Cambridge Transport Policy - How NOT to do local government.

Sadly I'm going to have to split this up into multiple blog posts. There's too much to absorb in one go, and its a developing situation changing very rapidly. A friend of a friend of a friend suggests that there have been some leaks from some of the authorities listed below that will be hitting the web in a few weeks time - so the state of things is currently fluid. Stick with me, please.

Cambridge is often heralded as unique in Britain, in that more people cycle here than elsewhere. And thats certainly true, although the numbers aren't as great as some would have you believe. In my view thats only one of the many ways this city is different to the rest of the UK. There is also strong evidence that we have the worst local government stratification in the country, and that this is completely ruining any hope of ever having an effective transport policy.

To explain why, one must look at the organisations involved. 

The City itself is operated by Cambridge City Council. Its currently Labour run although as things stand its hard to know whether that majority is safe going forward, especially with coming boundary changes. When you drill down into it you find that the local Labour party is as divided as it is everywhere else - we've got hard red Trots like Dave Baigent and Kevin Price (I can make a case for him being the second worst councillor Cambridge has ever had), essentially they're hard nosed Corbynistas, and we have notorious cyclist haters like Gerri Bird, all the way to pragmatic modernists like Carina O'Reilly. And this has bubbled over into petty deselections of councillors to apparently balance the wings of the party. The idea they might have a unified or intelligent transport policy is extremely far fetched.

But in a way that barely matters because the transport authority is the County Council. And that authority is made up of a few labour and liberal democrat councillors mostly from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, but is dominated by a comfortable majority of red in the face Tory fruitcakes representing rural and fenland constituencies where a monkey with a blue rosette would win. So thats who they put up, the most frothing at the mouth, swivel eyed, nasty Tory who passes muster with the local associations seemingly more interested in the petty hurt they can inflict by executing Tory dogma than anything else. Until recently the only challenge they faced was UKIP, so now they're effectively unopposed. If they have any interest in Cambridge at all its how to fleece us for council tax to then spend giving immigrants a harder time in the Fens, and how they can maintain car access for hate filled geriatrics who had their souls sucked out by Thatcher. Suggestions to them that cycling and walking are important is likely to get you shot through the lungs. 

Then we have South Cambridgeshire. That was a Tory stronghold but spectacular mismanagement gave the Liberal Democrats a way in. So far they haven't done much - in itself sufficient reason for cynicism, and they've really flopped when faced with intransigent road engineers who are making a right royal mess of the arterial road through their area. But they're there. And thats as much as we can say for them.

And lastly there's East Cambridgeshire, a council so ineffective it fights over folk festival parades. Its a bizarrely run, car-centric place in which an unsustainable free parking in the historic city of Ely means that you can neither walk nor breath safely there. At least its Tory/Libdem contest, but as its a contest fought for control of a freakishly car dependent part of the county I hold out no hope of any improvement. 

So four different local government bodies all with their own transport priorities? Oh, no. We're not done. Not by a long way.

Because having at least two, even three layers of local government in each location wasn't enough, our local councillors agreed with central government to have a directly elected mayor who covering the needs of the frothing at the mouth UKIP fenlanders, the cosmopolitan and complex city of Peterborough, and the professors of Cambridge who can show mathematical proof of Plancks constant but if you boil carrots and potatoes in the same pan it blows their minds. Big ask - squaring the circle of a bus and train city, the nations cycling capital and a county that would render down their own children for another gallon of diesel.

The mayor is and will, as far as we can see, always be a Tory - which upsets the Labour/Libdem City of Cambridge. And because its so safe its very prone to cronyism, with the rate at which the mayor shovels cash into the coffers of his mates seemingly showing now bounds. They Mayor has plans for reforming our transport in the city, but he'll probably just blow all his cash on posh headquarters and severance pay.

And last, but oh my gosh no means least, because things weren't complicated enough and we weren't blowing enough cash on 5 layers of squabbling local government (district or city council, possibly a parish council area, the mayoral authority, county council and of course the elected police commissioner) we also have a massive body of good old fashioned quangos shoveling money into endless consultations but very little solid infrastructure work. It was called Cambridge Cit Deal but that became so toxic they renamed it Greater Cambridge - yeah, they say its because that was more inclusive, so at best the rebranding might seem convenient. And they have their own plans and views, and ever more absurd and peculiar ways of feigning democratic mandate for an entirely un-elected body.

