A campaign group has criticised Labour for calling a special meeting to review the proposed westward extension of the A259 cycle lane in Hove.
The Transport Action Network called it a “cynical ploy to scrap pedestrian and cycle improvements”.
To read what Labour said about the need for the meeting, click here.
The group said that it was “concerned that the new Labour administration’s plans for a new two-way cycle lane along Brighton seafront are really cover to scrap active travel improvements along the A259”.
It said: “This issue is due to be discussed tomorrow (Wednesday) at a special meeting of the Transport and Sustainability Committee.
“The intention is to not go ahead with the already designed and funded scheme which should have started construction.
“Transport Action Network is concerned that the report for councillors at tomorrow’s meeting is misleading, or silent, on important issues such as
- the true cost of cancelling the scheme which is unknown on two counts – negotiating a termination of the contract and the financial penalty that Active Travel England is likely to impose on the council for not delivering a funded scheme
- the likelihood that a new scheme could be designed within six months – 18 months with proper consultation is more likely on such a complex scheme, possibly longer
- the cost of a major scheme that the Labour administration is talking about is likely to be tens of millions of pounds – it is extremely unlikely that this could be found
- claiming the funded temporary scheme is incompatible with a new two-way route
…
Chris Todd, director of Transport Action Network said: “The Labour’s ambition would be admirable if its real intent on scrapping pedestrian and cycle improvements wasn’t so blatant.
“If its concern was genuine it would proceed with the existing scheme while in parallel drawing up plans for a higher-quality proposal for the future.
“Yet this is not an option being presented to councillors tomorrow.
“The two schemes are perfectly compatible and proceeding in tandem presents the least risk financially and the best deal for local taxpayers.
“If this issue is so urgent, why has the administration waited for several weeks before acting? Also, where do they think they will find £20 million pounds or more to pay for this?
“They might not have noticed, but there is a ‘cost of living crisis’ and the Department for Transport has just cut active travel funding by over £230 million.
“There is no way any improvements, if the current scheme is cancelled, are happening anytime soon.
“What is more bizarre is that Labour voted for the proposals they now want to bin.”
The Transport Action Network is currently challenging the government’s decision to cut funding for the Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy.
It is currently awaiting the government’s response but has already raised over £15,000 towards its legal costs.
The group said that it was concerned that the government and some councils were dragging their heels when it comes to making roads safer, increasing people’s travel choices and cutting carbon emissions from transport.
Sounds like Labour/Greens have already invested a lot of support, money, time and effort into this idea already over the last few years so bit weird to do a u turn now when it will cost more money. Come on, just get something done and stop spending more money talking about it.
Well, our Green friends under various chairs of the ETS committee came up with schemes to take road capacity away from other road users without considering the needs of non-cyclists as part of the secret Labour-Green coalition agreement (AKA Memorandum of Understanding) where Greens set the environmental strategy and Labour acted as tame puppies supporting everything they wanted.
Thank heavens Labour have “lost these shackles” and can now revise plans, potentially remove current schemes that don’t work for everyone, and ideally have a total review of the LCWIP which was setup with an echo-chamber of pro-cycling anti-motorist activist groups.
Ah, our dear anti-motorist pro-cycling friend Chris Todd, as chair of Transport Action Network, doesn’t like a council that listens to all road users and the needs of businesses, residents, families, and the disabled.
I see he was recently whining on twitter about a neighbour of his having a bonfire and he had to close his window.
Says everything about his attitude.
The new cycle lane opposite my flat right next to the existing one the full length of Hove Lawns is little used as cyclists seem to use the original cycle lane. So in effect one lane of the main road is taken for nothing. No thought gone into it at all. Same on Grand avenue the cycle lanes are little used.
I use that cycle lane most week most weekdays and as I ride the full length of it I get to see more than just a view from a flat….both lanes seem to be well utilised and I feel are safer overall for cyclists and also pedestrians using the pavement (being a potential 50% reduction in risk).
As a user you would state that the lanes are well utilised and claim they are safer for cyclists, but in fact they are not.
Disabled gentleman trying to extract himself from passenger side nearly got wiped out by a cyclist.
No chum not safer, just added risk and a crash that is just waiting to happen.
Cannot believe they are planning to remove the cycle lane at King Alfred section. Improving and enhancing what is already there is welcome but removing existing provision definitely not. This is a wide, accessible lane suitable for everyone including young children who cannot go on the road. It is popular and personally I find it the best bit of the lane as you get the sea view. Who wants to ride on the road if they are cycling for leisure?
You can see in the photo the TWO cycle lanes and the very narrow room left for the motorists to get out their vehicles.
Take a good look and imagine someone in a wheelchair getting out that car!
Bloody dangerous and if you can’t see the obvious RISK to disabled and cyclist alike and having to cross TWO cycle lanes then seriously you need some help.
I can’t believe this scheme was actually signed off as safer in the first place, people just haven’t got a clue.
No disrespects but the greens rushed this through without looking at the finer detail and how it would impact others. Quick to get things done but very slow or lacking in proper planning and risk management and as we’ve seen time after time, things have to be changed to make them safer or it’s never their fault !!!
