Question 2

Mostly not

All the talk is about removing the need for the car. If you are incorporating primary schools into this development, mothers will want to work and drive and drop their children at the school before probably having to drive further afield to their place of work

Mostly not

This is missing the point. Of course from such a place you would want to be able to get out of it easily, but it's not that easy, mostly owing to the physical barriers already in place: busy road (bridges), Busway (underpasses). But it's not a very attractive prospect, to say the least. The separation of any new development from designated green spaces is already built in, while those 'new crossings' of Milton Road still expose any pedestrian or cyclist to many residual horrors simply by having to be a part of a very busy road traffic scene. I shudder to think of what will happen to Cowley Road, especially if the school stays there.

Mostly yes

The aim to improve walking and cycling facilities is good. However, Cycling will put extra pressure on other local areas. For example, Milton Road will soon be undergoing a rebuild. The cycle lanes have been designed for the present population and there is already concern that they may not be wide enough. Adding several hundred more cyclists could well lead to overcrowding and cyclists being forced to ride on the road? Before the pandemic I took part in counting the journeys taken on Milton Road by all modes of transport, an astonishing 534 cyclists rode their bikes between 8 and 9am on the morning of the count outside the shops. Adding more from the new development could put a strain on the facilities. The proposals also state each home is is expected to have 0.5 parking spaces. That is 4,000 cars plus the delivery vehicles, tradesmen, buses, taxis, HGVs for the industry areas. Where are all the vehicles going to park as I can't imagine, for example, a gas fitter parking in 'the barn' and carrying his tools half a mile. The streets will have many vehicles parked outside the huge blocks of flats as they people go about their business. The developers, Brookgate, were responsible for the planning and building around the main Cambridge Station. They have made a complete hash of providing safe routes for cycling to that station, that must not happen again. Similarly, unless suitable preventions are put in to prevent cycle theft, people will opt to use their car to travel to Cambridge North instead of by cycle. The plans show a footpath over the railway to Chesterton Fen. This MUST be a road. This would replace the level crossing on Fen Road which, due to the amount of trains, is down for considerable amounts of time causing problems for the residents that live these as well as the businesses on the site.

Neutral

Mostly yes, relatively speaking, but that will not be enough to counteract the overwhelming impact of this over-sized development.

Not at all

There is very little new in this. 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.

Neutral

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

No. Originally there was discussion about a green bridge, connecting the new development on the east side of Milton Road with the science park on the west. Now that has been downgraded to yet another unattractive footbridge, and 'crossing places' that will no doubt prioritise cars over pedestrians and cycles, just as everywhere else in the city. So the new development is already effectively cut in two. The routes available into the city centre or other parts of Cambridge for cyclists and pedestrians are already well used and many are badly maintained and dangerous. Cycle paths are full of potholes and already badly lit. Cycle parking is mostly non-existent and where it does exist (such as Cambridge North station) insecure and plagued by thefts. Although we look forward to the new Chisholm Trail and bridge (when it finally opens to the public!) that will connect north and south of the river on the east side of the city, it will not be sufficient if there are thousands more people living in the new development. The idea that the towpath might take extra pedestrians or cyclists is downright dangerous - it's already pretty scary to cycle or walk there at times.

Mostly yes

Cycle connectivity generally looks good and the emphasis on cycling and walking is great, but has failed to properly take into account connectivity with the centre of Cambridge - many if not most people will not want to use Milton Road - they will use the (mostly) much more pleasant route along Moss Bank/Fen Road/Water Street/Green Dragon Bridge/Stourbridge Common/Riverside. The current route is inadequate even for current levels of usage and will need upgrading. The key change required is to shut the Fen Road level crossing and build a new road bridge to North East Cambridge from Chesterton Fen. This will stop Fen Road being used as a race track, and allow it to become a quiet street that can support high volumes of cycling. Closing the crossing would also facilitate an eastern access to Cambridge North Station, making it much more accessible from Fen Ditton/Abbey/Romsey along the Chisholm Trail. Green Dragon bridge may need widening. Stourbridge Common will need an additional higher speed cycling route across the common - leaving the path nearer the river for pedestrians and slower cyclists. Riverside is in a disgraceful condition for a high volume sustainable transport route and will need investment to improve the surface and segregation for cycling.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

However you have not left enough space for cars. It is going back to 60s and 70s developments were this structure encouraged more crime. People walking everywhere. Not covid friendly where we are being told to use cars for safety, not having to walk a distance to reach them parked in some type of enclosed bard. Crime will be up.

Mostly yes

I'm concerned about the moss bank fen road junction. more people living in the area will mem more people using that junction to travel into town by bike. They wont go the long way round on the new bridge at haling way. what are you going to do about the extra cycle traffic cutting down moss bank and the tow path and fen road?

Mostly yes

It is very important to develop the new district around people including key walking and cycling routes and to remove barriers on the routes to neighbouring areas. It is important that all the links currently shown on the map remain in the plans and do not get excluded during future iterations. The original vision of a 'green' bridge across a lowered Milton Road appears to have been lost. This would be an innovative and iconic solution for making an easy, convenient and safe connection between the two main 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 are expected to use it.

