Question 9

Mostly not

Even with 0.5 parking spaces max per house, with 8000 houses at least, even if lots of the car parking spaces are already in place around the science park etc., this is still a huge increase in traffic for the area. It seems very unlikely that this will mean no additional movement of traffic or increased traffic flows on Milton/Histon Roads.

Mostly not

No additional vehicle movement son Milton Road and Kings Hedges "road" is completely unclear. No through-routes means you are taking away accessibility to the elderly and vulnerable including myself. This means if you need a car to drive to work (to be able to work) you are being penalised for this if exemptions are not put in place at the very least. Development of Cambridge Autonomous Metro will take an extremely long time so this is not yet a good balance, though in theory the development of CAM is excellent. 0.5 parking spaces per new home (maximum) only works if there is good public transport infrastructure, of which there is no in Cambridge, and no incentive to use when fares are extremely high, slow/late/delayed/cancelled buses due to Stagecoach's over-prevalence means there is no competition and no incentive to improve. Often I have been stranded at Cambs train station at 7.30pm waiting for a Citi1 to take me back to North Cambridge, and they are all cancelled, delayed, disappear or we have to wait for over one hour for one to finally arrive. Due to chronic ill health and safety concerns, I had no choice but to get a car.

Mostly not

I agree that steps should be taken to limit car use. However, it is not plausible that you can build 8000 homes and not increase traffic in the surrounding areas. It is imperative that you drastically reduce the density of the proposed housing. 8000 homes will significantly negatively affect every aspect of life for those of us who live in the surrounding areas.

Not at all

By the very nature of 8000 additional homes, there will be at least 8000 further cars on the roads into and around the area as well as the delivery vans and service vehicles. There will also be the extra traffic from Northstowe and Waterbeach using the roads in Cambridge. It is totally unrealistic to assume that there will be no additional journeys along Milton Road when 8000 homes are built at the end of the road.

Not at all

it is unrelaistic to think there will be no more traffic. Already Milton Road will be carrying traffic from the new waterbeach development. Where are all your new people going to work - if they have to get to Addenbrookes site for early, late shifts they will drive. On a wet, windy, rainy day you can see how everyone who cycles into Cambridge goes by car. You cannot change this. If you cannot manage the traffic you need to rethink the whole plan. Now so much shopping is being delivered to so many houses it is unrealistic to think that the Amazon van or Ocado van or Sainsbury van will deliver your order by bike.

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly yes

There needs to be better definition of cycle ways and pedestrian ways. Where the two share a space it can be very intimidating for pedestrians if cyclists think they own the space, especially for young children or the elderly.

Not at all

This is a terrible and unacceptable idea!! The right interpretation of this vision is not to discourage people from owning cars (especially that greener and electricity cars are being produced) as people with working in location off the public transport map (e.g. Granta Park, Waterbeach Research Park, Babraham Research Park, Sanger Wellcome Trust Park in Hinxton, Chesterford Research Pak) will need to use a car to get to work. Even now the Cambridge public transport is overcrowded and unreliable, e.g. busway occupancy and delays in rush hours. Additionally due to the distance to the nearest shopping centres inhabitants will need to use car for shopping or to support people with disabilities and young children. Having only 0.5 car per household is unacceptable and will cram roads for parking and cause overflow into neighbouring residential streets. It is essential that there is at least 1.0 parking space for each household, but this should favour green/low emission cars. All parking spaces should have electricity sockets provided for charging cars. The spaces should be in underground parking or multi-storey car parks. But it can be made expensive for non-green car owners. It is unacceptable to not provide sufficient amount of parking spaces for all new inhabitants bearing in mind that average British household owns 1.3 cars! This will create a serious problem for surrounding residential areas.

Mostly not

We are really pleased to see the ambition to make North East Cambridge a place where 75% of trips are made by walking, cycling or public transport and the street hierarchy and designs seem to support this goal. It is important that high-quality routes continue to the edge of the area (including junctions) and connect up with external cycle routes for onward journeys to maximise the number of longer trips made by cycle. We do 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). Cycling must be safe, convenient and attractive to enable people to switch from driving. It seems impractical for a net-zero site to assume such high private car ownership. Realistic restrictions on car parking based on goals that encourage the use of car clubs and pools, along with walking, cycling and public transport are needed. For example, 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, in addition to a consolidation hub within the development for business and home deliveries. It is really important that there are spaces / vehicle bays for deliveries, removals and private un/loading to avoid obstructive parking in the carriageway, or on pavements or cycleways. This causes great difficulty for those with disabilities to safely navigate.

