Cambridge Access Study · T 349260 ITD ITN 2 B P:\Birmingham\ITB\349260 Cambridge Access Study\1.4 Reporting\Access Audit Report\Cambridge Access Audit Report.docx 27 July 2015

$Page 1: Cambridge Access Study · T 349260 ITD ITN 2 B P:\Birmingham\ITB\349260 Cambridge Access Study\1.4 Reporting\Access Audit Report\Cambridge Access Audit Report.docx 27 July 2015$
Cambridge Access Study

Access Audit Report

July 2015

Cambridgeshire County Council


349260 ITD ITN 2 B

P:\Birmingham\ITB\349260 Cambridge Access Study\1.4 Reporting\Access Audit Report\Cambridge Access Audit Report.docx

27 July 2015


Access Audit Report


Access Audit Report

July 2015

Cambridgeshire County Council

Mott MacDonald, 35 Newhall Street, Birmingham, B3 3PU, United Kingdom

T +44 (0)121 234 1500 F +44 (0)121 200 3295 W www.mottmac.com


349260/ITD/ITN/2/B 27 July 2015 P:\Birmingham\ITB\349260 Cambridge Access Study\1.4 Reporting\Access Audit Report\Cambridge Access Audit Report.docx

Cambridge Access Study Access Audit Report

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

A 10 July 2015 Paul Parkhouse

Carl Beet

Paresh Shingadia

Draft issue

B 27 July 2015 Paul Parkhouse

Carl Beet

Paresh Shingadia

First issue following client comments

C 20 August 2015 Paul Parkhouse

Carl Beet

Paresh Shingadia

Second issue following stakeholder comments

Issue and revision record

Information class: Standard

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.




Chapter Title Page

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Study Background __________________________________________________________________ 1 1.2 Report Purpose and Approach _________________________________________________________ 2

2 Demand 3

2.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 3 2.2 Trip Generators ____________________________________________________________________ 3 2.3 Trip Attractors _____________________________________________________________________ 10 2.4 Overview ________________________________________________________________________ 17

3 Connectivity 19

3.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 19 3.2 Park & Ride Network _______________________________________________________________ 20 3.3 Bus Network ______________________________________________________________________ 22 3.4 Rail Network ______________________________________________________________________ 31 3.5 Cycle Network ____________________________________________________________________ 36 3.6 Pedestrian Network ________________________________________________________________ 38 3.7 Highway Network __________________________________________________________________ 40 3.8 Car Parking ______________________________________________________________________ 48 3.9 Coach Facilities ___________________________________________________________________ 52 3.10 Servicing, Loading, Access and Taxis __________________________________________________ 54 3.11 Smarter Choices ___________________________________________________________________ 56

4 Accessibility 61

4.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 61 4.2 Employment Zones_________________________________________________________________ 61 4.3 Public Transport Accessibility Analysis __________________________________________________ 63

5 Travel 68

5.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 68 5.2 Mode Share ______________________________________________________________________ 69 5.3 Modal Usage _____________________________________________________________________ 89

6 Performance 120

6.1 Introduction ______________________________________________________________________ 120 6.2 Park & Ride Network ______________________________________________________________ 121 6.3 Bus Network _____________________________________________________________________ 124 6.4 Rail Network _____________________________________________________________________ 130 6.5 Cycle Network ___________________________________________________________________ 130 6.6 Pedestrian Network _______________________________________________________________ 135 6.7 Highway Network _________________________________________________________________ 138

Contents



6.8 Car Parking _____________________________________________________________________ 150 6.9 Long Distance Bus ________________________________________________________________ 150 6.10 Tourist Coach ____________________________________________________________________ 150 6.11 Servicing, Loading, Access and Taxis _________________________________________________ 151 6.12 Public Realm ____________________________________________________________________ 151 6.13 Digital Infrastructure _______________________________________________________________ 159 6.14 Smarter Choices __________________________________________________________________ 164

7 Future 166

7.1 Introduction ______________________________________________________________________ 166 7.2 Population and Employment Projections _______________________________________________ 167 7.3 Land Use Developments ___________________________________________________________ 170 7.4 City Deal Transport Schemes ________________________________________________________ 174 7.5 Other Potential Transport Schemes ___________________________________________________ 177 7.6 Future Challenges ________________________________________________________________ 184

8 European Benchmarking 186

8.1 Introduction ______________________________________________________________________ 186 8.2 European Best Practice ____________________________________________________________ 186 8.3 Summary _______________________________________________________________________ 188

9 Access Audit Summary 189

Appendices 193

Appendix A. Accessibility Analysis Outputs _______________________________________________________ 194 Appendix B. Council Car Park Data _____________________________________________________________ 209 B.1 Grand Arcade Car Park ____________________________________________________________ 209 B.2 Grafton East Car Park _____________________________________________________________ 210 B.3 Grafton West Car Park _____________________________________________________________ 211 B.4 Queen Anne Terrace Car Park _______________________________________________________ 212 B.5 Park Street Car Park ______________________________________________________________ 213 Appendix C. Select Link Analysis Output _________________________________________________________ 214 Appendix D. Air Quality Monitoring Results _______________________________________________________ 225 D.1 AQAP Summary Table _____________________________________________________________ 225 D.2 Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions _________________________________________________________ 227 D.3 Particulate Matter Emissions ________________________________________________________ 230 D.4 Other Emissions __________________________________________________________________ 231 Appendix E. 2031 Land Use Proposals __________________________________________________________ 232



1

1.1 Study Background

Mott MacDonald has been commissioned by Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) to deliver the

Cambridge Access Strategy study.

The Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Local Plans 2014 set out the way CCC will guide development

to 2031. It is predicted that by 2031 an extra 33,000 new homes will be required in the Greater Cambridge

area, with 14,000 of these in Cambridge and the other 19,000 in South Cambridgeshire. The Local Plans

also set out how CCC will support the forecast growth of 22,100 net additional jobs in Cambridge by 2031,

and an additional 22,000 new jobs in surrounding South Cambridgeshire.

This forecast growth is positive for the city region’s economic prospects, but only if it can be supported by a

transport system which is able to sustainably and effectively accommodate the increased demands which

will be placed on it. The Local Plan aspirations are therefore supported by an updated Local Transport

Plan (LTP3) which sets out both a short and longer term strategy for enhancing the transport system

across the County. This strategy is outlined in more detail for Cambridge in the Transport Strategy for

Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, which sets out a long list of potential schemes to support predicted

growth in and around the city.

In addition to this outline strategy, the Council and their partners have now secured City Deal funding to

deliver the strategy. This will provide £100m of funding until 2020, with a further £400m to be released

subject to specific growth targets being met. The City Deal represents a significant step change in funding

and a once in a generation opportunity to significantly enhance Cambridgeshire’s transport network,

underpinning further long-term sustainable economic growth.

The schemes to be delivered within this first tranche of funding have already been identified and are

presently being developed in more detail. The remainder of the schemes to be implemented by following

funding tranches is now required to be assessed and identified, while the integration of any future

proposals with the first tranche of schemes will be crucial to the successful delivery of an efficient,

sustainable and successful transport system for the Greater Cambridge area.

This requirement therefore forms the basis of the Cambridge Access Study. As stated in the study brief,

the goal of the study is to:

“recommend transformative improvements and interventions to considerably improve access, capacity,

interoperability and movement to and within the city with general vehicular traffic levels in the city to be

reduced below current levels.”

1 Introduction



2

1.2 Report Purpose and Approach

In order to develop and propose solutions to meet this study brief, it is necessary to understand how the

transport network for Cambridge operates and performs, both now and in the context of future growth.

The purpose of this report is therefore to present an Access Audit for Cambridge so that the main strengths

and opportunities of the network are identified, as well as the main threats and opportunities facing it.

In order to develop this understanding across all aspects of the system which affect the end user, the

following intuitive approach to investigation has been adopted:

1. Demand: Where do people want to travel from and to?

2. Connectivity: What are the connectivity options between trip-ends?

3. Accessibility: What level of accessibility does the public transport network provide?

4. Travel: How do people actually travel?

5. Performance: How do people’s travel choices impact the network?

6. Future: How will these impacts be affected by future demand and supply changes?

7. Benchmarking: How does Cambridge’s transport offer compare to other similar cities in Europe?

The remainder of the report is structured accordingly and concludes with a summary section which

identifies the main themes and recommendations emerging from the above form of investigation. Further

supporting material is attached in appendices.



3

2.1 Introduction

The demand for trips is generated by the need for travel between different land uses. The purpose of this

section is therefore to consider the existing distribution of land uses in and around Cambridge in order to

better understand where people and goods need to travel from and to.

2.2 Trip Generators

2.2.1 Population Growth

Most trips or trip chains are generated from a place of residence.

The following chart shows how, between 2001 and 2013, the population of Cambridge has grown by about

16,500 people, from a population of about 110,000 to 126,500. This equates to a growth of 15% or an

average growth rate of about 1,375 people, or 1.25%, per year.

2 Demand

Key messages from this section:

Cambridge’s population and economy are growing

– Between 2001 and 2013, the city’s population grew at an average rate of 1,375 people, or

1.25%, per year

– Between 2009 and 2013, the city’s economy grew at average rate of 2,010 new jobs, or 2.4%,

per year

Cambridge is a net attractor of commuting trips

– There are about 71% (c.35k) more jobs in Cambridge than there are working residents

– Over two thirds of the city’s employed residents work within Cambridge

– Just under two thirds of the city’s employees travel in from outside Cambridge; a third from

beyond South Cambridgeshire

– There are therefore over three times more people that travel into Cambridge to work than travel

out of Cambridge to work

– Overall, two thirds of commuting trips in Cambridge start or finish outside of Cambridge

But it’s not just about commuting

– Though commuting trips represent a significant proportion of peak hour demand, around two

thirds of this demand is comprised of a variety of other trip purposes, and especially education

And it’s also not just about the city centre

– Most trip attracting land use clusters are located in the city centre area, but are also found on

the fringes at Histon, the Science Park and the Biomedical Campus



4

Figure 2.1: Population of Cambridge, 2001 to 2013

Source: ONS mid-year estimates, 2001 to 2013

2.2.2 Residential Distribution

The following two figures show residential areas in Cambridge in terms of the distribution of:

1. Economically active population (ie, not in full-time education, domestic carer, long term sick or retired)

2. Car ownership

These figures show:

Most of the residential areas of Cambridge are in the half of the city on the north eastern side of the

A1307 (Huntingdon Road / Hills Road) axis, with the south western half being occupied primarily by

University land uses.

The lowest levels of economically active population are seen in the city centre, where the proportion of

full-time students is high. Higher levels are seen elsewhere and particularly on the fringes of the city.

Similarly, car ownership levels are lowest in the centre and highest towards the edge and in outlying

villages. This is likely both a reflection of average income levels and accessibility to alternative modes

of transport.

100,000

105,000

110,000

115,000

120,000

125,000

130,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Po

pu

lati

on



5

Figure 2.2: Distribution of economically active population in Cambridge

Source: 2011 Census



6

Figure 2.3: Distribution of car ownership levels in Cambridge

Source: 2011 Census



7

2.2.3 Residents’ Commuting Destinations

Based on 2011 Census travel-to-work data, Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6 below show the distribution of

commute destinations for Cambridge residents.

On a regional scale, this shows that residents of Cambridge commute mainly to areas within and close to

Cambridge, but also further afield to outlying towns such as Peterborough, Kings Lynn and Norwich, and

further still to central London.

On a local scale, the city centre area, Addenbrooke’s and the Science Park area stand out as primary

commute destinations for Cambridge residents.

The following chart summarises the distribution of commuting destinations for Cambridge residents. This

confirms that:

About two-thirds of Cambridge residents work in Cambridge

The remaining third is evenly split between South Cambridgeshire and the rest of UK

Figure 2.4: Distribution of commuting destinations for Cambridge residents

Source: 2011 Census

68%

16%

16%

Cambridge

South Cambridgeshire

Rest of UK



8

Figure 2.5: Regional distribution of Cambridge residents’ commute destination

Source: 2011 Census

(Persons per MSOA)



9

Figure 2.6: Local distribution of Cambridge residents’ commute destination

Source: 2011 Census



10

2.3 Trip Attractors

2.3.1 Attractor Types

As part of the 2007/8 Cambridgeshire TIF study, household interview surveys were undertaken across the

county. The household distribution in the survey was constrained to reflect the population within and

outside Cambridge.

For all Cambridgeshire respondents, the following chart shows the distribution of purposes for trips which

use the Cambridge transport network at some point. Results for all trips and just for peak hour trips are

shown.

Figure 2.7: Trip purpose distribution of Cambridgeshire trips which start, end or pass through Cambridge

Source: 2007/8 Cambridgeshire TIF Study

This chart shows that:

Though commuting trips account for nearly a quarter of all trips, other purposes, such as shopping and

health, also generate significant numbers of trips in Cambridgeshire

In the peak hour, the proportion of work-related trips increases to about 40%, but education related

trips also increase to account for over 25%

The following chart presents the same type of information but from the latest National Travel Survey. This

data is therefore an average of all weekday trip types across the country.

23%

40%

8%

19%

3%

7%

31%

14%

30%

17%

5% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All day Peak hour trips

GP

Health

Shopping

School

University/College

Work



11

Figure 2.8: Trip purpose by time of day – all weekday trips, national

Source: National Travel Survey 2013

The above chart includes more trip purposes than the TIF survey, but still shows a similar pattern of work

and education related trips occupying a significant proportion of peak hour demand. Nonetheless, nearly

40% of peak hour trips are for other purposes also.

2.3.2 Attractor Distribution

Bearing in mind the above range of attractors which generate trips in peak hours, the following plan shows

the distribution of trip attracting land uses in Cambridge (based on 2015 Addressbase data). Clusters have

also been grouped into zones to allow later analysis (see Section 4).

This figure shows:

The main city centre office and retail core is largely defined by the triangle formed by the railway to the

east, the A1307 axis to the west, and the A1303 Newmarket Road axis to the north, with the rail

station, Sidney Street shopping area and Cambridge Retail Park defining the three corners. This

triangle lies partly within and partly outside the radial centre of the city, potentially resulting in an

uneven strain on the radial network.

There is a further city centre office and retail concentration north along the A1307 and east-west along

Victoria Road and Chesterton Road

The main outlying clusters of office uses are at the Cambridge Science Park, the Cambridge

Biomedical Campus and Vision Park in Histon

As noted above, the main university land uses are found on the south western side of the city centre

and surrounding areas

The main industrial clusters are found at the Science Park and in Milton, on the Newmarket Road

approach to the city centre, around the rail station and in Cherry Hinton

18%27%

4%

3%9%

18%

7%

13%

18%

8%20%

17%

18%

10%

7% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All day Peak hours

Holiday / Day trip / Other

Visiting friends / entertainment /sport

Other work, other escort andpersonal business

Shopping

Escort education

Education

Business

Commuting



12

Figure 2.9: Distribution of trip attracting land uses

Source: Addressbase 2015



13

2.3.3 Employment Growth

The following chart shows job levels in Cambridge between 2009 and 2013, based on the Business

Register & Employment Survey 2013.

Figure 2.10: Cambridge jobs and population growth, 2009 to 2013

Source: Business Register & Employment Survey 2013

This chart shows that, between the years shown, the number of jobs in Cambridge grew by 8,200 jobs, or

9.5%. This represents an average growth rate of 2,020 new jobs per year, or 2.4%.

The following chart shows how this growth was distributed across the different economic sectors.

Figure 2.11: Change in number of jobs by economic sector in Cambridge, 2009 to 2013

Source: Business Register & Employment Survey 2013

80,000

82,000

84,000

86,000

88,000

90,000

92,000

94,000

96,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

No

Jo

bs

0% 0%

-13%

-37%

14%

0% 2%

-6%

40%

20%15%

7%

20%16%

-10%

8%13%

-7%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Job

s C

han

ge 2

00

9-2

01

3



14

This chart shows growth over a number of sectors, with growth in the accommodation and food services, ie

hospitality sector, being significantly strong. The information and communications sector and the

professional, scientific and technical sectors also show strong growth. The greatest shrinkage, however, is

seen in the construction sector.

2.3.4 Employee Commuting Origins

Based on 2011 Census travel-to-work data, Figure 2.13 and Figure 2.14 below show the distribution of

commute origins for employees working in Cambridge.

On a regional scale, this shows that Cambridge’s in-commuting catchment is wider and denser than its out-

commuting catchment shown above. It attracts commuting trips from around the region up to

Peterborough, King’s Lynn, Norwich, Ipswich, St Albans and Bedford. However, unlike the out-commuting

catchment, Cambridge attracts few trips from London.

On a local scale, the city centre area, Addenbrooke’s, the Newmarket Road trading estates, Girton Road /

Wellbrook Way and the Science Park area and stand out as primary commute destinations in Cambridge.

The following chart summarises the distribution of commuting origins for Cambridge employees. This

shows that only 40% of employees in Cambridge also live in Cambridge: nearly a third commute in from

South Cambridgeshire, with the remaining third travelling in from beyond.

Figure 2.12: Distribution of commuting origins for Cambridge employees

Source: 2011 Census

40%

27%

33%

Cambridge


Rest of UK



15

Figure 2.13: Regional distribution of Cambridge employees’ commute origins

Source: 2011 Census

(Persons per MSOA)



16

Figure 2.14: Local distribution of Cambridge employees’ commute origins

Source: 2011 Census



17

2.4 Overview

The above data shows Cambridge has experienced significant growth in recent years, both in terms of

resident population and local jobs. The following chart summarises this growth in terms of indexed change

between 2009 and 2013.

Figure 2.15: Indexed growth in Cambridge population and jobs, 2009 to 2013

Source: ONS mid-year estimates (population) and Business Register & Employment Survey 2013 (jobs)

This shows that the growth in jobs in Cambridge has kept pace with, and narrowly exceeded, the

equivalent growth in population over the same period.

The above data, however, shows that there are more jobs in Cambridge than economically active

residents. This is summarised in the following chart, which combines the above two pie charts, and

compares the level and distribution of commuting destinations for Cambridge residents and commuting

origins for Cambridge employees.


There are about 71% (c.35k) more jobs in Cambridge than there are working residents

Over two thirds of the city’s employed residents work within Cambridge

Just under two thirds of the city’s employees travel in from outside Cambridge; a third from beyond


There are therefore over three times more people that travel into Cambridge to work than travel out of

Cambridge to work

94

96

98

100

102

104

106

108

110

112

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

An

nu

al C

han

ge In

de

x (2

00

9=1

00

)

Jobs

Population



18

Figure 2.16: Workplace and homeplace distribution of Cambridge residents and employees respectively

Source: 2011 Census travel-to-work data

Cambridge is therefore a growing city which serves a significant role in the wider region as a place to live,

learn and work. This means that a significant proportion of the commute trips which take place in the city

either start or finish outside of the city, as shown in the following pie chart.

Figure 2.17: Distribution commuting trip types in Cambridge according to trip end location

Source: 2011 Census

This shows that a full two thirds of commuting trips in the city start or finish outside the city. This factor

therefore has implications as to how traveller mode choice can be influenced.

Workplace of People Living inCambridge

Homeplace of People Working inCambridge

Rest of UK 7,790 27,873

South Cambridgeshire 8,272 23,367

Cambridge 33,704 33,704

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

Nu

mb

er

of

Pe

op

le

Internal trips, 33,704 , 33%

External trips, 67,302 , 67%

28%

40%

33%

68%

17%

16%



19

3.1 Introduction

The previous section reviewed the land use distribution in and around Cambridge which generates trips to,

from and within the city. The purpose of this section is to review the various transport networks currently

available that present options for how these trips can take place.

