You are in: Home » Newsletters » Newsletter 64 (February/March 2006)
Newsletter 64 (February/March 2006)
Cambridge Local Plan: New lower cycle parking standards are 'realistic'.
(Click on image for a larger version)
Contents:
- Letters
- Arbury Camp development
- Betjeman House redevelopment threatens cycle route
- Cambridge station: third time lucky?
- Cycle parking and the Local Plan
- In the meantime ... some more cycle parking now!
- Things I learned on the way to getting my stolen Bike-E back
- Correspondence 2005
- Improving Gilbert Road for cyclists and pedestrians
- Cycling and Children and Young People: A Review, Reviewed
- Members' survey
- Sustrans Leisurely Rides 2006
- Small ads:
- Cycling on the cheap (part 5)
- Strategy Day: 2 April 2006
- Riding without lights
- Join the Campaign instantly on-line
- Your streets this month
- About the Campaign
- Elected Officers 2005-2006
- Contacting the Campaign
Letters
The Editor welcomes letters for publication. They represent their authors' own opinions, rather than Campaign policy, even when written by a Campaign Committee member.
The Cam
There may be more than one route to heaven. As near as Reflector will get, so close to home, is by cycling in winter sunshine along the towpath, on Sustrans route 11. Gone is the need to weave round water filled craters, with mud slide thrills on the river bank. It is now Breedon style gravel rolled flat and even. Unlike tarmac it is in harmony with the river side, and a pleasure for cycling.
But beware Cerebus guarding this route, its owner glaring like Charon awaiting a toll, on the river edge. Watch out too for loud voices on bikes hurting at one, eyes turned towards the young blades, feathering in near unison. Yell out 'ahoy' and the oncoming voice may briefly straighten its erratic path.
Cygnets, virgin brown, await the spring for fulfilment in white. Moorhen scuttle down the bank, to safety. Molehills, in newly minted earth, line the path edge. Willows are shedding leaves, but will be first dressed come greening.
From the underworld, can it be, there is an occasional sulphurous whiff. Froth patches float below the weir at Baits Bite Lock. There, a short stretch of lumpy tarmac breaks the cyclist's rhythmic reverie.
Come the weekend, black poles may bar the way. Large men fumble cold hands in tins of maggots, then the long poles nose their way towards the far bank, letting one pass.
On the bank ahead, the sleek grey silhouette of another fisher snaps out of its pose. Neck out, on long wings, the heron climbs over the electricity cables, heading for a backwater.
A young man, legs outstretched, smokes on a bench by Clayhithe bridge, a turning point. Homewards, catching up at the railway bridge, he spurts by, showing his lungs have some life yet. At the Pike and Eel, glimpses of earthly paradise, so briefly gained, are forfeited to motor traffic. It's a short sweet ride.
"Reflector"
Why ever not?
I was interested to read James Woodburn's account (Newsletter 63) of the tortuous sequence of events that has resulted in something so obvious and necessary as a cycle contraflow in Corn Exchange Street finally being approved.
Without this contraflow, the new cycle park being created (arguably on the wrong side of the development, against the City Council's Cycle Parking Standards) would undoubtedly be a complete white elephant.
While the Cabinet is to be congratulated on this long-overdue decision, it has to be asked why this matter has dragged out for so long by a county council which supposedly regards itself cycle-friendly, or why the matter was elevated to Cabinet status when a transport committee exists specifically to make transport decisions and quite reasonably has a better understanding of the issues.
Indeed, I was incensed enough to go on-line to hear the webcasts of the Cabinet meetings, to hear the standard of debates on the matter. For the meeting on 12 April, one Councillor said:
'... the thing that worries me the most is this idea that because cyclists are always going to go through red traffic lights, we should make it legal for cyclists to go through red traffic lights. Now I know you haven't said that, but that's the way you're dealing with illegal cycling in Cambridgeshire: you're cutting down illegal cycling by legalising anything anyone cares to do on a bicycle. That's not my personal view on how you go about solving that kind of problem.'
Another Councillor remarked, 'anyone who expects cyclists to obey the rules is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.'
Such remarks about traffic lights are totally irrelevant to the agenda item, and simply display prejudice against cyclists. 'Cyclists' are not 'always' going to go through red traffic lights. Rule-breaking by motorists (especially over speeding) is at least as much of a problem as rule-breaking by cyclists
The suggestion that those in favour of promoting cycling want to see 'legalising anything anyone cares to do on a bicycle' is totally ludicrous. Catering for reasonable expectations, such as cyclists actually being able to get to a facility intended for them, barely registered in the discussion.
In contrast, it was good to see that the council officer at the meeting, Brian Smith, correctly sought to balance the debate by explaining that the Council seeks compliance with regulations by all road users, both motorists and cyclists. This is a view which the Campaign clearly shares, as any reading of its literature would clearly show.
Martin Lucas-Smith
Arbury Camp development
The new developments at the Arbury Camp site have taken us somewhat by surprise. There has been little, if any, public consultation about the plans, but the development marches on regardless. While many of the effects of the Arbury Camp development will be felt within the city, it is situated a few metres outside Cambridge City Council's boundary, so is subject to South Cambridgeshire District Council for planning, and of course Cambridgeshire County Council for highways and rights of way.
|
In the last month I have tried on several occasions to get details of what is happening from the County Council. Just in time for this article, I received a partial reply, but have yet to get details of exactly what is happening. From various other sources I have managed to get paper copies of the plans dated 28 October 2004 and a small electronic section of the plan. I've also taken many photos.
We do not yet know if the on-road or off road provision will meet any national standards for cycle provision. Cambridgeshire has yet to adopt a standard for cycle facilities. However, the London Cycling Design Standard states that on-road cycle lanes should be 2 m in width wherever the proportion of cyclists as a part of the traffic are more than 10%. It also says that lanes on roads with 40 mph or higher speed limits 'should preferably be wider than 1.5 m.' Both these criteria are met by this junction. For a road which has just been doubled in width, there is surely room for such good provision.
For the off road path, the London standards give 3 m as the 'desirable minimum width' with the addition of a 0.5 m safety strip should the path be adjacent to the road, rising to a 1 m strip where the speed limit is 40 mph or above. Again, as this is a new development, it is not unreasonable to expect at least such minimum provision.
|
The Scottish Executive's Cycling By Design document gives similar figures, as do other similar documents. Cambridge Road is being doubled in width.
Unfortunately, the design of the new side roads is completely opposite to modern advice as laid out in the London standards. These suggest that where slip lanes exist, they should be 'removed completely' or the taper should be made sharper. Along Kings Hedges Road, we are seeing the addition of several sets of such long and dangerous slip lanes. Kings Hedges Road is also being substantially increased in width.
|
The design of the crossings for pedestrians and cyclists also seems to be from another age. The number of toucan crossings to be installed is staggering - as will be the delays due to them for anyone who uses them.
It is also of note that all the paths for cyclists in this plan are of the shared-use variety. This is referred to in the London standards are being for 'Green cycle corridors away from the public highway, for example alongside the canal, or through parks.' Given the number of cyclists in Cambridge, cycle tracks separate from pedestrians are appropriate.
The A14-Cambridge Road Junction
The westbound exit lane from the A14 is to be expanded from two to three lanes at the junction. This is to be done without providing a set of lights to assist cyclists and pedestrians on the shared-use path. The County Council does not appear to believe there is a case for changing these lights in order to improve safety. There is also no intention to provide gaps in the timings of the lights to allow intervals where cyclists could cross the junction. The designers think this is likely to have 'a knock-on effect which would adversely affect traffic flow on the A14.'
