The A259 Hove seafront cycle lane could be extended further west – from Fourth Avenue to the Lagoon traffic lights – if councillors agree next week.
They are being asked to authorise the start of work to turn one lane for general traffic into a “separated” cycle lane.
The work would involve taking out a bus stop opposite the bottom of Westbourne Villas and bringing in new-style bus stops along the route.
The changes will bring 70 cycle parking spaces – some for specially adapted bicycles – as well as 26 parking spaces for blue badge holders, according to a report to councillors.
The £475,000 project works will also create more space for people on foot “including (the) potential for outside seating space along Victoria Terrace”.
Brighton and Hove City Council has also promised dropped kerbs “to assist wheelchair users, mobility scooter, pushchairs and all pedestrians” and better “sight lines” in places for pedestrians.
Councillors are being asked to agree that officials “have suitably addressed the objections received as part of the consultation”.
Thirteen people objected to the plans during the latest consultation and 34 sent in letters of support.
Most of the objections called for a limit to how long people could stay in the disabled parking bays.
A report to the council’s Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee said: “While we understand there is a concern that people may camp out in these bays, the organisation BADGE (Brighton Access for Disabled Groups Everywhere), which represents many disabled car drivers in the city, have requested that no time restriction be placed on these new disabled parking bays.
“It has been said that time restriction unfairly restricts disabled access to the seafront. Some users of these bays have complicated access needs and it can take time to set up and settle on the beach.
“A four-hour restriction would significantly restrict the amount of time these users would have to enjoy the seafront.”
To address concerns that campervan owners will occupy the spaces, the council said that it would monitor the situation to see whether it becomes an issue.
Supporters highlighted road safety and “increasing demand for cycling infrastructure”.
Thirty “pay and display” and “permit holder” parking spaces in zone N will be removed between Hove Street and St John’s Terrace.
This is expected to incur a loss of income of between about £10,800 and about £20,700.
“Floating” parking bays are proposed for much of the length of the seafront.
Officials are looking into concerns raised by bike share operator HourBike about access to the stand at the King Alfred Car Park.
The committee approved the scheme – the Active Travel Funded A259 Walking, Cycling and Accessibility Improvement Scheme – in March, subject to consultation.
The cycle lane extension builds on the cycle lane created along the south side of King’s Road, in Brighton, and Kingsway, in Hove, in August 2020.
The council said that an analysis of cycle traffic in June 2021 recorded 4,897 daily users of the seafront cycle lane compared with 2,641 in June 2019.
The council also said that it brought in the seafront changes in response to a government document known as Gear Change, published in July 2020, which called on councils to improve cycling and walking facilities.
The work is to be funded with £171,000 from the government’s Active Travel Fund tranche two grant and £304,000 from the council’s Local Transport Plan fund.
The council’s Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee is due to meet at Brighton Town Hall at 4pm on Tuesday (20 September) to reach a decision. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
So is there really an increase in demand for cycling infrastructure? This council is renowned for “lying with statistics” and I wonder how many of these journeys replace car journeys and cut emissions, and how many are just cycling instead of walking or catching a bus?
And since 2021 the number cycling has dropped, especially since Covid-19 restrictions have been removed, and people have returned to work and have less time for riding for exercise.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/number-of-people-cycling-in-england-falls-a-year-after-2bn-plan
The Argus posted similar results – but obsessive anti-motorist Green councillors (with support from spineless Labour) are driven by ideology rather than facts, common sense, and realising they are accountable to local residents and businesses rather just than pandering to pro-cycling activists.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/20900111.fewer-people-cycling-least-week-brighton-hove/
You dont get more people cycling without better infrastructure- please look all around the world for your evidence- Paris, Netherlands, Belgium, even London.
The car lobby is alot more angry and self serving than any group of cyclists which are worried about the planet, air pollution and safe active travel for people of all ages.
What is your common sense? Are you seriously just calling for more space for cars? more air pollution? More road traffic accidents?
If anyone can share any evidence that cycle lanes poorly affectt businesses i would be very happy to look at it otherwise you are talking nonsense. People said valley gardens would destroy businsess and they were completly wrong. please follow common sense- when people arent scared for their lives they will cycle to their local shop 🙂
It’s difficult tying to explain common sense to entitled pro-cycling activists that can’t work out that if you take road capacity from other road users, and they don’t switch to cycling then it will increase congestion, or divert along other routes, that will increase emissions.
As far as local businesses in the area are concerned, if they rely on passing trade then they will be negatively impacted unless alternatives parking is available nearby – as with George Street and Tescos.