3 Connectivity


There is a good range of connectivity options for trips within Cambridge

– The local bus network serves all areas of the city, with high frequency services on most radial

routes and lower frequencies on more minor roads

– There is an extensive and well used cycle network comprising a range of cycle lane types,

crossings and parking facilities

– Due to its size, layout and environment, Cambridge is a highly walkable city, offering frequent

controlled crossing points, pedestrianised streets, urban parks and wayfinding signage

– The city is well connected to neighbouring trunk roads by a number of radial routes, but vehicle

access to the city centre historic core is restricted

There is also a good range of connectivity options for travelling to and from Cambridge

– Cambridge sits adjacent to the crossroads of the north-south A1(M)/M11 route and the east-

west A14 route, so is well connected to the national highway network

– In order to convert inter-urban car trips into intra-urban bus trips, there are five Park & Ride

sites which intercept most main routes towards the city and provide a frequent bus service into

the city centre

– Cambridge also offers a widespread inter-urban local bus network, including the unique Busway

route to St Ives, though frequencies on many of the conventional bus routes can be low. Cycling

is also permitted on the busway, thereby encouraging inter-urban cycle trips

– Cambridge is served by regular rail services which connect it directly to both local surrounding

towns and to London, and also to the East Coast Mainline for longer distance national services.

The station is south of the city centre core area which presents interchange challenges, but is

reasonably well connected by bus, taxi, cycle routes and pedestrian routes

There are also measures in place to encourage effective use of the networks

– Park & Ride is priced competitively against city centre parking to discourage private vehicle trips

into the city centre, though this advantage was reduced last year with the introduction of a £1

parking charge

– Bus lanes serve many of the highest frequency bus corridors; signalised bus priority operates

for the Busway; and a significant number of city bus stops are equipped with Real Time

Passenger Information facilities

– A network of Variable Message Signs and Car Park Guidance signs allows the highway

authority to influence traffic movements based on current conditions

– A range of Smarter Choices initiatives also exist to influence pre-trip travel choices



20

3.2 Park & Ride Network

As shown in the previous section, many trips that end in Cambridge originate beyond its borders. There is

therefore a bus-based Park & Ride network operating from the fringes of the city in order to encourage

onward travel into the city by bus. The current network is shown in Figure 3.1 below, including existing bus

lanes and which bus stops are equipped with Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) facilities. This

figure shows how the five existing sites pick up the main approach routes to the city.

The following table summarises parking and service details for each Park & Ride route shown in the below

figure.

Table 3.1: Cambridge Park & Ride parking and service details

Park & Ride site Car spaces Bicycle spaces Service times Service frequency

Babraham Road 1458 250 Mon-Sat, 07:06-20:20

Sun, 09:00-18:15

Mon-Sat, 10 mins

Sun, 15 mins

Madingley Road 930 40 Mon-Sat, 07:00-20:18

Sun, 09:00-18:00

Mon-Sat, 10 mins

Sun, 15 mins

Milton 792 50 Mon-Sat, 06:21-20:01

Sun, 09:00-17:45

Mon-Sat, 10 mins

Sun, 15 mins

Newmarket Road 873 60 Mon-Sat, 07:00-20:05

Sun, 08:53-18:08

Mon-Sat, 10 mins

Sun, 15 mins

Trumpington 1340 250 Mon-Fri, 07:00-20:10

Sat, 08:00-20:10

Sun, 09:00-17:45

Mon-Fri, 10 mins

Sat, 10 mins

Sun, 15 mins

At all car parks, car parking costs £1 for up to 18 hours and the return bus fare to the city centre costs

£2.70. The bus services are run by Stagecoach and the car parks managed by CCC.



21

Figure 3.1: Cambridge bus-based Park & Ride network

Source: CCC



22

3.3 Bus Network

3.3.1 Bus Services

Cambridge is served by a local Citibus network and a longer range inter-urban bus network, which includes

the guided busway service.

Figure 3.2 below shows the Citibus network and how it connects most areas of the city. The guided

busway network is unique to Cambridge in the UK. This network and its associated infrastructure is shown

below in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5 below show, at the local and inter-urban scale respectively, the extents and

weekday AM peak hour frequency per direction of all bus routes in and around Cambridge. This shows:

The highest frequency routes in Cambridge are:

– Madingley Road

– Milton Road

– Newmarket Road

– Hills Road

– East Road

– Chesterton

Service frequency in Cambridge is more limited:

– Off the main radial routes

– On the west (university) side of the city

– On orbital routes, including much of the inner ring road

Higher frequency services also connect the outlying areas of:

– Cambourne

– Swavesey/Longstanton/St Ives

– Cottenham

– Fulbourn

– Haverhill

– Sawston

With respect to the positioning of bus lanes, Figure 3.4 shows that:

Bus lanes are located mostly on the highest frequency sections of the network, except for the bus lane

on Elizabeth Way

High frequency sections without bus lanes are found on Madingley Road, Castle Street / Chesterton

Road, Trumpington Road and Hills Road

In summary, bus services are comprehensive within the city and its immediate environs. However,

connections to other centres are less well provided for and some of the rural communities have infrequent

services.

How these services relate to actual travel time catchments is considered in Section 4 below.



23

Figure 3.2: Cambridge Citibus network

Source: Stagecoach



24

Figure 3.3: Cambridge guided busway network

Source: CCC



25

Figure 3.4: Frequency of bus routes serving Cambridge – local network

Source: TRACC



26

Figure 3.5: Frequency of bus routes serving Cambridge – inter-urban network

Source: TRACC



27

3.3.2 Bus Station

A wide range of services is accommodated in the central area. Drummer Street bus station maintains its

role as the central hub for many services, but is very constrained in size and so a number of nearby stops

provide space for other services. The distribution of stops is as follows:

Drummer Street bus station – inter-urban services of various service frequency, including the Busway

B, C and D services

The Busway A stops in Regent Street

Stagecoach Citi services focus on Emmanuel Street close to the bus station, although C4 stops around

the corner in Drummer Street

Some Stagecoach Citi services also serve a stop in the central restricted area at Christ’s College

(Hobson Street)

Park and Ride routes use different stops – Red Bus 77 in Drummer Street, Blue Bus 88 in Downing

Street and Green Bus 99 in Emmanuel Street and Drummer Street

X5 and other coach services use the Parkside stops

St Andrew’s Street provides an access point to some services that have other central stops

Essentially, shorter distance services serve a number of on-street stops in or close to the centre, while

longer distance services terminate at the bus station or Parkside.

3.3.3 Bus Operators

Stagecoach in Cambridge (the trading name of Cambus Holdings Limited, a subsidiary of the Stagecoach

Group) provides the majority of services. The main depot is in Cambridge at Cowley Road together with a

number of other locations where buses are parked overnight including Ely (where some vehicle

maintenance is undertaken), Haverhill, St Ives, Longstowe, Royston and Newmarket. Stagecoach in the

Fens, another Stagecoach Group company, operates from Huntingdon, Fenstanton, St Neots, Ely and

March. Stagecoach in Cambridge operates approximately 150 vehicles and Stagecoach in the Fens

operates approximately 130 vehicles.

Another prominent operator is Go Whippet (also known as Whippet Coaches), a subsidiary of Australia-

based Transit Holdings, is based in Swavesey. Whippet has a fleet of over 50 vehicles. Both Stagecoach

and Whippet operate services on The Busway.

3.3.4 Payments and Ticketing

Each operator maintains its own pricing structure and ticketing arrangements. However, some multi-

operator ticketing is available in the form of MultiBus, a ticket that enables cross-county travel and costs £8

per day or £33 a week. MultiBus tickets are only available on services and cannot be pre-purchased. While

Stagecoach and Whippet are included in the MultiBus initiative, these tickets are not valid on The Busway.

Other products available include the Stagecoach Dayrider costing £4.10, which can be used on Park and

Ride and Stagecoach Citi routes within the Dayrider zone. A weekly equivalent is sold as Megarider at £14.

The Dayrider Plus, costing £6.40, allows travel throughout Cambridgeshire all day on Stagecoach services;

Megarider Plus costs £24.50 for seven days within the same Dayrider/Megarider zone which covers a wide

area bounded by Peterborough, March, Ely, Soham Bury St Edmunds, Haverhill, Saffron Walden, Royston



28

and St Neots. Megarider Xtra and Megarider Plus Xtra offer discounts for recurring monthly payments

based on smart cards.

Go Whippet tickets include an All Zones Day Rover including all Whippet services across the county (adult

£5.50) and the City Plus Day Rover for the city and Bar Hill plus Longstanton, Hardwick and Caldecote

(adult £4.00), City and Bar Hill Day Rover (adult £2.60). Other options include family tickets One + Two for

either one adult and two children or three children on Whippet services across Cambridgeshire (£6.50) and

an All Zones Group Rover for up to five people (no more than four adults) priced at £11.00. Another

product is the Adult 10 Trip which allows ten single journeys between the same two points with a saving of

33% against standard fares.

3.3.5 Vehicles

The bus fleet appears to be meeting current requirements for accessibility (low floor/step free). In addition,

improvements in engine specifications have reduced emissions. Where new services have been

introduced, high specification buses have been employed; notably on The Busway.

3.3.6 Digital Infrastructure

3.3.6.1 Bus Priority at Signalised Junctions

Bus priority ‘hurry call’ technology is currently in operation at five signalised junctions on Busway junctions

only.

Bus Priority on the Busway route is local operation which works from the bus to the signal controller at the

roadside via low band radio. The junctions are:

Kings Hedges Road/Iceni Way

Kings Hedges Road/Chariot Way

Kings Hedges Road/Chieftain Way

Kings Hedges Road/Graham Road

Busway/Milton Road

A map showing the locations of the Busway bus priority junctions is shown in Figure 3.6.



29

Figure 3.6: Busway bus priority junctions

Source: Mott MacDonald

3.3.6.2 Real Time Passenger Information

CCC provides live bus departure information at bus stops for local bus services in Cambridgeshire. There

are 304 bus shelters and flag poles equipped with LED display units to allow RTPI information to be

displayed for bus services. Bus shelter displays see a 3-line LED (see Figure 3.7) unit, whilst Flag Poles

see a 6-line LED display (Figure 3.8) being used. The location of RTPI stops is shown in Figure 3.9 below.

Figure 3.7: 3-Line LED Display Figure 3.8: 6-Line Bus Stop Flag Pole Display



30

Figure 3.9: RTPI equipped bus stop locations

Source: CCC



31

3.4 Rail Network

3.4.1 Rail Services

A plan of the local rail network serving Cambridge is shown in Figure 3.10 below.

Cambridge station has benefitted from the addition of new platforms, overcoming problems of the unusual

layout, and a range of services operates. These include fast and stopping services to London Kings Cross

and London Liverpool Street which are major connections between Cambridge and London. An array of

local stations is served, with longer distance services also being available, such as on the East Coast Main

Line via a change at Peterborough or Stevenage Route closures in the 1960s reduced the travel options

available by rail, but bus services now cover most of the places served previously.

Train services from Cambridge include:

Shelford, Whittlesford Parkway, Great Chesterford, Audley End, Newport, Elsenham and stations to

London Liverpool Street (Abellio Greater Anglia);

Foxton, Shepreth, Meldreth, Royston, Ashwell & Morden, Baldock, Letchworth Garden City, Hitchin

and stations to London Kings Cross (Great Northern);

Stansted Airport (Arriva Cross Country);

Waterbeach, Ely, Littleport, Downham Market, Watlington, King’s Lynn (Great Northern and Abellio

Greater Anglia);

Ely, March, Whittlesea, Peterborough for onward connections (Abellio Greater Anglia; Arriva Cross

Country);

Ely and stations to Norwich (Abellio Greater Anglia); and

Dullingham, Newmarket, Kennett, Bury St Edmunds and stations to Ipswich (Abellio Greater Anglia).

This is summarised in Figure 3.11 below, which is an extract from the Third Cambridgeshire LTP.



32

Figure 3.10: Local rail network in Cambridge

Source: CCC



33

Figure 3.11: Cambridgeshire rail services schematic

Source: Third Cambridgeshire LTP



34

3.4.2 Station Connectivity

3.4.2.1 By Bus

The nearest bus stops to Cambridge rail station are located along Station Road adjacent to the station’s

main entrance. Cambridge’s main bus station is located 1.7 km from the rail station at Drummer Street. A

number of bus routes serving Station Road connect to the bus interchange in the city centre. As a result,

Cambridge city centre is easily accessible by regular bus services from the rail station

The following table details all bus service which are located within a 400 metre radius of Cambridge Rail

station.

Table 3.2: Bus Services within 400m of Cambridge rail station

Service number Route

Nearest stop

Frequency Road Distance from the Rail Station

The busway A Chatteris/Ramsey/Somesham - St Ives P&R - Longstanton - Cambridge - Addenbrookes - Trumpington P&R

Station Road – Bus Stop 9 (inbound) and Bus Stop 1 (outbound)

100 metres

Approx. 1 minutes

Every 15 minutes during the day.

The busway C Rail Station - Central Cambridge - Longstanton - St Ives


100 metres Approx. 1 minutes

Hourly

13/13A Cambridge - Linton - Haverhill (Kedington)



2 Services Daily

99 Milton Park and Ride - Babraham Park and Ride



Every 10 minutes during the day

Citi 1 Arbury City Centre rail

station

Addenbrooke’s Cherry

Hinton Fulbourn


100 metres Approx. 1 minute


Citi 3 Fison Road/Whitehill Estate

City Centre

rail station Cherry

Hinton/Fulbourn




Citi 7 Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Sawston

Duxford/Saffron Walden

Station Road – Bus Stop 6 (inbound) and Stop 3 (outbound)



Citi 8 Cottenham • Histon • City Centre • Addenbrooke’s

Station Road – Bus Stand 7 ) and Bus Stop 3 (outbound)



Source: Cambridgeshire County Council

This table shows that eight bus services are available within 100 metres of the Cambridge Rail Station. Of

these services, six terminate / originate at Emmanuel Street in the city centre. A number of locations are

well served by high frequency bus routes from the station. These include Addenbrooke’s, Cherry Hinton

and Fulbourn.



35

The bus shelters along Station Road are all covered, modern, well lit and RTPI equipped.

3.4.2.2 By Cycle

There are a number of cycle parking facilities available at Cambridge rail station. However, it is noted that

at the time of writing a large scale redevelopment is taking place at the station on the site of the previous

cycle parking facility. As a result, cycle parking has been moved to a temporary location. Cycle storage

capacity at the temporary facility has been increased from 896 to 1,300 spaces, though is located further

from the station. At present, the station does not provide lockers for cyclists, nor is the available cycle

storage sheltered.

Once the original cycle storage site has been redeveloped as part of CB1 development, a state of the art

cycle park will be provided within the development and will provide storage for up to 3,000 bicycles. The

new cycle storage facility will be secure, covered and monitored by security. The cycle storage will be multi

storied to maximise space and will be accessible by stairs and ramps to push up bicycles. It is envisaged

that a bike repair centre and shower/changing facilities will be located within the cycle park. The facility will

be the biggest of its kind in the UK once operational.

Cycle access to and from the station can be achieved:

Along the busway from the south and west

Along Station Road from the north

Across the shared pedestrian/cycle bridge and through the station car park from the east

The busway approach is largely traffic free, except for buses. Cyclists from the south on Hills Road cannot

access it directly, but must first pass over it and then pass via Warren Close, which is mainly traffic free.

Access from the pedestrian/cycle bridge is signed through the station car park and access road. There are

no cycle facilities along this route and parking cars can present a hazard for cyclists. However, traffic

movements and speeds in this area are relatively low.

Along Station Road, there is a section of advisory cycle lane in the eastbound direction for part of its

length, but no provision elsewhere. In addition, there is on-street parking on one side for much of its length

which introduces potential conflicts with cyclists and reduces the remaining carriageway width to a level

that can be uncomfortable for cyclists and two-way traffic. Cycling provision along this main link to the

station is therefore relatively poor.

3.4.2.3 On Foot

Cambridge Rail Station is readily accessible for pedestrians. The station is located approximately 1.7 km

(20 minute walk) from Cambridge city centre. The main access route to the city centre from the rail station

is via Station Road, Hills Road (A1307) and Regent Street.

The footways along Station Road are wide and well lit, though the surface of the footways is uneven in

places. Furthermore, there is limited way-finding pedestrian signage in place outside the station along

Station Road. Due to the large-scale redevelopment of the area as part of the CB1 master plan,

construction traffic and scaffolding is currently impacting on pedestrian accessibility along Station Road,

but it is expected that the pedestrian environment will be enhanced overall once the development is

completed.



36

The junction of Station Road and Hills Road (A1307) features a pelican crossing facility. The footways

along Hills Road and Regent Street are generally wide, well lit and in a good state of repair. Dropped kerbs

are in place along the majority of this route which maximises accessibility for those with visibility

disabilities.

3.4.2.4 By Taxi

There is currently a taxi rank outside the station entrance.

3.5 Cycle Network

Cambridge benefits from being a compact and relatively flat city which naturally encourages people to

travel by bicycle. Students are generally prohibited from owning cars and therefore cycling is a particularly

popular mode of travel amongst university staff and students.

Cambridge has a well-developed and extensive cycle route network, as shown in Figure 3.14 below. The

existing network consists of a mixture of on-road, off-road, shared-use and segregated cycle routes. For

example, along sections of the main radial routes including Histon Road, Hills Road and Milton Road, on-

street mandatory cycle lanes are provided. Through the green spaces in the city, including Parkers Piece,

Coldhams Common and Jesus Green, cycling is permitted and access is available at all times of day.

Several one-way streets in the city also permit contra-flow cycling. The existing cycle network therefore

results in a highly permeable city where cycling is usually the quickest mode of travel through the city.

Figure 3.12: Advance stop line Figure 3.13: Contra flow cycle lane

Source: MM2015 Source: MM 2015

The below figure also shows existing cycle parking locations in the city. This consists in most cases of

Sheffield stand and high/low stand type parking, but there are also secure parking at locations such as the

Grand Arcade and Park Street car parks.



37

Figure 3.14: Cambridge cycle network

Source: Openstreetmap & CCC data



38

3.6 Pedestrian Network

With Cambridge being a compact, historic and attractive city, walking forms an important mode of travel for

short city centre trips. Walking is also an important mode of travel for school children, students, commuters

and shoppers within the city.

Figure 3.16 below shows key pedestrian infrastructure in and around the city centre. This shows the large

number of pedestrian crossings on key routes in and around the centre. Most crossing points are

signalised.

There is also a network of pedestrian signage in the city centre, varying between finger post signs and

totem information boards.

Figure 3.15: Example of totem style information board in Cambridge

Source: MM 2015



39

Figure 3.16: Cambridge city centre pedestrian facilities

Source: Openstreetmap & CCC data



40

3.7 Highway Network

3.7.1 Connectivity

Cambridge is well connected within the national and regional strategic network, as shown below in

Figure 3.17. The city centre is connected to this network by a number of radial routes, as shown in

Figure 3.18, with speed limits as shown in Figure 3.19.

Use and performance of this network is reviewed in Sections 5.3.6 and 6.7 below.



41

Figure 3.17: Cambridge within the national strategic network

Source: Openstreetmap



42

Figure 3.18: Cambridge local highway network




43

Figure 3.19: Cambridge highway speed limits for classified roads




44

3.7.2 Digital Infrastructure

The primary source for asset data is the Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC) Common

Database (CDB) provided by Cloud Amber. This collates data from a number of external systems to

provide a central point of reference. It also enables strategies to be run which can influence the

management of traffic.