The Kings Hedges Road-Cambridge Road Junction
Kings Hedges Road westbound is being increased from two lanes to three. Histon Road southbound after the junction is being increased from one lane to two, part of the space being made available by removal of the cycle lane. However, their latest email to me says, 'The on carriageway cycle lane will be retained after the implementation of the development.'
Note the number of toucan crossings intended to be installed at this junction. At present, the most common direction for pedestrians crossing the road is between points A and B on the sketch of the junction. Unless a more helpfully designed crossing appears at the southern side of this junction, a diversion north and a wait for no fewer than four of the five new toucans will be part of crossing this road in future !
Such inconsiderate design can only result in pedestrians and cyclists ignoring the red lights on toucan crossings.
From Histon to Cambridge
Until the last minute, it appeared that the on-road cycle lane providing for cyclists heading into Cambridge along Cambridge Road was to be removed. This is no longer the case, though we have not been informed yet of the design of the expected on-road lane.
The left turn into Kings Hedges Road has been made with a much larger turning radius than was previously the case. This will increase the speed of cars around that corner and increase danger for cyclists and pedestrians. There appears not to be any intention of installing any kind of side road entry treatment to slow cars to a safer speed at this point.
|
Cyclists using the shared use path for this journey will find themselves having to stop and press buttons on no fewer than three toucan crossings between C and A in order to end up on a shared use path next to Histon Road. They will then have to manoeuvre themselves back onto the road after the junction.
From Histon turning left into King's Hedges Road
Cyclists making this journey are better served than others by the new shared-use path. At least it provides a way to avoid the traffic lights. However, it looks very much like those who are on the path are going to find it difficult to leave it. If the intention of the cyclist is to turn into St. Catherine's Square, for instance, they are expected to ride past the junction and then cross at the reverse L shaped feature and the central reservation on King's Hedges Road. Crossing the road will then involve either two or three waits for toucan crossings, depending on whether one is installed in the guided bus track. The cyclist is then expected to ride back along King's Hedges Road on the southern side before making a left turn into St. Catherine's Square.
 |
Access to Arbury Road from the path is also uncertain. A crossing is shown on the October 2004 map on the eastern side of Arbury Road, which would provide a way for shared-use cyclists as detailed later.
The new shared-use path alongside Cambridge Road will surely be of much better quality than the old. The one alongside Kings Hedges Road is a welcome development. However, once cyclists are travelling along this path they will meet four new side road before they get as far as Cambridge Regional College. Hopefully, the design of the path won't require cyclists to give way each time.
It doesn't look easy to leave the path at any point to rejoin the road, nor to leave the road to join the path. This is often overlooked by designers of these paths. This is a shame. Cyclists can rarely complete their journeys completely on such paths, and must be able to get on and off them as often as possible.
At the eastern end of the site, the path takes a turn northwards in the direction of the guided bus path. This may not exist at first. Cyclists need a direct route rather than this detour.
The road will almost certainly still be faster. Just one set of traffic lights rather than the four side roads. Cyclists continuing to use Kings Hedges Road will find that they are faced with more lanes of traffic and considerably more central islands than is the case at present.
It's worth noting that some of the crossings are labelled as 'future' facilities, so they may not appear.
From Kings Hedges Road towards Histon
Cyclists taking this route by road will find that they are faced with a choice of three lanes at the junction instead of the current two. More lanes make conditions more dangerous for cyclists due to the problem of having to cross lanes of traffic to get to the correct lane.
If they choose to use the new shared-use path, first they have to find a way to get onto it. Remarkably few connections are planned between the path and the road network. A cyclist could leave the road to the east of St Catherine's Street and use the crossing, but this will require waits for two or three toucan crossings before access to the other side of the road is achieved.
Any cyclist wishing to use the path on the western side of Cambridge Road will then have to wait for three more toucan crossings from C to D to cross Cambridge Road.
Cyclists who arrive at the western end of Kings Hedges Road before wanting to join the shared-use path have a choice of using three toucans from A to C to cross to the path on the eastern side of Cambridge Road, or four to get to the western side.
From Cambridge along Histon Road and Cambridge Road
Cambridge Road is to gain a traffic lane near the Kings Hedges Road junction. This will make conditions worse for cyclists on the road. Those who use the path should find an improvement in the quality of the path.
Within the Arbury Camp Development
 |
Inside the Arbury Camp development, shared-use paths are quite common. These appear from the scale plans to be of relatively good size - twice as wide as the pavements shown as two metres (six feet) wide, which allows them to exceed the 3m minimum in London, even allowing for a safety strip.
These paths mainly (but not always) cross side roads without a diversion, and look likely to form a usable route between the houses and school on the site. They are likely to be of less use to confident adult cyclists who will want to continue on the road.
Effect of Arbury Camp traffic on the surrounding area
The Arbury Camp site will have 900 new homes on it. Given that it will be populated largely by people from outside Cambridge, who are not used to the local cycling culture, it is reasonable to expect that commuting by car will be commonplace unless some considerable effort is put into encouraging new residents to do otherwise. It is possible that as many as a thousand extra car commuters will be appear each morning and evening due to Arbury Camp
|
The main exit from Arbury Camp is two lanes wide in each direction and directly opposite the end of Arbury Road. Drivers emerging from Arbury Camp will inevitably drive straight down Arbury Road. This may well cause congestion and very likely an increase in 'rat-running' down St. Alban's Road and Mere Way. It may well be the case that Arbury Road itself becomes rather less pleasant for cyclists due to the extra traffic.
The increase in width of the A14 slip road and Cambridge Road will funnel more vehicles onto the roads of northern Cambridge. The wider roads and increased corner radius at the south west corner of the new development will surely lead to higher speeds.
The extraordinary level of inconvenience designed into the shared-use facilities (waiting for toucans will take up more time than cycling for journeys using the paths), combined with the design for increased car use, will almost certainly have a negative effect on cycle usage in this area.
The north of Cambridge already has fewer and lower quality cycling facilities than much of the rest of the city.
Making the most of the shared-use links out of Arbury Camp
 |
I edited this picture to show how the claimed links to existing cycle facilities on the plan don't actually link up to anything properly. The dots were added by me, green/small dots for existing shared-use paths and and red/large dots where additional ones need to be if the shared-use paths are to make up a useful network. Without making the shared-use paths into a network, people from Arbury Camp won't be able to use them to go anywhere but their neighbours.
I'm quite aware that shared use is not universally popular amongst cyclists, but it is sometimes appropriate. The red bit shown alongside Arbury Road has much to commend it. It provides a useful way for children attending St. Lawrence's Primary to get to that school, and it provides a fairly direct link for those emerging from Arbury Camp to travel as far as the shops, library and doctor's surgery around Arbury Court as well as for older children to travel to Manor School.
What can we do?
At this stage, it is obvious that much of the building is going ahead whether we like it or not. We need information about what is actually planned. At the time of writing, this has not been forthcoming.
I suggest the following as a list of items to concern ourselves with:
- Making shared-use paths join up.
- Making sure that proposed on and off-road facilities are of decent standard.
- Making sure it is possible to get onto and off of the paths regularly so that journeys can be made without big detours.
- Making road crossings direct and with a maximum of one button press.
- Addressing likely increased car traffic due to the new development.
