Consultation Guide: Barton Greenway

Name of consultation: GCP Barton Greenway

From:
The Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP)

Format:
Online survey 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 can also email consultations@greatercambridge.org.uk directly with your response.

Deadline: midday on Friday 16 December (extended from the original deadline of 2 December)

The Barton 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 GCP 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 and suggestions on the proposed design and different features for section 1? (Barton Road to Cambridge)

  • The Gonville and Caius sports field constrains Barton Road at its narrowest point. The GCP should confirm whether they have approached the college to discuss land purchase. It is not acceptable to provide a 1.5m footway on a busy pedestrian street. Furthermore, the width of this footway will be regularly reduced due to the seasonal growth of the hedgerow. A 2m strip of land is required to provide a buffer from the carriageway for cycling and an adequate footway. Alternatively, a footway could be delivered on the northern side of the existing hedgerow. Compulsory purchase powers should be used if Gonville and Caius will not enter into land purchase discussions (sheet 1). 
  • The 2m cycle track width at the crossing of Barton Road and Newnham Road is not sufficient and fails to meet design standards (sheet 1). 
  • The proposed cycle track on Lammas Land will continue to be used by pedestrians, creating an element of conflict. The designs should rationalise the double provision of pavements alongside Barton Road and look at removing the parking along Newnham Road to create a high-quality provision in Lammas Land, ideally segregated with the shallow demarcation block (sheet 1). 
  • There has to be a safe opportunity for people cycling between Grantchester Street and Lammas Land, the Driftway and the cycle track on Barton Road. A small section of cycle track could be installed on the eastern side of the junction with a controlled crossing over the Driftway (sheet 1). 
  • Many cyclists will cross the Driftway on the uncontrolled crossing. This crossing could become controlled and run in the same phase as the crossing over Barton Road, giving people a safer option (sheet 1). 
  • There is a need to extend the scheme to the Fen Causeway and improvements should be considered across Lammas Land and Coe Fen where the existing infrastructure is substandard and over capacity. The Greenway must link into a high-quality network that extends into the city centre. 
  • The shared-use path on the northern side of the Puffin crossing proposed between Hardwick Street and Derby Street should be removed. Cyclists instead should have traffic signals that require them to stop if the Puffin crossing is activated (sheet 1). 
  • The junction of Hardwick Street and Barton Road fails to give pedestrian priority. Dutch kerbs and a continuous footway should be provided (sheet 1). 
  • The junction of Derby Street and Barton Road fails to give pedestrian priority. Dutch kerbs and a continuous footway should be provided (sheet 1). 
  • A 1.5m footway along the northern side of Barton Road is not sufficient for two people to walk comfortably, for two wheelchairs to pass each other or to cater for the large number of people who walk along Barton Road. At a minimum, the footway should be at least 2m, but based on the number of people walking along Barton Road, 3m would be more suitable (sheet 2). 
  • A 2.5m bidirectional cycle track along the northern side of Barton Road is not sufficient and fails to meet LTN 1/20. Space within the existing carriageway must be repurposed. (sheet 2). 
  • The proposed carriageway width between Millington Road and St Mark’s Court is around 9.35m. Yet the footway and cycle track are below design standards. If walking and cycling are to be truly prioritised in our cities, we must reallocate road space where required. A bus service can run effectively on a 6.2m carriageway (see Buses in Urban Developments) therefore the remaining highway space should be reallocated to walking and cycling. A bidirectional cycle track or cycle tracks on either side of the carriageway must be considered. As these could sit inside the existing carriageway, the existing trees can be maintained and the footway can be widened. The design as proposed clearly indicates that parking is of a higher priority than walking and cycling (sheet 2). 
  • Junctions at Clare Road, St Mark’s Court and Grange Road should all be redesigned following the reallocation of road space (sheet 2).
  • The crossing near Grange Road and King’s Road should be a Toucan crossing and improvements are required on the southern side of the crossing to provide enough room and allow for cyclists to join the carriageway on King’s Road (sheet 2). 
  • The GCP should be identifying how the much-required design changes on Grantchester Road are progressing because they are also pivotal to this scheme (sheet 3). 
  • The footway and cycle track are both insufficient in width and do not meet national design standards (sheet 3). 
  • The Williams House entrance should provide a continuous footway for people walking and the road markings are not required for a single property. Give-way markings at the edge of the cycle track and footway are not appropriate and will not be maintained. A material course such as cobbles or a level difference should demarcate the shared route from the accesses over it (sheet 3). 
  • The kerb radii at the Gough Way junction are too great and will promote higher speeds. Smaller radius kerbs or Dutch kerbs should be used to reduce speeds and reinforce priority for walking and cycling (sheet 4). 
  • Ironically the footway widens to 3.6m which is more reflective of the requirements along the rest of the scheme. A 3m footway should be sufficient and the bidirectional cycle track should be increased to 3m (sheet 4). 
  • Give-way markings at the edge of the bidirectional track are not appropriate and will not be maintained. A material course such as cobbles or a level difference should demarcate the shared route from the accesses over it (sheet 4). 
  • The bus stop layby should be removed and repositioned within the carriageway (sheet 4). 
  • White lining is not required in 30mph zones and its removal helps to reduce vehicular speed (sheet 4).

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

  • Along a large section of Barton Road, no buffer is provided between the shared route and the carriageway. The carriageway should be reduced to 6.5m to help manage speeds and a buffer installed to meet the minimum standards set out in LTN 1/20.
  • White lining is not required in 30mph zones and its removal helps to reduce vehicular speed. 
  • As cars leave the Haggis Farm Interchange, white lining is used to remove the existing dual exit.  The white lining brings vehicles towards the shared path and no buffer is provided. This is an unnecessary risk. A verge should be installed to provide a buffer and reduce the carriageway width (sheet 8).

