You have heard from me a couple of times before and you have certainly read opinion pieces from cycling lobby groups but at last the electorate and residents along the western end of the Old Shoreham Road have been heard, those who are most affected by any decision.
It is that all our group has called for over the past year and the initial lack of consultation has caused unnecessary division.
Since the overnight installation of the cycle lane along the Old Shoreham Road over 14 months ago residents have not been able to have a say or a vote – not one political party put this idea in their election manifesto.
The consultation run by Brighton and Hove City Council was restrictive in what anyone could or couldn’t say.
It certainly was not a referendum but it was a “meaningful” consultation that gave everyone locally the opportunity to express their thoughts on the Old Shoreham Road cycle lane and other active travel schemes.
It followed a previous survey when 68 per cent were against the lanes remaining – and while I am sure that local Conservative and Labour councillors knew local opinion from their inboxes, it’s good to have a wider response.
We can presume from Labour’s welcome decision to vote to scrap the lane and its planned extension that local residents were unequivocal in their condemnation of a cycle lane that has seen usage go backwards and done nothing to encourage active travel.
In fact, it could be argued that its retention would be an obstinate reminder of failure.
Labour should be applauded for keeping a promise. Yes, they are late to the party. The Conservatives knew for a long time the Old Shoreham Road did not work. But few thought that Labour’s offer to act on residents feedback was genuine. It appears that it was.
The predictable fallout will be cycling groups claiming that it’s a student corridor but it clearly is not.
Students cut across the Old Shoreham Road rather than along it so that they can talk to friends while walking to and from school. The start and end of the school day is an important social book-end.
I would encourage all councillors to visit the Old Shoreham Road and see with their own eyes how poor the uptake has been of the cycle lane.
Instead of trying to spin a failure with the potential removal of the cycle lane, cycling pressure groups should be working to look at an alternative routes along Portland Road or Church Road.
I have already seen potential plans shared on Twitter and both are already popular routes.
The attack by the Greens on Labour was also disappointing. They have no electoral risk in the west of the city. They have no councillors here and never have.
Labour are right to run a critical eye over all active travel plans and I notice this is the only one they have – quite rightly – opposed.
If you don’t listen to the locals who live here, work here and have families here then you would be failing as local politicians. You need to govern by consensus, not diktat.
To claim that every cycle lane is a good idea is as misguided as claiming that every cycle lane is bad.
Active travel has an important part in the city’s future. We must ensure that in its planning, everyone is given the opportunity to be heard.
We all need to get on board and support active travel – and admitting your failures, such as the Old Shoreham Road cycle lane, is as important as celebrating your successes.
In closing, I would like to thank ex-councillor Lee Wares and current councillors Peter Atkinson, Les Hamilton and Dawn Barnett who have always been vocal in their opposition and who genuinely listen to their constituents.
Rob Arbery is the moderator of the Remove the A270 cycle lanes Facebook group.
Getting very worrying when common sense appears to be breaking out all over the place!
‘Active Travel’ is an ablest concept.
A. It assumes all people who travel can walk or cycle.
B. It assumes no one has to drive or carry goods and services for a living.
C. It discriminates against visitors to the city – the city’s economic bread and butter.
While a few Labour Councillors are decent and listen to residents, many do not. Look no further for proof of this than the fact Labour introduced all these ‘active travel’ measures in the first place which are sabotaging the functions of our city by causing more gridlock and pollution, leading to all the public anger, which the Greens have carried on adding to.
To censor people on social media just for having differing opinions when they have previously supported (and even aided) your aims is low of you Rob. What have you been promised in all of this to burn so many bridges? And how hard are you fighting for your Badge members when you were previously in the Argus a few months ago complaining about how the unecessary A259 cycle lanes (installed alongside a safer existing 2-way cycle lane) discriminated against the disabled? Now you appear to be happy with them.
Why should citizens compromise over measures they were never consulted on or agreed to in the first place? BHCC have a legal duty to uphold and deliver democracy and not act against their own citizens. This is not about being anti-cyclist, but about being pro-consultation and pro a consensual sensible transport system which serves everyones’ needs.
Serena I have not been promised anything by anyone. Yes I have and still do campaign to have the dangerous Blue badge bays along the A259 resolved so that they are safe – in doing that BADGE have never, ever called for the removal of the cycle lane, (making these bays safe can be resolved without the loss of a cycle lane).In fact I find it highly offensive when pro or anti cycle lane campaigners ‘weaponise’ disability it is the ultimate insult and upsetting.
The biggest difference around the A259 and A270 is that usage remains high on the A259 and the consultation which we have just had will show a very different result in responses compared to the A270. You say you are pro consultation – so am I and tomorrow we will see the full results and for better or worse we must take those onboard not our personal feelings.
Yes Labour are late to understand the feelings of residents – it’s taken the feedback in a consultation to get them too finally understand, they made a mistake with the cycle lane installation and are now taking ownership and want it removed, (which is far better than persisting with it in ignorance).
I have the backing of the founder of the group and group members. From my very first opinion piece I have asked for a consultation and then that consultation to be acted upon. My understanding is the LCWIP will need a city wide consultation before any decision is made going forward.
I’m sorry Rob but asking the group to email their councillors, thanking them, for what?
Not all are siding with residents & all those that are can see a massive decline in support for them & their party by constituents who have been affected.
By removing people from your group you have shown that as long as these councillors show up at the 11th hour, they can do no wrong.
Where were they when we were outside Hove Town Hall?
Why have they been silent up until now?
They are paid to represent their constituents & it’s about time they pulled their fingers out & earned their wages, not fawned over because they changed their minds at the last minute!
They are completely shallow & you are blind to it.
Could Labour actually become an opposition? I for one will not be sad to see the cycle lane go – it is never used.
Well done to the sensible Tory and Labour councillors for voting to remove this unwanted and almost unused lane. I must say the juvenile reaction from the sustrans paid employee councillor Jamie Lloyd, and the chair Amy Heley only go to show we desperately need some grown ups come the next elections.