Question 2

Not at all

See comments above. As a result of the Covid 19 Pandemic research shows that people have completey changed their lifestyles. Your consultation paper does not mention this and fails to take account of these changes. Research has shown the importance of large open wilderness spaces. Cycling has become more important as a hobby so proper routes and paths into the countryside are essential to support mental health as well as physical health.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

There is no provision for equestrians in the plan, and a lack of safe places for people to ride or to connect up existing bridleways. Below are suggestions from A local bridleways group which I fully support. ATTENTION! Important opportunity to help shape the North East area action plan so that horse riders have access to green routes equal to walkers/cyclists. We are currently totally ignored in these plans! Our BHS access officers have asked for our assistance with this. Please can you spend 5min to help.... The area action plan is at relatively early planning stage but if horse riders aren’t included NOW in designs, we will be written out of the plans moving forwards, which will mean a potential network of green routes severed for horse riders but not other non motorised users. We’ve made it easy for you to contribute - online consultation link below (DEADLINE IS MONDAY 5th OCT) and key points below which you can use or draft your own. Key points- 1. GCP should confirm that ‘shared use’ is as defined in all the Greenway consultation documents – available to all three vulnerable road users – pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians and ensure that the routes are designed and delivered accordingly. 2. The GCP had committed to British Horse Society, the principle of inclusion of all NMU’s on the Greenways but the North East area action plan contains no provision or reference to equestrians. 3. The GCP Assembly have said that the creation of cycle routes would not impact on the amenity of equestrians yet this NE area action plan has omitted any mention of equestrians or NMU routes. 4. Equestrians should not be excluded from any sections unless a genuine secure and safe alternative route is available to them (defaulting to the legally available option of the busy highway, already identified as unsafe for cyclists, does not count as ‘safe’)? 5. Safety audits should assess the impact of the safety of equestrians created by the NE area action plan scheme. If such audits are being performed for pedestrian/cyclist routes the same consideration must be given to equestrians so that ALL NMUs (non motorised users) are appropriately considered and their safety risk assessed. 6. The above should be applied to ALL greenway type projects. 7. There needs to be greater inclusion and less exclusion. Every time including cyclists and pedestrians are mentioned, equestrians should be too. 8. There needs to be greater consideration of joining-up existing by-ways and bridleways and planned green routes (e.g. opening the Chisholm Trail for equestrian use, would connect Ditton Meadows to the NE development and also connect onto Milton Park and onwards towards Waterbeach). 9. More specifically: Mere Way is labelled as a "off road cycle route". It is in fact a Public Byway and is longtime well-used by equestrians as it is the ONLY off-road route out of the N/NE part of the city (eg from Chesterton Fen or across Stourbridge Common from Fen Ditton or Fulbourn, all areas where many horses live) towards Landbeach/Milton. Horses do not have access to the Cam towpath which is the other offroad link or the Jane Coston bridge over the A14, thus Mere Way is an important route for equestrians. N.B It should not be assumed that the bridge on High Ditch road in Fen Ditton will provide equestrian access in the N/NE because that is under threat of massive HGV traffic if the Anglian Water treatment relocated to Honey Hill in Horningsea. 10. Specifically in relation to the area plan ambition to create sustainable travel routes and links to the wider network, it should be noted that the GCP Waterbeach greenways route enters the NE area plan along the river and then the Cambridge North railway line. The area plan recognises that solutions to provide river,A14 and railway crossings are required to enable NMUs access to the ‘wider network’. This provision/consideration/crossing designs therefore should include equestrians as well as cyclists and walkers to ensure routes truly are NMU routes. Where pedestrian/cycle bridges are mentioned in the draft plan, this must be amended to full NMU bridges to avoid exclusion of other NMU groups including equestrians. 11. Specifically, there is potentially a good natural circular route option for equestrians within the NE area plan, that also links to wider off road routes. The route runs from Waterbeach along the Waterbeach greenway, through the NE development area, across the A14 to Milton Country Park and/or Mereway and north on to Landbeach and back to Waterbeach, or various Fen Edge villages and off road routes. This would also make an excellent NMU leisure and commuter circular route linking the NE with nearby communities and beyond. 12. There are many Horse riders in the local area of NE Cambridge and the surrounding villages. There are 3 thriving riding schools within a few miles of the NE area development as well. Horse riders also include people with disabilities, for whom horse riding provides essential ability to access the countryside, overcome their physical and/or mental health challenges. Horse riding is adopted by many because of yes the enjoyment of it, but also because it provides a emotional well-being lifeline and a vast array of physiological health benefits.

