Question 37. How should we encourage a shift away from car use and towards more sustainable modes of transport such as public transport, cycling and walking?

Make it easier to reach bike storage than car parking! Limit the use of cars near schools, but provide good cycle parking. Good cycle and pedestrian routes to all new developments, including connection to longer distance routes.

• Schemes to increase car traffic in the region must be scrapped. The Local Plan should oppose road expansion projects like the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway or the dualling of any road. Any new railway lines or stations must provide excellent cycling links. The Local Plan should support the construction of safe cycling and walking routes as highlighted by the LCWIP process. • Developments must be planned from the very beginning with the safe, convenient and high-quality walking and cycling networks • All buildings, parks and public spaces must be fully integrated with the cycling network. • Cycle routes in the built-up area should always be accompanied by a separate and dedicated footway alongside them. • Cycle routes must be free of dangerous obstructions and always be planned with smooth curves and full consideration of forward visibility and visibility at every junction or crossing point. • The cycling network and connections to the wider area, and any public transport, must be delivered and open before buildings are occupied in order to ensure new occupants get the most sustainable start possible. • Cycle routes must be given priority both in planning terms and on the ground where they cross roads. • Cycle routes must be ubiquitous, continuous, high-quality, safe, convenient, legible and fully accessible to people of all abilities. • Schools must be fully accessible to people on foot or bike and not be located on through-roads. Access to schools by car should be very limited apart from serving the needs of people with disabilities who might need to drive there. • New housing and development sites must only be located in places where car traffic can be kept to the absolute minimum. New sites should be rejected if the Transport Assessment cannot realistically propose to keep car traffic generation to the absolute minimum. • Highway junctions onto development sites must be kept small, being no larger than absolutely necessary for basic access, in line with the pledge to minimise car traffic generation. Should the county council or Combined Authority attempt to propose excessively large junctions then the planning authority must challenge them and refuse to accept designs that induce additional car traffic. • Buildings must meet an improved standard for cycle parking, with increased quantity and a higher quality of design, including space for inclusive cycle parking that supports cargo cycles, adapted cycles, tricycles, e-bikes and other types of cycles. • Train stations and major bus stops must have secure, convenient and high-quality cycle parking facilities. Camcycle should be consulted about the standards required for these facilities. • Cycling logistics depots should be supported at the edge of built-up areas and provide opportunities for longer-distance shipping to transload cargo onto more appropriate cargo cycles for local delivery. • The planning committee and officers must be prepared to reject development proposals that do not sharply reduce car traffic in favour of walking, cycling or public transport.

The cycle infrastructure is already good in Cambridge and the proposed greenways will be a great addition. Ensuring these are all well lit will be crucial for the winter months. It is important to continue to improve the routes for those who already cycle however this will not necessarily be enough of an incentive so those who currently drive to get out of their cars. In order to achieve this, cars must be the lowest priority on the roads to ensure ease of travel for sustainable modes of transport. The public will be resistant to change so ensuring the greener transport alternatives are a ‘true alternative’ to the car will give the city the best chance of implementing ambitious policy. Make sure public transport is frequent, affordable and runs until later in the evening as well as being easy to navigate. Reducing car journeys within the city centre by closing as many streets as possible to cars. Make roads one way to give a whole lane to bikes and bus and create opportunities to widen pavements. There is often opposition to car free schemes in particular from local businesses, however, precedents in other cities show that creating ‘car free’ zones does not impact the local businesses or footfall. In addition Cambridge is fortunate to be a hub for world class industry, research and business with a high employment rate and should use this as springboard to introduce innovative city and streetscape changes to reduce car use and improve the city’s connections. Policy could introduce a levy for cars with single occupants entering into the city while promoting a car sharing schemes like ‘liftshare’. Introducing financial disincentives must be careful to not disadvantage those for whom car travel is essential due to health reasons.

The biggest problem with people taking up cycling is concern for their own safety, and the safety of children. Cycling must be separated from motor traffic on main roads, travel by car must be minimised on minor roads. The means to make cycling attractive and easy are already well-known from observing other countries with high cycling modal share: safe and convenient routes for cycling.

