Overall further comments
- Many respondents made reference to the scheme being a first step that should lead onto further investment in active travel and cycling infrastructure, calling for PCC to be ambitious and bold in its decision-making.
- The proposed scheme being bad for business and residents was also popular, with parking and vehicle displacement issues also frequently reported.
- Other comments included general opposition or support of the scheme, making it permanent, suggested changes to it, and stopping illegal parking on cycle lanes.
Base: 430 showing main themes
| Further comments | Total sample |
|---|---|
| Scheme is a first step (be ambitious, introduce more and better cycling infrastructure) | 23% |
| It will damage businesses and make residents suffer | 14% |
| Parking issues and displacement | 13% |
| Comments opposing the scheme (waste of money, will not work) | 11% |
| Changes to scheme (need changes before scheme can work) | 10% |
| Comments supporting the scheme | 9% |
| Make it permanent | 5% |
| Will need enforcement (illegal parking on bus lanes is an issue) | 5% |
| Some people cannot cycle (disabled people, elderly people, delivery drivers) | 4% |
| Poor cycling behaviour (cyclists will not use it, many cycle recklessly) | 4% |
| Need a linked-up cycle route around the city | 3% |
“A good start. Please try to be more ambitious.”
“Elm Grove and Kings Road are packed full of businesses and large blocks of flats. This proposed lane really will have a detrimental impact on store owners and residents.”
“A lack of parking is going to force people to park in side roads which are already heavily congested.”
Engagement events/email comments
- It was decided it is important to separately reflect comments from people who took time to come to the in-person consultation events and who fed back via email. However, this means these comments should not be treated as a separate output as it cannot be confirmed that those who came to the events or emailed did not also take part in the online survey.
Supportive comments
- The scheme will make cycling in the city safer
- Make it permanent
- Pause business rates
- Add traffic calming measures
Base: 16 Support
“North of Elm Grove could be made safer by introducing planters etc. to prevent through traffic.”
“Business rates should be reassessed/paused to provide better support for businesses at this time.”
“We really support this initiative and hope that what is a temporary measure will become permanent.”
“I cycle in Portsmouth every day and I would really value the extra safety that the segregated space would provide for cyclists.”
Non-supportive comments
- Scheme is not practical for some people
- The removed parking will be damaging for businesses
- Displaced parking on connecting roads
- Changes are not needed on this road
Base: 16 Oppose
“I can’t cycle. I am old, have many children, mobility issues etc.”
“The removed parking will kill my business.”
“Loss of parking will cause displaced parking problems in the surrounding roads.”
“Why can’t the road be left as it is? I never experience any problems.”
