Object

Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 167301

Received: 24/10/2018

Respondent: John Grant

Representation Summary:

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
There does not seem to be any analysis of where residents will be travelling to. Running a train from Ely to Cambridge in order to carry people from Waterbeach to Cambridge North as part of their journey from the new town to the Science Park (for instance) would not be efficient. It would be better to support one of the metro systems being proposed for the City and connect the new town to that.

Level crossings in the area should be re-examined.

Full text:

Waterbeach New Town SPD Consultation Response

This response refers specifically to transport issues.

(1) General comments

(a) Heavy rail

(i) Location of station

The suggestion that moving the station early in the process will encourage a modal shift to rail does not make sense.

In the year to March 2017 (the most recent for which figures are available) there were about 440,000 journeys starting or ending at Waterbeach. This equates to about 4230 return journeys per week, or about 700 each weekday. The limited amount of car and cycle parking (including on-street) suggests that the majority of passengers walk to and from the station, and it is to be expected that many of them will have chosen to live in the south of the village.

So we have several hundred residents who have a short walk to the current station but would be far enough from the relocated station that they would prefer to drive, either to the station or all the way to their destination.

By 2025 there are projected to be 800 houses/flats in the new town, and it is likely that many of them will be in the western part of the site, not much closer to the relocated station than to the existing one, so moving the station before 2025 is more likely to cause a modal shift to the car than away from it.

(ii) Rail journeys

There does not seem to be any analysis of where residents will be travelling to. The supposed intention of the new town is to support the growth of jobs in the region, and providing convenient transport to London will not help that. Running a train from Ely to Cambridge in order to carry people from Waterbeach to Cambridge North as part of their journey from the new town to the Science Park (for instance) would not be efficient. It would be better to support one of the metro systems being proposed for the City and connect the new town to that.

(iii) Level crossings

There are four level crossings that are adjacent to the village or the new town. As the railway line becomes busier and there are more people living in the area, the possibility of closing them should be examined. This could be achieved by upgrading Burgess's Drove and connecting it to Clayhithe Road, replacing the Bannold Road crossing with a bridge, and building a foot and cycle underpass at the north end of the current station (north of the floodbank, where the ground level is lower). This would also make it easier to upgrade the current station.

(b) Modal choices for local journeys

(i) Road layout

The proposal has main roads running through the middle of the development, and a cycleway round the outside. This will make it easier for short journeys within the town to be by car, and make journeys through the town by foot or cycle less pleasant.

Instead, there should be a perimeter road and access by car should be from the perimeter road. If cars have to go via the perimeter road while cycles can go direct, that will encourage the more healthy and less polluting mode.

(ii) Transport modes

Development is planned to stretch well into the 2030s, and yet only modes of transport that date from the 19th century are considered. New technologies that are already being trialled in the UK, for instance in Milton Keynes and Greenwich and the proposed trial on the guided busway, should also be considered. One option for connecting the town to the existing station, or the south of the village to a relocated station, would be autonomous vehicles that run a low speed on roads and higher speed on a guideway that could be built alongside the railway. A guideway along Akeman Street / Mere Way could similarly link the town to the Science Park.

(c) Construction traffic

All construction traffic must be made to access the site from the A10, and not through the village.


(2) More detailed comments on the text

Page 41, "2. Station District" first paragraph: the proposed land uses (other than the car park) do not seem to be "complementary to the station". Facilities to serve the town will not need heavy rail links; it would be better to locate them more centrally. Moving the station from its current location close to housing to one where everyone must walk past shops, offices, schools, cinemas, etc to get to it seems crazy.

Page 45: See 1(b)(i) above. The access points off the A10 need to connect to a perimeter road; the "primary routes" need to be traffic-free apart from access to properties and maybe public transport.

Page 46 3rd paragraph "A grid based secondary movement network will be necessary": for vehicular traffic, spurs in from the perimeter road are needed, not a grid.

Page 47: The idea of a circular walk around the town, while laudable, is less important than moving motor traffic out to the perimeter. The western part would, in any case, scarcely be "traffic free" being close to the A10. Better would be to improve connections to the existing footpaths, and fund maintenance of them.

Page 48: The second paragraph ("The Council supports ...") may be true but it is misguided (see 1(a)(i) above). Change "This is due to the limiting constraints of the existing station and the need and opportunity to serve the new town and existing village better with a modern facility" in the first paragraph to "However, the assumptions behind this need to be re-examined, and options for closing level crossings (which would remove some of the constraints on the existing station) explored". Delete the second paragraph.

Page 87: 1st paragraph in right-hand column: delete "is a wide-ranging multi modal study which". The study was very limited in scope, and several options (including retaining the existing station) were not considered.

Page 88: item 2 in the numbered list: change "off road walkway/cycleway adjacent to the A10" to "narrow pavement abutting the A10 carriageway".

Page 88: delete first paragraph under "Rail improvements"

Page 88: in second paragraph under "Rail improvements", change "walking and cycling," to "walking, cycling, and new modes of transport;"

Page 88: replace first paragraph under "Highway improvements" with "Strategic highway improvements that should include an upgrade to Milton Interchange and could also include on or off line dualling of the A10 corridor, and upgrades to other junctions in the corridor." Removing the need for traffic from A10 to A14(W) to cross over traffic from A14 eastbound to the City would allow the rest of the A10 to flow much more freely.

Page 121: Trigger for A10 junction (northern access) should be "before start of construction" (not pre-occupation) so that construction traffic (including for the station) can be forbidden from going through the village.

Page 122: under Mechanism, the transport strategy review group should also include representatives from the village, such as the Parish Council highways committee and Neighbourhood Plan Highways Group.