A Cambridge City Council website
A Cambridge City Council website
Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
Histon Road / Milton Road / Chisholm Trail / Arbury Road / Green End Road update
Minutes:
The Committee received two presentations, the first presentation
provided an update on Milton Road and Histon Road
schemes and the second presentation provided an update on cycling schemes in
north Cambridge.
The update on Milton Road and Histon Road
schemes presentation outlined:
Histon Road:
i.
A consultation was undertaken in the summer,
comments from the consultation and Local Liaison Forum (LLF) were used to
formulate the scheme.
ii.
The final design on Histon
Road / Gilbert Road / Warwick Road junction had a segregated use scheme but wasn’t
fully supported by safety officers. The matter was taken to the Greater
Cambridge Partnership (GCP) Joint Assembly where the design was reverted back
to a ‘shared use’ design. Further consultation resulted in a reconfigured
design with segregated elements and pedestrian priority crossings.
iii.
Junction designs had been presented to the GCP
Board in December 2018 and they approved the detailed design award stage.
iv.
Hoped the scheme would begin construction at the
end of 2019.
Milton Road
v.
The Milton Road consultation had recently ended and
he was working through the responses, which were positive and gave a clear
steer what local people wanted.
vi.
In the New Year he would be working with a
consultant to work through the responses and modify the design in line with
consultation responses.
vii.
The project aimed to go to the GCP Board in March
2019.
viii.
Commented that consideration would need to be given
for the timing of construction for both the Histon
Road and Milton Road projects. If construction hours were limited this could
mean the project could take longer to deliver but having the two projects
constructed at the same time would mean more disturbance for residents but the
project could be completed quicker.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the
presentation:
i.
Asked if there could be traffic lights to stop
cyclists when there was a conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.
ii.
Asked for provision to be put in the budget for an
analysis of measuring conflict for pavement use so that there was imperial data
to review if any improvements needed to be made or inform future development.
iii.
Commented about floating bus stops and mitigating
measures.
In response to Members questions the Project Manager (Milton Road and Histon Road) said the following:
iv.
To put in traffic lights to stop cyclists for
shared use crossing could become complicated. Footway zebra crossings emphasized
that pedestrians had priority.
Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below.
1. The plans for the Histon Road project
which were consulted on were significantly altered without a further
consultation and he asked how the public could be assured that the same thing
would not happen with the Milton Road consultation. He also asked whether the
LLF signed off projects before they went to the GCP Assembly and Board.
The Project Manager (Milton Road and Histon Road) confirmed that the issue with the Histon Road project arose as a result of recommendations
from the Road Safety Audit Team.
Councillor Todd-Jones commented that
unfortunately the Histon Road final preliminary
design was modified by the Road Safety Audit Team and Cycling Project Team,
this was a lesson learnt that the Road Safety Team needed to be consulted on a
project prior to it going out for consultation. The LLF could only advise and
make recommendations.
2. Queried pedestrian and cyclist conflicts.
The Project Manager (Milton Road and Histon Road) commented that shared use areas, could create
uncertainty between pedestrian and cycle use so cyclists naturally slowed down.
Segregated use meant that each user (pedestrian and cyclist) had their own area
to be in. Confirmed there would be tactile paving to alert the visually
impaired to junctions.
The presentation regarding the update on
cycling schemes in the north of Cambridge outlined:
Abbey-Chesterton Bridge
i.
The Abbey-Chesterton Bridge would take a year and a half to deliver, the
project included replacement of the timber jetty and utility diversions.
ii.
There would be some night working around the bridge but once exact dates
were known these would be publicised to residents. It was anticipated that the
bridge would be lifted in during the night as there would be no traffic on the
river or trains running.
iii.
The Fen Ditton cycle route would be closed for a period of time during
construction but dates would be publicised to residents.
Arbury Road
iv.
The mini roundabouts had been removed on Arbury Road and replaced with
raised tables. In January 2019 works would continue from North Cambridge
Academy to Leys Avenue.
v.
There was funding for a ‘phase 3’ which would look at North Cambridge
Academy to Milton Road. The engagement process could consider road closures,
one-way systems and residents parking schemes.
Green End Road
vi.
Cycle segregation had been introduced.
vii.
Commented that where tree pits had been put in, utility companies had
been called to protect their services.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the
presentation:
i.
A safety report needed to be undertaken; the road
should not be narrowed. There should be
a zebra crossing when you came off Fen Road.
ii.
The County Council Safety Audit Team should be
consulted on projects prior to a consultation exercise being carried out.
Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below.
1.
Commented on the Arbury Cycle Path that residents
in Leys Avenue were not happy with the proposals. It was a cul-de-sac that people walked and
cycled through. No public drawings had been provided. There was no boundary as
a hedge had been removed, which increased risk to users. After a protest a
Senior Officer at the County Council admitted that a safety audit had not been
completed. A rat run had been created with a two and a half metre wide cycle
path. The neighbourhood had not been consulted, resident’s did not feel that
they had had a fair voice in this project. Requested a pause on the project for
further consultation and alternative options to be considered.