Conclusion
The new development does have some good ideas as a part of it. For instance, the internal paths should be very useful for children attending school on the site. It is also positive to see some thought going into a path which will provide an alternative, for many cyclists, to King's Hedges Road.
However, it is sadly the case that the design of the roads around the site overwhelmingly values the convenience and safety of motorists above that of cyclists and pedestrians, and that those paths to be provided don't link up with much.
David Hembrow
Betjeman House redevelopment threatens cycle route
A planning application has been submitted for the redevelopment of the Betjeman House site, fronting Hills Road. It lies alongside the boundary with the Botanic Garden, on the opposite side of the road from the junction with Station Road. It involves the demolition of almost all the existing buildings on the site, although the frontage of the Flying Pig public house may be retained.
|
The development is massive and includes a tall office building, shops, a restaurant, a public house and 188 dwellings. An underground car park is to be constructed beneath the entire land area of the site. The on-site development is intricately linked with the relocation of the War Memorial from the centre of the road junction adjacent to the site to a new public square just north of the development and with the consequent remodelling of the junction and the roads leading into it using designs prepared by the developers. The site plans cannot be assessed without at the same time examining in detail the options for the road junction submitted with the planning application. The Campaign has submitted a formal objection to the application on the grounds that it makes inappropriate and insufficient provision for cyclists and cycling. www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/letters/2005/P06001
In summary our main objections are listed below. Those interested in the detail should refer to our letter of objection.
On-site cycle parking is not given sufficient space and is not sufficiently accessible.
The exceptionally large numbers of cyclists using the cycle routes which pass through the road junction and their space requirements are entirely ignored in the calculations of the capacity of the junction.
We particularly object to the arbitrary and unjustifiable removal of the length of mandatory cycle lane which runs through the junction and is used by northbound cyclists. This length of lane is removed in both proposed options for the junction.
The carriageway outside the proposed development is too narrow to accommodate an adequately wide mandatory cycle lane and adequately wide northbound and southbound traffic lanes. The Hills Road frontage of the proposed development needs to be set back by some two metres.
We object to the proposed large on-road island at the exit from the junction for northbound cyclists which would create an oppressive and dangerous pinch point. This island is present in both proposed options for the junction.
The main access to the site is too narrow, and fails to provide a footway to keep pedestrians segregated from cyclists and motor vehicles. More important still, the visibility sight lines for motor vehicles and cyclists entering and leaving the site are unsatisfactory. We are particularly concerned that vehicles leaving the site will endanger cyclists using the mandatory cycle lane which runs past the entrance.
We think that it is extraordinary that the County Council should be considering costly improvements for cyclists on Hills Road bridge while a few hundred metres further along Hills Road a developer is proposing road designs which will, if implemented, seriously damage the same cycling route. This links the city centre with Addenbrooke's Hospital and is used by more cyclists every day than almost any other cycle route in the UK.
This is a real test for the planning process in Cambridge. We have seen in the case of the Grand Arcade planning applications how inadequate attention to the transport implications of development can lead to insufficient road space being provided for cyclists and pedestrians (in Corn Exchange Street). It is important for the future of cycling in Cambridge that the same should not happen in the present instance. In our letter of objection we have called for both stakeholder and public consultation on the transport issues followed by consideration by the Cambridge Traffic Management Area Joint Committee before this planning application is decided. As yet we have received no response on this crucial issue.
We recommend interested readers with a few hours to spare to read our letter and to go to the Planning Office in the Guildhall where they will be able to view all the documents and to make up their own minds about what they think of the cycling issues raised by this proposed development. Comments would be welcomed.
James Woodburn
Cambridge station: third time lucky?
Redevelopment of the area around Cambridge railway station has been in the air for many years with 'definite' proposals and planning briefs shuttling back and forth between developers, the City Council and the rail companies. Now, though, it looks like something is actually happening. Developers Ashwell held a brief exhibition in November (announced just too late to make our last Newsletter) and have now submitted a massive planning application with a deadline for objections of 10 February. The triangle site between Hills Road and Station Road is, of course, already being redeveloped for housing.
As a key destination for cyclists, both for travel and work, and as a through route as part of the Chisholm Trail, the station area is high on our list of interests. Lack of cycle parking has been a constant chorus of complaint over many years. The competing interests of all kinds of transport in such a small area affects cyclists moving around.
 |
Ashwell's new plan retains the listed station buildings and Spiller's Mill, and also the current alignment of Station Road, but there is little else that would remain untouched. The site extends along Station Road and includes the Octopus store, all the car parks and the derelict area between the Mill and platform 3. The new buildings are large: higher than development in Cambridge has traditionally been. No doubt many people and groups concerned about the nature of the city and its architecture will be troubled by this. But as a cycling group, we can only deal directly with the impact on cyclists, which boils down to four issues:
- the role of the area as a transport interchange,
- the scale of development in so far as extra or inappropriate traffic might be using the area,
- the way in which cyclists move around the site, and
- cycle parking.
- summary, the plans, when published in November, called for
- a multi-storey car park alongside platform 6
- flats in the current car park and into the Octopus site
- an open square immediately outside the station
- a hotel and conference centre roughly where the bus stops now are
- demolishing nearly all the existing office blocks along Station Road and replacing them with much larger ones (with shops at ground floor level)
- shops in all the buildings around the square, including a large shop where the police station now is, extending towards the new car park
- a museum and County Record office in the refurbished mill tower, and flats in the rest of the building, and new flats alongside it towards Hills Road
- an entirely new road (for the guided bus, leading out under Hills Road bridge) from where the roundabout is now to the Brooklands Avenue junction with Hills Road. This will also allow general buses, taxis and importantly cycles a new way in and out of the station, and access to an off-road cycle route alongside the guided busway to Long Road and Trumpington
- a larger set of bus stops would line this road
- indoor cycle parking extending from the signal box alongside Hills Road bridge up to the existing station buildings by platform 3, with low cost housing above (but see below)
|
In principle there is a lot of good news for cyclists in this. While the location was unacceptable, the plan accepts the need, as given in the City Council's planning brief, for 2,000 cycle parking spaces expandable to 3,000 in the future; gives a much more satisfactory separation of different kinds of traffic and a considerable short cut from Hills Road. We are assured that the shops, as well as the offices, will have their own cycle parking to the standards required (though given the abysmal way in which this has been suggested at the neighbouring site also being developed by Ashwell near the war memorial - see the article elsewhere in this newsletter - we will need to watch this carefully).
On the other hand the density and scale of the development swamps the area's primary role as a transport interchange and will undoubtedly generate very large amounts of new traffic (considerable car parking is planned in basements for each of the office blocks - as well as private cycle parking).
|
Also, the original plans omitted proper provision for a ramp leading off the cycle bridge towards the station which we fought hard to get included in the planning brief. Access from Devonshire Road for bikes wasn't very clear. The planning application now submitted proposes two options for a ramp. One is a loop which starts out heading away from the station and goes back under the bridge. The other is straight and runs alongside the car park, but links to the existing suspended structure. The latter is far and away the better. It is direct and stays high up to cross above the car park entrances before descending, but engineering may be difficult. Both options show more direct access to Devonshire Road than presently. [new diagram]
|
The main concern, though, was the location of cycle parking. It was far too far from the station buildings. Following representations, not least from'one' (the rail operator), a multi-storey cycle park has been proposed, perhaps like the one at Amsterdam Centraal station in the Netherlands, together with a new, additional, closer entrance to the station. This still leaves some doubts about the willingness of cyclists coming from the Devonshire Road end to use the new park, though the added security and convenience should make it popular. The cycle park is still further away from the Station than desirable, partly because of a desire to retain an open view of the mill buildings from the south. It will also be interesting to see how the hundreds of parking spaces required by the shops fronting the square will actually be provided.
