About 50 years ago 80 houses and shops in Old Shoreham Road, Portslade, were demolished and some properties lost part of their gardens.
At that time Old Shoreham Road had one lane in each direction which was inadequate as traffic flows increased. It was turned into a major highway with two lanes in each direction.
The road under the railway bridge in Trafalgar Road Portslade was lowered by several feet so that lorries and buses could travel along the road, avoiding the level crossing. This became the official route to and from Shoreham Port.
The building of the A27 Brighton bypass and Hangleton Link Road made the Old Shoreham Road even more important.
Given the volume of traffic that it carries, it runs reasonably freely. However, this is threatened.
There are plans to provide cycle lanes along old Shoreham Road, Portslade, which will turn the road into one with one lane each way as it was 50 years ago.
This will lead to congestion and pollution, increasing rather than decreasing our carbon emissions.
I am not against cycle lanes but reducing a major arterial road to one lane in each direction is just crazy, especially a road used by hundreds of lorries and buses every day.
There are now plans to extend the A259 cycle lanes along Wellington Road.
This is part of the official route to and from Shoreham Port and is used by hundreds of lorries a day in addition to general traffic and hundreds of buses on routes 1 and 1a and 700. It has a single carriageway and no space for cycle lanes.
Land was acquired many years ago to widen the road but it never happened.
The independent Mott MacDonald report rules out this Wellington Road proposal on four grounds but the council has nevertheless included it in their “tranche 2” proposals.
The A270 Old Shoreham Road and A259 Wellington Road proposals go right through my ward but I have never been advised of them, much less consulted.
The “tranche 1” proposals are causing congestion, delays and increasing pollution. Tranche 2 will make matters worse.
The council should contact the government and withdraw its tranche 2 application and come up with some sensible proposals whereby cyclists are not having to cycle along increasingly polluted roads due to the delays and queues of motor vehicles.
Les Hamilton is a Labour councillor representing South Portslade ward on Brighton and Hove City Council.
How did labour councillors vote today? For cycle lanes. This is disingenuous
The vote went to keep the existing traffic hold up
What a bunch of chocolate fireplaces
This sounds heroic, these lanes currently disrupt emergency services, cause pollution, risk spread of the pandemic even further, risk of more accidents and overwhelming of NHS, affects businesses, unattractive to tourist.
We currently have a bigger problem to worry about ie; the UK coming out of Europe with a no deal. What does this mean for us. Money wasted on these cycle lanes could have been spent better towards securing an upper hand towards a better economic stability.
Not everyone can cycle and cycle lanes should be planned better with safety and convenience into consideration. Traffic has been heavily congested since cycle lanes have been added.
Labour and Greens backed retaining the OSR cycle lane this evening. Cllr Wilkinson (is he Labour or Green),said we needed courage with plans. What we need now is courage from Labour councillors to vote against all this nonsense.
‘Keeping the traffic flowing’ is not modern transport planning. It leads to nothing but further gridlock. Emissions and congestion have increased massively since the 1970s and this is not because of cycle lanes.
Transport planning is not a matter of opinion. It’s science, based on statistical analysis of movement patterns and needs.
Les Hamilton cites no sources here. He’s also ignoring government guidance to provide safe cycle routes along all major urban roads. He does not suggest how people who live on or near the Old Shoreham Road, have no car and can’t use buses should get around.
Malcolm Roberts
You say ‘Keeping the traffic flowing’. It leads to nothing but further gridlock.
Absolute rubbish. Let me now enlighten you as to why that statement is wrong. Elm Grove, Union Road and Lewes Road junction.
You wait in Union Road then turn left onto Lewes Road, and sit on a Red light while traffic turns right up Elm Grove, the road ahead is clear. Traffic is held needlessly causing pollution.
The same can be said coming down Elm Grove, held on a Red while righters go and the road round to the left is clear and no reason why traffic is held there. Often traffic wanting to turn Right into Union Road block that road due to several Buses waiting to turn, again there’s no reason why traffic is held when the road is clear.
