3.5.1

As far as I can tell these steps will achieve exactly the opposite of the leading aim in 3.4.2, i.e. "to maintain sufficient capacity and flow through the area".

Just what we need.

I think this is missing a key design principle
Provide Dedicated space for cycling (cycle tracks) separated from pedestrians and cars.
This should be direct and wide, with simple routes through the space.
Some of the new cycle tracks in London (along the embankment for example) have good examples of this type of design. It should be included here.

It is fanciful to suppose that these measures will improve the general experience of the junction for pedestrians and cyclists. A junction as busy as this one cannot be transformed into a pedestrian/cyclist-friendly merely by reducing vehicle speeds. Pedestrians and cyclists require dedicated, segregated provision and nowhere is this more the case than at busy routes and at junctions (Mitcham's Corner qualifies as both). They are put in danger by the presence of motor vehicles and it is only through dedicated provision (crossings mandating vehicles to stop, cycle lanes, etc.) that this danger can be reliably mitigated.

Shared space merely encourages a "might makes right" attitude where motorists always have the upper hand. Motorists in Cambridge routinely flout traffic laws and cannot be expected to magically become polite and respecting of pedestrians by the addition of crazy paving. Those pedestrians who are cautious and vulnerable, such as the elderly, disabled and those with children, are likely to find shared space particularly intimidating; they will not take risks with "courtesy crossings" when there is a real danger of being run down by hurried and distracted drivers. They are better served by the existing arrangements, poor as these are. This are precisely the sorts of people the infrastructure ought to be aiming to protect, and it would be scandalous to expect the council to adopt any scheme which will make it worse for them.

Cyclists, particularly the less experienced, are also not well served by sharing with other road user, particularly motor vehicles which present a physical threat. Whilst the current junction is very poor for cycling, it is not clear that the proposals constitute an improvement. Attention is to be paid to other junctions in the city where, in the absence of dedicated provision, cyclists are routinely put in danger from motor vehicles - for instance the junction of Lensfield Road / Fen Causeway / Trumpington Road where, in spite of relatively low vehicle speeds, the rate of cyclist casualties is unacceptably high. The proposed changes will cause Mitcham's Corner to resemble that junction, something which cannot be supported.

It is undoubtedly the case that the junction will favour motorists, particularly those with little regard for other road users, who will benefit from the absence of traffic signals and the two-way system. It would be shameful for the council to adopt any proposal that, under the guise of protecting vulnerable road users, in fact does the opposite, and entrenches a motor-centric environment.

Hugely support the removal of the present gyratory system together with slowed traffic and more tree planting.

The low speed environment should be created by the road environment and ought not rely on excessive signage, speed camera, or police officer enforcement.

Although redesign to provide better streetscape and reduced traffic speed is supported, the proposed concept, similar to Frideswide Square, Oxford is entirely inappropriate. There is no concept of segregation of motor vehicles, cycles and pedestrians.

To encourage Cambridge cycling, cycle routes must be segregated from cars and pedestrians. The images shown are of people on bicycles riding on pavements. Cyclists in the road will have to take the road behind and in front of buses and cars.

It is suggested to amend so that Dutch quality cycle routes around Mitcham's corner are designed into the plan.

There is an opportunity for a new cycle bridge from behind Barclays to Jesus Green, thus avoiding Victoria Road.

Para 3
I agree with the need to radically alter the gyratory system. The current situation is terrifying for cyclists forced to change lanes within fast-moving traffic, and pedestrians, e.g. crossing Croftholme Lane without zebra crossing or visibility. Traffic also divides shops and other services, losing all sense of a neighbourhood. What cycle lanes there are simply stop in the middle of roads, or are used for car parking.

Proposals
There needs to be provision for all buses (including park and ride) to stop in a coherent line, so everyone can continue their journey.

Sufficient separation of pedestrians and traffic. The safety of children, both physical safety and air quality, is paramount

Planters for trees and flowers are welcome
Sitting-out areas are most popular near the river, rather than on roads

Para 4
Building in nesting facilities, especially for swifts and kestrels, would be especially welcome

While I support the general concept of improving Mitcham's Corner by making it more accessible to people walking and cycling, I have deep reservations about several of the concepts found in the document.

