Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
109 Cycling Projects Update PDF 858 KB
Minutes:
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.