The CDB holds data for the following assets:

Traffic Signals

Pedestrian Crossings

Bus Priority Junctions

Variable Message Signs

Traffic Detectors (SCOOT)

Car Parks – including Park and Ride sites

Data for other assets is distributed across other data sources such as spreadsheets and proprietary

databases. Additional assets which are not recorded in the UTMC CDB are:

Close Circuit Television (CCTV)

Rising Bollards

Automatic Vehicle Counters

Automatic Cycle Counters

Environmental Monitoring

Bus Stop Locations which are RTPI specific

The current ‘Traffic Management’ team consists of seven members of staff where varying tasks are

assigned according to the employee’s role, the key roles being:

Traffic Manager and IHMC and Events Manager

– Overall management of the Traffic Management team roles listed below

RTPI Delivery Manager

– Management of the delivery for all aspects of RTPI for Cambridgeshire, managing the delivery of

RTPI from Vix

Technical and Liaison officers (x4)

– Management of ITS projects, real time network monitoring and response; including internal and

external liaison for planned and unplanned ‘events for Cambridgeshire

Events Liaison Office

– Manages the Events process, including TTRO’s and community liaison

Figure 3.20 shows a high-level view of the current architecture of systems for Cambridgeshire, clearly

showing which systems are integrated and those which are standalone.



45

Figure 3.20: Cambridgeshire technology architecture

Fixed VMS

Car Park Guidance VMS

PRISM VMS(for Rising Bollards)

Traffic Signals


Manual Environmental Sites

Automatic Environmental Sites

Vix AVL for RTPI

Automatic Vehicle Counters

Cycle Counters

UTMC

SCOOT Loops

Car Park Occupancy

CCTV

Future link for Journey Time Analysis

BlueTooth Journey Time Data

Cambridgeshire Systems linked to UTMC

Cambridgeshire Standalone Systems

Additional Car Parks – incl. On-street

3rd Party Systems

Highways EnglandTIH Data

ELGINRoadworks and

Diversions


Traffic signals and pedestrian crossings are ultimately monitored by the Siemens Urban Traffic Control

(UTC) system at CCC. The UTMC CDB has the functionality to communicate to the UTC and influence the

control of the traffic signals and pedestrian crossings. However, this function is not known to be widely

used.

The breakdown of the types of traffic signals and types of pedestrian crossings are shown Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Traffic Signal and pedestrian crossings in Cambridgeshire

Type Quantity

Junction 120


Pelican 111

Puffin 68

Toucan 50

Source: Cloud Amber UTMC

Within Cambridgeshire, CCC also has a total of 58 Fixed Variable Message Signs (VMS) distributed

throughout the County. CCC has three types of fixed VMS units: Free-Text, Car Park Guidance and

Rotating PRISM. There are 27 Free-Text LED, 19 Car Park Guidance LED and 12 Rotating PRISM signs.

The free text LED signs (example shown in Figure 3.21) have the ability to display information that can

direct or re-route drivers of vehicles to less congested parts of the City. The UTMC CDB has the

functionality to run strategies depending on data contained within the CDB. For example, should there be

congestion on Huntingdon Road inbound close to the city centre, a message can automatically be sent to

the free-text VMS on Huntingdon Road advising people to divert, thus reducing further congestion. The

rotating PRISM signs are dedicated to the operation of the rising bollards.



46

The Car Park Guidance (CPG) VMS (see Figure 3.22) units have the functionality to display available

capacity at each car park displayed on the sign, as well as free text messages depending on the location.

Figure 3.21: Free-Text LED VMS Figure 3.22: CPG with Free-Text functionality

Source: CCC Source: CCC

There are currently also 3 mobile Variable Message Signs utilised by CCC. They have the configuration of

4 lines by 16 characters and are free-text.

These mobile VMS are used for major and unforeseen events to support traffic management purposes and

are utilised to inform the traveling public of upcoming / current events, road restrictions and closures. They

are powered by renewable energy sources with messages being set either locally or remotely.

The deployment locations of the VMS are very much dependant on the size of the scheme, with the

planned major maintenance schemes taking priority along with unforeseen events.

The map shown in Figure 3.20 shows the location of all traffic signals and free text and car park guidance

fixed VMS units in Cambridge.



47

Figure 3.23: VMS signs and traffic signals in Cambridge




48

3.8 Car Parking

3.8.1 Off-Street

There are a range of publicly available off-street car parks in Cambridge, as shown in Figure 3.24 below.

Table 3.4 shows that these vary between:

City Council owned multi-storey and surface car parks (mostly paid)

Privately owned public car parks (mostly paid)

Privately owned customer only car parks (free, but mostly time limited)

For the City Council car parks, Figure 3.24 below also shows average hourly tariff data.

Table 3.4: Main public access car parks in Cambridge

Type Structure Payment Name Spaces

Council owned public car park Multi-storey Pay-on-foot Grand Arcade 944

Council owned public car park Multi-storey Pay-on-foot Grafton West 284

Council owned public car park Multi-storey Pay-on-foot Grafton East 876

Council owned public car park Multi-storey Pay-on-foot Park Street 392

Council owned public car park Multi-storey Pay-on-foot Queen Anne Terrace 570

Council owned public car park Surface Pay and display Adam and Eve Street 38

Council owned public car park Surface Pay and display Castle Hill 112

Council owned public car park Surface Pay and display Gwydir Street 50

Council owned public car park Surface Pay and display Riverside 11

Council owned public car park Surface Free Lammas Land 100

Privately owned public car park Multi-storey Pay-on-foot Addenbrooke's Hospital (NCP) 1050

Privately owned public car park Multi-storey Pay-on-foot Addenbrooke's Hospital (APCOA) 2700

Privately owned public car park Multi-storey Pay-on-foot Addenbrooke's Hospital (Vinci) 1228

Privately owned public car park Multi-storey Pay on exit Cambridge Leisure Park 600

Privately owned public car park Surface Pay and display NCP's Cambridge Station 372

Privately owned public car park Surface Free Nuffield Health Cambridge Hospital 50

Privately owned customers only Surface Free (3 hr max) Beehive Centre (Parking Eye Ltd) 794

Privately owned customers only Surface Free (3 hr max) Retail Park (B&Q) 235

Privately owned customers only Surface Free (3 hr max) Retail Park (PC World) 241

Privately owned customers only Surface Free (3 hr max) Retail Park (Tesco) 472

Privately owned customers only Surface Free Sainsbury's 458

Privately owned customers only Surface Free Tesco (Fulbourn) 400

Privately owned customers only Surface Free Tesco (Milton) 500

Privately owned customers only Surface Free Waitrose 300

This information shows that:

Most city centre off-street car parking capacity is operated by the City Council, while the customer only

car parks for the retail parks are operated privately

The average hourly tariff rate for city centre Council parking ranges from £1.00 to £2.36



49

Figure 3.24: Off-street car parks in Cambridge

Source: CCC and Park-o-pedia



50

3.8.2 On-Street

Within and around the city centre core area, on-street parking and loading is controlled by Traffic

Regulation Orders. Figure 3.25 below shows data extracted from the Council’s Parkmap database and

shows:

Pay & Display parking bays (pink – Predominantly Mon-Sat, 9am-5pm or 8.30am-6.30pm)

Resident permit holder only bays (yellow – Predominantly Mon-Sat or Sun, 9am to 5pm)

Designated free parking bays (blue)

Where parking is not shown as permitted in the city centre area, 24 hour no waiting restrictions are most

commonly in force.

This figure shows that parking in residential areas in and around the city centre area is prioritised for

residents’ parking during core hours. Pay & Display parking is limited within the core area but available in

streets around it.

Parking enforcement is decriminalised in Cambridge and undertaken by Cambridgeshire County Council

under Civil Parking Enforcement powers.



51

Figure 3.25: On-street parking in Cambridge city centre

Source: CCC Parkmap



52

3.9 Coach Facilities

3.9.1 Long Distance Bus

The majority of national long distance bus services operate from Parkside, whilst there are also drop-off

points on Trumpington Road and Chesterton Road. Parkside is located approximately 400 metres

(5 minutes walk) south of Drummer Street bus station and the bus interchanges located along Emmanuel

Street / St Andrew Street. The following table provides an overview of the long distance bus services which

operate from here.

Table 3.5: Bus Services from Parkside

Service number Route Operator Frequency

010 Cambridge to London National Express 16 Service Daily

727 Norwich, Cambridge to London Airports and Brighton

National Express 17 Service Daily (Approx. 1 per hour)

787 Cambridge , Luton Airport, Heathrow Airport

National Express 25 Service Daily (Approx. 1 per hour)

N/A Cambridge – Birmingham Megabus 2 Services Daily

N/A Cambridge – Bristol Megabus 1 Service Daily

N/A Cambridge – Bristol UWE – Cardiff Megabus 1 Service Daily

N/A Cambridge – Norwich – Great Yarmouth Megabus 1 Service Daily

X5 Cambridge – Oxford Stagecoach 20 Services Daily

Source: Cambridgeshire County Council

Cycle parking is available in the form of Sheffield stands along Parkside directly opposite the bus shelters.

In addition, a large supply of cycle parking is available outside the police station.

Parkside is located adjacent to a number of cycle advisory routes, the nearest of which runs through

Parker’s Piece. These cycle routes consist of off-road shared-surface routes.

Footways along Parkside are clean, wide and well lit. Parkside is accessible on foot from the city centre via

Parker Street. The footways along Parker Street are made narrow by excess street furniture and they are

overhung by trees/vegetation in places.

Overall, the bus services along Parkside are accessible on foot and by bicycle. However, Parker Street has

the poorest environment for those walking/cycling to Parkside from the city centre.

3.9.2 Tourist Coach

For tourist coaches visiting the city, Figure 3.26 below shows that provision is made on Queen’s Road for

drop off and pick up (10 mins limited waiting, no return within 1 hour), with eight coach spaces being

provided at Madingley Park & Ride site at a rate of £10 per day.



53

Figure 3.26: Cambridge tourist coach drop-off / pick-up and parking facilities

Source: CCC



54

3.10 Servicing, Loading, Access and Taxis

Figure 3.27 below shows the current city centre network characteristics in Cambridge, including:

Primary road network (in yellow)

The Core Traffic Scheme’s rising bollard locations

The central bus station

Off-street parking locations

Taxi rank locations

Pedestrianised streets (except for authorised vehicles)

One-way streets

Weight restrictions

Vehicular access to the central area is strictly controlled by the Core Traffic Scheme and has been

successful in significantly reducing traffic flows in the centre and securing priority for pedestrians and

cyclists.



55

Figure 3.27: Cambridge city centre access restrictions

Source: CCC



56

3.11 Smarter Choices

3.11.1 Cambridge Smarter Choices

The Smarter Choices strategy aims to provide alternative sustainable travel options to private car use, with

a wide range of Smarter Choices travel initiatives included in Cambridge’s Local Transport Plan (LTP). In

Cambridge, this is focused on Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire by:

Promoting different travel options in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire

Raising awareness of the positive impacts of travel by sustainable modes.

Smarter Choices is focused on key transport corridors through South Cambridgeshire into Cambridge. The

seven main corridors between the city and the neighbouring ring of towns are shown in the following figure:

Figure 3.28: The Transport Corridor programme areas

Source: Transport Strategy for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire (April 2014)



57

In South Cambridgeshire, the dispersed nature of the population means that car use is unavoidable for

many. The approach to Smarter Choices measures is to support the use of public transport services for

more trips into Cambridge, as well as encouraging more people to walk, cycle and car share.

3.11.2 CCC’s Local Sustainable Transport Fund Programme (LSTF)

Cambridgeshire County Council has been awarded Local Sustainable Transport Funding (LSTF) since

2011. For the period 2014 – 2015 up to 31st March 2015, the measures for the programme have included:

Utilising the established Travel for Cambridgeshire Partnership (TfC) (formerly Travel for Work) to

support workplace travel plans.

Installation of electric vehicle charging points at Busway Park & Ride sites as well as at key

employment sites.

3.11.2.1 Travel for Cambridgeshire

Travel for Cambridgeshire (TfC) was originally established in 1997 as a not-for-profit partnership, formally

‘Travel for Work’ (TfW). This scheme has been incorporated as part of the LSTF programme to support

employers in Cambridgeshire and to promote sustainable and healthy travel to work with TfC initiatives

having previously included the following:

Walk to Work week

Gold Card for Govia Thameslink rail commuters using the Travel for Cambridgeshire discount

Cambridgeshire Cycle Challenge 2014

Availability of grant funding

Cycle to Work Day

Road Safety questionnaire

TfC Grants for financing travel events and a separate grant to finance infrastructure improvements to

facilitate sustainable travel options for employer sites

Travel Planning Workshop

As part of the first round of LSTF 2012-15, TfC targets commuter journeys from settlements in two key

economic corridors (A10 and A14) as shown in Figure 3.29 including:

Huntingdon to Cambridge

Ely to Cambridge



58

Figure 3.29: Locations of TfC Corridors

Source: Cambridgeshire, Travel for Work Partnership, Annual Progress Report, April 2012 – March 2013

Measures to support the development and implementation of workplace travel plans across the two

corridors have included:

Adult Cycle Training

Bicycle user groups

Electric bike loan service

Personal journey planning

Postcode mapping of employees

Promotion of car sharing (CamShare)

Promotional activities and road shows providing targeted and specific information about travel options

TfW discounts at bike shops

TfW discounts on train tickets

Travel challenges, such as ‘Cycle Challenges’

In addition, CamShare is a free website that has been set up as a car sharing information tool to enable

people to find potential partners (drivers or passengers) to car share in and around Cambridgeshire. It is a

joint initiative between Cambridgeshire County Council and the Travel for Cambridgeshire Partnership to

facilitate finding suitable car share matches for employers and their staff; the service is also available to

members of the public. CamShare also operates BikeBUDi, a tool which can be used to connect

experienced cyclists and to provide information on the best cycle routes.



59

3.11.2.2 Electric Vehicle Charging Points

In 2014, as part of TfC, commuters and businesses in the Cambridge Science Park were given the

opportunity to see and test drive the latest electric vehicles at the Travel Plan Plus (TP+) electric vehicle

event. The event involved local car dealerships bringing the latest electric vehicles, providing commuters

with the opportunity to learn more about electric vehicles.

3.11.3 Cambridgeshire LSTF Going Forward

Cambridgeshire secured £1 million of LSTF revenue funding for the period 2015/16. The programme

started on 1st April 2015, and builds upon LSTF and Better Bus Area Fund programmes, with the aim to

mainstream the LSTF approach across Cambridgeshire. This period of funding is extending the coverage

of LSTF initiatives into two additional areas:

Cambridge down the A10 towards the Hertfordshire border

Cambridge to St Neots

Funding will support businesses in these areas to raise awareness of sustainable transport options.

However, there is no further grant funding available in this period for businesses; instead support will

include:

Providing support for businesses to develop workplace travel plans

Annual travel to work survey to assess changes in staff commuting habits

Discounts on rail travel for all staff

Discounts at cycle shops

Assistance with running events to promote sustainable transport

Post code mapping of staff home locations (chargeable)

Access to the TfC Newsletter

The promotion of CamShare car sharing scheme

Expertise and advice on how to promote alternative modes of transport

For this round of funding, membership fees are being introduced for TfC. Membership is free but it enabled

the funding to be managed more efficiently.

3.11.4 Wider Smarter Choices Initiatives

3.11.4.1 Safer Routes to School Project

The Safer Routes to School Project supports the reduction of car use for schools and encourage active

travel by walking and cycling through a combination of educational and infrastructure improvements.

Performance indicators show that there has been a 20% modal shift from car usage for transport to school

as a result of Bike It.

3.11.4.2 Smart Travel Cambridgeshire

Cambridgeshire County Council has ambitious targets to ensure that the area has some of the highest

coverage of fibre-based broadband in the country by the end of 2015. Greater connectivity will enable

more people to work from home which would reduce congestion and support accommodating housing and

economic growth in the area.



60

Moreover, Cambridgeshire County Council’s Personal Travel Planning project ‘SmartTravel

Cambridgeshire’ helps people to compare various modes of transport when planning their journey, and

provides real time information (RTI) to inform travellers for well-planned journeys to minimise delays. As

part of this, significant investment has been made in real time passenger information for public transport,

followed by the development of a live traffic webpage. These initiatives continue to be significant in

promoting sustainable travel and support customer needs and a shift towards a more digital approach.

Variable Messaging Signs (VMS) and Twitter inform the user to make informed decisions about their

journey which helps the network to run more efficiently.

In addition, a SmartTravel Cambridgeshire journey planner is available online which can be used to

navigate public transport, walking, cycling and car journeys in the area.

3.11.4.3 MyBusTrip

CCC currently have only one smartphone app available which enables access to real time information

about bus services around Cambridge and throughout the County of Cambridgeshire. ‘MyBusTrip’ is

published by Vix and is available on Android (Google Play) and the iOS (iTunes App Store). There is no

support for Blackberry or Windows Mobile. Example screen shots taken from App are shown in

Figure 3.30.

Figure 3.30: MyBusTrip – App screen shots

Source: Google Play



61

4.1 Introduction

The purpose of this section is to assess how the public transport connectivity reviewed in the previous

section results in accessibility to the main employment zones in Cambridge.

4.2 Employment Zones

Figure 2.9 above shows trip attracting land uses in Cambridge and a number of zones which capture

prominent employment clusters. These zones are presented and labelled in Figure 4.1 below.

4 Accessibility


Just over half (52%) of employees for the city’s main employment areas live within 45 minutes of

their workplace by public transport

– This proportion reduces to 36% for those living within 30 minutes and 14% within 15 minutes

Employee accessibility by public transport is generally highest for sites nearest to the centre and

lowest for sites nearer to the city periphery

– The City Centre employment area returns the highest employee accessibility proportion at 65%,

whereas the Newmarket Road east (Airport) site returns the lowest at 28%

– This pattern is not followed by the Biomedical Campus, however, which returns an employee

accessibility proportion of 54% despite its peripheral location

Employee accessibility by public transport is above the all-site average for the two sites with the

greatest employee catchment (City Centre and Biomedical Campus) but 3rd

lowest for the 3rd

largest site (Science Park / Northern Fringe East)

– The proportion of employees who live within 45 minutes by public transport of the Science Park

/ Northern Fringe East employment site is 39%

Nearby outlying villages where Cambridge employees are least served by public transport are

Willingham, Cottenham, north Waterbeach, Sawston and Cambourne



62

Figure 4.1: Trip attracting employment zones in Cambridge

Source: MM



63

4.3 Public Transport Accessibility Analysis

TRACC software has been used to generate weekday AM peak-hour public transport isochrones for each

of the above employment zones. Isochrones have been generated from a single representative point within

each zone based on the following specification:

Travel time-bands are: 15, 30 and 45 minutes

Travel time is door-to-door

Included modes are bus and rail

Unlimited interchanges are permitted but with a 7.5 minute time penalty to discourage unrealistic

interchange behaviour

It is noted that deriving isochrones from a single point will result in the accessibility of some parts of each

zone being under or over represented. However, points have been chosen to represent the ‘centre of

gravity’ of the main trip attracting land uses within each zone.

The results for each zone are attached in Appendix A. These plans show:

Selected representative point for each zone (shown as a blue cross)

Public transport isochrones bands up to 45 minutes

Employment zone employee origin distribution catchment, derived from 2011 Census data

These plans therefore show the level of public transport availability to the employees of each zone. The

results are summarised in the following two charts, which show public transport coverage for each zone in

both absolute and proportional terms. The latter data is also presented spatially on XX below. These show:

Overall, the employee catchment proportion which falls within 45 minutes travel time of each site by

public transport is 52% on average.

