Opposition councillors have criticised the cost and performance of a park and ride scheme that was trialled in Brighton last summer.
Greens and Conservatives dismissed it as an expensive “vanity project” that wasted “precious public funds”.
Green councillor Pete West asked about the cost and whether the scheme was value for money at a meeting before Christmas.
He plans to follow up the answers with more questions for Labour councillor Trevor Muten, Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet member for transport.
His questions focus on the council’s park and ride trial over seven days in August which was run from the Sussex University campus, in Falmer. It was used by more than 200 people a day and cost £52,000 to operate.
Councillor West said: “I am grateful to the cabinet member for his response to my recent question about the summer park and ride.
“This clearly reveals the scheme to have been an expensive experiment that made little if any difference to travel choice.
“Rather than repeat this political vanity project this summer, I plan to ask, has any consideration been given to the alternative of investing these precious public funds into supporting and incentivising use of scheduled sustainable transport journeys arriving into the city?”
He wants to know whether the council would consider offering visitors bus and rail ticket price discounts or local retail rewards for taking the green option.
In the draft version of his question, Councillor West has also raised concerns about large areas covered in concrete to build car parks for a park and ride.
He also touched on the cost of setting up a full service running to millions and the lack of plans to reduce the number of parking spaces in the centre of Brighton.
Conservative councillor Alistair McNair shared concerns about the taxpayer “subsidising” each car that used the service and the effect on the council budget.
Councillor McNair said: “It only brought in on average 200 cars per day over only seven days. How many people have they put off with their road restrictions, congestion and high parking costs?
“We are no nearer to having a permanent park and ride scheme. In the meantime, Labour and Greens have continued to make the centre of the city increasingly expensive for tourists and its own residents to visit.
“Parking charges are exorbitant and the council seems keen to put drivers off with poorly signposted bus gates which have resulted in numerous fines.
“Roads are narrower, which increases congestion, and parking for tradespeople and the disabled is ever-more limited – remember the Greens took out disabled parking on the seafront to put in a second cycle lane.”
Councillor McNair was also concerned that if a park and ride was brought in, a future Labour or Green council would make parking more expensive or access to central Brighton more difficult with a “car-free” city centre.
He said that people coming by car were more likely to buy more and support local shops.
Do it properly – build a proper Park & Ride at Waterhall with a fleet of buses and a £2 a day charge. It’s embarrassing for a city like ours not to have a decent scheme like Truro for instance.
Councillor McNair makes a ton of disingenuous claims. However, let’s be clear: this was a seven-day pilot, intended to test feasibility, gather data, and inform long-term decisions, rather than deliver an instant ROI.
Anyone with skill, experience, and intelligence in local government knows that, so it is clear to me that he’s just looking to be provocative, rather than reasonable scrutiny, which, unfortunately, remains a cornerstone strategy for Cons. Political theatre that makes even Fox News appear credible.
1,400 cars diverted in just one week, during a trial in August, is potentially a very strong signal of latent demand. Particularly if we consider the cost to scale such a project is not linear. Pilot phases are always more expensive per user; that’s how you learn before committing millions.
McNair also claims drivers spend more, so we should cater to them above all. But that lacks evidence. Multiple studies show that cyclists and bus users often spend more per month in local businesses because they visit more frequently. Footfall drives economic vitality, not car access.
Let’s also address the myth that Greens removed disabled parking on the seafront. They were simply relocated nearby.
Investing in sustainable transport is important because it reduces congestion, cuts emissions, and supports long-term wellbeing.
The Conservatives? They’re investing in easily rebutted outrage.
The scheme was not used by 1400 cars. It was used by 1400 people. I doubt if every car has just one person in it. It could potentially have been as little as a few hundred cars.
Sorry, Billy, that is incorrect. It is clearly stated that there was an average of 200 cars a day. Over seven days, that is 1,400 cars. If we assume a reasonable max occupancy of four per car, that could be as many as 5,600 people.
Although having said that, McNair says cars, Muten says people.
The trial carried an average of 200 people per day, so a likely minimum of 50 cars a day.
And it wasn’t across a solid week. It was seven days spread over three weekends and a bank holiday.
Whatever else the research has revealed, it has shown that it’s feasible to restore the much missed bus stop that was removed from near the King & Queen a dozen years ago, depriving northbound passengers of a stop between the Pavilion and St Peter’s.
Really good points, to be fair. Even harder to tell what the impact is if it’s also inconsistent. And with a short period of time, most of the usage would have been likely opportunistic rather than planned.
Another Muten fail!
Time for Muten to resign and get someone in who can do the job. Far too many failures for transport since he’s been around.
£10 million invested in electric buses. A successful ZEBRA2 bid secured. Major expansion of EV charging infrastructure, backed by £2.8 million in grants and new contracts. Highly popular cycle hangers rolled out across the city. Improved cycling routes. The Valley Gardens redesign moving forward. Park & Ride under active exploration. Work underway to prevent pavement parking and ensure disabled residents aren’t locked out of their communities. Red routes implemented, with clear improvements to road safety and traffic flow. And substantial, ongoing progress on catching up with years of deferred road repairs.
