Wednesday, 24 July 2019
The Greater Cambridge Partnership have started a public consultation on the next steps for the Sawston Greenway. This is the new name for the DNA cyclepath and the Sustrans Route 11 via Stapleford and Sawston. The route is largely in place and this consultation proposes a set of improvements and some welcome additions.
This post contains our detailed analysis of the proposals and we invite you to use these comments to inform your own consultation response. Here's a
direct link to the consultation leaflet (pdf) and a
direct link to the survey questionnaire. The deadline for responding to the consultation is 5th August 2019.
CTC Cambridge strongly support the Greenways and we are pleased to see that some of the proposed improvements to the existing paths along the route of the Sawston Greenway are already underway. But we think the consultation leaflet is a little disappointing. There seems to be a lack of ambition when compared to other Greenways and there is also a disappointing lack of detail at this stage with some elements simply identifying "improvements" without providing the details.
We have identified three major issues in the proposals that we think need to be reviewed and improved.
First, we think the DNA path should be widened to 4m because of the high levels of use by both cyclists and pedestrians. The consultation proposes to widen to 3m but we think this is not sufficient for the projected high levels of use. A 3m width is too narrow for 2 cyclists to cross while also passing a pedestrian and hence this width will still cause conflicts. A surfaced width of 4m would be much better for both cyclists and pedestrians on this busy route.
Second, we think the plans should include a new cycle connection from the DNA path into Shelford via Granham's Road and the A1301. This is a route that we ride a lot and it is disappointing that the consulation does not recognise the need for a better connection into Shelford. We think that a new segregated cycle path is needed for the A1301 portion and a new Toucan crossing to replace the existing crossing to make it safer and more usable by all cyclists. This connection is needed to enable more Shelford residents to take advantage of the DNA path improvements.
Thirdly, we would like to see an new connection from the busway cycle path to Addenbrookes Road. This will also provide a more direct connection from the busway cyclepath to the DNA path as an alternative to the existing dogleg route over the busway railway bridge and along Francis Crick Avenue. This link was included in the earlier consultation leaflets and we think this element should be reinstated.
I elaborate on all these major issues in the detailed comments below.
DETAILED COMMENTS
The following comments give a detailed response on each of the numbered elements in the consultation leaflet.
ITEM 1: We support this element – there is a need for improvements to the Long Rd junction. But the proposals seem to be incomplete and it is not clear how or where the proposed paths are connected on Long Road. We think it is important that the westbound arm along Long Road provides a continuous segregated connection to Sedley Taylor Road using the existing controlled crossing. Ideally, the plans should also include improvements to the cycle paths along Long Road - both west bound to at least Rutherford Road (to connect to the busway) and east bound to Hills Road.
ITEM 2: We strongly support this element. However it is essential that the cyclepath has priority over all side junctions (the vehicle access roads into the site). It is also important that cycling on the carriageway is still fully supported with mandatory cycle lanes. To better support the option of on-carriageway cycling, the plans should include a longer and repositioned section of dropped kerb to allow the southbound road cyclists to join the DNA cyclepath before the roundabout. This repositioned section of dropped kerb should provide a more direct route than the current inconvenient alignment via the traffic island.
ITEM 3: We strongly support widening of the DNA path, but we think it should be widened to 4m of surfaced width. The proposed 3m surfaced width (3m with a grass verge) is not wide enough for this busy route. This path already sees high levels of use and the level of use is likely to increase as the Biomedical Campus expands. We therefore think the path should be widened to 4m wide - the extra width can be realised by reducing the width of the grass verge. A 4m surfaced width is appropriate given the very high cycle and pedestrian use and the relatively low levels of equestrian use. If needed, passing places could be added to allow for horses to pull over and these bays could be combined with seats.
ITEM 3 – MISSING ELEMENT: It disappointing to see the more direct link from the busway cyclepath to the DNA path (via the Addenbrookes Road railway bridge) has been dropped. We think this would be useful connection and should be included in the proposals. This would provide a more direct route as an alternative to the existing dogleg route over the busway bridge. This link would also provide a more direct connection between the busway cyclepath and Addenbrookes Road.
ITEM 3 – MISSING ELEMENT: At Shelford it is disappointing to see no proposals for a new segregated cycle connection from the DNA path to Great Shelford High Street via Granham's Road and the A1301. This link is needed to provide a better cycle connection for Shelford residents. We think the plans should be revised to include a segregated cycle route along this short section of the A1301 (where there is plenty of width) plus a new toucan crossing (to replace the existing pedestrian crossing). This is needed to provide a cycling connection from Granham Rd to High Street that avoids cycling along the A1301. The changes to the A1301 should also continue to support cycling on the road by adding a new traffic island just south of the High Street junction to protect the right turn into the High Street. Ideally, the plans should also include improvements along Granham's Road.
ITEM 4: We support this element.
ITEM 5: We strongly support this element, but we think it is essential that BOTH routes are provided. The existing Route A needs to be improved plus the proposed new Route B is a very welcome alternative route. It is disappointing to see no details of the proposed improvement to Route A and we think significant improvements are needed over all of the existing Route A.
ITEM 5A: We think a series of improvement are needed for more sections of Route 5A - not just the London Road section. We identify several areas for improvement. Improvements are needed on Mingle Lane to fix the dangerous kerbstones and to add speed reduction measures (preferably 1-way chicanes rather than speed bumps). Improvements are also needed on Church Street in particular a repositioned approach to the controlled crossing of London Road to separate the cycle path from the shop front. We agree that improvement are needed on the A1301/London Road section: we think major improvements are need to widen the cyclepath to at least 2.5m for the whole of the existing route, including the narrow section of shared use footway from the crossing at Church Street to the start of the Off-road path. The off-road path, including the bridge and the narrow footway at the far end, should all be widened to at least 2.5m.
ITEM 6: We strongly support this element. At Sawston we think both routes A and B are needed and we strongly support both routes. We note that some of Route A is already being widened but we think further improvements may be needed if the new Transport Hub is built on Cambridge Road. We also support Route B: we think this will be a welcome new route providing a good new route to Whittlesford via the existing path.
ITEM 6 MISSING ELEMENT: We recommend that an additional section of segregated cycle path is created alongside Babraham Road to connect from Route 5A (at the traffic lights) to the existing cycleway to Babraham at the edge of the village. This route is mainly needed as a safer cycle-to-school route for the local Primary Schools but it will also provide a useful missing connection. It would be desirable to also include some speed reduction measures and some additional crossings along Babraham Road - perhaps these elements could be combined as new raised table crossings.
ITEM 6 MISSING ELEMENT: We strongly support the suggested new link to Whittlesford Parkway station from Sawston avoiding the A505. It is disappointing that there are no details in this consultation, but this would be a very welcome new route as the existing route alongside the A505 is very poor. This link should complement and connect into the planned redevelopement of Whittlesford Parkway.
In summary, while we welcome and strongly support the plans for the Sawston Greenway, we think the current proposals need some important changes. In particular, we think the plans should be revised to widen the DNA path to 4m instead of the 3m width that is proposed and to include a segregated connection to Shelford High Street via Granham's Road and the A1301.
Rupert Goodings, CTC Cambridge