The proposal for a double roundel or double roundabout in Mitcham's Corner is not a good idea. The existing double roundel on Trumpington Road has been a constant source of injuries to people walking and cycling. We do not need to repeat that mistake, we need to remove it.

The concept of shared space is not appropriate for a busy junction like Mitcham's Corner. Shared space is only appropriate where levels of vehicular traffic are low enough that people walking and cycling can feel confident that their rights will be respected. That is not the case for Mitcham's Corner. It may work on some of the closed-off side streets that you have proposed, but not for the main section of the junction. Shared space does not work where there are too many vehicles because drivers do not respect so-called "courtesy crossings" and that leaves people with visual impairments at a severe disadvantage when having to deal with this space. Even the addition of simple Zebra crossings would make a world of difference. I also note that shared space does not work for cycling either, because motor vehicles moving in a stop-start pattern are incompatible with the movement of people cycling. Poynton in Cheshire, a frequently-cited example of shared space, has utterly failed to promote cycling and statistics there show lower levels of cycling than average in the UK. Frideswide Square in Oxford has been a failure in cycling terms and they have resorted to shared-use pavements instead of proper cycling provision.

In general, new streetscape infrastructure in a busy junction should incorporate protected, separate cycling lanes, good-sized pavements, and formal crossings at frequent intervals. The junctions, whether they take the form of a single, small roundabout with an island, or a traffic signal junction, should have protected, separate cycling lanes as part of the junction, following the recommendations from the Cambridge Cycling Campaign and the latest engineering advice from the Netherlands.

I do hope that the gyratory is removed, that Mitcham's Corner is made more friendly to people walking and cycling, and that a proper town square can be provided there using the open space freed up by the removal of the excessive tarmac. We should be planning for a future of reduced automobile traffic within cities, and we get there by building a pleasant environment that is attractive to people, and conducive to increased use of walking, cycling and public transport.

Summary

1. In general, the SPD proposals would improve the area.

2. Removal of the gyratory is essential, and we are pleased that the SPD correctly identifies this.

3. The introduction of a double roundabout is completely unacceptable and we object in the strongest possible terms.

4. A straightforward crossroads, implemented by compulsory purchase and paid for by land reclamation, needs to be properly investigated.

5. Shared space will not work because of the presence of through traffic. Instead, dedicated pedestrian and cycle space should be allocated.

Overall

We welcome the SPD, and feel the document correctly identifies the key issues of the Mitcham's Corner Area. We look forward to the possibility of positive changes being brought about to improve the attractiveness, livability and safety of the area.

As the SPD identifies, the key problem facing the area is that currently the area is designed with a sole focus on maximizing the throughput of vehicle traffic. We would like to make the following points about the proposed solutions:


Proposed New Layout (Section 3.3)

We welcome the proposal for removing the gyratory, and returning many of the roads to two-way operation. However we have strong concerns about the solution identified.

The new layout being proposed is a double roundel. This would be similar to the double roundel at Lensfield Road and Trumpington Road. That junction is currently the most dangerous in the city for cyclists. We do not believe that creating another similar junction is the best way forward for the area. Ironically, the County Council is coming forward with proposals to remove the existing double roundel at Trumpington Road.

We believe that the best long-term solution for the area would be to purchase and demolish at least some of 133-155 Chesterton Road. This would allow the creation of a straightforward crossroads or roundabout joining Milton Road, Chesterton Road and Victoria Avenue, and a large new public space over part of the existing gyratory. We note that both student groups studying the junction a few years ago independently came to the same conclusion.
Shared Space

The SPD points towards several recent schemes that have used so-called shared space principles to improve an area including Poynton in Cheshire and Frideswide Square in Oxford, but we believe that shared space is not appropriate for the through routes of Mitcham's Corner. Camcycle welcomes alterations that reduce traffic speeds, and improve the look and feel of the area. However we believe it is vital that these spaces include dedicated space for cycle tracks, pavements, and clear indications of pedestrian and cycle priority and crossing points.

We believe that true shared space only works when the number of people walking or cycling is equal to or higher than that of the cars. This will likely never be true for Mitcham's Corner, which is a through route in several directions, including for several bus routes.