The Transport Action Network called it a “cynical ploy to scrap pedestrian and cycle improvements”.
Can they please explain how these ‘cycle’ lanes used by the tiny minority cyclists who show no regard for the safety of the majority pedestrians are in anyway helpful to the latter?
Any money (whether from central or local government) could be spent on upgrading pavements and improving the experiance of walking for those who don’t want to whizz around on a pedal bike making life unnecessarily unpleasant for other non-motorists…
What changes would you make to a pavement to improve the experience of walking along said pavement?
Painting the railings, improved seating, plant pots, more seating, better lighting for starters.
Textile pavement where they conflict with cycle lane crossing points, raised humps in cycle lane to reduce speed of cyclists on the approach to said crossings.
That will do just from the top of my head.
There’s other things like extending the Volks railway or introducing a tram or trolley bus system as another thought.
When the Greens ran the council, the cycle lobbyists had it all their own way. Now we have a vaguely sensible group in power, a more reasonable approach is apparent. So Todd, Bricycles and Sustrans should ask themselves why their mates in the Green Party got such a tonking at the local election. It’s one of life’s lessons.
Chris Todd, who was at consultation meetings when companies such as stagecoach stated that the scheme would delay bus times and when disability groups pointed out the flawed and dangerous idea that buses would load and unload from the cycle lane, but it suited cyclists so who cares?
A logical pause to get this right for EVERYONE is welcome, better to get it right then put it in and have to take it out. Perhaps Chris Todd and others who know who they are need to be reminded that they are a large reason of the heavy defeat the Greens suffered in May, an echo chamber which suited a select few pressure groups but generally ignored the vast majority of Brighton and Hove.
My maths ain’t what it used to be, but I still remember some of the fundamentals, so please explain to me how running two schemes in tandem represents the best deal for local tax payers.
I think the idea is continuing to obtain funds from Active Travel England.
All those moaning about cycle lanes not being used miss the point. Labours plan is going to cost MORE money. they will face a penalty from central government and in the long run they are still suggesting cycle lanes- they are just going to cost everyone more.
According to the meeting papers and the council legal team the funding from central government is safe and there is no additional cost for the delay.
Of course there will be huge additional costs, but believe what you will
Incorrect, there will be no penalty from central government as the expiry date isn’t until 2024.
The plans are being looked at as there are flaws in it so some sort of project will be going ahead just scaled down and made SAFER.
If you hadn’t noticed, costs are rising that means council tax money needs to fund the balance, we only have a fund of £9.5 m, it was £13m some time ago and now £16m, that’s yet another £3m we can ill-afford.
Reducing the project will reduce the overall costs meaning less of our money being thrown at it and yes there will be some compensation to be paid to adjust the contract but I’m sure that would be the best and cheapest option if the overall costs will be lower overall.
The new Council is already costing tax payers £19,000 every week they delay the existing scheme. Labour voted in favour of the existing scheme after many hundreds responded to the plan. This is a U-turn it didn’t mention in its manifesto.
The existing scheme protects disabled people, pedestrians and people who ride bicycles. It’s ready to go now. The far-fetched alternative would keep those people at risk and would cost up to £20 million – money the Council could never find.
The DfT could pull millions more if the existing scheme is delayed or scrapped – including vital money for the buses and other road projects.
So everybody suffers, particularly those who already have least.
Actually Max the original proposed scheme did not work for everyone. It didn’t work for the buses, it didn’t work for the bus users, it was worse for pedestrians, (with split cycle lanes), it didn’t work for the Victoria Terrace traders, it didn’t work for car users, (including blue badgers) because any car turning right would congest the entire lane. Great for cyclists though!
The delay is not costing 19,000 every week and to avoid that, legal requested this urgent meeting to pause any contract. The DFT have said the money for the scheme is safe.
Let’s get this right and a pause seems the logical way to get it done.
Labour voted for a number of schemes all over the city, doesn’t mean anything, they seem to have seen the problems these schemes have generated and decided to listen to the residents.
Hundreds responded to the plans. Hmm, considering there are thousands of people living in city and their was limited time to respond a few hundred doesn’t represent the majority, I’m afraid.
Huh, current scheme does what for disabled ?
Just look in the photo, disabled passengers at risk by the cycle lane and the cyclist at risk too, do study the photo and then convince me it’s safe.
The funding is already in place and the DfT won’t pull it, the project funding is in place until 2024.
Buses are funded under a different scheme and funding has already been allocated and used for various council sponsored bus routes.
Everybody suffers ? Rubbish.
Once this scheme is properly looked at and a better SAFER plan is put in place then everybody will benefit at the moment, the most vulnerable are at risk.
I think we should introduce a “pay per use” scheme for cycles on these lanes. Road users pay for the roads, buses and trains are not free. Striving to get to cost neutral on cycle lanes can only be a good thing..
Yawn
Believe it or not Chris we all pay for roads and these types of schemes through taxes.
Correct Buses and Trains are not free, if they were, don’t you think we’d be paying for them through higher taxes. Remember nothing is never free, someone is paying for it somewhere down the line.