Needless to say, this city doesn't have a transport policy, nor a coherent development policy. We're a hub for economic growth and in a very short time the city has grown beyond all expectations, and continues to expand. And at the top? More of a bun-fight than an authority. The Mayoral plan is different to Greater Cambridge, which isn't reflected by what the County wants, and the City don't agree with any of that. While the Districts have their own priorities too.

What a mess. What a pity. What a monstrous waste of resources, having endless overlapping consultations from needlessly repeated local government positions. 

I'll go on to detail how plans of the City Deal and the Mayoral authority differ (and indeed why each is, independently, pathetic) in future posts. But for now, I can conclude that there is no way that the current system can work. Strip away all but two of these layers of government, divide the total number of councillors by 3 and make that a full time job. It would be cheaper, faster, comprehensible, and might actually get something done. 

Arbury Road - Camcycles inexplicable love affair with Greater Cambridge?

In the last couple of years Cambridge Cycling Campaign (often quaintly and trendily known by their twitter handle, Camcycle) have been, on the whole, better than they were. While there has been the occasional weird outburst, and their rabid enthusiasm for the underwhelming eponymous trail remains peculiar,  they have at least no longer got a convicted child assaulter on the committee, and I've talked to Robin (still their chair, I believe) about the support Martin gave for the crap facility on Gilbert Road,and he didn't get it either. There are some excellent, committed, positive people there who deserve our appreciation.

So what the heck is he going on about here? Why did he choose this pooch to screw?

All I can think is that he didn't really know Arbury Road, or how people rode in this part of town, before the new lane was constructed.

Ocado delivery driver dangerous to cyclist and pedestrians

The background - Arbury Road is the oldest named route in the City, connecting Chesterton to Arbury Camp, which has had some occupation since the neolithic era. And since Orchard Park was built there the site has culturally reverted to that state. It is, like many roads derived from old drove ways, long and mostly straight, the result being that many choose to drive far to fast on it. The modern road can be divided into two main sections. South of Campkin Road it is fast, narrow, with parked cars all the way down one side and occasionally blocking the pavement on the other side too, essentially limiting it to two very close streams of vehicles with no room for safely overtaking cyclists. Not that this stops them. And North of Campkin Road, it isn't much wider but there is (and has always been) a hedge down one side and little parking on road on the other.

City Deal (sorry, that name had become so toxic they renamed themselves Greater Cambridge) has existed in a constant state of existential crisis since it was founded, needing to find ways of shovelling cash into schemes as fast as possible. Hence it has wasted no time in throwing money into shovel ready schemes and the black hole of consultation. And it noticed that building a cycle lane on the North end of Arbury Road would be relatively uncontroversial. So they did.

And... Well, where it is, it isn't bad. If you came at this without knowing this party of the city at all you might think this was great. You would look at the kids riding on this new lane and think its a revelation. But thats incredibly naive.

One of the multiple off road routes parallel to the new lane

The reality in Kings Hedges is that the estate was built at the end of the 1960s in a tremendously forward thinking, progressive way. It was made difficult to drive through the estate but easy to walk or ride, with the result being that a lot of journeys within the estate are made on foot or by bicycle. Conversely no attention was paid to this in much of the rest of the city, meaning that places like Kings Hedges that are great to ride around in are terrible to ride of to anywhere else. The result? You see plenty of kids riding to school within the estate, people riding or walking to the local shops or park, but the rate for commuting by bike is lower than in other parts of the city. 

And true to form Greater Cambridge ignored this. They ignored the simple means by which the same scheme could have been delivered cheaper, faster, with less disruption, with less ecological damage and with a better end result. Because that didn't fit the bill of spending enough money to secure the next tranche of government funding. And what we now have is a highly visible route that accomplishes next to nothing for those who live in Kings Hedges or indeed anyone else. 

Bus stop filled around one minute from every 10

In itself, it isn't bad. In parts. I mean if you ignore the fact that the two bus stops are used by a service that is due every 10 minutes, meaning that for about 10% of the time during the day its actively dangerous. And that there is no physical separation so that delivery vehicles are, all through most week days, blocking either the pavement or the cycle lane. But it doesn't take you anywhere. The primary school already had good provision, and the new cycle lane stops before you get to the part of the road thats most dangerous.