• Schemes to increase car traffic in the region must be scrapped. The Local Plan should oppose road expansion projects like the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway or the dualling of any road. Any new railway lines or stations must provide excellent cycling links. The Local Plan should support the construction of safe cycling and walking routes as highlighted by the LCWIP process. • Developments must be planned from the very beginning with the safe, convenient and high-quality walking and cycling networks • All buildings, parks and public spaces must be fully integrated with the cycling network. • Cycle routes in the built-up area should always be accompanied by a separate and dedicated footway alongside them. • Cycle routes must be free of dangerous obstructions and always be planned with smooth curves and full consideration of forward visibility and visibility at every junction or crossing point. • The cycling network and connections to the wider area, and any public transport, must be delivered and open before buildings are occupied in order to ensure new occupants get the most sustainable start possible. • Cycle routes must be given priority both in planning terms and on the ground where they cross roads.

Cheaper buses; support for green taxis; more, secure bike racks.

In a nutshell - safe cycle paths for all. There are 12k houses in South Cambs dependent on cars. Why don't more households cycle to school and work? Cycling as a commuter is hard work and unpleasant competing with traffic. And the traffic is bad - dangerously bad. We desperately need an expanded cycle path network to include the surrounding villages. In the Eversdens, we are 7 miles from central Cambridge - well within cycling/e-bike range - and yet the first 3 miles along the A603 are prohibitively dangerous, preventing cyclists from joining the cycle path at Barton. The A603 is wide and straight - we couldn't have a better route for an extension to the existing network...

Smarter ticketing, a price structure on public transport that does not appear to disadvantage some customers, congestion charging for Cambridge, improving bus services so they are more reliable, frequent, and run early and late, are some of the options needing to be considered for the mix. The trend of withdrawing subsidies from public transport needs to be discontinued. There needs to be better connectivity between existing settlements to suit pedestrians and cyclists. Travel hub parking and the onward public transport services need to be at a level to persuade drivers not to complete their journeys by car. New development should be located in close proximity to frequent and reliable public transport services. The idea that people are prepared to walk for 20 minutes to or from such services and combine that with what could be a lengthy trip by bus or train is one that only exists in the heads of planners and developers.

Investment in public transport which is very variable and expensive.

Schemes to increase car traffic in the region must be scrapped. The Local Plan should oppose road expansion projects like the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway or the dualling of any road. Any new railway lines or stations must provide excellent cycling links. The Local Plan should support the construction of safe cycling and walking routes as highlighted by the LCWIP process. • Developments must be planned from the very beginning with the safe, convenient and high-quality walking and cycling networks • All buildings, parks and public spaces must be fully integrated with the cycling network. • Cycle routes in the built-up area should always be accompanied by a separate and dedicated footway alongside them. • Cycle routes must be free of dangerous obstructions and always be planned with smooth curves and full consideration of forward visibility and visibility at every junction or crossing point. • The cycling network and connections to the wider area, and any public transport, must be delivered and open before buildings are occupied in order to ensure new occupants get the most sustainable start possible. • Cycle routes must be given priority both in planning terms and on the ground where they cross roads. • Cycle routes must be ubiquitous, continuous, high-quality, safe, convenient, legible and fully accessible to people of all abilities. • Schools must be fully accessible to people on foot or bike and not be located on through-roads. Access to schools by car should be very limited apart from serving the needs of people with disabilities who might need to drive there. • New housing and development sites must only be located in places where car traffic can be kept to the absolute minimum. New sites should be rejected if the Transport Assessment cannot realistically propose to keep car traffic generation to the absolute minimum. • Highway junctions onto development sites must be kept small, being no larger than absolutely necessary for basic access, in line with the pledge to minimise car traffic generation. Should the county council or Combined Authority attempt to propose excessively large junctions then the planning authority must challenge them and refuse to accept designs that induce additional car traffic. • Buildings must meet an improved standard for cycle parking, with increased quantity and a higher quality of design, including space for inclusive cycle parking that supports cargo cycles, adapted cycles, tricycles, e-bikes and other types of cycles. • Train stations and major bus stops must have secure, convenient and high-quality cycle parking facilities. Camcycle should be consulted about the standards required for these facilities. • Cycling logistics depots should be supported at the edge of built-up areas and provide opportunities for longer-distance shipping to transload cargo onto more appropriate cargo cycles for local delivery. • The planning committee and officers must be prepared to reject development proposals that do not sharply reduce car traffic in favour of walking, cycling or public transport.

