« Back to list of all 21 questions for this election

Question 16 - we asked:

Some 47,500 new dwellings are to be built around Cambridge in the next ten years, increasing the population by perhaps 125,000 people. Although a Congestion Charge with half-a-billion pounds of up-front government money is proposed as a key means to deal with this, what would your suggestions be for reducing car usage and encouraging cycling in the new developments?

We asked this question in these 15 wards: Abbey, Arbury, Castle, Cherry Hinton, Coleridge, East Chesterton, Girton, Histon & Impington, King's Hedges, Newnham, Petersfield, Queen Edith's, Romsey, Trumpington, West Chesterton.

31 of the 67 candidates (46%) who were asked this question responded as below.

(Conservative Party)

Again providing good cycle lanes on major roads through the city, secure parking and safe cycle routes is key. Boris Johnson has pledged £2 million for safe cycle parking in London and to work with boroughs to improve existing cycle and walking routes - it will be interesting to see what lessons we can learn from that. Cross town routes, such as the Chisholm trail, will also be a key part of such planning. As it is probable that many dwellers will be train-commuters, good access to the station, and quality parking there is key. Finally, given that development solutions should be outside, rather than within, Cambridge, dedicated cycle (or cycle/pedestrian) routes should be created and maintained, such as those running south out of Cambridge

Andrew James BOWER
(Conservative Party)

The positive approach of useful cycle paths crossing through developments and the avoidance of sharp bends and street furniture would aid cyclists in new developments, along with a decent supply of cycle parking.

Car use would be reduced if provision for cycling and public transport were excellent.

Donald Fisher DOUGLAS
(Conservative Party)

I bang on about this endlessly. New developments must be built as communities with fast public transport ,links to the centre and to major places of work (addenbrookes, the Science Park etc). We already have some of these like the railway (although we must put more pressure on the rail people), the Guided bus, the plans for the new station at Chesterton. But the city Council still doesn't "get it" and insists on building monocultures - dormitories with roundabouts or commuter flats beside the station. If you build a housing desert and an office desert and a retail desert you will automatically generate a lot of traffic. Look at Accordia or the design for Clay Farm - why isn't the school the centrepiece of the community - why is there a road running through the middle of the development (it should go round the side), why are the shops so far away? We should be building communities that feel more like Mill Road than the housing estates of the sixties - is that really so silly? We would barely need cars if we did and we would have better and more interesting lives. We don't live like we did in the sixties, we don't work in factories or even in huge offices: many of us work partly or wholly from home - we should be building "workshops" into our new communities along with shops, restaurants, schools, health centres and so on.

Peter Norman HASE
(Conservative Party)

The Park and Ride schemes are a success and we will have a new guided bus soon, which will reduce cars coming into Cambridge City Centre. I worry about the road system in Cambridge that blends buses, cars and cycles together and want better planning to seperate these varied forms of transport. More secure, well thought out bike parks and the Paris sheme for a community cycle facility must be worth exploring for Cambridge.

Christopher John HOWELL
(Conservative Party)

Further to question 5, significant new developments need to be supported by significant land use dedicated to all types of transport infrastructure - much more so than recent developments seem to have managed. The generally very good Cycle Campaign publication 'Cycling in New Developments' outlines many ways I would support to build significant cycle infrastructure into new developments that I think would significantly encourage cycling in new developments. However I do not accept the premise that to encourage cycling it is necessary to take additional measures to reduce car usage just for the sake of reducing car use, although making new residential roads encourage lower speeds by design rather than through inept traffic calming schemes full of humps and bollards would be reasonable.

Steven James MASTIN
(Conservative Party)

This requires a lengthy answer about the nature of the house building and alternatives to the congestion charge tax. Low income families will always be hit hardest as well as public sector workers like nurses and teachers (of which Cambridge has a large share) who travel into and out of the city in the mornings. As a state school teacher I would be expected to pay an extra £5000 a year through the congestion charge.

Keith Alexander GARRETT
(Green Party)

New housing developments should be created on a minimal car use basis. There should be spaces for car share schemes and people who require cars for mobility. Secure cycle stands should be provided in large numbers close to all the homes. A low speed limit should be set on all roads within a development. Regular public transport with long running hours should be provided.

