A mixed development of ground floor commercial units and 12 flats above those. This will replace the current small parade of shops near the Perne Road roundabout that have got into a state over the years.
Listed issues, most recent first, limited to the area of Cambridge Cycling Campaign:
This is a proposal to demolish the existing (but now closed) Rosemary Branch pub and replace it with eight houses and two flats.
Planning application here. Access issues need checking.
Martin Lucas-Smith // 12 threads
Formal policies on health, with mention of cycling, need to be improved as a way of providing an additional tool to be used in transport and planning.
Collisions, 'accidents' and even occasional deaths involving cyclists remain an issue in Cambridge.
This Cyclescape issue is so we can collect the reports and debate approaches to tackling this issue through the media and through policy objectives.
There are a range of issues regarding cyclists breaking the law in Cambridge. This issue is intended as a container for strategic discussion of how this can be resolved.
There are of course many problems with drivers breaking the law, and discussions need to be in that context also, but this is issue is primarily for addressing the cycling side.
Cycle parking has long been a problem in the Romsey and Petersfield areas, mainly because of lack of proper provision.
Martin Lucas-Smith // 1 thread
The proposal is for demolition of the existing non residential language
school and replacement with new with on site accommodation for students. Cycle parking needs to be checked.
Martin Lucas-Smith // 1 thread
The Regent Street crossing has been upgraded. How are people finding it?
Martin Lucas-Smith // 1 thread
80-cycle prefab shed using sheffield stands, replaces 7 car spaces. Need to check the application and welcome it if this is as positive as it sounds.
This is a planning application variation for 42 Fen Road, Milton. Application no (south cambs) is S/0756/12/VC
Permission had been given, but I noted as I passed the other day, that there was an application for a variation. Looking at this, one item seems to be to vary the "cycle storage".
From the description in Addendum to Design, Access & Herigage Statement in plans and docs:
"The bin / cycle store has been relocated and enlarged to allow for a tool shed. It was felt that
the proximity of the previous store to the proposed dwelling had an adverse impact on the
street scene and cluttered up the entrance area. By setting it back within the garden space it
was felt this would positively enhance the character of the area. Additionally, as a temporary
structure it is felt this would not have any more of an impact on the surrounding trees than
the current position of the bin store."
Or if you look at the map, the cycle "storage" (should that be parking?) now appears to be round the back end of the garden, and as a hedge is shown surrounding the car parked at the front of the property, I am at a loss as to how it would be at all convenient to ever get a bike out of this shed, rather than just getting into the car.
Of note is the fact that this proposed house is about 15 yards off NCN 11. In one direction*; this gives a virtually traffic-free route almost into Cambridge city centre or to Waterbeach railway station. In the other direction, NCN 11 heads through Milton Country Park, leading almost directly to the local Tesco superstore as well as to the Coston bridge, Science Park, Guided Busway. Thus, it could be possible to live an almost entirely car-free existence at this location.
*Fen Road is erroneously described as a cul-de-sac in the application. It is to motor vehicles, but is in fact a through route to the city centre for cycles and pedestrians.
From the 2004 South Cambs local plan
"To promote the use of more sustainable modes of transport, such as public transport,
walking and cycling by making such modes more accessible, safer and more attractive
to use.," and "To promote sustainable travel by ensuring new development takes place in highly
" To limit the amount of car parking provided in new developments, where appropriate,
to reduce over-reliance on the car." "adopting on-site and/or off-site design features that promote
access by non-car modes as far as practicable (including
walking and cycling) and facilitate and encourage their use"
Of course there appears to be nothing about accessibility of cycle parking cf car parking, unlike the City Council local plan.
Is it worth putting in an objection? The publicity end date is 5th June.
Access to and return journey from the Crematorium is a real challenge for the cyclist. Indeed, chances are you may end up in it if you try to ride your bike there.
Here we have a essential public service which is accessible by car only. Is this acceptable ?
These issues arise also if a convoy of bicycles was to accompany a coffin.
