• Home
• What's new?

• About
• Cycling 2020
• Membership
  • Join the Campaign online!
• Newsletters
  • The current newsletter
  • Previous newsletters
  • Newsletter 'threads'
  • Advertising
• Events & diary
• Campaigning
• Elections
• Planning
• E-mail lists
• Resources
• Mapping
• Shop
• Links
• Contacts

• Get Acrobat Reader 
• Search the site 

Photomap
& Journey planner

Newsletter 32 (October/November 2000)

Contents:

• Annual General Meeting
• City Centre traffic schemes
• University West Cambridge site
• Downing Street - before and after
• Trumpington Road corridor
• Cambridge Station area
• Letters
• The Tins planning application
• Policing Matters
• Ten years
• Addenbrooke's crossing
• Marshall Millennium Cycleway
• Newmarket Road works: a personal view
• Eastern Corridor Area Transport Plan
• Cycling in Ely
• Cycling Shorts
• Small Ads
• A Mildenhall treasure
• Web Watch
• Making life easier... (9) Lights for winter
• Park and Ride - no white elephant
• Your streets this month
• Campaign Diary
• About the Campaign
• Elected Officers
• Contacting the Campaign

Annual General Meeting

This year's AGM will be at 8 pm on Tuesday 7 November at the Friends' Meeting House, Jesus Lane, Cambridge. We decided last year to move the AGM from October to November, to increase the time between this Newsletter being distributed and the meeting itself.

This year our guest speaker will be the Leader of Cambridge City Council, Councillor David Howarth. We have invited Cllr Howarth to speak on the subject 'will the change of administration at the City Council make any difference to cyclists?'

The agenda are:

7.30 Free tea, coffee and biscuits
8.00 Invited speaker - Cllr David Howarth
8.45 AGM business
9.45 Meeting closes (and adjourns to the Maypole)

AGM business

The formal business of the AGM will be brief, consisting mainly of:

• Short reports from some of this year's officers.
• Motions. To propose a motion, submit it to the Co-ordinator 501050 by Sunday 29 October.
• Elections. To nominate someone for a post, again, please notify the Co-ordinator 501050 by Sunday 29 October.

Elections

Nominations are welcomed for any of the elected posts. There are currently eight of these (see Elected Officers). The current committee will be proposing an increase in the number of elected committee members, without formal titles or roles, to give the Campaign more continuity for the future.

Clare Macrae

Please can I remind you to let us know if you change your address or phone number. Also, if you now have an email address and you haven't told us, or if your email address changes, please do let us know. Thanks!

David Earl, Membership

City Centre traffic schemes

It is a year since the bollards went in on Emmanuel Road - apart from being bashed out again by motorists who are incapable of seeing the three sets of no-entry signs, flashing lights and red markings. The Council said that it would review the arrangements after a year, and it is doing so now.

We welcomed many of the changes when they were originally proposed, and some small changes were made in response to our comments at the time. Other criticisms remain, however, and much of our response this time will be re-iterating these.

Inevitably the changes have also shown some unexpected results. For example, the congestion and conflict in Clarendon Street caused by traffic that has to use it to escape when it is confronted by the barrier. The legal position of cycling between Clarendon Street and Fair Street has also been shown to be unclear.

Work in Bridge Street still allows cyclists through - most of the time.

Some things that should have happened haven't (yet). Signing to show how traffic should reach each part of the City Centre hasn't been installed, though councillors have agreed it. And there is still a No Entry sign in the wrong place at the re-worked cycle gap at the end of King Street.

We said that Maid's Causeway needed attention, and cyclists specifically needed protection from the build out at the Fair Street crossing. This hasn't happened, but we can still see no reason why it shouldn't.

We were also promised that protection at the sudden narrowing in Parker Street would be reviewed, even though it wasn't included in the original changes.

A 20 mph speed limit is still needed, as it is in so many places. The recent emphasis on 20 mph areas in Government guidance reinforces the case here. Cambridge has only one so far, residential North Romsey.

We have also objected strongly to the introduction of a left-turn-only lane on Victoria Avenue, approaching the Four Lamps roundabout.

The biggest criticism, however, is perhaps that the impact the scheme has on cyclists on the inner ring road away from the specific measures. East Road could have the cycle lanes made continuous. Gonville Place is much busier than it used to be, and cyclists are squeezed at the islands.

The Hyde Park Corner junction (by the Catholic church) is a big pressure point. A commitment in the new Cycling Strategy to review all signals without cycle facilities should mean this gets another look, even if the core scheme continues to ignore it.

Further round, the Royal Cambridge Hotel junction has been inadvertently improved recently by the reduction from three to two lanes between the two roundabouts, so there's less opportunity for sight lines to be obstructed. However, this junction is still a serious casualty threat to cyclists.

David Earl

University West Cambridge site

The University of Cambridge realised in the 1960s that it would have to move some of its departments out of the city centre due to limited space. They identified the West Cambridge site, between Madingley Road, the M11, the Coton footpath and Clerk Maxwell Road. There have been several University buildings in the area for many years, including the Cavendish and Whittle Laboratories and Veterinary School as well as independent companies Schlumberger, British Antarctic Survey and Cadcentre.

In 1997 the University presented its plans for re-developing the West Cambridge site, including

• Science departments (including Computer Sciences, Engineering, and Materials Science and Metallurgy)
• University and commercial research areas (including Microsoft's European Research Centre)
• A new East Forum (including shops, restaurants and nursery)
• Covered sports centre
• Park & Cycle facility
• 200 residential units for staff and postgraduates

Although the site was initially going to be developed over thirty years, the pace is now faster than envisaged. So far, building work has been started on the Computer Sciences Department, Microsoft's European Research Centre and the Park & Cycle facility. planning and consultation for the East Forum has just started.

Key 1 Park & Cycle 2 Clerk Maxwell Bridge 5 Coton footpath widening 6 Junction Improvements 7 Planting 8 New Computer Laboratory 9 Access road B 10 Microsoft Research laboratory 11 East Forum & East Square 12 British Antarctic Survey 13 Cadcentre 14 Schlumberger 15 Vet School 16 Whittle Lab 17 Cavendish Lab Cycle entrances A New cycle & pedestrian entrance over new bridge - Clerk Maxwell Road B Existing entrance to be converted to pedestrian only C Existing entrance - probably to be closed D East Forum entrance for pedestrians E New cycle entrance to link with roadways

Changes to cycle access

Part of the mound between Clerk Maxwell Road and the Cavendish Laboratory will be removed to provide access from Clerk Maxwell Road and a new bridge (see plan - A), a route that is heavily used judging by the current mud in the winter! I am a little concerned about the loss of the second entrance to the Cavendish Laboratory (C). This could provide a useful link, particularly at rush hours, and the main improvement this needs is to cut down some of the hedge either side to provide decent visibility. Although cycling is not permitted through the East Forum there is going to be a new entrance (E) to the west end of the East Forum and linking with all the cycleways and roadways on the site.

Park & Cycle

Although the Park & Cycle site is located at the West Cambridge site, it is designed for people working in University departments in the centre of town who live too far to cycle all the way to work.

People will be able to drive to the West Cambridge site and cycle (or walk) the last part of the journey on a traffic-free route instead of crawling in a traffic jam down Madingley Road. Ultimately, there will be 300 car parking spaces and 450 bicycle lockers. Initially, though, there will only be 150 lockers whilst demand is assessed. The area will be well lit, with CCTV and alarm telephone points. A new bridge is being built at the end of Clerk Maxwell Road that will join up the Coton Footpath, and this should be in place by the time you read this. The Park & Cycle site should be operating by January.

In the future there will be a shuttle bus between town and the West Cambridge site. Work still needs to be done to make sure it is convenient for people to Park & Cycle and use this bus. It is hoped that a pilot service will be in place by September 2001.

'Is 3m wide enough for the busiest cycleway in the country?'

