Consultation Guide: Haslingfield Greenway

Name of consultation: GCP Haslingfield Greenway

The Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP)

Online survey OR OR download and print the Word version and send to Greater Cambridge Partnership, PO Box 1493, Mandela House, 4 Regent Street, Cambridge CB1 0YR

If you have any difficulty with the online survey, you may also e-mail with your response directly.

Deadline: Friday 5 August, noon

The Haslingfield Greenway is one of twelve proposed Greenways, which aim to make local walking, cycling and, where appropriate, horse-riding journeys easier – connecting villages along the route to each other and Cambridge.

Summary of Camcycle’s view:

We support the creation of the Greenways and believe they will help to deliver for local communities along the routes and benefit the wider Cambridge region.  When considering active travel infrastructure, we need to ensure that routes are: coherent, direct, safe, comfortable and attractive. At present we believe that a number of small issues, across the entire length of the scheme, are making the route fail against these fundamental principles.

There are simple, low-cost opportunities to resolve these issues, and the GGCP must continue to work with stakeholders and local experts to ensure these remaining issues are resolved to ensure the Greenways deliver for local communities and the wider region.

Points to make in your response:

Q3. Do you have any comments or suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 1? (Hauxton to Haslingfield, from Cambridge Road to Cantelupe Road)

  • Further detail is required for the crossing over the River Cam. This appears to be a location which would particularly benefit from the potential habitat creation that the Greenways can provide.
  • On Sheet 6 the route follows an existing track through an established green corridor and there appears to be limited space available for an increased route width. Further details and cross sections are needed to understand the potential width available. There seems to be an alternative route north of the existing hedge line which could be suitable and should be explored.

Q4. Do you have any comments or suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 2? (Cantelupe Road to Cantelupe Farm)

  • Much of Cantelupe Road is in poor condition and requires a complete rebuild: the proposed treatment of ‘localised carriageway repairs’ will likely not be sufficient and will result in early pavement failure. The proposed works will need to be supported by a condition survey.
  • Sheet 4 shows significant earthworks associated with the crossing over Bourn Brook. Further detail is required on all bridges and crossing. Their physical impact should be reduced, and design standards agreed with stakeholder groups. These routes do not need to be designed to the same flood levels as new highway infrastructure which would result in over-design, but also, they must ensure that annual/typical rainfall events do not result in any Greenway closures.

Q5. Do you have any comments or suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 3? (Cantelupe Farm to M11 Bridge, including crossing Bourn Brook)

  • At the end of Cantelupe Road a new shared route and grass verge is proposed, where an existing farm track already exists. If farm vehicles will need to continue to use this route, then the design will need to be altered to accommodate this.
  • The Greenway route crosses a large farm track running east to west before then heading north on a new alignment. This junction is not highlighted in the design. Further information is required about this crossing which is shown on the bottom left-hand side of sheet 4.

Q6. Do you have any comments or suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 4? (North of M11 Bridge)

  • No comment

Q7. Do you have any comments or suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 5? (Links to Barton Greenway)

  • Further detail is required around the existing bridge landing on the west side of the M11 where the route ties into the Barton Greenway. The current proposals show the route a continuous width, yet it will need to be widened at the bridge landing as the current track is.

Q8. Do you have any comments or suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 6? (M11 Bridge to Burnt Close (Grantchester), including M11 footbridge)

  • Further detail is required on the proposed bridge ramps which have only been shown indicatively at this stage.
  • The route east of the M11 has an unnecessary kink. This should be straightened and opportunities for new habitat should be explored at this location.
  • The route narrows to 2.5m as it enters Grantchester: this is too narrow and must be increased.
  • Burnt Close should be a cycle street with parking restricted as required.

Q9. Which option would you prefer for this section of the route?

Camcycle suggests you select: Neither, I don’t like either option

Q10. Do you have any comments or suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 7? (Burnt Close, Coton Road, and Broadway)

  • High friction surfacing should be replaced with red-mac on Coton Road.
  • The proposed detail that transitions active travel users from Broadway to the new segregated Greenway route needs to be improved. As currently shown on the plan, the mixture of surfacing and lack of guidance for active travel users will create an unsafe environment.