What is to be done?
Application to build a bridge over the brook to provide rear foot/cycle access to the school.
Speeding can be a problem on Granchester Road.
Existing building to be rearranged internally for surgery and medical admin. There is locked-away cycle parking for staff (quantity not spec), but none proposed for patients/ visitors. See thread for Sustrans' objection.
Turnstone, a consortium, is hoping to build a new town, to be named Denny St Francis, adjacent to Waterbeach (the barracks site, plus). Like any large development, cycling conditions need to be good.
Converting one-way streets to two-way cycling has long been a Cambridge Cycling Campaign priority.
Progress has been made, with Hope Street being made into a two-way street with a no motor vehicles exemption at one end.
Now that Except Cycles signs under No Entry signs are permitted there is scope for extending this to Romsey Streets.
This is a container issue for event threads.
South Cam is working on a cycling project between Haslingfield and Grantchester, proposed by the Haslingfield Parish.
The Cambridge East development is in the 2006 Cambridge Local Plan and would have a big effect on cycling and traffic more generally in the area.
Martin Lucas-Smith // 1 thread
The City Council will be designating Sheep's Green & Coe Fen as a local nature reserve in 2012, in recognition of the site’s value for both wildlife and recreation.
As part of the process, a management plan has been prepared to establish a long-term vision for the site and to guide ongoing maintenance and habitat-restoration works.
They are seeking public comments on the draft plan, prior to formal adoption and designation of the site.
It is important that the proposals are scrutinised to check whether this will have any effects in the longer term on cycling and path improvements.
Now that the East Road gas works have finished, the road has been patched up, but in a very bumpy way. Although the tarmac is smooth, it is not at the same height as the original road so riding along is continually bumpy.
A further application following several rejections.
Planning application to demolish 32-38 Station Road and build two office blocks. This is a revised application.
Application is called 'Fifty & Sixty Station Road'.
Documents are completely inadequate for this listed building. I submitted this objection:
This comment is on behalf of Sustrans, the charity that’s enabling people to travel by foot, bike or public transport for more of the journeys we make every day.
The application form indicates that there is currently no cycle parking and that none is intended. This is unacceptable - the development must conform to the Council's standards in quantity, location and type.
There are insufficient graphic details on which to assess the application.
RW for Sustrans 3 May 2012
This map shows all issues, whether points, routes, or areas:
The most popular issues, based on the number of votes:
What to do about disgraceful decisions like this:
Clearly, the magistrate erred seriously in matters of both fact and law - all the prosecution had to prove was that the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
Equally clearly, it did - nobody who could possibly be described as "competent and careful" would run over something the size of a cyclist without even being aware of it. He even admitted that he was talking on the phone at the time.
It staggers the mind to think what on earth the magistrates were thinking - or what with. Maybe they slept through the case, so didn't hear the prosecution, but were woken up for the defence (how there can be any defence for that is beyond me). Maybe they are dangerous drivers themselves, so sympathise with others of the same ilk instead of adequately discharging the responsibilities they are charged with? Mark Tyler also deserves complete contempt for not pleading guilty, and so preventing this gross miscarriage of justice. He should have been thanking his lucky stars that the police and CPS are so incompetent as not to pursue Dangerous driving, which it equally clearly was.
How can we get rid of incompetent idiots like Phil King (the lead magistrate in this case) who asserted that "there were “significant gaps” in the evidence". It is obvious to me that this dangerous idiot is perverting the course of justice by remaining in his position.
Presumably his colleagues on the bench conspired with him in this perversion - they could (and should) have over-ruled him unless they were parties to the conspiracy, surely?
The evidence was all there - there was a cyclist in front of him - whether the cyclist was upright or on the ground is irrelevant. Mark Tyler drove over him. Neither of those facts were in dispute. That is not the action of a competent and careful driver, and it should be beyond question that a person being in front of the vehicle is something which the driver should be expected to be aware of, which means the test in s3ZA of the Road Traffic Act is satisfied, and the accused is guilty.