West Cambridge to town

There is already a route from the West Cambridge site to town: along the Coton footpath, Adams Road, across Grange Road and down Burrell's Walk, across Queen's Road and over the river on Garret Hostel Lane to Senate House Passage and the market square. Unfortunately, the Coton footpath is not as smooth as recent cycle paths (like Barton Road), but it has a kerb between the cycle and pedestrian sections which ensures that cyclists can proceed at a reasonable rate and that pedestrians know that they are safe from cyclists. This path will be widened to 2 m wide for pedestrians and 3 m wide for cyclists. I have been assured it will be 'highway quality' so no more bone shaking bumps! The path will be widened by summer 2001. But is 3 m wide enough for what will be the busiest cycleway in the country? Where the path joins Adams Road there is currently a chicane. The Campaign has asked for this to be either removed or widened to 3 m. Where the route crosses Grange Road a raised table is being constructed to reduce traffic speeds and make it easier to cross. When cycle traffic reaches a certain level the situation will be reviewed and traffic lights may be installed. Where the route crosses Queens Road there are plans for a new crossing. We would like to see a crossing arranged like a cross roads which you cycle over rather than the current chicane and dismount affair.

Coton to the East Forum

This section of the path will not be widened: the plans are just to tidy it up a bit, trimming the hedges, cutting back weeds, defining the edge and maybe a new surface. The hedges are in quite poor state so they will be thinning and replanting to improve the wildlife corridor. The time scale for this is as yet undecided: a probable time is when the East Forum is being built. They are also looking at improving the two blind bends between West Cambridge and Coton. We have suggested a minimum radius of 2 m, though there are no plans as yet.

Because of the predicted high levels of cycling, there will be another link from Silver Street to the West Cambridge site via the University Rugby Ground on Grange Road. The University is negotiating with the landowners (Jesus and St John's colleges) to decide the exact route. This will tie up well with the plans to improve the junction of West Road and Queens Road. So far, only a proposal has been produced, though it does include traffic lights, Advance Stop Lines and a much-improved route across Queens Green to Silver Street.

One link that is missing at the moment is from the Queen's Road end of Garret Hostel Lane, along the Backs and Queens Green to Silver Street. This would allow cyclists using either route from West Cambridge to cross onto the other route. There is currently a main pedestrian path and a second path further away from the road which would make an excellent cycleway to Silver Street. I hope that the fence on Garret Hostel Lane will be opened to allow this. It is still unknown what the Council will do about Adams Road. Here, the narrowness of the road, car parking on both sides, the prospect of car doors opening, and overtaking motorists from behind make it very intimidating for cyclists. Will parking be banned?

East Forum

The East Forum development will be one of the main social places for the West Cambridge site. It is expected to contain catering facilities, a convenience store, a bar-restaurant and a day nursery for 84 children, all grouped around a central open plaza, landscaped with places to sit, meet and socialise.

Cyclists will be able to turn off the Coton path and go over the new bridge, but they will not be allowed to ride through the Forum itself. Cycle parking will be provided near the entrance and cyclists will be able to push their bikes through. There will be a cycle route around the west end of the East Forum, linking with the main cycle routes. How this negotiates the car park in East Square has yet to be worked out.

Routes on the site

There will be a cycle path down either side of the access roads B and C. The latest proposal to surface this with 160x200 mm paving slabs has raised some concerns about these as a suitable surface for riding on. The general consensus was that they need to be:

• Laid in short sections
• Laid to the same quality as at the maths building
• Kept in a high state of repair
• Impossible for cars to pull onto (emptying bins, dropping people off, breakdowns etc.)

I understand that there is an example of the slabs they wish to use in the public area of the new housing development off Tenison Road near the railway bridge. We have also asked that any traffic calming on the roads in the site is cycle-friendly, as many cyclists will be using these roads.

Madingley Road

Madingley Road will (eventually) have a new traffic light controlled junction at the top of the access road B at the junction with the Bullard laboratory and the Astronomy site. This should make access to the Bullard laboratory and Storey's Way (and hence Huntingdon Road) a lot easier. We have suggested that this is an opportunity to make life easier for cyclists coming into town by providing a coloured cycle lane down Madingley Road at the entrance to the Bullard labs, and also a raised table to link the shared use path across the entrance to the Bullard.

Also proposed is a left turn lane for traffic coming from town wishing to turn into the West Cambridge site. This will cause problems for cyclists using Madingley Road so we have asked for a straight-on lane for cyclists with a proper entrance as on Huntingdon Road. Although the West Cambridge site has the Park & Cycle and current cycle/driving rates are at the moment at about 50% of its capacity, the site is sure to add to the traffic on Madingley Road. This is a road which, even at the moment, is unpleasant to cyclists. We have asked for Advance Stop Lines on all approaches as well as a reduction in the speed limit from 40 mph to 30 mph.

For more information, visit the West Cambridge web site. Members of the University can use the web consultation section to see other people's comments and add their own.

If you are interested in keeping up with and reviewing West Cambridge cycling developments, consider joining the Campaign's West Cambridge subgroup. We meet every few months, but have an email list for discussions between meetings.

Richard Taylor rmt23@eng.cam.ac.uk
day 766404 evening 740989
Pictures courtesy of McQuitty Landscape Design & MacCormac Jamieson Pritchard

Downing Street - before and after

Downing Street before the contractors discovered they could not block a mandatory cycle lane, unless they had a traffic order.

Downing Street after the City Council had discovered contractors had closed the mandatory cycle lane!

Trumpington Road corridor

The devil is in the detail: lane lines are yet to be marked on this approach to Trumpington High Street from Shelford Road.

By the time you read this, the first stage of these works should be completed.

These changes, in part funded by the new Waitrose store, will include new traffic lights with a Toucan crossing, and one way 'plugs' for cars in Church Lane and Maris Lane (Newsletter 30). There is some concern that the Campaign was not consulted about some of the changes funded by development money, and we await with interest the details of approach lanes and advance stop lines at two junctions. The provision of cycle lanes in the High Street is to be welcomed. It will greatly assist those who cycle past the inside of stationary traffic queues at peak times, making their actions clearly legal. It should also encourage less confident cyclists to use the road where there is no shared use path.

The changes on the routes from Grantchester are designed to reduce 'rat running' and the introduction of adaptive traffic lights controlled by SCOOT™ may well reduce congestion and pollution in this area (see www.scoot-utc.com). The second stage, which includes bus lanes and further improvements to facilities for cyclists, will come next year, and the Campaign will do its utmost to ensure that bus lane improvements do not disadvantage cyclists. Many respondents to the consultation about these changes asked for new 'away from road' cycle routes. Now that the University Press developments can provide a route from Long Road to Hills Road along the old railway line, there seems little reason not to construct a pleasant traffic free cycle route all the way from Trumpington. It is unclear at what stage the Park and Ride site will be constructed, but the current proposals include the serious obstruction for cyclists of a high-speed left turn lane approaching from Harston.

Motorists do not respect the advisory cycle lanes in Maris lane, approaching the High Street.	At the Church Lane - High Street junction, the right turn lane for cyclists, still under construction here, is plenty wide enough.

Jim Chisholm

Cambridge Station area

The architect's idea of what the station area might look like in a couple of years' time.

Railtrack's announcement of plans to redevelop the area around the station is important for cyclists, not least because so many of us use it. Rather than coming out of the blue, the planning application is the culmination of a lengthy consultation process, which we have been involved in, including commenting on a City Council 'planning brief', and a brainstorming day last November. Much of what was said has been included in the planning application, at least to some extent.