Schemes to increase car traffic in the region must be scrapped. The Local Plan should oppose road expansion projects like the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway or the dualling of any road. Any new railway lines or stations must provide excellent cycling links. The Local Plan should support the construction of safe cycling and walking routes as highlighted by the LCWIP process. Developments must be planned from the very beginning with the safe, convenient and high-quality walking and cycling networks All buildings, parks and public spaces must be fully integrated with the cycling network. Cycle routes in the built-up area should always be accompanied by a separate and dedicated footway alongside them. Cycle routes must be free of dangerous obstructions and always be planned with smooth curves and full consideration of forward visibility and visibility at every junction or crossing point. The cycling network and connections to the wider area, and any public transport, must be delivered and open before buildings are occupied in order to ensure new occupants get the most sustainable start possible. Cycle routes must be given priority both in planning terms and on the ground where they cross roads. Cycle routes must be ubiquitous, continuous, high-quality, safe, convenient, legible and fully accessible to people of all abilities. Schools must be fully accessible to people on foot or bike and not be located on through-roads. Access to schools by car should be very limited apart from serving the needs of people with disabilities who might need to drive there. New housing and development sites must only be located in places where car traffic can be kept to the absolute minimum. New sites should be rejected if the Transport Assessment cannot realistically propose to keep car traffic generation to the absolute minimum. Highway junctions onto development sites must be kept small, being no larger than absolutely necessary for basic access, in line with the pledge to minimise car traffic generation. Should the county council or Combined Authority attempt to propose excessively large junctions then the planning authority must challenge them and refuse to accept designs that induce additional car traffic. Buildings must meet an improved standard for cycle parking, with increased quantity and a higher quality of design, including space for inclusive cycle parking that supports cargo cycles, adapted cycles, tricycles, e-bikes and other types of cycles. Train stations and major bus stops must have secure, convenient and high-quality cycle parking facilities. Cycling logistics depots should be supported at the edge of built-up areas and provide opportunities for longer-distance shipping to transload cargo onto more appropriate cargo cycles for local delivery. Outspoken and other carriers already provide an excellent way to move goods into the city centre. The planning committee and officers must be prepared to reject development proposals that do not sharply reduce car traffic in favour of walking, cycling or public transport.