The evidence also meets the test in s2A (Meaning of dangerous driving) so there is no excuse whatsoever for clearing him of even the lesser offence of careless driving. With driving like that, it is clear, beyond reasonable doubt, that he should not be in possession of a driving license, and the magistrates failed in their duty to relieve him of it.
As long as dangerous criminals like Phil King are allowed on the bench, the roads will never be safe for anyone.
As a footnote, from the report is appears that this dangerous character commutes from Whitchurch, Hampshire to Clifton Way, Cambridge. What length does that make his effective working day?
It's about 120 miles each way, so at least 4 hours driving (considerably more if in the "rush hour") on top of a full workday. It's utterly moronic to make a commute like that - when I worked anywhere near that far away, I commuted weekly. But this happened on a Wednesday.
Noticed this a couple of weeks ago. As you will see the sign is incomplete and misleading given that the place to see all the details is the end of Ferry Lane waiting to join High Street. High Street at this point is both Route 51 and Route 11.
Left turn to go to Impington on Route 51 - I think not.
Abbey and Fen Ditton to the left when you could just go back across Green Dragon bridge.
No directions to Histon, Milton, Waterbeach probably others.
Also the lack of any idea where route 11 goes to the right.
This appears to be one of a number of new signs that have recently appeared. If anyone has seen any more let's get the info out there and try to get them fixed.
Ever since Tesco opened their new shop on East Road, there has been poor unloading practice.
The company is unloading always from the front of the store with a large lorry which:
- Is stopped in the (advisory) cycle lane.
- The tail of the lorry is opened into the carriageway without a banksman, with the corner of it at the same height as a cyclist having to merge round the lorry - there is real potential for a head injury because of the relative invisibility of this
- Causing traffic to be reduced to one effective lane (or two, just squeezing through, if no large vehicles), causing delays for a half an hour period.
They have stopped using the zig-zag lines.
This photo shows the danger that is created:
I am bringing up the problem that cyclists and pedestrians have crossing East Road to get to ARU and the neighbouring residential area. It would be helpful have a discussion about how to create safe routes in this area and how to get them implemented.
When I am cycling, I find it dangerous and difficult to cross East Road from Petersfield or Bradmore Street and I resort to using the pedestrian crossings with my bike because it is.
This area that really needs addressing for improvements to safe cycling and I don’t understand why given the expansion of ARU this has not been addressed.
The junction of Mill Road/East Road is also pretty scary for cyclists and pedestrians. The crossing at the slip road at the corner of Petersfield is difficult for pedestrians because it has no traffic controls and cars come quickly round this corner making it dangerous for anyone who is not alert , who is not tall enough to see, or who can't move quickly. This includes the young, the old, someone in a wheelchair. I wouldn't fancy pushing a child in a buggy across either.
Basically, it seems to me that the Junction and East road are designed for motor vehicles and traffic flow not for pedestrians and cyclists. Can we try and address this?
Martin Lucas-Smith // 2 threads
I am writing to point your attention to a "danger spot" on the Barton Road cycle route.
I and many others cycle this route every day and really appreciate how safe it is. However, there have been a number of near accidents at the sliproad from the M11 southbound onto the Barton roundabout. The problem is that the cycle path means that all cyclists must cross the road leading onto the roundabout. This is fine when the traffic is not busy. However, during rush hour the left lane going onto the roundabout is always queued up. This means that, to cross the the road, a cyclist needs to wait for a car to let them out. However, the problem lies with the right lane going onto the roundabout. If there is a queue in the left lane, you are unable to see into the right lane and so quite a few cyclists are nearly knocked off at this point
The problem is that:
a. The right lane is too short and so cyclists are unable to get out of the way in time if a car does not does turn onto it. It seems to me that there shouldn't be a right lane as it's too short to be of any use and poses more of a danger to cyclists.
b. Cars tends to (understandably) be going quite fast as they've just come off the M11 and also are usually looking onto the roundabout rather than the road in front of them. This has meant that I've seen lots of cars having to break very heavily having only seen a bike crossing in front of them at the very last minute.