Briefly, the plans envisage the following:

• A new road from Hills Road bridge for buses and cycles only, giving a through route to the station for the first time. Bus stops would be where the short-term car park is now.
• A pedestrianised square immediately outside the station and a much wider pedestrian approach to the station along Station Road, reflecting the very large number of people who arrive on foot.
• A 50% increase in cycle parking, to 1,050 spaces, split over two sites, one north and one south of the station buildings. A small cycle business with some provision of 'secure' parking is also envisaged.
• A five-storey office and a mixture of commercial and residential blocks on Station Road and where the transport police are now. The Station square would have small shops, cafés and so on around it.
• Low-rise multi-storey car parks, with a small increase in spaces. One for season ticket holders would also be incorporated in the same building as a 'budget' hotel alongside platform 3.
• Housing on the waste land between Station Road and Hills Road (with through access for cycles but not cars), and by the bike bridge.
• Improved access for cycles onto Devonshire Road.

Bike racks at the station are already full to capacity again. The 1,050 spaces proposed are clearly insufficient.

I think the development will offer a great all-round improvement at the expense of some bulky buildings, which will, I suspect, make the area in front of the station feel much more enclosed than at present.

From a cycling point of view, our reservations are that the proposals do not go far enough.

The 50% increase in cycle parking is welcome. However, it is clear that it will be full almost as soon as it is installed. Visiting the station on the day I write this, the racks are full to capacity with cycles once again locked to every available railing, barrier and post only eighteen months after the number of spaces was doubled. Supervised cycle parking could really have worked here, but is not included.

Access from the south will be very useful, although Railtrack may need some help persuading the County Council about the wisdom of the new Hills Road junction. For cyclists, however, we would really like an underpass under the railway bridge so there is no need to turn right across the main road.

This junction on the route to the station, at Regent Terrace, is often blocked by parked cars. We're trying to get it marked with double yellow lines.

At the other end, a ramp from the bike bridge right into the new northern cycle parking area is clearly possible. This should obviously have been done when the bridge was first built. There is no possibility of this ever happening if the plan goes ahead as shown. This is the best and last opportunity to remove the difficult pair of right turns on the blind corner of Devonshire Road.

Station Road itself is outside the plan area. However, here is an obvious opportunity to address some of its failings. In particular, there is really no reason why on-street car parking should be allowed. It doesn't provide many spaces, narrows the road so that two buses cannot pass in some places, and is a hazard for cyclists. The County Council could fruitfully consider this at the same time.

David Earl

Letters

Promoting Safer Cycling

Following on from your article on the above, I would make the following observations, as someone who cycles to work in Cambridge every week day. I have to regretfully concede that, in the city, cyclists behave far worse than car drivers (bus drivers and taxis not included in this observation - they still have much to learn).

1. Be patient, not injured: do not jump red lights

2. Do not ride on city footpaths

3. Do not ride in pedestrian areas

4. Do not cycle at high speed in the city

5. Do not overtake other cyclists in traffic, thus causing the other cyclist to veer towards the kerb and run the risk of collision with wayward pedestrians

6. Do not weave in and out of the traffic: keep to the left

7. Use lights in the dark and at dusk

8. Ride in single file

9. Do not assume automatic priority over cars and pedestrians

10. Just because you have made the effort to get on a bike, do not assume you own the road.

I hardly think cyclists need to be told to 'cycle assertively'! 'Cyclists consider others' would be far more appropriate.

These are the sort of things I see cyclists doing every day and it is therefore little wonder cyclists were banished to Room 101 recently (although Paul Merton [was] apparently unaware of Cambridge Cycling Campaign's 3rd party insurance).

Jenni Tokens (Ms)

Clare Macrae replies: I certainly was not suggesting that all cyclists are perfect in the article last time. Rather, 'assertive cycling' means taking your proper place on the road, and making positive, clear movements. This means cycling in a position where you are visible, have room to escape, and are not encouraging motorists to overtake too closely. This is quite distinct from 'aggressive cycling' - and is entirely consistent with the sort of courtesy Jenni describes. However, my point was that there are several facets to cycle safety: cyclist behaviour, driver behaviour, and cycle maintenance, to name but three.

Not my way!

I have enjoyed the excellent articles with route diagrams and photographs which have been published in earlier editions. My admiration goes out to the authors on the distance travelled and dangers tackled on a daily basis but on re-reading the city route described in Newsletter 29 I felt a safer way could have been chosen for a section that I do a lot.

The enjoyment David Green gets from the challenge is stated clearly in the opening and closing paragraphs of the article, but I would do ANYTHING to avoid riding down Mill Road, with its delivery vans half parked on the pavements and East Road with the take-away area and carelessly opened car doors which floored me on one occasion. Incidentally, if you are on East Road, what is 'impractical' about the cycle lane which leads past Compass House and takes you on the path and ramp down the underpass? A much safer way of negotiating the Elizabeth Way-Newmarket Road roundabout.

So the suggestion for my section is as follows:

Devonshire Road - turn left into Mill Road. Turn right at the lights and recently made red tarmac and arrowed area into Gwydir Street and down to the end. Through the metal restriction posts - right into Milford Street. Left into Sturton Street to the end and across the mini roundabout in New Street into Occupation Road. Round past the new hostel block and down the ramp into the underpass and up the next ramp to cross Elizabeth Way bridge on the broad shared-use path on the downstream side of the bridge, right into St Andrew's Road and so to Church Street and High Street, Chesterton.

My aim in trying to survive as a cyclist in Cambridge is to be separated from traffic as much as possible and I have avoided two roundabouts and a major junction.

Colin Stewart 'Another heel-pedaller'

The Tins planning application

The railway bridge - blind corners must be removed

In the last newsletter we said that, as part of a proposal to build a sports centre and some warehousing on land at the disused quarry site between Cambridge and Cherry Hinton, the developers would pay to remove the blind corners on the railway bridge on this busy commuting route. That statement turned out to be rather optimistic.

Earlier this year the developers asked us for suggestions on how best to improve the cycle route across the quarry, and I am pleased to report that they adopted many of our recommendations and requests.

The City Council's Planning Sub-committee was due to consider the application at the end of August. Just days before the meeting, after various summer absences, we took a closer look at a landscape architect's final design for the site's 'Cycle and Footpath Routes'. There is much to be welcomed in this, such as the intention to widen the current 2 m wide path to 3 m for bikes and 2 m for pedestrians. However, as the developers are now not proposing to widen the railway bridge (it is outside their control, being Railtrack land), the path width is squeezed on the blind corners. The report therefore contains, for several different locations along the route, ominous phrases such as 'a chicane will encourage cyclists to slow down and dismount.' Remember that this is currently a route that is open to all cyclists - parents with children on tricycles, those with shopping (or children!) in trailers, those on tandems, and those with mobility difficulties who get around by trike. To make this route more attractive, and then make it unusable to so many, and to increase conflict between pedestrians and bikes at pinch points, would have been a disaster.

Regrettably, therefore, at the eleventh hour we felt compelled to object to the application. I say 'regrettably' because the developers really did make an effort to adopt the suggestions we made, and it had simply never occurred to us to say something as obvious, from our perspective, as 'please don't put barriers in to create conflict on what is currently a continuous route'.

We now understand that the planning committee approved the application, with the condition that the developers work with Cambridge Cycling Campaign to iron out the details. We are pleased with this outcome, and look forward to the process.

We will also be investigating other avenues to get the railway bridge widened - this is too good an opportunity to miss.

We are also considering producing some general guidance for when developers contact us - to try to make the most of the time our members can offer. Alternatively, perhaps local planning departments could give developers something along the lines of the excellent 12 page Cycle Friendly Design Guide provided by the City of Edinburgh Council. We would be pleased to supply contact details.

Clare Macrae

Policing Matters

As mentioned last issue, on 5 September the Police Authority held a public consultation day in the Grafton Centre, in a welcome effort to broaden consultation on policing in Cambridgeshire.

There was a questionnaire to be filled in. Two of the ten questions stood out in my mind. One asked respondents how much they agreed with the statement 'I would rather have a community police officer on foot patrol than rapid police response with a police car'. What a leading question! The phrase 'rapid police response' tells people exactly what the author thought they ought to be saying - and even the senior officer I spoke to at the exhibition agreed that, actually, cycling is by far the quickest way of getting around Cambridge City!

