Question 9

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly not

I believe if you allow 0.5 car spaces for residents, you must impose such a limit on the ownership of cars - and at 0.5 that's impossible - how about 1, and making space for them to be parked on the edge of the development? No-through roads and pedestrianised areas are definitely a must-have. Taxi points and bus stops should be located on the edges of the development.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Nothing chosen

Car travel is essential when living in that area. However, new cars will be very different in the future from what we see now. Therefore you will need car spaces. Science Park is charging £100 pounds per parking lot per month. I am not sure where did you find that there are 4000 unused spaces in the Cambridge Science Park. Companies are forced to pay.

Mostly yes

I've seen plenty of developments that have good words to say about encouraging cycling, but don't actually follow through with genuiely good infrastructure (Orchard park..), so setting really high standards following the new LTN1/20, and Dutch design principles is key. You also need to work out how to manage car parking. There are plenty of example around Cambridge where they have tried to limit car use by notproving much parking, but have just succeeded in having lots of cars parked poorly because there is no space for them.

Neutral

By limiting the amount of car spaces you are making available does not take in to account the elderly who may want to live here or indeed visit their families. Whilst I support a reduction in car use one has to be realistic and make allowances for those who rely heavily on their cars.

Not at all

This is just fantasy. People are going to need cars. There should be at least 1 space per dwelling. In these kinds of plans they always talk about reducing car use. Without a proper integrated 24-hour transport system in place for Cambridge this is never going to happen. Include electric charging points, a dial a ride shared taxi service, how about a water taxi down the river. Just saying more people will cycle and walk doesn't make it so, what it does is increases isolation and creates mental health problems.

Mostly not

I would be minded to push the car-share envelope further - will every other household need a car when most cars, my own and most of my neighbours included, sit on the drive all day, most days?

Mostly not

The area needs to have regular, reliable public transport that runs when people need it, evenings and Sundays are not optional. Stagecoach should not be involved in any way. Information on public transport needs to be reliable and easy to access, something Cambridge fails badly on at the moment.

Not at all

To comply with regulations all home need parking spaces. New electric, self drive cars will mean totally different situation to the current. All car shares must include vehicles that disabled people can drive and be passengers both in wheelchairs and not.

Yes, completely

You should encourage electric and hybrid vehicles, but beyond that I don't think you should be discouraging car use at all. The Local Plan requires 1 parking space for a two bedroom home and 2 parking spaces for a three bedroom home, and this should be adhered to. Also, please consider that blocking off important short-cut roads is harmful both to the environment and to the economy as it results in increased journey times, more fuel consumed, and person-hours of reduced productivity. For the same reason, I am not a fan of the 20 mph speed limit.

Mostly yes

Owning a personal car is not a human right - why not build even less car barns and increase the amount of car share spaces?

Mostly yes

No answer given

Yes, completely

Far too much, not practical to allow only 0.5 car parking per residence. It will cut residents off from friends and family, particularly the elderly. People will feel as if they are prisoners in their own homes.

Mostly not

Milton Road is already conjested, I grew up in a house on the road. I cant believe that even with 0.5 cars per household that the large ammount of new housing provision will not create additional burden on Cambridge's already struggling road network. Short of not providing car parking spaces I am not sure what other physical solutions you could do in the area. However, as sucess in this area is reliant on people using facilities external to the development I think its worth considering those external factors that will encourage car use. For example cost of public transport is a barrier for many, levels of bicycle theft and poor road conditions for cyclists throught cambridge (i.e. potholes and poor road surfaces) are external factors that will hinder the desire for new residents to use these types of transport. Given the complex nature of this issue, is there work being done to discuss and address these Cambridge wide barriers?

Not at all

It is not realistic to have only 0.5 parking spaces per home without radically improving cycling and public transport across the whole region. Likewise for the new jobs created. You can’t stop people using cars by not providing parking spaces you need to provide connectivity. A cycle crossing over the Cam, more cross town bus connections and road improvements and increased parking provision are all needed.

Yes, completely

This is crucial!

Neutral

I think the aim is a great one but realistically, no additional traffic on Milton Road/Kings Hedges Road is a joke. The area is already very busy at rush hour and I cannot see how that is not just going to be much worse with this new development. Is there an option to have direct access to the A14 from the new area? to reduce the pressure on the Milton/A10 junction

Neutral

I think the aim is a great one but realistically, no additional traffic on Milton Road/Kings Hedges Road is a joke. The area is already very busy at rush hour and I cannot see how that is not just going to be much worse with this new development. Is there an option to have direct access to the A14 from the new area? to reduce the pressure on the Milton/A10 junction

Neutral

No answer given

Not at all

Change people's attitude to not using a car will be hard to achieve .

Neutral

Please see my comments above about the need to encourage electric car and bike use by facilitating charging points. It is wrong to completely discourage car use, as we need to travel for our well-being as well sometimes for work. However, it is possible to actively help people to go electric.

Mostly yes

Covid is with us. People are reticent to use public transport

Mostly not

0.5 parking spaces per home still means 4000 extra vehicles in the area. In addition 4800 employment-related parking spaces will be accessed from Milton Road. The concept of reliance on walking and cycling assumes residents all remain fit and active and never have disabled, elderly or family visitors. Not enough detail on how the trip budgets will be monitored and enforced.

Not at all

New homes will bring new cars. It is unavoidable and people will ignore restrictions, and there is nothing can be done to stop them.

Mostly yes

Not sure what is meant by "smart ways to manage deliveries". There are too many cars in Cambridge. Reducing parking spaces per new home is a start, provided viable alternative transport is made readily available.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

This is simply unrealistic. Cycling and walking are of course popular options in the summer but will not fulfil residents' needs throughout the rest of the year. It also assumes that everyone in the development would be healthy and mobile enough not to need their own transport. Again this suggests that this development is being aimed at a very narrow demographic. It is simply unrealistic.

Neutral

This is a bias question. The assumption that car travel must be discouraged may be flawed. The current perceived assumption that motor vehicle usage has had nothing but a detrimental effect upon society totally ignores the positive that such has brought to society. The freedom that it has given to individuals and groups should not be curtailed. When my wife's work moved to Cambridge fifteen years ago we had the choice either one of us could become unemployed or as was proposed by some that we should split up. Too draconian imposition seems to be acceptable to many who have no need to work away from Cambridge or do not understand that some who work here may not be able to live here. Not least for reasons of cost and lack of housing. Also the change in power systems for motorised vehicles will have a substantial impact on the pollution issue for motorised vehicles. Although during my lifetime the use of motor vehicles increased substantially the air quality is much improved. The clean air act, curtailing the burning of coal for heating, the replacement of steam and some deiseal with electric trains and the removal of led from vehicle fuel has had a greater positive impact than the negative one of car increase car use.