Revised plans for a cycle lane along Hove seafront have been unveiled.
The two-way separated lane will run from Fourth Avenue to the city’s western boundary at Mill Road.
A six-week consultation on the plans has also been launched today to give people the chance to give feedback on the plans.
The plans also include new pavements, loading bays, disabled parking bays and bus stops as well as rejigged crossings and junctions.
Councillor Trevor Muten, Cabinet member for Transport and City Infrastructure, said: “The plans we have for this part of the seafront are exciting and ambitious. They will make a huge difference to people seeking a better, safer and more sustainable way to travel.
“The improvements will encourage more of our residents and visitors to cycle, while and pavements will make walking and wheeling safer and more accessible.
“Well placed bus stops and phased traffic lights will improve traffic flows while the new crossings align with access to amenities and public transport.
“Better infrastructure means we can give people options and opportunities to travel actively and sustainably.
“We want to hear the views of residents from across the city. It’s important to listen to their feedback and I’d encourage everyone to look at the plans and fill in the survey.”
A cycle lane was first proposed along that stretch of the A259 in 2021 and approved the following year when the Greens had minority control of the council.
But after Labour won an outright majority in 2023, it paused the plans and increased the budget, saying it wanted to minimise any loss of motor traffic lanes.
Councillor Muten said: “It was important we reviewed the previous design of this scheme to make it better for the city and our residents. It’s vital we get this right.
“The new-look scheme now provides safer travel for pedestrians and cyclists all the way to the western boundary of the city, while minimising the need to remove traffic lanes and impact on traffic flow.
“We strongly believe in promoting walking, wheeling and cycling through the delivery of high-quality active-travel infrastructure.”
If given final approval, the scheme will be constructed in two phases – the first from Fourth Avenue to Wharf Road and the second from Wharf Road to the city’s western boundary.
Cycle lanes are good but can you make sure they are safe for pedestrians to cross. Cyclists do not recognise that a broken white lines mean give way. Please ensure that there us enough signage to tell than that. We have cycle lanes in the area of Hove where I live whare these lines are totally ignored.
Alan Edmonds
Well said. The give way signs are not observed nor are they particularly visible for pedestrians or cyclists. It will form part of my feedback on the plans.
Are we not thinking about emergency vehicle access? You are not permitted to mount the kerb, must not run a red light, must not block a crossing, or junction in order to allow blue-lights to pass.
I can tell you professionally, that’s an easy route to blue light.
The cyclists don’t ever stop at the stop points already! What nonsense seeing as the existing cycle lanes are empty!
This is a flat-out lie. Cyclists use this route all the time and it’s well due an upgrade.
Hollingdean Resident, as someone who lives opposite the Hove cycle lane, there is some truth in this.
It’s nowhere near as busy as the main Brighton seafront cycle lanes, and that’s because nearby Church Road and Portland road are also east/west routes, are flat, and they are out of the seabreeze wind.
I also cycle into town from west Hove, and the existing section of cycle lane is just fine as it is.
My apartment window also overlooks this Hove seafront lane and I can tell you than when it’s wet there are no cyclists. When it’s windy there are no cyclists. At night time, there are no cyclists. And in winter there are few cyclists. – Whereas the road is always full of cars, delivery lorries, taxis, and buses, 24-7, year round.
On that basis, it seems dumb to duplicate the existing cycle lane , not least because that then puts the local visitor parking in the middle of the road.
Well, I’ve seen a few blue light vehicles crash in the most simplest areas.
Fix the pot holes and badly patched roads before spending more council tax payers’ money on yet more cycle lanes. The roads and pavements have become dangerous to use and should be a priority
The scheme appears to merge two car lanes into one at Victoria Terrace causing a bottle neck. This will obviously lead to congestion and unnecessary pollution. And all to construct additional space for cycling when the existing provision is more than adequate.
Since when was the BHCC transport committee run solely by the various Brighton cycling clubs for their own benefit? Since Trevor Muten took office and started to blatantly abuse his power.
