Figures 31 to 33: Transport examples

Good proposal.

I am concerned about the weight being put on the Frideswide square development.
While it has many good characteristics, it fails utterly to provide for cycling. What is needed is clear seperate space for cycling. This minimises conflict, between cycling and pedestrians, and between people on bikes and cars.
Even in a low speed environment, traffic volumes here will still be high and unpleasant for most people to consider sharing with.
I would also object to the idea of replacing crossings with only suggested priority. There should still be at least some true pedestrian crossings, either signal controlled or zebras.

I'd like to see some examples from Dutch cities here. They manage to create great public spaces, by reducing through traffic, and careful provision for all different transport modes.

Fig. 33 shows a lovely piece of concrete. I sincerely hope the planner hope to promote a greener, more pleasant junction than this monstrosity. My friends in Oxford despise Frideswide Square and avoid it because it is ugly and unpleasant.

Tightening vehicle approaches is a nightmare for cyclists. Victoria Road is an example of this. If the aim is to have cars overtake with mere centimetres between them and the cyclists, then the aim is fulfilled. I hope this is NOT the case.

Fig.32 again, shared spaces are bad. Segregate the cycles and pedestrians to prevent conflict. USE the space, do not waste it.

Although redesign to provide better streetscape and reduced traffic speed is supported, the proposed concept, similar to Frideswide Square, Oxford is entirely inappropriate. There is no concept of segregation of motor vehicles, cycles and pedestrians.

To encourage Cambridge cycling, cycle routes must be segregated from cars and pedestrians. The images shown are of people on bicycles riding on pavements. Cyclists in the road will have to take the road behind and in front of buses and cars.

It is suggested to amend so that Dutch quality cycle routes around Mitcham's corner are designed into the plan.

There is an opportunity for a new cycle bridge from behind Barclays to Jesus Green, thus avoiding Victoria Road.

While I support the general concept of improving Mitcham's Corner by making it more accessible to people walking and cycling, I have deep reservations about several of the concepts found in the document.

The proposal for a double roundel or double roundabout in Mitcham's Corner is not a good idea. The existing double roundel on Trumpington Road has been a constant source of injuries to people walking and cycling. We do not need to repeat that mistake, we need to remove it.

The concept of shared space is not appropriate for a busy junction like Mitcham's Corner. Shared space is only appropriate where levels of vehicular traffic are low enough that people walking and cycling can feel confident that their rights will be respected. That is not the case for Mitcham's Corner. It may work on some of the closed-off side streets that you have proposed, but not for the main section of the junction. Shared space does not work where there are too many vehicles because drivers do not respect so-called "courtesy crossings" and that leaves people with visual impairments at a severe disadvantage when having to deal with this space. Even the addition of simple Zebra crossings would make a world of difference. I also note that shared space does not work for cycling either, because motor vehicles moving in a stop-start pattern are incompatible with the movement of people cycling. Poynton in Cheshire, a frequently-cited example of shared space, has utterly failed to promote cycling and statistics there show lower levels of cycling than average in the UK. Frideswide Square in Oxford has been a failure in cycling terms and they have resorted to shared-use pavements instead of proper cycling provision.

In general, new streetscape infrastructure in a busy junction should incorporate protected, separate cycling lanes, good-sized pavements, and formal crossings at frequent intervals. The junctions, whether they take the form of a single, small roundabout with an island, or a traffic signal junction, should have protected, separate cycling lanes as part of the junction, following the recommendations from the Cambridge Cycling Campaign and the latest engineering advice from the Netherlands.

I do hope that the gyratory is removed, that Mitcham's Corner is made more friendly to people walking and cycling, and that a proper town square can be provided there using the open space freed up by the removal of the excessive tarmac. We should be planning for a future of reduced automobile traffic within cities, and we get there by building a pleasant environment that is attractive to people, and conducive to increased use of walking, cycling and public transport.

Summary

1. In general, the SPD proposals would improve the area.

2. Removal of the gyratory is essential, and we are pleased that the SPD correctly identifies this.

3. The introduction of a double roundabout is completely unacceptable and we object in the strongest possible terms.

4. A straightforward crossroads, implemented by compulsory purchase and paid for by land reclamation, needs to be properly investigated.

5. Shared space will not work because of the presence of through traffic. Instead, dedicated pedestrian and cycle space should be allocated.

Overall

We welcome the SPD, and feel the document correctly identifies the key issues of the Mitcham's Corner Area. We look forward to the possibility of positive changes being brought about to improve the attractiveness, livability and safety of the area.

As the SPD identifies, the key problem facing the area is that currently the area is designed with a sole focus on maximizing the throughput of vehicle traffic. We would like to make the following points about the proposed solutions:


Proposed New Layout (Section 3.3)

We welcome the proposal for removing the gyratory, and returning many of the roads to two-way operation. However we have strong concerns about the solution identified.

