The results of the consultation about the proposals for Milton Road between Gilbert Road and Arbury Road were due to be reported to the Cambridge Traffic Management Area Joint Committee on Monday 16 January. However, to allow for more investigation of some of the issues raised during the consultation, this report will now be taken to the next meeting on 24 April.
At their meeting in December, Cabinet considered the Gilbert Road scheme, which had slipped from 2005/06 to 2006/07 and is then to be the first call on the budget. It was decided that those groups in favour and opposed to the scheme should be contacted to seek an acceptable solution within the allocated budget and which also meets the stated objectives. If this was not possible, another scheme from the list should be brought forward. (See article earlier in this newsletter)
There are plans for a large development on the Betjeman House site near the War Memorial. We have written to object to the inadequate proposed provision for cycle parking and to the proposed plans for the Hills Road-Station Road junction. (See article earlier in this newsletter)
Many of you will have seen the vast works being carried out along Histon Road, King’s Hedges Road and the A14. It does not look as if cyclists have been given much consideration. (See article earlier in this newsletter)
Sheeps Green Bridge
Cambridge County Council’s Cabinet discussed South Cambridge Cycleways project in December and the minutes of the meeting state ‘it is recommended that the most appropriate and beneficial use of the remaining GADG funding would be on the Sheeps Green Bridge improvement. This will provide improved access for users and can be designed in a way that minimises intrusion into this sensitive area. In doing this, it is considered that the best approach would be to provide ramps of 2.4 m in width that will allow pedestrians, cyclists and other users to pass safely. Detailed design work will need to be undertaken, particularly in terms of railings and this will be in full consultation with local members.’
The Guided Bus scheme has been given the go-ahead. Of particular relevance to Cambridge cyclists is the impact within the city. The Inspector’s report states that within the city, Cambridgeshire County Council propose that the buses would travel in unguided mode, with highway improvements and bus priority measures to be put in place. The Inspector accepts that they are of key relevance to assessing the case for the scheme and has therefore confirmed in his report that he took full account of evidence presented regarding the on road sections. We await the detailed proposals with trepidation!
Both crossings have now been completed. The redundant ‘pram arm’ has been removed from the end of the plane tree avenue but one remains on the Jesus Green side of the northern crossing. However, we are delighted with the nice flush kerbs and the straight-across northern crossing. With a cycleable Fort St George bridge you don’t now have to push your bike anywhere between Chesterton and the Park Street Cycle Park and the city centre; and from the Kite area to Jesus Lock you can equally remain in the saddle.
Proposals have been put forward to move the long-distance coach stops from Drummer Street to Parkside. The stops would be accompanied by a taxi rank and a kiosk on a build-out. We see many problems with this, not least for cyclists coming off Parker’s Piece.
We have written to the County Council to object to the recent installation of bollards where the pedestrian and cycle paths meet the Gonville Road end of Regent Terrace. The bollards are in the way of turning cyclists and are hard to see in the dark. Why, after over ten years, it has suddenly become necessary to install bollards here is hard to fathom.
We have written to the County Council to ask that the ‘pram arms’ between Argyle Street and Charles Street be removed.
Improving Cycling Provision over Hills Road Bridge
On 16 January the results of the public consultation on improvements to Hills Road bridge were reported to a meeting of the Cambridge Traffic Management Joint Area Committee. More than 2000 responses were received. Option C, the option preferred by the Campaign, was strongly supported though not quite as strongly as Option D. Councillor members of the committee discussed the results. The need for on-road cycle lanes, our main concern, was stressed.No decisions were taken. These are expected to be taken by the County Council’s Cabinet in April. Before then Officials will, we understand, hold further consultations with Councillors and stakeholders (including ourselves) and will clarify what funds can be made available before compiling their recommendations for Cabinet.