• Schemes to increase car traffic in the region must be scrapped. The Local Plan should oppose road expansion projects like the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway or the dualling of any road. • Any new railway lines or stations must include full permeability for walking and cycling, provide high-quality and attractive cycling bridges and underbridges, and help drive mode shift out of cars and onto foot, bike and public transport. • The Local Plan should support the construction of safe cycling and walking routes as highlighted by the LCWIP process. • Developments must be planned from the very beginning with the safe, convenient and high-quality walking and cycling networks • All buildings, parks and public spaces must be fully integrated with the cycling network. • Cycle routes in the built-up area should always be accompanied by a separate and dedicated footway alongside them (Parkin, 2018). • Cycle routes must be free of dangerous obstructions and always be planned with smooth curves and full consideration of forward visibility and visibility at every junction or crossing point (Parkin, 2018). • The cycling network and connections to the wider area, and any public transport, must be delivered and open before buildings are occupied in order to ensure new occupants get the most sustainable start possible. • Cycle routes must be given priority both in planning terms and on the ground where they cross minor roads. • Cycle routes must be ubiquitous, continuous, high-quality, safe, convenient, legible and fully accessible to people of all abilities (Wheels for Wellbeing, 2019). • Schools must be fully accessible to people on foot or bike and not be located on through-roads. Access to schools by car should be very limited apart from serving the needs of people with disabilities who might need to drive there. • New housing and development sites must only be located in places where car traffic can be kept to the absolute minimum. New sites should be rejected if the Transport Assessment cannot realistically propose to keep car traffic generation to the absolute minimum. Redeveloped sites should be reducing car traffic compared to their previous use. • Highway junctions onto development sites must be kept small, being no larger than absolutely necessary for basic access, in line with the pledge to minimise car traffic generation. Should the county council or Combined Authority attempt to propose excessively large junctions then the planning authority must challenge them and refuse to accept designs that induce additional car traffic. • Buildings must meet an improved standard for cycle parking, with increased quantity and a higher quality of design, including space for inclusive cycle parking that supports cargo cycles, adapted cycles, tricycles, e-bikes and other types of cycles. • Train stations and major bus stops must have secure, convenient and high-quality cycle parking facilities. Camcycle should be consulted about the standards required for these facilities. • All national rail routes, rural bus routes, the Busway, and the future Metro, should include some services that can carry bicycles along with passengers. There should be ways for people with adapted cycles to take their mobility aid on public transport. • Cycling logistics depots should be supported at the edge of built-up areas and provide opportunities for longer-distance shipping to transload cargo onto more appropriate cargo cycles for local delivery. • The planning committee and officers must be prepared to reject development proposals that do not sharply reduce car traffic in favour of walking, cycling or public transport. “A comparison of residential development around Oxford, showed that new housing located near a motorway junction had higher car use than estates with good bus or train links. Subsequent work showed that all of these estates outside of Oxford have in fact generated higher car use than a new estate built on brownfield land within Oxford itself (53% of trips were by car for the infill estate, compared with an average of 82% for the estates outside the town).” (Taylor, 2011) “[Our] findings indicate that the partially-implemented London mini-Hollands programme has been effective in increasing active travel and improving perceptions of the local environment.” (Aldred, 2019) “[By] far, the most popular mode of travel for trips made within the city is cycling. The majority of Houten residents travel to the grocery store (53%), conduct other shopping (70%), run service related errands like visiting the bank or barber (79%) and visit friends and family in Houten (79%) by bike or on foot. [. . .] Overall, more than half of all trips made by Houten residents (55%) are made by non-motorized modes of travel, which is higher than for the city of Zeist (43%) and Milton Keynes (20%). Further, higher proportions of trips made by Milton Keynes (70%) and Zeist residents (46%) are by car than for the city of Houten (34%). A further study found that 42% of trips shorter than 7.5 kilometers in Houten are made by bike, and around 21% by foot.” (Foletta, 2014) “Street layout and design standards should focus on 20mph maximum speeds, ‘home zone’ street design and a network of safe, convenient and attractive routes for cycling and pedestrians.” (Campaign for Better Transport, 2019) “Turning streets from vehicle dominant to pedestrian and cycle friendly spaces involves slowing vehicle speeds (through design), designing parking to avoid conflicts, introducing cycle infrastructure and high quality pavements, and providing attractive street spaces with sufficient street furniture for rest and relaxation.” (Carmona, 2020) Evidence for our response to Question 37. • Parkin, John (2018). Designing for Cycle Traffic. Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing. • Dales, John and Jones, Phil (2014). International Cycling Infrastructure: Best Practice Study. Report for Transport for London. • CROW (1996–2017). The Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic. CROW-Fietsberaad. Ede, Nederland. • Wheels for Wellbeing (2019). A Guide to Inclusive Cycling. 3rd Edition. • Taylor, Ian and Sloman, Lynn (2011). Thriving cities: integrated land use and transport planning. • Cambridge City Council (2009). Review of the Orchard Park Development and Lessons to be Learnt for Future Major Developments. • Aldred, Rachel et al (2019). Impacts of an active travel intervention with a cycling focus in a suburban context. Transportation Research Part A 123. • Foletta, Nicole (2014). Case Study: Houten. ITDP Europe.