The sort of people who will use these lanes are unlikely to be cycling clubs – those guys are up on the Downs and places like that. The users will hopefully be people new to cycling, going about their daily business, who feel safe riding in dedicated lanes away from cars. I’m sure that’s the intention anyway. And if those people would have previously driven, then that will be good for pollution.
The more people we can get to cycle east or west across the city the better, we certainly don’t need any more prople doing this route by car, especially if we can get them to do it another way.
And as you obviously don’t cycle, who are you to say that the existing provision is sufficient? As a cyclist who uses this route a lot, I can tell you it’s not.
The council’s own figures show that cycling has decreased since Covid despite additional cycle lanes being provided. I agree that the separation of cars and bikes is a good thing but the provision of more lanes will not persuade people to cycle. It is popular for the young and fit but even then it is not practical for those who have tools or, equipment for work, or several distant appointments. I am afraid the concept is ideological, impractical, regressive and suits only a few. And who are you, or anyone for that matter, to make people’s transport choices for them?
National figures also state Brighton & Hove remains one of the most car-free cities in England, and that position has been relatively stable for over two decades, even as car usage and ownership have increased elsewhere.
Cycle lanes aren’t only for the “young and fit.” In places with connected, protected infrastructure, people of all ages and abilities cycle more often. The idea isn’t to force anyone out of a vehicle, but to ensure there are viable alternatives. I note someone has challenged you on this before, do you remember?
Please cite the independent statistics that support your assertion that more people of all abilities cycle more when cycle lanes are installed. This did not happen with the OSR cycle lanes. Even the council’s own (dubious and manipulated), statistics showed this to be the case. Do you remember?
@atticus
So you’re saying cycling on OSR decreased during lockdown?
Car Delenda Est 12 hours ago
@atticus
So you’re saying cycling on OSR decreased during lockdown?
Yes it did and we were given the figures provided by guess who, BHCC’s own transport department.
@MartinNB looking at the figures right now: 2021, when the cycle lane was there, has the most cyclists on record. Cycling drops after it’s removed but still higher than pre-pandemic.
I wonder why motorist’s only seen to care about pollution when the issue might inconvenience themselves.
Surely more bikes on the roads would reduce pollution? Which you yourself seem to imply was an issue.
But more cycle lanes does not automatically mean more bikes. Trying to force people into any kind of activity usually has the reverse effect.
Oiv, I drive a van for work but I also walk, cycle, and I take the bus. All forms of transport have their advantages and their disadvantages.
The argument here is that adding a cycle lane where it is not needed is a misallocation of limited road space, which in turn slows cars and public transport, while also affecting walkers trying to cross the road. But it’s that new traffic log jam which is what causes extra pollution.
I’d add that, as a west Hove seafront resident, and one using a bike, I find the existing west Hove road layout just fine. I already have the seafront cycle lane – which is never busy. But I can use the generous seafront boulevard too, and the wide lanes make it easy for cars to pass safely.
That existing system allows cyclists at different speeds to choose their own space, and that’s already what we do. Slow cyclists also use the promenade, rightly or wrongly.
In many ways, this current system works well, like when they add slow and fast swimming lanes in a pool.
I think the elephant in the room is largely Phase 2, (a few minor issues with phase 1 but generally good). Phase 2 you have a long non segregated pavement area after Boundary Road where pedestrians/ Bus Stops and cyclists all use and the cyclists will be coming down a very steep hill, an accident waiting too happen. Phase 2 also has bus stops that block the entire Road which delays all traffic including other buses? Phase 2 seems a real clusterfxxk trying to squeeze too much into too smaller space.
Just leave the roads as they are.. there is nothing wrong with them and there is more than enough cycle lanes – in fact take out the existing ones on the A259
Waisting all that money, lunacy!!!
