Question 9

Yes, completely

Too much - most people want access to some independent transport, even if they try to walk and cycle most of the time. For many who are elderly or have young children or are simply carrying heavy shopping, walking, cycling or public transport are not always possible.Underground car parks should be included in the plans.

Neutral

Most people in this area need cars as public transport is inadequate. If you do not provide enough parking you make a severe problem for all the new residents.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly not

8000 dwellings will mean about 20K residents of whom, at a generous estimate, only 15K will be of working age. It is planned to provide 20K new jobs in the area; that will mean inward commuting of at least 5000 workers. Currently 50% of those who work on the Science Park declare they drive to work; the reasons given are multi-trips, poor public transport at journey origin or adverse weather. If the same proportion of inward commuters drive it will mean 2500 cars accessing the sites. There is no guarantee that residents will remain in local work; Cambridge workers tend to have high job mobility resulting in outward commuting. The combined toll on local roads will be untenable; the A14 and Milton Road are already gridlocked with inward commuting to the Science Park.

Neutral

Why are new residents treated worse than existing residents? Why are the Cambridge ruling elite sticking up two fingers to the new residents? And which is worse for the environment, travelling sixty miles to London every day on a train or driving four or five miles to get to work near Cambridge? This development is blowing kisses to the former and raspberries to the latter.

Mostly not

The plan assumes too high a level of car ownership - much greater priority needs to be given to cycling, with firm commitments made for the associated infrastructure, and schemes implemented such as a shuttle bus for example, (for those unable to walk/cycle). Any driving should primarily entail car clubs & disincentives put in place for car ownership (e.g. pricing on parking).

Mostly not

No answer given

Neutral

This is a loaded question. You say you wish to discourage car travel because there are too many cars around the area already and so there are targets that have to be achieved, but simply reducing the number of spaces to 0.5 per household is nonsense. *If* the transport links are good, then people will use them - it's reasonable to suggest that the reason people drive to workplaces there now is because the transport links aren't up to it. However, cars are a necessary part of basic life for many, outside of work - visiting (when it's rarely the case there is any kind of public transport link, either in other local villages, or across the country), going out in the evenings (when you've had a pleasant night out, struggling back through the wind and rain really puts a damper on, and it's unlikely there will be transport by then), simply bringing home 'stuff', such DIY, which you probably don't want on public transport and certainly not on a bike... and so on. I write this as someone who isn't specially a car-lover - I love taking the train, and use the bus for town, but cycling back from drama, say, at 10 o'clock at night down unlit B roads roads is neither pleasant nor safe... As noted in answer to the first question, if the density is too high to support reasonable mobility at one car per household, the the density of housing should be reduced. If there is then too much traffic, at peak times, then the public transport system should be improved to accommodate the requirement, making its use more desirable for work. And it seems highly questionable that reducing car numbers to 0.5 per household will eliminate extra traffic on Milton Road... to achieve that you'd probably have to resort to 0 cars, which might be an interesting sell!

Not at all

This is a very short sighted building plan. People might be able to get around the local area fine, but people need a van/car often for there work or to visit relatives further away from Cambridge. Providing so few spaces will push car parking onto the surrounding streets. In many other countries they provide underground parking, why not here?

Neutral

You have to allow private business to access and provide services to the businesses AND homes. I run a carpet cleaning business and all the new houses built around town are hard / impossible to get to so I turn work down and customers (home owners) complain about finding it hard to get services. I am a keen biker for private transport so I am not a moaning car driver.

Mostly yes

While we think that the plans do discourage car travel into this area, this is not the right question to ask - rather, it should be, what will the overall impact of the development be on road traffic in and around Cambridge? It is naive to assume that many of the 20,000 jobs created will be filled by residents of this new quarter. Inevitably, there will be significant additional commuting created and as far as we are aware there are no additional public transport measures being proposed to mitigate the issue. Cambridge is already struggling with congestion and this will be exacerbated by this development.

Not at all

The steps suggested are not concrete or far reaching enough. Milton Rd already moves very slowly at busy times and this would inevitably get worse. I don't think the car barns would get much use in practice.

Not at all

There will still be a massive increase in cars on milton road - this road is already oversubscribed!

Mostly not

No additional car movement down Milton Road? How is that calculated? One parent, one four year old and one baby going for a 30 minute swimming lesson at Parkside pool in February. That's one additional journey without a minutes thought.

Not at all

What are you going to do about affordable public transport in Cambridge?

