3.5.8

This letter is my response to the above consultation. I am responding in a personal capacity, and not as an agent of any other person or organisation.

1. Mitcham's Corner is, above all, a road junction. It carries a large volume of motor traffic each day. At peak times there are moderately-long queues of traffic waiting to enter the junction via all five road entrances. Any reduction in its throughput for motor traffic would lengthen these queues, which in turn would adversely affect surrounding areas.

1.1. The "Vision and Strategic Objectives" laid out in Figure 5 (page 11) do not say anything about maintaining or improving the junction's throughput for motor traffic. This is a grave oversight. The list of Strategic Objectives in Figure 5 should include (at least) maintaining, or (preferably) increasing the junction's motor traffic throughput.

1.2. Despite relentless criticism of the present gyratory system throughout the draft SPD, and a clearly-stated objective to abolish it, the authors do concede that the "Gyratory handles high traffic levels well" (section 2.4.1, p22). The document says that a "Key Objective" for remodelling the gyratory is to "Maintain sufficient capacity and flows through and around the area" (section 3.4.2, p34). However, this objective is neither prominent enough, nor strongly-enough stated. The adjective "sufficient" is subjective, and provides wriggle room for planners to reduce the junction's throughput while asserting that this is still somehow "sufficient". The objective in section 3.4.2 should therefore be changed to "Maintain or increase motor traffic capacity through and around the area".

2. The draft SPD contains no hard data on what volume of traffic currently uses the junction, nor any simulation data to show how the proposed abolition of the gyratory outlined in Figure 27 (p33) would affect the junction's throughput. Both are severe oversights, and must be corrected. Without this information, it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions about the desirability (or otherwise) of the SPD.

I would recommend you try the Histon Road/Victoria road junction on a bike for an example of how drivers react to a narrowing street. They do not slow down when overtaking bicycles, they accelerate to get through before the road narrows. This means overtaking with only centimetres or, sometimes, NO space (I know of cases of cyclists being hit where the road narrows, and I suffer near misses almost daily). Given he level of bad, ignorant, aggressive driving currently in Cambridge, I am very skeptical that this is going to work without accidents.

Not all motorists (or cyclists) are courteous. There would probably need to be CCTV monitoring of the traffic in the area to discourage aggressive driving and cycling.

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.