Question 9

Not at all

I 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. I agree with Cambridge Green party who 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. I 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.

Not at all

This is unrealistic!!!! Even if people use bikes or public transport to get to work, the majority will still have a car and use it!

Yes, completely

What a stupid idea people need cars to get away from the horrid place you are making Cambridge. Who do you think will seriously buy into this scheme? Families, elderly, disabled folk all need car access at some time and often regularly

Mostly not

I 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. I agree with Cambridge Green party who 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. I 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.

Mostly not

There seems to be a 'wait and see' approach to the inevitable issue of anti-social parking caused by the large amount of added vehicles in the area. Instead we need robust measures including residents' permits and enforced double yellow lines, planters, benches and other means of stopping people storing their cars in the public space. There doesn't seem to be a recognition of the severe issues the area currently suffers from including anti-social driving on Fen Road, heavy traffic from commercial vehicles - skip lorries and large trucks on Cowley Road. Surely any plan must focus on tackling the issues currently present before adding to these, even if it says that each household will only own half a car.

Mostly yes

I worry that without sufficient public transport (not everyone will want to or be able to walk or cycle) then car use will still rise despite reduced space for cars. While I welcome the reduction of car use, I believe this can only be achieved with affordable, reliable, frequent public transport, as well as making cyclists and pedestrians feel safe. I think that cycle lanes and pavements should be clearly demarcated as otherwise, if they are used by both, it is neither as safe or as pleasant for either those walking or those cycling.

Mostly not

Unless public transport is made frequent, reliable and cheap and improved cycling facilities are provided throughout the city people will not abandon their cars. There will be more vehicle movements on Milton Road and Kings Hedges Road.

Mostly not

This heavily rely on the CAM metro which isn't in the pipeline and very unrealistic.

Neutral

See my responses to Q1. The street layout and design of the site includes many aspects which will help discourage car use including no through-routes and car parking which is not outside people’s homes. However, the plans rely heavily on good links to improved walking and cycling routes outside the area and the implementation of planned public transport schemes such as CAM metro. They also assume levels of car ownership which are too high for a low-carbon development: proposals should start with a more carbon-realistic limit on trips and parking spaces. Public transport offering is more of the same, not transformational step change. Cycling provision is mostly squeezing more onto existing ‘network’.

Not at all

It seems overly optimistic to think that car use can be eliminated simply by not providing parking spaces. Even if residents start off with the intention of cycling to work, they are at some stage likely need to take jobs that require having a vehicle. If no proper parking spaces are provided, the streets will just end up being littered with parked cars.

Mostly not

While the objective and policies are well intentioned, unless most residents work in the development area, there is inevitably going to be much commuting in and out of the area. This will put a greater burden on Milton Road , for example. How the planners can glibly say "The Plan is based on not increasing the amount of traffic on Milton Road at all. " is just incredible.

Mostly not

I am very concerned that the plans don't future-proof the neighbourhood. In twenty years' time, what if cars are electric, or shared use of cars has become normal? How will existing plans be adapted to reflect changes in how society uses cars generally? I feel that this needs to be planned now as a contingency so that large changes don't need to be made later. Are there electric car charging points, for example?

Mostly yes

It is all well and good to discourage car travel in this particular area but for a while yet (until other forms of transport really get better) people will have cars they need to park. Too often reducing car parking space simple results in chaos with cars parked all over the place which is unsightly and dangerous. PLEASE make sure that there is more than adequate parking available off-site with good links into the area. This off-site parking should also have mains power provided for each parking space so cars left for long periods can been hooked up and charged (or even used as a grid balancing resource).

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly not

The street layout and design of the site includes many aspects which will help discourage car use including no through-routes and car parking which is not outside people’s homes. However, the plans rely heavily on good links to improved walking and cycling routes outside the area and the implementation of planned public transport schemes such as CAM metro. They also assume levels of car ownership which are too high for a low-carbon development: proposals should start with a more carbon-realistic limit on trips and parking spaces.

