Question 9

Mostly not

The levels of car ownership are far too high for the stated aims. I don't see how the traffic levels on Milton Road and King's Hedges Road can be stopped from rising, given the increases in population and jobs. The increased public transport really should be in place before any development is allowed.

Neutral

When I first moved to Milton Road 34 years ago it was a quiet road with wide green verges and an avenue of healthy trees. All has changed dramatically due to the rise of the car due to the closure of the railways. People use cars because they are easier, quicker, they keep you safe and will take you exactly where you want to be at any time. I am pleased that cycling is becoming more popular especially as this is the best way to get around Cambridge. Until the councils make a choice that they don't want to see so many cars in the city, roads are closed, HGVs are banned etc I am afraid nothing much will change. So I do support your vision of cycling and walking on the prosed site. However, people don't always do what developers want. I expect many of the flats will be for two adults or families. It is rare that a couple work in the same place. One may work in the Science Park while the other teaches at Swavesey. So one will walk, the other will drive as there is no alternative. Or a couple may have bought a flat but they both change jobs and neither can get to work with a car. Or a decorator may live in a flat and he would need a van as it is impossible to carry his ladders and paints on a bike or a bus. How do you discourage them? I wish you could but it is Impossible. Here I would like to return to your 'no extra vehicle movements on Milton Road'. It is impossible. In fact ALL traffic needs to come out on Milton Road as it is the only entrance/exit.

Mostly not

We welcome the stated aims of reducing the need to travel and making active and sustainable modes of transport the norm while ensuring the needs of all members of society are met. The aspiration of no additional car journeys on Milton Road is laudable, but the plans are not robust enough to make this a reality. At a rate of one parking space per two dwellings, this development will add 4000 cars to our already overcrowded local roads. Milton Road already suffers from congestion at almost all times of day, and a slew of developments (including A14 and A10 upgrades, Northstowe, Waterbeach, the various Cambridge developments) are set to make this worse. Policy 22 states that “appropriate space for [...] car pool hire scheme vehicles” will be incorporated into parking provision. We call for a greater emphasis on such schemes and a more ambitious reduction in private car ownership. The consultation mentions the existing “good public transport links” to North East Cambridge. It will be necessary to continue to invest in services such as the Guided Busway and Cambridge North Station and increase their capacity as needed to keep pace with demand. Requiring additional Park & Ride capacity simply pushes additional car journeys into the surrounding areas. We echo concerns raised by Cambridge Cycling Campaign that trip budgets rely heavily on external schemes such as the Milton Road ‘bus improvements’ and CAM network, neither of which will be completed by the deadlines quoted in the document. If services such as transport links, cycle hire and car clubs are not in place before residents move in, car dependency becomes locked in. Care must also be taken to maintain high-quality walking and cycling access throughout the different periods of construction, including to any ‘meanwhile projects’ on the site or in surrounding communities.

Neutral

The public transport needs to be in place early in the scheme. Its no use allocating land for CAM Metro if there is no commitment as part of the plan to deliver this or a similar improvement to public transport - the transport infrastructure needs to be a commitment and in operation early in the life of the plan.

Not at all

A transformational change in terms of public transport provision which would help reduce car travel is needed, and that is not evident here. Without easy, cheap, regular, reliable forms of public transport people will simply remain wedded to their cars, and there will be even more congestion. Despite the 'car barns' on the edges, there is no ban on cars. Cycling provision is mostly squeezed into the existing ‘network’, which is already stretched. It's simply not realistic to claim that there will be 'no extra vehicle movements' on Milton Road.

Mostly not

' No additional vehicle movements on Milton Road and Kings Hedges Road' is a worthy goal but in no way something you can promise by 'discouraging people from having cars'. Milton Road is an A road and already gridlocked with traffic but Kings Hedges Road is not a main Road, and will lead to more traffic using this and the surrounding roads eg Arbury Road which is wholly unsuitable and far too narrow for heavy traffic. More needs to be done to protect the surrounding roads, not just the roads within the development. I agree with the 20 mph speed limit and the priority for pedestrians and cyclists but allocating 0.5 parking spaces maximum per home will not stop people having cars and finding somewhere else to park them. Parked cars do take up a lot of space and this just feels like the developers trying to get out of providing adequate parking for house owners they cannot guarantee won't have one or maybe two cars. I agree with the no through routes for non essential vehicles but again I would like to see a bit more protection for the surrounding roads to also benefit from no nonessential through traffic

Mostly not

If there are only 0.5 parking spaces per new home, where will all the other cars park? Where will visitors park? Removing parking spaces doesn't eliminate the use of cars. The scheme shouldn't rely on the existence of the CAM metro.