Councillor Manning expressed concerns regarding the project as local
councillors had not been consulted and said that he had left a message with the
Executive Director, Place and Economy at the County Council to discuss further.
Councillor Sargeant commented that the Histon
Road project had gone through a consultation exercise in 2016 and recommendations
had gone through the GCP Assembly and Board.
2.
Hurst Park Estate Residents had received a letter
last week giving 4 days’ notice for the start of work on the shared-use
pedestrian / cycle path to be developed between Arbury Road and Leys Avenue.
Councillors were asked if they were aware of the plans and raised the following
issues:
Post
meeting response from officers have been included between questions:
Yes, officers worked
closely with local councillors over several years on the Arbury Road Cross City
Cycling proposals. A public consultation took place in January 2016. The
relevant consultation drawing was displayed at the consultation event at the
Meadows and has been on the Greater Cambridge Partnership website since the
consultation:
The drawing includes
widening the path on the east side of Arbury Court Play Area to 2.5m, removal
of barriers and removal of the hedge.
(It should be noted that
following traffic monitoring and feedback from residents, it was decided not to
proceed with the closure to motor vehicles of Mansel
Way at the Arbury Road junction.)
The Arbury Road cycleway
scheme has been delivered in a series of phases working north to south, and
ahead of each phase communications have gone out to local residents and local
members.
a.
Pedestrian and cyclists should have clearly marked
sections designated by a white line, or different
coloured tarmac to avoid confusion and pedestrians feeling intimidated
by speedy cyclists.
At 2.5m, the
shared use path will not be wide enough for formal segregation between
pedestrians and cyclists but pedestrian and cycle symbols on the surface of the
path will indicate which side users should aim to be on.
b.
As there was going to be no barriers at either end,
asked that proper measures would be taken to avoid cyclists shooting out at the
ends of the path onto the pedestrian footpaths/roadway. The footpath on Leys
Avenue was used by all ages to access Arbury Court and also by young children
accessing the play area.
Tactile paving, a
SLOW marking towards the end of the shared use path and a central bollard with
a reflective band have been added to the design.
c.
Cyclists waiting to turn right from Arbury Road
into the new path are properly protected from motor vehicles on Arbury Road.
Less confident
cyclists will be able to use the new zebra crossing on Arbury Road to access
the Play Area path.
d.
We currently have a lot of problems with
motorcyclists illegally cutting through the cycle throughway between Leys Road
and Highworth Avenue. Request
that there is very clear, enforceable signage, and CCTV, to make it
really obvious that motorcyclists are prohibited from using this new path.
We are liaising
with City Council officers over signage and other possible measures.
e.
A large number of trees and hedging was going
to be removed. Requested assurances that
they would be replaced by suitable mature trees, not saplings.
We removed 4 trees
all of which were in very poor condition. The City Council Tree officer said “I
am in favour of the trees being removed and replaced by the County Council to
mitigate their poor health/decline”.
Yes, the 11 new
trees will be mature specimens.
f.
Asked that lighting would be good, and not the dim
and inadequate lighting there was currently on the estate.
Following the 2016
public consultation for the Arbury Road cycleway scheme, the lighting was
replaced as part of the County Council’s PFI agreement - it was a direct
replacement installation with no street lights removed but with upgraded lanterns.
The lighting is in line with other footpaths across the county.
g.
Asked if the plan for the new cycle-path between
Arbury Road and Leys Avenue had been subject to a formal safety audit –
particularly regarding the conflict points where the cycle path emerges onto
the pedestrian paths at Leys Avenue and at Arbury Road.
Yes
h.
Asked to see a copy of the safety audits.
These will be sent to HPERA.
i.
Asked if a detailed design and construction drawing
for the proposed cycle path existed.
Yes
j.
Asked to see a copy of the drawing.
The relevant documents (1, 2 and 5) can be found here: https://www.greatercambridge.org.uk/arbury-road/
The Team Leader – Cycling Projects commented
that the consultation did make it clear that the path would be a shared use
path and barriers and hedging would be removed. A detailed response to all
questions would be provided following the meeting.
3.
Asked what consideration had been given to address
the volume of traffic affecting pollution levels. Referred to data from the Strada fitness app, there were 8000 logged journeys at the
Milton Road end of Arbury Road and only 5000 logged journeys on the west end.
The east end of Arbury Road was more congested by cars. Referred to stage 3 of
the Team Leader’s Cycling Project’s work.
Action:
Councillor Sargeant to organise a meeting with residents regarding stage 3 of
the Arbury Road scheme.
4.
Commented that no public consultation had been
undertaken on the Arbury Road scheme, he regularly used Arbury Road and was
only alerted to the matter by Councillor Manning.
Councillor Sargeant commented that the GCP
did undertake a consultation but it was not a good consultation and that this
needed to be addressed.
