Can’t they spare one promenade?

REGARDING the proposed shared pedestrian/cycle route along King Edward’s Parade from St Bede’s School to Holywell - you are right to publicise in the editorial of February 10 on the progression of Eastbourne’s Cycling Strategy by the Borough Council.

However, unless cycling happens to be your thing, the detail of the strategy will, understandably, be of relatively little importance.

One proposed new cycle link irks me, and I speak as a motorist and pedestrian, as well as a cyclist. It is from the Downs (outside St Bede’s School) to The Wish Tower.

It is to be made as a shared pedestrian/cyclist route on the south-side pavement. Funding for this proposed route (estimated at £116,000) is to come from the Section 106 agreement in respect of the All Saints development.

The evidence-gathering section of the strategy document stated that one of the most important improvements for cyclists in Eastbourne was identified as being: ‘a continuous safe cycling route along the entire seafront...’

Then, a ‘majority’ (local) public opinion put a kibosh on that particular ideal.

I’d rather they left cyclists to use the (wide) King Edwards Parade on the present tarmac, than spend such monies on dropped kerbs, outbutting and signage.

Where did it all go wrong that we need the negativity of ‘No Cycling’ instead of ‘Please cycle safely’?

And to call this proposed shared pedestrian/cycle route ‘the seafront route’, as it does in Cabinet committee meeting documents, is a misnomer.

It is away from the seafront - two promenades away!

Andrew Keer, principal transport planner, of East Sussex County Council advised me that Section 106 funds could be used on the middle promenade level.

Eastbourne is blessed with two promenades to the west of the pier. Surely one of them should be made available to (careful) cyclists?


Upperton Road