Zone C (City Centre) attracts the greatest number of employees and also has the highest public

transport catchment overlap at 65%

Zones M (Biomedical Campus) and K (Science Park / Northern Fringe East) attract the second and

third greatest numbers of employees and are located on the edges of the city. Zone M’s employee

public transport coverage is above average at 54%, but Zone K’s coverage rate is the third lowest at

39%.

Zone N (Newmarket Road east - Airport) shows the lowest public transport coverage of its employee

catchment at 28%.



64

Figure 4.2: Employee catchment coverage by AM peak public transport travel time isochrones – absolute values

Figure 4.3: Employee catchment distribution by AM peak public transport travel time – proportional values

Source: TRACC and 2011 Census

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

N

M

L

K

J

I

H

G

F

E

D

C

B

A

No Employees

Emp

loym

en

t Zo

ne

15 mins

30 mins

45 mins

Beyond

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All

N

M

L

K

J

I

H

G

F

E

D

C

B

A

Proportion of Employee Catchment

Emp

loym

en

t Zo

ne

15 mins

30 mins

45 mins

Beyond



65

Figure 4.4: Employee catchment coverage by AM peak public transport travel time isochrones




66

Based on the above figures and the isochrone plans in Appendix A, the following table records

observations for each site.

Table 4.1: Employment zone public transport accessibility observations

Zone ID

Zone Location Total No Employees

% Employees within 45 mins by PT

Observations

A Cattle Market 2,163 56% Office, retail and industrial uses

Good PT coverage of main employee clusters, except for Hardwick and Cambourne to the west

B Hills Road / CB1 6,858 54% Office, retail and university uses

4th largest employee catchment

Most employee clusters within the city fall within 30 minutes travel time

Main outlying cluster areas covered within 45 minutes travel time, except for Cambourne, Willingham and parts of Cottenham and Waterbeach

C City Centre 15,396 65% Office, retail and university uses

Largest employee catchment and highest public transport coverage rate

Most employee clusters within and around the city fall within 30 minutes travel time

Main outlying cluster areas covered within 45 minutes travel time, except for Over, Willingham, Sawston and part of Waterbeach

D West Cambridge 1,695 47% University and office uses


Outlying clusters in Histon and Longstanton not covered

E Shire Park 2,441 44% Office and retail uses

Most employee clusters within the city fall within 30 minutes travel time, and most remaining clusters covered by 45 minute isochrone

F Mitcham’s Corner 1,384 55% Office and retail uses

3rd smallest employee catchment


G Grafton 3,880 55% Office and retail uses


Most outlying areas fall within 45 minute isochrone, except at Over, Willingham and parts of Waterbeach

H Mill Road West 1,098 64% Office, retail and industrial uses

2nd smallest employee catchment


I Mill Road East 744 47% Office, retail and industrial uses

Smallest employee catchment

Most employee clusters fall within 45 minute travel time



67

Zone ID

Zone Location Total No Employees

% Employees within 45 mins by PT

Observations

J Newmarket Road west (Coral Park / Beehive)

3,214 50% Office, retail and industrial uses

Most employee clusters within the city fall within 30 minutes travel time, except Trumpington and north parts of city

Most outlying clusters fall outside 45 minute isochrone

K Science Park / Northern Fringe East

12,299 39% Office and industrial uses

3rd largest employee catchment but 3rd lowest public transport coverage rate

Significant clusters fall outside 45 minute isochrone, such as Cherry Hinton, Trumpington, Girton, all outlying areas to east, south and west, Willingham and parts of Cottenham

L Histon 2,402 37% Office and retail uses

2nd lowest public transport coverage rate

Little to no public transport accessibility from east, south and west of the city, and from Willingham

M Biomedical Campus

12,976 54% Health, office, retail and university uses

2nd largest employee catchment

Poor accessibility from Newmarket Road east

No accessibility from outlying areas to the north and west of the city

N Newmarket Road east (Airport)

2,987 28% Office, retail and industrial uses

Lowest public transport coverage rate

Poor public transport accessibility from south east areas of city

Little to no public transport accessibility from outlying areas on south, west and north sides of city



68

5.1 Introduction

In the context of the above travel demand, connectivity and accessibility analysis, the purpose of this

section is to explore how people and goods actually travel in Cambridge.

5 Travel


Working from home has increased in Cambridge by about 52% between 2001 and 2011

Park & Ride use is significant but patronage has fallen since parking charge introduced

– Nearly 300,000 passengers carried in April 2014, but about 225,000 in April 2015

– Car parks currently used to between about 30% and 60% capacity

The bus mode share is low but with some evidence of slow growth

– Bus commuting mode share of 7%-8% in 2011, but grown from about 6% in 2001

– Higher commuting mode share for trips to and from South Cambridgeshire (10%-11%) than for

trips solely within Cambridge (8%)

Rail’s mode share is also low but steadily growing

– Commuting mode share of 4%-5%, but up from 3.6% in 2001

– Rail mode share for Cambridge residents commuting out beyond South Cambridgeshire is 31%,

and 12% for the opposite direction

Cycle use in Cambridge is high and growing

– A third of all working Cambridge residents cycle to work, but this rises to 43% of those whose

workplace is also in Cambridge. 21% also cycle to workplaces in South Cambridgeshire

– Cycle commuting mode share increased 4.2% between 2001 and 2011. For all trips entering

city centre core area, cycle mode share increased about 12% between 2004 and 2014

Walking mode share is significant but static

– Nearly a quarter of Cambridge residents who work in Cambridge walk to work. This result is

similar in both the 2001 and 2011 Census.

The car mode share of those commuting into or out of Cambridge is two to three times higher than

those who both live and work in Cambridge

– 84% of all commuting car trips in Cambridge start or finish outside the city

Car traffic levels have dropped entering the city centre and remained steady around it, but have

grown on the radial routes. LGV traffic has increased in all areas

– Between 2004 and 2014, car flows dropped 12% into the city centre and 2% around it, but

increased about 13% on the radial routes

– Over the same period, LGV traffic has increased by 9% into centre and by up to 63% on radials

Weekday AM peak traffic levels drop about 13% in school holidays, but only about 3% in PM peak

City centre Council car parks used near to capacity on weekends and in December, but only part

utilised on weekdays



69

5.2 Mode Share

5.2.1 Census Travel to Work

5.2.1.1 Cambridge Residents

Based on 2011 Census data, the following chart shows the average travel-to-work (main) mode distribution

of all trips originating within Cambridge (left column). This result is then broken down to show average

mode shares for those commuting from Cambridge to:

Cambridge


Rest of UK

For reference, the actual numbers of people commuting from Cambridge to each of these destination

areas is presented above in Figure 2.16.

Figure 5.1: Travel-to-work mode shares for all trips originating within Cambridge

Source: 2011 Census TTW data

This chart shows:

Active modes comprise half the overall share of work trips originating from Cambridge. However, the

distance breakdown results show that these modes actually represent about two thirds of the trips

which also destinate within Cambridge. The share for these modes then progressively drops the further

out of the city the workplace is.

The bus has a higher mode share for trips to South Cambridgeshire than for trips wholly within

Cambridge. Given the high level of active mode use in the city, this could suggest that the bus is seen

as more attractive for medium distance trips. It is noted that the Busway has opened since the 2011

17%23%

6% 4%

33%

43%

21%

5%

7%

8%

10%

4%

5%

0%

1%

31%

37%

26%

63%57%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Cambridge to AllAreas

Cambridge toCambridge

Cambridge toSouth Cams

Cambridge toRest of UK

Mo

de

Sh

are Car, Taxi, M'cycle, Other

Rail

Bus

Bicycle

On Foot



70

Census, so use of this mode for medium distance commuting trips is likely to have increased since

then.

Nearly all rail use is for destinations beyond South Cambridgeshire. A high proportion are likely to be

for trips to London.

The highest car mode share is for commuting trips to South Cambridgeshire.

The following four figures provide further insight on the above mode share distributions for Cambridge

residents by showing the distribution of workplace destinations by cycle, bus, rail and car. These show

that:

The cycling catchment shows that most trips by this mode are concentrated on destinations in

Cambridge or on its fringes, such as towards the Science Park and Milton, but it also shows evidence

of some longer distance cycle commuting and particularly to the south.

The bus catchment is the most compact of the three vehicle mode catchments, reflecting the relatively

local service coverage of this mode. However, the catchment broadly reflects the higher frequency

service routes shown in Figure 3.5 above, with demand being served to Cambourne, Duxford and

along the busway to St Ives.

The rail catchment is determined by the location of stations, and is concentrated on Ely, stations in

South Cams, Stansted and London, with the latter showing the greatest concentration of rail users.

The car catchment shows the greatest spread and is most similar to the overall distribution shown in

Figure 2.4 above.



71

Figure 5.2: Workplace destination distribution of Cambridge residents commuting by cycle

Source: 2011 CensusTTW data



72

Figure 5.3: Workplace destination distribution of Cambridge residents commuting by bus




73

Figure 5.4: Workplace destination distribution of Cambridge residents commuting by rail




74

Figure 5.5: Workplace destination distribution of Cambridge residents commuting by car




75

5.2.1.2 Cambridge Employees

Based on 2011 Census data, the following chart shows the average travel-to-work (main) mode share of all

trips destinating within Cambridge (left column). This result is then broken down to show average mode

shares for those commuting to Cambridge from:

Rest of UK


Cambridge

For reference and as for the above equivalent chart, the actual numbers of people commuting from

Cambridge to each of these destination areas is presented above in Figure 2.16.

Figure 5.6: Travel-to-work mode shares for all trips destinating within Cambridge


This chart shows:

The car mode share of commuters travelling into Cambridge from outside the city is significant, at a

value of between 71% and 77%. This is about three times greater than the car mode share of

commuters who start their journey within Cambridge.

Again, nearly all rail commute trips into Cambridge originate from beyond South Cambridgeshire, while

the bus mode share is highest for trips originating from South Cambridgeshire.

The active mode share of trips originating from within Cambridge is high at about two-thirds, but the

overall result for all in-commuting to Cambridge is dominated by the high proportion of commuters

travelling by car from outside the city.

These results highlight the key importance of Park & Ride interchanges for converting in-commuting car

trips to bus trips for the onward leg into the city centre.

10%2% 2%

23%

22%

2%

14%

43%

8%

7%

11%

8%

4%

12%

2%

0%55%

77%71%

26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Areas toCambridge

Rest of UK toCambridge

South Cams toCambridge

Cambridge toCambridge

Mo

de

Sh

are Car, Taxi, M'cycle, Other

Rail

Bus

Bicycle

On Foot



76

The following four figures provide further insight on the above mode share distributions for Cambridge

employees by showing the distribution of residential origins by cycle, bus, rail and car. These show that:

The cycle catchment shows the greatest concentration of trips originating from within Cambridge, as

would be expected, but also from areas around the city up to a radius of about 10 miles.

The bus catchment for in-commuting is broader and more comprehensive than for out-commuting,

perhaps reflecting the service coverage shown Figure 3.5 above.

The rail catchment for in-commuting is also more comprehensive than for out-commuting, with stations

along all rail routes to the north and south used for a distance of up to about 40 miles. Noticeably,

however, there is no evidence of in-commuting from London by rail.

As for the out-commuting results above, the car catchment for in-commuting shows the greatest spread

and is most similar to the overall distribution shown in Figure 2.13 above.



77

Figure 5.7: Residential origin distribution of Cambridge employees commuting by cycle




78

Figure 5.8: Residential origin distribution of Cambridge employees commuting by bus




79

Figure 5.9: Residential origin distribution of Cambridge employees commuting by rail




80

Figure 5.10: Residential origin distribution of Cambridge employees commuting by car




81

For the main trip attractor zones introduced in Figure 2.9 above, the following figure shows the average

mode share of commuters travelling to each zone, where the size of the pie chart also reflects the number

of commuters to each zone. The figure shows the P&R, bus and rail networks for reference.

The purpose of this figure is to show how destination TTW mode shares vary within the city and

surrounding areas, and so complements the public transport accessibility analysis for these zones

presented in Section 4 above.

However, it should be noted that the mode shares for each employment zone shown in the figure below

are derived from Middle-level Super Output Areas (MSOA), which are also shown on the below plan and

which represent the smallest area for which such data is available. The consequence of this, therefore, is

that the average mode share of the MSOA may not be fully representative of the smaller employment

zone. This is most apparent in the case of Zones C and D (City Centre and Cambridge West) which offer

very different levels of accessibility, but return the same mode share for reason of being within the same

MSOA. The results should therefore be considered with this limitation in mind.

The figure shows:

Walking mode shares are highest in central sites, but are quite significant in most locations

Similarly, cycling mode shares are highest in city centre areas, but also quite significant in most

locations

Bus mode shares are highest in the city centre zones and at Addenbrooke’s

Rail mode shares are similarly highest in city centre zones near to the station

The highest car mode share and lowest active mode use is observed in the Cambridge Retail Park

destination area. This may reflect the levels of parking available in this zone. The other highest car

mode shares are observed in the outlying Cambridge Science Park and Histon Vision Park zones



82

Figure 5.11: In-commuting mode shares by Cambridge employment area


Zone A

Zone B

Zone H

Zone I

Zone G

Zone F

Zone E

Zone D

Zone J

Zone C

Zone L

Zone K

Zone N

Zone M



83

5.2.1.3 Overall Commuting Mode Use

Based on the above mode shares for both Cambridge residents and employees, the following pie chart

shows the overall mode share for commuting related trips in Cambridge.

Figure 5.12: Overall mode share for commuting trips in Cambridge

Source: 2011 Census

Figure 2.17 above shows that two thirds of commuting trips in Cambridge start or finish outside the city.

The following chart shows the same result but by mode, so that modal differences can be observed.

Figure 5.13: Proportion of commuting trips by mode which start/finish within or outside the city

Source: 2011 Census

As would be expected, most walking and cycle trips start and finish within the city, while nearly all rail trips

start or finish outside the city. What may be less evident, though, is that 84% of commuting car trips within

Cambridge start or finish outside the city, which has an impact on strategies to achieve mode shift. In light

of the city’s regional importance, this pattern is likely to also apply to some other trip purposes.

On Foot, 9%

Bicycle, 20%

Bus, 8%

Rail, 6%

Car, Taxi, M'cycle, Other, 56%

82%71%

31%

2%16%

18%29%

69%

98%84%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

On Foot Bicycle Bus Rail Car, Taxi,Motorcycle,

Other

External trips

Internal trips



84

5.2.1.4 Travel-to-Work Mode Share Change, 2001 to 2011

For the purpose of understanding how the above results may have changed over time, the following chart

shows the travel-to-work mode share for Cambridge residents from the 2001 and 2011 census (where

slight changes from the equivalent 2011 results shown above are to allow comparison with the 2001 data).

Figure 5.14: Cambridge residents’ travel-to-work mode share, 2001 and 2011

Source: Census 2001 and 2011

This chart shows some encouraging trends for commuting patterns by Cambridge residents, with increases

in use of all sustainable modes and a significant decrease in car/taxi/motorcycle use. The greatest

increase is in cycling to work. The above changes are shown clearly in the following chart.

Figure 5.15: Change in Cambridge residents’ travel-to-work mode share, 2001 to 2011


15%

28%

5.7%3.6%

47%

16%

33%

7.2%5.5%

38%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

On foot Bicycle Bus Rail Car, Taxi,M'cycle, Other

Mo

de

Sh

are

Census 2001

Census 2011

1.0%

4.2%

1.5% 1.9%

-8.7%-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

On foot Bicycle Bus Rail Car, Taxi, M'cycle,Other

Ch

ange

in M

od

e S

har

e 2

00

1 t

o 2

01

1



85

Comparing the two surveys also shows an increase in the proportion of employed Cambridge residents

working at home, as shown in the following chart. This change represents an increase in the proportion of

employed Cambridge residents working at home from 8.6% in 2001 to 10.8% in 2011.

Figure 5.16: Number of Cambridge residents working at home


5.2.2 Quality of Life Survey of Cambridge Employees 2014, Cambridge Ahead

A sample of Cambridge employees were surveyed in 2014 for the Cambridge Ahead Quality of Life

Survey. Respondents were asked about their typical mode of transport for work purposes. The following

resulting graph is extracted from the survey report.

Figure 5.17: Typical main transport mode to work for Cambridge employees

Source: Quality of Life Survey of Cambridge Employees 2014, Cambridge Ahead

4,217

6,417

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Census 2001 Census 2011

No

Pe

op

le



86

This chart suggests the following approximate average mode shares for travelling to work in Cambridge:

Car: 43%

Bicycle: 31%

Bus: 8%

Rail: 3%

Walk: 13%

These values are of a similar order to the Cambridge residents’ travel-to-work mode share detailed above

in Figure 5.1. The extra detail provided by this chart, however, is the differences in mode selection by

gender. The data suggests that:

Females are more likely to travel by car, bus, train and on foot

Males are more likely to travel by bicycle (35% vs 27%)

5.2.3 Cambridgeshire TIF Study

In this 2007 study into the social and distributional impacts of introducing road user charging to Cambridge,

a household interview survey was carried out. The sample was taken from across Cambridgeshire, with

the proportions of respondents within and outside Cambridge being proportional to the actual population

split.

Respondents were asked what mode they used for all journeys that involved use of the Cambridge

network. The following chart shows the average car mode share by trip purpose and by time of day.

Figure 5.18: Average Cambridgeshire car mode share for trips involving use of Cambridge network, by purpose

Source: Cambridgeshire TIF Study, 2007

62%

51%

74%

22%

70%

60%59%56%

79%

21%

65%60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Car

Mo

de

Sh

are

All trips

Peak periods



87

This chart shows that car use:

Is highest for health related trips

Is second highest for school related trips, but significantly lowest for university/college trips – it is noted

that University students are not generally permitted to own a car

Is lower for shopping trips than for work trips

Is not much different in peak hours compared with the average

5.2.4 Cambridgeshire Traffic Monitoring 2015

CCC monitor multi-modal traffic levels crossing two screenlines in Cambridge: one on the outer radials and

the other around the city centre core area, as shown in the following figure.

Figure 5.19: CCC Radial and River Cam screenline traffic monitoring sites

Source: CCC Traffic Monitoring Report 2013

The following chart compares the traffic composition results for both screenlines in 2014. This shows a

clear distinction between the two screenlines, with the outer radial screenline motor vehicle composition of

93% dropping to just 49% at the inner screenline, with the majority of the remaining 51% being comprised

of active modes.



88

Figure 5.20: Screenline traffic composition results 2014

Source: CCC traffic monitoring report data

The following chart also shows how the above 2014 traffic composition results have changed since 2004.

Figure 5.21: Change in screenline traffic composition results, 2004 to 2014


This shows that, since 2004, the traffic composition at the radial screenline has not changed much, with

the car proportion dropping about 2 points and the cycle proportion increasing by a similar amount. The

River Cam screenline, however, has seen a significant shift from the car proportion to the cycling

proportion of about 12 points. This reflects the similar result shown in the Census data analysis above in

Section 5.2.1.3.

2%5%

1%

79%

10%

2% 1%

22%

29%

1%

40%

6%1% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Mo

de

Sh

are

Radial screenline

River Cam screenline

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

Pedestrians PedalCycles

MotorCycles

Cars Light Goods HeavyGoods

Buses

Ch

ange

in M

od

e S

har

e 2

00

4-2

01

4

Radial

River Cam



89

5.3 Modal Usage

5.3.1 Park & Ride Network

5.3.1.1 Car Park Usage

Park & Ride (P&R) car park usage data has been provided for the month of May 2015. The following chart

shows the total number of vehicles parked in each car park in that month.