The new layout being proposed is a double roundel. This would be similar to the double roundel at Lensfield Road and Trumpington Road. That junction is currently the most dangerous in the city for cyclists. We do not believe that creating another similar junction is the best way forward for the area. Ironically, the County Council is coming forward with proposals to remove the existing double roundel at Trumpington Road.

We believe that the best long-term solution for the area would be to purchase and demolish at least some of 133-155 Chesterton Road. This would allow the creation of a straightforward crossroads or roundabout joining Milton Road, Chesterton Road and Victoria Avenue, and a large new public space over part of the existing gyratory. We note that both student groups studying the junction a few years ago independently came to the same conclusion.
Shared Space

The SPD points towards several recent schemes that have used so-called shared space principles to improve an area including Poynton in Cheshire and Frideswide Square in Oxford, but we believe that shared space is not appropriate for the through routes of Mitcham's Corner. Camcycle welcomes alterations that reduce traffic speeds, and improve the look and feel of the area. However we believe it is vital that these spaces include dedicated space for cycle tracks, pavements, and clear indications of pedestrian and cycle priority and crossing points.

We believe that true shared space only works when the number of people walking or cycling is equal to or higher than that of the cars. This will likely never be true for Mitcham's Corner, which is a through route in several directions, including for several bus routes.

We would like to see a Dutch-inspired solution that clearly separates the modes of transport, and minimizes conflict. The aim should be for the cycle infrastructure to be safe, reasonably direct and convenient so that it useful and attractive for everyday cycling by people of all ages and abilities.

In the example above the traffic routes are still plain tarmac, but have clear crossing points and cycle tracks. The sense of place is created in the areas where the through traffic is absent. We feel this is a more successful approach than hoping that new paving will create pleasant areas that still have large amounts of traffic (including many buses) passing through them.

This is also likely to be a cheaper solution, both to create and in the long term. Tarmac is very good at supporting many heavy vehicles over long periods of time. Many paving solutions are only good for light use, in areas of low traffic. We feel that may well be appropriate for the newly created access roads in the space, which should see low levels of motor traffic, and therefore could become successful new public spaces.

I live in East Chesterton, and walk and cycle through the Mitcham's Corner area, including on my commute. I currently do not shop in the area, as it is so unpleasant.

I support removal of the gyratory, which destroys any sense of place at Mitcham's corner, and makes cycling in the area very scary, putting many people off using active and sustainable transport.

However, I object to so-called 'shared-space' schemes such as the example shown from Oxford, which reduce distinctions between pedestrian and motor vehicle space, and ignore cycling as a separate mode of transport entirely. Most of the unpleasantness of Mitcham's Corner is due to the volume of motor traffic, and the noise and pollution and danger that this creates. A pretty, busy road is still a busy road. Frideswade Square in Oxford was the source of multiple objections from the local cycling campaign. The same objections and problems will be true for Cambridge.

Shared space is only appropriate in a low traffic environment, otherwise it results in bullying of pedestrians and people cycling, and makes crossing difficult without proper crossings. This is particularly true for partially sighted pedestrians, who need clear crossing points, and for other groups, such as children, who do not understand how to behave without clear separation of walking and driving spaces.

I object to any version of the scheme which does not include proper segregated cycling facilities so that cycling is safe and attractive for people of all ages, and is separated from pedestrians. Cycling-specific facilities are entirely absent in the detail of the consultation.

Narrowing the carriageway without provision of separate cycling facilities is likely to make it more unpleasant to cycle rather than less. People do not like feeling that they are blocking traffic, and more aggressive drivers will still try to overtake in limited space.

Changes to the environment to encourage low speeds on the road are welcome, but these are not a substitution for separate cycle provision on a busy through-road.

Pedestrians and people cycling through should not be made to share space - shared-use paths are a constant source of complaint and conflict in Cambridge, for both sets of users. This is particularly true for an area where pedestrians will be encouraged to enjoy the area and relax and linger, while many people cycling will be trying to move through on longer journeys.

A double-roundel was previously mentioned for the junction with Victoria Avenue. The current version of the SPD fudges the issue of this junction, but proposes no alternative. The double-roundabout copies a junction in Cambridge (Trumpington Rd / Lensfield Rd) which is the most dangerous junction in Cambridge for cycling. The County Council are currently planning to replace it due to its awful safety record, and we should not be re-creating this mistake. I object to any design of junction which has a variation on a double roundabout. Even a single roundabout is a poor junction for cycling, unless it has an annular ring for cycling, separate from pedestrians and motor vehicles.

It is not clear if the 'local-access only' roads will actually be blocked to through-motor traffic, to create a low-traffic environment which would be quieter, more attractive and safer, and would encourage people to want to shop and spend time in the area. If there is no physical restriction to driving, I have no confidence in people sticking to restrictions, or that they will ever be enforced. Physical constraint on through-motor traffic is required.

While changes to the public realm are welcome, the whole consultation is based on the idea that a busy through-road can be a 'place': the two uses are contrary. The solution should focus on creating 'places' which have low traffic volumes, and separately roads for through-traffic which separate walking, cycling and motor traffic, with safe junctions for walking and cycling.