Mostly not

No public transport. Not everyone can walk or cycle. And where are they going?

Mostly not

Have you considered what all these people will be doing. Are you trying to connect Milton and Cambridge with just the A14 as a boundary. Have you considered the local environment and how this will affect Milton and Chesterton. Do we really want 20,000 people in between!

Mostly not

Have you considered what all these people will be doing. Are you trying to connect Milton and Cambridge with just the A14 as a boundary. Have you considered the local environment and how this will affect Milton and Chesterton. Do we really want 20,000 people in between!

Mostly yes

Cycling connections on busy A roads must be fully segregated from pedestrians and motor traffic even at junctions. I would strongly advise you to look at the recently completed CYCLOPS junction in Hulme Manchester. The CYCLOPS junction should be used as a blueprint and a very similar ones should be installed. Straight across pedestrian crossings must also be provided to offer safe, fast and convenient walking routes for pedestrians further discouraging car use.

Neutral

The plan highlights a network of bike paths but the structure does not seem to be streamlined. The railroad tracks and A14 seems to still be creating big bottleneck, especially if riding South from the Station it will be very slow to bet to the other side of the river with a lot of zigzagging around the track and then the river. This is the critical node of the development through which the inhabitants of the area will travel to Cambridge City Centre and vice versa should the area be sufficiently attractive for activities. There should be an underpass to connect the area directly with Abbey Chesterton Bridge for smooth cycling. This is most important part of the bike path network. It should be also considered that there is enough space for cyclists and pedestrians on those paths. Underpasses should be prioritised wherever possible as they are easier to cross with a bike.

Mostly yes

18,000 residents is a lot with many cycling into the city centre on a regular basis for work and leisure. Additionally, many residents across Cambridge will be cycling to the 20,000 new jobs proposed in the plan. The plan is for 75% of the additional journeys to be by foot, cycle or public transport. The only sensible cycle route is along the river: in fact a pedestrian & cycle bridge is proposed to connect the new development to the Haling Way towpath to facilitate that. That means thousands of extra daily cycle journeys can be expected a) on the Haling Way towpath, b) along Fen Road and c) over the new bridge to the path along Stourbridge Common. Routes a) and b) converge at Water Street. None of these routes is wide enough to accommodate this number of extra cyclists, nor is there any spare space to widen their pinch points. The new influx of cyclists using Water Street will be travelling either on the pavement shared with pedestrians, where space to pass is already tight, or on the road shared with fast-moving traffic. The only way to safely accommodate the extra cycle journeys along this conduit into the city centre is to remove some of the motor traffic by closing the level-crossing and connecting Chesterton Fen to Milton Road with a new road bridge across the railway line alongside the proposed pedestrian & cycle bridge. The movement of large vehicles (e.g. skips, equipment carrier ect) is not safe for cyclists particularly with these vehicles swerving around parked cars and speed bumps.

Mostly not

Given the scale of the development, It is not clear to me that the routes out will be adequate for 18,000 people. It looks like exits such as the bridge to the tow path (presumably one of the main routes into the city) will become very congested. The cycle paths along Milton Road are already well-used, and would also become very congested if this number of people were regularly trying to use them.

Neutral

6 & 7, is it necessary for both? Seems a bit excessive. 3, there is already a bridge that is used and is perfect for getting to milton. Again excessive.

Mostly yes

Walking and cycling provisions appear to be OK - but if it causes car traffic issues then the scheme has failed.

Mostly not

Cambridge is a medieval town and constant development is unsustainable. Water...where do you propose to get water from?

Not at all

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given

Not at all

I object to the plan for cycling, walking to and from the 20,000 new jobs being proposed, I totally agree with cycles and walking being the best way around Cambridge, but the Haling Way (towpath) is completely unsuitable for the amount of cycle traffic that will be generated. It is already at capacity with fast commuting cyclists at busy times of day and the oath is a narrow one shared with pedestrians who have toddlers, wheelchairs, dogs. If there are collision accidents between cyclists and pedestrians already, how much worse will it be when the new cycle bridge is open and a new district of this size is built? All the cycle traffic to and from the station will already have to negotiate the narrow towpath under the railway bridge, and cross the already dangerous Fen Road/ Water Street with it's history of speeding cars and recent serious accident and many near misses. The junction with Moss Bank needs a designated cycle crossing. There will also be many extra cycle journeys along Fen Road/ Water Street see above. The road would be safer if it wasn't for the speeding, which such a major issue. There needs to be an additional bridge for people living beyond the level crossing. At present there is a strong incentive to speed to cross before the crossing gates close - they close frequently and there is often a long wait.