Perhaps the most interesting question was 'If you were in charge of Cambridge Police, what would you change?' That's easy. I'd make sure that 'Driver Behaviour' - or why not 'Driver and Cyclist Behaviour' - was included in the next Crime and Disorder Consultation in Cambridge City, and also East Cambridgeshire, South Cambridgeshire and Fenland - and not just Huntingdonshire, as happened last time. (See Newsletter 23 for more on this process.)

Meanwhile, one very positive outcome of the first Cambridge City Crime and Disorder Consultation process, the Cycle Crime Task Group, has been successful in its bid for Home Office Funding for a sizeable project to reduce cycle theft in Cambridge City Centre. The post of 'Project Manager - Cycle Theft' has now been advertised, and hopefully it will be filled by the time you read this. I believe this is potentially an exciting project - real money and time is available, and the Campaign is involved (along with Cambridgeshire Constabulary, the City Council and both local universities).

Another police-related note: Cambridgeshire Constabulary now has a web site: www.cambs.police.uk. There are currently three reports available:

• Local Performance Plan 2000/2001
• Chief Constable's Annual Report 1999/2000
• Police Authority Annual Report 1999/2000

The Chief Constable's Annual Report includes recent annual cycle theft statistics for the County. Adding this to that of previous reports, we now have five years of cycle theft data.

I believe that all sets of data cover the same area. 'Detected' means 'someone has been charged with the offence', not necessarily convicted. Because of this, bikes which are returned by someone other than the offender are not included in detection statistics.

At least the actual number of bikes recorded stolen has dropped, although the scale of under-reporting is unknown. (The Cycle Theft Task Group is of course working with more detailed statistics, to identify trends and 'hot-spots'.)

Clare Macrae

Ten years

I was pessimistic in Newsletter 31 about the prospects for cyclists in the Government's ten year transport plan, as we awaited its publication. It came out while the newsletter was being printed, so this is the first opportunity to look at what it really says, rather than the informed speculation that preceded it.

The headline, of course, is the amount of money that is to be invested in transport - £180 billion of extra money over ten years is a lot in anyone's books, though a substantial part of that is from private sector funding. Big funding, though, seems to mean big projects. It offers good news for railways and tramways. It puts investment back into major roads for the first time for several years, with a promise or threat, depending on your outlook, of a hundred new bypasses, major road widening and technology-led traffic management. Where does that leave cycling?

Integrated transport? The Plan's cover picture has a politically correct cyclist waiting at a give way line while the car speeds past.

Cycling may benefit directly from the major funding increases promised for local transport. These are grants to local authorities, including Cambridgeshire, to support their local transport plans. That is also where the indirect benefits for things like 20 mph zones and safer streets come from. Unfortunately, this is also a big flaw: none of these things are 'ring-fenced,' so there is no guarantee that there will be any change. The Plan does not make any specific provisions. While generally positive about speed limit enforcement, Cambridgeshire is mainly hostile to reducing speeds.

We already knew that the Government would renege on the first target of doubling cycling trips over the six years 1996 to 2002, set out in its National Cycling Strategy. Instead, and slightly surprisingly, it has introduced a new target of tripling trips in the ten years 2000 to 2010, the lifetime of the Plan. It is hard to see why this is any more achievable than the original target, when there is nothing at all in the Plan to back up the National Cycling Strategy.

There are thirty five mentions of 'cycling', 'bicycle' etc. in the Plan. Most of these are things like captions on graphs showing modal split, or woolliness such as 'encouraging shops and services at the neighbourhood level so people can walk or cycle for their day-to-day needs.' There is no indication at all of how this will be achieved, who will do the encouraging, by when and with what monitoring of effectiveness. An excellent sentiment, but lacking teeth.

The Plan also shows the way in which its non-cycling authors think about cyclists: as pedestrians with wheels, rather than cars without engines. 'Cycling' is nearly always suffixed by 'and walking', a habit we have also had cause to criticise the County Council for adopting. The Plan's section on cycling and (you guessed it) walking - see Box - is about as specific as it gets. The one exception is for London, where there is a commitment to complete the London Cycle Network.

Incredibly, there is a whole chapter on Safety, which mentions cycling only in this sentence: 'We want people to travel safely and to feel secure whether they are on foot or bicycle, in a car, on a train, or bus, at sea or on a plane.' In contrast, there are details on major investment in train warning systems, and rail staff notification procedures and on so on. While any casualties are regrettable, the amount of new money being spent on rail safety is out of proportion. Many more cyclists die on Britain's roads than die in rail crashes, yet we are talking factors of tens of thousands of times less funding for safety initiatives.

In the last newsletter, I was pessimistic. Based on advance information I might have given the Ten Year Plan '2 out of 10' for cycling. Having seen the real thing, maybe I'd give it 3.

David Earl

From the Plan Poor facilities and an unsafe environment continue to inhibit growth in walking and cycling. Cycling accounted for less than 2% of all trips in 1998. This compares unfavourably with other European countries (including those with similar climates, such as Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands). In 1995 the EU average stood at 186 km cycled per person, compared with 76 km per annum in the UK. Indicative of the decline in walking is the increase in car use for journeys to school, which has nearly doubled in the last ten years from 16% to 29%, and which in turn makes for an even more hostile pedestrian environment. The substantial increase in local transport funding over the period of this Plan will enable local authorities to bring forward a significant expansion of schemes to make walking and cycling easier and safer. These should include strategies aimed at specific journeys and destinations, such as creating safe routes to schools and stations. Although we do not in this Plan seek to ring-fence national provision for these purposes, we do expect to see evidence in Local Transport Plans that local authorities have developed and will implement strategies to secure substantial increases in cycling and walking. Our target is to treble the number of cycling trips from their 2000 level by 2010. This is an ambitious, but achievable objective. Growth is expected to be triggered both by improved local provision for cycling, and from the impetus created by the National Cycle Network currently being set up, coordinated by Sustrans. The increased provision for Local Transport Plans will also allow all local authorities to do more to improve safety, particularly for children. We have set a target of reducing by 50% the number of children killed or seriously injured in road accidents by 2010 compared with the average for 1994-98. So we will be looking to authorities to create more traffic-calmed 20 mph zones, particularly around schools and in residential areas, where most child accidents occur. We are also evaluating a number of 'Home Zones' - residential areas treated with traffic-calming and other measures, which aim to improve residents' quality of life and improve safety.

Addenbrooke's crossing

On the public footpath and permissive cycle path from Trumpington to Addenbrooke's Hospital, there is an uncontrolled level crossing over the main King's Cross and Liverpool Street railway line. Many people who walk or cycle to work at Addenbrooke's from the Trumpington area use this path and crossing. Improvements such as lighting or a better surface for the path have been suggested.

New gates at the crossing

Unfortunately, Railtrack are unhappy with the increasing number of pedestrians and cyclists using this crossing. Every year, some 350 lives are lost on the railways (and classified as 'trespassers and suicides'). Railtrack is always looking at measures to improve safety, even if this means closing uncontrolled level crossings like this one: remember what happened about 'bikes on trains' when safety matters were raised. As this crossing has a far-from-clean record, new gates and a very much improved surface have now been provided. Nevertheless, these improvements are just sufficient to allow it to remain open. Any changes that encourage increased use would require improvements costing at least £70,000. One way that this crossing may be improved is if an Addenbrooke's station is built nearby. Building regulations now require wheelchair access at new stations, so a ramped bridge or underpass would be included.

At the moment, the Addenbrooke's station proposal is 'on hold' because the predicted use of the station is under one thousand passengers per day. The rail companies also think that, far from increasing revenue, an Addenbrooke's station would only serve to delay fast trains, which bring in the real money. It may even be that three or four tracks will be required to cope with demand in this area, especially if the East-West rail link (see www.eastwestrail.org) goes ahead, in which case premature construction of a two-track station would be a disaster.