Schemes to increase car traffic in the region must be scrapped. The Local Plan should oppose road expansion projects like the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway or the dualling of any road. Any new railway lines or stations must provide excellent cycling links. The Local Plan should support the construction of safe cycling and walking routes as highlighted by the LCWIP process. Developments must be planned from the very beginning with the safe, convenient and high-quality walking and cycling networks All buildings, parks and public spaces must be fully integrated with the cycling network. Cycle routes in the built-up area should always be accompanied by a separate and dedicated footway alongside them. Cycle routes must be free of dangerous obstructions and always be planned with smooth curves and full consideration of forward visibility and visibility at every junction or crossing point. The cycling network and connections to the wider area, and any public transport, must be delivered and open before buildings are occupied in order to ensure new occupants get the most sustainable start possible. Cycle routes must be given priority both in planning terms and on the ground where they cross roads. Cycle routes must be ubiquitous, continuous, high-quality, safe, convenient, legible and fully accessible to people of all abilities. Schools must be fully accessible to people on foot or bike and not be located on through-roads. Access to schools by car should be very limited apart from serving the needs of people with disabilities who might need to drive there. New housing and development sites must only be located in places where car traffic can be kept to the absolute minimum. New sites should be rejected if the Transport Assessment cannot realistically propose to keep car traffic generation to the absolute minimum. Highway junctions onto development sites must be kept small, being no larger than absolutely necessary for basic access, in line with the pledge to minimise car traffic generation. Should the county council or Combined Authority attempt to propose excessively large junctions then the planning authority must challenge them and refuse to accept designs that induce additional car traffic. Buildings must meet an improved standard for cycle parking, with increased quantity and a higher quality of design, including space for inclusive cycle parking that supports cargo cycles, adapted cycles, tricycles, e-bikes and other types of cycles. Train stations and major bus stops must have secure, convenient and high-quality cycle parking facilities. Camcycle should be consulted about the standards required for these facilities. Cycling logistics depots should be supported at the edge of built-up areas and provide opportunities for longer-distance shipping to transload cargo onto more appropriate cargo cycles for local delivery. The planning committee and officers must be prepared to reject development proposals that do not sharply reduce car traffic in favour of walking, cycling or public transport.

We should invest much more into the skateboard community and thier lack of local facilities as the sport is on the rise and the movement is green and susatinable.

There is no subtitude for high quality infrastructure. To get more people to cycle they must feel safe - cycling alone, with families etc. This requires infrastructure segreated from both motor traffic and pedestrians, and continuous (i.e. not running out near junctions or where roads narrow). The assumption should be that if the road is not wide enough for segregated infrastructure then it is not wide enough for motor traffic (that may mean removing parking, making a road one-way, or closing it to through traffic. Without this intevention there will be no shift towards more cycling

• Schemes to increase car traffic in the region must be scrapped. The Local Plan should oppose road expansion projects like the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway or the dualling of any road. Any new railway lines or stations must provide excellent cycling links. The Local Plan should support the construction of safe cycling and walking routes as highlighted by the LCWIP process. • Developments must be planned from the very beginning with the safe, convenient and high-quality walking and cycling networks • All buildings, parks and public spaces must be fully integrated with the cycling network. • Cycle routes in the built-up area should always be accompanied by a separate and dedicated footway alongside them. • Cycle routes must be free of dangerous obstructions and always be planned with smooth curves and full consideration of forward visibility and visibility at every junction or crossing point. • The cycling network and connections to the wider area, and any public transport, must be delivered and open before buildings are occupied in order to ensure new occupants get the most sustainable start possible. • Cycle routes must be given priority both in planning terms and on the ground where they cross roads. • Cycle routes must be ubiquitous, continuous, high-quality, safe, convenient, legible and fully accessible to people of all abilities. • Schools must be fully accessible to people on foot or bike and not be located on through-roads. Access to schools by car should be very limited apart from serving the needs of people with disabilities who might need to drive there. • New housing and development sites must only be located in places where car traffic can be kept to the absolute minimum. New sites should be rejected if the Transport Assessment cannot realistically propose to keep car traffic generation to the absolute minimum. • Highway junctions onto development sites must be kept small, being no larger than absolutely necessary for basic access, in line with the pledge to minimise car traffic generation. Should the county council or Combined Authority attempt to propose excessively large junctions then the planning authority must challenge them and refuse to accept designs that induce additional car traffic. • Buildings must meet an improved standard for cycle parking, with increased quantity and a higher quality of design, including space for inclusive cycle parking that supports cargo cycles, adapted cycles, tricycles, e-bikes and other types of cycles. • Train stations and major bus stops must have secure, convenient and high-quality cycle parking facilities. Camcycle should be consulted about the standards required for these facilities. • Cycling logistics depots should be supported at the edge of built-up areas and provide opportunities for longer-distance shipping to transload cargo onto more appropriate cargo cycles for local delivery. • The planning committee and officers must be prepared to reject development proposals that do not sharply reduce car traffic in favour of walking, cycling or public transport.