Mostly not

Will the developers receive an appropriate fine if the trip budgets are exceeded and if there is an impact on the surrounding neighbours in terms of increased vehicle movements and unregulated parking? This would be a more effective way to enable adequate infrastructure provision is made for residents rather than simply restricting parking and hoping for the best. No mention of any bus routes. More realistic to expect bus travel will be necessary alongside walking and cycling.

Mostly yes

The plans for the immediate Area Action Plan site are clearly evolving but the bias towards discouraging car travel is good. The potential behaviour changes of not just the residents but those who travel into the area for work or leisure purposes will obviously need to be carefully considered. We believe that the development will increase the parking pressure on the existing facilities at Milton Country Park and consideration will need to be given to enhancing the volume and quality of hard standing parking at the site.

Not at all

No. The only way this can be done effectively is by legal constraints. Even in a bike and walk friendly development, personal choice and need will encourage a percentage to be car owners (for instance, caring for elderly relatives at a distance, of which one is especially conscious during the current pandemic, or taking children to related out of school activities not catered for in the immediate area).

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly not

While the proposals for cycle routes and no through routes for cars are good, due to the high density of housing in the new development even the assumed 50% car ownership, would represent a huge increase in the number of vehicles in the Milton Road area. The proposals should start from a much lower assumed % of car ownership

Neutral

Are there ways that you can incentivise those who live in the area to also work in the area - or for employers to encourage local living and working?

Mostly not

Routes need to continue beyond the development, with uninterrupted connection with destinations. Planning services may not be able ensure adequate quality of routes and facilities across a site that includes multiple landowners/developers. Qualifiers allow the profit motive to overcome the greater good. For example, the Draft Area Action Plan states ‘Where possible, the priority hierarchy on streets and roads within the study area should place active travel modes first…’. This isn't good enough because we know from endless previous examples that there is always an excuse to drive investment in non-profit infrastructure to the minimum. Some of the policies from the Transport Evidence Base have not been included in the Area Action Plan. For example, an internal shuttle bus or equivalent will be needed. Trip budgets also rely 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 that will 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 that 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 footways or cycleways. Keep in mind that cars take up space, emit particulates and pose a danger to pedestrians and cyclists so electric motor vehicles do not address all the problems of cars for this development.

Not at all

The public transport offering is inadequate. The busway is barely relevant. There is no transformational step change. Cambridge North station will be overwhelmed. It was not constructed with this number of additional potential users in mind, and nor does the train service have sufficient capacity. Cycling provision largely involves squeezing more onto an existing network. The current programme of cycling provision is barely sufficient to remedy existing shortfalls, not absorb vastly more use. The CAM, if it happens, will need additional stops in the new area to be widely attractive. Without a proper road link from Milton Road along the north side of the area, serving Fen Road and the planned commercial premises, it is impossible to see how there can be 'no through route' and what is meant by 'non-essential' vehicles? The expectation that no increase in traffic will be seen on Milton Road is based on pure fantasy. Cars will need to be parked, even if their ownership is discouraged. What has happened to the car barns? The impact on overspill of parking into adjoining residential areas must be addressed.

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

I don't understand how you can add 8,000 homes and 20,000 jobs to the area without making a traffic impact on Milton Road. That seems like a complete fantasy. Car free housing areas are wonderful and much overdue in Cambridge. The railway station is a great asset. Cycling can be a great boon but only if there are adequate cycle storage spaces. Most places in the city are already overwhelmed with bikes being left in dangerous locations. While design is focused within the area boundary there is an important neighbour being ignored. Chesterton Fen generates substantial commercial traffic but is denied a direct connection to Milton Road. It is locked-in by the railway, river and A14 so that the only access is through residential East Chesterton and constrained by the increasingly busy railway crossing. Like all level crossings it is a risk to road traffic and the industry on the Fen is compromised by inadequate access. Cycle traffic generated by NEC will have to cross Fen Road at the Moss Bank junction to reach the new river bridge and the three modes of transport collide at this point. Its a complete mess.