Transport planning is poor at best in Brighton. You may think it’s science based on statistical analysis of movement patterns and needs but clearly not, Elm Grove is just one example. Perhaps spend an hour in New England where there’s three sets of lights in a short space and all of them do little to clear traffic and in fact, create congestion needlessly.
‘Government guidance to provide safe cycle routes along all major urban roads’
Nope the guidelines from the Government documentation has vital bits of information.
We play an important role in supporting the needs of cyclists. That means creating routes that are attractive, safe and separate from traffic to encourage people of all abilities to cycle. Yes agree with that.
For safety reasons, cycling is illegal on our motorways and INADVISABLE on some of our MAJOR roads. But we still have a part to play in encouraging cycling as a sustainable form of transport.
He does not suggest how people who live on or near the Old Shoreham Road, have no car and can’t use buses should get around.
One would ask how many of those people are we talking about, and how do they get around now?
And then why they can’t use public transport ?
Great article from a well informed leader. It’s upsetting to know that our councillors are being so stubborn with this issue and burying their heads in the sand. I’m a tradesman and fortunately know all the alternative lefts and rights to get to Brighton from Shoreham each day in order to avoid OSR. Can’t believe I’m now having to resort to ‘rat runs’ to get to work each day without delay.
Traffic jams are caused by motor vehicles, and mostly vehicles carrying one person in a 1.5 tonne cage and poorly populated sofa. I call on all able-bodied drivers to cycle to free up space for those who can’t cycle (but I’m sure surely wish they could). 20% journeys under a mile – 75% under 5 miles. Who’s the problem here?
An evidence free opinion piece. Surely it’s not cycle lanes that cause traffic and fumes, it’s cars and the people driving them.
Haha, the bikes cause the pollution. This is comedy gold. How about coming up with ideas to reduce unnecessary car journeys, it’s what someone sensible would do.
I cycle and I also drive, but these councillors who are putting the cycle lanes where they think they are needed are certainly not on the same planet as I, I do really think there is a need for the cycle lanes but they are putting them in the wrong places, OSR should be either Portland Road or New Church Road on the Seafront why not take some of Hove Lawns and widen the original cycle lane there is plenty of room.
At some stage either all trades people will not do business in Brighton and the shops will stop having the numbers of people to warrant keeping open, then there is a loss to all the area, I just hope they the people who think they know best will do something about it before it to late.
In my opinion (not that they take note of anyone but themselves) they need to listen to everyone’s opinion and advice and sort this problem, everyone makes mistakes, it’s bold to admit to them.
The council have consulted on this. Cycle lanes in general receive broad support from the general public (despite what it might seem like in the media). It may seem silly to put them on a busy road, but people need to cycle the most direct route to get where they’re going; bicycles are traffic too, just like cars and lorries. The more viable an option cycing is, the more people will choose to ride their bikes, leading to a *reduction* in congestion. ‘Build it, and they will come’ – this has been well known in transport planning for decades, and it holds true as much for roads as it does for cycle lanes.
Think about everyone who drives a car when they could get to their destination some other way: THEY are the ones causing congestion. It would be better if they left space on the roads for those who *need* to drive. And we need to enable people to make the right choice by making choices like walking and cycling much safer, easier and more pleasant.
A Greenie decides to wake up and comment on an article from Sep 2020.
Have you wiped away the Graffiti, emptied the bins and removed the drunks and druggies from the streets?
Nah, just commented on cycle lanes, natch.
Andy Clarke
Traffic jams are caused by a combination of many factors, poor road layouts, poor light phases, poor public transport provisions, increasing population.
Yes there are vehicles with just one occupant, but how many of them are doing vital work, Care workers, delivery drivers, etc etc.
Who is the problem here you ask.
The problem is people’s short sightedness, the 60’s, someone called Beaching who decimated our railways causing people to drive their cars.
Thatcher’s Government who decided to sell off our National Bus Company and many of the local authority run companies, that are now run by Private companies who did away with many routes as not being profitable enough for them, causing people to drive cars, constant changes to routes and timetables and more culling of less profitable routes, ever increasing fare prices for a worst service and more people use cars.
We had a council who did away with a park and ride service, and we start to see the whole picture.