Q11. Do you have any comments or suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 8? (Grantchester Road to Cambridge Rugby Club)

  • Grantchester Road could become restricted access, allowing only local access and providing no through route for motor traffic to Grantchester. This would allow Greenway users to use it safely and remove the need for a new shared route. Restricting private car journey on Grantchester Road will have a negligible impact on vehicular journeys times, with journey estimates on Google adding only 1 minute. It will also act as an incentive to undertake sustainable journeys. The removal of Grantchester Road as a through route aligns with the vision set out in the road hierarchy, which states ‘journeys by private motor vehicle might be less direct and more inconvenient’ so that the hierarchy can improve quality of life, meet the challenges of climate change, and improve health and wellbeing.This could be achieved by means of a bus gate, permitting the existing bus route to continue serving the same route. Or it can be achieved by shifting the bus route to Coton Road along with private motor traffic, adding a minute to journey times, but avoiding potential danger and bottlenecks along the narrow Grantchester Road. This would require relocating two bus stops. We believe this trade-off is worthwhile for the safety and cost benefits of reusing Grantchester Road as a Quiet Lane for the Greenway instead of construction a whole new shared-use pathway.Should farm-vehicle access still be required through Grantchester Road, it is possible to design a modal filter that stops cars while permitting tractors to pass.
  • The existing design requires the shared route to cross Grantchester Road; if the route continues to progress as a shared route, an alternative route removing this crossing and continuing on the west side of Grantchester Road should be explored. This could allow cyclists to carry straight on at the end of Broadway and remove the need for the crossing where the shared route currently meets Broadway.
  • The shared route is shown giving way to a minor junction which serves the Cock and Hens Cambridge Tennis club. The priority for this junction should be reversed.

Q12. Do you have any comments or suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 9? (Cambridge Rugby Club to Barton Road)

  • Where the segregated Greenway meets Grantchester Road near Fulbrooke Road the active travel user is given no priority and is not visible to northbound traffic as they leave the shared path. This arrangement needs to be redesigned to prioritise active travel users.
  • The cycle street on Grantchester Road must be redesigned. Parking should only be provided on one side of the road at any time, to ensure there is enough width to safely provide the cycle street. The bus stop location of Selwyn Road should also be reviewed.
  • A 0.5m offset between the parking and the red-mac cycle street should be provided to reduce the risk of parked vehicles ‘dooring’ cyclists. An alternative cycle street design, with a block-paved middle section should also be explored as an alternative design.

Q13. Do you have any comments or suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 10? (Barton Road, including the junction of Grantchester Road and Barton Road)

  • The current junction between Grantchester Road and Barton Road fails to convey cyclists safely across Barton Road and should be redesigned. It also puts cyclists in a vulnerable position when transitioning from Barton Road to Grantchester Road.
  • Cyclists can safely interact with other cyclists given the correct infrastructure: the provision of a cycle signal to manage interactions purely between cyclists indicates a failure in the design of the junction.
  • A 2.5m bidirectional cycle track is not sufficient along Barton Road. Bidirectional tracks should be 3m wide. It is likely that the proposed cycle track will not be able to run along Barton Road alongside the existing route due to existing trees which will restrict the cycle track width to a substandard provision. Therefore, the only likely solution will be to provide a bidirectional track that runs within the existing carriageway extents.
  • The bus layby should be removed and the bus stop should be provided within the carriageway of Barton Road as set out in the latest guidance.
  • Barton Road should be narrowed to 6.2m and road space can then be reallocated.
  • Camcycle has proposed an alternative junction design which should be worked up in detail.

Q14. Do you have any other comments, queries or concerns you’d like us to consider for the next stages of design?

  • Further work is required in the design process to improve and resurface footpaths and footways, as well as levelling out footway crossfall to less than 2.5%, meeting accessibility requirements. Narrower Dutch access kerbs (manufactured by Aggregate Industries) are now available and would be well suited for this project.
  • Our experience with the existing busway informs us that the lack of lighting is a problem for many people, especially those who are concerned about personal security at night.
  • We also note that unlit shared-use pathways are more dangerous at night because pedestrians tend not to carry lights and even bright cycle headlights do not necessarily provide enough illumination to see unlit pedestrians with sufficient warning, not to mention any dogs being walked. Therefore, brighter lighting options should be provided along the active travel path, especially where it is reasonable to expect significant pedestrian flows.
  • Within the built-up area there should be street lighting. Outside the built-up area you should consider options such as motion-sensitive lighting that comes on when there is human activity in the area. We agree with the need for permanent street lighting at all junctions, crossings and bus stops, for safety reasons..
  • The active travel path should not be fenced off from the surroundings and in general plans should enable as much natural surveillance as possible of the active travel path from surrounding buildings, for personal security reasons. Again, the purpose is to maximise feelings of personal security along the active travel path at night by making it feel more connected to the surrounding neighbourhood. The more it is used, the safer it will feel.

Complete the Haslingfield Greenway survey on the GCP’s consultation website by noon on Friday 5 August.