I mean, at least there's a requirement from the Campaign that the County must make a clear statement that there is an intent to improve other junctions on these roads, and a statement that both sides of Huntingdon Road should be done (although no request that the County states that is someting they aspire or plan to do - why not?).
And, frustratingly, the Campaigns support for this scheme is not dependent on getting the lanes wider than the 2.1/2.7m specified nor on getting said comment from the County that this is a first step rather than job-done.
Better comments from the Campaign than I'd have expected following Martins portrayal of my criticism as coming across as a rant - but I'm afraid not really asking enough of the County Council for my tastes. I think Cambridge Cycling Campaign need to hold a more credible threat of not supporting a scheme like this if (a) its not explicitly stated that this would, when funding is there, lead to more of the same and (2) without some stated minimum standards being clearly laid out in conditions for support (for example width).
I still don't think that agreeing with the plans rather than asking for more from them is a good bargaining position (as I've explained) - many more consultation responses will be telling the County to water this down, without a pull in the other direction it seems not impossible that, as ever, we'll be stuck with a bad compromise that the Campaigns opening strongly supportive comments will be taken as supportive of.
But its going the right way. Just need to be a bit more so.
Like I've always said, there are some good folk at the Campaign. I wonder if anyone may be holding them back from really letting loose with what they think?