'These improvements are just sufficient to allow it to remain open'

In addition to a link from Long Road to Hills Road (see Trumpington Road Corridor), part of Sustrans' National Cycle Network, may well come this way, and the possible development of a golf course on land adjacent to the railway north of Great Shelford should provide the opportunity of a cycle link south from Addenbrooke's. These routes may be seen as encouraging more use of this crossing.

We are supposed to be in an age of 'joined up thinking' on local transport matters. Here we have the opportunity to provide much improved cycle links to Addenbrooke's, the sixth form colleges, and the city, as well as providing a railway station, with the consequent reduction in car use, yet I see no signs of linkage.

Jim Chisholm

Marshall Millennium Cycleway

This Sustrans project forms part of the National Cycle Network and has moved another step closer to reality with the granting of planning permission by Cambridge City Council. South Cambridgeshire have taken a different approach and agreed to delegate the decision to officers. It now looks extremely unlikely that the route will be completed this year, but 2001 looks realistic.

Both authorities require further details of landscaping and this is the next stage in the process. Another major hurdle to overcome is raising £100,000 or so to pay for it. It should now be easier to seek funding, in the knowledge that the scheme has planning approval from the city council at least.

The proposed route links the existing paths on Stourbridge Common with Newmarket Road Park and Ride site. This will involve only one road crossing at Ditton Lane and will include links to Ditton Walk, Howard Road and Fen Ditton. A link to High Ditch Road is also proposed, but this still depends on negotiations with landowners for the route in the Stow-cum-Quy area.

A major feature of the route is a new jetty on the edge of the Cam, under the railway, to link Stourbridge Common with Ditton Meadows. Two other smaller bridges are also needed.

The exact timing of the works will obviously depend on the funding. It is possible that some elements of the scheme could start soon, using existing funds, but the works will also need to be timed to suit wildlife requirements and the rowing season.

Nigel Brigham, Sustrans

Newmarket Road works: a personal view

Anyone going past will have noticed the ongoing works for the second stage of the Newmarket Road Park and Ride site. The essential parts of the scheme are an expansion of the car park, an extra lane from the Airport Way roundabout to the Park and Ride site and a new junction and lights at the Marshall's car centre. The bus lane from the Park and Ride will also be extended to the new lights. All this stuff is fair enough in the context of completing the Park and Ride site and associated bus priority measures.

'yet again we get a mediocre shared-use path'

The bit that interests us, of course, is the associated work to benefit cycles. The Cycling Campaign submitted a thorough response to the initial plans. This emphasised the fundamental requirement for high quality continuous cycle routes. There are a number of options for treating this section of road, and we tried to present the various possibilities and corresponding details clearly (this is made complicated by the fact that the treatment of one junction affects the best options for the next).

Proposals

The initial proposal promised improving the existing footways to provide high standard shared-use paths, with some caveats about width being restricted in places by trees, especially behind the Marshall's test berm. We pointed out that all new cycle paths should be as wide and smooth as the Airport Way tracks, and that it would be a much better solution to put the westbound cycle track directly next to the road, thus removing conflict with pedestrians and making it easy to move between road and cycle track. The track would nicely bypass the two sets of lights, but could be arranged so as not to lose priority at the numerous crossings of Marshall's access points. Eastbound we pointed out that unless serious engineering measures to provide a raised route past the various junctions were undertaken, then any shared-use path here would be of dubious utility as many of the junctions are busy (two Marshall's entrances, Thermo King and Shell garage (entrance and exit), Park and Ride site), and that a simple on-road cycle-lane would probably be cheaper and better, especially if the road was 4 m width all the way. A general point was made that it was important to consider the options for moving between road and cycleway at various points so that cyclists could make continuous progress and get the benefits of both bypassing the lights but without having to stop at side roads. The start of the Airport Way shared-use at the roundabout (westbound) was given as an example of how not to do it, as the path leaves the road perpendicularly: you almost have to stop to join it, and thus no-one does at this point.

New surface on an old route, with no lighting - and wiggly

The response was thorough, but rather disappointing in that some points were apparently not understood, and others refused on what seems to me to be poor grounds.

Putting the westbound route next to the road was refused on grounds of cost (moving services and laying new pathbed). Similarly providing good access to/egress from the cycle track was rejected as 'cyclists who move from footway to carriageway are performing a potentially hazardous manoeuvre, which can be alarming to motorists and I don't think such manoeuvres should be encouraged.'

Construction

As is so often the case, exactly what is what only becomes clear once construction is well underway. Presumably it is easier for traffic engineers to visualise these things from drawings than for us mere mortals. I have to say that I am disappointed with the results of the work so far. The sections of 'improved high-quality path' are indeed a significant improvement over the narrow, lumpy footway that was there before, but it's not particularly flat - certainly nothing like as good as the one further east. The new path is simply some wooden edging and 50 mm of new tarmac on top of the old footway, and follows exactly the same line. That means that it jogs in or out four times in 150 m. No effort has been made to make a straight path, or to smooth out these jogs. This reduces the effective width considerably and illustrates a very poor understanding of what 'good quality' means in cycle path design.

Another thing that galls me is that the existing roadworks involve the widening of the road on both sides and the moving of 12 streetlights, several signposts and traffic lights. To put the cycle track alongside the road would only have required moving four more lights and constructing a bit more light-duty tarmac. Would this really put the project hopelessly over budget? It seems to me that an opportunity to produce a really good cycle facility, where cyclists actually have an advantage over car drivers (bypassing the lights, without being squeezed by buses or losing priority at side-junctions) has been wasted by penny pinching, and yet again we get a mediocre shared-use path. It seems that our efforts to explain how and why to do it well were a waste of time, and cyclists are still at the bottom of the road-use pile.

Obviously things are not yet complete and some of the project may turn out better than I expect, but what I have seen in the Council responses and the work on the ground do not encourage me to think that the council has yet understood how to provide good cycle provision, or at least is not prepared to spend the money required.

Wookey

Eastern Corridor Area Transport Plan

'Perhaps we can get facilities that will give real choice'

Those of you in the city who live between the river and Mill Road should have received a consultation leaflet about this plan. You should also have returned the comments form by the time you read this!

Like the Southern Corridor Plan that preceded it, this plan attempts to look at development pressures, and suggest measures that can be taken to reduce the transport effects of them. In this area it is expected that some 20,000 extra trips per day will occur if the sites currently in the Local Plan are developed. Under current laws, councils can agree with developers to either construct or provide money for projects which will reduce or eliminate the effects of extra traffic. Examples are where an industrial development provides an extra roundabout, or a housing developer provides school buildings or play space. These are known as 'Section 106 agreements'. As Cambridge is already so congested, the City and County are co-operating to find schemes which will enable development to proceed but with limited or no growth in car traffic. Park and Ride is the most high profile of these.

Site of the proposed new cycle bridge

So what's in the Plan and how does it work?

Various schemes to improve cycle and walking access, traffic calming, bus priority, and Park and Ride are included. The total estimated cost of proposed schemes is £3.8 million and the cost will be divided among developers in proportion to expected trips generated.

Perhaps the biggest surprise is the proposal for a cycle bridge from Riverside to Chesterton (Simoco site). Good, this means there will at last be a non motor bridge that cyclists can cycle over. There is also 'official' recognition of part of the Chisholm Trail (see Newsletters 17 & 23): 'Cycle improvements along the line of the Railway' is in the list, but with no mention of a bridge adjacent to the main river-rail crossing. 'Off-road links to Cherry Hinton' (The Tins and Snaky Path) is in, as is the Sustrans National Cycle Route.

Buildouts and a new island make Queens Road more dangerous

The Campaign will be responding to this consultation. It is important that high quality facilities are built. Perhaps we can get facilities that will give real choice for all those people who in the County's 'Travel for Work' surveys say that they would cycle if there were more and safer routes.

The Campaign supports the City and County in their effort to find more money for options that reduce the use of cars, and hopes that some future 'Northern Corridor Area Transport Plan' will include a cycle bridge over the river on the line of the Chisholm Trail. This would enable some journeys that can take 30 minutes by car to be replaced by five-minute cycle journeys.