1. Fix pot holes first
2. Emergency vehicles cannot pass
3. Single lane traffic is causing more pollution
4. If buses were free to ALL students there would not be so many cars or bikes, e scooters on the roads. It would encourage the students to go into town and spend a win win. Like it is in Glasgow.
You think students can afford cars? Bit out of touch. Their student loans don’t even cover rent. They’re walking, cycling or taking the bus already.
Pedestrianise the whole seafront , re-route cars via old shoreham road .
Excellent idea, so everything will have to go through town to get there…
Did you not see the chaos, carnage and pollution caused, when the road was closed for 2 months along the seafront because the hotel burnt down? The whole city was gridlocked apart from the cyclists/pedestrians. Even many bus routes were being terminated early or not running at all.
BHCC want to be net zero by 2030…. Best joke I’ve heard in a long time, 5 years from now… pipe dream!
If the council aren’t willing to listen to the people and chose to go ahead with the plans anyway I’d suggest people start looking into how you’re not legally obliged to pay council tax. It’s an illusion anyway.
The big misunderstanding is thinking consultations give you control. They don’t. You can help guide aspects of a project, but you can’t fundamentally stop or redesign it – that decision was made long before public input began.
Also, utter nonsense about the council tax. Council tax is a statutory tax under the Local Government Finance Act 1992. All occupiers of eligible domestic property in the UK are legally required to pay unless they qualify for exemptions or reductions.
Speaking of illusions…
I just watched the graphic, and I’m shocked just how bad this is.
I really don’t know where to start, given how out of touch this is with modern needs.
What has happened to the Labour group?
Well, I assume they aren’t graphic designers and animators.
Care to elaborate?
Hovish Man, I’ve since added several other comments here, which might explain my point of view.
But I initially watched that graphic and was totally shocked by it, simply because it’s way worse a plan than what we have now – and that’s despite all the spin and hype we are getting from the transport department.
I feel the BHCC transport department are living in their own bubble where they have had long term plans they’ve wanted to push through for years, and these are out-of-date ideological plans they just can’t let go of. The same muddled thinking state-captured that department years ago, and you have to wonder whether they are still wearing tight lycra in the staff tea room while those of us commuters on slow buses or stuck in traffic jams just want to get home.
At some point a cycle network was laid out on a flat paper map and cycle groups got behind that. And now, decades on, post covid, and despite hilly areas where people actually don’t want to cycle, the transport department and cycle lobby ethos is we must achieve the original goal, because that is their faith.
It’s like cult thinking. They follow their own path even where it becomes obvious self harm.
We saw this with the Old Shoreham Road cycle lane – which NOBODY used. And the green cycle Madeira Drive motorway, added during that Green-led Covid schism, is similarly another grandiose guesture of madness – totally mucking up that space for the majority of its regular users.
Looking forward to them fixing the mess that is the current badly designed system. For those that say take a bus instead of cycle, how about you get out of your car and do the same? Not all cyclists cycle just because it’s a cheap way to get from a to b. Its often more a convenient, more enjoyable and more healthy way to travel. Buses never go exactly where you want and are often slow or have terrible timetables. I have a car but prefer to cycle in town. Being both a driver and a cyclist, I realise just how bad most of the cycles routes are around Brighton.
Fair enough.
I seem to recall the Kingsway phase lost £1 million annual income from parking.
So:
How many parking spaces will be lost to this scheme?
How much revenue is that annually?
What revenue is generated by having cycle lanes?
Can we afford this?
I support more cycle lanes but the loss of Kingsway parking was a huge waste. That phase wasted so much space when the pavement was perfectly wide enough to incorporate a new cycle path. The new phase could definitely still route via king Alfred’s to avoid losing more parking spaces.
To clarify, the £1 million referred to a citywide reduction in income from parking, and was not attributed to Kingsway. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be specific figures for Kingsway.
Being part of that consultation it was about £35000 a year I think, (obviously at prices during the consultation).
Doesn’t matter what anyone says yhe council will just do what they want anyways. They laugh at us.
