Issue - items at meetings - Lewes Road Scheme - Consultation Results and Way Forward

Report of the Strategic Director, Place (copy attached)

1.         That the committee notes the results of the second stage consultation exercise.

2.         That, having taken into account the numerous responses received, committee authorises officers to proceed with advertising the formal Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for the Lewes Road Bus & Cycle lanes and any necessary waiting & loading restrictions.

3.         That the committee authorises officers to commence construction on some minor elements of the scheme that are not dependant on the outcome of the TRO consultation process.  This would include conversion of an existing pelican crossing to a toucan crossing near Ringmer Road, involving some kerb realignment.  This work would not be abortive should the overall scheme fail to materialise following the formal TRO consultation.

21.1               The Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director, Place that reported the outcome of the second stage public consultation on the Lewes Road LSTF Project and sought agreement to the advertisement of the formal Traffic Regulation Order for the detailed scheme proposal.

21.2               Councillor Davey commended officers for their work on the project.

21.3               Councillor Mitchell thanked officers for their work. She noted the concern from some local residents about potential traffic issues but also that trust had to be placed in officers that the proposals would work to the benefit of the area. Councillor Mitchell added that she had concerns for a potential conflict between cyclists and pedestrians at bus stops and enquired as to the feasibility of flexible lanes where all lanes would be open at peak times to manage congestion. Councillor Mitchell also expressed her hope that officers had learnt from the similar changes made to the A259, which, was a superb scheme hampered by poor implementation. Councillor Mitchell concluded that the results of the consultation were a clear indication that many groups were supportive of the project.

21.4               The Principal Transport Planning Officer expressed his confidence, on the basis of theory, that congestion would be effectively managed under the proposals. He supplemented that it was essential that lanes be separated at all times as delays to buses and accordingly other road users would be more significant at peak traffic times. He conceded that there was potential for conflict between cyclists and pedestrians as bus stops however, this was significantly less dangerous than a potential conflict between buses and cyclists if an alternative option was pursued. In addition, there would be clear signage for cyclists and pedestrians alike.

21.5               Councillor Cox stated that he understood the wariness of some local people and concern expressed by some residents of Woodingdean which may experience increased traffic flow pressure. He also noted that a high proportion of business people were against the proposals.

21.6               Councillor Davey clarified that the Tourism Alliance had declined the offer of a meeting with officers and Members.

21.7               Councillor Robins welcomed the proposals and the support registered from Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club and the University’s in the area. He asked if a more continental system in which the bus lane is on the inside of the road was considered.

21.8               The Principal Transport Planning Officer replied that this system was not deemed appropriate as it would be complicated and dangerous for pedestrians to cross the road to the bus stops.

21.9               Councillor Theobald stated that the proposals demonstrated the benefits to pedestrians and cyclists in travelling but the advantages to motorists was less apparent. He stated his hope that the traffic model was correct with regard to congestion. He also noted his concern regarding potential disruption caused by the delayed works at the Vogue Gyratory whilst further options were examined. Councillor Theobald also noted his concern regarding the potential increase in traffic on alternative routes and the impact this may have on junctions on those routes.  In particular, Councillor Theobold suggested the Elm Grove junction could suffer from an increased volume of traffic.

21.10          The Principal Transport Planning Officer clarified that there would be a marginal delay to car drivers at peak times under the proposals however; there would be significant improvements to bus journey times. He explained that further issues concerning the Vogue Gyratory required examination which would present a delay. However, this would not be apparent in the schedule of works. The Principal Transport Planning Officer acknowledged that some displacement of traffic from Lewes Road may occur, but that any increase on alternative routes would be relatively minor in relation to the amount of traffic already using those routes.  Also, proposals for improvements at the Elm Grove junction will be brought forward in the near future through the Better Bus Areas project which is running in parallel with the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) project.

21.11          RESOLVED-

1.            That the committee notes the results of the second stage consultation exercise.

2.            That, having taken into account the numerous responses received, committee authorises officers to proceed with advertising the formal Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for the Lewes Road Bus & Cycle lanes and any necessary waiting & loading restrictions.

3.            That the committee authorises officers to commence construction on some minor elements of the scheme that are not dependant on the outcome of the TRO consultation process.  This would include conversion of an existing pelican crossing to a toucan crossing near Ringmer Road, involving some kerb realignment.  This work would not be abortive should the overall scheme fail to materialise following the formal TRO consultation.