Jim Chisholm

Cycling in Ely

Apologies to Councillor Sheila Friend-Smith, Chairman of East Cambridgeshire District Council, for our mistaken claim last issue that she was Mayor of Ely

We were delighted to hear recently that East Cambridgeshire District Council has, since the May 1999 election, increased its annual cycle budget from £3,000 to £100,000. This will be used to develop a network of routes over an extended programme and will draw in pound for pound matching funding from the County Council. We are told that new secure cycle parking will also appear, and developers will be required to include quality cycling provision in planning applications.

The Council has also created a new post, 'Transport Development Officer', held by Chris Beer, who will be responsible for cycling and public transport aspirations throughout East Cambridgeshire. We understand that Mr Beer would be pleased to hear from people in the Ely area with transport-related suggestions and questions.

Chris Beer (01353) 665555 chris.beer@eastcambs.gov.uk

Clare Macrae

Cycling Shorts

In recent years the number of places in Cambridge streets where cyclists are 'squeezed' has increased dramatically. Indeed, one of the first things we achieved was the narrowing of the build-outs at the Jesus Lock pedestrian crossing. If you are interested in contributing to work aimed at raising awareness of the hazards posed to cyclists by build-outs and central reservations, please contact Richard Taylor rmt23@eng.cam.ac.uk, day 766404, evening 740989.

The Cambridge Cycle Route Map is about to enter its third print run, in time for this year's arrival of University students. A total of 20,000 maps were printed in the first year.

Anglia Railways has received a grant of £56,000 from the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority to provide cycle facilities at all its stations. 520 Sheffield Stands will be provided at various stations. Additional money for the project will come from Railtrack, Local Authorities and Anglia Railways itself.

The CTC has revamped its insurance policies, and opened them up to non-members, under the brand name Cyclecover. The web site provides information about cycle insurance and travel insurance, and promises future information about cycle rescue. 0800 169 5798 http://www.cyclecover.co.uk/

British Summer Time ends on Sunday 29 October - so lighting-up time is an hour earlier. See this month's lighting article for advice on checking your bike lights!

A sixteenth local business has agreed to offer discounts to Cambridge Cycling Campaign members. The Bikeman has a stall in the Market Square, every Monday to Thursday, from 8 am to 5.30 pm. 07850 814186

Cutting Your Car Use is a 160-page pocket-sized book written for people who want to either reduce their car use, or give up car ownership altogether. Contents include 'Why Cut Your Car Use?', 'Travelling Less', 'Making Better Use of the Car' and 'What are the Alternatives?' It's written by Anna Semlyen, ISBN 1 870098 87 0, available from Green Books 01803 863260. More information at: www.cuttingyourcaruse.co.uk.

Transport 2000 has been successful in its bid to overturn the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) policy not to stop motorists in 30 mph zones until they reached 35 mph. Transport 2000 had threatened legal action, arguing that the law defined 30 mph as the limit, not 35 mph - and ACPO was not entitled to redefine the limit.

Our requests to the shadow Strategic Rail Authority - for new rail franchises in this area - are on our web site. We placed much emphasis on the high levels of cycling, and therefore the need for cycle provision within the local train network. The sorts of numbers quoted elsewhere in the country, like 6 bikes per train being a huge improvement, would be woefully inadequate here. We have called for a minimum level of 4 bikes per carriage.

The County Council's Trading Standards department launched its Bicycle Safe Hire Scheme at the start of August, and had soon signed up six Cambridge shops: Chris's Bikes, Geoff's Bikes, H Drakes, CPI Ltd, Armada Cycles and Mike's Bikes.

The County Council submitted the Full Cambridgeshire Transport Plan to the government at the end of July, and has since been working on summarising and publishing it for the public. By the time this Newsletter is complete, the plan will be available in printed form, on a CD-ROM and on the Internet. We'll have cycling-related coverage of the plan in the next newsletter.

Over 4,200 cyclists took part this year's London to Cambridge Bike Ride and pedalled the 58 mile route through picturesque countryside. Over £15,000 sponsorship money was handed in on the day, and to date Breakthrough Breast Cancer has received over £100,000 with money still pouring in. Their target is £180,000.

Clare Macrae

Small Ads

Free to members, on cycling subjects. 10p/word for non-members or for non-cycling subjects.

Swap

1999 Giant Boulder Alu-FS with 21.5” frame for MTB with 17.5” frame. The bike has been ridden about 10 miles from new, and cost £250. I'd like to swap it for a smaller bike, doesn't need to have suspension, but must be a genuine MTB, not a hybrid. Contact Mike (01638) 603834 mike@mikecauser.com

A Mildenhall treasure

The Mildenhall Cycle Rally was held on the bank holiday weekend of Saturday the 26th through to Monday the 28th of August.

Despite having lived in or around Cambridge for many years now, I'd not visited the rally before. Having seen details on the web page, I had booked my six year old daughter to race in the children's duathlon on the Monday. In order to take her bike up to Mildenhall, I knew I'd have to drive, so I also cycled with some friends for a look around on Saturday.

The ride up the B1102 was very pleasant (especially from Burwell onwards as there was less traffic), it was about a 50 mile round trip. Unfortunately, having got there, there was very little to do. We had missed the racing events in the morning, and most of the people camping at the event were, I imagine, out riding their bikes.

It had been my intention to look around the cycle jumble, though sadly this didn't start for viewing until 6:30 pm and we were ready to go home before that time.

So apart from the pleasant ride and good company there and back, quite a disappointing day on Saturday. I'm sure that those who were on day rides were having a great time, but there was little to do for a day visitor who'd arrived after those rides had set out.

I was still committed to travelling to Mildenhall on Monday with my family.

This turned out to be a very good thing, as it was a far more enjoyable day. Apart from the aforementioned children's events, there was also grass track and MTB racing, both very enjoyable to watch. Also, the trade stalls were open, and there were many interesting products to peruse and many bargains to be had.

I regret that we had not camped at the site this year. I think that would have been far more rewarding than the day visit on Saturday. If we don't camp next year, I will definitely go to one of the trade days prepared with a list of items I could use.

David Hembrow

Web Watch

The County Council has created a set of web pages about the planned changes to the Chesterton Road-Elizabeth Way roundabout, including a schematic map. If the feedback from this trial is positive, the plan is to use the Internet more in future consultations.
www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/sub/eandt/highways/chestround/

Ben Haywards have changed their web address:
www.benhaywardcycles.com

The UK national federation of cycle campaigns, the Cycle Campaign Network, has web pages containing much up to date news, and a very useful newsletter. CCN now offers free membership to Bicycle User Groups (BUGs)
www.bigfoot.com/~cyclecampaignnetwork

Cambridgeshire Constabulary has a new Web site
www.cambs.police.uk

The University of Cambridge has updated its information on 'Transport and the Environment.' Although aimed specifically at staff and students, the page contains much of use to anyone in the area with web access.
www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/environment/transport.html

Clare Macrae

Making life easier... (9) Lights for winter

Now that the nights are drawing in, it's a good idea to make sure that your bike lights are working before you get caught out. Rather than discussing the pros and cons of the various kinds of lights, I am going to take a look at practical ways you can make your bike lights as effective and reliable as possible.

British Standard lamp lens

The law (that is, the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations) says that between the hours of sunset and sunrise, your bike must show constant front and rear lights to the relevant British Standard when being ridden on a public road. Any bike made since 1990 must have a white front light marked BS6102/3, and a red back light marked BS6102/3 or BS3648 - or other equivalent European standards such as German K-numbers. Flashing lights attached to the bike are illegal, although the law says nothing about fixing them to the rider. While flashing lights are good for attracting attention, they are very poor for accurate positioning. So, if you use a flashing light, use a constant one too at the same time. For more information on British Standards, see www.bsi-global.com.

