Question 2

Mostly yes

The Chisholme Trail shouldn't terminate at Cambridge North Rail Station. It should connect to the A14 underpass and travel past MCP and out to Waterbeach. We need more cohesive connections.

Mostly not

It will be very clear to anyone who uses it, that the towpath along the river is currently at capacity at peak times, and is in any case not suitable for large numbers of cyclists. It is used by many pedestrians as well as cyclists. Whilst the Chisholm Trail will to some extent relieve pressure on the sections towards the centre of town, and the planned improvements to Milton Road cycling will offer a better environment, these improvements will be outweighed by increased vehicle traffic on Milton Road - which despite your optimism will be inevitable - and the increase in cycling along these axes created by growth at Waterbeach. So, much more effort is required to identify and implement north - south enhancements. The crossings of Milton Road, originally proposed as a green bridge, and therefore attractive and unifying, have clearly been downgraded to what sounds like the worst of 1960s 'New Town' concepts. Very disappointing indeed. Fen Road is highly dangerous for cyclists, and will remain so unless and until the railway level crossing is closed. Indeed, the new route to the Chisholm trail crossing Fen Road will make life for cyclists even more dangerous. What has happened to the plan to close the level crossing, and open a new vehicle access road from the north end of Fen Road to Milton Road ?

Mostly not

It will be very clear to anyone who uses it, that the towpath along the river is currently at capacity at peak times, and is in any case not suitable for large numbers of cyclists. It is used by many pedestrians as well as cyclists Whilst the Chisholm Trail will to some extent relieve pressure on the sections towards the centre of town, and the planned improvements to Milton Road cycling will offer a better environment, these improvements will be outweighed by increased vehicle traffic on Milton Road - which despite your optimism will be inevitable - and the increase in cycling along these axes created by growth at Waterbeach. So, much more effort is required to identify and implement north - south enhancements. 30 minutes walk to Cambridge North is clearly unattractive. So some form of 'internal' electric bus system will need to be devised. For example, to go to Cambridge South for Addenbrooke's, if the choice is between a car journey of 45 minutes or less and a walk then a train journey taking the same total time, most people would drive. The crossings of Milton Road, originally proposed as a green bridge, and therefore attractive and unifying, have clearly been downgraded to what sounds like the worst of 1960s 'New Town' concepts. Very disappointing indeed. Fen Road is highly dangerous for cyclists, and will remain so unless and until the railway level crossing is closed. Indeed, the new route to the Chisholm trail crossing Fen Road will make life for cyclists even more dangerous. What has happened to the plan to close the level crossing, and open a new vehicle access road from the north end of Fen Road to Milton Road ?

Mostly not

The connections to the adjacent green areas are largely irrelevant. The so called Milton Country Park is a poorly located patch of what was effectively waste ground next to a major road. The last time I visited it was strewn with litter and there was a lot of traffic noise. As for access to the river and the so called Chesterton Fen this area is crime ridden district into which I would not venture.

Neutral

No answer given

Yes, completely

No answer given

Mostly yes

There absolutely MUST be safe and proper provision for active travel if we are to build a sustainable community here. This means significant investment in the existing surrounding area - particularly in Chesterton, Milton and the Milton Road areas - to ensure that current facilities are not completely overwhelmed. The proposed Chisholm Trail and local Greenways have not been designed to accommodate the additional numbers which will be brought by the NECAAP development. In particular, access to these active travel routes will need very careful consideration if they are to become safe routes. You simply will not achieve high levels of walking and cycling to and from this area if, for example, the Fen Road level crossing is not closed to motor traffic. Currently, access from Cambridge North Station to Chesterton, the city along the river and the new Chisholm Trail is already widely regarded as dangerous due to heavy industrial vehicle usage along Fen Road and notorious anti-social and dangerous driving along this road. You need to finalise alternative motor vehicle access from Chesterton Fen to the city and the A14 before your vision for a liveable neighbourhood with lots of active travel will be viable. People will not cycle or walk if they don't feel safe (this is supported by overwhelming evidence from Cycling UK, Sustrans and more locally Cambridge Cycling Campaign).

Neutral

Developing the new district around key walking and cycling routes and removing barriers on the routes to nearby areas is very important and all the links marked on the map must be included. However, more improvements will be needed to make cycling and walking safe and convenient for all ages and abilities across North Cambridge and to make sure each route is suitable for the number of people that will be using it. The towpath is already very well used and often overcrowded. Any increase in traffic may create dangerous levels of congestion. Cycle routes across Cambridge are already very busy and sometimes poorly lit and maintained, and despite some new provision such as the Chisholm Trail, not adequate for existing use. The loss of the green bridge across Milton Road will mean that the new district is already effectively cut in two. The green bridge must be reinstated.

