The summary report by the County Council’s Highways Officer who examined the feasibility of the proposed new zebra crossing for Arbury Road east has been released as an agenda paper for the Council meeting which will decide whether it should go ahead.
This meeting will now be held on the 25th of July.
Applications for funding are rated using a traffic light system.
Against all bar one of the reporting criteria the application for the zebra crossing has been rated as amber.
Against ‘deliverability’, it has been rated as red.
These ratings make it appear highly unlikely that the zebra crossing will be funded.
This is reinforced by the very high cost that the County Council has attached to providing a ‘raised’ crossing, as advised to ARERA by Camcycle.
The summary report to the committee is incorrect when it says that the introduction of a modal filter on Arbury Road east lacked support from local residents.
Our 2019-20 survey showed that this was not the case.
The summary report does, however, keep alive the hope that the County Council may yet deliver a “Future phase of cycle route improvements” on Arbury Road east.
The proposals would see residents’ parking bays on one side of the Arbury Road and double yellow lines on the other
A group of Cambridge neighbours have described plans to introduce parking measures in their area as ‘divisive’. Members of the Arbury Road East Residents’ Association (ARERA) criticised plans to introduce double yellow lines down one side of Arbury Road, with residents’ parking bays on the other.
Ian Cooper, secretary of ARERA, described the proposals of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for Arbury Road as ‘divisive’. He said they split the street in half by providing residents’ bays on the south side of the street but not the north – and residents on the north side will not be eligible for residents’ parking permits under the scheme.
The proposed changes to Arbury Road have been put forward by the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) as part of the Milton Road area resident parking scheme. Mr Cooper said he had asked the GCP why the two sides of the street would be treated differently and was told there was “inadequate on-street parking capacity”.
Simon Crisp said he would need to get the kerb lowered in front of his house to be able to park in front of his house. He said he would have to pay for the kerb to be lowered – when he began to research this, he found he would have to pay to make an application to the council for permission before paying around £1,200 for the work to be done.
Maggie Fernie said she only experiences issues with parking on Arbury Road on Saturday mornings. She said she is concerned about where tradesmen would park on the street with restrictions in place: “How is anybody going to get any work done?”
Mrs Lund added that the scheme might push parking onto adjoining streets like Maio Road that are not included in the proposals. She said this would “cause a lot of ill feeling”.
Lynne Miles, Director of City Access at the GCP, said: “The proposed scheme would see a combination of measures introduced to improve parking and road safety along a busy route in and out of the city. These measures would include new residents’ parking bays, pay & display and/or limited waiting bays, and double yellow lines in places deemed unsafe for people to park. The majority of residents were in support of the scheme as consulted upon.”
A consultation on the Milton Road area resident parking scheme, which includes proposed changes to Arbury Road, was carried out in 2022. Ms Miles added: “The scheme would help to provide dedicated parking for residents who currently find it difficult to park within a reasonable distance of their home, while also continuing to support the needs of businesses and community facilities in the Milton Road area.
“All schemes of this nature have to balance tricky issues about where to draw boundaries and how to accommodate differing needs to minimise any displacement effects to neighbouring areas. Cambridgeshire County Council, the highways authority, is expected to take the final decision on the proposed residents parking scheme – which has been subject to public consultation – in due course and if the decision is to go ahead, then a six-month review is recommended to consider whether the scheme needs to be amended.”
On March 18th, the County Council published a Traffic Regulation Order. This reveals how the County’s Residents’ proposed Residents’ Parking Scheme will affect those who live, work and travel to school along Arbury Road east.
The ARERA committee submitted more than 20 questions to the County Council asking for clarification about what it is planning to do.
Implementation of the scheme is being managed by the Greater Cambridge Partnership. The County’s Policy and Regulation team asked the Greater Cambridge Partnership to provide the additional information requested. The GCP’s project manager for the scheme has done so, leaving one question unanswered, see below.
