Question 2

Mostly yes

could the new transport links include additional roads to the traveller site other than fen road? Perhaps where the chesterton Fen area is?

Mostly yes

Still some concerns about the bike link between Cambridge North station side of this development and Chisholm Trail and Riverside. This will become VERY busy, and current car density and poorer infrastructure lets this part down.

Not at all

It is my opinion that whilst it is desirable to encourage walking and cycling it is naive to believe that movement will be restricted to the development area and that all or a vast majority of the residents will work within the area and that people will not travel considerable distances to employment from outside the area. A similar 'vision' for places such as Bar Hill and Cambourne have not been particularly successfully fulfilled.

Neutral

Its the connections for people driving in to work in the area which may not be realistic.

Neutral

Its the connections for people driving in to work in the area which may not be realistic.

Mostly not

No answer given

Neutral

This area could provide good walking and cycling connections but instead of moving between offices (there does seem to be lots of offices already vacant in Cambridge so no need for more!) and houses it could be a park area with grass, trees etc and would benefit everyone and help wildlife.

Yes, completely

Optimal option

Mostly not

Assumes everyone is fit and active Good connections to Cambridge North Station and Science Park but not realistic for travel to South and further east of city, e.g. Biomedical Centre Too many residents for Milton Park to cater Local roads will not cope with increased vehicular traffic

Mostly not

Connections are not enough to meet the vision that has been outlined unless those routes that are connected to are safe to cycle. Currently I do everything possible to avoid cycling up Milton Road as most of it is not safe for cyclists. Unless the routes into the city centre have safe segregated routes with priority over vehicles this part of the vision will not be met.

Neutral

It is good to be trying to reduce the number of cars and encourage walking and cycling and public transfer. I don't believe the number of new underpasses and crossing points proposed are necessary.

Neutral

No answer given

Yes, completely

No answer given

Neutral

Obviously promoting cycling is a good thing. However assuming that just because cycle and walking routes are available, will not stop people using their cars.

Mostly yes

There seems little attempt to separate cyclist form pedestrians and the behaviour of some cyclists seems to assume that they need take no care for Pedestrians. This is my one real concern about the implementation of cycling and walking provision in Cambridge and the surrounding areas. There is little attempt by cyclist to understand safety issues as they relate to pedestrians. As a motorist, cyclist and pedestrian, I know that when driving a car I have to care for the safety of the cyclist and pedestrian and as a motorist there are restrictions which stop me putting the safety of these other two groups at risk so long as they stay within the limits of these arrangements. Where such restrictions exist for cyclists, they seem more honoured in the breach. Particularly a minority of cyclists do not see the need to protect themselves and assume that the motorist will always take responsibility for the safety of the cyclist, no matter how outrageous the cyclists behaviour is. As a motorist and cyclist I am careful of the safety of others and myself. As a pedestrian I take care not to move into areas set up for motor traffic. However shared space with cyclists I find dangerous

Mostly not

These are 'transport links'. The shortage of public open spaces means that (with the exception of Milton Country Park on the far edge of the areas) there are no walking routes that can be enjoyed by the public, including the elderly and parents with young children can enjoy close to home.

Mostly yes

There must be provision for cyclists to cross the railway line at the station. A diversion north or south is not enough.

Mostly not

need to separate pedestrians from cyclists not clear. I am a pedestrian and have trouble sharing with dangerous cyclists in lycra.

Mostly yes

The plans to get bikes using the river towpath are problematic, the path is not wide enough to allow pedestrians and cyclists to use it safely together. If people are walking 2 abreast, or someone is holding a child's hand, then a bike can only pass when they step into single file or stand back in the hedge, this is even more challenging when bikes are passing each other. Cyclists often fly along at high speed, it can be terrifically dangerous and very unpleasant for walkers. The towpath must also be developed to make this work effectively for everyone.

Mostly yes

At a broad level, looks ok, but the devil is in the detail.

Mostly yes

It will be important that all of the planned connections are implemented, and also that the surrounding infrastructure for cycling & walking is strengthened so that there is a good network.

Mostly yes

Developing the new district around key walking and cycling routes and removing barriers on the routes to nearby areas is very important and all the links marked on the map must be included. However, more improvements will be needed to make cycling and walking safe and convenient for all ages and abilities across North Cambridge and to make sure each route is suitable for the number of people that will be using it.

Mostly not

My answer is not entirely relevant because of my opposition to relocating the works. However, I note that the walking and cycling connections you are proposing could be relevant to a smaller works at the existing site. The big failing is that they are not inclusive; there are many members of real communities who are not young and active and who therefore cannot walk or cycle far and are therefore dependent on mobility scooters and cars with disability permits. Also, I note with GREAT CONCERN that there is an off-road cycle path along Mere Way north of the A14. Surely, this cannot be correct if you make the decision to relocate the works to Option area 2. Have you prejudged the consultation recently carried out by Anglian Water?

Neutral

Some of this looks OK, but the only even moderately large green space is Milton Country Park, and that's really not large for that size of population, surrounded as they are by main roads and railway. If the overall population was smaller, and there was rather more green space within the boundary, that would be a considerable improvement.

Neutral

The proposed changes to walking and cycling are the bare minimum. More already needs to be done in the area, particularly if more housing is to be granted.

Yes, completely

Love the better cycle paths. They should extend out as far as possible to the villages to bring town and country living together. Without that there will always be traffic and parking problems.

Mostly yes

Overall the connections are good but weakest connecting south/east of the river. The Chishom Trail bridge helps, but there is a weakness in connections at its landing point on the north bank - the towpath is totally inadequate to take more traffic north into the development area, and other routes need developing to reach a good standard. Another bridge, by the A14 road bridge would be fantastic although we understand the expense probably prohibits it.

Not at all

The tow path is already over used, so there is likely to be over crowding. More money needs to be invested in better lighting and maintenance for cycle routes in Cambridge anyway, and this is not going to help the situation.

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly not

what do you propose to do about public transport for elderly residents and their visiting carers?