I would say that Greater Cambridges decision to build this white elephant of a scheme that will not increase the total uptake of cycling in the City but may in fact only get people out of the estate and on to the main road is deeply cynical, and that is clearly demonstrated by the fact that where you actually need protection the cycle route disappears. In theory you might turn right, head through the older estate and ride to town there, but of course if you're heading to the Beehive Centre or any of the shopping or employment locations on Newmarket Road the scheme is valueless. The truly terrifying part of Arbury Road has been left entirely untouched by this - no one who was dissuaded by the traffic on the North end of Arbury Road will be persuaded to brave the much worse traffic on the Southern half.

Cycle lane ends - at the worst possible place

Of course its possible that you might be heading North from Kings Hedges towards Orchard Park, or up on to the Guided Bus Route to go to the Science Park. Well, the latter is unlikely, as its the wrong direction and we've another more direct route (that could really do with an upgrade) if you work there. So you're presumably heading to the A14 bridge, going to Histon or Cottenham, or just up to the hotel on Orchard Park? Its an odd one but lets humour that idea. You ride up Arbury Road heading North and you see some good facilities - the new crossing, for example, is good... 

And then you end up at the end of Arbury Road, the junction with Kings Hedges Road. Where you're meant to do what, exactly? Well there's a shared use facility off to the Left there heading off up Kings Hedges Road. Its crap and gives way to the side roads without any sensible signage, of course. Or you can go straight across acres of hostile car dominated tarmac without any specific cycling provision at all. Its like someone vomited all the bad ideas they had on one junction, it has nothing to commend it. Or you could go right where there's a shared use route to cut the corner on to Kings Hedges Road which is, in that direction, lethally dangerous. I genuinely don't know what they have in mind that we should do here - are we just meant to disappear because there isn't a cycle route any more? Kings Hedges Road at this point has four hostile lanes for fast cars with motorists mentally preparing for or coming down from the 70mph high of the A14. They aren't looking for cyclists, few ever want to ride on or across it. 

End of Arbury Road. Well? Now what?

Robin old chap, you've done some good stuff with Camcycle. But if you think this scheme is good you've been suckered. Its a pointless scheme that won't get anyone new cycling, it'll just get some of the people who were already riding to ride on a slightly different route. It doesn't do enough to make whole journeys better, and by concentrating on the (relatively) good section of the road instead of the brutally hazardous end, this is merely a cynical way of digging holes to pour money into them. No one whose journey was bad has now got a good enough journey as a result of this cynical scheme. I lament that you've been taken in by this. You should know better.

Cambridgeshire Police - Don't Expect Them to Police Motorists

So this happened. I took this picture at about quarter past eight this morning.

You wouldn't get a pram down the side there, or any kind of walking aid. Frankly it would be hard to get down there with just a walking stick and anyone with any kind of visual impairment would be scuppered. It isn't OK to park like that - ideally they shouldn't be parked on the pavement at all, but if they really must then they need to leave enough space for people to safely get past. There are cars parked on the other side, but they're further on - here the police car could have been entirely on the road. It would take more care and time to park carefully behind another vehicle and on the pavement than to park on the road, so if this was any kind of emergency then parking like this is an approach that sucks.

I decided to call 101 and tell them, they told me maybe they're responding to an emergency, and I said yeah, clearly this wasn't how you'd park if there was an emergency, it would be much faster parking on the road. Then they put me through to whoever it needed to be and I queued, I waited, and got through to someone. They took the details down and said they're record it as a complaint against the Police. Which isn't right - I'm reporting a crime, I want it recorded as a crime, not a complaint. My reasoning was simple - if this was a plumbers van and I phoned the Police, it would be treated as an incident thats perhaps a crime, not as a complaint to the plumbing company. I don't think the Police necessarily have to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, but clearly they have to be held to the same standard. The officer said they'd put me through to someone else, the phone rang again, I went on hold, then it went dead.

I called back and basically had the same discussions again, which ended in the line going dead. Again. 

