Cambridge City Council planning application 14/0713/FUL. Nursery to be demolished and replaced by housing
Listed issues, most recent first, limited to the area of Cambridge Cycling Campaign:
Cambridge City Council planning application 14/0713/FUL. Nursery to be demolished and replaced by housing
I'm getting reports of a very serious accident at the crossing of the Addenbrooke's Trumpington cycleway and the Guided busway from the city centre to the Park and Ride, and the Addenbrooke's spur.
A local campaign group has been formed to push for improvements to this busy roundabout
Consultation on road markings and traffic signs at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/traffic-signs-regulations-and-general-directions-2015
There are a number of things which I believe affect cyclists, see http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/dft-to-allow-better-signage-for-cyclists-including-removing-asl-lanes/016336
This is really a national issue, but didn't want to spam all users.
s106 money has been set aside from the West Cambridge development for a route into Central Cambridge.
There is a campaign for a cycle route between Bar Hill and Cambridge, also connecting Dry Drayton, Madingley and Coton to North-West Cambridge.
Currently cycle provision for these villages is poor. Bar Hill has lower rates of cycling than other villages that are closer to Cambridge.
The campaign site is: http://www.bhddmadcycle.com/
I've just spotted a County Council public notice on the post at the point noted, but applying to various areas as far as I can tell. Was in a bit of a hurry - stupidly didn't think of taking a photo of it. But the Council appear to be suggesting putting bus lane enforcement cameras in! I think this has to be good news, and ought to help cyclists - what do other people think?
The Guided Busway is a huge success. It carries many adults and youth to and from many destinations, a major destination being the Cambridge Regional College bus stop. Unfortunately, the volume of bicycle and pedestrian traffic along the line of the busway at this point probably wasn’t considered and is now causing problems. It will probably cause even more problems once the new Science Park Station is built at the far end of the busway.
When I started looking at this junction, I tried to ignore what was “built” and instead tried to observe how people moved through the junction. In the first diagram I’ve shown the main desire lines. Desire lines are where people actually move rather than those which engineers designed. For example, when crossing the access road to the college, from the busway, people walked in as straight a line as possible pretty much ignoring the supposed 90º toucan crossing.
Many people on bicycles don’t bother with the toucan but instead just wait for a gap between the traffic light phases and quickly scoot across. Many people ignore what has been designed and have found new, possibly better, ways through the junction - for example, creating a path from King Hedges Road over bare ground. This informal crossing obviously works, but is it safe? Do the bus drivers expect people to cross at this point?
There are many conflict points, some less bothersome than others. The two biggest problems are at the bus stop exit junction with the science park entrance, and between the toucan crossing and the brick surround of the gas supply for the area. When cycling there can be many people trying to cross the road, especially after the bus has stopped, or just before classes are due to start, all getting in your way. Of course, we are getting in their way too, and this isn’t helped by the poor sight lines.
I would therefore summarise that the problems are simply:
1. Severely limited space at the toucan crossing and busway crossing points.
2. Informal pedestrian crossing show junction isn’t working as desired.
3. Very narrow access to science park with poor sight lines.
First, we should always respect peoples desire lines. They are voting with their feet, it is obviously safe enough for them to do it day after day, and they have left plenty of evidence that it works by wearing down the grass. So we should make this a proper pedestrian route. This actually has two benefits: it moves a lot of the pedestrian traffic to the west side of the busway stop reducing the number of people at the science park entrance, and it allows a more “directed” path to the north side of that brick building.
Second, we should separate the CRC traffic and guided busway traffic as much as possible at the CRC junction. The busway traffic should follow their natural desire line which is straight on. There are wide turning splays for buses to access the busway from the CRC, yet no buses do this. We should remove them and make a straight on toucan in line with the busway. The CRC traffic would be given their own toucan on the north side of the brick building. Some of the existing railing (cycle parking) here may need to be removed, and the car stop line pushed back a car length or so. The space between the car stop line and the new toucan could usefully become an advanced cycle box.
Third, we should build a proper segregated footway to the north of the cycle track that links to the existing footway going to the “new” toucan. This would be built similar to the Coton path such that pedestrian traffic would be encouraged to seek the higher and safer ground.
Forth, we should straighten the line for access from the science park to the busway. The current facility bends away from the busway crossing, is very narrow, and limits the flow. I’ve seen times when people are queuing cross the busway to travel through this gate. On the south side, the highly restrictive chicane should be removed. People happily cross the busway at multiple points without problems, as here the buses are moving very slowly as they approach the station.
Lastly, we should alter the phasing of the traffic lights. A simple desire for people on bicycle is to wait as little time as possible, but we take very little time to cross a road. Therefore, I would suggest that bicycles are given a green light between every car phase, but only for a few seconds. They should also be given a green light whenever the busway is given a green light. The individual phases may need to be lengthened slightly, say from 25 seconds to 30 seconds to maintain the “capacity”, but the advantages it gives to bicycles would be huge. Also, the pedestrian crossing could be changed to a zebra crossing. This route would then become preferable to the slower toucan crossing further pulling people away. It would also allow for a much more pedestrian focused environment around what should be highly walkable area.
Demolition of Edinburgh Building, warehouse and associated buildings and erection of office development of up to 41,750 sq. m. gross external area with development generally being of between 4 and 5 storeys (with limited areas of screened rooftop plant), a single tower element with two further storeys of accommodation, up to 189 car parking spaces (+/- 10%), up to 1325 cycle parking spaces (+/- 20%), up to 26 motorcycle spaces, hard and soft landscaping and ancillary facilities including staff canteens, meeting rooms, refuse enclosures, plant rooms, social break-out spaces etc. all to serve as the new office campus headquarters for Cambridge Assessment.
