Question 2

Mostly not

Local sustainable transport routes e.g. into the city are not going to be sufficient. E.g. the future GCP Milton Road scheme already has sub-standard cycling provision proposed (including removal of the existing two-way cycle routes are are already heavily used at peak times), and which mainly concentrates as much on motor vehicle provision above cycling/walking. The riverside path into into the city (which will be fed from this development via the new Chilsholm bridge) is already overcrowed at times, and cannot handle traffic from tens of thousands of new residents. The scheme should have better cycling provision, which would encourage sustainable transport, and should not have thousands of many car parking spaces provied, which just encourages car use. My family does not have a car and Cambridge is completely possible to live in without one, provided that cycle links were provided / upgraded in a serious way for each new development (which does not generally happen, unfortunately). Cambridge North station is currently not suitable for access via bicycle due to insecure cycle parking there (which would also be insufficient should such a large number of homes be built within cycling distance of it).

Yes, completely

No answer given

Neutral

Very pleased that this design focusses on walking and cycling and routes seem to be well connected to the surrounding area. Both kinds of travellers would certainly a better experience if the area was not so dense. Overcrowding brings inevitable problems with walkers, cyclist and others fighting for their own space. I support the responses from MRRA and HPERA

Mostly yes

The site will need to take advantage of additional walking, cycling and public transport links currently being planned such as cycle routes from Waterbeach and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and the GCP’s Waterbeach to Science Park public transport link. Public transport to the city centre and other areas of the city will also be key to further reducing the car mode share of the site. The CPCA’s plans for CAM will contribute to this offer if a tunnelled section from the city centre connects into the site and eventually incorporates the St Ives and Waterbeach extensions. Connections into these links are well identified in the spatial framework however it will be critical for the detailed design of each area to ensure that a cohesive network of cycle and walking routes is created throughout the area. The section on mobility hubs in policy 19 is welcomed as a means of trying to provide sufficient flexible space to accommodate new and emerging technologies. Milton Road currently severs the east and west sides of the AAP area and is an inhospitable road to cross for pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised users. The plan contains proposals to provide segregated crossings of Milton Road for these groups. The principle of these is supported but it is noted that much more work is required as the detailed planning of the site comes forward to work up the exact design of these and input from the highway authority will be required throughout.

Mostly not

No answer given

Yes, completely

These are all important links and several of them would make it easier for me to travel safely in the area with my young children. It is important that these links are delivered before the development is progressed, both to benefit existing users, and establish usage patterns before anyone moves in. If safe connections are not in place when homes are occupied, people will form car-based habits that are much more difficult to break once established.

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Neutral

I welcome the fact that the new area is being designed around walking and cycling. However, I 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. 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 any 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 yes

It is a good start. Strong connections with the Chisholm Trail (not entirely clear on the map) will be required to enable access to the city centre and beyond. Also provision for secure storage of bikes across the whole area.

Not at all

As the plan has insufficient amenities for this enormous number of homes, many people will need to travel further to reach the ones they can access, which will invariably involve using cars. For families especially, getting to work, children to school, visiting the doctor, shopping and leisure activities takes time, and if these facilities are not nearby they will want to use a car to enable them to do so. A new plan, with more amenities added, would need a new plan for walking and cycling connections. Was this plan formulated before the new plans for Milton Road were made? This development would invariably affect traffic using that road enormously, yet there was nothing mentioned about it during all the planning and consulting which has taken place during the last 4 or 5 years. Your plan says that there would be 'no additional vehicle movements' on Milton or Kings Hedges Road, but that is entirely unrealistic.

Mostly not

The Chilsholm trail is a brilliant idea. But it too disjointed and doesn't make easy navigation. This site needs to take a holistic view as to how to link into this and make a "ring road" for walking and cycling which is safe. I live in Chesterton and am a 20 minute walk from the Cambridge north Station. But the access route is via Moss Bank and Fen Road which is too dangerous to walk after dark. I prefer to drive and park to the central station then do this. I am like many who don't cycle in Cambridge for a number of reasons.

Neutral

Probably ok for the able bodied and therefore commendable, but with no mention of any provisions for people with disabilities, yet again I do not feel included. The scheme would require an improved, fully integrated public transport system through out the city not just in this area.

Neutral

• Encouraging walking and cycling is a good thing, but as this development is being planned in isolation from the rest of Cambridge and Cambridgeshire, how it will interface with existing walking and cycling facilities is questionable. • There are already great pressures on walking and cycling paths and tracks in the adjacent districts of Cambridge, and the proposed new development will only have a negative impact on already inadequate provision.

Neutral

A crossing for vehicles over the guided busway should not be allowed so that it does not create a rat run through Chesterton. (I note that this is already the case, but should be protected).

Mostly yes

It is important to enable pedestrians and cyclists to find throughways which avoid main roads - eg the route from Green End Road past Browns' Field through to Milton Road - this is not marked on the map but is a really useful route. By contrast there is no way through from Birch Close/Kirkby Close to Woodhead Drive but such a cut through would be very useful for residents of the Woodhead Drive development and i would want to see this sort of thinking in the new development

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

No answer given

Not at all

No comments

Not at all

People don’t use methods of walk/cycle/unreliable public transport - all history tells you that. And C19 shows all public transport stops in a pandemic. Massive effects of extra traffic in all local roads, & car parking madness on the site. All ‘planning words’ on ‘discouraging car usage’: always turn out to be unenforceable as well as inappropriate to modern ways of day-to-day living. No consideration given massive CURRENT gridlocks with routes across Cambridge - clearly very inadequate now. Where do you plan to put roads for everyone’s (high density housing) home delivery van access?? They can’t come on a bike/walking. Total lack of any detailed strategic thought in such a proposed plan. Clearly all driven by greedy Developers looking to make massive monies from dense building initiatives, leading to major overwhelmed transport systems - but long after the Developer’s diggers have upped and left.

Nothing chosen

If this is a true community area, ie a mix of all ages and all family sizes, walking and cycling does not cater for all of them. Older people are not always able enough to walk far or to cycle. If you have a couple of children of different ages. A large supermarket is necessary. That much shopping cannot be carried by bike. If the older child is beyond primary age, you might need to take the youngest to school on the estate but the eldest you will have to ferry elsewhere. As a woman, I would not be happy to use an underpass. Milton is a village at the moment and it may not want to be joined to Greater Cambridge and be swallowed up.

Not at all

No one is fixing the river crossing at Baites Bite to allow bikes/pushchairs/wheelchairs to cross without being harmed - this route is heavily used for leisure and commuting.

Not at all

Any route out of this development will meet with already overused roads. If the shops are to function they will need delivery of goods. On-line shopping will require parking for delivery vehicles.

Mostly yes

Maybe you are but not everyone is young enough, well enough or able enough to walk or cycle. The school may be full if you have several children and the only way to move them is by car.

Mostly not

City and surrounding areas already poor access for disabled and mobility impaired. Expensive public transport.

Mostly yes

Unsure. We are confused about how you intend to reduce car activity on Milton Road for example.

Mostly yes

The options look good but there is no info on how you would achieve uptake or prevent mass car parking.

Yes, completely

No comments

Mostly yes

No comment

Nothing chosen

You can't believe that people will not have cars. Where do they park and how do owners get to them. Understand parking!