Figure 5.22: Total number of vehicles parked in May 2015

Source: CCC data

This shows that the demand at Trumpington is significantly the highest of the five car parks in terms of the

total number of parking visits. The lowest demand level is seen at Milton.

The following chart shows the average weekly demand profile at each site.

19002

22237

11267

15960

36364

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Babraham Madingley Milton Newmarket Trumpington

Tota

l Ve

hic

les

Par

ked

in M

ay 2

01

5



90

Figure 5.23: Weekly parking demand profile, May 2015

Source: CCC data

This chart shows:

Weekday demand is lowest at all sites on a Monday

Saturday demand is as high or higher than weekday demand at the Madingley, Milton and Newmarket

sites, perhaps suggesting shopping demand

The Babraham site shows the lowest weekend demand, perhaps suggesting this is predominantly a

commuter site

Sunday demand at the Trumpington site is nearly as high as weekday demand

The following three charts provide some further insight into usage of each site by showing the average

length of stay distributions for a weekday, Saturday and Sunday. These show:

Parking durations are longest on a weekday, reflecting commuting uses, shorter on a Saturday and a

little shorter still on a Sunday

Weekday parking durations are greatest at the Babraham site, further suggesting that commuting is a

predominant use for this site

A minimum of 12% of visits at all sites are for less than one hour. This parking duration is not long

enough to be associated with use of the bus service and so will be for the purpose of drop-off / pick-up

trips and, in the case of Trumpington, for visiting the John Lewis centre. The latter is reflected in the

high proportion of such visits on a Sunday. Parking for this duration is free.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f W

ee

kly

Par

kin

g To

tal

Babraham

Madingley

Milton

Newmarket

Trumpington



91

Figure 5.24: Average weekday parking duration distribution, May 2015

Source: CCC data

Figure 5.25: Average Saturday parking duration distribution, May 2015

Source: CCC data

12%17%

24% 20%

33%6%3%

3%3%

5%

9%9%

9%7%

8%

8%10%

12%11%

8%

8%

10%

12%

10%

7%

6%

8%

9%

9%

6%

5%

6%

6%

6%

5%

6%

5%

4%

5%3%

41%31%

21%28% 24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f To

tal P

arke

d V

eh

icle

s

> 8 hrs

< 8 hrs

< 7 hrs

< 6 hrs

< 5 hrs

< 4 hrs

< 3 hrs

< 2 hrs

< 1 hr

12% 12%19%

12%17%

5% 3%

3%

3%

4%11% 11%

10%

10%

10%

18% 18%16%

17%14%

18% 18%16%

18%16%

13% 14%14%

14% 13%

9% 9% 8%9% 10%

5% 5% 5% 6% 6%

9% 10% 9% 11% 11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f To

tal P

arke

d V

eh

icle

s

> 8 hrs

< 8 hrs

< 7 hrs

< 6 hrs

< 5 hrs

< 4 hrs

< 3 hrs

< 2 hrs

< 1 hr



92

Figure 5.26: Average Sunday parking duration distribution, May 2015

Source: CCC data

Based on this parking usage at each site, the following last chart for this section shows the average

maximum proportion of car park capacity used on each day of the week.

Figure 5.27: Maximum car park occupancy reached by day

Source: CCC data

16% 17%28%

13%

54%

5% 3%

2%

3%

13%

13% 12%

8%

11%

5%

23%19%

18%

19%

6%

20%

18% 16%

21%

6%10%

11% 11% 15%

6%4%7% 7% 7%

4%5% 7% 6% 6%3%4% 5% 5% 5% 3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f To

tal P

arke

d V

eh

icle

s

> 8 hrs

< 8 hrs

< 7 hrs

< 6 hrs

< 5 hrs

< 4 hrs

< 3 hrs

< 2 hrs

< 1 hr

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

ar P

ark

Cap

acit

y

Babraham

Madingley

Milton

Newmarket

Trumpington



93

This chart shows the average maximum proportion of car park capacity reached per day of the week in

May. Comparing with the total visits chart shown in Figure 5.22 above, this shows that:

Though Trumpington receives significantly the most visits in total, the car park is never more than 54%

full

Madingley receives the second highest number of total visits and is consistently the most utilised in

terms of capacity, being up to about 63% full

Milton receives the least total visits in the month and is also consistently the least occupied, reaching a

maximum of just 36% on a Saturday

5.3.1.2 Park & Ride Bus Usage

The following chart shows latest average monthly passenger flows on each of the three Park & Ride bus

routes from February to April 2015.

Figure 5.28: Average monthly passenger flows for Cambridge Park & Ride routes

Source: CCC data

This shows that the Madingley/Newmarket and Milton/Babraham routes carry similar numbers of

passengers. The Trumpington route carries fewer but, as this route only serves one site compared to the

two served by the other routes, this is the busiest of the routes in terms of demand per site. This is

reflected in the parking demand recorded above for this site.

The following chart shows the average daily demand profile for all Park & Ride services throughout 2014,

where outbound refers to services leaving the site. This profile suggests some commuting uses, but the

small offset between the outbound and inbound profiles and the outbound flow peaking at 10am also

suggests usage for other trip purposes such as shopping.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

Madingley/Newmarket Milton/Babraham Trumpington

Ave

rage

Mo

nth

ly P

asse

nge

r Fl

ow



94

Figure 5.29: Hourly passenger flow profile for all Cambridge Park & Ride services, averaged over all days 2014

Source: CCC data

Finally for this section, the following chart shows total monthly patronage for all services from

January 2014 to April 2015.

Figure 5.30: Monthly two-way passenger flow totals for all Park and Ride services

Source: CCC data

This shows a decline in patronage over this period, which also coincides with the introduction of parking

charges at each site. This therefore suggests that loyalty to Park and Ride use is predominantly price

sensitive and the option of continuing the journey by car remains attractive for some.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Pas

sen

gers

pe

r H

ou

r

Inbound

Outbound

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

Mo

nth

ly T

wo

-Way

Pas

sen

ger

Flo

w



95

5.3.2 Bus Network

The 2011 Census travel-to-work data in Section 5.2.1 above shows that the bus currently holds a 7%-8%

mode share among those commuting to and from Cambridge. For Cambridge residents, Section 5.2.1.3

above shows that the bus mode share for commuting trips has increased from about 6% in 2001 to 7.2% in

2011, or from about 2,550 people to 3,800. This represents an actual growth in bus commuting trips of

49% between 2001 and 2011.

For Stagecoach services on the busway, the following chart shows total monthly patronage since the

service began. This shows a steady growth in patronage, with average flows in 2015 over 50% higher than

when the service opened.

Figure 5.31: Busway monthly passenger flows, August 2011 to April 2015

Source: Stagecoach / CCC data

The following chart shows the average daily profile for busway usage, where inbound refers to services

towards Cambridge city centre. This chart shows quite a different profile to that displayed by Park & Ride

services, with much a greater offset between inbound and outbound trips and greatest demand in the peak

hours. This suggests that commuting trips are more predominant on busway services than on Park & Ride

services.

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

Au

g-1

1Se

p-1

1O

ct-1

1N

ov-

11

Dec

-11

Jan

-12

Feb

-12

Mar

-12

Ap

r-1

2M

ay-1

2Ju

n-1

2Ju

l-1

2A

ug-

12

Sep

-12

Oct

-12

No

v-1

2D

ec-1

2Ja

n-1

3Fe

b-1

3M

ar-1

3A

pr-

13

May

-13

Jun

-13

Jul-

13

Au

g-1

3Se

p-1

3O

ct-1

3N

ov-

13

Dec

-13

Jan

-14

Feb

-14

Mar

-14

Ap

r-1

4M

ay-1

4Ju

n-1

4Ju

l-1

4A

ug-

14

Sep

-14

Oct

-14

No

v-1

4D

ec-1

4Ja

n-1

5Fe

b-1

5M

ar-1

5A

pr-

15

Mo

nth

ly P

asse

nge

r Fl

ow

s



96

Figure 5.32: Hourly passenger flow profile for all Stagecoach busway services, averaged over all days 2014

Source: Stagecoach / CCC data

5.3.3 Rail Network

The Census travel-to-work data in Section 5.2.1 above shows that rail currently holds a 4%-5% mode

share among those commuting to and from Cambridge. For Cambridge residents, Section 5.2.1.3 above

shows that the rail mode share for commuting trips has increased from 5.8% in 2001 to 7.2% in 2011, or

from about 1,620 people to 2,900. This represents an actual growth in rail commuting trips of 79% between

2001 and 2011.

A similar growth level can be seen in the total number of people using Cambridge station for all purposes,

as shown in the following chart. This shows a 151% growth between 1997/98 and 2013/14, which equates

to a rate of about 400,000 additional users every year. Between 2000/01 and 2010/11 the growth for all

purposes was about 69%, which is similar to the travel-to-work growth rate above.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

05

:00

06

:00

07

:00

08

:00

09

:00

10

:00

11

:00

12

:00

13

:00

14

:00

15

:00

16

:00

17

:00

18

:00

19

:00

20

:00

21

:00

22

:00

23

:00

Pas

sen

gers

pe

r H

ou

r

Inbound

Outbound



97

Figure 5.33: Number of station entries and exits 1997/98 to 2013/14

Source: Office of Rail Regulation

5.3.4 Pedestrian Network

The Census travel-to-work data in Section 5.2.1 above shows that currently about 17% of Cambridge

residents, or about 8,400, walk to work. The proportion of Cambridge residents who work in Cambridge

that walk is 23%. Section 5.2.1.3 above, however, suggests that the walk mode share for all Cambridge

residents’ commuting trips has only increased by about 1% between 2001 and 2011.

This result is echoed by the Council’s annual traffic monitoring screenline counts presented in

Section 5.2.4 above which shows that the traffic composition share of walking trips across the screenlines

has increased by less than 1%.

Nonetheless, though the share of walking has increased little in recent years, the total number of walking

trips represented by these results has increased in absolute terms. This is shown in the following table.

Table 5.1: Actual increases in pedestrian demand

Data Source No Pedestrians Change

Base Year Base +10 Persons %

Census TTW, Cams residents 2001: 6,890 2011: 8,653 +1,763 +26%

Radial screenline 2004: 2,213 2014: 3,746 +1,551 +70%

River Cam screenline 2004: 22,249 2014: 26,478 +3,229 +14%

5.3.5 Cycle Network

The 2011 Census travel-to-work data in Section 5.2.1 above shows that currently about 33% of Cambridge

residents, or about 16,700, cycle to work. The proportion of Cambridge residents who work in Cambridge

that cycle is an even more impressive 43%. Section 5.2.1.3 above also shows that the cycling mode share

for all Cambridge residents’ commuting trips has increased by about 4.2% between 2001 and 2011.

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

Tota

l sta

tio

n e

ntr

ies

and

exi

ts



98

This result is echoed by the Council’s annual traffic monitoring screenline counts presented in

Section 5.2.4 above which shows that the traffic composition share of cycling trips across the city centre

inner core screenline has increased by about 12%. These increases are summarised in the following table.

Table 5.2: Actual increases in cycling demand

Data Source No Cyclists Change

Base Year Base +10 Persons %

Census TTW, Cams residents 2001: 12,758 2011: 17,257 +4,499 +35%

Radial screenline 2004: 5,850 2014: 10,978 +5,128 +88%

River Cam screenline 2004: 18,469 2014: 35,840 +17,371 +94%

Cambridgeshire County Council also maintains a number of Automatic Cycle Counter (ACC) sites in

Cambridge and around the County for which we have been provided with count data from:

Two weeks in term time – 10th Nov 2014 to 23

rd Nov 2014

One week in half term – 17th Oct 2014 to 2

nd Nov 2014

Figure 5.34 below shows the location of all the sites.



99

Figure 5.34: Cambridgeshire automatic cycle counter sites

Source: CCC



100

Of these sites, we have identified a selection which broadly represent the following cordon types:

City fringe

Radial

Inner core

For these sites, an average term-time weekday flow profile has been calculated. This is shown in the

following chart.

Figure 5.35: Average weekday ACC count profile

Source: CCC data from Nov 2014


Weekday cycle use is dominated by peak hour travel, suggesting predominant use for commuting

The afternoon peak is more spread than the morning, which likely reflects use for school travel also

In both peak hours, there is also a small peak in the minor direction. This reflects certain sites, like

Busway South, where flows are similar in both directions

To further illustrate, Figure 5.36 and Figure 5.37 below show the distribution of peak hour flows at each

site. These figures show:

Flows tend to be highest on the radial and inner core sites and lowest at the city fringe sites

The site with the highest single direction flow is Carter Bridge (Site 13 – 381 per hour in AM peak)

Sites with a high flow in both directions are: Garrett Hostel Lane (Site 9), Barton Road (Site 11) and

Busway South (Site 12)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

00

:00

01

:00

02

:00

03

:00

04

:00

05

:00

06

:00

07

:00

08

:00

09

:00

10

:00

11

:00

12

:00

13

:00

14

:00

15

:00

16

:00

17

:00

18

:00

19

:00

20

:00

21

:00

22

:00

23

:00

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f D

aily

To

tal

Inbd

Outbd



101

Figure 5.36: Average term time weekday cycle flows by direction – AM peak hour (08:00-09:00)

Source: CCC data from Nov 2014



102

Figure 5.37: Average term time weekday cycle flows by direction –PM peak hour (08:00-09:00)

Source: CCC data from Oct/Nov 2014



103

The following chart shows the average weekly profile across all sites, in both term time and at half term.

Figure 5.38: Average weekly ACC count profile – term time and half term

Source: CCC data from Oct/Nov 2014


Term time cycling levels are generally higher than the equivalent half term levels (15% higher over the

week as a whole)

The term time profile shows that cycling flows are highest on all the weekdays, with weekend levels

being up to about 50% lower

The half term profile is similar, which reflects the high proportion of commuting purposes, except

Monday flows are significantly lower and Saturday flows a little higher than the term time equivalents

Lastly for this section, the following chart displays annual variation in cycle flows from 2014, averaged for

each cordon type. This shows:

Pronounced seasonality for the City Fringe sites, with cycle levels being highest for the warmer and

dryer months from March to October

A seasonality for the Inner Core sites which partly reflects the weather seasons but also the university

term times, with summer holiday months showing the lowest usage

A profile for Radial sites which effectively is a mix of the other two profiles

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600


Ave

rage

Tw

o-W

ay D

aily

To

tal

Termtime

Halfterm



104

Figure 5.39: Average annual ACC count profile by cordon type, 2014

Source: CCC data for 2014

5.3.6 Highway Network

5.3.6.1 Traffic Flow Profiles

CCC has used Automatic Traffic Counters (ATC) to collect traffic count data from a range of sites in

connection with their 20 mph zone schemes. Most of these sites apply to minor roads, but the sites shown

in Figure 5.40 are located on more significant roads and also return at least a full week’s data. The counts

at each site were returned hourly count data between the dates shown in the following table.

Table 5.3: Selected 20 mph Zone ATC site count dates

Site Count Dates

Barton Road 9-18 Oct 2014

Chesterton Lane 27 Feb – 5 Mar 2015

Hills Road 27 Feb – 5 Mar 2015

Madingley Road 8-18 Oct 2014

Northampton Street 27 Feb – 5 Mar 2015

Station Road 27 Feb – 5 Mar 2015

Trumpington Road 9-18 Oct 2014

This count data is sufficiently detailed to provide weekly and daily traffic profile information. Figure 5.40

below therefore shows the average weekly motor vehicle flow profile for all the above sites combined.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Pe

rce

ntg

e o

f A

nn

ual

To

tal

City Fringe

Radial

Inner Core



105

Figure 5.40: Selected 20 mph Zone Study ATC site locations

Source: CCC



106

Figure 5.41: Average weekly flow profile over selected ATC sites

Source: CCC ATC Data, 2014/2015

This chart shows that motor traffic levels on the main roads in Cambridge are greatest on a weekday,

increasing steadily from Monday to Friday. However, total flows on Saturday are only a little less than on

Monday. Total flows on Sunday are lowest.

The following chart shows more detail by showing average daily flow profiles over all selected sites on an

average weekday, Saturday and Sunday.

Figure 5.42: Average daily flow profile over selected ATC sites

Source: CCC ATC Data, 2014/2015

14.0%14.6%

15.2% 15.2%15.8%

13.7%

11.5%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f W

ee

kly

Tota

l Flo

w

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

00

00

01

00

02

00

03

00

04

00

05

00

06

00

07

00

08

00

09

00

10

00

11

00

12

00

13

00

14

00

15

00

16

00

17

00

18

00

19

00

20

00

21

00

22

00

23

00

Ave

rage

Ho

url

y Tw

o-W

ay F

low

Avg Weekday

Saturday

Sunday



107


The weekday profile shows the two typical peaks associated with workday traffic: one at 08:00 and the

other at 17:00. The evening peak is higher and longer than the morning peak.

Saturday traffic levels peak at midday and actually reach a level which sits between the two peak levels

of an average weekday. The Saturday profile also shows a small evening peak which will be

associated with the city centre’s evening economy.

The Sunday traffic profile is a smaller version of the Saturday profile, but without the evening peak.

CCC has also provided us with ATC data profiles recorded at Hills Road, Huntingdon Road, Milton Road

and Trumpington Road during term time and half term, in order to observe how the daily flow profile is

affected by school holidays. The summary profiles from the four sites are shown in the following chart.

This suggests that:

The morning peak hour is more affected than the evening peak, with the half term morning peak being

13% lower than the term time equivalent, compared with just a 3% difference in the evening

Total traffic flows at the four sites were overall 3% lower at half term than during term time

Figure 5.43: Average daily flow profiles at four Cambridge ATC sites in term time and half term time

Source: CCC data

More recently (May 2015), the Council has undertaken directly comparable term-time and half-term

surveys for the radial and River Cam screenlines introduced above in Section 5.2.4 above. Profile results

from these are shown in the following two figures.

These show the same results as for Figure 5.35 above, with half-term flows being about 11%-13% lower in

the AM peak but only 2%-4% lower in the PM peak.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Ave

rage

Tw

o-W

ay H

ou

rly

Flo

w

Half term

Term time



108

Figure 5.44: Average daily flow profile across Radial screenline in term time and half term time

Figure 5.45: Average daily flow profile across River Cam screenline in term time and half term time

Source: CCC data, Apr/May 2015

5.3.6.2 Traffic Flow Distribution

In order to understand the geographic distribution of traffic flows during the morning and evening peak hour

of an average weekday, the following two figures show traffic flow bandwidth plots extracted from the

Council’s CSRM 2011 traffic model. These figures show:

Highest flows on the M11 and A14 trunk routes, as would be expected

The highest non-trunk flows are on the A1134 Elizabeth Way section of the inner ring road; southbound

in the morning and northbound in the evening.

The A1134 Mowbray Road / Perne Road serves a strong orbital type function, partly relieving the

eastern side of the inner ring road, including Elizabeth Way

The highest radial route flows are observed on the A1307 Babraham Road. It is noted that this is the

main approach route to the city from the south east quadrant

The PM flow plot shows a similar distribution to the AM flow plot but usually in the reverse direction

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00

Flo

w p

er

Ho

ur

Term-time

Half-term

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00

Flo

w p

er

Ho

ur

Term-time

Half-term



109

Figure 5.46: Modelled traffic flows in Cambridge – 2011 AM peak

Source: CSRM 2011 Model



110

Figure 5.47: Modelled traffic flows in Cambridge – 2011 PM peak

Source: CSRM 2011 Model



111

5.3.6.3 Change in Traffic Flows over Time

In Section 5.2.4 above, changes in traffic flow across two city cordons, as measured by CCC between

2004 and 2014, are presented in terms of the change in mode share. The following chart compares the

same data but now presents it in terms of the percentage change in flow between 2004 and 2014 for the

three private vehicle modes of car, LGV and HGV.