New building should only commence once plans for infrastructure are confirmed and funded so that they complete ahead of building occupation. Examples such as building at Cambourne and the Biomedical Campus at Addenbrooke’s and then trying to plan transport links afterwards cannot be repeated as they are locking in car dependency from inception. Housing density in villages should be increased so that that public transport links are generally within walking distance. Reallocate road and car parking space from cars to electric bicycles and scooters. Do not reallocate pedestrian space to bicycles and scooters.

New housing and development sites must only be located in places where car traffic can be kept to the absolute minimum. New sites should be rejected if the Transport Assessment cannot realistically propose to keep car traffic generation to the absolute minimum.

Make the central Cambridge city car free with a surrounding mimimal pollution zone by the end of 2020 - the opportunity for gradualism is finished if we are to meet our targets on emissions reduction. Public transport will have to be solved creatively but within a short time more flexible transport will emerge if we get the cars off the roads. Some community transport will mix with flexible private transport filling the opportunities.

Reduce car capacity of roads by 50%, introduce one way systems, give one lane of every main road to a two way cycle path. Rickshaws in town centre.

Scrap more plans for more road space which only encourages more motorised traffic (eg do not dual the A10) Scrap the Oxford to Cambridge highway Open up the railways, including the Cambridge to Haverhill, the Fulbourn and Cherry Hinton Stations. Adopt Colin Harris' Cambridge Connect scheme which has shown to be cost effective. Plan new developments that limit and are less reliant on cars. Ensure good walking and cycling infrastructure is in place from the outset. Ensure good and easy access to public transport links is in place from the outset. Provide secure parking for bicycles/mobility scooters (eg sort out the cycle parking security at the Central and North Cambridge Railway stations).

It is somewhat beyond the scope of a local plan, but Greater Cambridge needs a considerably enhanced approach to public transport and a strategic network of pedestrian/cyclist routes linking villages with nearby employment locations and railway stations and Cambridge itself. Furthermore, villages within walking and cycling distance from large employment – e.g. Ickleton to the Wellcome Genome Campus (1km from village) as well as numerous employment opportunities at Duxford (1.8km to the north) should be prioritised for residential development.

The Trumpington Residents’ Association supports the development of new public transport infrastructure such as Cambridge South station and the Cambridge South East Transport Scheme and the aims of the City Access Better Public Transport Programme, which should help reduce car use, congestion and pollution. Without effective traffic demand management measures, the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s target of reducing current traffic levels by one quarter will not be achieved. Nor will it be possible to make the associated much needed improvements in public transport. We are very concerned that there must be effective public transport services, the current bus services are inadequate.

• This may be outside the abilities of the two councils to provide, but we need more frequent, more reliable, and cheaper public transport. A single ticket from Fulbourn to Cambridge is £3.40. Recent visits have shown that a bus ticket in Rome costs just 1.5 Euros, while in Nice a book of ten tickets can be had for 10 Euros. There is no limit on the length of journey, and connections to other services can be made within 100 minutes in Rome or 75 minutes in Nice. Is it really impossible in Cambridge? • Although claiming to be the cycling capital of the UK, the cycling infrastructure is still, in many places, very poor, especially towards the edge of Cambridge and out to the villages. The cycle path/shared pavement surfaces are often bumpy, insufficiently wide, and with difficult junctions, resulting in a slow ride. Past improvements are very welcome, but are still located in relatively short stretches – longer journeys of more than a few miles (or less) usually encounter a wide variety of unsuitable surfaces and junctions. The present infrastructure is unlikely to tempt other than committed, regular cyclists to venture out. • Ample, covered, safe cycle storage at dwellings must be provided. A three bedroom house could have four or five people living there. Space for five cycles (easily accessible) should be the norm for such a house, including proper access for cargo bikes. If one or two spaces are not used, then residents will always find a good use for them. You must make it easy for people to make the decision to use a bike. • Recently, in Fulbourn, planning approval was given for a housing scheme with storage levels well below this. For example, first floor one-bedroom flats were approved with space for just one bike which was, amazingly, located in the ground floor hallway of the stair. Policies should be written that enable officers to refuse such applications.