Better infrastructure may increase cycling, but it will only improve the environment if they gave switched from cars. If they cycle (or use eScooters) instead of going by bus, or just use it for leisure and exercise, then it will offer no environmental benefits.
Love that you try to compare a hilly seaside city with delusions of adequacy with flat locations with plenty of space for dedicated cycling infrastructure alongside rapid transit systems, linked to park-and-ride, that provides a practical alternative.
How much have the various ideological schemes such as being obsessed with cycling, quantitatively reduced, or increased, emission levels in the city, and how much is from national schemes such as the moves to ULEZ compliant ICE vehicles?
Starting with ad hominem Peter?
Clearly even you see how flimsy your argument is.
Yes of course the cycle lanes will only have an impact when people move on from cars, that’s what they are there to enable, and that is why cycle lanes must come before the switch.
Car Delenda Est
Clearly you don’t understand what is being said.
Okay lets try this.
If you take road capacity from other road users, and they don’t switch to cycling, walking or public transport then it will increase congestion on that and other routes that will increase emissions.
Its a obvious statement of fact.
You make a valid point about the use of cycle lanes, but what about those who can’t make use of those facilities, it’s about time people understand that you can make every road cycle and pavement friendly but they won’t cure the problem unless there’s alternatives for the majority of people as well, you know a better and cheaper bus service etc.
David Hett
Hmmm, forget about what they do in France Holland and Belgium, lets look at London.
London have buses every few minutes, they have the underground, Trams and Light railway and overland trains, all these under the TfL banner and Oyster Card system.
What do we have here in Brighton, Buses only for alternative means of getting around the city for those who can not walk or make use of cycle lanes.
Nobody is asking for MORE space for cars, and I would ask you politely point out where somebody or group has asked for that.
Can you provide any evidence to back up your quote, ‘when people aren’t scared for their lives they will cycle to their local shop’.
Or are you talking nonsense.
The evidence on the fiasco that was O S R showed that less people Cycle when the lane was installed. Any comment on that ?
No thought not.
As for Valley Gardens, or Grande Parade to give it it’s correct name is a complete and utter shambles, worse for public transport, confusing and very much looking like a bomb site and a very unpleasant area to be in
“I would cycle to my local shop but it’s too dangerous”
Said nobody, ever
That’s actually a very common complaint in consultations on cycle lanes and road improvements, better luck next time eh?
And the link to this statement please can be found where ?
I wonder how much it will all cost to put right after the greens are shown the door ?
Fingers crossed this is approved. The current seafront cycle lane when it gets to the Western Lawns is far too narrow for two way traffic which will only grow once the area is redeveloped.
More good news.
Glad to see we have a council that puts needs (safety and accessibility) before wants (fast cars.)
Not fast cars, but slow moving cars due to the increased congestion this shceme will cause.
Neither are cars a ‘want’. They’re actually a necessity for many.
There’s something very odd about this news report, which feels like another council propaganda exercise.
The idea that there were only 13 objections to the plans is unbelievable – given that I personally know of a lot more than 13 people in my own section of Hove seafront who objected online when allowed to do so.
I don’t suppose we’ll get to see any full assessment of the so-called ‘consultation’ – which itself made it very difficult to object with the way it asked the questions.
The report here also concentrates on objections about the displacement of disabled parking spaces, as if this was the main drawback to the scheme, when there are many others. For sure, the concerns of disabled groups are a major factor.
But the key objection is that these changes fundamentally change the nature of our seafront in Hove and create a permanent traffic jam for western Hove, just as the earlier scheme has done opposite the Brighton Centre and for Hove Lawns. The negative impact on the area far outweighs the benefits of having a second cycle lane.
Most of us are happy to see cycle lanes – and in my case I cycle the seafront route many times per week – but we question the need to duplicate an existing lane at the expense of commuter traffic and public transport flow.
The detailed objections are as follows:
1) Why do we need a second cycle lane when the existing one could be widened and resurfaced?
2) The existing cycle lane to the west of the King Alfred swimming pool could easily have been widened under the redevelopment plan for the western seafront which is currently being drawn out. Having a cycle lane off the road and nearer the sea is much more pleasant than the one proposed.
3) The proposed displacement of seafront car parking in west Hove narrows what is currently a generous seafront boulevard which allows traffic to flow freely, especially where the dual lane allows all vehicles to turn left or right, or to reverse park into spaces without holding up other road users. That boulevard is currently nice to cycle on, given that the dual lane allows cars to easily overtake. Why shift the car parking, and add plastic wands and bollards everywhere?
4) What we get instead is a single lane road where reduced capacity creates a continual line of traffic, which slows the main cross city route used by commuters and by visitors and those on other essential vehicle journeys. It also slows up the 700 bus service, and creates a bottleneck which holds up emergency vehicles.