This figure shows that, between 2004 and 2014:

Car flows increased by 8% across the outer Radial cordon, but dropped by 12% across the inner River

Cam screenline

LGV flows increased by 8%-9% across both screenlines

HGV flows decreased across both screenlines; a 15% drop across the Radial and a 28% drop across

the River Cam

Overall, motor vehicle flows increased 7% across the Radial screenline but dropped 10% across the

River Cam screenline

Figure 5.48: Percentage change in screenline flow by private vehicle mode, 2004 to 2014


In order to deliver further insight into traffic changes in Cambridge, we have also interrogated the DfT’s A-

road traffic count database. This provides annual AADF flows for 161 different points in Cambridgeshire.

We have processed data for 31 of these points in order to show changes between the same period of 2004

and 2014 on the:

Trunk network

Radial routes

Inner ring road

Based on these count locations, the following two figures (Figure 5.49 and Figure 5.50) show:

1. Percentage changes at each location in car traffic, LGV traffic and HGV traffic

2. Overall percentage change at each location in all motor traffic

8% 8%

-15%

7%

-12%

9%

-28%

-10%

-35%

-25%

-15%

-5%

5%

15%

25%

35%

Cars Light Goods Heavy Goods All Motor Veh

Ch

ange

in M

od

al F

low

20

04

-20

14

Radial

River Cam



112

Figure 5.49: Change in traffic levels by motor vehicle mode, 2004 to 2014

Source: DfT traffic count data



113

Figure 5.50: Overall change in motor traffic levels, 2004 to 2014




114

These figures show:

Car traffic levels have:

– Increased on the A14, on Madingley Road, and on Fen’s Causeway and Queen’s Road (though the

latter will partly be a response to the Core Traffic Scheme removing trips through the city centre)

– Generally dropped or changed little at most other sites, especially on Huntingdon Road, Milton

Road, Elizabeth Way, Babraham Road, Barton Road and Chesterton Lane/Road

By contrast, LGV levels have noticeably increased at nearly all sites and especially on the radial routes

and the inner ring road, while HGV levels have similarly dropped

As a result of these modal changes, Figure 5.50 shows that overall motor traffic levels have:

– Increased on the M11, on the A14, on Madingley Road, on Newmarket Road, on parts of

Trumpington Road and on Fen’s Causeway and Queen’s Road

– Dropped on Huntingdon Road, Milton Road, Elizabeth Way, Babraham Road, Barton Road and

Chesterton Lane/Road

The following chart summarises the above results by road type. This shows a similar overall result to that

recorded by the Council’s screenline survey described above and confirms that:

Car flows have dropped slightly near the city centre, but increased by 13% on the radial routes

LGV flows have increased in all locations, but by over 60% on the radial routes

HGV flows have dropped in all locations, but especially near the city centre

Overall, motor vehicle traffic has, on average, increased slightly on the trunk network and by 17% on

the radial routes, but remained constant on the inner ring road around the city centre

Figure 5.51: Percentage change in traffic levels by motor vehicle mode averaged by road type, 2004 to 2014


The following chart isolates those sites which sit upstream (where available) and downstream of P&R sites

and shows the change in car traffic between 2004 and 2014, during which period the sites opened. This

shows that car traffic has either grown at a lower rate downstream than upstream or has actually dropped.

This is an encouraging result, but it is also noted from the above that the corresponding rise in LGV traffic

over the same period is reducing some of the benefits of this reduction in car use.

3%

29%

-11%

3%

13%

63%

-11%

17%

-2%

28%

-34%

0%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Cars/taxis LGVs HGVs All Motor Vehicles

Trunk network

Radial routes

Inner ring road



115

Figure 5.52: Car traffic changes upstream and downstream of P&R sites – 2004 to 2014


5.3.6.4 Traffic Composition

Finally for this section, the following chart shows the average traffic composition in 2014 for the DfT ATC

data introduced above but grouped according to location type. This shows that the main difference in motor

vehicle composition between the three location types is the proportion of HGV traffic, which is 12% on the

trunk network but down to 2% within the urban area. LGV traffic occupies a similar proportion in all three

location types.

Figure 5.53: Average motor vehicle traffic composition by ATC location type – 2014

Source: DfT traffic count data, 2014

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

Before P&R After P&R Before P&R After P&R After P&R Before P&R After P&R After P&R

Babraham Rd Babraham Rd Madingley Rd Madingley Rd Milton Rd Newmarket Rd Newmarket Rd TrumpingtonRd

Ch

ane

g in

Mo

de

Sh

are

0% 1% 1%

74%83% 81%

0%

2% 2%13%

12% 14%12%2% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Trunk Radial Inner Ring

HGVs

LGVs

Buses/coaches

Cars/taxis

Motorcycles



116

5.3.7 Car Parking

Cambridge City Council has provided us with parking occupancy data for their five city centre multi-storey

car parks, as shown in Figure 3.24 above and as follows:

Grand Arcade

Grafton East

Grafton West

Queen Anne Terrace

Park Street

For each car park, the data applies to a single week (Monday to Sunday) in February, July, October and

December 2014 as follows:

10th Feb – 16

th Feb 2014 (except Grand Arcade: 24

th Feb – 2

nd Mar 2014)

21st Jul – 27

th Jul 2014

20th Oct – 26

th Oct 2014

15th Dec – 21

st Dec 2014

The following chart compares the five car parks in terms of total car parking capacity, and shows that the

Grand Arcade and Grafton East car parks are the largest, with Grafton West being the smallest. The five

car parks together offer a total of 3,067 car parking spaces.

Figure 5.54: Car parking capacity

Source: City Council data, 2014

In terms of usage, the following chart shows the average maximum occupancy recorded per day of the

week. This shows:

All car parks are busiest on a Saturday and Sunday

Friday is the busiest weekday, but weekday occupancies are lower than weekends

Grand Arcade is the most utilised car park on average

Grafton East is the least utilised car park

953874

280

570

390

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Grand Arcade Grafton East Grafton West Queen AnneTerrace

Park Street

No

Sp

ace

s



117

Figure 5.55: Average maximum recorded occupancy per car park and day of the week


Further results for each car park are attached in Appendix B.

To provide an indication of seasonal variation, the following chart shows, for all five car parks combined,

the maximum occupancy recorded on each day within each survey month. This shows:

The highest utilisation is seen in December, where a minimum of 70% utilisation is reached on every

day. This will be associated with Christmas shopping activity

The lowest utilisation is seen in February. July and October utilisations are similar

Utilisation is consistently high at weekends in all months

Figure 5.56: Maximum car parking occupancy recorded for all car parks combined, per survey day per month


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Park Street

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

ar P

ark

Cap

acit

y

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Feb July Oct Dec

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

ar P

ark

Cap

acit

y

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun



118

To provide an indication of typical daily parking profiles, the following chart shows the average daily profile

by day of week for all car parks and months combined. This shows:

Weekday profiles all peak at around midday to 13:00. The Sunday profile peaks at 13:00 and the

Saturday profile at 14:00.

All weekday profiles and the Saturday profile show a small peak in the evening associated with the

city’s evening economy, but especially on Wednesday when late night shopping is available.

The Sunday profile shows the least evening parking activity. It is also the shortest profile overall.

Figure 5.57: Average daily parking profiles for all car parks and survey months, by day of week


Lastly for this section, we do not have detailed data on lengths of stay at each car park, but the following

chart shows the average parking duration for each car park during the 2014/15 financial year. This shows

that average parking durations are greatest at Grafton West and least at Park Street.

Figure 5.58: Average parking duration, Apr 2014 – Apr 2015


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

00

:00

01

:00

02

:00

03

:00

04

:00

05

:00

06

:00

07

:00

08

:00

09

:00

10

:00

11

:00

12

:00

13

:00

14

:00

15

:00

16

:00

17

:00

18

:00

19

:00

20

:00

21

:00

22

:00

23

:00

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

ar P

ark

Cap

acit

y

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun

2.32.4

3.2

2.2

1.6

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5


Park Street

Ave

rage

Par

kin

g D

ura

tio

n (

ho

urs

)



119

We do not have any data on the use of on-street parking or other off-street car parks.

5.3.8 Long Distance Bus

We do not have any data on the use of long distance buses.

5.3.9 Tourist Coach

We do not have any tourist coach travel data, but we understand that Cambridge is increasing in popularity

as a tourist destination and that tourist coach demand is rising accordingly.

5.3.10 Taxi

We do not have any data on the use of taxis in Cambridge.



120

6.1 Introduction

The purpose of this section is to review how the Cambridge transport network performs in accommodating

the travel demand and travel choices described in previous sections.

6 Performance


Park & Ride service use affected by parking charge and peak hour congestion

– P&R patronage down by about 19% after introduction of parking charge

– Many sections of P&R bus routes affected by congestion without bus priority measures

Bus use is affected by network coverage, traffic delays and coordination challenges

– Use increases with greater availability of mode, minimal interchange and reduced journey times

– Weekday PM traffic congestion currently resulting in 38% punctuality

– City centre spatial constraints and ticketing coordination present challenges to mode shift

Strong linkage of rail station to city centre, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists, essential for

accommodating future growth

Good progress on cycle network schemes, but further network development and maintenance

required to increase useability and address safety issues, and more city centre parking needed

– 60% of all traffic accidents in Cambridge between 2010 and 2014 involved a cyclist

– Congested city centre cycle parking facilities serves as potential deterrent to use of this mode

Pedestrian environment can be improved through comprehensive and high quality wayfinding,

raised entry treatments and implementation of shared space schemes in city centre

– Pedestrian accident rate per million population below national average but above East of

England average

Significant weekday peak hour highway delay on Cambridge A and B roads

– Delays of over two minutes per km on many sections of radial routes and inner ring road in

weekday peak hours

– During school holidays, average delay 52% lower in AM peak and 28% lower in PM peak

City Council control of the majority of off-street city centre car parking provides a valuable

opportunity for managing private vehicle demand into the central core area

Coordinated approach required to delivering public realm improvements which fully complement the

quality of the city centre historic built environment

City centre air quality improving and targets met at all sites in 2013, except for NOx emissions

which are slightly over target in Parker Street, Pembroke Street and St Andrew’s Street

There are 25 inoperative bus priority facilities at traffic signals on radial routes in the city, most of

which coincide with areas of peak hour congestion



121

6.2 Park & Ride Network

6.2.1 Car Park Locations

Existing P&R car parks are generally well located to capture traffic approaching Cambridge along main

routes. However, the following observations are offered:

For traffic approaching eastbound on the A14, drivers must either continue east on the A14 to the

Milton P&R site or south on the M11 to the Trumpington P&R site. Either choice is a diversion. A P&R

site on Huntingdon Road would serve this demand more directly.

The Milton P&R site, though reasonably located for A10 traffic, would intercept more traffic if it were

located on the south side of the A14. It is noted from Section 5.3.1.1 that this is the least utilised of the

five P&R sites.

6.2.2 Car Park Usage

Figure 5.27 above shows that there is sufficient parking capacity at to more than meet existing P&R

demand, but Figure 5.30 also shows a decline in P&R usage from January 2014 to April 2015, where

January to April figures were 19% lower in 2015 than in 2014. It is noted that during this time a flat rate

parking charge of £1 was introduced. Anecdotal reports from the internet and local press also suggest

initial customer dissatisfaction with the ease of use of the ticket machines, resulting in queuing delays,

though the same reports describe that the Council has since responded to these issues.

Use of P&R to travel into and out of Cambridge city centre now costs a total of £3.70. This is equivalent to

a stay of about 2 hours in a city centre Council car park and so suggests that P&R is likely to be most

competitive for P&R parking stays of 3 hours and over. This is confirmed by the length-of-stay charts in

Section 5.3.1.1 above.

6.2.3 Bus Service Usage

The following two figures show average delay on the Cambridge P&R network in the AM and PM peak,

during school term time in the 2013/14 academic year. These figures show:

Greatest AM peak delay is seen inbound on Babraham Rd. Sections of bus lane help avoid this, but

there are long congestion sections without bus lanes. Same applies inbound on Trumpington Road.

Inbound bus lanes on Milton Rd and Newmarket Rd help avoid AM peak congestion on these routes.

Greatest PM peak delay is seen outbound on Trumpington Road. Long section of bus lane helps avoid

this, but long congestion sections without bus lanes.

No outbound bus lanes to avoid delay on Madingley Road, Newmarket Road or Hills Road.

The punctuality and reliability of P&R bus services is therefore currently affected by congestion at peak

times of day. Figure 5.29 above shows that these times coincide with times of high demand for P&R travel.

This disruption is likely to be reducing the potential of the service to generate mode shift from private car

use into the centre of Cambridge.



122

Figure 6.1: Average journey time delay on P&R bus routes – AM Peak, 2013/14

Source: Trafficmaster



123

Figure 6.2: Average journey time delay on P&R bus routes – PM Peak, 2013/14




124

6.3 Bus Network

6.3.1 Service Coverage

Public transport accessibility for employees accessing main employment zones in Cambridge is

considered in Section 4 above. This assessment shows that, on average, just over half of the employees

for these zones live within 45 minutes of their workplace by public transport, but that this proportion is likely

to be higher for central sites in Cambridge and lower for more peripheral sites.

In Figure 5.11 above, the public transport mode share of employees travelling to these employment zones

is presented. This allows us to compare the public transport accessibility level of each area with the actual

level of public transport use, to see how accessibility influences travel.

The following chart therefore plots, for each zone1:

The 2011 Census public transport mode share (y-axis), and

The proportion of employee catchment covered by a 45 minute public transport travel time (x-axis)

Figure 6.3: Relationship between PT mode share for each site and employee catchment within 45 mins by PT

Source: TRACC and 2011 Census data

For travel-to-work purposes, this chart shows a strong relationship between increasing public transport

accessibility and increasing use of the mode, confirming that delivering increased access to the mode is

key to delivering increased use.

1 Except Zone D, as the mode share returned for this zone is not considered to be representative – see Section 5.2.1.2 for more

information

y = 0.3584x - 0.0832R² = 0.5364

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

PT

Mo

de

Sh

are

% Employee Catchment Coverage by 45 min PT



125

The trendline on this chart also indicates the following:

If 100% of employees were covered by a 45 minute public transport isochrone (ie, if x=1 in the

trendline equation), this would yield a maximum travel-to-work public transport mode share of 28%

At the other extreme, if the public transport coverage is less than about 23%, the public transport mode

share would be zero

This latter point appears counter-intuitive, but analysis of the data suggests that it is the effect of some of

the public transport coverage only being achieved through trips requiring one or more changes (ie, indirect

trips). These increase the coverage as much as direct trips, but do not increase mode share to the same

degree. This is because indirect trips are less attractive to potential users than direct trips. Analysis of this

data suggests that the provision of a direct service is about 6 times more likely to yield use of the mode

than is provision of an indirect service. The higher the proportion of employees who only have access to an

indirect service, therefore, the greater the ineffective coverage, as represented by the ‘lost’ 23% noted

above.

This point is illustrated to a degree by the following chart which shows the same data as the above scatter

plot but this time comparing actual public transport mode share with the employee population living within

30 minutes by public transport.

Figure 6.4: Relationship between PT mode share for each site and employee catchment within 30 mins by PT

Source: TRACC and 2011 Census data

This chart shows an even stronger relationship between accessibility and mode share than does the 45

minute isochrone chart above. It also shows less ‘lost’ public transport coverage, with only the first 8% of

coverage yielding a mode share of zero. This is due to the 30 minute public transport isochrone being

composed of proportionally less indirect journeys than the 45 minute isochrone, as the lower journey time

allows less opportunity for interchange.

y = 0.3592x - 0.0286R² = 0.6244

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

PT

Mo

de

Sh

are

% Employee Catchment Coverage by PT



126

The trendline equation also shows that if 100% of employees were covered by a 30 minute public transport

isochrone, this would result in a maximum public transport mode share of 33%, which is 5% higher than

the above equivalent result for the 45 minute isochrone.

In summary, therefore, the analysis of the relationship between 2011 Census travel-to-work public

transport accessibility and mode share for key employment zones in Cambridge shows that:

The travel-to-work public transport mode share increases with increased coverage of employees living

within a 45 minute travel time isochrone

– e.g. 100% coverage would yield a theoretical public transport mode share of 28%

This mode share increases further the greater the proportion of employees covered by lower journey

time isochrones

– e.g. 100% coverage in 30 minutes would yield a theoretical public transport mode share of 33%

And the mode share increases further still the more the isochrone is based on direct services rather

than indirect services

– e.g. 100% coverage in 30 minutes by direct services only would yield an estimated theoretical

public transport mode share of 43%

6.3.2 Reliability and Delay

The following two figures show average delay on the high frequency (minimum 3 buses per hour per

direction) Cambridge bus network in the AM and PM peak, during school term time in the 2013/14

academic year. These figures show:

Significant inbound delay on all radial routes to the city centre in AM peak. Outbound delay also on

Hills Road and Trumpington Road

Significant two-way delay in PM peak on the inner ring road, Madingely Road, Trumpington Road, Hills

Road, Brooklands Avenue, Mill Road, Newmarket Road and on Milton Road between the Science Park

and the A14

Reliable operation is therefore difficult in the city due to regular traffic congestion which is beyond the

control of operators. Figures for journey reliability as measured by the Traffic Commissioners’ definition

(up to one minute early to 5 minutes 59 seconds late averaged over origin and intermediate timing points)

shows a poor performance as shown in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Proportion of bus services operating to timetable (ie up to 5m 59s late)

Time Periods Wkdays (Nov-mid Dec 2014) Saturdays (November 2014) Half term (February 2015)

All time periods 69% 79% 79%

7am-9am 71% 93% 90%

9am-4pm 75% 77% 76%

4pm-6pm 38% 71% 65%

Source: CCC data

A particular problem is evident on weekdays, especially between 4pm and 6pm. Getting around or out of

the city is a significant challenge due to congestion which affects services for some time as late running

has a knock-on effect on other services.



127

Figure 6.5: Average journey time delay on high frequency bus routes – AM Peak, 2013/14




128

Figure 6.6: Average journey time delay on high frequency bus routes – PM Peak, 2013/14




129

6.3.3 Bus Station

A wide range of services is accommodated in the central area. While this gives some focus for regular

users, finding the relevant stops may represent a challenge for some potential users, especially those

transferring from one service to another or those with some form of mobility impairment. In addition,

although Drummer Street now has a partial canopy, there are limited customer facilities such as adequate

waiting space or seating. Similarly, extended dwell times at the on-street stops causes congestion on the

carriageway and the footway space for waiting passengers is limited. While some service information is

available at stops, there is some reliance on bus and coach users finding out in advance about stop

locations and how to travel.

Bus access to the city centre is also a problem. Though central in location, Drummer Street remains

inadequate in size to accommodate the number of bus movements using it. Given the number of buses

currently, and an expected increase in the number of services as the city grows, additional interchange

points will be needed.

Long distance bus services are important and currently terminate at Parkside, close to Drummer Street.

Some of these vehicles are large (15 metres) and not well suited to the city’s streets but do need a

destination in the central area, preferably with good waiting facilities which are absent currently.

