Consultation Guide: Sawston Greenway

Name of consultation: GCP Sawston Greenway 

The Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP)

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 directly with your response.

Deadline: midday on Friday 9 December

The Sawston 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? (Long
Road/Robinson Way junction)

Failing to meet desire lines
  • It is not suitable or realistic to expect cyclists turning left from Robinson Way to Long Road to cross Robinson Way, go through a shared-use area, give way to other cyclists, wait for the lights to change on Long Road to then join a cycle track that quickly degrades to a shared surface. Proposals along Long Road must be rationalised. Setting the principle of cycle infrastructure along Long Road will help to create infrastructure in the Greenways project in a way that aligns with the future aspirations for Long Road. At the moment there is a failure to accept the elephant in the room which is the provision of shared footways along the majority of Long Road. A scheme implementing a pair of unidirectional cycle tracks, with appropriate crossings should be explored.
  • The proposed pedestrian and cycling crossing on Long Road must be altered to align with the desire lines for people walking and cycling. The current proposals will only result in poor compliance and people regularly putting themselves in dangerous situations. Camcycle has proposed an alternative arrangement which should be explored. This creates the crossing on the southern side of the carriageway to be more aligned with the desire lines and removes the need for the bidirectional track along Robinson Way to cross vehicular traffic.
Alternative junction proposals
  • The shared-use area on the eastern side is not a good solution for either people walking or cycling as many cyclists will be approaching the shared-use area looking to continue onto Robinson Way whilst maintaining their speed.
  • The parallel crossing ties into a very substandard shared-use path on the southern side of Long Road. This shared route should be either upgraded to meet the needs of cyclists or returned to the footpath with appropriate alternatives for cyclists. It is not appropriate to guide people cycling onto such low-quality infrastructure as part of a new scheme.
  • Crossing locations for pedestrians and cycles are required at Sedley Taylor Road, Rutherford Road and where the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway track meets Long Road. This would complement unidirectional cycle tracks along Long Road.

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

  • The bidirectional track should be on the western side of Robinson Way from the junction with Long Road as shown on Camcycle’s drawing to better align with the desire lines and remove the need for an unnecessary crossing of Robinson Way.
  • Further information must be presented on the CSET proposals to identify how the bidirectional cycle track continues to and then joins the busway.

Q5. Do you have any comments and suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 3? (Genome Path)

  • Information on the number of people currently using the Genome Path should be provided. It is likely that there is a need for segregation and that a 3.5m cycle track alongside a 2m footway will be suitable and ensure the scheme is future-proofed. The existing Genome Path was previously underspecified, and the same mistake must not be made again.
  • The access to the pedestrian bridge over the railway needs a greater landing space. The proposed Genome path should be pulled away to the east and the level difference removed between the surrounding area and the Genome path gradually be worked out.
  • An option to relocate the substation and create an underpass under Granham’s Road should be explored. This avoids the need for the controlled crossing to be set away from the existing alignment.
  • Is there a solution that brings the proposed toucan crossing closer to the existing alignment?

Q6. Do you have any other comments and suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 4? (Shelford Station)

  • The proposed alignment and size of the cut-through to Mill Court and on to the station must be improved. A protected bidirectional track should be explored; at a minimum, cycle lanes should be painted continuously through the parking zone, with an offset from the parking.
  • A number of safety improvements are required to reduce the risk to people walking through Mill Court.
  • Further cycle parking will be required at Shelford station.
  • The existing vehicular parking should be removed in front of the old station house.
  • Dutch kerbs should be used at Leeway Avenue to create a pedestrian priority at the junction and reduce the number of crossings for people walking when travelling along the Greenway.
  • Kerbs should be installed across the front of the old station building rather than the large level section which currently encourages vehicles to pull in and provides little guidance or protection for people walking or cycling.
  • Stop lines for the level crossing should be brought back behind the shared-use path proposed alongside the rail tracks. This will allow people on the shared-use path to safely cross in front of any waiting vehicles and join the shared-use path by the station.

