Consultation guide: St Ives Greenway (Oakington to Cottenham)

St Ives Greenway - Oakington to Cottenham consultation brochureName of consultation: GCP St Ives Greenway: Oakington to Cottenham

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 31 March

The GCP is currently consulting on two links to the St Ives Greenway (the existing Busway active travel path to St Ives). The other consultation focuses on the links to Over and Fen Drayton. View our consultation guide here.

These proposals include measures aimed at making the section between Oakington and Westwick a “quiet road” with use of speed reduction measures including sinusoidal speed humps. A 5m bridleway is planned betwen Westwick and Cottenham comprising a 3m shared-use walking and cycling path and a 2m grass strip for horse riders.

Summary of Camcycle’s view:

We strongly welcome this scheme, as it will provide a much needed active travel link. However, we think there are several changes needed to improve the safety and accessibility of the route and ensure it is designed in line with the standards laid out in the government’s inclusive cycle infrastructure guidelines, LTN 1/20. We’d also like to see a plan for an active travel link on Dry Drayton Rd, between the A1307 and Oakington, and call for the seasonal flooding issue on the main St Ives cycleway to be resolved as soon as possible.

GCP map of proposals for active travel improvments between Oakington and Cottenham

Points to make in your response:

Q3. Do you have any comments and suggestions on the proposed design and different features for the Oakington-Cottenham scheme? 

  • Camcycle very much welcomes this scheme, as it will provide a much needed active travel link between Oakington and Cottenham, will enable Cottenham residents to access the St Ives Greenway, and will also enhance the active travel provision within Oakington and Westwick.
  • Despite the benefits of this scheme, there is still no plan for an active travel link on Dry Drayton Rd, between the A1307 and Oakington. This is a major missing link in the area and would connect the A1307 active travel infrastructure, Comberton Greenway to Oakington and the St Ives Greenway.

Q4. Do you have any other comments, queries or concerns you’d like us to consider for the next stages of design? 

  1. In the sections where there is a shared path next to a road, and the speed limit is 30mph or above, the shared path must be separated from the carriageway by a minimum of a 2.5m wide verge on the 60mph sections, and by a minimum of 0.5m wide verge on the 30mph sections (Sheets 1C, 2, 3 and 4).
  2. The new Westwick Terrace and Oakington Rd footway should be 2m wide and vehicle access to properties should be via Dutch kerbs to enable a level footway (Sheets 1B and 1C).
  3. We recommend installation of one sinusoidal speed hump either side of the new gateway feature into Westwick coming from Cottenham to enable lower motor traffic speeds when approaching the entrance to the shared path (Sheet 1C).
  4. We object to the proposed design where the path re-joins the road in Westwick. This proposed design requires riders to make two sharp right-angled turns. It would be better to have the path converge at a shallow angle back onto the road so that cyclists do not have to come to a stop if it is safe simply to merge back onto the road. This arrangement is used on the cycle/pedestrian path between Babraham and Sawston where it comes into Sawston village, so there is precedent for it in the county. Making cyclists come to a halt and manoeuvre sharply twice is a disincentive to use the cycleway (Sheet 1C).
  5. We would also recommend the installation of a raised table at this location where the path joins the road in Westwick to enhance safety of cyclists and pedestrians accessing and leaving the protected cycleway, and to further reduce the speed of motorised traffic on this junction (Sheet 1C).
  6. The radius of the junctions along the route increases the crossing distances for people walking and cycling whilst also enabling higher speeds of motor vehicles when turning into these small access roads. The volume of traffic on this “C” road should not require more than a 1m radius at every junction (Sheets 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C and 4A).
  7. The crossings on the shared path should be clearly marked as cycle and pedestrian priority as per LTN 1/20 Table 10-2 and the new Highway Code (Sheets 2B, 2C, 3 and 4A).
  8. Remove the chicane barriers at either side of the St Ives Greenway and replace with a single, centrally placed bollard, as per LTN 1/20 recommendations. There is precedent for this as per the A14 NMU bridges on Bar Hill and Swavesey (Sheet 1A).
  9. In Cottenham, whilst an active travel link to Clarke Close is being proposed, no such link is being proposed for Newton Close or The Rowells. There seems to be a lack of consistency in the active travel links being proposed in Cottenham (Sheet 4B).
  10. Station Rd and Oakington Rd experiences significant peak motor traffic flows, with daily vehicle counts up to 5000 vehicles a day, with a significant amount of HGV traffic. This is inconsistent with the definition of a quiet road within LTN 1/20. We are concerned that the volume of traffic will continue to be a barrier for potential users on this route, even taking into account all the proposed changes. This is confirmed in Figure 4.1 of LTN 1/20 where it states that for 20mph roads with over 2500 vehicles a day the provision will not be suitable for all people and will exclude some potential users (Sheets 1A, 1B and 1C).
  11. The drawings show a very sharp, slightly angled corner at the Mill Road/Water Lane junction as if to preclude a left turn by bicycles from Water Lane into Mill Road. This manoeuvre is used regularly by local cyclists, including cargo bikes and tandems, and should not be prevented. Instead, this corner radius should be increased to at least 4 m to facilitate this movement (Sheet 1A).

Q5. Please comment if you feel any of the proposals would either positively or negatively affect or impact [people or groups with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.]

  • See point 4 above – this arrangement is potentially problematic for users of non-standard cycles or those who have difficulty starting and stopping.

Q6. We welcome your views. If you have any other comments on the proposals, including any suggestions for inclusion on the design please add them in the space below.

  • We welcome the recent county council project to lower the speed limit to 20mph in Oakington and parts of Westwick and we believe that this Greenway spur project could be improved by extending this lower limit to the whole of Westwick. This could be aided by our suggestion to install one sinusoidal speed bump at either side of the bridleway entrance/exit at Westwick (see point 3 above).
  • In addition, as part of this project we suggest the review of the 60mph speed limit between Westwick and Cottenham, as there have been 15 casualties (slight and serious injury) to car occupants on this section of the road since 1999.
  • Cottenham: To encourage more cycling and walking trips we would also welcome a 20mph speed limit in the village of Cottenham and would support additional speed reduction measures, such as sinusoidal speed bumps, modal filters, signalised crossings and raised tables, where possible.
  • Seasonal flooding on the main St Ives cycleway needs to be resolved to ensure the usefulness of this new spur as soon as possible. We believe the current plans to monitor over a recorded period of 18 months are insufficient, and instead this review should look at all the past flooding events since the path was opened. The issue was foreseen from the beginning of the busway, and active travellers have waited long enough already.
    The greenway should have been built at the same level as the busway. The greenway can still be raised, with cantilevers against the busway or a viaduct. Either solution would avoid the need for a flooding analysis and avoid affecting the nature reserve. Both solutions are eminently feasible.
  • Retaining existing hedges between the existing road and the greenway, and instating new ones where there are presently none, will enhance the experience for everyone, and for wildlife too.
  • The GCP should consider the installation of a new connection to the planned Northstowe Greenway as part of this work to ensure a connected network.
  • We support the use of raised tables at junctions and sinusoidal speed humps. Thank you for this improvement to active travel provision.
  • There should be ample and clear active travel signage indicating distances to different towns, villages and other active travel routes.

Complete the St Ives (Oakington to Cottenham) Greenway survey on the GCP’s consultation website by noon on Friday 31 March.