Neutral

The tight restriction on car parking spaces is a blunt instrument. The best way to think about car use and parking is as a two-domain model: a "metro domain", served by high quality, fast and frequent public transport, and a "rural domain" which does not have public transport to the metro standard. Unless we are prepared to build a railway or metro station in every single village in England, there will always be a rural domain where the use of cars is not a luxury but essential. Although this development, with its proximity to Cambridge North station and the CAM metro, lies within the metro domain, it must be recognised that some North East residents will work within the rural domain, and that some residents of the latter will work in this area. It is excellent public transport, the "carrot", that encourages sustainable travel within the metro domain, rather than the "stick" of blanket restrictions on car use, which serves mainly to harm those who have a need to travel to or from the rural domain. The key to reducing unnecessary car use is to enable efficient and convenient interchange between these domains. Many policies that aim to punish car use have the opposite effect. For example, if Cambridge North and the rebuilt Waterbeach stations are both wrapped in an impenetrable carapace that prevents access by car for residents of, say, Horningsea, Lode, Landbeach, Wilburton and Upware, residents of those villages will be denied access to the railway network and be forced to make all their journeys by car. If car parks have time restrictions, it means that they can only use the railway for short day-trips and not for longer journeys. Rather than building "car barns" above ground, it would be better to require all car parking to be placed in underground car parks. These should be safe, pleasant and high quality, with their subterranean design making the best use of the area above ground. Land is valuable and shouldn't be wasted.

Not at all

If this development is predicated on the Cambridge Autonomous Metro (CAM)then the whole basis of this section is false. There is absolutely no way that an proposal of this size is not going to increase traffic on Milton Road. To suggest otherwise is is ridiculous. Not everybody can cycle. This CAM idea is the brainchild of the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. To be blunt is proposal is not funded and there is no proper business case. It is electioneering fantasy. As for the 20mph limit this is not enforced anywhere in Cambridge. The matter has been raised endlessly at meetings of area committees I have attended where the neighbourhood police team have been present. They have stated absolutely categorically that they will not enforce this limit unless in their view the road in question is 'appropriate'. In their jargon this in effect means they were not consulted about the introduction of 20mph in Cambridge and they have not intention of doing anything about it. 20 mph.it is just more greenwash.

Mostly not

Camcycle welcomes 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 and across 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 and the get-out clauses should be removed. 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

Discouraging car travel is essential if we are to fulfil our legal obligation to achieve net zero carbon. However, people will only walk / cycle / scoot if they feel safe and the city's provision already falls short of achieving this. You will need to guarantee the quality of active travel routes around the neighbourhood as well as its access points to adjoining areas. These will now need to comply with the governments LTN1/20 and Gear Change policy documents - will your planning and transport officers be able to deliver this? Many in the city are terribly out of date, having been trained to deliver quick access for cars. If car travel is in any way convenient in and around the NECAAP area, people will drive instead of walking/cycling/scooting.

Not at all

If this development is predicated on the Cambridge Autonomous Metro (CAM)then the whole basis of this section is false. There is absolutely no way that an proposal of this size is not going to increase traffic on Milton Road. To suggest otherwise is is ridiculous. Not everybody can cycle. This CAM idea is the brainchild of the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. To be blunt is proposal is not funded and there is no proper business case. It is electioneering fantasy. As for the 20mph limit this is not enforced anywhere in Cambridge. The matter has been raised endlessly at meetings of area committees I have attended where the neighbourhood police team have been present. They have stated absolutely categorically that they will not enforce this limit unless in their view the road in question is 'appropriate'. In their jargon this in effect means they were not consulted about the introduction of 20mph in Cambridge and they have not intention of doing anything about it. 20 mph.it is just more greenwash.