Neutral

No answer given

Not at all

I live on Milton Road. I am certain that this development will lead to more traffic on the road. Even if residents don't have their own parking spaces they will still own cars unless it is specifically prohibited (or only electric cars are allowed) In Orchard park people just park on the street making it harder for pedestrians and cyclists. How do you plan to stop this? Even 0.5 cars per household is still 4000 extra cars on Milton road

Mostly not

The street layout and design of the site includes some aspects which will help discourage car use including no through-routes and car parking which is not outside people’s homes. However, time and again we see car-free developments where there is insufficient enforcement leading to parking on pavements. I can also foresee that visitors arriving in cars will park in streets around Green End Rd/Nuffield Rd outside the development site. These streets, and others further south down Milton Road, will need to be protected by measures such as residents' parking schemes. No additional vehicle movements on Milton Rd and Kings Hedges Rd is a good ambition - I find it difficult to believe that this is achievable in view of the size and scale of new jobs and homes being provided unless there is some form of enforcement. Will the development be designated as a zero-emission zone for motor vehicles?

Mostly yes

So where will people park their cars? What consideration has been given to the local areas that have no parking restrictions? Will parking restrictions be put in place in other areas? How will cycle traffic be controlled in the area expecially antisocial speeding down the tow path as people commute to work?

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly not

0.5 car spaces per home implies around 4000 new parking spaces. This seems to be incompatible with no additional vehicle movements on Milton Road.

Mostly not

Residents will not all work at the Science Park. One of a new couple moving in will not, and may work anywhere. If away from Cambridge he/she is likely to use the car. You may want to do a deal with Stagecoach and Whippet - with a bus depot on their doorstep, residents will have more routes available than anywhere else. After all, the buses would, in effect, serve another town. The great problem is that NE development appears to be only accessible from Milton Road, as already mentioned on a previous point, the area by the Science Park entrance will not be able to cope. Your claim that 'there will be no extra vehicle movements' on Milton Road is, frankly, wholly unbelievable. So you must find alternatives. Fen Road is too narrow, unless it became one way only from the development. Entry into NE, too, causes problems. The site cannot be wholly car-free. The 'solution' I fear will be a spaghetti junction, or tunneling, at the top of my road and endlessly increasing pollution. I do not believe that there will be no residents' cars in NE. You do not state how you'll make that legally enforceable, nor do you don't state that there will be a ban on cars. There will have to be a road on the east side, perhaps new access point (sliproads) from and onto the A14. 18,000 people is a new town squeezed in some corner against the A14. No! You will have to reduce your plans drastically.

Mostly not

It is easy to say car travel is ‘discouraged’ but unless better public transport and improved facilities for cycling and walking are put in place this will not happen. Simply not providing parking spaces in not enough.

Mostly not

It is easy to say car travel is ‘discouraged’ but unless better public transport and improved facilities for cycling and walking are put in place this will not happen. Simply not providing parking spaces in not enough.

Not at all

As stated in my earlier response, I am concerned to see that Union Lane is included as a primary link road. It is narrow, heavily over parked and simply not suitable. It does not have any cycling infrastructure so would be dangerous to rely on it as a means of encouraging cycling. I support Cam Cycle’s consultation response i.e.: We welcome the ambition to make North East Cambridge a place where 75% of trips are made by walking, cycling or public transport and the street hierarchy and designs seem to support this goal. It is important that high-quality routes continue to the edge of the area (including junctions) and connect up with external cycle routes for onward journeys to maximise the number of longer trips made by cycle. However, we have concerns about 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 addition of qualifiers gives tempting get-out clauses for things which must be in place to prioritise active travel (for example, ‘Where possible [cycle parking should provide] sufficient space within which to easily manoeuvre cycles of all types’ on p198 of the Draft Area Action Plan or ‘Where possible, the priority hierarchy on streets and roads within the study area should place active travel modes first…’ in the Transport Evidence Base). Cycling must be safe, convenient and attractive to enable people to switch from driving. Some of the policies from the Transport Evidence Base have not been included in the Area Action Plan – measures such as an internal shuttle bus will be essential to achieve trip budgets and help those who can’t walk or cycle get around without a car. Trip budgets also rely heavily on external schemes such as the Milton Road ‘bus improvements’ and CAM network, neither of which will be completed by the deadlines quoted in the document. It is unacceptable to require additional Park & Ride capacity which will simply push additional car journeys into the surrounding areas. Rather than begin with existing Local Plan guidelines on car parking spaces and assume that private car ownership will continue to be the default for half the new households, the Area Action Plan should set realistic restrictions on car parking based on goals that encourage the use of car clubs and pools, along with walking, cycling and public transport. Spaces in the car barns (proposed to be leased) should be set at cost levels which are a disincentive to owning over sharing or hiring. Car clubs, active travel infrastructure, secure public and residential cycle parking and good public transport links should be in place as the first residents move in, in addition to a consolidation hub within the development for business and home deliveries. Spacing of vehicle bays for deliveries, removals and private un/loading should be designed to ensure adequate availability and to eliminate obstructive parking in the carriageway, or on pavements or cycleways. The whole development should support every aspect of a zero-carbon lifestyle.