Long story short (too late, I know), they required that if I don't agree about this being a complaint against the Police rather than a report about a crime, then I need to raise a complaint about that. So I did, and was told they'd call me back about that. Thats four hours ago now. The line randomly went dead three times trying to get this done and multiple officers flat out refused to accept that this should be treated as a crime that needs investigating.

Bluntly all I'm asking for is for the Police to be treated exactly the same as anyone else. If they park a car blocking the pavement such that a visually impaired, physically disabled person or someone with a pram can't get past then thats out of line. Thats not a police complaint, its something that needs investigating and handling in exactly the same way as it would be if its anyone else.

The Police are not above the law. But in being the prime organisation jobbed with enforcing the law its very clear that they think they ARE above the law. I find that really very sinister - they think that the answer to this is to go and ask the officers in question for an excuse. That can't be right - can it?

Camcycle Local Election Survey (belated response) - Independent!

Sam Davies stood for election to Cambridge City Council as an independent recently, and did really well. With next years elections here being for all council seats, due to boundary changes, she's a very good chance of winning a seat next time round in Queen Ediths, so when she asked me to look through her responses to the Cambridge Cycling Campaign survey I was happy to do so.

I'm going to treat Sam the same as I've treated everyone else - with as much or as little bitchy sarcasm as I feel like. So, lets have a look at her responses...

Her experiences cycling here, those of her family, and fears for younger/older riders...

Where do I start? The adults in the family have been cycle commuters in the city for 30 years, plus enjoying cycle touring holidays in Europe, the USA, the Nullarbor Desert in Australia and the Sahara! Our children were on bikes early, for trips to school, fun days out and then racing - MTB, cyclocross, road and track, they tried them all. These experiences have given them a degree of independence and confidence which is fantastic to watch.

However, in terms of concerns about cycling with younger children, I have several: 
- the intermittent nature of infrastructure - for example, coming back to Queen Edith's from town there is a gap between the signalled crossing outside Highsett and the lane which starts after Station Road, and then another gap in the stretch leading up to the Brookgate crossing. That's pretty hairy when you're cycling with small children. 
- inadequate shared provision on high volume routes (eg Long Road, Brooklands Avenue). I lobbied the County Council in 2013 and got them to finance £155k of improvements to Long Road, but when you think that it provides the East-West access to Long Road Sixth Form College, CAST, the Biomedical Campus and Trumpington Community College, you quickly realise the quality is completely inadequate to the importance of the task it performs.
- the density of bikes. pedestrians and motorised vehicles competing for space in the city centre. Children are just not as aware of the possibility of pedestrians unexpectedly stepping off pavements or a car cutting in front of them at a crossing.

These and other factors can make it a bit of an ordeal when children are in the 'training' phase. It's worth persevering but it did involve quite a lot of nervous wear and tear on my part at times ...

Thats a really exhaustive answer and it touches on specific issues in her ward (Queen Ediths) and its all fair enough. I would only suggest that it all really comes down to one thing - infrastructure. Is there enough and is what there is good enough. Nothing at all to disagree with here - but maybe the answer to what the main problems are is just simpler than the candidate is putting her finger on.

Anyway, the next question - seeing as more people cycling is a good thing for all sorts of reasons, what would she do to get more people out on their bikes. And its another detailed answer:

I sometimes worry that we make the narrative around cycling rather too much focussed on the practical and the worthy (or worse still the hair-shirt) side of the equation, and not enough about enjoying yourself. Ever since I first joined CamCycle back in the 1990s, I've felt we've been missing a trick by not allying the organisation more closely with sports cycling groups. This is particularly true for young people - I honestly believe that if you can make cycling seem like a fun sport, then the bike handling skills, the heightened awareness of what's around them, and the willingness to just jump on a bike all pay dividends when it comes to the day-to-day stuff. And think about the galvanizing effect that bringing the Tour de France to Cambridge had. Bristol uses its annual 'car-free' event to host a morning of competitive races, followed by an afternoon mass-participation ride around the same route: https://www.bristol247.com/sport/cycling/looking-forward-day-cycling-car-free-streets/ We should be investigating these opportunities for cross-fertilisation more. Of course you need to then support this increased enthusiasm with the necessary infrastructure to provide a good experience for cyclists of all ages and abilities *and levels of experience*. Crucially you need to catch people as soon as they move to the city. We should encourage the estate agents who operate here to place much higher emphasis on cycling connectivity in their marketing materials, for example. We could also identify cycling 'champions' on new developments who could then help other new residents work out their best routes when they move in. There are lots of creative ways we could do this.