The answers that have been given make clear that what is being done is the result, not of mistakes or oversights, but of deliberate policy decisions. These decisions will advantage some and disadvantage others. Which of these two groups will you find yourself in?
Are you personally going to be disadvantaged? Or can you see that others will be – including children going to school, pedestrians, cyclists and car owners, those shopping or working on Arbury Road east?
If so, you only have a short opportunity to make objections to, or comment on, what is being proposed.
Comments and objections have to be submitted by April 12th.
Residents and businesses on Arbury Road East – and its tributaries – need to be aware of what is imminently about to happenin the implementation of permit-based ‘Residents Parking’ on our road.
Adoption of this has been progressing very slowly through a very bureaucratic process. This process is about to reach a critical point – the issuing of a Traffic Regulation Order. This will offer you a short, time-limited, last chance to object, if you want to, to what is being proposed.
The Greater Cambridge Partnership has finished its consultations on Residents Parking Scheme for the Milton Road Area which includes Arbury Road East as part of the Hurst Park area. The GCP has passed its scheme to the Cambridgeshire County Council which has to make the final decision about whether it should be implemented, as the statutory highways authority. Before the scheme can go ahead, a Traffic Regulation Order must be issued.
As Lynne Miles, the City Access Director for the GCP, advises in the information she has provided to the Residents Associations concerned, this TRO could be issued “in the next few weeks”, see attached pdf.
The relevant information in our case would appear to be that:
“Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) are legal documents that enable us as the local highway authority to prohibit, restrict or reduce the use of a road by traffic. This includes motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. We implement TROs in line with:
· The Road Traffic R
· egulations Act 1984
· The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996
Measures we can bring in using TROs include:
· Road or public right of way closures
· Speed limits
· On-street parking
· Waiting, loading and unloading areas and time limits
· Single and double yellow lines
· One-way streets
· Access and turning
· Prohibition of certain types of vehicles
· Width, height and weight restrictions
· Bus and cycle lanes
· Taxi ranks.”
Once you have seen the scheme set out in the TRO, if you want to, you can object to what it contains.
As yet, it is unclear how the imposition of permits for residents parking might impact on our Local Highways Improvement bid for another zebra crossing on Arbury Road East. We have requested further information on this and will keep members posted.
Arbury Road East Residents Association has, as two of its primary objectives, improving pedestrian and cyclist safety on the eastern end of Arbury Road (between Arbury Court play area and the Milton Road traffic lights).
A new crossing could improve safety for children walking via Leys Road to local primary and secondary schools, those living in Maio Road, Havenfield, Twickeham and Marfield Courts using Arbury Road shops, as well as all those who live and work on our street.
Results of survey of Arbury Road East residents and businesses
In December 2023, we asked those who live and work on Arbury Road East and its tributaries whether they would support a new zebra crossing situated between Milton Road and the Arbury Court play area, potentially funded by the County Council’s Local Highway Improvement Programme.
Two locations for a new crossing were suggested.
The committee surveyed people by distributing a paper flyer to 156 households, 5 businesses and 1 church, delivered door to door. It asked them to vote online for or against the proposal and to tell us why they voted as they did. Paper survey forms were also delivered to the 62 residential flats in Havenfield.
The survey generated a large response. Here is what those who responded told us.
A large majority support a new crossing but a small minority don’t.
47 people replied using ARERA’s online survey. More than 8 out 10 (39) of them supported the installation of a new zebra crossing. Only 8 of them did not. 9 completed forms were returned by residents of Havenfield. All bar one se supported installation of a new zebra crossing.
About two thirds of those who voted for a crossing prefer Location B.
Given this level of support, the committee is applying to the Local Highway Improvement Programme requesting installation of a new zebra crossing at Location B.
Why did people vote as they did?
The largest number of responses to the survey were received from those who live in the narrowest and most frequently congested part of Arbury Road East – post code CB4 2JB
The second largest number came from those who live in retirement flats in Havenfield – post code CB4 2JY – who could be expected to benefit most from the installation of a new zebra crossing.
