Mitcham's Corner Development Framework SPD

I think the plan is insufficiently bold.
As such its has most of the draw back associated with change (cost, disruption, etc) without actually achieving a great benefit for the area.
I think the most appropriate solution would be the demolition of some of the houses on Chesterton Road between Milton Road and Victoria Avenue. This would allow a simple, efficient (especially in space) cross-roads to be created, and free up a massive amount of new space.

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.

This would be great step forward for the area. It is not currently an area where anyone stays for longer than is necessary.

I fully agree. In fact I would go further and require new buildings to meet the PassiveHouse standards for energy efficiency and sustainability.

I think this is missing a key design principle
Provide Dedicated space for cycling (cycle tracks) separated from pedestrians and cars.
This should be direct and wide, with simple routes through the space.
Some of the new cycle tracks in London (along the embankment for example) have good examples of this type of design. It should be included here.

Agreed.
This should be treated as a place first, and highway later

The area needs more well thought out cycle parking as part of making it a destination rather than area to passed through.
For example the Boathouse and Portlands arms have the combined total of 0 bike parking spaces at the moment!
Hard to think of a business that is less suited to arriving by car.

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.

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.

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.