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly yes

Breaking down the barriers to cycling and walking into the area is extremely important, so we strongly support new crossings of the guided busway and Milton Road and links to Milton village and the river. We also support the new area being developed around key walking and cycling routes which link up destinations within the site (such as the new local centres) and outside it (such as the direct traffic-free route between Nuffield Road and Milton Country Park). However, there are some urgent issues on the boundaries of the site which will need addressing to ensure walking and cycling are safe and convenient for all ages and abilities and that problems with excessive levels of motor traffic do not cause issues either inside or outside the new area. Existing schemes such as the Chisholm Trail, Milton Road and Waterbeach Greenway are unlikely to be sufficient for the volume of journeys generated by a new area where 75% of journeys are anticipated to be by foot, cycle or public transport. Immediate action to reduce traffic levels in the north of the city is needed to meet and exceed the plan’s trip budgets for motor vehicles and to enable high levels of walking and cycling before, during, and after development. This must include alternative road access out from Chesterton Fen (perhaps in the location already specified for a foot/cycle bridge over the railway), improvements to the Jane Coston bridge as well as the streets approaching it, improvements and regular maintenance of the Halingway towpath and improvements to the road junction and active travel routes around Cambridge Regional College.

Neutral

The focus on active travel as set out in the vision is great We welcome the fact that the new area is being designed around walking and cycling. However, we share the concerns raised by the Cambridge Cycling Campaign around the ability of the planning service to ensure consistent quality of routes and facilities across a site which encompasses several different landowners and developers. The use of phrases such as ‘where possible’ in describing the planned cycling provision provides loopholes which means vital elements such as adequate cycle parking and priority for active travel modes on streets and roads may not be delivered. We also have concerns about how journeys will link up with the wider area. Providing connections to existing routes is a vital step but not sufficient in itself. Many pedestrian paths and cycle paths/lanes around the city, but particularly on Milton Road are in poor repair, badly designed and fundamentally inadequate, even at current levels of use. With particular importance to this development, the cycling provision down Milton Road into the city centre needs to be redesigned and improved as it is currently inadequate and unsafe. Immediate action to reduce traffic levels in the north of the city is needed to enable high levels of walking and cycling before, during, and after development. Cycling provision must be dramatically improved to provide a better mode of transport into and around the city, as set out by the Cambridge Cycling Campaign https://www.camcycle.org.uk/cycling2020/.

Mostly not

I don't like how the traveller communities on the East side of the railway line is being ignored. The boundaries of the Area Action Plan have clearly been chosen to exclude them. Do we not value social mobility and the opportunity for those who already live there to be able to work in the science park? Comments on specific connections 1. This makes sense, the links at the end of the Jane Coston bridge could definitely be improved 2. The link through to Mere way is fine already, it's Mere way itself that's only usable in dry weather. 3. This is a nice to have, but access to Milton Country park should not be a substitute for green space within the development area. 4. These already exist, I don't understand what you're proposing. 5. This bridge is insufficient and does not adequately connect to the traveller community. It should be a road bridge to allow the level crossing to be closed. 6. Not clear why this is needed and sounds extremely expensive. 7. This would be good if the bridge is wide and well designed. 8. Improvements definitely needed here.

Mostly yes

strongly support response from Camcycle

Mostly yes

Developing the new district around key walking and cycling routes and removing barriers on the routes to nearby areas is very important and all the links marked on the map must be included. However, more improvements will be needed to make cycling and walking safe and convenient for all ages and abilities across North Cambridge and to make sure each route is suitable for the number of people that will be using it.

Neutral

The fact that the new area is being designed around walking and cycling is excellent, however, there are very valid concerns raised by the Cambridge Cycling Campaign around the ability of the planning service to ensure consistent quality of routes and facilities across a site which encompasses several different landowners and developers. The use of phrases such as ‘where possible’ in describing the planned cycling provision provides loopholes which means vital elements such as adequate cycle parking and priority for active travel modes on streets and roads may not be delivered. I also have concerns about how journeys will link up with the wider area. Providing connections to existing routes is a vital step but not sufficient in itself. Many pedestrian paths and cycle paths/lanes around the city, but particularly on Milton Road are in poor repair, badly designed and fundamentally inadequate, even at current levels of use. With particular importance to this development, the cycling provision down Milton Road into the city centre needs to be redesigned and improved as it is currently inadequate and unsafe. Immediate action to reduce traffic levels in the north of the city is needed to enable high levels of walking and cycling before, during, and after development. Cycling provision must be dramatically improved to provide a better mode of transport into and around the city, as set out by the Cambridge Cycling Campaign https://www.camcycle.org.uk/cycling2020/