6.3.4 Vehicles

It is noted in Section 3.3.5 above that the bus fleet in Cambridge is of a reasonable standard. However,

there are a number of issues to be addressed:

The number of vehicle movements and the size of vehicles can result in competition for city space with

pedestrians and cyclists

Vehicle quality needs to be complemented continuously by customer care initiatives and training so

that operating staff can respond to customer needs effectively (and to make best use of the vehicle

designs)

As bus designs get larger, their manoeuvrability can be compromised; for example, reversing in

Drummer Street bus station and securing the substantial kerb length required for 15 metre coaches

The image of buses remains poor for many people and effort is needed to overcome this fundamental

problem. While vehicles on The Busway and Park & Ride services have attracted new users who

would otherwise complete their journeys by car, achieving a shift from car to bus remains a challenge

6.3.5 Ticketing

Payment method and fares are a significant determinant of whether or not people choose to use buses. In

and around Cambridge, the position is complicated given that there are two main operators each with their

own arrangements. This is evident on The Busway services where coordination has proved to be elusive.

Intending users need to know how much it will cost and, apart from day and season tickets, there is little

information available on fares. There is also the coordination problem in that users would like to use any

relevant service and not just a selection based on operating arrangements. A deregulated market also

tends to perpetuate such problems, despite this being a barrier to use. Further difficulties arise from the

complex range of products available, each with their own terms and conditions.



130

Initiatives to promote integrated ticketing present significant potential to grow the market for bus use but

need to be handled carefully. A transparent and comprehensive approach would support a modal shift

from car to bus.

6.4 Rail Network

6.4.1 Station Location

The station is located about 1.7 km from the geometric centre of the city, which equates to about a 20

minute walk. Clearly, this distance cannot be reduced, but it highlights the importance of excellent and

pleasant walking and cycling links between the two. Presently, building works and narrow footways on

Station Road and the busyness of the Catholic Church junction impact on this journey on foot. Some

improvements to this route and to wayfinding facilities would improve this linkage.

6.4.2 Cycle Facilities

As noted above in Section 3.4.2.2, construction work around the station has resulted in temporary bicycle

parking provision which is further away from the station than the previous provision. This can result in

cycles being locked to railings and poles in front of the station and wardens perform patrols aimed to

prevent this practice. There have also been complaints about the poor standard of the temporary provision

and the lack of lockers at the station. However, this situation will be resolved by the proposed 3,000 space

covered and secure CyclePoint scheme.

Station Road currently provides the main cycle route between the station and the city centre but, as noted

in Section 3.4.2.2 above, this currently provides a low level of cycle priority. Measures to reinforce this

linkage should be considered.

6.5 Cycle Network

6.5.1 Infrastructure

Historically, cycle infrastructure within Cambridge has been typical of the infrastructure provided

throughout the UK. However, more recently a step change has occurred in the quality of the cycle

infrastructure that is being delivered, recognising the need to encourage more people to cycle into and

within the city.

CCC has invested in significant cycle infrastructure. Good examples include the Hills Road bridge cycle

lane scheme implemented in 2011. This scheme features 2.1 metre wide cycle lanes on the up-slopes of

the bridge which were previously occupied by two traffic lanes.

On Huntingdon Road and Hills Road, raised 2.1 metre wide cycle lanes are currently being constructed

using funding from the successful Cycle City Ambition grant. These schemes offer cyclists the safety of

being separated from the traffic by a low kerb or a raised cycleway. The aim is for increased cycle lane

visibility and that the sense of security offered by these Dutch inspired cycle lanes will encourage less

confident cyclists to start cycling within the city.



131

The Cambridge guided busway shared-use path has equally been a major catalyst for increasing longer

distance cycle commuting. This traffic free route provides high quality cycle connectivity to the Cambridge

Science Park and locations in the north of Cambridge, as well as to Addenbrookes Hospital in the south of

the city.

Investment in junction improvements has also progressed in recent years. At the Hills Road/Lensfield Road

junction and Castle Street/Northampton Street signal controlled junctions, cycle pre-signals are provided

that permit cycles to enter the junction prior to the general traffic. The Perne Road/Radegund Road

roundabout has also undergone Dutch style remodelling to encourage reduced vehicle entry speeds to

improve cycle safety.

However, the cycle network in Cambridge does suffer from some poor examples of cycle infrastructure and

hostile junction layouts. For example, in many locations throughout the city, shared-use paths have been

provided alongside the main carriageways. These provide increased safety due to the separation of

cyclists from vehicles, but do not create convenient cycle routes, particularly for commuters. Shared-use

paths also bring pedestrians and cyclists into conflict and the lack of priority over side roads can result in a

disjointed stop/start journey.

An example of a shared-use path creating a poor cycling environment is provided by the outbound route

along Milton Road between Union Lane and Ramsden Square. Milton Road is an important cycle

commuter route and therefore a high proportion of cyclists require a convenient and direct route. The off-

road outbound cycle path crosses numerous private residential accesses and several side roads which

have priority. The result is an unpopular and poor quality cycle route along a section of a key radial.

Within Cambridge there are a number of relatively hostile junctions that can be intimidating to

inexperienced cyclists. Examples include the large roundabouts located at the junction of Elizabeth Way /

Newmarket Road and Coldhams Lane / Brooks Road. The Mitchems Corner gyratory is also a car

dominated environment.

Maintenance of cycle infrastructure is also required in several locations around the network, as shown in

the following example photos, in order to improve rider safety and encourage further use.

Figure 6.7: Infrastructure requiring maintenance




132

6.5.2 Parking

A major issue for Cambridge city centre is the provision of cycle parking. Two good quality cycle parks are

provided at the Grand Arcade and Park Street car parks, with the former appearing to be more popular due

to its more central location within the city centre. On-street cycle parking is also provided throughout the

city centre at numerous locations. This includes the provision of Sheffield stands and high/low stands.

However, the demand for city centre cycle parking significantly exceeds supply. This is evidenced by on-

street cycle parking typically being full throughout the city centre and overspill parking taking place on

lampposts, street signs, railings and other street furniture (see photos).

Figure 6.8: Evidence of cycle parking under-supply


6.5.3 Safety

Figure 6.9 below plots all accidents in Cambridge which included cyclists between 2010 and 2014

inclusive. This shows that there is a concentration of accidents on the Hills Road axis, Mill Road,

Newmarket Road and East Road.



133

Figure 6.9: Cycle accidents – 2010-2014 incl

Source: CCC data



134

The following table and chart summarise this data and show that:

60% of all traffic accidents in Cambridge during the period 2010 to 2014 involved cyclists. This

proportion drops to 40% of all fatal accidents.

87% of cycle accidents were of slight severity; 12% serious; and 0.2% fatal.

Table 6.2: Accidents involving cyclists in Cambridge – 2010-2014

Severity Accidents involving cyclists All accidents Proportion of all accidents involving cyclists

Fatal 2 5 40%

Serious 142 245 58%

Slight 988 1648 60%

All 1132 1898 60%

Figure 6.10: Accidents involving cyclists in Cambridge – 2010-2014

Source: CCC accident data

The following table provides a breakdown of cycle accident types. This shows that 91% of reported cycle

accidents involve collision with a motor vehicle.

Table 6.3: Cambridge cycle accident types – 2010-2014

Accident Type No Accidents Proportion of All Cycle Accidents

Cyclist alone 46 4%

Cyclist & pedestrian 40 4%

Cyclist & cyclist 16 1%

Cyclist & vehicle 1030 91%

Unfortunately, we do not have cycle accident data for Cambridge in a format which allows comparison with

the national average.

40%

58% 60% 60%

60%

42% 40% 40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fatal Serious Slight All

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f A

ll A

ccid

en

ts in

Cat

ego

ry

Not involving cyclists

Involving cyclists



135

6.6 Pedestrian Network

6.6.1 City Centre

The popularity of the city-centre as the sub-regional retail hub and tourist destination results in a very busy

pedestrian environment, particularly during the summer months. This high pedestrian demand results in

pedestrian conflicts in the central areas. Footway capacity is a constraint in the narrow historic streets

resulting in many city centre streets functioning as ‘shared spaces’ with pedestrians spilling out into the

carriageways. This is particularly the case in the retail centre of the city. Vehicle traffic is banned through

the centre of Cambridge (Trinity Street / Market Street / Sidney Street), but cycling is permitted which can

create conflicts between a very busy pedestrian and cycling environment, and especially for the visually

impaired.

The city centre streets could therefore benefit from the application of shared space design as the traditional

segregation of footways and carriageway does not cater for the high pedestrian demands, particularly in

the summer periods. Locations including Bene’t Street, St Johns Street, Sidney Street could benefit from

the introduction of shared space environments.

Mill Road is an important local shopping area. This location functions as a local high street providing a

wide range of independent shops and restaurants. The area suffers from relatively high levels of through

traffic, reducing the quality of the environment for shoppers, residents and diners.

Along popular pedestrian routes, such as Mill Road and Hills Road, there is the opportunity to improve

pedestrian crossings, particularly across the side roads. Raised entry treatment crossings across the side

roads would improve the pedestrian environment, as these would provide pedestrian crossing benefits as

well as slowing vehicle movements through the junctions.

In the wider network, overall there is good provision of formal and informal crossings at junctions and along

key desire lines. Signal controlled junctions typically provide controlled pedestrian crossings. However,

many of the city centre junctions appear to have long cycle times that encourage pedestrians to cross

informally rather than waiting for the green man signals. Zebra crossing are also used within the city centre

along with informal dropped kerbs.

Within the city centre, wayfinding has been improved in recent years with the provision of maps on

information posts. However, in the more outlying areas, including Cambridge Rail Station, wayfinding

information is more lacking. Cambridge would benefit from a comprehensive approach to wayfinding

similar in approach to ‘Legible London’. The Legible London posts include two plans showing a local map

and a wider location map along with directional arrows to key local destinations. The implementation of a

comprehensive wayfinding strategy would encourage local trips to be undertaken on foot and by bicycle.

In summary, Cambridge is a compact city and therefore walking is a viable mode of travel for local

residents and visitors. The city centre does suffer from pedestrian congestion issues as a result of

relatively narrow footways in the historic core and the high tourist, shopping and visitor demands,

particularly during the summer months. In general, the city is highly permeable on foot and well served by

crossing facilities and pedestrian routes throughout the city. However, there are opportunities to improve

the pedestrian environment through comprehensive and high quality wayfinding, raised entry treatments

and implementation of shared space schemes.



136

6.6.2 Safety

Figure 6.12 below shows all accidents in Cambridge between 2010 and 2014 inclusive which included

pedestrians. The following table and chart summarise this data and show that:

There is a concentration of accidents on the Hills Road axis, Mill Road and East Road

12% of all traffic accidents in Cambridge during the period 2010 to 2014 involved pedestrians. This

proportion increases to 40% of all fatal accidents

78% of pedestrian accidents were of slight severity; 21% serious; and 0.9% fatal

Table 6.4: Accidents involving pedestrians in Cambridge – 2010-2014

Severity Accidents involving pedestrians All accidents Proportion of all accidents

involving pedestrians

Fatal 2 5 40%

Serious 47 245 19%

Slight 174 1648 11%

All 223 1898 12%

Figure 6.11: Accidents involving pedestrians in Cambridge – 2010-2014


The following table provides a breakdown of pedestrian accident types. This shows that 82% of reported

pedestrian accidents involved collision with a motor vehicle, but 18% involved collision with a cyclist.

Table 6.5: Cambridge pedestrian accident types – 2010-2014

Accident Type No Accidents Proportion of All Cycle Accidents

Pedestrian and cyclist 40 18%

Pedestrian and vehicle 181 82%

In 2013, the pedestrian accident rate for Cambridge was 300 accidents per million population. This is lower

than the national average of 394, but a little higher than the East of England average of 286.

40%

19%11% 12%

60%

81%89% 88%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f A

ll A

ccid

en

ts in

Cat

ego

ry

Not involving pedestrians

Involving pedestrians



137

Figure 6.12: Pedestrian accidents – 2010-2014 incl

Source: CCC data



138

6.7 Highway Network

6.7.1 Journey Time Delay

Based on the most recent complete year of Trafficmaster journey time data, Figure 6.15 to Figure 6.20

below show average journey time delay per km (measured relative to free-flow journey times) for:

Weekday time periods of 08:00-09:00 (AM peak), 15:00-16:00 (school leaving peak) and 17:00-18:00

(PM peak)

Averaged for all school term time and school holiday periods separately

From September 2013 to August 2014 inclusive

These results are summarised by road type in the following two charts.

Figure 6.13: Average delay per km (seconds) by weekday time period and road type – School term time, 2013/14

Figure 6.14: Average delay per km (seconds) by weekday time period and road type – School holiday, 2013/14

Source: Trafficmaster data

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Motorway A Road B Road Minor Road Local Street All roads

De

lay

pe

r K

M (

s)

08:00-09:00

15:00-16:00

17:00-18:00

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


De

lay

pe

r km

(s)

08:00-09:00

15:00-16:00

17:00-18:00



139

Figure 6.15: Average journey time delay – School term-time AM Peak, 2013/14




140

Figure 6.16: Average journey time delay – School holidays AM Peak, 2013/14




141

Figure 6.17: Average journey time delay – School term-time 15:00-16:00, 2013/14




142

Figure 6.18: Average journey time delay – School holidays 15:00-16:00, 2013/14




143

Figure 6.19: Average journey time delay – School term-time PM Peak, 2013/14




144

Figure 6.20: Average journey time delay – School holidays PM Peak, 2013/14




145

These figures and charts show that:

Overall delay is greatest and most widespread during the school term-time AM peak, particularly

affecting most inbound radial routes, some outbound routes and the south side of the inner ring road.

Delay in the term-time mid-afternoon period is mostly focussed on the south east side of the city

centre.

Delay in the term-time evening peak is less widespread than in the morning peak, but more intense on

the inner ring road and the radial routes around the south side of the city centre, affecting traffic in both

directions. Congestion is also noticeable between the Science Park and the A14.

The worst delay in all three term-time periods is seen on A-roads and tends to correspond with traffic

signalled sections.

During school holiday times, delay is noticeably less for all three time periods, but particularly for the

AM period which becomes the least congested overall of the three at these times.

The following chart shows, by road type, the percentage change in delay in the school holiday periods

compared to the equivalent school term-time periods. This shows that:

Delay drops for all periods and road types, except on the motorway during the afternoon and evening

periods. However, the latter increases are small in real terms (4 and 3 seconds respectively)

On average, delay drops in the AM peak by 52% across all road types. For the afternoon and evening

periods the reduction is less but still significant at 23% and 28% respectively.

This result corresponds with the term-time / holiday traffic profile discussed in Section 5.3.6 above which

shows greater differences in the AM peak than during the rest of the day.

Figure 6.21: Percentage change in delay in school holiday period


6.7.2 Traffic Routeing

With respect to the delay plots shown above, it is useful to understand the routeing of traffic in the city to

see where there are through trips which could potentially be diverted around the centre. We have therefore

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%


Ch

ange

in D

ela

y p

er

km (

%)

08:00-09:00

15:00-16:00

17:00-18:00



146

derived select-link analysis results from the 2011 Base CSRM model for the links shown in Figure 6.22

below. These links were selected to represent the main radial routes and two cross-river inner ring road

locations.

Weekday AM peak hour results are mapped and attached in Appendix C. Outputs for the PM peak have

not been included as they show very similar results. The results show, for each traffic direction, the origins

and destinations of traffic passing through the selected link and so provides a useful depiction of the

routeing function of the link within the wider network. The volume of traffic in the images is represented by

the thickness of the purple and green flow lines.

Observations from these results for each select link location are presented in Table 6.6 below.

Table 6.6: Select link analysis – traffic routeing observations

Link ID Link Name Traffic Routeing Observations

1 Elizabeth Way Predominantly linking Milton Road to south east parts of city. Also some movements between Madingley Rd / Huntingdon Rd and east of city

2 The Fen Causeway Pressured link connecting radials from A14 and M11 with south east side of city, but also evidence of through-traffic between Barton Rd and A14 jn 35

3 Barton Road Main purpose to connect M11 jn 12 to south of city, but also evidence of cross-city traffic from/to Cambridge Road to north and east sides of city

4 Madingley Road Predominantly linking the A428 and M11 south with the north side of the city

5 Huntingdon Road Mainly linking A14 north with city centre and surrounding areas. Also provides link between Girton and M11 south, via Madingley Road

6 Histon Road Predominantly linking A14 east with north and western sides of the city

7 Milton Road Provides strong link between trunk network and Science Park. Also connects A14 to north and east side of city

8 Newmarket Road Connects A14 to east and south sides of city. Some evidence of cross city traffic between A14 jn 35 and Cambridge Road

9 Babraham Road A pressured link as the main connection between the south east and the rest of the city. Strong linkage with traffic using Brooks Road to avoid city centre

10 Trumpington Road Evidence of linking jns 11 and 12 of the M11 with the south and eastern parts of the city, but also potential through traffic between the A10 and Milton/Histon



147

Figure 6.22: Selected CSRM select link analysis locations

Source: 2011 Base CSRM model (Atkins)



148

6.7.3 Road Safety

Figure 6.24 below shows all accidents in Cambridge between 2010 and 2014 inclusive which involved

vehicles. The following table and chart summarise this data and show that:

There is a concentration of accidents on Hills Road, Mill Road, Newmarket Road and East Road

95% of all traffic accidents in Cambridge during the period 2010 to 2014 involved motor vehicles. This

proportion increases to 100% of all fatal accidents.

87% of vehicle accidents were of slight severity; 12% serious; and 0.3% fatal.

Table 6.7: Accidents involving vehicles in Cambridge – 2010-2014

Severity Accidents involving vehicles All accidents Proportion of all accidents

involving vehicles

Fatal 5 5 100%

Serious 222 245 91%

Slight 1569 1648 95%

All 1796 1898 95%

Figure 6.23: Accidents involving vehicles in Cambridge – 2010-2014


The following table provides a breakdown of vehicle accident types. This shows that only a third of

reported vehicle accidents involve collision with another motor vehicle. The remaining two thirds involve

collision with a cyclist or pedestrian, with cyclists forming the majority proportion.

Table 6.8: Cambridge vehicle accident types – 2010-2014

Accident Type No Accidents Proportion of All Vehicle Accidents

Vehicle and vehicle 585 33%

Vehicle and cyclist 1030 57%

Vehicle and pedestrian 181 10%

In 2013, the vehicle accident rate for Cambridge was 2,641 accidents per million population. This is a little

higher than the national average of 2,295, but this is an average which includes both rural and urban

environments. Accident rates in urban environments can be over twice as high as in rural environments.

100%91% 95% 95%

0%9% 5% 5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f A

ll A

ccid

en

ts in

C

ate

gory

Not involving vehicles

Involving vehicles



149

Figure 6.24: All vehicle accidents – 2010-2014 incl




150

6.8 Car Parking

6.8.1 Off-Street Parking

The Council’s city centre off-street multi-storey car parks currently offer about 3,000 car parking spaces.

Figure 5.56 above shows that this supply is only used close to effective capacity at weekends and during

the Christmas shopping period. The daily parking profile and average durations of stay shown in

Figure 5.57 and Figure 5.58 also suggest that these car parks mainly serve short-to-medium stay trips

rather than commuting trips. However, we understand that car parks such as Grand Arcade and Park

Street suffer access queueing delays at peak parking times, which should be resolved using appropriate

mitigation methods.

The City Council have the advantage over some other UK town centres that they are able to control the

majority of off-street parking in the town centre. This provides the local authority with the capacity to adjust

the parking offer to achieve city centre demand management objectives. However, this needs to be

balanced against the economic needs of the town and parking income implications for the local authority.

