be integrated into the wider traffic management scheme.

2. Improved crossings:

East / West across the A23;

Improved crossings with better pedestrian phasing on a 'single stage toucan format' accommodating pedestrians and cyclists would support connectivity and build a positive network effect between east and west sides of the village.

Toucan crossings would connect the Preston Park Railway Station,the pubs and shops on the west side of the A23 at Preston Village with other local facilities and attractions—Preston Manor and the walled gardens, St Peter's Church, the velodrome, cricket ground, and the wider Preston Park.

North / South across North, Middle and Lauriston Road

Renew Preston Village supports use of junction entry features such as continuous pavements or raised continuous 'Copenhagen style’ crossings for the lower volume vehicle access to North, Middle and Lauriston Roads which would simultaneously improve the pedestrian safety, experience and public realm.

3. Active Travel

At present Preston Village is not recognised as a transport node in the city but with segregated bike lanes and improved pedestrian infrastructure alongside Beryl Bike hire docks, strategically located bus stops and a wayfinding link to nearby Preston Park rail services it could become a well known hub for mobility.

Renew Preston Village would support a review or study of council owned land to the north east of the A23 & Preston Drove junction which may be suitable for a relocated Beryl Bike Hire station and Southbound bus / National Express coach stop.

4. Reducing Air & Noise Pollution

Trees, rain gardens, other landscape treatments and reduced carriageway space have been proven to reduce average motor vehicle speeds by increasing ‘edge friction’ - the slowing effect on vehicles caused by nearby elements like trees, buildings, or parked cars along the roadway.

Reduced traffic speeds on the A23 at Preston village would correspond with Improving Air Quality and Reducing Noise Pollution

5. Supporting economic growth

Transport and the associated environmental improvements in Preston Village on the A23 could boost the local economy by incentivising more journeys on bike and on foot - both of which are proven to have an associated increase on spend per head in local shops and businesses.

Repairing links across the A23 could also support the case for new development or recreation investment at the now-vacant vicarage bowls site, support the overall visitor experience at Preston Manor and draw footfall to and from Preston Park, particularly during the summer events season.

Furthermore, reducing or mitigation of local flood risk would be a major benefit to local businesses, providing them with greater access to investment and certainty.

6. Improving public realm

The quality of public realm influences how people behave.Research shows that well-designed, attractive streets with greenery and coherent layouts lead to more walking, less anti-social behaviour, and stronger community interaction. People are more likely to spend time, feel pride in their surroundings, and engage with others in neighbourhoods that are pleasant and well cared for, with benefits for wellbeing and security.

The transport changes outlined by Renew Preston Village would entail updates in public realm. which could help to protect and leverage the unique architectural heritage of the Preston Park and Preston Village Conservation areas. Well maintained period architecture creates a sense of history and sense of place. When combined with a high standard of public realm, unique features in the village can be enhanced and celebrated to the benefit of the local community and the visitor economy.

7. Community cohesion

Good urban design prioritises walkability, active frontages, local shops, safe public spaces, and promotes environments that support chance encounters, community events, and everyday sociability.

The pedestrian experience in Preston Village today feels very hostile, unwelcoming and inhospitable. The transport changes proposed by Renew Preston Village could have indirect benefits for the community by creating a shared communal space at the physical heart of the community where local residents can meet.

8. Events infrastructure

Between May and October Preston Park is the city's largest designated event venue with Pride, Brighton Marathon, Comedy Garden, the Thai festival and fireworks night attracting tens of thousands of visitors.

Preston Village is a key corridor and central to ingress and egress of visitors using Preston Park railway station. Infrastructure should be fit for purpose and account for the peak volume of pedestrians facilitating a safer, cleaner area, with opportunities for unlocking higher levels of spend locally from local residents and regional visitors.

1 Contents

2 Public consultation – summary

3 Online survey feedback

3.1 Process

3.2 Survey results

Respondents & their travel habits

Transport challenges

Transport objectives

Project types

Major schemes

Public’s responses

Organisational responses

About you

Equalities information

4 Public exhibition feedback

4.1 Summary

4.2 Feedback on the ‘Have your say’ wall

4.3 Feedback received in drop-in sessions

5 Workshop/ meeting feedback

5.1 Summary

5.2 Feedback

5.3 Survey results from respondents with health issues

Travel habits

Transport challenges

Transport objectives

Project types

Major schemes

Written responses

5.4 Youth survey results

Travel habits

Transport challenges

About you

Feedback and suggestions

6 Annex 1 – List of events, workshops and poster distribution

7 Appendix A – Online survey questions

8 Appendix B – Youth survey questions

9 Appendix C - Organisational responses

	Figure 1 shows an example of the promotional materials developed for the consultation. Postcards, with QR codes to the on-line survey were handed out at events to people who didn’t have time to stop and talk to us.
Figure 1: Consultation postcard