Paragraph 103 of the NPPF seeks to ensure that development is located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. Therefore, the site selection process for potential allocations in emerging CGLP will be an important part of increasing travel by sustainable modes of transport. Land to the east of the Ridgeway and Old Pinewood Way, Papworth Everard is a sustainable settlement where the use of more sustainable modes of transport can be promoted. Papworth Everard is defined as a Minor Rural Centre in South Cambridgeshire District Council's current settlement hierarchy and therefore sits towards the top of the Council’s settlement hierarchy. Papworth Everard contains an extensive range of services and facilities including a convenience store, hairdressers, fish and chip shop, coffee shop and a restaurant, a primary school, children’s nurseries, post office, library, doctor’s surgery/health centre, veterinary surgery, churches and village hall. Development has also commenced to deliver a bakery, microbrewery and Public House on the former print works site, south of Church Lane. Accessibility to these services from the site is illustrated on Connections Plan. As will be noted, the site is very well connected to existing services and facilities within the village. Papworth Hospital has previously been the main employer in the village although the facilities and functions of the hospital have now been relocated. The former hospital site is however positively promoted within the adopted plan for future employment generating uses and is being marketed for such uses. Papworth Business Park, located at the southern edge of the village, is the main employment area. The services, facilities and employment opportunities which exist within Papworth Everard are all reflective of its designation as a Minor Rural Centre. Where people do need to travel out of the village, access to an established bus service which provides connections from the village to Cambourne, St Neots, Cambridge, Huntingdon and St Ives. The main bus route is provided by the X3 bus. While this service currently provides an hourly service, there are gaps in the timetable during the AM and PM peak hour. As a result it is very difficult for residents of Papworth to utilise this as a commuter service. It was therefore agreed with the operator during the consideration of the previous applications on the site that the development would deliver enhancements to the service to provide additional services in the AM and PM peak hours. In addition to the above, Cambridgeshire County Council are seeking to deliver a cycle and pedestrian link from Papworth to Cambourne. It is the County Council’s intention to deliver a 2m wide cycle path along the eastern side of the A1198 to provide a link between the existing cycle path located north of the A1198/A428 junction, and the existing footpath network at the southern point of Papworth. The County’s programme for delivering this connection are not known at this time, it was however agreed that the previous applications would contribute towards the delivery of this link. When delivered, it will provide a direct cycle link to Cambourne and all of the facilities provided within it.

I think there needs to be a stick method to discourage commuting by car as much as there needs to be a carrot method to encourage walking, cycling and public transport. For public transport this means regular services and useful routes, affordable ticket prices and supporting the fight against climate change by using electric vehicles, etc.

Smarter ticketing, a price structure on public transport that does not appear to disadvantage some customers, congestion charging for Cambridge, improving bus services so they are more reliable, frequent, and run early and late, are some of the options needing to be considered for the mix. The trend of withdrawing subsidies from public transport needs to be discontinued. There needs to be better connectivity between existing settlements to suit pedestrians and cyclists. Travel hub parking and the onward public transport services need to be at a level to persuade drivers not to complete their journeys by car. New development should be located in close proximity to frequent and reliable public transport services. The idea that people are prepared to walk for 20 minutes to or from such services and combine that with what could be a lengthy trip by bus or train is one that only exists in the heads of planners and developers.