We would like to see a Dutch-inspired solution that clearly separates the modes of transport, and minimizes conflict. The aim should be for the cycle infrastructure to be safe, reasonably direct and convenient so that it useful and attractive for everyday cycling by people of all ages and abilities.

In the example above the traffic routes are still plain tarmac, but have clear crossing points and cycle tracks. The sense of place is created in the areas where the through traffic is absent. We feel this is a more successful approach than hoping that new paving will create pleasant areas that still have large amounts of traffic (including many buses) passing through them.

This is also likely to be a cheaper solution, both to create and in the long term. Tarmac is very good at supporting many heavy vehicles over long periods of time. Many paving solutions are only good for light use, in areas of low traffic. We feel that may well be appropriate for the newly created access roads in the space, which should see low levels of motor traffic, and therefore could become successful new public spaces.

I live in East Chesterton, and walk and cycle through the Mitcham's Corner area, including on my commute. I currently do not shop in the area, as it is so unpleasant.

I support removal of the gyratory, which destroys any sense of place at Mitcham's corner, and makes cycling in the area very scary, putting many people off using active and sustainable transport.

However, I object to so-called 'shared-space' schemes such as the example shown from Oxford, which reduce distinctions between pedestrian and motor vehicle space, and ignore cycling as a separate mode of transport entirely. Most of the unpleasantness of Mitcham's Corner is due to the volume of motor traffic, and the noise and pollution and danger that this creates. A pretty, busy road is still a busy road. Frideswade Square in Oxford was the source of multiple objections from the local cycling campaign. The same objections and problems will be true for Cambridge.

Shared space is only appropriate in a low traffic environment, otherwise it results in bullying of pedestrians and people cycling, and makes crossing difficult without proper crossings. This is particularly true for partially sighted pedestrians, who need clear crossing points, and for other groups, such as children, who do not understand how to behave without clear separation of walking and driving spaces.

I object to any version of the scheme which does not include proper segregated cycling facilities so that cycling is safe and attractive for people of all ages, and is separated from pedestrians. Cycling-specific facilities are entirely absent in the detail of the consultation.

Narrowing the carriageway without provision of separate cycling facilities is likely to make it more unpleasant to cycle rather than less. People do not like feeling that they are blocking traffic, and more aggressive drivers will still try to overtake in limited space.

Changes to the environment to encourage low speeds on the road are welcome, but these are not a substitution for separate cycle provision on a busy through-road.

Pedestrians and people cycling through should not be made to share space - shared-use paths are a constant source of complaint and conflict in Cambridge, for both sets of users. This is particularly true for an area where pedestrians will be encouraged to enjoy the area and relax and linger, while many people cycling will be trying to move through on longer journeys.

A double-roundel was previously mentioned for the junction with Victoria Avenue. The current version of the SPD fudges the issue of this junction, but proposes no alternative. The double-roundabout copies a junction in Cambridge (Trumpington Rd / Lensfield Rd) which is the most dangerous junction in Cambridge for cycling. The County Council are currently planning to replace it due to its awful safety record, and we should not be re-creating this mistake. I object to any design of junction which has a variation on a double roundabout. Even a single roundabout is a poor junction for cycling, unless it has an annular ring for cycling, separate from pedestrians and motor vehicles.

It is not clear if the 'local-access only' roads will actually be blocked to through-motor traffic, to create a low-traffic environment which would be quieter, more attractive and safer, and would encourage people to want to shop and spend time in the area. If there is no physical restriction to driving, I have no confidence in people sticking to restrictions, or that they will ever be enforced. Physical constraint on through-motor traffic is required.

While changes to the public realm are welcome, the whole consultation is based on the idea that a busy through-road can be a 'place': the two uses are contrary. The solution should focus on creating 'places' which have low traffic volumes, and separately roads for through-traffic which separate walking, cycling and motor traffic, with safe junctions for walking and cycling.

As this is a general document there is little to comment on from the concerns of disabled people, because how disabled people will use this area will be defined by detail planning. However, I believe that disabled people would fight any scheme involving shared space concepts, by legal means or even civil protest. Even disability group and organisation of access professionals oppose shared space schemes are these having legal challenges at Kennsington High Street, Poyton, etc. Please don't even suggest any shared space areas.