Councillors have backed calling a halt to work on a new cycle lane on Hove seafront even though opposition councillors raised concerns about funding.
Greens and Conservatives voted against the pause and wanted the proposed cycle lane plans kept as they are.
The reviewed scheme between Fourth Avenue and Hove Lagoon will cost more money, according to an official report, with the proposals described by the opposition as “champagne dreams on light ale money”.
Detailed proposals did not go before a special meeting of Brighton and Hove City Council’s Transport and Sustainability Committee at Hove Town Hall today (Wednesday 21 June).
Instead, the committee was asked to consider a review for a potential redesign of the scheme with a “bi-directional” cycle lane which would keep two lanes of motor traffic in both directions along the A259.
The proposals would also keep the cycle lane going straight along Kingsway rather than loopping behind the King Alfred.
Labour councillor Trevor Muten, who chairs the committee, said that it was necessary to call the meeting at short notice to prevent the council from losing money by keeping contractors “on hold”.
After concerns raised by campaigners before the meeting, Councillor Muten said that Labour councillors wanted to get the cycle lane right first time rather than spend more money making adjustments in the future.
Councillor Muten said: “I want to reassure those people who are fearful that we’re going to scrap this (cycle lane) by this move that is not our intention.
“Councillor Sankey, the leader of the Labour group, is absolutely committed to this. She is passionate to see it delivered, as I am. The reason we want to take this back to review is we want it better.
“We want a win-win-win for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers to use that space in the best possible way. We are not interested in doing less.
“That is my concern about the existing scheme. Why accept less when you can deliver better.”
Green councillor Steve Davis, a former chair of the old Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee, was concerned about the lack of public input before the meeting.
The report to councillors was made public less than 24 hours before the meeting.
Councillor Davis was responsible for steering the project when the Greens led the council and said that he was conscious of the increased cost of a “bi-directional cycle lane”. It was previously ruled out as too expensive.
Councillor Davis said: “I will challenge you (Labour) on your mandate to do this because it wasn’t in your manifesto. This has severe financial ramifications for the city.
“We were in a minority administration. Your party had just as much input into the planning, consultation and design of this as we did.
“I don’t want this to fail. I want safe cycling infrastructure for the city. But it feels at the moment you have champagne dreams and light ale money. We do not have the money to fund this.”
Councillor Davis was also concerned that any changes made to the scheme would put government funding at risk. The council lost more than £300,000 in Active Travel Fund money after the Old Shoreham Road cycle lane was removed, he said.
Conservative councillor Samer Bagaeen questioned whether it was worth risking millions of pounds for a bi-directional cycle lane which is “not absolutely essential” when Labour had expressed concerns about budget overspending.
He said: “When Labour first put forward a seafront cycle lane, it went all the way through to the Sea Life roundabout and that changed with an additional cost.
“When we agreed on the final TRO (traffic regulation order) for Madeira Drive, that had changed and additional costs were incurred.
“The existing seafront lane outside the Holiday Inn had additional turning points put into it when it was agreed in the final report.
“All these cycle lanes that have come in have been subject to some tweaking or another. They are not set in stone.”
Councillors were told that the cost of ending the current contracts had not been finalised but could be negotiated because the contractor had a “framework agreement” with the council and was its principal contractor.
Labour councillor Birgit Miller said that all councillors were blamed when they were seen to be wasting money.
She said: “All parties would be crucified, not just Labour and the Greens, if we go ahead with a scheme that is not sustainable and needs to be changed and amended in less than 10 years.
“We’re still being criticised as a council for having okayed the i360 (loan) on the doorstep – and that wasn’t Labour councillors.”
The eight Labour members of the committee voted for the pause and a review. Councillors Bagaeen and Davis voted against and for the A259 cycle line to progress as it is.
The report will also go to a meeting of the full council for debate and noting on Thursday 20 July.
Like many residents, I cycle and walk a lot but I also have to commute to work – in my case with a van carrying heavy tool boxes and materials, and I have no way to change that.
We all welcome a decent cycle lane that helps us navigate safely around town, but it’s also key to remember that any road is a shared space – and in this case there are implications for commuters like me, and for beach goers, city visitors, and local pedestrians.
This road is also the A259, which by definition is a main ‘A’ road, and it’s also the only remaining cross-city arterial route, from west Hove to KempTown. The road section in question here, is also a bus route, for the state-subsidised 700 service.
The great news today, is that our council are no longer in the hands of selfish cycling lobbyists, and those who would close every road to cars if they could. Under the recently-sacked Green administration, all other road users and pedestrians and the disabled were not listened to. Residents were not listened to.
Can we now hope for better?
As a resident in this section of Hove I quite like the seafront cycle lane as it is, but for sure it could be wider. The generous Hove seafront boulevard currently allows cyclists to use the road as a safe space, with cars overtaking easily and safely, and commuting cyclists actually like it as it is. It’s the next section to the west, from Hove Lagoon to Shoreham, that is actually the problem.
I note that the ‘Kingsway to the Sea’ development is also under review, and joined-up-government would logically have the west Hove cycle lane running along the seafront as part of that scheme. (Doh!)
A rational cross-city ‘transport strategy’ would also look at how we residents get from one side of the city to the other – be that for leisure or for work – and by all methods available. (On that basis, it’s bit surprising that we don’t have a seafront bus lane, or perhaps a cross city tram service… but hey.)