Q5. Do you have any comments or suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 3? (Barton Road, Coston Road, and Grantchester Road roundabout)

  • It is disappointing to see the earlier proposals for a safe crossing by bridge or underpass not being consulted on and very little justification provided for its exclusion. This would have allowed people to safely navigate the Haggis Farm Interchange. Justification for this removal must be provided. Its removal puts even greater emphasis on the need for the bridleway improvements from Cambridge Road to Grantchester and on to Cambridge. 
  • In the previous Greenway consultation, the cheapest option proposed an at-grade solution with a ‘square-on’ crossing. However, the proposals now put forward fall short of even the poorest of the previous options.
  • The proposed two-stage crossing will be slower than the current arrangement for cyclists and may result in many choosing to join the carriageway, a situation that must be avoided. An improved crossing alignment in which cyclists can cross in one stage must be brought forward and the approach to both sides of the crossing must also be improved with some radial approaches. Advanced detection loops should also be installed to avoid the need for cyclists to press to cross. The use of greenwave technology would also greatly improve the experience for cyclists (sheet 9).

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

  • No width is identified for the shared route which should have a minimum effective width of 3 metres (sheet 10).
  • Further detail should be provided on the carriageway width on the M11 bridge. This should be reduced as much as reasonably practicable. With the cycle track abutting the parapet the effective width of the shared route is reduced. There is no need for this section of road to be a dual carriageway and the reallocation of one of the lanes would allow for a high-quality solution to be implemented (sheet 11). 
  • The drawing notes that the buffers between the carriageway and cycle track are below recommended width, yet this observation has not been identified along the rest of the route where inadequate buffers are regularly proposed (sheet 11).

Q7. Do you have any comments or suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 5? (Roundabout leading to the M11N Slip Road)

  • It is disappointing to see that the grade-separated solution has not been progressed and no justification provided. We strongly oppose an at-grade solution because it is not safe for all ages and abilities, and will not achieve modal shift. Families with children and slower, more vulnerable people would continue to avoid this route if it involves an at-grade crossing of the slip road (sheet 12). 
  • The crossing over the slip road to the M11 has not been identified as a controlled crossing. As per previous comments, advanced detection loops should also be installed to avoid the need for cyclists to press to cross. The use of greenwave technology would also greatly improve the experience for cyclists (sheet 12).

Q8. Do you have any comments or suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 6? (Cambridge Road and New Road Junction)

  • Give-way markings at the edge of the shared path are not appropriate and will not be maintained. A material course such as cobbles or a level difference should demarcate the shared route from the accesses over it (sheet 13). 
  • A buffer between the shared path and carriageway should be provided in line with LTN 1/20 along Cambridge Road and New Road (sheet 13). 
  • The alignment of the eastern crossing at the New Road junction should match that of the bridleway and follow the desire line of those travelling between New Road and the bridleway (sheet 14). 
  • It is unclear why the existing westbound bus stop has been relocated. In its existing location, it is easily accessible from New Road. As proposed, it would require people to cross in two stages from New Road (sheet 14). 

Q9. Do you have any comments or suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 7? (Barton Village)

  • A buffer between the shared path and carriageway should be provided in line with LTN 1/20 along New Road (sheet 15). 
  • Parallel crossings are meant to provide a priority crossing for people walking and cycling, not as a solution for cyclists to join shared routes. This movement could be better facilitated through a carriageway reduction (sheet 16).
  • Within Barton there is an opportunity to create a shared-use path within the village to connect up to the existing shared use path on Comberton Road (sheet 16). 
  • Further traffic-calming measures are required to reduce vehicle speeds.

Q10. Do you have any comments or suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 8? (Barton to Grantchester)

  • There is insufficient width to install an adequate shared-use path along the existing bridleway. The existing bridleway should remain and a new shared route be provided on the southern side of the bridleway and orchard that meets the design standards (sheet 18). 
  • The alignment on the approach to the bridge must be improved so people cycling are not required to slow down unnecessarily (sheet 18). 
  • Where the route splits between the Baulk path and the existing bridleway there needs to be a smoother transition to allow people to safely navigate around others (sheet 18).
  • No width is indicated on the existing bridleway (sheet 19). 
  • The cycle turning markings on the road at the junction with Coton Road are not required. The priority of the junction could be swapped to give priority to cyclists (sheet 20). 
  • The speed limit throughout Grantchester should be 20mph. The changing speed limits from 60mph, to 30mph and 20mph will create confusion for people driving. 

Q11. Do you have any comments or suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 9? (The Baulk Path)

  • The proposals to resurface the Baulk path are completely unnecessary and reflect a lack of joined-up thinking when it comes to a coherent and sustainable approach to walking and cycling in Grantchester. Both the Baulk path and the proposed path alongside Grantchester Road (part of the Haslingfield Greenway) are completely unnecessary and fail to meet the basic requirements for cycling. A modal filter installed along the existing Grantchester Road would provide a direct and sustainable route that will save the GCP millions of pounds and thousands of tonnes of CO₂. The cost savings could then be reallocated to other projects that urgently need funding. Cambridgeshire County Council has declared a climate emergency and to meet the challenge it must both create infrastructure that helps to reduce emissions and importantly, repurpose existing infrastructure.

Q12. Do you have any other comments, queries or concerns you’d like us to consider for the next stages of design?

  • Many of the design options previously proposed have not been considered at this stage and very little justification for their exclusion provided, which greatly devalues the Greenways project. The design options that have been progressed are all the lowest-cost options with the poorest outcomes for walking and cycling. The most expensive intervention still proposed is the upgrade of the Baulk path, a cost that, with a pragmatic approach, could be completely avoided.

Complete the Barton Greenway survey on the GCP’s consultation website by noon on Friday 16 December.