People who were in favour of a new crossing were asked why they preferred the location they had chosen. In answering this question, they revealed that they had used just four assessment criteria:
proximity to destinations and/or other crossing points
location in relation to number/range of potential users
increased safety for pedestrians, and
traffic calming potential.
Viewed against these criteria, Location B emerges as front runner.
Table 2. The pros and cons of the two suggested locations
Location A
Pros
Cons
Proximity to destinations: shops, church, vets and schools
Too close to Milton Road traffic lights – so motorists might be tempted not to stop
Closest location to Havenfield retirement housing
Too dangerous
Link to footpath to Kirby Close
Serves least number of residents on Arbury Road
Safe crossing avoiding traffic junction with Milton and Leys Road
Good location to deter speeding to and from Milton Road traffic lights
Location B
Pros
Cons
Closest location to Havenfield retirement housing
Too close to Milton Road traffic lights with controlled pedestrian crossing
Mid-point between Milton Road junction and zebra crossing at Arbury Court play area
Reduces average distance anyone on Arbury Road East has to walk to reach a crossing
Improved safety for school children crossing to go to Chesterton and NCA secondary schools
Act as traffic calming measure to slow down vehicles on long straight stretch
May stop vehicles exceeding 20 mph speed limit
Good location to slow down traffic at dangerous junction with Leys Road and Havenfield
I
Provide alternative to dangerous zebra crossing between North Cambridge Academy and Arbury Court play area
Improved visibility (fewer parked cars) at this point for pedestrians trying to cross
Opposition to a new zebra crossing is not related to where people live on Arbury Road East. Most opposition came from those living in CB4 2JB – the narrowest and so least safe part of the road in terms of pedestrian and cyclist safety. But this is also the post code where most people voted for a new crossing.
Table 1. Opposition to new cross and respondents’ locations
Respondent’s post code
Number of respondents
Number opposed to new zebra crossing
CB4 1FY
1
–
CB4 2JB
16
5
CB4 2JD
11
1
CB4 2JE
10
1
CB4 2JY
13
–
CB4 2GA
1
–
Those who had voted against a new zebra crossing were asked why they had done so. They had used three assessment criteria:
proximity to other crossing points
traffic blocking potential, and
loss of on-street parking
All those who replied to the survey were asked if they had any other comments to make. Their replies reveal that there are very divergent, unreconcilable, views held by those who live on Arbury Road East Road about the nature of the problems, if any, faced by pedestrians and cyclists using it. There are those who think there aren’t any, e,g.:
“I think Arbury Road East is already safe for pedestrians and cyclists.”
and
“Having lived on this road I think pedestrian and cycle safety is very good, with ample zebra crossings, 20mph speed limit, speed bumps and a cycle lane where it is needed near schools, shops and play areas.”
But these are outnumbered by those who think that extensive improvements need to be made. The called-for improvements include:
adding dedicated cycle lanes
making Arbury Road East one-way
banning on-pavement parking
banning on-pavement cycling and e-scooters
banning heavy goods vehicles
installing a speed camera and enforcing the 20mph speed limit
traffic calming to deter speeding
retaining on-street parking (to narrow road and slow down traffic), and
introducing a modal filter to prevent commuter traffic.
Given these demands, the committee of ARERA will continue to press the County Council, its Highways and Transport Committee, and the Greater Cambridge Partnership, along with our local councillors, to take the requested actions required to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety on Arbury Road East.
Milestone / GCP monthly consultation on Milton Road Improvements
The next meeting has been confirmed as on Monday 6th March. Again from 11am to 12.30pm at Milton Library meeting room
———————————————————————————————————-
Here is a summary of the first meeting, held on Friday 3rd February from 11am to 12.30pm.