This is probably the biggest development Cambridge has seen in many years - bigger than the Grand Arcade now in progress in the centre, and bigger than the Cattle Market site. It could be seven or eight years before it is complete, and will certainly change in many ways during the planning process. Indeed, cynics might say that some of the proposals are made so big and clearly unacceptable in order for the developer to negotiate down to what they actually want.
David Earl
Cycle parking and the Local Plan
In Newsletter 56 we published an article summarising a number of issues relating to cycle parking provision. Any cyclist in Cambridge will be aware of the shortage of cycle parking virtually everywhere in Cambridge, both in public and private areas.
Since then another major development has occurred on this topic: the review of the Cambridge Local Plan.
What is the Local Plan?
The Cambridge Local Plan sets out policies and site specific proposals for the development and use of land in Cambridge. These are then used to develop schemes and assess planning applications, through a process known as Development Control.
Over the last few years, Cambridge City Council has been working to revise the Local Plan. During this time, we have submitted letters both supporting and objecting to a range of topics within the drafts as they have been issued for consultation.
These letters are available on our website (or upon request, via our usual contact details), at: www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/letters/ - see the letters with references NA03011b, C05003, P05007, NA05008 and C05030.
In some cases, we have received reassurances or proposed changes to the draft, enabling us to withdraw various objections. However, the Cycle Parking Standards, which form part of the Local Plan, have remained problematic in areas.
What are the Cycle Parking Standards?
The Cycle Parking Standards are one of the main areas of the plan which affect cyclists. They set out the Council's minimum requirements in terms of cycle parking for new developments and changes in use.
Like the rest of the Local Plan, they have no relevance to levels of on-street provision or existing developments over which no changes are planned. These cases are simply beyond the scope of the Local Plan.
These Standards have been amended three times in the last ten years, and the previous versions can be seen on our website. (As always, members can request printed copies via our usual contact details.)
The Cycle Parking Standards set out (for new developments or changes in use) two things: firstly, the amount of cycle parking required (i.e. the number of spaces), and secondly ancillary design principles (such as closeness to the development and the need to ensure that stands enable the frame of the bike to be locked to the stand).
The number of cycle parking spaces required is based on the type of development and how much space is assigned for that usage. Examples are:
- Guest houses and hotels: 1 space for every 2 members of staff and 2 spaces for every 10 bedrooms
- Food retail: 1 space per 25 m2 floor area up to 1500 m2 and thereafter 1 per 75 m2
- Offices: 1 space for every 30 m2 gross floor area, to include some visitor parking
and so on. There are in fact 21 categories of usage, so it is clear that the Standards are comprehensive.
Our view
The Cycle Parking Subgroup again discussed the Standards at two meetings in November. In general, we have been quite clear that the Standards are overall pretty good, although there were a number of areas which we wanted to see improved (see below).
The Campaign's main concern over the last few years has been the matter of enforcement of the Standards. It had become quite clear that there has been no effective mechanism, as far as we can see, for enforcement of the Standards. Many planning applications had been approved for which the levels of cycle parking were clearly below what was required by the Standards.
In some cases, this ignoring of the Standards by the City Council themselves has been on the basis that the levels required, particularly for large developments, were apparently in some cases excessive. This therefore led, in the latest consultation draft, to lowering in some areas of the Standards of levels required for some usages, and the introduction of a new principle of flexibility for a multiple-purpose site, where effectively duplication of provision might have resulted.
We take the view that we would rather see realistic levels proposed in a set of enforceable Standards, rather than a document which is simply ignored when the planning authority feels like it.
On these grounds, we have accepted this principle of flexibility. However, we have done so effectively on the basis that we feel that the City Council now has no let-out clause when developments are proposed. We will be ever-more vigilant for new developments, and will have no hesitation in immediately objecting to proposed developments which do not meet the Standards which come out of the Local Plan Inquiry process.
Enforcement
The difficulty with the Local Plan Inquiry process has been that the process of enforcement is out of the scope of the Local Plan itself.
Of course, this makes a mockery of the existence of Standards: what point is there of setting standards if their enforcement is weak?
Local Plan Inquiry hearing
On 22 November 2005 the Co-ordinator, Martin Lucas-Smith, appeared as our representative to the Local Plan Inquiry hearing. This was our opportunity to debate, in front of the Local Plan Inspector, our outstanding objections to the Standards.
This provided the opportunity to demonstrate the validity of our objections, and we hope the arguments put have been sufficiently strong that the Inspector will accept them and require the City Council to amend the Standards accordingly.
The Officer put forward to represent the Council's case against our objections was, ironically, the Walking & Cycling Development & Promotion Officer, with whom the Campaign has a good working relationship and who has often been very helpful in taking matters forward on our behalf.
The Cycle Parking Subgroup assembled a preparatory briefing which was used at the Inquiry. This has full details of our arguments and is available online from www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/letters/2005/#C06001 or on request.
The concerns we put forward were as follows:
1: Enforcement of the existing Standards
|
We started by setting out a list of examples of cases where enforcement has been defective, such as the Grand Arcade (fewer spaces than required, and in the wrong location, round the back of the building), Bradwell's Court (absolutely no parking being provided for visitors in what arguably is the area across the whole of Cambridge with the highest demand for cycle parking after the railway station), the new pubs on Regent Street (where the demand for cycle parking is quite clear, given the presence of 'don't park here' signs!), Cambridge Leisure Park, flats fronting Cherry Hinton Road (which have 'wheel bender' stands, completely forbidden by the Standards) and so on.
Whilst we had to accept that the matter of enforcement was technically beyond the scope of the Local Plan itself, this quite clearly set out the background for the rest of the discussion.
2: Use of a pro-forma to aid compliance
We suggested that developers should have to submit a council-supplied form as a means to clarify requirements and to demonstrate that the levels of cycle parking proposed meet the Standards. At present, given the above examples, it is clear that existing procedures are inadequate.
Such a pro-forma would take the format of a simple form containing the same table as the Standards themselves, but with an additional two columns to enable (i) the category and gross floor area and (ii) the resulting number of cycle parking spaces to be entered. It is then a simple matter to calculate and demonstrate the total requirement which must be provided (with a 'total' box at the end), and thus the required space allocated and planned for from the start of the planning process.
The Council argued (in their written rebuttal of our objection) against such a form on the basis that:
The suggested pro-forma, which would require developers to indicate how much cycle parking they were providing for each category, would only be appropriate for larger developments and this information could be requested on a case-by-case basis.
It was not explained why such a pro-forma 'would only be appropriate for larger developments,' nor are we at all convinced that this would lead to effective enforcement. There already exists a form, one which is grossly inadequate:
We felt this rather demolished the Council's case, and at the Inquiry, the City Council appeared to have no come-back on this. We hope that a sensible pro-forma system can be implemented, as that should make everyone's job simpler and easier.
3. Revision of the Standards downwards in places
We discussed here the issue of flexibility. We had no choice here really but to accept the Council's assurances that this should lead to more effective enforcement as the Standards would be more 'realistic'. However, we expressed concerns that no guidance on what 'flexibility' would mean in practice.
