Question 2
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
It will take a long time to get cycle paths
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Yes
No uploaded files for public display
There seem many.
No uploaded files for public display
It is ok BUT the railway bridge should be wide enough to take the thousands of trucks and cars away from Cambridge/Chesterton to the A14 Junction 53
No uploaded files for public display
You are not providing enough parking though. 0.5 spaces per residence is unrealistic - parking will spill into the surrounding areas.
No uploaded files for public display
No comment.
No uploaded files for public display
As usual, we are falling over ourselves for the cycling community. More cycleways that they won't /don't use.
No uploaded files for public display
No comment.
No uploaded files for public display
They aren't needed. Sufficient footpaths, cycle paths, guided bus and roads already exist. People won't walk from here to town.
No uploaded files for public display
Do not design dedicated cycle routes. Make new roads wider and use cycle lanes instead.
No uploaded files for public display
No comment
No uploaded files for public display
Yes, right amount but wrong place (see Comment 1)
No uploaded files for public display
It is naive to assume that people will always cycle from this far corner of Cambridge in the middle of winter. There will be more traffic. Much better to re-purpose existing buildings in the centre of Cambridge.
No uploaded files for public display
Would be nice if the road conditions were also thought about - pot holes, (illegible) we pay road tax!
No uploaded files for public display
The majority of people using the Science Park drive cars and the roads will be gridlocked.
No uploaded files for public display
No comment.
No uploaded files for public display
I am not trusting of alleged 'cycle routes.' There are too many so far that are painted and lead to main roads somewhere along the route.
No uploaded files for public display
No comment.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes - but will the surrounding neighbourhoods be able to cope? We would like some improvements in the cycling infrastructure through Milton too.
No uploaded files for public display
Further comments: No comment
No uploaded files for public display
Safe crossing of Milton Road is important but this does not necessarily need to be two new crossings (one likely to be an underpass and one likely to be a bridge) plus an improved junction where Milton Road meets the guided busway as indicated on the plan on page 14.
No uploaded files for public display
Refer to comments under Policy 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21
No uploaded files for public display
• We are pleased to see the design encourages walking and cycling in the development, but the knockon effect will cause problems of overcrowding on existing and planned adjacent infrastructure for walking and cycling. • Milton Road will have major roadworks soon and will encourage cycling and walking but will the cycleways be wide enough for the increased population? The proposed cycleways will be 2.5m, some areas where the road is narrower the cycle lanes will be even smaller at 1.5m. At our last counts before the epidemic 534 cyclists were counted between 8 and 9am near Arbury Road. There will be extra pressure with people cycling from the new development put on the area. • The area around the river tow path is already crowded and when the Chisholm Trail plus the Greenway with the additional housing at Waterbeach is in place, it is unlikely to be sufficient to carry those extra cyclists and pedestrians. • The green bridge in the original plans could have helped relieve some of the congestion resulting from cycling from the Science Park to the new area, and should be looked at again. A subway will be a poor second best – they are never nice places to cycle through and tend to fill with the fumes from the cars and lorries on that busy part of Milton Road. • Walking and cycling around Cambridge North Station needs to be studied carefully. Brookgate developers did not make allowances for the number of cyclists around Cambridge Station and made it very difficult to cross the square. Traffic and cyclists are forced to mix with very dangerous outcomes. The developers need to learn by their mistakes. The country is embracing a cycling revolution and cyclists need to be given a much higher priority at the planning stage. • Cycle parking at Cambridge North Station needs to be monitored by security guards to prevent the high levels of theft that exists at the present time. • The plans do not show parking for cycles outside the new homes. There needs to be safe, free, covered cycle parking throughout the development not only for standard cycles but also cargo bikes.
No uploaded files for public display
Further comments: Just look at Northstowe cars everywhere and no parking!
No uploaded files for public display
Improving permeability to the south, through Cambridge Business Park and Nuffield Rd business park, is a welcome and important element of the plan. • A pedestrian/cycle-friendly crossing of Milton Rd is needed, but it is unclear whether a bridge is the answer: the land take will be large to create a comfortable incline at both sides, and sufficient vehicle clearance. More detail of options needs to be examined and discussed. • The proposed cycle/footbridge over the railway to Chesterton Fen should be a road bridge to replace the problematic level crossing on Fen Rd. The latter can then be converted into a cycle/footway underpass, resolving a weak link in the Chisholm Trail (which relies on a small cut-through between Fen Rd and the towpath).
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display