Brackets like these give a great position for front lights	A piece of old inner-tube will prevent brackets slipping.

Front light position

Your front light must be high (up to 1.5 m from the ground) and visible from the front. Try to find a higher less-obscured position than the front fork. Mount the lamp in a central or 'offside' (right-hand-side) position. The handlebars are an ideal mounting place, providing a good beam and making it easy to fine-tune the beam as you ride. Make sure that the beam shines almost horizontally. Check this by riding along a quiet residential side street one evening. Well-adjusted front lights have no trouble illuminating reflective car number plates well ahead of you. If you have a basket or bar bag, most bike shops sell brackets designed to fit a light on the brake mounting point on the fork crown. If you are forced to use the fork, go for the highest position you can. PVC tape or a strip of old rubber inner tube around the fork helps prevent the bracket loosening as you ride.

Rear light position

Make sure your red back light is shining towards the following traffic, not down onto the tarmac or into your wheel! Again, find an unobscured position, ideally as far back and as high as possible (between 35 cm and 1.5 m from the ground) where it won't get knocked or hidden.

Flapping jackets can easily obscure lights close under the saddle	Racks often obscure lights mounted lower down.

Don't fit the back light close up under your saddle: lights there are easily obscured by jackets without you noticing!

Some models of rear light provide a reflector as well, and fit onto the mudguard. Although a bit vulnerable to damage, this is a good location - provided you have a rear mudguard. Otherwise, unless you have a rear rack, a good position is the rear brake bridge bracket. If you do have a rack, right at the back of the rack is best, where it will be unobstructed by luggage. If there isn't a mounting point on your rack you can buy or adapt one. Less good positions are the offside of a rack or seat stay, as they are lower and slightly hidden. Brackets provided with some dynamo lights are another possibility, but only if they are designed for right-hand-side mounting.

Battery lighting

If you are using standard battery lighting, periodically remove the batteries and check the battery contacts are clean and that they are making good contact with the batteries. The best way to clean the battery and switch contacts is to use an aerosol electrical switch cleaner (such as Servisol, available from Gee's or Maplin). As soon as the lights start to go dim, replace the batteries. To compare alkaline battery performance, see the test results at www.audex.uk.net/lights/brite994.htm.

These days, there are also many excellent lighting systems based on rechargeable batteries. I recommend Myra Van Inwegen's excellent lighting articles for advice on selecting and making best use of these systems.

Generator (so-called dynamo) lighting

The dynamo should run against the 'track' on the tyre.

'Bottle' dynamos need to be mounted correctly, otherwise they can slip and be noisy. Mount the dynamo so that when it's 'on', the spring pressure forces the knurled wheel in towards the tyre. A position to the rear of the seat stay achieves this (and avoids your heel hitting it as you pedal!). The knurled roller should press flat against a special ribbed dynamo track on the tyre. You may need to make a cut-out in your mudguard to allow this. This prevents slippage and avoids wearing out the side of your tyre. Worn dynamo rollers can be rejuvenated by fitting a rubber cap sold in most bike shops. In the 'off' position, the roller should only be about 10 mm away from the tyre.

Dynamo checks

If one of your dynamo lights stops working, simply ignoring it will soon result in the other bulb burning out! It's better to stop and change the bulb. Some generators have an electronic regulator to help stop bulbs blowing, or you can buy an add-on one (see Newsletter 22).

Wires should make good electrical contact with the dynamo.

If a replacement bulb doesn't work, check the wiring. Most dynamo systems are 'single-wire', relying on the metal bike frame as the 'earth' part of an electrical circuit between each lamp and the dynamo generator. Check that the wires make good contact with the light brackets and the dynamo body. Also, make sure that the mounting points of lamps and generator make good metal-to-metal contact with the frame. Paint and corroded fixing points are common causes of unreliable dynamo systems. Replacing original nuts, bolts and washers with stainless steel ones can help. Fitting a DIY twin-cable system is the most reliable.

All you need for a twin-cable dynamo upgrade.

DIY twin-cable systems

Twin-cable dynamo circuits use a separate cable as the 'earth' between each lamp and the dynamo generator. All you need to upgrade your dynamo lights to the more reliable twin-cable system is a soldering iron, a few metres of twin-core cable, some 'spade' connectors) and some zip cable-ties (all available from Gee's, Maplin or other electrical, electronic or DIY shops).

Soldered connectors ensure a good contact.	'Zip' ties make a neat job.

For each lamp, replace the single wire with a length of twin-core cable. Solder on the connectors to each end of one core ('earth'), and attach them to the lamp and the dynamo mounts. Attach the other core to the same bulb and dynamo points as the single wires you are replacing. Secure the wiring neatly with zip ties.

Bulbs

Carry spare bulbs in a film pot.

Be prepared for bulb failure by carrying some spares in your road-side toolkit. A plastic 35 mm film box is my container of choice! Wrap the bulbs in tissue to stop them rattling around. Front and rear bulbs generally differ, and they come in screw-in and push-in fittings. Typical sizes for standard battery lights are 2.5V, 0.5A, 1.25W. Typical sizes for dynamo lights are 6V, 0.4A, 2.4W (front) and 6V, 0.1A, 0.6W (rear), but yours may differ. If you have dynamo lights, a simple upgrade is to replace the front bulb with a much brighter halogen equivalent. Remember to avoid fitting halogen bulbs with bare hands, as this will make them burn out. A comprehensive source of bulb information is the Reflectalite website.

Reflectors

A final word on reflectors. These are also a legal requirement. You must have a red reflector, marked BS6102/2 or with European mark incorporating I or IA, positioned centrally or offside, between 35 and 90 cm from the ground aligned towards and visible from the rear. Each pedal must have forward and rear-facing amber coloured reflectors marked BS6102/2. Additional wheel mounted reflectors can be removed after a bike is sold. You can fit additional reflectors as long as they are the correct colour and in appropriate positions.

David Green

Park and Ride - no white elephant

Bob Menzies, Road Safety and Signals Manager at the Environment and Transport department, Cambridgeshire County Council, wrote this response to Park and Ride - sustainable transport or white elephant? in Newsletter 31. Martin's article was never intended as a statement of Campaign policy on Park and Ride - because, apart from our Local Transport Plan consultation responses, we have never formalised such a policy. However, this recent correspondence has certainly prompted much useful and interesting discussion, and so we will use some time at our October monthly meeting to consider the subject further. We thank Mr Menzies for this article.

Martin Lucas-Smith, in an article based on his dissertation, judged Park and Ride and found it wanting. At Cambridgeshire County Council we believe that Park and Ride is an effective and crucial part of delivering sustainable access and economic vitality and that Martin's work has not considered the full facts or set Park and Ride in its wider context.

Many people are unaware of the origins of the present Park and Ride in the early 1990s. This was closely linked to a significant expansion of parking controls and eliminated a considerable amount of free on-street parking. Subsequently there have been substantial increases in parking charges, which in some cases have doubled since the opening of Madingley Road Park and Ride site in 1996. Part of the success of Park and Ride has been that it has allowed us to increase charges to pay for more Park and Ride.

Martin points out that there has not been a policy of reducing parking spaces in Cambridge city centre. However given the levels of growth in population, and economic activity, the fact that there has been no increase in city centre parking is significant.

In reality there have been small reductions in parking, with spaces being eliminated wherever a good alternative use for the space has been identified, for example in Kings Parade and Hills Road.

Martin examined a number of environmental and economic factors of Park and Ride. Effectively the data available to Martin was for a half-finished system, with the inadequate Clifton Road site still in operation. As the ring of sites nears completion, the sites expand and the number of users increases, all of these factors improve.

For example there is a concern about Park and Ride generating 'extra' mileage, but what has to be acknowledged is that as new sites are added there is less need for users to drive out of their way to reach a site. This has happened at Newmarket Road where users transferred from Cowley Road and we expect drivers from the south will find Trumpington much more convenient than Madingley Road.