We also questioned why the student cycle parking Standards were also proposed to be downgraded, and that the inclusion of cycle parking 'on merit' for some uses is unnecessarily vague.
4. That cycle parking should be closer than any car parking to the entrance of a development
We saw no adequate reason why this could not be part of the Standards, as a means to promote and encourage cycling. (We accepted that disabled parking rightly could be closer.)
5. Commuted payments
|
Whilst the Campaign has concerns about the use of commuted payments, due to the lack of clarity involved, we are concerned that developers in the City Centre are demonstrably being 'let off' provision of cycle parking in cases where there is supposedly no space. This is despite the City Centre being the area where cycle parking is most needed.
The Council instead proposed the 'flexibility' clause. Our objection could not be pursued here as we did not propose new wording, because we wanted the issue explored rather than setting out a firm proposal one way or the other.
6. Inclusion of high-capacity stands
The draft standards do not define the conditions under which high-capacity stands could be used. The Council's Proof merely states:
These stands are included to allow the developer some flexibility where space is at a premium, for example in the Historic Core Area.
We feel there are only very limited cases in which these should be used. Such stands are useful in situations where there is genuinely little space. However, it is our considered view that standard 'Rounded A' or 'Sheffield Stands' are preferable where there is space, a view demonstrated by their widespread use across the city and beyond.
We proposed the following wording, which would remove ambiguity:
'It is acceptable to use high-capacity stands only when no on-site car parking is provided. The number of such stands must not exceed 50% of the total cycle parking provided.'
We hope that such wording, or something along the same lines, can be accepted.
We also argued against the inclusion of a diagram of high-capacity stands, given that their use would be quite rare. This would be best included within a 'how to do cycle parking document', something which we would like to see produced.
Next steps
It is not clear what the next steps are, but we presume that an Inspector's Report will be published at some point in the coming months. We will of course report, through these pages, what happens next.
All members are warmly invited to the next meeting of the Cycle Parking Subgroup, at 8 pm on Wednesday 8 March at 100 Thoday Street. We will cover any cycle-parking related issues that have arisen. Campaigning to get residential cycle parking in the Romsey area will be amongst the topics under consideration.
Martin Lucas-Smith
In the meantime ... some more cycle parking now!
|
After a disastrous failure to spend money allocated for it in 2004, some additional cycle parking has now been provided at the station. Two areas of publicly available racks, one of them covered and in view of CCTV cameras, have been built on areas previously in car parks. 100 extra spaces are available (about 15% more) divided between a set in the main car park alongside platform 6, and in the premier car park alongside the hotel. So far, because it isn't immediately obvious and a touch further from the station, it has eased parking for those who have realised it is there, but no doubt it will soon fill up as more people use it.
Things I learned on the way to getting my stolen Bike-E back
 |
Yes, thanks to many people, I now have my Bike-E back. I want to thank the folks like Lisa and Dave and members of the Cycling Campaign who printed the flyers that went out in the last Newsletter mailing. As I continued to look for my bike, I was heartened by the many people, including the City Rangers, who knew it was missing and what it looked like. It felt like I had a thousand eyes out there looking for me.
I also paid a visit to the giant lost bike room at Parkside Police Station. I was amazed at the number of bikes of all varieties. It really was worth a look. I would certainly recommend that you take the time to look at their stash if you have lost a bike. It will be important that you have the frame number of your bike so you can prove that the bike is yours. If you don't have this number written down in a safe place, take the time to write it down today.
Don't assume that just because there is a CCTV camera in the area where you parked your bike, that there is actually tape in the camera, or that the camera is working, because there might not be. It is also important to let the police know that there was a camera in the area because they won't automatically ask about CCTV footage unless you press them a bit. In my case, the (City Council public car park) camera was known to have been faulty for some time.
It is always nice to have a supportive friend or two. The bike was more than a piece of metal. It had a lot of sentimental value. The folks around me realized how important it was to me and were suitably sympathetic. This was important as it took me three weeks to retrieve the bike. Don't give up looking too quickly.
My last resort was to put a picture advert in the Cambridge Evening News. It wasn't cheap but I felt the photo was an important part of the ad. A very kind member of the public gave me a call because they had seen the bike in someone's front garden. (Thanks, too, to Simon Nuttall for keeping his almost identical Bike-E off the road for a few days - to avoid any possible cases of mistaken identity.)
The bike is now home. Whatever could be ripped off has been but the bike itself is intact for which I am thankful. They no longer make the Bike-E so I am very happy to have mine back again. Thank you all for your help.
Jannett Klinke
Correspondence 2005
Over the past year, members of the Committee have written a large number of letters to a variety of people and organisations on a range of subjects. Here is the complete index from 2005.
All of these letters are available on our website at www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/letters/2005/. We can also send paper copies to members upon request, via our usual contact details.
Likewise, please let us know if there is an issue that particularly interests you. Sometimes we need to send further follow-up letters, and it is useful to have further views from members.
Martin Lucas-Smith, Co-ordinator
Improving Gilbert Road for cyclists and pedestrians
On any list of the Cambridge roads which are most difficult and dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians, Gilbert Road would be near the top. It is a residential road much used by motor vehicles as a cut-through from Histon Road to Milton Road. The road is straight and vehicle speeds tend to be high. The accident rate is also high, especially for cyclists.
|
Among local cyclists this road is notorious for its useless cycle lanes. In Cambridge most cycle lanes are mandatory. Car parking is prohibited. The cycle lanes in Gilbert Road are non-mandatory (advisory). Parking is permitted and parked vehicles are numerous, especially near the junction with Milton Road where commuters now take advantage of the fact that Gilbert Road parking is some of the closest free parking to the city centre. In practice cyclists have to constantly move out of the cycle lanes to overtake parked vehicles. In the process the cyclists themselves become a form of traffic calming which is for them unpleasant and at times alarming. Vehicles should slow down for cyclists to allow them to overtake parked vehicles, but not all do so.
In December 2004 Cambridgeshire County Council Cabinet approved a scheme intended to reduce the high rate of accidents along Gilbert Road. This had two components:
- Street lighting improvements. Many of the reported injury accidents occurred during the hours of darkness.
- A segregated cycle track on the south side between Milton Road and Carlton Way, built partly on the verge and partly on the carriageway. This was intended to replace the existing advisory cycle lanes.
However, in the event, the available funding proved insufficient to finance this scheme in the 2005/2006 programme. The Officer's Report for the Cabinet Meeting held on 20 December 2005 recommended (in paragraph 2.5) that the scheme should have first call on the budget for 2006/2007.
The Campaign has always been strongly in favour of an accident reduction scheme for Gilbert Road but opposed the proposed cycle track which does not make sense in cycling terms. There are four reasons:
- The verges are an amenity which should not be reduced unnecessarily.
- The proposed cycleway is only on one side of the road and would mean that cyclists, including child cyclists, cycling towards Milton Road would have to cross and re-cross Gilbert Road if they wish to use it. This could easily increase rather than reduce accidents.
- The proposed cycleway is only in the half of Gilbert Road which lies within the West Chesterton Ward. Nothing is provided for the rest of Gilbert Road where conditions are very similar.