Lots to think about there, and I'll confess I'm rather taken aback by being made to actually think by reasoned, interesting views being put forward in response to this survey.

The only thing I'd really change there is I'd flip it around. We know from around the world that the only thing that leads to an increase in mass cycling is better infrastructure - thats the first message to get across, and I always worry when a candidate starts talking about soft measures to encourage before talking about infrastructure. I'm right behind the idea of car-free days and trying to inspire people with sport, but thats a supplementary measure. Heck, I can even get behind talking about cycling as a fun thing to do (not that you'd always know it from this blog).

On planing, I note that she gets that there's a problem here, and she supports what volunteers like the Cycling Campaign does. She supports having a full-time officer at the City Council, and rightly notes that much of the problem comes from the County. But whats missing here is a clear indication that she gets just how irrelevant a single or small number of councillors are when trying to block bad developments, and how dirty and unequal the fight between developers and councillors is. There's a need to level the playing field here by bringing public opinion to bear against bad developments such that we can get a structural change in how planning operates, and I don't know that she's up for that fight.

On cycle theft in general and at Cyclepoint in particular:

Security at Cyclepoint is a joke. I won't leave my bike there anymore. I can think of a couple of approaches (apologies if these have already been tried):

- City Council/Daniel Zeichner/CamCycle joint approach direct to the Police and Crime Commissioner, Jason Ablewhite
- adoption of cycle security at Cyclepoint as a policing priority mandated by councillors at Area Committee
- investigation of ways of tying security performance levels into the railway company's franchise agreement.

That covers most of it. Understanding that one of the key things that councillors can do is direct the Police to prioritise this via. the Area Committee is great. I haven't much to add to this - I'd suggest that understanding that a councillor badgering the Police on this subject carries more weight than us normal folk approaching them is the only thing missing.

There's a local question about pavement parking in Queen Ediths next, and again Sam hits most of the nails pretty hard. One thing perhaps missing is that there's already a bye-law in Cambridge where the City can put a ban on parking on grass verges merely by having a sign, and that this becomes a useful tool in conjunction with the other stated measures. I don't think she's missing much at all here though.

So all in all a very solid performance from Sam here - there isn't much missing, I would only question how much she's prioritising fully segregated cycle infrastructure over other measures. But this is a sound response - 9/10.

Camycle Local Election Survey - My Answers

Its only fair, after roasting local election candidates over their replies (some of which were great, some rubbish) that I should put my own views forward for criticism. Feel free to have a go at what I've said if you like.

Because when I open up the web page it goes straight to West Chesterton, I'll answer those questions. Enjoy.

What experience do you and your family have of cycling? Do you have any different concerns about younger or older family members cycling than you do for yourself?

Myself and my partner ride all the time, its our primary means of transport. Sometimes its for fun too - we're happy going on longer rides, thats normally on the faster road bikes, whereas commuting tends to be by chunky hybrid, and trips to the shops and the allotment are by the sturdy ex-posties bike with or without the trailer. Neither our families live here in Cambridge nor do any of them regularly ride - like most people, in most parts of the country, adverse road conditions put them off. And thats from childhood onwards - I don't blame my siblings from dissuading their kids from riding in places they live, which are all entirely car-centric and hostile to cycling.

But if I'm honest those concerns, while amplified for kids and the elderly (and those less able bodied), are the same for everyone and can be addressed the same way - safe infrastructure should be there for us all to ride on.

Camcycle believes that more people cycling has positive benefits for individuals' health and the city by reducing congestion and air-pollution. What is your vision to encourage more people of all ages and all abilities to cycle as a preferred mode of transport?

It isn't so much my own vision as it is the clear evidence of decades or research on transport choices - there's one game in town, and thats high quality, segregated infrastructure. I know people like to talk about educating cyclists, teaching drivers, good policing, places to lock bikes and in work showers but the impact of all of those measures combined pales into insignificance next to the provision of high class infrastructure.