Mostly yes

The proposals talk about prioritising cyclists and pedestrians over motor vehicles, however this is at odds with having to climb high over Milton Road via a proposed bridge. A crossing at grade with cyclist/pedestrian prioritisation would be preferable.

Yes, completely

No answer given

Neutral

It is good to see that provisions for walking and cycling are seriously considered. However, where will residents in tower blocks park their bikes? If Brookgate dare even plan 'facilities' as inept and haphazard as by the Station, it will prove an act of great irresponsibility. Cyclists' provision are always nothing but an afterthought throughout the UK. Perhaps, on this aspect, the plans show a small ray of light.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly not

Little new seems to be planned outside the district so extra pressure will be put on existing facilities which could be improved and are already well-used.

Neutral

Although the emphasis on cycling and walking at this early stage of the planning process is encouraging, there are still concerns on the amount of car parking available (for somewhere well connected, delivery of 0.5 cars per dwelling, 4000 car parking spaces appears too much). As stated by Cam Cycle, breaking down the barriers to cycling and walking for the entire Cambridge population in the area is extremely important, so I strongly support new crossings of the guided busway and Milton Road and links to Milton village and the river. I 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. I am concerned about the increase in traffic on Milton Road and how that will deter cyclists, even with better (and already much needed!) protections in place. 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. Reliance on the tow path is also problematic as that is already heavily used. 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. Finally, in relation to policy 21, I am concerned to see that Union Lane is ranked as a primary access point. This has no cycling infrastructure in place and is heavily parked, often acting as a one lane road. This should not be treated as a primary access route as part of the design planning.

Mostly not

Little new seems to be planned outside the district so extra pressure will be put on existing facilities which could be improved and are already well-used.

Neutral

Little new seems to be planned outside the district so extra pressure will be put on existing facilities which could be improved and are already well-used.

Mostly not

Milton Road is already congested with traffic and has very poor provision for cyclists and pedestrians. Although the buses have added stops along the road, these are still inadequate and unattractive alternatives to people using cars to get into and out of Central Cambridge. The towpath along the river at the base of the development is already crowded and used by both pedestrians and cyclists.

Mostly yes

It is important to improve the pedestrian/cycling paths between the science park and Nuns Way Recreation Ground in order to improve the connections between King's Hedges and the science park. Currently, the guided bus way as well as king's hedges Road and Kings court are not really cyclist and pedestrian friendly despite the number of people crossing them every day to go to the science park or the regional college

Neutral

The cycling provisions are probably sufficient for the numbers that are likely to use them, but the expectation that the majority of people in the area will be able and willing to connect easily to their workplace and families in other areas via public transport with Cambridge North as the hub seems highly unlikely even if there was a very significant increase in bus routes, service frequency and early and late timetables compared to the hopelessly inadequate services available today

Mostly yes

This all sounds wonderful but car capacity is not going to reduce so quickly so cycling is not such a safe method of transport or are we going to see more road space removed to accommodate cyclists without thinking about the knock-on effect on other road users. This lack of planning and consideration has caused issues during the lockdown rushing through of cycle access, resulting in less being achieved than it could have done. We need planning to be informed and considerate to all users. If it is more convenient to use public transport (ie more frequent, good connections between the different forms, punctual and cheaper), then people will graduate from cars. Nearly 30 years ago we lived on two Norwegian housing estates. Road access to houses was limited, garages were built in blocks around the perimeter but buses and trains connected. It was possible to live and work without a car. If the train was late, the bus waited. There were cycling / walking paths off the road. They were well lit and you felt safe. I don't feel comfortable when my teenage daughter walks from North Cambridge train station to Milton with a friend. She doesn't do it on her own in the evening.

Neutral

I like the fact that the new area is planned to be great for walking and cycling, over car usage. There seems to be many descriptions with loopholes where new infrastructure is promised. Removing these from developers contracts feels like a no-brainer, so that the final development matches the original vision. Regarding linking to Milton Road, it already has high levels of congestion at rush hour. Some of the 18,500 new residents will have cars, no matter how good the cycling provision is, so this can problem will only get worse.

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly yes

Make as much off road or separated from motor traffic as possible. Put measures in to prevent motorbikes and scooters using pedestrian areas

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly not

1) Extra Cycle Journeys I hadn't realised that NE Cambridge will house 18,000(!) residents, many of whom will want to cycle 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. As far as I can see, 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. 2) Moss Bank - Fen Road junction For most of the new cycle journeys between NE Cambridge and central Cambridge, the new bridge over the railway line to the Haling Way will be very much the long way round. In most cases the obvious route will be past Cambridge North and along Moss Bank. This is going to create thousands of extra cycle movements through the Moss Bank - Fen Road junction. To safely accommodate the extra cycle traffic, a formal cycle crossing should be installed. But I don't think that can safely be done if it means that road traffic approaching from Chesterton Fen ends up queuing over the level-crossing. Hence, the only safe solution again appears to be to close the level-crossing and redirect that road traffic out over a new bridge over the railway line.

Not at all

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE INCLUSION OF A FORCED LIKERT SCALE CHOICE ABOVE. MY SELECTION DOES NOT REPRESENT MY VIEWS: IT IS MERELY AN ENABLER OF THE TEXT SUBMISSION IN THIS FIELD. The special amenity and historic value of Mere Way should be respected and preserved. It should not be given an all-weather surface.