Issue - meetings

The Committee received an information report from the Team Leader (Cycling Projects), Cambridgeshire County Council regarding:

       i.          Hills Road Traffic and Safety Scheme.

     ii.          The Chisholm Trail.

   iii.          Cambridge Station to Leisure Park Feasibility Study.

 

Members of the public made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Sought reassurance that Hills Road would not be left in an unsafe state as cycleway work continued ie pedestrians and cyclists could use the shared pavement. Also rubble had been dumped in local roads such as Glebe Road, so residents wanted reassurance this would be put right.

     ii.          Queried what was happening at the junction of Long Road and Hills Road. This question had been raised at the start of cycleway work, but not responded to.

   iii.          Queried details of cycleway work and completion date, also the impact on verges and pavements. Would the pavement be shared by pedestrians and cyclists in future, and if not, how to stop cyclists using it?

   iv.          Raised the following concerns regarding contractors:

·       Parking on verges.

·       Leaving vehicle engines running whilst not moving.

·       Queried what action was being taken after reports were made to the City/County Council that contractors were not working on regular occasions.

     v.          Large areas of the city were not cycle friendly. For example the crossing on the cycle path going out of town on Luard Road.

   vi.          Hills Road did not need alterations to the cycleway. Resources would have been better directed in making other areas more cycle friendly. Work being undertaken had caused problems for cars and bikes.

 vii.          Signposted a petition on the County Council website to support the Abbey – Chesterton bridge. A formal consultation on the whole route from the main railway station, to the new station (Cambridge North) would begin 19 October 2015. There was a group opposing this bridge and they also had a petition.

viii.          Queried if a usage survey had been undertaken, and if usage was likely to increase due to the number of houses on growth sites, rather than because the cycleway had been ‘improved’. IE how the impact of the cycleway would be evaluated.

   ix.          Queried how £4m was spent on infrastructure projects, and the financial impact if projects overran. For example, the cycleway project was now taking twice as long to complete as expected.

     x.          Queried why bus stops were now used for advertising.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Work had not been completed to date on the city bound road side of the cycleway. Queried if it would be possible to complete this and the Addenbrooke’s bound road side by the end of March 2016.

     ii.          Expressed concern about the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers whilst cycleway work was being undertaken. Also the loss of bus shelters, which had a particular impact on people with sensory/mobility impairments, as did the uneven pavement surface as a result of cycleway work. Lighting (or lack of) along the cycleway in general was seen was a potential hazard.

   iii.          Requested:

·       More signage.

·       Less cones.

·       Enforcement of parking restrictions.

·       Lights at bus stops to signal a potential hazard to cyclists.

   iv.          Queried how to signal a potential hazard to cyclists where pedestrians crossed from traffic islands to the pavement.

     v.          Queried what would happen in December when work was suspended. Also, why was work being suspended?

   vi.          Queried how lessons would be learnt from past actions. The Cherry Hinton scheme seemed to be suffering from similar issues to Hills Road ie lack of information was a major issue. Suggested undertaking a consultation then holding regular feedback meetings with residents to keep them informed of city and county issues.

 vii.          Queried progress on the Botanical Garden project.

 

The Team Leader (Cycling Projects) said the following in response to questions from Councillors and members of the public:

       i.          The County Council had imposed an embargo on road/cycleway works in December as a result of concerns by businesses who thought it would reduce their trade. Work would be halted in December to aid the flow of traffic, then resumed after Christmas.

     ii.          Work was expected to begin on the Trumpington Road scheme in January 2016 if a sub-contractor could be confirmed. A design had been settled upon.

   iii.          Letter drops had been undertaken in the Hills Road area to give residents details about works and contact details should residents wish to report comments, questions or concerns. Meetings had been held with a lot of residents. The Team Leader (Cycling Projects) had been on-site at 09:00 every Friday at the beginning of the Hills Road project to meet residents if they wanted to raise any issues. This had stopped due to lack of participation from residents, but the Team Leader (Cycling Projects) or a Skanska representative were willing to resume visits to the site outside Homerton College at 09:00 every Friday if residents wished.

   iv.          There were no penalties as such for late delivery in the cycleway contract. Skanska were working towards a target cost, so they would make more profit if they completed work quickly. Factors out of their control were outside of the target cost, so Skanska received compensation for these. For example, the December working embargo. The project was within expected cost boundaries.

     v.          £4m had been allocated to seven projects. Four of these had been completed ahead of time, so there was unallocated funding remaining for use by the remaining three projects.

   vi.          Funding had been granted for general cycle infrastructure improvements across the city.

 vii.          A consultation would be held in 2016 for City Deal funded projects.

viii.          Acknowledged residents’ concerns regarding safety and contractors work rate etc. Lessons learned from the city bound cycleway on Hills Road would lead to better work practices on the Addenbrooke’s bound side. Changes in personnel had led to better work rates from contractors. Different teams were involved in the project, so occasionally it may appear that people were doing nothing as they were between jobs.

   ix.          2.3m wide cycle lanes would be implemented as a result of the work. They should better cope with the expected increased cycle traffic from Addenbrooke’s as a result of the pending 17,000 jobs expected in future. The old cycle lanes would not have had capacity to service this level of traffic.

     x.          Multiple types of evaluation work would be undertaken once Hills Road cycleway work was completed to analyse its impact.

   xi.          The intention was that the pavement would be for pedestrians, and cycleway for cyclists. The pavement would not be shared once the cycleway was completed, but would be until it was.

 xii.          When bus stops were replaced on the cycleway part of Hills Road, the intention was to use ones without advertising signs. Contractual obligations required the County Council to implement ones that included advertising signs to match those already in place on other parts of Hills Road. Officers acknowledged residents were unhappy about this.

 

Skanska representatives said the following in response to questions from Councillors and members of the public:

       i.          Apologised for issues to date.

     ii.          Robust action had been undertaken to address reported issues with sub-contractors, such as speed of work.

   iii.          Reiterated that lessons learned from the city bound side of the cycleway would lead to a more successful implementation of the Addenbrooke’s bound side.

   iv.          The intention was to have two gangs working on the cycleway in future, instead of one, to speed up work.

     v.          Acknowledged residents had raised the following concerns regarding contractors:

·       Parking on verges.

·       Leaving vehicle engines running whilst not moving.

·       Use of pedestrian unfriendly barriers ie ones with stands that posed a trip hazard.

 

ACTION POINT: Skanska representatives to monitor and take enforcement action regarding the following contractor actions:

·       Leaving vehicle engines running when stationary.

·       Parking on verges.

·       Use of pedestrian friendly barriers ie ones that did not pose a trip hazard.

 

   vi.          Side roads would be made good at the end of the cycleway project eg repairs to damaged verges.

 

The Team Leader (Cycling Projects) re-iterated the following points:

       i.          On-site visits would be held outside Homerton College at 09:00 every Friday if residents wished.

     ii.          The intention was to finish the Hills Road project by the end of March 2016.

   iii.          Double yellow lines would be painted in cycle lanes to prevent general parking, but would allow loading/unloading. A loading ban was not in place currently, but could be implemented in future. This would require lots of signage to notify drivers of the ban.

 

Councillor McPherson invited Skanska representatives and the Team Leader - Cycling Projects Major Infrastructure Delivery to the next SAC meeting to report on Hills Road cycle way progress.

 

ACTION POINT: Skanska representatives to attend next South Area Committee and give general work progress feedback.

 

ACTION POINT: Team Leader (Cycling Projects) to attend the next meeting to report on Hills Road cycle way progress.