Stephen Roger LAWRENCE
(Green Party)

a) Use a system of taxing 'Private Non-Residential' Parking spaces (PnRPST), not the crazily-expensive proposed congestion charge. And since PnRPST is a charge on congestion anyway, I don't see why it shouldn't fit the government's requirements.
b) We have to provide some dedicated spaces for Car-Clubs, and a lower level of residential parking generally, perhaps an option to rent spaces. Perhaps if more student-specific accomodation was provided, at high densities and with no parking at all, that would allow the many thousands of family houses converted to student accomodation to be converted back, with the generally restricted parking provision associated with them.
c) Provision of straighter bus routes, with cycle-parking en route, arrival displays, pre-purchased tickets - ie Quality Bus Route without any of the 'guided' bits.

Teal Richard RILEY
(Green Party)

Ensuring that pedestrians and cyclists have priority on movements ahead of traffic. Akin to the Dutch model where cyclists avoid traffic lights, junctions etc and have a direct route to work/school/leisure instead of constantly being told to dismount!!

Margaret Elizabeth WRIGHT
(Green Party)

Green Planning...so that fewer journeys had to be made;the provision of leisure/shopping/educational/work within easy reach. Car-free developments.Cycling routes(fast and slow) so commuting to work and slower cycling both possible on dual use fast/slow routes.

James Christopher YOUD
(Green Party)

Firstly that planning in these developements must look at the current transport usage within Cambridge. Looking out of the box these developements must not simply assume that car ownership is the norm and must insted see cycle usage as a high priority. This is why I will be calling for 30% car-free estates and insted, pathways which allow quick access to new cycle-ways which must be park of new and up-graded transport corridors as previously noted.

Douglas DE LACEY

Somehow we need to get Councillors and Officers to re-think their approach to transport at a fundamental level. David Hembrow's comments about his experiences in Holland are an eye-opener (see for instance http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/gallery/37/ and his own website at http://hembrow.eu/cycling/) and I'd hope to encourage SCDC at every level to think about them. And your paper on Cycling in New Developments is excellent. Sadly, SCDC is not the Highway Authority, but I shall continue, as I do now, to lobby the County on such issues.


Roll-out more car-share schemes in residential neighbourhoods. Consider expanding Dial-a-ride scheme for residents trying to cross the city to Addenbrooks for example
Debate the possibility of expanding resident parking areas but the pricing of this should be discounted from council tax.

Tackle cycle theft in the city! Amazed with the amount of CCTV that cycle theft hasn't reduced!

Gerri BIRD
(Labour Party)

Car users need genuine options: clean, safe and frequent buses; safe and pleasant cycle routes; good pavements with crossing points and dropped curbs.

(Labour Party)

Primarily by more rational site allocation and transport planning, of which a key priority would be making new developments rail-accessible. Cycling is one component of any rational system, but many families believe it is and will for the foreseable future be hazardous within the streetscapes of traditional cities like Cambridge. These hazards have been accentuated by changes to one-way streets to allow contra-flow cycling, particularly in Petersfield.

Robert Paul DRYDEN
(Labour Party)

When planning these new houses and roads, build in to the designs of the area, cycle friendly routes and give more priority to cyclists.

(Labour Party)

One absolute priority should be for the provision of adequate and secure parking spaces for bikes. Within any large developments the construction of safe cycleways must be planned for. The same problems would face residents though, when cycling outside the new development -into town for example, so continued effort is needed for better city and county wide cyle routes.

William Lawrance REDFERN
(Labour Party)

See my answer to question 4 above.

(Labour Party)

All new developments have to be based on a sustainable transport infrastructure being put in place from the outset. If this is done and affordable, efficient, frequent public transport designed to go where people want to go is available, that should reduce car usage thereby freeing up road space for cycle routes, hybrid lanes etc.