Mostly not

Developing the new district around key walking and cycling routes and removing barriers on the routes to nearby areas is very important and all the links marked on the map must be included. However, access to the city is likely to be most desirable and direct via the river path and Fen Road, via the station area. Currently this route is congested w.r.t. walking and cycling and the Fen Road is considered insufficient in safeguarding the most vulnerable road users. How will this be addressed? The closure and rerouting of the rail-crossing be considered to ensure safety along this route. Access via Milton Road is currently insufficient and has seen underinvestment for walking and cycling. It is unlikely that this route will be sufficiently safe for any increase in active transport. This would need to be addressed before the development would be able to support walking, cycling and public transport as the main way individuals access the surrounding city areas. More improvements will be needed to make cycling and walking safe and convenient for all ages and abilities across North Cambridge and to make sure each route is suitable for the number of people that will be using it.

Neutral

People don't just stay in the surrounding area where they live. They need to travel further afield for all sorts of reasons

Mostly not

It’s a long way to cycle to Addenbrooke’s in all weathers! The current science park workers, who mostly drive in to fill the existing 15000 jobs on the site, aren’t going to leave their homes in outlying areas to move into 1 or 2 bedroom flats in the new district. Where did the figure of 4,400 unused car parking spaces come from and are these to be built on in the new plan? The creation of some of the new links will be very disruptive.

Not at all

Too much car traffic is going to be generated by this for you to claim that this is creating conditions for walking and cycling, the air pollution alone will make that impossible,

Neutral

No answer given

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly yes

Although broadly supporting the principles put forward in NECAAP, I OBJECT to your proposed walking and cycling provisions in NE Cambridge for three reasons below: 1) There needs to be a better connection between Fen Road and Chesterton than the level crossing and between Fen Road and the Chilsholm trail east of the railway. I have previously suggested a road link to Fen Road should be included in NECAAP as an extension to Cowley Road or another road from Cowley Road south of Link 5 across the railway thus freeing up the existing area of the level crossing for a foot/cycle bridge across the railway on Fen Road. NECAAP evades this issue by saying level crossing closure is a Network Rail responsibility. This may be true but nevertheless, NECAAP should contain explicit passive provision or safeguarding for a road bridge to be built in future. 2) The heavy reliance on walking and cycling is not inclusive; there are many members of real communities who are not young and active and who therefore cannot walk or cycle far and are therefore dependent on mobility scooters and cars with disability permits. 3) The Link 2 across the A14 to an off-road cycle path along Mere Way north of the A14 appears to exclude, ie prejudge, the use of Option area 2 in the consultation recently carried out by Anglian Water.

Mostly not

I have to say mostly not because as well as the good cycle and walking links there neeeds to be a road bridge over the railway to Fen Road. The development of the NE area needs to provide a benefit to the communty of Fen Rd who are increasingly finding the existing railway crossing closed due to higher number of trains. Closing that crossing is a Network Rail resposnsibility but putting a bridge or subway to replace the crossing is in practice impossible without the removal of several homes near the crossing. The development of the NE should allocate land for the bridge and access roads with Network Rail paying most of the contruction costs.

Neutral

Additional cycling route through Kings Hedges/ campkin road would seem to be safer and away from buses.

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly not

Cycle parking at Cambridge North Station needs to be monitored by security guards to prevent the high levels of theft that exists at the present time. The plans do not show parking for cycles outside the new homes. There needs to be safe, free, covered cycle parking throughout the development not only for standard cycles but also cargo bikes. There will be added cyclist traffic along Milton Road which needs to be catered for and considered in the plans.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

As so called "strategic" routes I suppose, if the numbers are likely to be as high as expected these routes make sense. As a lifelong city commuting cyclist (big metropolitan cities around the world) the smaller roads will always be my preference and I guess by channeling the masses along specific routes, built for their number, that will work. More importantly is the standard of the road/ cycleway (& for pedestrians the pavement) surfacing - this is below acceptable in 95% of Cambridge and it's a constant source of wonder to me there are not more accidents as a result of it. Especially given the endless varieties of "speed hump"!!

Mostly yes

No answer given

Neutral

Ys but it is long walk into the centre, or even from one side of the site to the other. Increased pedestrian and especially cycle traffic along the river and Stourbridge common will ruin that as a leisure amenity. Residential site is largely cut off by the A14 and the large business park area surrounding it.