What do we do need right now however, budgets permitting, is for the bigger picture to be assessed, and free from cultist lobbying demands.
As someone who lives just off Hove seafront I’d also speak up for this space, as it is. We have a unique section of beachfront here, where families can arrive and unload their kids safely onto the pavement, with picnics and paddle boards, and other beach gear. This is actually the last remaining seafront section of Brighton and Hove where you can do that – to reach the beach without negotiating several cycle lanes or constant lines of traffic. Please let’s not have more parking spaces in the middle of the road!
There should be no shame in arriving at the beach by car if you live some distance away, and the high parking charges already benefit the local council coffers.
The most interesting thing about this article is that we’re still mired in some minority argument that’s either for or against the cyclists – as if any other discussion, about parking or commuting or about public transport or about getting to the hospital or to Churchill square for shopping – is off the agenda here.
Please think about the bigger picture here.
We have a railway that runs from Littlehampton to Brighton that could easily be run as a metro with a few passing points, no cross over so everyone has to change at Brighton, then the line out to Lewes has no stations other than falmer in strategic places. Would not be the most expensive thing in the world to put in park and rides on these 2 lines out of town which would massively increase the passenger numbers and in turn justify investment. BHCC should be looking at that with a TFL view. Will never happen though, trams will never happen either even though it’s obvious we need a couple of lines.
This should also provide the impetus to remove the existing superfluous cycle lane running up to the KA.
It is very little used, dangerous and causes congestion and therefore pollution. The numbers using the A259 have actually declined. Now that the hopeless Greens have gone, all the selfish nutter cycle lobby groups no longer have the power to influence councillors
Less than a month in power and they’re already over budget with no idea where they’re gonna find the money, if you thought Labour would be competent think again.
Typical comment and ill thought out.
The reason they are overbudget is the incompetence by the previous administration who had already allocated the budget, but don’t let the facts get in the way of your inability to read the various news articles.
Better to get it right and take account of the needs and views of all road users rather than push through a design created by a pro-cycling anti-motorist activist group chaired by a recently departed Green party councillor.
So , Davis is concerned about the ‘lack of public input’!
Doesn’t he remember how the Greens tried to stifle democracy, sent out surveys full of loaded questions and generally ignored what the majority wanted?
You reap what you sow, Steve!
VG3 next – the biggest, most worthless and expensive crock of shyte the Greens foisted on Brighton
Steve – as regards wasting taxpayer money : remind us how much you paid for the Beryl Bikes.
14,000,000 for some 800 bikes is £17500 a bike. With that sort of money the could have made busses and trains free for a year. So if someone who puts that policy together thinks for 1 minute they have any right to talk about wasting money… Lol shows why they were all voted out.
Why the greens don’t stop trying to divide the city shows how inept and awful people they are
Why do these eidits sit in a room looking at photos of the congestion, and a pavement 5m wide which currently has a cycle lane and think, hmm…. I know what will ease congestion and be a good use of tax payers money…. let’s narrow the seafront and build a cycle lane next to one that’s already there on the pavement… are they called the green party because that’s what they smoke before making a decision?
As a local resident i find the pollution caused by traffic filtering into one lane due to the bike lane starting in the left lane is bad.. As a driver i burn more fuel on the super congested seafront.. How is that green?..Also this filter occurs right on the West Street junction so there is a double traffic backlog… As a regular cyclist i find the old 2 way cycle lane adequate.. There are not really that many cyclists using the new cycle lane… But there is a huge amount of vehicle congestion… The traffic flow is not working… Its also very difficult for emergency vehicles to get through… It would be better to have a better cycle lane on the pavement not in the road in my opinion… I live this road everyday! Thank you!
As a regular cycle and car user along the seafront – why would a cyclist want to use a road cycle lane that has 6 sets of traffic lights on it when the pavement cycle lane has none… only a complete buffoon/s would move a cycle lane on to the road with 6 sets of traffic lights – maybe the same buffoon that thought re-jigging the traffic lights would solve the chaos and congestion caused by removing a whole road lane for exclusive use by cyclists west of the palace pier
Why do people think that cyclists actually want to be cycling alongside busy traffic? Cycle lanes should not be on any “A” road within the city. Move them onto less busy roads away from the cars and trucks – it is a win / win move which ticks every box.
The new scheme may not have been perfect but it would be a massive improvement on what we currently have. How many years will new schemes take? Will the funding still be there? How much more will it cost after the years of consultation for new schemes? Will they be watered down in terms of achieving safe travel, reduced pollution etc? Rhetorical questions but I hope you take my point
The climate emergency is our planet’s and our city’s biggest challenge and my sense is the new council seems keener to appease all interest groups than taking bold and decisive action to achieve our net zero targets
Paris shows what can be achieved with active travel infrastructure changes. Car use in Paris is down 40% over last 10 years, air pollution down 45%. Cycle lanes up from 200km in 2011 to over 1100km now. They continue to implement numerous initiatives to make streets safer for children, older residents, pedestrians and cyclists. It’s the same story everywhere. If you build it they will come.
People are instinctively conservative and resist changes that are in their long term interests. Remember the fuss when the smoking ban was implemented? Or mandatory seat belts? There are numerous examples
Let’s become carbon neutral ASAP. Let’s prioritise the health and wellbeing of everyone in our city. It’s an emergency, time is of the essence
The parking is needed in front of the shops.