The big misunderstanding is thinking consultations give you control. They don’t. You can help guide aspects of a project, but you can’t fundamentally stop or redesign it – that decision was made long before public input began.
The idea for consultations is as you say guide, but also indicate where these designs will impact other area’s that have not been considered at the initial planning stage. I indicated before the removal of the bus stops from outside the Pavilion will mean increased buses around Castle Square/Memorial.
You say the design can’t be changed, but you are mistaken, the plans have been adjusted a couple of times now. The original plan had the cycle lane going right through a Tree… meaning a redraft of the plans that also resulted in a few minor tweaks.
That’s a fair point, consultation do have an impact, and maybe it is more accurate to say it’s more limited to tweaks compared to major overhauls? And through a tree, you say? Wow, that seems…dumb?
The electric scooters and bikes are the real problem. One passed me riding outside the empty cycle yesterday and must have been travelling at 25 mph. 51m on the i360 and now this. Come on! Let’s get down to what we really need. Safer communities. Repaired roads. Cheaper council tax. Bins collected on time. Unbelievable.
But none of that relates to electric scooters?
We will all go through the various debates and the council will just do what they want anyway
It’s fascinating to see the sudden surge of concern for pollution from some motorists, isn’t it?
One can’t help but notice how this newfound environmental consciousness seems to coincide perfectly with the proposal of safer routes that might, heaven forbid, slightly inconvenience their daily commute. It’s almost as if the air quality only becomes an issue when it’s their time that’s affected.
Hollingdean Resident
It’s fascinating to know Hollingdean Resident hasn’t been keeping up with the rest of us being this subject has been on the menu for some time and the flaws, problems and chaos it will cause has been highlighted since day one, so hardly a sudden surge of concern for pollution.
I would also point out, concerns have been raised from some cyclist, transport companies, the general public, businesses, local residents to name just a few so not from motorists.
DO PAY ATTENTION AND TRY KEEP UP FROM NOW ON.
Delayed for over a year to make sure the motorists don’t lose out but of course they still aren’t happy.
Some people just want something to complain about.
That said I do have something to complain about 😅
Seems like they got to Saxon Road before anyone remembered cyclists would need a dropped kerb to actually get onto the cycle lane..
Why us there always so much drama over anything to do with bike-lanes ?
So many victims in the comments section.
Looks amazing, it’s long over due to provide safe cycle routes for people along the seafront.
There is already a cycle lane as far as Hove Lagoon, some of it on the seafront, where cyclists want to be, rather than on the main road (and I speak as a cyclist who is happy with the way things are). This proposal is an outrageous and unnecessary waste of public money when there are dangerous pot holes to be fixed and will damage all businesses along this stretch including the new Hove to the Sea park as even more visitor parking will be removed in the process. All these blocky artist’s impressions are also very worrying. Will anyone still be able to see the sea at all or will there be high rise as far as the eye can see?
Things were much better when people just walked everywhere.
Un-invent the wheel i say
Maybe spend some money on the existing cycle lanes? Make them safe for pedestrians, rumble strips at Give Way points, educating the cycling community that ringing a bell as you cross a Give Way job action is a bit rubbish and selfish as well as dangerous. Paint, repaint the cycle lanes you’ve just left because you can’t be arsed and it doesn’t grab a headline?
The pot holes are dangerous for ALL road users including cyclists and pedestrians. If the council can be sued for someone tripping over a loose paving slab, how is it we are not seeing hundreds of compensation pay outs for the pot holes? Either health and safety matters or it doesn’t.
BHCC could we please have the data you have collected on how many cyclists use the two cycle lanes already in place along the seafront going in different directions. More specifically, the data of the days when it’s dark before 8am and after 4pm. SWhen it’s hammering down with heavy rainfall and we have wind warnings in place from the met office. How many cyclists use the lanes then, then can we compare that to vehicles travelling alongside them on the road all at the same time? How many cyclists to motorists then?