- A simpler system would, we believe, work better, especially for young people who are the main focus for our concern.
|
Since the original scheme was drawn up much has happened. The need for an effective accident-reduction scheme has increased for a number of reasons of which the most important is, we believe, the construction of new buildings due to open in September 2006 for Milton Road Primary School (in Ascham Road) and Castle School (in Metcalfe Road). We believe that these developments are likely to increase the number of young people cycling, and walking along and across Gilbert Road. The number of young people attending the whole range of schools in the immediate vicinity of Gilbert Road will, from next September, be about 2720, an extraordinarily high figure for an area this size (County Council data). Probably well under half of this number will be regularly walking or cycling along Gilbert Road, but the actual figure will still be very high indeed in comparison with other Cambridge localities. The Campaign actively supports the County Council's promotion of walking and cycling as better means of travelling to school than the private car, and improving road safety has an important role to play in this initiative.
The Campaign became concerned that the County Council Cabinet might simply approve the original scheme and not permit any modification of it. So before the Cabinet Meeting on 20 December, we lobbied Cabinet members asking them to support the allocation of the funds already set aside for the scheme but to permit them to be spent on an improved accident reduction and traffic calming scheme appropriate for the changed circumstances of 2006/2007. I am very pleased to be able to report that this has, in effect, now been agreed. Council Officers have been asked 'to contact those groups in favour and opposed to the scheme and to seek an acceptable solution within the allocated budget and which also met the stated objectives.' We shall be working hard with all concerned to try to find an acceptable solution. Cabinet have stated that if no such solution can be found, a scheme for a different location will be brought forward in place of this one.
What kind of scheme do we favour? We want a scheme that enhances the attractions of Gilbert Road as a residential area and makes the road safer for pedestrians and cyclists, especially for the young people travelling to and from the schools in the area whose needs should, we believe, be given priority.
The components of any scheme will require detailed consultation, analysis and costing. It is, we believe, important that whatever is done covers the whole length of the road and not simply the section within the West Chesterton Ward. Our suggested provisional listing of components is as follows:
- We strongly support the need for better street lighting but would like to see proposals which do not take up too high a proportion of the total budget.
- We believe that the time has come to convert the advisory cycle lanes running along the whole length of both sides of Gilbert Road into red mandatory cycle lanes in which parking is prohibited. We believe that they should be 1.6 m wide, fractionally wider than existing lanes. Government guidelines specify 1.5 m as the recommended minimum width for such lanes. We have measured the width of the road in a number of separate locations to establish that there is sufficient space for such lanes along the entire length of the road. The visual effect of such coloured lanes actually would have a significant traffic-calming effect because it would make the road appear narrower to motorists. At the same time this suggested change would make the road much more suitable for cycling, especially by young people. Almost every house along Gilbert Road now has off-street car parking and in the great majority of instances there is provision for more than one car. The loss of on-street car parking is, in this case, counterbalanced by the need for road safety and an improved road environment for vulnerable users.
- We would like the traffic speed of most traffic to be further reduced by other traffic-calming measures and a 20 mph limit. Current County Council policy permits the introduction of a 20 mph speed limit only in areas in which the speed of most vehicles is already below this. Reduced speeds would greatly enhance the amenity value of Gilbert Road as a residential area and as a safe zone for pedestrians and cyclists. Dramatic reductions in road casualties are achievable through 20 mph limits and government guidance now favours their use.
- We favour advanced stop lines at the junctions with Milton Road and Histon Road.
- We consider that there should be tighter radii at road junctions to slow down the speed at which vehicles turn left on a green light.
We look forward to a cooperative and constructive period of consultation with the aim of achieving a satisfactory scheme that will meet the Cabinet's objectives (which we support). The recent death of a cyclist in a collision with a motor vehicle on Gilbert Road underlines the urgency of an effective accident-reduction scheme.
James Woodburn
Cycling and Children and Young People: A Review, Reviewed
Tim Gill has written Cycling and Children and Young People: A review for the National Children's Bureau. It includes an Annex: The Cycle Helmet Debate. This 53-page document includes many useful facts, with references, which, although well known to many cycle campaigners, seem not to be generally acknowledged. It documents the contrast of the relatively low risk of cycle accidents to children with the 'perception' of high risk, as well as the far greater risks to health of inactivity. It also details the 'social' benefits of cycling by enabling children and young people to explore and be independent of adults.
So what about helmets then?
A simple breakdown of known statistics is used: 18 cyclists aged 0-15 were killed in 2003, 70% due to head injury. But of those 13, in 50% of cases impact speed was too great for protection, and in half of the remaining 50%, the point of impact was outside helmet area.
So we are left with absolute helmet wearing for all children in Britain saving at best 3 lives per year.
Compare this with the savings of life due to the exercise, well being and social inclusion that increased levels of cycling can bring, especially in later life.
I think this is a review which should be read by school governors, head teachers and all those involved in the welfare of children and young people.
There is an author's postscript on the helmet debate which almost exactly mirrors my view. I've worn a helmet for many years, I've encouraged my children to wear one, but do not prevent them from cycling without one, and am strongly opposed to compulsion. Our children travelled independently, on foot, by bike, and on public transport from an early age. The skills they've so learnt have been valuable as they've grown up, and I believe the health and social advantages they have so gained far outweigh any possible 'transport' risks.
Jim Chisholm
"Cycling and Children and Young People: A review" by Tim Gill was published for the National Children's Bureau in December 2005. ISBN 1-904787-62-2,
www.ncb.org.uk/resources/cyclingreport_timgill.pdf
Members' survey
Do you remember the survey you filled in? (Part 1)
It's been a marathon effort, but we can now bring you a summary of the results of the questionnaire many of you filled in a year ago. Thanks to everyone who helped with this over such a long time: the compiling team, the data inputters, Simon for his analysis of the results and preparing the diagrams, and all of you for returning so many of the forms.
We're covering the results in two parts - so the rest of this article will appear in April.
Introduction
Although it was as far back as 2001 that an AGM voted to hold a members' survey, it proved such a complex task that it was not until autumn 2004 that the 8-page, 56 question paper-based survey was produced. It was sent out to all 700 members at the time and yielded 293 responses, i.e. 42%, a rate which reflects the enthusiasm of the membership.
The survey started with questions about the members, their bikes, where they ride and why, and what they think about Cambridge for cycling. Then (to be covered next time) sections about the cycling bans, with perhaps surprising responses, a section about interactions between cyclists and motorists. Finally members were asked to say how the campaign should continue to engage with 'the authorities,' again covered next time.
The committee apologies that, though the Freepost address was provided, reply-paid envelopes were not included with the survey forms as we had intended.
Processing the forms
Users had until the end of December 2004 to return their survey forms. 293 forms were received by that date. Only those are included in this analysis.
We hired a private contractor to encode the multiple-choice answers into a spreadsheet. Each survey was uniquely numbered and the style of the encoding makes it easy to verify and check the spreadsheet against the paper copies.
There were several questions that expected an open ended textual answer. We analysed the first 100 of these for this report to get a sample set of responses for statistical purposes.
The multiple choice and textual answers were then combined into a single spreadsheet. Spreadsheet tools enabled most of the responses to be easily combined into charts.
Section A: About you
We confirmed that 99% of respondents said they were members of the Campaign.
Almost one quarter of respondents are supporters of Sustrans, and one in 6 members of the CTC. Much smaller numbers are members of 17 other cycling groups.
Although almost all respondents are regular cyclists, well over half drive and even more are regular walkers. One in six use trains at least once a week, but this is twice as many as those who use buses. Very few members make regular use of Park and Ride, coach, motorbike or taxis.
Almost two-thirds live in Cambridge, and a further quarter in South Cambridgeshire. Most of the rest live slightly further away in East Cambridgeshire or surrounding counties.