Not at all

It is naive to state that there will be 'no additional vehicle movements' on Milton Road. Milton Road is already frequently at a standstill - it would only take a small percentage of the residents to use a car in order for it to reach total gridlock. I am particularly concerned about only providing a maximum of 0.5 parking spaces per home. I have previously lived on a small development, considerably closer to the city centre than this development. Each home had one parking space. In practice, almost every home had at least one car, and some had two, leading to arguments about spaces and cars parked dangerously (on one occasion an ambulance was unable to reach the home where it was needed). I fully support the plan to provide walking, cycling and public transport facilities such that people can get to work, shops, school etc without a car. However, plenty of jobs do require a car. If this is to be a truly diverse community, then presumably there will be residents who work as home carers, district nurses, plumbers, electricians etc who need a car for their work, as well as residents with mobility problems who rely on a car. Even those who don't use a car every day may still want one for visiting family, day trips, going on holiday, buying things you can't fit on a bike - even just popping to the supermarket on a cold, rainy evening. Not having enough parking spaces will not discourage car ownership - it will just lead to frustration, arguments, and cars being parked where they shouldn't be. In addition, where will visitors park when they are visiting the residents, either socially, or to provide care or services?

Not at all

This has been attempted for years and the simple fact is that designing new homes with 0.5 car spaces or less does not work at the moment. All that happens is that people will still have 1 or even 2 cars per home and you will end up with a parking hell with congested roads and a horrible environment. Just stop the madness of trying to put 8000 homes in this space, then design it for how people actually live. Give 1 parking space per household and design this in a way where parking is appropriate for all the people living in the development.

Not at all

If you develop this site, there will, of course, be more traffic. Are you going to ban DPD deliveries, or Tesco deliveries? These poor people will be banned from having cars...

Not at all

Ridiculous to think that people will not have cars. All you create is people parking around the area. Also support a cycling campaign proposal for Milton road: cycle ways.

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given

Not at all

The emphasis needs to be on car clubs, car sharing, electric charging points and cycle storage. And keeping, improving a very good bus service. Car barns for private, single household vehicles will just perpetuate the idiocy of every household owning its own care which then sits idle for 96% of the time. It is completely absurd to place so much reliance on metro, a non existent, hugely expensive project which may never happen. Solutions should be small, sustainable and affordable. Get the cycling ways and particularly the pinch points on the new cycle way using the new bridge sorted out and promote care sharing and car clubs using electric cars please.

Not at all

I think you will certainly discourage car travel into this area by physically stopping it but it will not discourage car use, only push the car parking into the surrounding local streets in other local villages and communities. I am also concerned that the plans mean the area is not accessible for people with disabilites who need car use as well as visitors. It is simply inconceivable that adding 20k people into the area will not increase traffic along milton road unless you are also significantly improving public transport across a much wider area of cambridge city, retail places like newmarket road and out to addenbrookes

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 which frankly is pie in the sky. I've nothing against people owning cars that they use infrequently for long journeys but the lack of a decent-sized supermarket on site where people can get all their groceries (not just a small choice of bread and vegetables) does nothing to discourage car use. Again, all the sentiments in the accompanying documentation are very fine but not really in the real world. There are "gaps" built in which will not help . I've mentioned that as part of this plan, the fact that the Chisholm Trail has a gap where users have to go around tight corners and then join an already congested path and wend their way through a now over-busy residential street, is not addressed. This plan needs to bridge the railway in a seamless manner at Cambridge North to allow easy car-free access to the south and east of the city. There is nothing mentioned about sorting out Milton Road and the horrendous mess where it crosses the busway; underpasses are rubbish and do not make people feel safe. Yes you won't get run over but you might get mugged. The direct and rapid route into the city is along Milton Road. If all your proposed residents do that at 8am every morning on a bicycle, and home again at 6pm, there is going to be a serious problem. Oh and what bus service is going to serve this site? As a resident of east Milton with a poor hourly bus service unless I walk for 25 minutes to the park and ride (or take my car?) or a 35-40 minute walk to Cambridge North if I want a more frequent bus service or need to go out after 7pm, I hope it will be better than we get. Or maybe Stagecoach will make the no 9 even worse as they need to send buses to this development instead?