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly yes

I don't think this level is achievable unless parking permits are limited. One per house could be possible. Perhaps station carpark could be used for residential parking (with a permit) to keep cars away from domestic/work areas.

Mostly not

The street layout and design of the site includes many aspects which will help discourage car use including no through-routes and car parking which is not outside people’s homes. However, the plans rely heavily on good links to improved walking and cycling routes outside the area and the implementation of planned public transport schemes such as CAM metro. They also assume levels of car ownership which are too high for a low-carbon development: proposals should start with a more carbon-realistic limit on trips and parking spaces. Experience with other developments, eg Cromwell Road, indicates that unless every effort is made - and continues to be made after initial occupation - residents will park vehicles wherever space may be found within the development and in surrounding streets. Car-parking at 0.5 cars per household is too high to make a significant impact on carbon emissions and the public transport options outlined, eg CAM metro, will arrive too late to offset the need for many to use private cars.

Neutral

You should not be discouraging car travel by limiting the amount of available car parking space as some people must rely on cars for their mobility. You appear to be designing communities for the young and able, and not a broader age group including the old and infirm. Such people will be disadvantaged, confined to their homes with no means of escape to anywhere remotely pleasant. Furthermore, you should anticipate the changing pattern of car type and use that is likely in the near future.

Not at all

You shouldn't be discouraging car use. The emphasis should be on encouraging other forms of transport. looking at the rest of Cambridge it is obvious that the public tansport system falls far short of required levels. Bike use, although should be encouraged, is not easy due to climate - rain, wind and cold temperatures. Furthermore bike lanes are not looked after - surafaces are often overgrwon with weeds and have huge cracks and potholes making the suraface at worst unsafe and at best a very uncomforatable ride. Drivers of cars do not take enough care thus putting cyclists at risk. Older people are often not able to cycle. People want to go further afield - for which there is no public transoprt system. It is unrealistic to expect people to not want to have and use cars.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Neutral

Whilst I realise this is outside the scope of the development itself, links to existing public transport and existing incentives to cycle will have an impact on the success - or otherwise - of these proposals. Until public transport in Cambridge is efficient, affordable and easily accessible, many people will prefer to travel by car. And until cycle theft is tackled and made a priority, even the best cycle lanes will not offset the threat of returning to the bike park to find your means of transport missing.

Mostly not

Too much reliance has been placed on the construction of a tunnelled public transport system, the CAM Metro. The transport modelling for the new development should not include this, as it seems highly unlikely to happen. Spaces in the car barns (proposed to be leased) should be set at cost levels which are a disincentive to owning over sharing or hiring. Car clubs, active travel infrastructure, secure public and residential cycle parking and good public transport links should be in place as the first residents move in.

Mostly not

All area in the City and the surrounding villages need more speed restrictions, road narrowing schemes and alternative public transport to all areas.

Yes, completely

We support the proposal to give priority to pedestrians and cyclists.

Yes, completely

Sounds great - any way of discouraging traffic on the already congested roads in Cambridge is a good thing.

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly not

I have concerns about the ability of the planning service to ensure consistent quality of routes and facilities across a site which encompasses several different landowners and developers. The addition of qualifiers gives tempting get-out clauses for things which must be in place to prioritise active travel (for example, ‘Where possible [cycle parking should provide] sufficient space within which to easily manoeuvre cycles of all types’ on p198 of the Draft Area Action Plan or ‘Where possible, the priority hierarchy on streets and roads within the study area should place active travel modes first…’ in the Transport Evidence Base). Greater Cambridge Planning must support a modal shift towards favouring cycling and walking as the default first, safe, easy choice. Some of the policies from the Transport Evidence Base have not been included in the Area Action Plan – measures such as an internal shuttle bus will be essential to achieve trip budgets and help those who can’t walk or cycle get around without a car. Trip budgets also rely heavily on external schemes such as the Milton Road ‘bus improvements’ and CAM network, neither of which will be completed by the deadlines quoted in the document. It is unacceptable to require additional Park & Ride capacity which will simply push additional car journeys into the surrounding areas. Too much reliance has been placed on the construction of a tunnelled public transport system, the CAM Metro. The transport modelling for the new development should not include this, as it seems highly unlikely to happen. Spaces in the car barns (proposed to be leased) should be set at cost levels which are a disincentive to owning over sharing or hiring. Car clubs, active travel infrastructure, secure public and residential cycle parking and good public transport links should be in place as the first residents move in.