Two-thirds work or study in Cambridge, but only one in ten work in South Cambridgeshire. The remainder are roughly equally split between being retired, working in London, or working in a nearby county.
When asked 'What sort of bike do you use?' the predominant response was traditional Cambridge Roadster, followed by 'Touring Bike' and then 'Mountain Bike'. A third of respondents have the use of more than one bike.
Two thirds of respondents cycle five or more days a week, and the median distance is between 10 and 20 miles per week. 43% always wear a helmet; 30% never do. A quarter owns some kind of trailer or child seat and another one-sixth accompany children.
Over 90% have a driving licence and three-quarters of respondent's households have a car (though this latter figure must acknowledge that many respondents will be members of the same household).
Respondents are split roughly one third female to two thirds male. Only 10% of respondents are under 30. The majority, 80%, are employed with the rest either retired or at study.
Simon says: respondents are Cycling Campaign Members, who are regular cyclists, mostly of utility bikes, covering around 20 miles per week, mostly male and usually wearing a helmet. They have access to a car and drive and walk regularly. They mostly live and work in Cambridge, are over 30 and employed.
Section B: Your cycling choices in general
When cycle tracks or shared-use pavements are available 15% of respondents said they always use them, but 5% said that they always stay on the road.
Over one third will never ride on the pavement where they know it is not allowed, but almost two-thirds admit to this activity. 85% always use cycle lights when dark.
Simon says: these responses indicate that members have a wide spectrum of abilities and confidence and that most are used to riding in darkness.
Section D: Cyclists and facilities in and around Cambridge
Where should cyclists be? Respondents prefer to ride in a cycle lane or cycle track rather than on the road, and prefer side streets with less traffic. For some they ride where they do because it's faster, but more cite safety and 'more pleasant' as the main reasons. Other reasons typically included 'less pollution' and 'quieter'.
On-road cycle lanes. Respondents are split on whether on-road cycle lanes are wide enough, or whether they should be wider. On narrow roads opinion is fairly evenly split across the three options as to whether narrow cycle lanes would make it better in general, make it better to pass slow moving traffic or make it worse.
Over half feel acceptably safe when riding on the road, 15% don't.
Cycle tracks and pavements. Respondents like purpose built cycle tracks alongside roads much more than shared-use pavements. However they acknowledge shared-use pavements can be sometimes useful. About half think shared-use pavements are easy to recognise and half think they are not. Respondents would like more priority on cycle tracks over side-roads.
Bus lanes. A strong majority of respondents like bus lanes because they act as wide cycle lanes. They don't want motorcycles to be allowed to use bus lanes.
In an open question about cyclists and facilities a predominant comment was about the poor level of cyclists' behaviour. Many people felt that the poor standard of cycling brings cyclists and cycling into disrepute. There were also comments about poor driving and the attitudes of some pedestrians. There was a lot of criticism of poor quality facilities.
Simon says: Respondents are generally well aware of the range of places and routes where they can cycle. The majority prefer to cycle on the road and expect the conditions there to be made safer and more attractive. Relatively speaking, shared-use is considered to be a necessary evil compared to cycle tracks and wide cycle lanes. A majority of respondents will choose routes that are quieter and more pleasant. Bus lanes act like wide cycle lanes and should be protected from motor cycles. Judging by the number of comments about poor cycling there is a need for improved cycle training.
Simon Nuttall
Sections C, E, F and G of the Survey will be covered in the next instalment.
A case in point: The cycling Lifestyle
It has to be understood that though this survey tells us quite a lot about us, the Cycling Campaign members, what it reveals is a picture of a self-selecting group. Though the results aren't necessarily unrepresentative of Cambridge cyclists in general, one might argue that to have joined the Campaign represents greater concern and commitment.
 |
That so many people have access to a car shows how much cycling is a choice, though of course that choice may be influenced by the inconvenience of using that car in Cambridge. The high number that have a trailer, carry children by bike or accompany them, shows how far that choice extends. In many cases it extends to a whole lifestyle, and perhaps goes some way to explaining why there so often seems to be a gulf of understanding between those who cycle and those who don't.
One way of reading the fairly low mileage reported is that people's lifestyle choices extend to selecting somewhere to live that is convenient for everyday journeys (though another is that cycling is only an exceptional activity). There is a way to do the shopping, to take the kids to school, that doesn't involve a car. It is second nature to those who adopt this lifestyle, but involves a big apparent barrier to those who don't.
David Earl
A case in point: Coldhams Lane
Are narrow cycle lanes better than no lanes at all? We were very concerned by the 1.2 m cycle lanes installed on Coldhams Lane between the bridge and the Brooks Road roundabout a couple of years ago. Nowhere in Cambridge are cycle lanes installed at the recommended width, but these are well below the minimum. Though not the narrowest (this accolade over any significant distance is reserved for Mowbray Road at only 80 cm), these lanes pass alongside narrow parking, making cyclists vulnerable to thoughtlessly opened car doors.
|
On the other hand, the survey response shows that many of you find that narrow lanes can be useful. Since the fourth arm was added to the roundabout by the Beehive Centre around the same time the lanes were put in, queues on Coldhams Lane have become much worse. There can be a queue back to Brooks Road at almost any time of the working day. The new lanes allow cyclists to bypass that queue extremely easily, so that the ten-minute wait in the car is only a minute on the move on a bike. Similarly, outbound traffic jams in the evening simply don't apply to cyclists.
In this lies one of the fundamental contradictions in cycling: safety versus convenience. Where should the balance lie? The survey responses probably bring us no closer to answering that question.
David Earl
Sustrans Leisurely Rides 2006
Through an association with Sustrans, Cambridge Cycling Campaign is pleased to announce a full programme of Leisurely Rides for 2006. Each ride will be led by a Sustrans Ranger and will explore the best cycling routes in Cambridge and beyond. The rides are open to everyone, and everyone is welcome. You do not have to support the Campaign or Sustrans to enjoy these rides! All you need is a roadworthy bike, and some lights.
|
All the rides start from Reality Checkpoint in the centre of Parker's Piece at 1 pm on the second Sunday of each month. The pace is always leisurely and we do not leave anyone behind. We are normally back by about 4.30 pm in the winter and later in the summer. It's not just about cycling: sometimes the rides have a theme such as fruit picking, a visit to a working windmill, open studios or an organic farm. On rare occasions special rides are organised with a different start time and other practicalities. Keep an eye on the Newsletter diary page or on-line for details.
Simon Nuttalll
Small ads:
Please note: that the adverts below may now be out of date. Please note also you can now submit adverts for the small ads section of the newsletter online.
Free to members of the Campaign, on cycling subjects.
Wanted
U+2 trailer. Have your two grown up, want to sell on? My two need a two seat trailer bike. (01223) 882000 day, (01462) 894219 evenings.
For sale
Trailer bike,Reynolds 500, chrome moly frame, 3-speed hub gears + brackets for fixing to two bikes. £60. (01223) 328070 or krhall@onetel.comthat
Cycling on the cheap (part 5)
|
Underneath Northfield Avenue in Kings Hedges, there is an underpass for use by cyclists and pedestrians. This is used by many children travelling to the adjacent primary school, and also by many adults who shop at the Daily Bread or the Tesco on Campkin Road.