(1) Major new housing developments should be built around existing public transport hubs or where supported by proposed multi-modal public transport interchanges including heavy rail. (2) The East West Railway is an unprecedented opportunity to provide the Greater Cambridge with a new heavy rail line that can encourage a shift from car use and greater use of public transport and cycling. If properly conceived, the rail line can provide for journeys that combine cycling and rail and road and rail (through ‘parkway’ stations). (3) However, this opportunity could be lost because the decision on the route alignment for the EWR central section is wholly divorced from the Local Plan process. (4) As it stands, the decision on the route of the central section has been made by the railway operator entirely outside the Plan led system. In so doing, sustainable development objectives including the need to reduce car use will have been overridden by the company’s business case. (5) The choice of route will potentially have the greatest impact on the distribution of development across the Greater Cambridge area. To make this key decision separate from the Local Plan process undermines the Greater Cambridge Local Plan at a most fundamental level. (6) Option E announced by EWR Co produces greater destruction of the natural environment than does CBRR’s proposed route, as has been demonstrated by e.g. the Wildlife Trust, whilst providing the least socio-economic benefits for the Greater Cambridge area. The EWR Co proposals are not designed to alleviate road congestion, or to provide commuters with public transport alternatives to the private car. (7) The EWR central section needs to be integrated with other transport networks so as to encourage modal shift locally. EWR Co’s proposal does not do this. Their proposal ignores the need for integrated transport planning in favour of an inter-urban high speed railway that fails to address the area’s transport priorities. (8) 68% of people who work in Cambridge live in Cambridge or South Cambridgeshire. Your website tells us 202,000 vehicles cross the boundary of Cambridge City daily, in each direction. By providing new station stops in existing commuter settlements in Cambridge’s hinterland the EWR central section is an opportunity to encourage the switch to public transport, improving commuter journey times and thus boosting productivity and economic growth. (9) This is such a monumental decision for the area that divorcing the decision on the central section route from the Local Plan process makes a mockery of the ‘Plan led’ system. It would undermine all fifteen Sustainability Appraisal objectives as well as fragment transport and land use planning. (10) This problem is solved by incorporating the decision on the EWR Central Section route into the GCLP making process. (11) That NSIPs are determined under separate legislation to development plans (Planning Act 2008 and Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 respectively) highlights the degree of fragmentation within the ‘Plan led’ system. Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) invariably impact on patterns of land use through effects on land values, transport patterns (freight and people), and the spatial distribution of environmental effects. (12) Notwithstanding the separate legislation, we consider that the planning of NSIPs can be incorporated into the local development plan making process if decision makers have the will to collaborate on this issue. With the GCLP timetabled to be examined in public in 2022 there is sufficient time for agencies to agree a draft Plan that includes the proposed EWR Central Section route alignment as a major component of the Plan. (13) All available route options can then be subject to Sustainability Appraisal alongside decisions on the housing and economic development. (14) The ultimate step of banning private cars from a substantial part of the City Centre will need to be taken one day. The sooner that ban is announced, with a realistic lead time to put into effect the necessary infrastructure and its planning and funding, the better. 2050 will be too late.

Congestion charging. Redesingation of on street parking places, esp in areas already close to city centre and transport links and in small cramped streets - lets have steet trees instead. Make sure everyone is on board and protected, to avoid backloash. Think about needs of, and challenges from micromoblity - what are where are they aloowed? Now think about electrified bikes (including heavy and slightly dangerous cargo bikes) as being a seperate category from push bikes and think whether they are allowed on all the cycle routes (yes to designated cycleways, no to cross-park routes?) Run a competion to design a car sharing toolkit (app, digital interfaces, payment systems and in-car unlocking and tracking systems) and can be used by residents - ie a self-organised car-sharing tool, rather tnan a sign up to enterprise. This is an important first step in weaning off the dependency on 'own car'. Cambridge has an astonishing knowledge base, and a small size to make the cross-sectoral links possible. It would be amazing!

The metro seems a good idea but only if there are stops within the city. Currently I live in an area where many buses pass and few stop, so I have to walk or cycle. Having a metro stop nearby would make a huge difference. The City is trying to install cycle networks for which I am grateful but developers eg of Cambridge Central Station, still do not plan for cyclists. The new cycle path on Arbury Road looks wonderful but in fact provides an ideal parking place for delivery vans and builders' vans. Cycle paths should be separate from roads, with a barrier between. Turn Cambridge into an authority like London that has contrail over its public transport. In the meantime make the Park and Ride buses stop within the city rather than heading non-srop to the centre..