Not at all

It's just impossible. People need cars. They'll bring them anyway. If you don't build enough parking you'll just clog local streets. Milton Rd will become a car park.

Yes, completely

Although I'm sure teh numbers add up, the policy to reduce parking lacks any ethical analysis. I fear what will be achieved is a two-tier society where some have access to car transport and some don't.

Neutral

Discouraging car use should not be a council policy. Within 10 years most new cars will be electric, so the argument about climate change becomes irrelevant. Cars are very useful for people, and much more pleasant than public transport. The recent coronavirus problems have also shown up a significant disadvantage of mass transport. By all means improve cycling routes as these can improve wellbeing, and cycling is an excellent way for lots of people to travel around (I cycle around cambridge in preference to any other method of transport). However, don't pretend that cycling is suitable for all journeys, or for all people. Or even all weathers. Walking is just too slow to get any significant distance and except for walking to a bus stop is pretty hopeless for any journey. Cars are very useful and trying to reduce their use to zero is not sensible. Instead of having the mindset of trying to discourage car use, it would be better if you instead increase the attractiveness of other methods. I've never heard anyone from the council suggesting making buses more comfortable, or cleaner, or just not full of condensation whenever it is remotely cold or damp.

Not at all

See answer to question 2 about cycling. The proposal cannot make claims about any of the 'reductions to vehicles' without a full and proper commitment to a good, reliable, affordable public transport system. This would benefit the whole of the city.

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. Will there be any safe parking and charging spaces for mobility scooters or will the elevators on the buildings be large enough for mobility scooters to be brought up into the flats? Is it realistic to assume, as the plan claims, that there will be no extra vehicle movements on Milton Road?

Mostly not

It should be zero cars, not 0.5. That would still lead to ~3000 extra cars to the area. That is not sustainable for the future

Mostly not

Your approach is mostly "nudge": Limit parking, help cycling and walking, keep speeds down. All of this might work for rational people willing to abandon individual travel by car. But I can't see anything which in itself would ensure that there are no additional vehicle movements on Milton Road etc. Presumably potential residents will be made fully aware of the limited parking in car barns? Perhaps you might also explicitly plan to give entry and exit priority to buses, taxis, car club cars so that car owners face a long wait to get onto the road network? All this is true but essentially negative. I'd like to see some positive marketing about NEC being for the 21st century post-car citizen etc. Aim to attract residents who will buy into this?? Otherwise, and not really a planning matter, NEC needs a frequent bus service including all-evening into Cambridge pending the arrival of the CAM (2040s if ever?). Five minute frequency, alternately via Milton Road and Chesterton village would impress. Perhaps car-hire at Cambridge North and car club cars available in all car barns? Not a good idea to build a multi-story carpark at the station as this will only attract commuters into the supposedly car-free NEC. Won't the re-sited Waterbeach station have a large car park to which commuters from the northern villages might be directed? I'm afraid that all the stuff about vehicle trip budgets went over my head. It looks as though you are willing to permit cars to commute into NEC while discouraging its residents from commuting out? But maybe I didn't understand it. If there are currently 4,400 unused parking spaces on the Science Park won't that be sufficient? What is to stop residents leaving their cars there and simply crossing Milton Road by the new crossings?

Neutral

Better bike/pedestrian access is good idea but needs to be very carefully designed. Underpasses are not a good idea because they are not as frequently used as bridges at night due to safety concerns. All bike/pedestrian new paths need to be well lit by solar powered lighting.

Neutral

Better bike/pedestrian access is good idea but needs to be very carefully designed. Underpasses are not a good idea because they are not as frequently used as bridges at night due to safety concerns. All bike/pedestrian new paths need to be well lit by solar powered lighting.

Neutral

Half a car space might sound excellent but in reality it just does not work. It will just cause parking problems somewhere. You need to look at all traffic studies around Cambridge to see cars are everywhere. You are limiting parking to cram even more into the site. The plan not to increase traffic on Milton Road is massively flawed.

Not at all

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given