So my vision is for all levels of local government in Cambridge (City, County, Mayoral and Greater Cambridge) to commit to installing said infrastructure at every opportunity. Our sister city, Cambridge in Massachusetts, has passed law requiring that cycle infrastructure be installed on every major road project. And thats the way we need to go - the provision of safe routes for whole journeys, not just where its easy to build. Restricting car access to the city centre is also a no-brainer - it should be a beautiful place but its choking with fumes, and that has to change.

People can quibble about that all they like - but there's no room for more cars, bus routes will always be slower and indirect and we're not getting any kind of underground Metro for decades. To free up road space, make our air cleaner and our city safer for everyone, dedicated cycle infrastructure is the only game in town. Anyone saying otherwise is demonstrably wrong.

Our volunteers spend a lot of time scrutinising planning applications for failures such as lack of secure cycle parking, poor access, failure to fund nearby improvements to make the roads safer, and so on. Many of these things get let through by officers and councillors in clear contravention of the Local Plan. The lack of a full-time cycling officer makes this situation even worse. What are your main concerns about the planning system, and how would you seek to make improvements?

I feel your pain.

The answer I think you want is that I'd push for a full-time cycle officer at the City Council. And yes, I would, and I'd make cost savings to employ one by trimming away some of the endless deadwood in middle management at City level. All too often the people that the Council employs to do work around the city are brilliant, but they're not enabled to do their jobs by managers who just get in the way. I have absolute confidence, from first hand experience, that plenty of savings can be made there to employ a full time cycling officer.

But thats only part of the problem - another part is that planning is ludicrously slanted in favour of developers and against councillors and residents. And with the best will in the world no one local authority can change that. What they CAN do however is use the media and activists such as yourselves far more effectively - while a depressingly dull planning meeting might not get the attention it needs, calling activists and the press in to hilight oncoming planning disasters is a weapon that few councillors seem willing to use. That has to change - if the law is stacked against sustainable transport in development then we must be willing to win in the court of public opinion first, and that eventually changes the system.

Cycle theft is a city-wide problem, and the greatest frustration is focussed on the Cyclepoint parking facility at the main Cambridge rail station. Official response to cycle theft at Cyclepoint has been subject to a breakdown of relationship between those in authority. When somebody tries to report their bike has been stolen they get a run-around between the railway company, the British Transport Police and the local police. What can the city council do to encourage the necessary co-operation between Greater Anglia and Cambridgeshire Constabulary?

Its easy to bottle out of this question by saying its not a councillor thing, its a police thing. But I won't do that. I've seen how it plays out when you report anything relating to crimes against cyclists in Cambridge - the cops want you to shut up and go away and they'll do whatever it takes (frustrating you by losing details, not taking reports, refusing to accept that dangerous driving can be a thing without a collision, etc.) to frustrate you. But then when you call in a councillor, or bellyache online and a councillor pushes it (as Oscar did once when I had footage of a dangerous driver in the city centre) then the Police take notice. Councillors don't have direct sway over policing priorities but their views carry way more weight with the police than the rest of us can manage. Bluntly, councillors in the city must collectively approach Cambridgeshire Constabulary and British Transport Police and tell them that we've had enough. We absolutely require that for each reported bike theft at Cyclepoint footage from CCTV is consulted and images circulated to catch the thief. And, likewise, across the city wherever there is camera footage it must be accessed.

Its hard to imagine the police being so blase about the theft of anything else - councillors at each local area committee must push the police to prioritise crimes against cyclists, including bike thefts, in every part of the city.

Protected junctions where walking and cycling traffic are fully separated from motorised traffic have been proposed by Cambridge Cycling Campaign for junctions being rebuilt by the Milton and Histon Road GCP projects. Which junctions do you think would benefit from similar safety improvements within the Cambridge area?

There was a recent discussion on Twitter about cycle junctions in Cambridge, and I think it was Al from Camcycle who asked whether there are any junctions in Cambridge designed well enough for cyclists. After some consideration the considered, all round response was 'no, not really'. This makes the answer 'well all of them' quite easy, but its (a) unhelpful and (b) glib. But starting with the developments on Milton Road, I'd take the simple approach of addressing each junction in the city in order of the number of cyclist injuries reported there. Lets not guess or blunder about - the data is available and is a simple, unambiguous guide to the action plan we need.

Ultimately no bike journey is better than its worst junction. The more junctions we fix, the better whole bike journeys will get.