No Andy, Motorist are not the cause, just part of the jigsaw puzzle of many reasons.
Martin, you seem to be unaware that bus use in Brighton & Hove has in fact doubled since privatisation
Andrew
Not wanting to be rude, but what has passenger numbers have to do with a combination of the many causes of the amount of traffic on our streets.
I note you make no comment on withdrawal of some routes, where did all the night buses go for example, or the park and ride, or the increased times it takes for buses to get from A to B.
As for increasing passenger numbers, yes numbers have increased, but so too has the population and we mustn’t forget student numbers have increased massively too.
There’s many factors that cause the traffic problems, as I highlighted to another poster, congestion is caused by poorly worked traffic phases.
There’s plenty that could be done in the short term while a longer term plan is seeked, but it seems our council do not want to deal with it and blindly continue to believe what they do is ‘improving’ the situation.
VG 3 has been officially sited as not ‘being value’ for money and the council have already admitted the new layout will cause congestion, congestion that isn’t there now. Sheer madness deliberately instigated.
The whole Traffic management system needs to be scrapped and rethought and planned to give better traffic flows for Buses to make them more attractive and more thought on joining up cycle lanes.
Martin, I agree with much of what you say about traffic problems and solutions, but increased passenger numbers are generally regarded as a pretty basic measure of success! Much of it occurred due to past bus priority measures in Western Road, North Street, Marlborough Place (pre VG) and Lewes Road (encouraging students to use buses). Sadly, the VG3 scheme will do nothing to speed up buses which are indeed getting slower these days. Incidentally there were no night buses buses in Brighton until the 1990s which is after privatisation and they have always been run commercially. Most are still running, albeit at a reduced level since the pandemic. Dedicated Park & Ride services came and went when subsidies were taken away.
Andrew
Thanks for the reply.
Yes I agree passenger numbers are encouraging and shows success but it’s not all about popular routes. I feel a lot more could be done to encourage more people out their cars. Some route changes have done the opposite.
For example, I have to go to Lewes Twice a week, you could go to Lewes on a £5 saver. A particular bus service used to cost me £1 for two bus id’s (Kids) and timed nicely for me to drop them off at school and catch the 28/29 to Lewes.
Service changes meant, it was very tight when the route was diverted. Then they retimed it away, meaning having to take two buses that meant additional bus fares and you could no longer use a saver to Lewes its a £7 networker. So overnight instead of it costing me 20 a week in bus fares, that increased to 34. 14 may not sound a lot but over the school terms that’s 360 extra. All in and all costs considered it’s about the same to use my car 52 weeks 7 days a week.
I do use the bus when I can but you get my point where people are not encouraged to use buses as it’s financially worse or the service becomes unviable because of retiming’s etc.
Public Transport has become better and worse. As you admitted, Buses take longer from end to end and puts people off.
Yes the park and ride was removed wrongly in my opinion, but it served a useful purpose though not ideal. More could and should’ve been done to find a more permanent site but it is what it is.
So overall, the problem is not just cars causing the congestion, it’s a wide range of reasons combining over a long period of time.
All too often in these debates the Lycra lobby offer up their minority hobby as a viable (or even only) form of alternative transport which it clearly isn’t. Bob the Builder, Patricia the plumber et al cannot carry out their businesses using a pedal bike. Goods cannot be transported on bicycles (including the very bicycles delivered to the shop where the Lycra lobbyists bought if from) and I doubt that many people would attempt to carry a week’s shopping up Elm Grove or Bear Road on a bike.
One anti-car commentator even mentioned people who cannot drive or use public transport but I would have thought that anyone unfit enough to use public transport would not be fit enough to use a bicycle. In this and in many other cases walking would seen to a suitable alternative not creating more problems by putting in little used cycle lanes.
Whilst clearly motor cars are a serious problem the idea that we can just get rid of them straight away and jump on a bicycle is just nonsense. Until a viable alternative is found (Electric vehicles or hydrogen engines?) then we should not be causing further congestion/pollution to cater to the demands of a tiny, tiny vocal minority who seem intent(with the aid of Brighton Council) on imposing their narrow attitudes on the rest of us.