Question 9
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No additional vehicles on Milton Road and King's Hedges Road is a fantastic commitment in terms of low-carbon development. I'm curious about how this will be monitored? Glad to see the number of parking spaces per dwelling is low but with 8,000 homes this still means ~4000 cars which makes me quesiton whether Milton Road and King's Hedges Road could ever see no additional vehicles. It's important to determine how the 0.5 vehs per home will be enforced (double yellow lines?) because otherwise cars will be parked on verges, streets, front gardens etc as the desire to have 1+ cars per home is high in what is likely to be an expensive neighbourhood.
No uploaded files for public display
You've worded this question in a biased way to imply that if I select "yes completely" that you are doing a good job at discouraging cars, and if I select "Not at all" it implies that you need to do more to discourage cars... Please take my answer of "not at all" to mean that I completely disagree with your plans to discourage cars. Encourage electric cars to reduce air pollution by installing electric car charging docks all over the car parking bays. But blocking access to cars is completely excluding people who rely on cars to travel. MANY PEOPLE CAN'T CYCLE. AND MANY PEOPLE CAN'T WALK FAR. And I'm not just talking about elderly people too, however the majority of elderly people might actually be in this position where they rely on cars or taxis. Please tell show me where you are accommodating for these people in your plans... The truth is, you are not. You are excluding them and pushing them out of the area, and it's shameful.
No uploaded files for public display
This is a hopeless idea. You're assuming that the public transport connections will go where people will be working. Public planning in general has been historically poor at this. So people will end up driving, which means they need cars. The plans to coerce people not to need them will result in congestion and misery. You MUST demonstrate working public transport that people can use before planning areas dependent on it or you risk creating ghettos; occupied by those who cannot afford -- or do not need -- to have better connected homes.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes, but equestrians need to be included alongside cyclists and pedestrians.
No uploaded files for public display
Some (I would say many) streets in the area should be pedestrian/cyclist only. On all streets, pedestrian and cycling routes should be clearly delineated, and treated as separately as pavements and roads would be (rather than the treatment of these areas in the historical city centre). I also think there needs to be some back-up plan for the 0.5 car parking spaces - will there be an application process to buying a house that you aren't allowed a car? Where will the cars go that people will inevitably have? Though a good idea in theory, I am concerned that this could have a negative impact on the surrounding areas as people try to park their cars somewhere nearby if there isn't parking in the area itself.
No uploaded files for public display
Not clear how car ownership will be monitored.
No uploaded files for public display
0.5 cars per household? People will just park their cars elsewhere.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
A problem I see is the upgrading of the A14 and housing developments out of the city - with people driving into the area for work. This requires a wide systems view of the issue and it isn't clear to me from the additional material that you have done this?
No uploaded files for public display
There needs to be a good public transport link to the city centre.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
The statements that the development will result in no additional vehicle movements on Milton Road and Kings Hedges, lacks any credibility, given there is no detail on the radical improvements required to the wider public transport and dedicated segregated cycle route both to and from the wider Cambridge city area and also to the surrounding villages.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes, however I would be interested more on the idea of how people would be expected to travel to other parts of the country. Residents aren't expected to completed give up their cars completely if they move in to the area? How will they visit the beach on the weekend? Surely they're not expected to rely on public transport for a Sunday family day to the beach?
No uploaded files for public display
Discouraging car use is only one half of the equation. Unless high quality alternatives to car use are provided then all that will happen will be that people will park on streets and any visitor spaces provided. The goal is laudable, but the question should be asked why people in nearby residential developments (e.g. Orchard Park, Milton) have significant car ownership. If excellent cycling provision is made, combined with excellent public transport, and potentially some form of congestion pricing for the city, this will help move people away from their cards.
No uploaded files for public display
I a very concerned that you will be preventing me from driving to Cambridge North station, which I will want to do when a) it is raining, b) I have luggage, c) I am travelling with people who cannot walk to Milton. At the moment it is fantastically easy to get to the station by car. I would like to avoid resorting to taxis because I could not park my car. To be clear, the bus service from Milton is lousy, and I consider buses to be beneath me.