 The eastern section of Arbury Road near Milton Road is narrow, filled with parked cars creating a cycle safety hazard, and speeding traffic far above the 20mph limit. How would you propose to create safe cycling conditions along this part of Arbury Road, for instance by extending the new cycle lanes?

To be honest I wouldn't have started the Arbury Road project without a plan to do the whole road. Its absurd that there's going to be a short stretch of reasonably decent cycle lane completely unconnected to anywhere else thats worth cycling - at one end there's the dogs dinner of the Arbury Road/Kings Hedges junction where we don't connect up with anything, and at the other the plan is for the route to disappear and we're apparently meant to ride all round the houses and keep out of the way of the car drivers on Arbury Road. Fuck that for a game of soldiers, its not going to encourage anyone to ride to work from, say, Orchard Park to the Beehive. We have to stop these delusional part-projects and stop planning officers patting themselves on the backs for shit like this, its just not on - the current facility being finished on Arbury Road represents a failure, not a success.

The South/East end of Arbury Road isn't even that hard to fix, I find it inexplicable that we didn't see a plan emerge before the work started at the other end of the road. I'd make it one way for driving, ban parking on one side, and install a fully segregated contaflow lane for cycling on the other side. If there is room I'd put fully segregated cycle lanes on both sides, if there isn't I'd install hard speed restrictions to tame motorists there (they treat it like a long, straight drag track right now)

And thats before we consider what should be done on Union Lane...

Camcycle Local Election Survey 2019 - The Purple Team

Not that UKIP have any hope here, at all. I mean even at their best they flopped here, but hey, this is a local election for local issues and I'm sure their demented requirement that a staunchly Remain city should give a shit about them is something we can overlook...

Except of the three candidates they've put up in the city none of them have responded. Not one. And thats a real shame from a comedy perspective because we've seen some right train crash responses in the past.

So in light of them not responding, and the known track record of folk like Berkinshaw, I'd like to award them a -50/10. Seems only fair.

Camcycle Local Election Survey 2019 - The Blue Team

Not a whelk in Hades chance in this ward, but fair is fair, lets find a couple of Tory candidates and treat them the same as we have the others.

In Kings Hedges there are two seats up, but the Tories have selected two candidates and arbitrarily I'm picking the epically named Eric Barrett-Payton. Just as well like, the other guy didn't answer yet.

His concerns cycling and for those who are more vulnerable?

Some family members have cycled and I was a very keen cyclist when I was younger, but not now, due to problems with joints. My main concern is the lack of safe places to park and lock a bike where ever we want to stop at our temporary destinations

Really? Thats your main concern? Not that councillors direct the Police to target children terrified to mix it with articulated lorries? Well I don't share your values then.

How would he get more people cycling because its leaner, greener, more economical?

 More places where it is possible to park a bike securely would help

Bit of a one trick pony, Eric? Like, did someone beat you to a Chelsea lock once and you've not recovered from the emotional trauma? Look, bike locking helps, but its not the be all and end all. Likewise his answer on planning is, well, not dismissive so much as not in any way invested in cycling as an issue. And his answer on cycle theft demonstrates that he doesn't understand the role of our elected police commissioner, the relationship between Cambridgeshire Constabulary and British Transport Police, the role of the provider of protected cycle parking, or that of councillors in setting policing priorities at an area level in Cambridge.

And on physical barriers to cycling? He's just wrong.

This is a tricky balance between the requirements of walkers and cyclists to have full access, but safely, without the risk of rogue motor cyclists using unsuitable routes. There is no excuse for not having full access for pedestrians, but it is more difficult to see how larger bikes can be accommodated and still deter motorbikes. Technical innovations might provide an answer in future, perhaps something like a low style that allows you to lift over a three wheeler, or other larger bike and trailer, which would be possible for them, but not heavier machines, although this is not an ideal solution, it might be some improvement in the present situation

I don't want to sound uncharitable but... Ok, lets be honest, I don't care if I come across as uncharitable, nor am I going to mask what I'm about to say by putting 'with respect' in front of it. Alex here is an idiot and basically wrong about most things. 0/10 for turning up and not being actively hostile to cycling - like I'm just glad I don't have to give you a negative score.