(Labour Party)

This begs more questions than we can answer. The current proposals for Congestion Charge are not ones we are likely to support. They appear to be to predicated on the County Council's wish to maximize the amount it can spend of the government's money. We would rather have a rational, low-risk approach to transport planning as a whole, where priorities are established by proper long-term planning, rather than a dash for cash; and if that were the case, we could make a submission setting out our priorities. Trying to put in pre-emptive bids is not good planning procedure

(Liberal Democrat)

Commitments to better bus services, safer routes to schools, home zones and segregated cycle routes are all described in planning applications for the growth areas. (e.g. Clay Farm design statement p. 26 para 2.4.2) but we will need to make sure that it happens! I think that more adult cycle training would help some people discover the advantages of cycling.

Valerie HOLT
(Liberal Democrat)

A really good survey so that we know where people come from and where they have to go to and their preferred time of travel, journey time etc.
Bus routes that meet the need to get to the target destinations and circular routes to eliminate the need for a car.
Cycle routes and education in their use... better road lighting and fewer traffic lights that remain on red even when there is no traffic.
The guided bus should make a contribution as if you get used to using one form of transport and it works there is no incentive to use the other, expecially if it is not appreciably slower and is cheap and cheerful.
Subsidised fares to ensure that cars are never used by young people in their first jobs etc. Marginal utility of cash for lower paid workers should be explained in an information campaign to encourage people to use public transport to counteract the idea that it is cool to drive everywhere.

Rhodri Mark JAMES
(Liberal Democrat)

Building in proper dedicated cycle paths from the start that go where people want to go, and signposting them properly. At the same time, the car routes should not be direct, but wander somewhat the way that cycle routes tend to now. If we reverse the usual layout -- i.e. make cycling obviously the shortest, most direct route, rather than the big straight roads -- that on its own will produce a lot of psychological pressure to cycle rather than drive.

Vanessa Ann KELLY
(Liberal Democrat)

20mph zones throughout, road design that curbs excessive speeds, on and off-road cycling infrastructure that adhers to national guidance + direct, high quality links to surrounding area. Within development, high level of permeability for pedestrians and cyclists but not cars; Secure, covered cycle parking to higher City standards, not South Cambs. Layby parking and bus stops. Personal travel planning. Subsidized buses in early years.

Jennifer Susan LIDDLE
(Liberal Democrat)

We support (as we say in our manifesto):
- limiting the car parking spaces in new developments
- good street design to encourage walking and cycling in and off streets
- direct cycle routes and indirect car routes
- investment outside the development sites to facilitate cycle access from the sites to work places and other destinations.

Neil Michael MCGOVERN
(Liberal Democrat)

It is important that consideration of cycling are taken into account when planning new developments. Simply keeping in mind needs of cyclists is sometimes sufficient to provide these improvements; creating a safe and effective environment would be my aim. Providing the facilities and space for cyclists on and off the road, and encouraging the use of cycling should encourage residents of the developments to choose cycling over taking a car journey.

(Liberal Democrat)

High quality cycle network planned in from the start, with good integration to rest of city. Streets designed to place private cars at the bottom of the hierarchy below pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. Adequate cycle parking for significant modal shift.

Elizabeth PARKIN
(Liberal Democrat)

We support limiting the car parking available in the new developments, designing streets to encouraging walking and cycling and to have cycle routes as direct as possible. The developments also need investment outside the new sites themselves to facilitate cycle access to work places etc.

(Liberal Democrat)

We support -
- limiting the car parking spaces in new developments
- good street design to encourage walking and cycling in and off streets
- direct cycle routes and indirect car routes
- investment outside the development sites to facilitate cycle access from
teh sites to work places and other destinations.

Amanda Joan TAYLOR
(Liberal Democrat)

limiting the car parking spaces in new developments
good street design to encourage walking and cycling in and off streets
direct cycle routes and indirect car routes
investment outside the development sites to facilitate cycle access from
the sites to work places and other destinations.

(Liberal Democrat)

Certain development could be designated "car-free", they should provide parking for deliveries, visitors and disabled residents, but should have sufficient secure cycle parking for all residents and be on well served public transport corridors.

For commercial developments, as well as requiring adequate cycle parking, planners should ensure that adequate changing and drying facilities are provided for employees who cycle.

Any new major developments should be engineered to actively promote cycling as a primary means of transport.

Camcycle is a non-partisan body. All candidates are given an equal opportunity to submit their views. Information published by Camcycle (Cambridge Cycling Campaign), The Bike Depot, 140 Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0DL.