Unfortunately, this underpass is marred by very unpleasant barriers which force cyclists to come to a dead stop after going downhill to the underpass and before setting off up the other side. The gradients either side of the underpass are very steep by Cambridge standards.
|
The barriers have caused many crashes for children who have not used their brakes in time, and they make the underpass unusable for cyclists with a load of shopping due to the difficulty of lugging your bike around the barriers and the problem of then having to start from stationary to get up the other side. At the top of the hill, cyclists are required to stop and dismount a third time.
This facility would be far more useful if the barriers to its use were removed.
David Hembrow
Strategy Day: 2 April 2006
As mentioned in the last Newsletter, and at the AGM, the Campaign will be holding a Strategy Day to consider the future direction of the Campaign and to have time to do some proper 'strategic thinking' in the round. The last such Day was held in January 2003.
The date for the Strategy Day has been fixed for 2 April 2006. The venue and starting time is to be confirmed.
Particular points of discussion are liable to include:
- Getting more members
- Re-invigorating the Subgroup system as a means to get people more involved
- Media work, and lots more!
Please contact the Co-ordinator to get the finalised details if you are interested in attending - the Day is open to all members.
Martin Lucas-Smith
Riding without lights
Police in Cambridge have announced a one-month experimental scheme to serve a new sort of ticket on any cyclist riding without legal lights. The cyclist must provide proof that they have bought lights, or fixed defective lights, within 14 days, or face prosecution. This fits between giving a verbal warning and issuing a £30 fixed penalty notice, and should have the useful effect of getting a few more cyclists to light up. The initiative is part of Operation Cyclone (see Newsletter 63), and is a cycle equivalent of the VDRS (vehicle defect rectification scheme), which gives drivers the opportunity to fix defects and avoid prosecution.
Mark Irving
Join the Campaign instantly on-line
www.camcycle.org.uk/membership
Tell your friends who are not yet members! For immediate membership, join the Cambridge Cycling Campaign on-line with a credit or debit card, as well as with standing orders and cheques. The on-line form at www.camcycle.org.uk/membership sends the information entered direct to us, and handles whatever method of payment is chosen. We use Paypal's secure payment system.
As many of you will already have seen, renewals can also be done this way. Those with email receive a personalised link in their renewal reminder that allows credit and debit card payments to be processed.
David Earl
Your streets this month
Milton Road
The results of the consultation about the proposals for Milton Road between Gilbert Road and Arbury Road were due to be reported to the Cambridge Traffic Management Area Joint Committee on Monday 16 January. However, to allow for more investigation of some of the issues raised during the consultation, this report will now be taken to the next meeting on 24 April.
Gilbert Road
At their meeting in December, Cabinet considered the Gilbert Road scheme, which had slipped from 2005/06 to 2006/07 and is then to be the first call on the budget. It was decided that those groups in favour and opposed to the scheme should be contacted to seek an acceptable solution within the allocated budget and which also meets the stated objectives. If this was not possible, another scheme from the list should be brought forward. (See article earlier in this newsletter)
Betjeman House
There are plans for a large development on the Betjeman House site near the War Memorial. We have written to object to the inadequate proposed provision for cycle parking and to the proposed plans for the Hills Road-Station Road junction. (See article earlier in this newsletter)
Histon Road
Many of you will have seen the vast works being carried out along Histon Road, King's Hedges Road and the A14. It does not look as if cyclists have been given much consideration. (See article earlier in this newsletter)
Sheeps Green Bridge
Cambridge County Council's Cabinet discussed South Cambridge Cycleways project in December and the minutes of the meeting state 'it is recommended that the most appropriate and beneficial use of the remaining GADG funding would be on the Sheeps Green Bridge improvement. This will provide improved access for users and can be designed in a way that minimises intrusion into this sensitive area. In doing this, it is considered that the best approach would be to provide ramps of 2.4 m in width that will allow pedestrians, cyclists and other users to pass safely. Detailed design work will need to be undertaken, particularly in terms of railings and this will be in full consultation with local members.'
Guided Bus
The Guided Bus scheme has been given the go-ahead. Of particular relevance to Cambridge cyclists is the impact within the city. The Inspector's report states that within the city, Cambridgeshire County Council propose that the buses would travel in unguided mode, with highway improvements and bus priority measures to be put in place. The Inspector accepts that they are of key relevance to assessing the case for the scheme and has therefore confirmed in his report that he took full account of evidence presented regarding the on road sections. We await the detailed proposals with trepidation!
Victoria Avenue
Both crossings have now been completed. The redundant 'pram arm' has been removed from the end of the plane tree avenue but one remains on the Jesus Green side of the northern crossing. However, we are delighted with the nice flush kerbs and the straight-across northern crossing. With a cycleable Fort St George bridge you don't now have to push your bike anywhere between Chesterton and the Park Street Cycle Park and the city centre; and from the Kite area to Jesus Lock you can equally remain in the saddle.
Parkside
Proposals have been put forward to move the long-distance coach stops from Drummer Street to Parkside. The stops would be accompanied by a taxi rank and a kiosk on a build-out. We see many problems with this, not least for cyclists coming off Parker's Piece.
Parker's Piece
We have written to the County Council to object to the recent installation of bollards where the pedestrian and cycle paths meet the Gonville Road end of Regent Terrace. The bollards are in the way of turning cyclists and are hard to see in the dark. Why, after over ten years, it has suddenly become necessary to install bollards here is hard to fathom.
Argyle Street
We have written to the County Council to ask that the 'pram arms' between Argyle Street and Charles Street be removed.
Improving Cycling Provision over Hills Road Bridge
|
On 16 January the results of the public consultation on improvements to Hills Road bridge were reported to a meeting of the Cambridge Traffic Management Joint Area Committee. More than 2000 responses were received. Option C, the option preferred by the Campaign, was strongly supported though not quite as strongly as Option D. Councillor members of the committee discussed the results. The need for on-road cycle lanes, our main concern, was stressed.No decisions were taken. These are expected to be taken by the County Council's Cabinet in April. Before then Officials will, we understand, hold further consultations with Councillors and stakeholders (including ourselves) and will clarify what funds can be made available before compiling their recommendations for Cabinet.
About the Campaign
Please note: the most up-to-date general information about the Campaign is always in the about the Campaign section of the website.
Add your voice to those of our 700 members by joining 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 you will be supporting our work. Please get in touch if you want to hear more. Join now online at www.camcycle.org.uk/membership.
Cambridge Cycling Campaign was set up in 1995 to voice the concerns of cyclists. We are not a cycling club but an organisation for lobbying and campaigning for the rights of cyclists, and for 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 2005-2006
Please note: the most up-to-date Committee list is always in the Committee list section of the website.
- Co-ordinator - Martin Lucas-Smith
- Liaison Officer - Jim Chisholm
- Membership Secretary - Dave Earl
- Newsletter Editor - Mark Irving
- Treasurer - Clare Macrae
- Stall Officer - Paul Tonks07870 441257
- Press Officer - James Woodburn
- Officers without portfolio:
David Hembrow, Simon Nuttall, Richard Taylor, and Lisa Woodburn.
Contacting the Campaign
Please note: the most up-to-date contact details for the Campaign are always in the contacts section of the website, which includes an online feedback form.
In particular, note that our fax number is now separate from the phone number.
Cambridge Cycling Campaign
PO Box 204
Cambridge CB4 3FN
Telephone and fax: (01223) 690718
E-mail: contact@camcycle.org.uk
The paper version of newsletter is printed on recycled paper by Victoire Press, Bar Hill.
Top of page