Now we've been mooching abut North Cambridge with all the responses so far and frankly I'm bored, so we'll go and look at what Manas Deb has to say in Queen Ediths.

His  experience of riding and concerns for more vulnerable riders?

I cycle with my little boy in weekdays for his school run and with family in weekends. My son has passed level 3 in cycling year before and we send him for cycling courses arranged by his school from time to time. Last year I have purchased an advanced multi gear cycle with a carrier for my son to use for his school journeys safely.Addenbrooke’s round about and Queen Edith’s Way round about is unsafe for cyclist and pedestrians due to the absence of zebra crossing and unfortunately elected Lib Dem Councillors are doing nothing to improve situation. Children should be taught about road safety at early age and I have made my child aware of few unsafe cycle paths and he cycles on his own using Queen Edith’s Way round about and Hills Road.

Oooh. A bit of politics. Well, yeah, that roundabout is crap. But (1) libdems aren't in power in the City, thats Labour which is what this election is for, so can do little there and (2)  the transport authority is the County, they're really best place to take action here, and thats Tory, thats your team. So yeah, I get your frustration and share it, but your political point scoring here backfires spectacularly when we analyze it.

On to what Manas would do to increase cycling:

Cycling is certainly a good exercise to keep one physically fit. Cycling increases cardiovascular fitness, improves joint mobility, decreases stress level and strengthens bones. Motorised transport is noisy, while its emissions reduce air quality and add to the greenhouse gases contributing to global warming. Cycling can also reduce congestion and the journey times of other road users, particularly in Cambridge City.
My vision to encourage more people of all ages and all abilities to cycle is to first Improve safety and perception of safety, providing infrastructure that encourages active transport, such as creation of direct or shorter routes for cyclists and pedestrians. Encouraging a culture of active transport, understanding that the barriers are different for different populations.

One of the things that New Labour learned from the Tories was that sometimes a simple message said simply is better than a more verbose one. Infrastructure, infrastructure and infrastructure. Just say it dude - everything else, the cycling culture, the respect that people get when they're no longer treated as an out group, it all follows from that. You're right to look at safety and subjective safety - thats done through infrastructure. You're right that this is a different threshold for different populations but all of them are addressed by infrastructure.

His answer on planning is enthusiastic and clear that he wants to make improvements, but perhaps a little thin on how he'd change things. Tough, nuanced question, and while Manas here has avoided an own goal here he hasn't cleared the ball away.

On to bike thefts...

Cambridgeshire has been hit by a wave of bike thefts. Police data shows a total of 4,296 bikes were recorded as stolen by police in 2017/18.That works out as an average of 12 every day. The figure is up by more than 500 from the 3,793 bikes stolen the previous year. It is the highest it has been since 2010/11, when there were 4,374 bike thefts.
Lib Dem Councillors have failed to raise this bike thefts issue with local police seriously. If elected as Councillor, I would work with City Council to introduce cycle marking initiatives and continue to deliver the message that people have to lock up their bike safely and take the time to security mark their bikes and register the details of their bike with Bike Register. I will also work closely with Police & Crime Commissioner to allocate additional police resources dedicated to reduce cycle thefts.

He doesn't like the Liberal Democrats, does he? I don't really go in for the squabbling between party candidates and I just wish they'd all just fucking grow out of it, but there you go, I'm an idealist. He's well informed as to what the problem is, but not really getting just how little resource is needed to make an enormous impact here - that the difference between looking at footage of cycle thefts on CCTV and not doing so is literally expending 5 minutes of time digitally chopping to the point of theft. Bike marking isn't the issue here, the Police giving this zero priority and actively making it hard to report crime to keep their numbers down, in a way that the Commissioner must surely be fully aware of, is the problem.

There's a Queen Ediths specific question on verge/bike lane/pavement parking next and while he's right in his desire to combat this he's missing out on a handy local bye-law that would stop parking on verges overnight. Right spirit here, needs a bit more information to get in and fix it.

So... Hard to grade this one. He's spot on in so many ways but seems to sacrifice making a good point to make a political one as often as not. 7/10 - some excellent moments, and he gets what the needs are, and he's someone campaigners can work with and, I do hope, influence favourably.

That gives us an inelegant 3.5/10 average for the Tories. Slightly more shit than Labour.