Last minute reschedule
Present up to 10 local residents
3 members of Milestone contractors include Jake and Naomi
These sessions were planned for their site at Woodhead Drive but they ended up restricted on office space so last minute changes to Library and on the Friday 3rd.
Tom Porter (who took over as Project Manager from Paul van de Bulk) from GCP couldn’t make!!!
So lots of questions for Tom next time.
This meeting was advertised as a drop in session but more of a discussion round a table, so worth being there from the start really.
More regular updates of work being done and closures etc were asked for on public noticeboards – they promised to get back on this to help with finding suitable sites.
The issue was raised about the closure of the pedestrian/cycle route through Oak Tree Ave – they will try and improve the signage at the Elizabeth Way pedestrian crossing.
They were also asked if they could have some “live” information about the buses -it seems unlikely this will happen, but the timetable is still “live” on the old Union Lane bus stop – though it was hard to get across the road to read it!
They have been informed that a lot of people want the modal filter on Union Lane to remain. They already knew this!
They were asked about the future for Arbury Road – it will have a similar system as Union Lane when the work is done on the northern side of Milton Road. Official diversion will be via Kings Hedges Road – but there will be nothing to stop locals using Hurst Park Ave rat run, as at present.
Pothole filling still responsibility of highways dept. Even within roadworks like outside library. Milestone say they are reporting them daily too. There has been filling in subsequently but poor standard.
Much discussion about the status of GCP and its undemocratic set up.
Also about who is liable when accidents occur, as there have been, particularly cycling related.
In January, we surveyed residents of Union Lane. We asked you about your experience of having the road closed to through traffic due to the Milton Road improvement works. We distributed 100 survey forms to residents whose front doors open directly on to Union Lane. We got 21 replies. Here Is what you told us.
The results show consistently divided opinion about whether specific conditions imposed by the closure have been an improvement or not. Despite this, two thirds of you would like to see the closure made permanent.
Almost all of you (6 out of 7) think that Union Lane has been quieter than usual and more pleasant to live on during the road closure. Nearly two-thirds you of told us that traffic using Union Lane has been going more slowly than usual. Less than a third you said that it hadn’t. Almost all of you suggested that the number of cars and other vehicles using Union Lane has been reduced during the construction work.
Almost all of you reported that the road closure has made it more difficult to access your homes on foot. Three quarters of you didn’t know whether it has made it more difficult for those using mobility scooters, with none one suggesting that it has. Almost all of you (again out of 7) said that the road closure has not made it more difficult access your home by bicycle. Nearly two thirds of you reported that it has made it more difficult to access your home by car. But nearly a third said it hasn’t. More than a third of you said that the road closure hasn’t made it more difficult for delivery vehicles to access your homes. But a third said it has. The rest of you don’t know whether it has or not.
Nearly three quarters of you said that you have found using Union Lane safer during the closure for construction work. Only two of you reported that it was more dangerous. Almost a fifth of you don’t know. Almost two-thirds of you reported that you have found it easier and more pleasant to walk and cycle to Milton and Chesterton Roads. Only a minority reported that it isn’t. You were almost equally divided about whether arrangements put in place for crossing Milton Road have been satisfactory. Just over half of you suggested that they have: slightly less than half that they haven’t.
About three-fifths of you suggested that the modal filter closing Union Lane has had an effect on your regular car journeys, making them longer: just under two-fifths reported that it hasn’t. But over two-thirds of you told us you have been able to find a reasonable alternative route for you regular car journey while just under a third said you haven’t.
Just over half of you reported that you haven’t walked or used a bike more frequently while the modal filter has been in place, with just over a third saying you have. Just over three-fifths of you judged that the modal filter has had a positive effect on parking on Union Lane but a third of you disagree.
Despite the differences reported above, two thirds of you would like the modal filter at the Milton Road end of Union Lane to become permanent. A third of you wouldn’t. If you feel strongly about whether the modal filter should stay or not, let your local councillors know, see https://arera.org.uk/local-democracy/ for contact details
Some are particularly pertinent to us on Arbury Road East – for instance, about on pavement parking and front garden parking if you don’t already have a dropped kerb.