Nah, I think he’s doing alright, actually.
Don’t mention VG3! A complete disaster in the making
Come on Benjy – the resident council apologist!
Even you have to admit that consultants told the Council that VG3 would lead to more congestion and pollution
It’s less about being an apologist and more challenging statements that aren’t based on verities, certitude, or nuance. We’d had this conversation plenty of times before, you and I. And, I’ve already stated many times before that consultants don’t actually say that in the VG3 reports.
Fact check. The consultants did indeed say VG3 would lead to more congestion and that it had very few benefits
The Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 2 report explicitly concludes that after optimisation, modelling showed three out of four journey time metrics improved compared with the baseline. https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/sites/default/files/migrated/article/inline/stage-2-report-valley-gardens-phase-3.pdf
Hi Benjamin,
Your comment. “The Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 2 report explicitly concludes that after optimisation, modelling showed three out of four journey time metrics improved compared with the baseline”.
Thank you for the link, BHCC can claim what ever they like. However, going back to VG1/2, the council ‘claimed’ the new layout wouldn’t impact bus service’s or indeed normal traffic.
VG1/2 became active 2020, with the council telling us what a great success it is with no impact on bus services. Hmm, we were in lockdown don’t forget.
In reality, all bus service were severally impacted once everything got back to normal, service’s cut, withdrawn, diverted and additional running times order of the day, making service’s worse.
As for normal traffic, hmm, St Peters Place congested most days.
I don’t believe one word that comes from BHCC. I take on board what the professionals from Motoring Organisations like the DfT say, after-all they are experts and have quoted this as being of very low value for money with little benefit.
Tax payers money is not being spent well. £7,500 a day is not value for money for tax payers for this trial. This is just a small insight into how tax payers money is being spent by Cllr Muten. There needs to be accountability for this or it will continue.
Benji
I’ve noticed you have a very specific agenda when it comes to bhc ,the information feels misleading given how the people there actually feel. To be blunt, the long monologues are becoming a lot to handle. I’d appreciate it if we could keep things brief and stick to more objective facts rather than one-sided defenses.
Kind regards
Unfortunately, it’s an age old problem of the emotive agreement is short, and to deconstruct it properly, and objectively, as you ask, needs more than a few words. But, I will certainly try to make an effort to be more salient.
Pseuds’ Corner!
You said:
nfortunately, it’s an age old problem of the emotive agreement is short, and to deconstruct it properly, and objectively, as you ask, needs more than a few words. But, I will certainly try to make an effort to be more salient.
Make a strong worded response
ChatGPT said:
It sounds like you’re grappling with a complex issue, and I understand the need for clarity and depth when addressing emotive agreements. Here’s a more forceful response, pushing for a deeper exploration of the topic:
It’s incredibly frustrating when complex matters are reduced to overly simplistic terms, especially when the intricacies involved demand more than a mere surface-level approach. To deconstruct the emotive agreement properly, we need to push past knee-jerk reactions and engage with the core of the issue. Anything less is an insult to the very nature of the subject. A brief explanation won’t suffice—this demands thorough analysis, context, and an exploration of the emotions, the stakes, and the long-term consequences at play. Simplification does nothing but dilute the gravity of the conversation and avoids the intellectual rigor necessary to truly understand and resolve the issue.
If we are to engage seriously, we must break free from shorthand and explore the nuances, however uncomfortable they may be. Anything less would be intellectually dishonest and a disservice to the matter at hand.
…
Any “improved” seafront cycle lane west of 4th Avenue won’t be seen until at least 2027 – four years after the original scheme was due to be built. It cost the Council £17,000 every week in 2023 (until the contractors could be paid off with a lump sum) to stop construction of the one already designed and funded.
That huge bill is one reason the Marine Parade cycle lanes, serving Kemptown, Queens Park and Whitehawk, are not getting built, let alone “improved”, because the cash from the DfT had to go into the yet-to-be seen “improved” lanes towards Portslade.
A safe, car-free cycle route through North Laine, has had its access days cut by a third.
The previous administration can be given credit for the cycle hangars.
MUTEN-the Grim Reaper of Brighton and Hove !
“He wants to know whether the council would consider offering visitors bus and rail ticket price discounts or local retail rewards for taking the green option.”
Why would they impact corporate profit when they can spend public funds on headline grabbing ventures?
Neither the question asked or your comment makes sense. The local authority is not realistically in a position to offer discounts on travel systems that it does not own or operate. To do so would mean subsidising those services by making payments to ToCs and bus operators. The scope to do this is very limited to where there is a social need and a standard bus service is not economically viable eg the council subsidised Crossways services. It would increase private profit at the expense of council funds.
The Conservative councillor is talking nonsense when he says car drivers spend more money. Evidence suggests that designing town centres around cars is a disaster. You just end up with congested, dangerous, polluted places that no one wants to spend any time in.
Correct. Actove travellers spend a lot because it’s easy for them to pause and buy in shops as they pass.
This scheme only ran for a total of seven days.
In the main it was poorly advertised.
For any trial it needs to be well advertised and sign posted and run consistently for a least six months.
This trial was a joke and complete waste of time and money.