No uploaded files for public display
This is a ridiculously, offensively leading question. There is no option "far too much". This whole consultation is a sham. I will write a separate complaint if I can find the relevant address.
No uploaded files for public display
This seems the wrong attitude and should be targeted to discouraging the wrong sort of car use rather than all car use. There are instances where people need access to a car and a bike/ walking won't be sufficient. To go out of the way to discourage cars seems unhelpful. Also vehicles will move towards alternate propulsion so CO2 will not be a good enough excuse when this area actually comes into fruitition in 2030-2035 especially if you anticipate it being around for at least 50 years. What needs to be targetted is short journeys which can be done by bike, foot. Your housing brief says you'll expect "above average" cycle parking. Whose average other cities or Cambridge. It should aim to match the numbers in the Netherlands as nowhere else has a similar bike density. Also need to ensure the transport links, link up with other areas of Cambridge and outside areas. Need to ensure public transport (e,g, buses) are not the spoke of the wheel approach used in the rest of Cambridge city.
No uploaded files for public display
Do you really believe that providing 0.5 car spaces will stop residents purchasing vehicles and parking them somewhere in Cambridge? I don't. It would be better provide a large multi-storey with electric car charging points so at least cars will not litter the streets and encourage the use of electric cars and bikes.
No uploaded files for public display
To whom it may concern, Enterprise Car Club currently supports Cambridge City Council & County Council with the provision of multiple Car Club vehicles throughout Cambridge for residents, businesses and visitors. We understand that your goal is to reduce car levels coming in/out of the area. Giving everyone access to a 24/7 pay as you go alternative to car ownership can only support what you are trying to achieve. Whilst cycling, walking and public transport has to be the main methods encouraged, sometimes being able to drive yourself in a car is the only practical and convenient way of reaching your destination. My question to you is; Throughout your plans, have you (or are you) considered the introduction of a widely available sustainable Car Club within the area, that can be accessed by all, therefore increasing the sharing economy? I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this in greater depth.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
I think 20mph is too high for a design speed. If a car is able to travel faster than someone cycling at a leisurely pace, then the likelihood is the driver will bully the cyclist out of the way. The design speed should be 10mph maximum if the streets are going to be safe spaces for children to play and people to walk and cycle. I also think 0.5 parking spaces is far too high. There should be car club and disabled spaces only. I think the number of people and families who happily (or would happily) live car free is often underestimated - I live in car free in a development where every home has a car parking space and the empty car parking space is a massive waste of space. I support the lack of through routes
No uploaded files for public display
Having no through routes is good - but having only one way in and out for individual households is not (intelligent traffic management would be able to fix this apparent conflict). The idea of only providing half a car space per household, however, is sheer lunacy. It will lead to parking wars. If you are thinking of reproducing the visitor-management methods used in Aura off Long Road, then this is disgraceful. Instead, visitors to residents of the area should be able to use visitor parking allowances provided free of charge to residents. (Preventing commuter parking is sadly essential.)
No uploaded files for public display
I think you need to consider slightly more parking for visitors to residents. However to discourage residents from having cars, the parking should not be outside of houses, but in communal parking areas, with just unloading allowed outside front doors. You need parking for district nurses, community workers, cleaners, etc and those residents where a car is essential for one reason or another. But not having a parking space outside your home will discourage any non-essential car ownership
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Cars exist whether you like it or not. You can't force people off the roads. People who are old, disabled etc still need to be able to get around. People still need to commute to work. The traffic on Milton Road will increase, there's no way round that. You'd be better to invest in a better layout and traffic light systems on Milton Road than to try hide away from it. If there's no parking spaces, people will just park elsewhere
No uploaded files for public display
If someone is Traveling in Cambridge from 30 miles apart they can’t use public transportation every day, it has to be in the car. The science park is already a problem for traffic. You can go there at 4 pm after this lockdown and check the situation. If you want to build I can be done out side city. Cambridge is already a overbuilt area. I can get it why we are building more in Cambridge.
No uploaded files for public display