Oh and why gathering me that data, could you also explain to us, how the emergency services will be able to make quick, timely and good access through this when on an emergency call with one lane of traffic either side and a central reservation, where are the other road users supposed to go in that instance to make way for the emergency calls and responding? Even more lives lost unnecessarily. Or perhaps you have an idea on how a bicycle may be able to carry the appropriate equipment to deal with an emergency situation eg. A defibrillator, or stretcher a fire hose or a police dog or police firearms equipment to make sure they can reach the people that need that need that in a life or death emergency situation.
Oh and lastly, I seem to remember a news article very recently about the newly installed cycle lanes around the city already, not being safe or fit for purpose. So how could you even be considering more carnage when you can’t cope with the demands from the current infrastructure you’ve already tried to make better? New and old installed cycle lanes dangerous and unsafe, new and old installed roads, full of pot holes, dangerous and unsafe.
Not every one can ride a bike because they’ve never been taught, learnt or are may not able to, let alone disabled and ill folk of the city who struggle to board a bus or train. Let alone ride a Bicycle
This is ludicrous, dreadful, badly planned and not thought out well. And most of all, discriminating and penalising some of the most vulnerable members in our city and society who may use a vehicle or a relatives vehicle to keep their freedom and independence…..ll
It’s good to see Hove Beach Park, which was funded by the previous Conservative government, is still attracting investment.
However, many residents will see a significant amount of money continuing to be spent on cyclists who often do not stick to the cycle lanes but encroach on space given to pedestrians endangering their safety.
Shared pedestrian and cycle lanes and crossings, which are proposed as part of the project, are not pedestrian-friendly.
While the Active Travel England funding can’t be spent on potholes, the council is also spending nearly £3m on this over three years which could have been used in different ways.
Labour is always shouting that they are a listening council. With this consultation, they have an opportunity to prove it by ensuring that changes suggested by local residents who will live near the scheme are considered and hopefully adopted, especially shop owners, families and disabled.
The new cycle lane in Preston Road has also not been well-designed with cyclists writing to me and other councillors describing the accidents they have had. We hope the build quality of this seafront development will be better.
Drivers may be dismayed to hear there will be even more roadworks for years to come with little benefit for them. The city will be in danger of grinding to a halt.
Long term, driving through Brighton and Hove may be impacted with increased congestion and slower journey times.
This may put off visitors at a time when our high street is struggling with higher taxation.
This development may bring improvements but will inevitably cause a great deal of disruption while being built.
We hope the council works closely with the developers to hope disruption is kept to a minimum, the work is finished promptly and the channels of communication for residents to express concerns are clear and easy to access.”
In regards to this “exciting initiative”, the council are asking the same questions over & over because they are not getting the answers that they want. As a directly affected business owner I sat in on all of the forums held for the first proposals to include Victoria Terrace, where there was absolutely zero appetite for it by stakeholders and many objections. When I pointed this out to one of the Councillors, he responded by telling me that it is only councillors who make the decisions (at which point was him for the Greens and another for the Labour Party and that they both approved). He told me that if the money allocated for this by central government wasn’t used for this purpose it would need to be returned, and they didn’t want to do that. So much for democracy.
There is a perfectly good esplanade which includes cycle lanes and could be easily adapted with a bit of thinking to benefit everyone including cyclists, many of which choose to ride on the pavements anyway.
There have been so many other “exciting initiatives” to constrict traffic flow such as OSR, Marine Parade & VG3 to name but a few which have and are causing congestion and increasing pollution. This is just another. My money’s on a congestion charge on the blueprint waiting in the wings once they tell us that the emissions have dramatically increased. Go figure.
The survey on the projects page is currently unavailable for this initiative. A convenient coincidence? Perhaps. I’ve reported it to the Council and will now wait and see.
Problem is with a lot of these cycle lanes is once your in it you can not get out of it to turn right or left so I end up just cycling in the road anyway.
Another problem is when they cross over with pedestrians like the old stein which in my opinion is an absolute mess for everyone to use!