So far 1995-1999 Planned 2000-2004 Capital Investment in Park and Ride £6.9 million £7.25 million (Money comes from capital allocation, on-street parking revenue and developer contributions. Expenditure includes bus priority on Newmarket Road, Hills Road, and Trumpington Road, the latter two including improved cycle facilities.) 1999 2000 2004 Number of sites 4 5 Number of Park and Ride spaces 2560 5150 Annual return passenger journeys 800,000 1,500,000 Annual running cost per staffed site £128,000 Annual management and promotion £63,000 On Street Parking Charges 1996 2000 Central Zone 80p/hour £1.50/hour Intermediate Zone 60p/hour £1.20/hour

Economies of scale have a significant impact on the bus services and the site running costs. Introducing double deck buses meets growing demand without increasing bus mileage. The running costs of each site don't substantially change as the site expands. Madingley Road and now Newmarket Road have been doubled in size with only a small increase in costs. Thus as the sites are expanded and the usage increases the cost per user declines. It is also worth remembering that the bus services are operated commercially with no subsidy.

Park and Ride's crucial importance in supporting the delivery of other transport initiatives such as the Pedestrian Zone, the Core Scheme and Bus Priority must not be underestimated. Not everybody shares our enthusiasm for the sustainable transport agenda. Park and Ride has greatly sweetened the pill of these vitally important traffic restraint measures for the many unreconstructed car users who are still out there.

All the indicators show that the Cambridge Transport Strategy is working. Traffic flows in central Cambridge have decreased by 10% since the implementation of the Core Scheme in 1997 and traffic flows on all the roads entering Cambridge peaked in 1996, the year Madingley Road Park and Ride site opened. This is against a background of continuing rises in traffic flows in the rest of Cambridgeshire and nationally (9% and 6% growth respectively between 1996 and 1999). This would not have been achieved without Park and Ride.

To seek to talk down Park and Ride in the belief that this would generate more funding for cycle facilities would be a grave error. The funding for Park and Ride has come through convincing Central Government of its merits and through the 'virtuous spiral' of on-street parking charges. At the same time we've been able to secure funding for improvements that promote cycling, not just in their own right but as a significant part of the measures which Park and Ride have made possible such as the Core Scheme and bus priority.

In the present circumstances of a growing pot of money there is room for us to build an equally strong case for more cycle facilities in parallel with, not in place of, Park and Ride. We should put our joint energies into this positive outcome and not into ultimately fruitless dissection of other parts of the strategy.

Bob Menzies

Your streets this month

Please help us by sending comments to the person named at the end of each item, as well as to us.

New routes

The Eastern Corridor Transport Plan, just published for consultation by the City Council, includes a proposal for a cycle route beside the railway between the Station area and Chesterton (see article in this issue). It also contains a proposal for a new bridge over the river between Riverside and Chesterton. Comments are being actively sought by David Parkin.

Under construction

Whilst the rest of us have been enjoying our summer holidays, the road and cycle path builders of Cambridge have been busy.

The traffic cones are out in force on Newmarket Road between the Airport Way junction and the Airport itself. The main changes here are an extra lane for cars travelling to the Park and Ride site, additional bus priority for buses, and a reconstructed shared-use cycle path. Although construction is not yet complete, the quality of the new path looks disappointing, with a less-than-smooth surface, uneven crossings of side roads and numerous bends. See article; comments to Alan Middlebrook.

On Queen's Road, a new central island near Trinity College is proving as bad as we feared, with cyclists being squeezed by overtaking motorists. Comments to Richard Preston.

Major construction in Grange Road is introducing what we hope will be a highly cycle-friendly traffic calming scheme. We awarded this scheme a 'Golden Bell': we hope it lives up to expectation. Comments to Richard Preston.

Construction is well underway on the changes in Grange Road. This picture shows one of the several narrowings being constructed. After our strongly worded comments, the obstructions now have bypasses for cycles on both sides of a pair of bollards. There is a raised bump in the centre for motor vehicles to use, in one direction at a time only. These features should significantly lower traffic speeds. There will also be some raised 'tables', without any bollards, for all traffic.

The reconstruction of the existing shared-use footway, which we also supported (so long as using it was a matter of choice rather than a necessity), is not being done because it would have cost too much. The pavement will remain shared, so that cyclists who want to use it still can.

Just north of the Barton Road junction - note the very narrow cycle lanes

Elsewhere in Cambridge, construction work is taking place in Trumpington (see article) to introduce new and modified junctions, cycle lanes and traffic calming in the vicinity of the new supermarket, and on Coldham's Lane to install traffic signals at the junction with Cromwell Road.

On Hills Road, a new segregated cycle path is being constructed on the west side between Long Road and Purbeck Road. We are unconvinced that this is a good use of money, but at least the quality appears to be good, with a higher standard of construction than on Newmarket Road. In addition, the cycle lanes along this section have been resurfaced. The quality of these cycle lanes is good: they have a red surface for their entire length, the width is adequate, and they are unbroken at pelican crossings. Never mind the cycle path; these cycle lanes are now the best in the city. The cycle lanes and cycle path together give us a cycle superhighway along this section of Hills Road, with almost as much highway width devoted to cycles as to motor vehicles. Comments to Richard Preston.

A short length of advisory lane has been constructed in Hobson Street, to make it more obvious to taxi and bus drivers that this narrow road is two-way for cyclists. We awarded Hobson Street a 'Chocolate Chain' earlier this year, and although this token improvement is very welcome, conflict between cyclists and oncoming traffic on this vital cycle route remains.

Cherry Hinton High Street has also been resurfaced, including the cycle lanes here. Unfortunately, the many places where the route for cyclists departs from the main carriageway remain as bumpy as ever. Here the gap was simply too narrow for the surfacing machines.

Addresses for comments

David Parkin, Environment and Planning Department, Cambridge City Council, FREEPOST ANG6390 Cambridge CB2 3YA or The Guildhall, Cambridge CB2 3JQ.

Alan Middlebrook, Project Officer, Mailbox ET1017, Environment and Transport, Cambridgeshire County Council, Castle Court, Shire Hall, Cambridge CB3 0AP.

Richard Preston, Team Leader (Cambridge Projects), Mailbox ET1018, Environment and Transport, Cambridgeshire County Council, Castle Court, Shire Hall, Cambridge CB3 0AP.

John Isherwood, Senior Engineer, Cambridge City Council, The Guildhall, Cambridge CB2 3JQ.

Campaign Diary

October

About the Campaign

If you like what you see in this newsletter, you can add your voice to those of our other 650 members, and join the Campaign.

Membership costs are low: £7.50 individual, £3.50 unwaged, £12 household. For this, you get six newsletters a year, discounts at a large number of bike shops, and optional third-party liability insurance. Please get in touch if you want to hear more.

Cambridge Cycling Campaign was set up in 1995 to voice the concerns of cyclists. We are not a cycling club but an organisation lobbying and campaigning for the rights of cyclists, and promoting cycling in and around Cambridge.

Our regular stall on Saturdays outside the Guildhall is the public face of the campaign; volunteers are always welcome to help. And don't forget our meetings, open to all, on the first Tuesday of each month, 7.30 for 8.00 pm at the Friends' Meeting House, Jesus Lane, Cambridge.

Elected Officers

Co-ordinator - Clare Macrae
h 501050 w 336024

Treasurer - Simon Nuttall 500902

Membership Secretary
Liaison Officer - David Earl 690718

Stall Officer -
Sarah Elsegood 366152

Newsletter Editor -
Mark Irving 882378

Officer Without Portfolio -
Nigel Deakin 311073

Press Officer - post vacant

Contacting the Campaign

Grant aided by

Cambridge Cycling Campaign
PO Box 204
Cambridge CB4 3FN

Telephone David Earl 690718

Fax 0870 063 3150

http://www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/camcycle

E-mail contact@camcycle.org.uk

This newsletter is printed on recycled paper by Victoire Press, Bar Hill.