Q7. Do you have any comments and suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 5? (Stapleford Village)

Alternative junction arrangement on Hinton Way
  • The proposed cycle track that links Chaston Road and Mingle Lane creates a number of conflicts and issues over land ownership that could be avoided.  Camcycle has produced an alternative design that will reduce speeds by tightening the junction radii, reducing the speed limit to 20mph and creating a raised table across the two junctions. This will give cyclists who choose to stay on the carriageway a safer option as well as reducing vehicle speeds in the village. A section of shared-use path and a parallel crossing can still cater for people walking or those cycling who wish to avoid joining the carriageway on Hinton Way.
  • The number of vehicles using Mingle Lane as a cut-through at busy times is significant. A bus gate along Mingle Lane would reduce traffic significantly and allow for a quiet street, where on-street cycling is safe.
  • The road surface along Mingle Lane is in poor condition and should be resurfaced. A cycle street with red-mac and a central strip to delineate the two cycle tracks should be considered.
  • The junction radii at Church Street should be reduced to ensure slower vehicle speeds and a safer environment for cyclists to join the shared-use path on the eastern side of the junction.
  • Improvements at the junction with Bury Road and Cambridge Road should be considered to allow people to safely cross onto the shared-use path on the western side.  Many people will wish to cycle from Church Street to Bury Road, effectively creating a demand for cycling on both sides of London Road.
  • The northbound bus stop layby should be brought completely online to ensure adequate space on the shared-use path.
  • The proposed 3m wide shared-use path on the west side of London Road needs to be provided with a buffer of 0.5m to ensure the effective width is maintained and to standard.
  • It is unclear why the proposals do not head south of the Bury Road junction. The existing path does not meet LTN 1/20 design standards and is a serious pinch point in the current cycle network. An alternative route behind the property that directly abuts the highway should be explored which would tie into the path through Dernford reservoir.

Q8. Do you have any comments and suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 6? (Dernford Reservoir)  

  • The GCP should provide information about the ongoing discussions with Network Rail. It is vital that the route alongside the railway line is progressed as it will form the primary route for people travelling through and within the village.
  • A route between the Greenway and the proposed NMU path which would form part of any potential future CSET route should be safeguarded and would follow the previous Haverhill railway line.
  • The proposed route turns abruptly south on sheet 12 with no link north into the existing track into Great Shelford.
  • The current proposals show the route abruptly joining the path alongside Cambridge Road. The route needs to allow people to smoothly transition onto the path along Cambridge Road.

Q9. Do you have any comments and suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 7? (A1301/Cambridge Road)  

  • It is unclear why there is a need for three controlled crossings at the junction with Cambridge Road and the A1301. One controlled crossing on the southern side of the vehicular junction will allow all users to get onto the new northbound shared-use path. Equestrians can be accommodated into the same crossing with a setback request pole which should also be designed to accommodate cyclists riding non-standard bikes.
  • The approach to the crossing needs to be smooth and the width should be increased around junctions to accommodate movements easily. On the southwestern side of the junction, the proposals show two abrupt 90-degree turns.

Q10. Do you have any comments and suggestions on the proposed design and different features for Section 8 (A1301 shared use path)?

  • The proposals show the greenway abruptly finishing at the junction with Mill Lane and the A1301. This will leave equestrians and cyclists on the carriageway alongside a high-speed vehicular junction. A shared-use path should be created to tie into the shared-use path on the western side of the railway. At an absolute minimum, a protected walking route should be provided and a safer location for equestrians and cyclists to rejoin the carriageway identified.
  • The shared-use path from Mill Lane to St Mary’s & St Andrew’s church should be widened.
  • Improvements down to the crossing of the A505 are required as well as improved access to Whittlesford Parkway.

Complete the Sawston Greenway survey on the GCP’s consultation website by noon on Friday 9 December.