I, and the other cyclists that routinely use this otherwise very safe route, would hugely appreciate it if this problem could be looked at.
[RL; sent by post, 27th June 2015]
The Eastern Gate proposals are a strategic attempt by the City Council to rework the Newmarket Road roundabout area towards a standard crossing, and create a welcoming entrance into this very run-down looking part of the city.
It is supposed to be being paid for by Section 106 moneys from developments, yet proposal after proposal is coming forward but nothing is happening.
Martin Lucas-Smith // 1 thread
Fulbourn/Cherry Hinton Eastern Access is one of the five City Deal 'cross-city improvements' schemes.
"The growth of housing and employment sites in the Cherry Hinton and Fulbourn Road area, such as the expansion of the ARM headquarters will put further pressure on local roads. Improving the cycleways on Fulbourn Road would enhance cycle access to the city centre and contribute to the completion of the cycleway network in this part of south-east Cambridge."
The Mill Road traders are planning a meeting (2016) to discuss congestion on Mill Road and have asked us to send a representative. What ideas do we have to for Mill Road?
This intersection needs a right turn light for bikes turning from St Andrew's Street into the Downing Street contraflow lane.
Doing so feels unsafe with buses coming up from behind, and little opportunity to get across the intersection.
I'm considering setting up a 38 Degrees petition on the matter, but wanted to see if this issue had been campaigned on before.
The new road layout here means that eastbound cyclists travelling straight-on find themselves in the left-turn lane, stopped by a Red light, and blocking traffic turning left into the Park and Ride who have a Green left turn filter.
The road markings seem to expect cyclists in this lane to go straight ahead, even though it's the left turn lane, because it is guided into the onward eastbound cycle lane. Just feels wrong and leaves cyclists vulnerable to the left turning traffic.
There should be a 'redmac' cycle lane between the left turn lane and the right hand lane. The road markings should guide cyclists from this lane into the eastbound cycle lane instead of from the left turn lane.
Martin Lucas-Smith // 2 threads
Demolition of ancillary buildings and removal of 1930's facade at the grade II listed Cambridge Union Society. Construction of replacement facade, reinstatement and refurbishment of historic features and internal and external access and refurbishment works including enlargement of existing cafe (use class A3) and re-opening of 'footlight's' entertainment space (sui generis). Demolition of squash courts and un-listed 3-5 Round Church Street in the conservation area. Construction of new link building for access and ancillary uses for the Union Society. Construction of adjacent new building with ground floor restaurant (use class A3) with 41 room post-graduate student accommodation above (use class C2) together with basement storage and services.
Cambridge Union Society 9A Bridge Street Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB2 1UB
Application reference : 16/0673/FUL
Also a Listing Building Consent application: 16/0674/LBC Demolition of ancillary buildings and removal of 1930's facade at the grade II listed Cambridge Union Society
Plans are emerging for development on the Coldham's Lane site with implications for the surrounding area including links with Cherry Hinton.
Some people are especially sensitive to lights, including flashing lights, and lights which point directly into their eyes. Both these two situations can result in migraines for the unfortunate observer.I am glad to read that German law mandates downward-focussed lights. We should do the same.
Flashing lights used to be illegal (i.e. when incandescant lights were the norm) but the law was changed to specifically allow them. However, for the reason above, and also because judging the speed (and to some extent the position) of a bicycle is impossible when the light is flashing could actually make flashing lights less safe. Batteries have improved and LEDs are more efficient, and the battery life even on 'steady' mode is way more than in the 'days of yore' hat some of us knew.
Cycling and Walking provision at Cambridge Science Park is poor. Lets try and get it fixed
If it is not bad enough in a cycle city that the Great Northern Road, the new road to Cambridge's main train station and cycle parking, does not have a segregated and safe cycle paths, the new development is now being proposed which will prevent a segregated cycleway from access to the Station a Devonshire road.