Bella Italia have applied to Cambridgeshire County Council to put outside seating (19 tables/38 chairs) at the Mill Pond outside their restaurant:
(I'll put the detailed plan on the thread to follow).
The Draft Cambridgeshire Long Term Transport Strategy and Local Transport Plan Refresh has, as a City Deal item, a £43million project to create "Comprehensive segregated bus priority / Busway on Newmarket Road into Cambridge between Airport Way and Elizabeth Way / East Road."
This is quite clearly an opportunity to get far better cycle provision on this corridor.
For a change, I tried following the route signs for the station today. As well as a mystery tour near the Grafton centre where the signs simply stop, my route was blocked at Gresham Road by "WET TAR" and a sign proclaiming it. No diversion was signed and there were no advance warning signs that would have let me pick a better route earlier. Plenty of people were riding along the footways - enough that it was too crowded for me to feel safe doing so. I performed a U-turn, waited a second time at the crossroad traffic lights and rode along the very busy Gonville Place and Hills Road instead.
I've tweeted at Cambridgeshire County Council and Cambridge City Council in https://mobile.twitter.com/mjray/status/453926972843118593 because I don't think that is legal - a cycle route suddenly being blocked by wet tar does not comply with the code of practice on safety at streetworks, which is required by law. I'm disappointed to encounter this in Cambridge.
"14/0447/FUL | Change of use from motor bike show room to supermarket with cafe [without cooking facilities] and installation of air compressor unit. | 192 Green End Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB4 1RN"
When I popped into the Cambridge Wine Merchants last night, there were signs on all the posts and sheffield stands saying "no cycle parking from 6am, 7th April". I assumed some royal visit. I asked the man in the shop if he thought people not being able to park would affect trade and he said he hoped not. However, by the post where I normally park there's a big "road closed" sign, 6am-6pm (I think).
He is under the impression that there is filming going on from 7am-10am. It is period filming in the 1950s therefore you can't have sheffield stands (probably not invented) or modern bikes.
My main question/gripe is, when I see a "road closed" sign, I assume I will be able to get through even if I need to dismount and wheel my cycle. Sometimes, if it's a long walk, it may be quicker to cycle via another route. From the nature of what I've been told is going on, it sounds to me as if actually the road will even be closed to pedestrians, well unless they're wearing authentic 1950s dress.
Does anyone know any more? Does anyone know anything about the legal status of forcing pedestrians to take a lengthy diversion from what is the public highway? There are various cyclescape threads which have mentioned that although cars only have a permissive right to use the road, pedestrians have some stronger right. Can they force pedestrians and dismounted cyclists to go another route, when it's not an issue of national security?
Has there been any improvement in the "new" NCN 11 route from Waterbeach to Lode since last summer? Last time I went that way I had to wheel the bike across fields and carry it over two or three stiles.
Any information, including a forecast date when a proper route is likely to be built, welcome. Thanks.
In 2012 a long list of candidate one way streets for conversion to two-way cycling was drafted. http://www.cyclestreets.net/photomap/tags/twoway2012/
Two years later the County are now proposing a short list of 11 streets for conversion.
At the moment it is possible to cycle from Cambridge Road, near Madingley, to Girton, on a bridleway that crosses over the A428 and then passes under the M11 at the Girton Interchange. You can then cross three roads (A1307) and reach a pavement on the North-East side of the Interchange. Using the pavement you can then reach Washpit Lane and cycle up towards Girton. (The pavement is marked as a shared-use route on the OSM Cycle map, although I am not sure that it really is.)
Apart from having to be careful when crossing the A1307 junction it is a rather pleasant route to ride.
The Girton Interchange is being "improved" to reduce the bottleneck for cars. Does anyone know what plans there are to ensure that the current route through remains open and whether there are plans to improve the bridleway route through? Or will this be another example of roads being developed to the detriment of footpaths/bridleways.
As part of the Cycle City Ambition Grants there are proprosals to install wide, segregated or hybrid cycle lanes, with priority over sideroads, on Hills Road.
Consultation February 2014 (see thread)
Car Parks P, F1 And F2
To provide education centre, private hospital, hotel, conference centre,
ancillary space, associated car parking and public realm works to replace
existing surface parking to accommodate 42,600sqm of development.
Erection of new building comprising 68 study bedrooms, shared kitchens, and meeting room, associated external works and tree and shrub planting together with alterations to South Court building (grade II listed) to widen pedestrian / wheelchair access.
St Clements Gardens
Erection of new student accommodation comprising 72 study bedrooms
together with ancillary kitchens, common rooms, porter's office, plant and store rooms, cycle parking (including 13 dedicated external spaces for Bishop Bateman Court) and associated external works following demolition of 1-8 St Clements Gardens.
Martin Lucas-Smith // 1 thread
Spotted at the walking/cycling junction cut-through between Hooper Street and Kingston Arms:
"Stop nuisance bikers"
Personally I don't think this is a huge issue, and it would be better to have a simpler bollard arrangement and just accept there will be some biker use.
From: Old Chesterton Residents Association
Sent: 01/02/2014 15:19
Subject: Consultation on 5th February
If you have views on the Mariners Way/Cutter Ferry Lane underpass, you have an opportunity to make them known at a consultation arranged at St Andrew's Hall on 5th February. Details are attached.
Traffic queuing on Milton Road between Cowley Park Road and the on-road cycle lane south west of Trinity Hall Farm Ind Est blocks cycles getting past.
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.