5) The existing seafront parking ends up bizarrely in the middle of the road, which is then no longer welcoming for beach goers wishing to arrive safely with a car load of kids, or for those wanting to unload picnics and paddle boards etc. This sort of family and tourist parking is very much the customer base for this western stretch of our seafront.
6) Since I live just off the Hove seafront I can also tell you that the changes to the road will make crossing the road to get to the beach on foot or when pushing a pram far more stressful and awkward, because at the moment we have gaps in the traffic flow, whereas with this scheme we won’t. And we will also have several different lanes to negotiate and cross.
7) The row of shops on Kingsway is mentioned in this report and not one of those businesses want this scheme. But the scheme also affects customer access for the many other businesses on Hove seafront and it really is very naive for the council to suggest that these restaurants, cafes and sporting centres will get more customers arriving by bike. Not everybody is fortunate enough to be able to cycle to the seafront from where they live and our public transport has got worse in these past three years with cuts to services.
It’s very difficult to see how duplicating a cycle lane is any help with any overall, city-wide transport strategy. We already know that cycle use in the city has fallen in the last year, despite what the lobbyists would like to hear.
There seems to be no holistic approach when asking the basic question of how we get from one side of the city to the other. It would be far more visionary to create a seafront route for a new cross-city bus or tram service, or even a bespoke lane for the electric scooters and ebikes that people increasingly want to use.
Instead, we get these fake-green schemes which seem to be about mis-using available funding, and which actually help nobody.
Vote out to help out
Green in name only. Slowing the traffic down increases pollution levels, something a five-year-old can understand, but it seems these obsessive (fake) “greens” lack even that level of intelligence.
I wonder how many cyclists will be using this route in the middle of winter?
That’s w-i-n-t-e-r for you “greens”. We get it every year. It’s the time when the days are short and we usually get bad weather, including rain, snow, frost and strong winds. It’s not merely unpleasant, but can be DANGEROUS for cyclists. Ask your mothers about it.
Every time he speaks, cllr Davis’ nose grows another couple of inches
I wish this council would focus on delivering the basic services that we; the council-tax payers of this so-called city; pay for. Such as clearing the weeds and emptying the bins, instead of self-indulgent vanity projects that no-one wants.
I live opposite the new cycle lane that took a lane away from traffic at Hove Lawns. Cyclists still mainly use the original cycle lane on the very wide pavement next to the new one. No thought is put into new cycle lanes all the Greens want to do is stop the use of vehicles. But sooner rather than later one of the councillors family will be stuck in the traffic jams on board a ambulance.
Hmm, where do these people get their numbers from.
The council said that an analysis of cycle traffic in June 2021 recorded 4,897 daily users of the seafront cycle lane compared with 2,641 in June 2019.
If we check the councils own website, Traffic and Cycle counters, it makes very interesting reading.
Site 951 is located at or around the i360, it tells us the AVARAGE DAILEY is
January 1243
February 1366
March 2107
April 1960
May 3295
June Oddly enough there’s no data available
July Oddly enough there’s no data available
August Oddly enough there’s no data available
September Oddly enough there’s no data available
October 1821
November 1550
December 1158
Now the stats for 2019
January 1716
February 1858
March 1836
April 2174
May 2475
June 2446
July 3136
August 2574
September 2234
October 1700
November 1581
December 1144
Stats clearly show less cycling in 2021, than in 2019.
The next counter is around Grand Avenue
January 188
February 219
March 338
April 384
May 368
June 423
July
August
September 429
October 295
November 321
December 229
and for 2019
January 276
February 193
March 220
April 366
May 407
June 392
July 485
August 378
September 368
October 282
November 272
December 205
Seems to me that the June 2021 figure is purely made up by the greens as the counter was inactive for four months.
Would someone please explain the strange account from the ‘Greens’
The traffic counter was ‘damaged’ in 2021. During Jan to April 2021 we were in lockdown. From May to December the numbers are generally higher. From recollection, numbers on the seafront prom in the summer of 2021 were crazy; both cycling and walking. Cycling increased by a third for May 2021 compared with May 2019; I’d expect that number to have continued throughout the summer. Also remember that Omicron was on the increase during 2021 and there were a couple of big storms in November & December 2021.
Mo
As you confirm, the counter was damaged, therefore could you please then explain how the council can quote the numbers they have ?
Share the space or “this bit is mine, bugger off!” selfishness. Sharing is caring. Obeying road laws is showing respect. Stopping for 3 seconds and then going through a red light while I sit there watching you and I’ve been there since they changed from green in the first place.
If we have another cycle lane, then we need another traffic lane.