Mostly not

There is no provision anywhere insuring that car use will be prohibited. It is unrealistic to expect residents to travel by public transport, cycle or walk when no reliable provision has been made for these things. People will insist on using their cars without a ban on cars. Therefore, there will be more traffic on the already crowded Milton Road and surrounding thoroughfares such as Kings Hedges Road.

Not at all

The current plans rely on a step-change in public behaviour and expectations that has next to no chance of happening. The result will be congestion in the surrounding areas with significant displacement parking.

Mostly not

Public transport in the whole area should be not solely based on the current buses present on the guided bus way but should include some new bus lines (with dedicated paths so that they have a definite advantage over cars) which go within the area and are not just present at the edge in order to encourage people to use public transport to travel from or to the city centre. Otherwise, they will have to use several means of transport to go to the city centre, which means they will not use them or use a car/taxi instead.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

No answer given

Neutral

I like the low speed limits planned for the new development. There will be new cars for the new residents - 4,000 given the number of spaces provided, most of which will then travel down Milton Road at rush hour. I'm not sure what could be done here to avoid this problem - but fundamentally, creating a very dense development will increase demand on the roads immediately by the development.

Mostly not

This is very tricky - most houses will want to have car. Public transport will need to be cheaper and have capacity for people. The A14 is nearby and so there will be commuters. Install electric car points and perhaps have a collaboration with electric car dealership for community electric cars.

Not at all

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given

Not at all

Is seems totally unrealistic to assume, as your plan claims, that there will be ‘no extra vehicle movements’ on Milton Road. What possible justification can you have for this? There is no transformational step-change in terms of public transport provision that would help to achieve a reduction in car travel, let alone its eradication. Without easy, cheap, regular, reliable forms of public transport people will simply remain wedded to their cars. Why are buses to and from the city from the Park & Ride car parks still not free? Only recently have extra stops been introduced on Park & Ride bus services to make them a more attractive option for people who don't work in the city centre. More needs to be done to get people out of their cars. Cycling and walking provision is mostly squeezed into the existing ‘network’, and despite the promised ‘car barns’ on the edges of the development, there is no ban on cars. Cycle parking is still patchy at best, and much of it - ie at the new station - is insecure, which is a huge deterrent to cycling. The measures to restrict cars are not definitive, such as saying that parking on the science park will be reduced “where possible”.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

I welcome the ambition to make North East Cambridge a place where 75% of trips are made by walking, cycling or public transport and the street hierarchy and designs seem to support this goal. It is important that high-quality routes continue to the edge of the area (including junctions) and connect up with external cycle routes for onward journeys to maximise the number of longer trips made by cycle. However, I have concerns about 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 addition of qualifiers gives tempting get-out clauses for things which must be in place to prioritise active travel (for example, ‘Where possible [cycle parking should provide] sufficient space within which to easily manoeuvre cycles of all types’ on p198 of the Draft Area Action Plan or ‘Where possible, the priority hierarchy on streets and roads within the study area should place active travel modes first…’ in the Transport Evidence Base). Cycling must be safe, convenient and attractive to enable people to switch from driving. Some of the policies from the Transport Evidence Base have not been included in the Area Action Plan – measures such as an internal shuttle bus will be essential to achieve trip budgets and help those who can’t walk or cycle get around without a car. Trip budgets also rely heavily on external schemes such as the Milton Road ‘bus improvements’ and CAM network, neither of which will be completed by the deadlines quoted in the document. It is unacceptable to require additional Park & Ride capacity which will simply push additional car journeys into the surrounding areas. Rather than begin with existing Local Plan guidelines on car parking spaces and assume that private car ownership will continue to be the default for half the new households, the Area Action Plan should set realistic restrictions on car parking based on goals that encourage the use of car clubs and pools, along with walking, cycling and public transport. Spaces in the car barns (proposed to be leased) should be set at cost levels which are a disincentive to owning over sharing or hiring. Car clubs, active travel infrastructure, secure public and residential cycle parking and good public transport links should be in place as the first residents move in, in addition to a consolidation hub within the development for business and home deliveries. Spacing of vehicle bays for deliveries, removals and private un/loading should be designed to ensure adequate availability and to eliminate obstructive parking in the carriageway, or on pavements or cycleways. The whole development should support every aspect of a zero-carbon lifestyle and should learn lessons from the existing and planned car-free or low-car neighbourhoods in Freiburg and Utrecht.

Mostly yes

No answer given