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. However I have serious concerns about item 5; what is the point of a bridge over the railway at that point? It lands in private land which is regularly like a swamp anyway and the only public area is a strip of land that is approximately 3 metres wide (excluding inaccessible undergrowth) which can already be very congested. What is actually needed is a proper cycle and pedestrian bridge over the railway at the Fen Road level crossing to link the two sides of the Chisholm Trail. Current designs have everyone landing on the narrow path alongside the river, crossing the railway by the path under the river then negotiating a bit of the Fen Road and the narrow and twisty Moss Bank. What is actually needed is a sensible route from a) the Fen Road and b) the southern Chisholm Trail that crosses the railway by a new bridge north of Fen Road to connect with the concourse area of Cambridge North in a seamless way that is entirely traffic-free. Another idea that appears not to be on the table since this land goes alongside the railway is to take a path alongside the railway underneath the A14 so that the proposed greenway actually goes in a straight line. I have no idea what on earth the proposed underpass at 3 is; if the developers really think Milton Country Park can cope with a greenway running through it at the busiest section of the park then they have clearly only visited the park at night. The greenway needs to be alongside the railway with links to the park not in the park. There is also a noise bund at the southern end of the park; will this greenway go under, over or through this? The walking distances are pretty optimistic. If I get off a train at Cambridge North, it will take me a good 40 minutes to walk home; I live just north of Milton Country Park. I am reasonably fit. I also question, if the "waste water treatment plant" which it is proposed to move to a choice of totally inappropriate green field sites is going to be so much smaller and efficient, it cannot stay on part of this land, where all the connections and pipes already exist. The cost, both in terms of money, the environment, the green belt and more disruption to many villages which are just recovering from the A14 works, seems ridiculously high.

Neutral

It might have good cycling and walking routes but it's naive to think that people won't still drive. People often need to, if they have small children or are elderly or disabled. I became disabled and now need to be driven. There is no way you can build this many homes and not increase local traffic. I know we need more housing but please be honest.

Mostly not

I'm not sure why junctions 7 and 8 both exist. Surely it would be better to just have one new crossing point over Milton Road where junction 8 is, and make one new bridge do everything. Trying to drive into Cambridge along Milton road is already very slow due to the number of traffic lights, so adding yet more movement at point 8 will just make things even worse. Underpasses are always horrible, so adding the new one at 6 is not a good idea. It is also very close to your suggestion of 7, and both aren't needed.

Mostly not

Cycle routes are already overcrowded, poorly maintained and lit. They are inadequate now so adding this number to the community will put an intolerable strain on the routes and the people. The bridge that was considered across Milton Road is now not evident!

Mostly not

I think just hoping people won't use cars is probably unrealistic, Milton Road is already gridlocked with traffic. Cmabridge needs to get serious about restricting cars driving in to the city ( for example a post lockdown special offer on parking in the Grand Arcade... why not a free park and ride bus service) People who live in Cambridge cycle at their peril, not because we have a safe network of cycling routes. There are not safe joined up cycling routes across the city, and will these be part of the plan? More investment in public transport.

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. The towpath is already very well used and often overcrowded. Any increase in traffic may create congestion. Cycle routes across Cambridge are already very busy and sometimes poorly lit and maintained, and despite some new provisions 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.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Neutral

I welcome the new access points but I'm still unconvinced that the MIlton Road issue has been solved. The ground level four-way access point 8 baffles me. Unless traffic on Milton Road is somehow drastically reduced, this is only likely to worsen traffic jams if it succeeds in prioritising walking and cycling? Yet this is likely to be the most important route for cyclists heading to/from the centre. The Chisholm Trail points towards the station (central) and Addenbrookes [NB won't there be a conflict at Cambridge North if the CAM portal ever comes off?] and the other access points (4) take cycles into residential areas. On the other hand, access is obviously hugely improved to the north (1,2.3) which should be attractive to some of the 20,000 new job-holders who won't all be able to live in NEC

Neutral

Underpasses are not a good idea but bridges/well lit crossings are good. Locations generally good.

Neutral

Underpasses are not a good idea but bridges/well lit crossings are good. Locations generally good.

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly not

No answer given