Does anyone agree that there should be a segregated cycle access to the country's largest cycle park?
Objections to U&Cs outline planning application need to be submitted by 10 April. There seem to be some interesting ideas for improving cycling infrastructure but a lot that could be improved upon.
Martin Lucas-Smith // 1 thread
This junction is currently very poor. Cyclists end up doing awkward manoeuvres and visibility is not good.
It is possible this could be improved as part of the Chisholm Trail.
How could this junction be redesigned to make it best practice?
I've noticed a few of these around Cambridge where there's a "no through road" sign but it's a through road for cyclists and pedestrians. As there's a post already, if the council had a ready-made stock of plates saying "except cycles", "except pedestrians", a single operative could affix the plate below the sign to made it correct. It is highly deceptive and not serving those using non-motorised transport if they go the long way round not realising they can get through a quicker route.
Complete separation of cyclists and cars can't always be achieved. To make sharing of the road safer I would like to propose using rumble strips instead of flat paint to separate the bike lane from the rest of the road. It would act as a physical reminder for car-drivers that they are encroaching the bike lane. This happens particularly near pinch points like road bends or crossroads. So even just a selective application of rumble strips could have a very positive effect, I believe. What's the view of the cycling community? Has it been tested?
I cycle past this junction a lot, and sometimes the lights are red so I wait and look at the lanes and wonder why they're like this.
Created by Gingineer // 1 thread
I work near the station and the area out the front of the new building has short term cycle spaces for the shops there. These spaces are specifically for the retail units (ratios of this is in the planning application I understand). so the racks have to be installed and wont be policed by the retail units (such as the ones by Microsoft which are for employees) yet they fill with commuters who should be using the cycle park.
I have been thinking that Cambridge CC needs to agree a system (bye law?) to create short term racks. The colour should be different and signage provided but for racks that need controlling like this it is essential to stop antisocial cyclists piling up bikes.
Of course its difficult to police, and a heavy handed approach should be avoided but I see a growing issue across the city where racks for specific short term purposes are created but then filled with long term cyclists who should accept if they are parked all day that the extra 2 minutes walk for them to a proper cycle park is reasonable to expect. Otherwise this puts people off cycling the short distances as they fear they wont get a rack or will spend a lot of time scrambling for a spot.
Cyclists could be stickered and if caught again then fined. Or clamped to the rack with a fee to unlock (yes I know that sounds like it defeats the object but it should work after a while).
Created by GG // 1 thread
For a long time I have wondered about a crowd-sourced cycleability map.
In this, people cycle along a link (accepting the first question of how to define the beginning and end of this) then give it a thumbs up or down. After enough people do this, then others can see how popular it is.
Some people wonder about subjectivity but I think this should be less of a problem with more voters.
The reason I am asking is because this method could apply to a potential commercial project for a Council which wants to drive around 100km of rural roads and use a panel of 4 experts to grade meaningful segments on a 1 to 7 scale according to their suitability for HGV movements.
Any views on whether this is already done within an app I am not aware of, or could be it done by anyone as an add-on to something else, or is it something CamCycle could offer as a commercial package (there may well be more than one local authority looking for this sort of thing)
Out of the A1307 Linton Greenway consultation has come a plan for the section between Addenbrooke's roundabout and the Babraham P&R, which the county/GCP are keen to move forward. There was an initial invite-only consultation event on Thur 31st Jan for local residents/residents associations to comment.
Huawei plans to develop R & D superhub at the 550-acre Spicer's Site in Sawston.
The County Council have a consultation running on "improvements along Cherry Hinton Road, Cambridge, to make it safer and more attractive for walking and cycling" between Hills road and Perne Road.
The consultation runs until Tuesday 18 June. There are two consultation events at Rock Road Library, 69 Rock Road, Cambridge on Tuesday 21 May and Tuesday 21 May.