You can see these below, and visit link above for all.
Please let us know if you have any issues, comments or queries that any of this raises for you.
Ian Cooper
Secretary, ARERA
What about parking on the footway alongside the road?
The Council receives a lot of complaints about parked cars blocking footways for pedestrians, pushchairs and wheelchairs. We cannot introduce a parking scheme that allows parking on the footway and forces vulnerable road users to walk in the road. The exception to this is in streets where such an arrangement is already in place and spaces have been formally marked as such.
Will we have to have signs and road markings in the street?
It is essential that drivers are aware of where they can and cannot park. Generally speaking, where parking is permitted, the areas will be marked out as white boxes with upright signs alongside. Where parking is not allowed, yellow lines are used. In some schemes it is not practical to mark out bays on the road. In such areas, there will be zone entry signs and repeater signs but no bay markings. These schemes are known as Permit Parking Areas (PPA).
How will the scheme affect the use of my private driveway?
You do not need a permit to park on your driveway or any other private areas of land.
If you have a constructed access with dropped kerbs, we will not mark a bay across it.
However, if you use your garden to park on and do not have dropped kerbs this is an unauthorised vehicular access, and we may allow parking across your frontage. In this situation, you may wish to consider applying for dropped kerbs. You can obtain more information here: www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk and enter Dropped Kerbs in the search bar.
In case you haven’t seen it, here is a ’new year’ notice circulated to us by the local Lib Dems …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
1st of January 2023 As Christmas turns to New Year, Cambridge City Council is approaching some controversial decisions in its budget. At risk of disturbing your festivities, I wanted to alert you to some of these – as there is an opportunity for residents to express their point of view before decisions are taken. Three items we have singled out are:
Closing Public Toilets These are an essential, if not glamorous aspect of what a council provides – because no-one else will! Labour councillors want to close the conveniences on Quayside (the only ones on the west side of the city centre), Chesterton Road (without any plan to improve the inadequate block on Jesus Green nearby) and Mill Road (where there are no nearby alternatives). They also want to limit opening to weekends on the recreation grounds at Chesterton, Coleridge, Romsey and Midsummer Common. In a city which thrives from its shoppers and visitors, how come public loos are such a low priority that when cutbacks are in the air, they come to the fore? Apart from their use to everyone on occasion, public loos are especially important to the elderly, pregnant mothers, those with disabilities, parents of small children and those making full use of public open spaces.
Reducing the Environmental Enforcement Team Where there are rules for the benefit of the community, there needs to be an effort to enforce them – or they don’t get taken seriously. This applies to dropping litter, fly tipping, controlling dogs in public places, lighting BBQs on the grass, punt touting and commercial ‘A’ Boards on pavements. Few could claim these are all well under control, but Labour’s proposal is to reduce the officers from 7 to 6 and have those remaining only patrolling in pairs. When you take account of the size of the city and the need for weekend and summer evening patrols, we can expect only negligible attention anywhere – including where we need it locally and across the rest of the city! This is another core council responsibility: cutting it back is sure to result in lower standards.
Discontinuing the ‘Big Weekend’ This free annual summer event on Parker’s Piece brings the whole city together in a way little else does. The way it integrates and celebrates the city’s Asian community through the ‘Mela’ is especially valuable. It is natural for the cost of the event to come under scrutiny in times like these, but it seems shortsighted simply to abandon it, without a serious attempt to seek sponsorship for it, or failing that, to commercialise it whilst avoiding high cost entry.
If you feel more thought is needed before these measures are agreed, please say so in the council’s consultation survey – focusing on Question 10. But do act now, as the opportunity closes on January 10th at noon. Go to: https://cambridge.citizenlab.co/en-GB/projects/draft-budget-2023-24