6.8.2 On-Street Parking

Figure 3.25 above shows areas of on-street parking in and around the city centre, where most of the

remaining areas shown are controlled by no waiting restrictions. This combination allows on-street parking

to be managed effectively in the core zone, but we do not have information on parking compliance and

enforcement in these areas, or on overspill parking outside of them. If parking is not being effectively

enforced, this can result in overstaying which in turn increases parking search traffic and inappropriate

parking which can cause traffic congestion. Similarly, if overspill parking is taking place in residential areas

outside of the town centre, this can cause conflicts with residents and reduces the effectiveness of an

important demand management measure for controlling town centre traffic.

If either of these elements is not working effectively, they will need addressing in order to ensure efficient

and appropriate use of the available streetspace.

6.9 Long Distance Bus

We do not have any data on the performance of long distance buses to and from Cambridge. However, the

observations presented above in Section 6.3 with respect to congestion and bus station management

apply also to this mode.

6.10 Tourist Coach

As noted above in Section 3.9.2, parking for coaches is available at the Madingley Road Park and Ride

site (£10 per day) but visitors are likely to be dropped off and picked up on Queen’s Road.

Coaches are an important source of business for the city and provision for coach parking is necessary to

encourage this business and to enable drivers to take their statutory break at a suitable location (although

the parking fee may deter potential users). Suitable information should also be available on the County

Council and City Council web sites.



151

6.11 Servicing, Loading, Access and Taxis

We do not have any data on the performance of servicing, loading, access and taxis in the city centre.

6.12 Public Realm

For the purpose of context, Figure 6.25 below shows:

The city’s listed buildings

The city’s Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)

Key development-related land allocations



152

Figure 6.25: Listed buildings, AQMA and development areas

Source: CCC



153

6.12.1 Public Realm Overview

The centre of Cambridge is small in relation to its outskirts and in many aspects conforms to the ideal of

the 'walkable' city - the whole central area can be crossed on foot. However, there is a wide variation in the

character and quality of the public realm in Cambridge. The centre of the city has a strong and individual

urban character and many buildings of unique architectural and historic importance. The outskirts of the

city, especially to the north and east, lack local distinctiveness and the urban realm of Newmarket Road

and Milton Road, for example, which are main routes out of the city, is dominated by traffic and retail uses.

A ring road runs around the centre, with a short stretch of dual carriageway north and east along Elizabeth

Way and East Road. This can create severance for pedestrians and is inhospitable for cyclists; crossing

points are spaced far apart and, to cross the roundabout, pedestrians and cyclists must use a pedestrian

underpass at the Elizabeth Way roundabout.

Figure 6.26: The East Road/Newmarket Road roundabout: pedestrians use the underpass to cross this wide junction.

Source: Mott MacDonald 2015

The urban form of the centre of Cambridge is unusual because of the large blocks of land occupied by the

colleges and departments of the University. They are effectively gated developments and reduce

permeability for pedestrians and cyclists, concentrating them on the routes that cross the city centre.

Permeability is also reduced by the river and railway line so that pedestrians and cyclists are effectively

channelled, with vehicles, onto the small number of roads leading out of the city.

The character of Cambridge has changed over the last thirty years from that of a quiet market town,

dominated by the University, with mainly independent shops serving the local area, to a bustling small city.

The population has risen from around 99,000 in 1971, to around 124,000 in the census of 2011 and this is

reflected in the new areas of housing built in and on the outskirts of the city. Improvements to the rail

connection to King’s Cross enable tourists to visit the city for the day and workers to commute daily to

London. Low levels of unemployment and the high proportion of relatively well paid jobs in the academic,



154

scientific and technology sectors has resulted in greater prosperity in the city, supporting high shop rents

and the replacement of small local shops with chain stores. The introduction of Sunday trading has

contributed to the popularity of the city for shopping seven days a week. The shops draw in people from

the wider area around Cambridge, which has also seen fast population growth.

Figure 6.27: The market square: vehicles must leave the square by 10.00 AM

Source: MM 2015

The rapid growth in the population living in the city and in visitor numbers has an impact on the quality of

the public realm. The streets of the city centre are narrow and must serve delivery and maintenance

vehicles in the early morning and evening and pedestrians and cyclists during the day, when through traffic

is largely excluded. This has resulted in a plethora of bollards and signs which exclude or guide drivers and

cyclists in what they can and cannot do.

Streets are further cluttered with cycle racks, litter bins, benches, lighting and other street furniture.

Surfaces are paved in a variety of materials including brick, York stone and concrete slabs. There are

many different styles of bollards and lights in use. Much of the public realm is in poor condition with pot

holes, uneven surfaces, broken paving slabs, and stained pavements around litter bins. As noted above,

cycles chained to racks, railings, signposts and leaning against walls are a feature of the city centre, taking

up a substantial area of the public realm in streets such as St Andrew's Street which are packed with

pedestrians at weekends and lunchtimes.



155

Figure 6.28: St Andrew’s Street: cycle parking occupies the already narrow paving. The area is closed to most traffic

during the day.

Source: MM 2015

6.12.2 Public Realm Conflict Examples

The public realm has been improved in the city in the last thirty years through closing roads in the centre to

almost all traffic during the day and closing 'rat runs' in residential areas. It is also noted that Policy 9 of the

emerging Cambridge Local Plan sets out a strategy for delivering further improvements in future. However,

the sheer volume of traffic and visitors currently reduces the quality of life for many residents. Residential

development lines most main roads into Cambridge and residents suffer from noise and poor air quality

from commuter traffic queueing to get onto the city. There are long car queues along Downing Street,

Tennis Court Road and Jesus Lane on Saturdays and Sundays for car parks.

The difficulties of managing traffic in Cambridge have led to a number of unwelcome impacts on the public

realm. Some of these impacts are illustrated listed below with examples:

6.12.2.1 Mitcham’s Corner and Chesterton Road

This neighbourhood centre is affected by through traffic. Classified by Cambridge City Council as an

Opportunity Area, the Council is keen to reduce the dominance of traffic using the gyratory linking Milton

Road, Victoria Road and Chesterton Road. Though providing an important and effective traffic function, the

gyratory causes severance between housing to the north and the city centre and reduces the viability of

the local shops at Mitcham’s Corner. The multi-lane junctions require extensive signage to guide traffic and

the only open space is effectively in the middle of the gyratory. Cyclists have to cycle between two traffic

lanes at the Chesterton Road/Victoria Road junction, which is potentially hazardous for young and

inexperienced cyclists.



156

Figure 6.29: Mitcham’s Corner: busy, wide road severs northern Cambridge from the city centre.

Source: MM 2015

6.12.2.2 Tennis Court Road and Downing Street

Cars queueing to get into the Grand Arcade/Lion Yard car parks (especially at weekends) dominate what

would otherwise be a quiet street. This is a reasonably permeable area for pedestrians and cyclists, with

otherwise little through traffic. The University plans to improve permeability of the New Museums Site, off

Downing Street; the draft Local Plan highlights the Old Press/Mill Lane area as an Opportunity Area; and

the existing public realm contains many valuable assets. This part of the city centre therefore has the

potential to have a very high quality of public realm.

6.12.2.3 Hills Road from Addenbrookes’ Hospital Roundabout to Catholic Church

A series of major junctions with multiple lane changes and a complicated cycle route makes this road

daunting for cyclists and pedestrians alike. Again, signage and road markings which are required to help

road users choose the right lane add to street clutter. The junction at the Catholic Church (Lensfield Road)

and the railway bridge have been recently redesigned but they are still difficult to cross and occupy a large

area of what could otherwise be public realm. Pavements are often too narrow – such as at the corner of

Regent’s Street and Lensfield Road.



157

Figure 6.30: The Junction of the A1307 and Lensfield Road: wide expanse of road but narrow pavements

Source: MM 2015

6.12.2.4 Queen’s Road

This is a tree lined road along one of the most beautiful parts of Cambridge – the gardens side of the

colleges, known as ‘the Backs’. The view of King’s College Chapel from here is featured in Simon

Jenkins’s book England’s 100 Best Views (Profile Books, 2013). Heavy traffic along what is effectively an

inner ring road reduces the quality of the pedestrian experience. It causes severance between two parts of

the university – the library and West Cambridge site and the colleges.

Figure 6.31: Queen’s Road and the Backs

Source: MM 2015



158

6.12.2.5 The City Centre

The rising population of Cambridge, increasing numbers of tourists and the attractiveness of Cambridge for

shopping, puts enormous pressure on the small city centre. This has resulted in a decline in the fabric of

the public realm and increasing use of signage, barriers, bollards and other street furniture to control traffic

and pedestrians. Litter bins, cycle racks and seating have dual uses: for their primary function, but also to

exclude traffic. They have the unwanted effect of adding to street clutter and reducing the space available

for pedestrians. The setting of buildings of national and international importance such as King’s College

Chapel and the Senate House are adversely affected by the condition of the streets.

Figure 6.32: Senate House Hill on King’s Parade: litter bins, benches, unmatched bollards and light columns exclude

traffic from the paved area in front of Great St Mary’s but add to impression of a cluttered public realm

Source: MM 2015

6.12.3 Air Quality

As shown in Figure 6.25 above, there is an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in Cambridge city

centre. Table 6.9 shows the national air quality objectives required to be met by the AQMA.

Table 6.9: Air Quality Objectives included in Regulations for the purpose of LAQM in England

Pollutant

Air Quality Objective

Concentration Measured as

Benzene 16.25 µg/m3 Running annual mean

5.00 µg/m3 Annual mean

1,3-Butadiene 2.25 µg/m3 Running annual mean

Carbon monoxide 10 mg/m3 Running 8-hour mean

Lead 0.50 µg/m3 Annual mean

0.25 µg/m3 Annual mean

Nitrogen dioxide 200 µg/m3 not to be exceeded more than 18 times a year 1-hour mean

40 µg/m3 Annual mean



159

Pollutant

Air Quality Objective

Concentration Measured as

Particulate Matter (PM10) (gravimetric)

50 µg/m3, not to be exceeded more than 35 times a year 24-hour mean

40 µg/m3 Annual mean

Sulphur dioxide 350 µg/m3, not to be exceeded more than 24 times a year 1-hour mean

125 µg/m3, not to be exceeded more than 3 times a year 24-hour mean

266 µg/m3, not to be exceeded more than 35 times a year 15-minute mean

Details on progress against each of these objectives is provided in Appendix D.

The overall results are that the current NOx levels within the AQMA are in decline and below the target at

all sites, except for slight exceedances at Parker Street, Pembroke Street and St Andrew’s Street. Current

PM land Benzene levels fall well below the national objective and are not considered to be problem.

6.13 Digital Infrastructure

6.13.1 RTPI Bus Stops

As can be seen in Figure 3.2 above, many of the bus stops in Cambridge are now equipped with RTPI

functionality, but there are also still substantial sections of the network without this equipment.

6.13.2 Bus Priority

It is noted in Section 3.3.6.1 above that there are currently some bus priority signals operating as part of

the Busway. However, throughout the city, there are 25 additional junctions where bus priority equipment is

installed but which have not become operational and are not planned to be switched on in the near future.

The reason for not turning on bus priority is due to the fact that the bus operators are changing the method

of communication for Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL), so instead of using additional equipment on

buses, it will all be run from their on-board ticket machine. The effect of doing this, however, means that

the ticket machine will not be capable of triggering the Traffic Light Priority (TLP).

The 25 junctions are shown in Figure 3.16 below. It is noted from Figure 6.5 and Figure 6.6 above that

many of these locations coincide with sections of the bus network which currently experience significant

peak hour delays.



160

Figure 6.33: Non-operational bus priority locations




161

6.13.3 Journey Time Monitoring

6.13.3.1 Current Situation

Journey time data pertaining to traffic congestion is currently not collated effectively and utilised within

CCC. The UTMC CDB supplied by Cloud Amber at CCC has the ability to integrate journey time data from

a number of sources:

SatNav Data (e.g.: TomTom)

Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) for buses equipped with RTPI equipment

SCOOT from UTC

Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)

Previously, CCC were utilising TomTom congestion data for a majority of the Cambridgeshire region but,

because of contractual issues with CCC being not able to publish the data to the public, the decision to

withdraw the processing of TomTom data within the UTMC CDB was undertaken.

Currently, the UTMC CDB holds all remaining TomTom network links which are now redundant (owing to

data not being populated) as shown in Figure 6.34. It is recommended that the supplier of the UTMC CDB

removes all the redundant TomTom data links on behalf of CCC.

Figure 6.34: Redundant TomTom data links in UTMC CDB




162

ANPR Cameras were also previously used to collate Journey Time data which was then incorporated into

the UTMC CDB via the Journey Times Engine (used to calculate journey times from a number of disparate

data sources). However, the ANPR cameras and the associated back office system have now been

removed in favour of the Bluetooth solution mentioned below, primarily as the cost of ANPR cameras was

very expensive.

Journey time data from Real Time equipped buses within Cambridge is another useful dataset which is

currently being imported into the UTMC CDB. However, as with data from UTC, discussions held with CCC

have raised the concerns with the consistency of the data and therefore potentially does not give an

accurate picture of journey times within the City. This can be down to a number of factors, such as failure

of the UTMC adaptor that collects the data through to network issues between the UTC and UTMC

systems.

Data from SCOOT loops via the UTC system is currently being imported to the UTMC CDB, which is then

used by the CDB in Journey Time calculations. However, an initial analysis of the data in the UTMC CDB

for SCOOT loops has identified that the flow rates are not coming through for all classifications such as

Class 1 vehicles.

Within the UTMC CDB, there are 320 SCOOT transport links which incorporate SCOOT data. However,

the CDB is only registering 18 SCOOT loops via the UTC adaptor. A detailed analysis of why this is the

case would be key to identifying issues with links between UTC and UTMC, thus giving further evidence to

the consistency of the data for use in journey time calculation.

6.13.3.2 Bluetooth Detectors

CCC are about to implement a programme of installing Bluetooth detector devices across key strategic

routes in Cambridgeshire. Previously, ANPR cameras were used to capture journey time information, but

the high cost involved negated the benefit of obtaining the Journey Time data. The ANPR cameras which

were used are owned by the Police and hence remain in situ, however, CCC paid for the maintenance of

the cameras as part of agreement to obtain the data used in Journey Time calculations.

There are 41 locations identified for Bluetooth devices, all of which will be installed by the end of the year

(2015) listed below

The system will be supplied by SSL (Simulation Systems Ltd) and is called ‘Bluetruth’. It is a cloud based

solution providing a web based interface; therefore no server hardware will be required by CCC. The

system will be able to provide CCC with ‘Origin Destination’ journey tracking, average speed/journey time,

route discover and journey trend data. In addition, data from the system can also be fed into the UTMC

CDB as per ANPR systems, thus enabling CCC to integrate journey time data to help develop traffic

management strategies in the UTMC system.

The map in Figure 6.35 shows the Bluetooth device locations.



163

Figure 6.35: Proposed Bluetooth detector locations




164

6.14 Smarter Choices

6.14.1 Travel for Cambridgeshire

The work of TfC is described in Section 3.11.2.1 above. The success of TfC is supported by the following

table, which shows the modal shift for the period 2001 – 2012 based on ‘core’ employees who have taken

part in the travel survey each year (Core employees include Cambridge City Council, GO-East, Marshall

Group of Companies, South Cambridgeshire District Council, University of Cambridge, Cambridgeshire

County Council and Huntingdonshire District Council).

Table 6.10: Travel for Cambridgeshire Group Survey Results Table 2012/13

Mode Oct

2001 Oct

2002 Oct

2003 Oct

2004 Oct

2005 Oct

2006 Oct

2007 Oct

2008 Oct

2009 Oct

2010 Oct

2011 Oct

2012

Bicycle 22.1% 26.1% 23.4% 22.5% 23.3% 25.5% 24.3% 24.6% 24.8% 26.5% 26.0% 27.2%

Car Share 11.3% 11.4% 12.2% 11.1% 10.8% 10.8% 9.6% 10.7% 9.7% 10.4% 10.1% 10.4%

Drive (alone)

47.5% 41.2% 44.4% 45.0% 41.2% 40.0% 41.9% 38.9% 40.6% 37.7% 39.0% 38.5%

Home - working

- - - 2.3% 1.8% 1.6% 1.9% 2.2% 2.0% 2.0% 2.6% 2.6%

Motorbike 1.5% 2.0% 1.7% 1.3% 1.8% 1.6% 1.6% 1.8% 1.1% 1.2% 1.4% 1.0%

Other - - - 0.5% 1.8% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 1.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Other Workplace

- - - 0.9% 1.9% 1.8% 2.0% 2.1% 1.9% 1.9% 2.3% 2.1%

Public Bus 6.6% 7.8% 6.2% 6.6% 6.5% 7.7% 7.7% 7.8% 7.0% 7.4% 7.0% 7.3%

Staff Bus 1.1% 0.9% 0.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

Train 2.3% 2.2% 2.6% 2.7% 2.8% 3.0% 3.5% 3.6% 3.0% 4.3% 3.8% 4.1%

Walk 6.6% 7.0% 6.7% 6.2% 7.2% 6.9% 6.6% 7.7% 8.0% 8.1% 7.4% 6.6%

Respondents: 8,509 (2012) Cambridgeshire Travel for Work Partnership, Annual Progress Report April 2012 to March 2013

29% of TfC commuters cycled to work in comparison to 3% nationally and 5% regionally. The average

distance travelled to work by respondents in 2012 was 14km (8 miles).

6.14.2 Travel Apps

In Section 3.11.4.3 above, the ‘MyBusTrip’ app is described. However, owing to data sharing agreements,

CCC is not able to release data to the outside world to allow App developers who specialise in developing

Apps to promote innovation and high usage of Council data.

Back in 2013, CCC ICT had also procured the development of a mobile application which would have been

platform independent of Windows, Apple iOS, Blackberry and Android. The prime purpose was to

disseminate transport specific data across all such as CCTV, roadworks and incidents. However, this

project was cancelled owing to data sharing agreements not being in place. Example screen shots of what

the mobile application may have looked like are shown in Figure 6.36.



165

Figure 6.36: Mobile application – platform independent

Source: Cloud Amber/CCC

There is therefore potential for some further development of travel apps for Cambridge.



166

7.1 Introduction

In light of the above performance review of the existing transport network in Cambridge, the purpose of this

section is to review future land use developments and transport schemes in order to understand the

additional impacts the transport network will need to address in coming years.

7 Future


Cambridge faces significant population and employment growth over the next 15 years

– The Draft Local Plan for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire predicts that, by 2031, the

population of Cambridge will be 21% greater than it was in 2011 and that there will also be a

25% growth in Cambridge jobs

Development areas on the fringes of the city will potentially exacerbate congestion and road safety

issues on some radial routes and the inner ring road

– Development areas within the city are to be focussed on North West Cambridge, East

Cambridge, South Cambridge and the City Centre

Tranche One City Deal transport schemes will help prioritise bus movements on some radial routes

and provide improved cycle routes for some journeys

– However, congestion, bus reliability and cycle safety issues will likely remain on most radial

routes

Other future potential transport schemes will introduce improved rail accessibility through new

routes and stations, and improved bus accessibility through new orbital links and further radial route

treatments

– The orbital links, if appropriately implemented, have the potential to relieve sufficient pressure

on the radial routes and inner ring road to allow road space reallocation to bus and cycle

– New rail stations to the north and south could also relieve pressure on the city centre and radial

routes

For city centre traffic levels to remain at 2011 levels in the face of population and employment

growth to 2031, a significant mode shift from car will be required

– For all commuting trips in Cambridge, it is estimated the overall car mode share will need to

reduce from 56% to 45%

– Since two-thirds of Cambridge commuting trips start or finish outside the city, much of this mode

shift will need to be accommodated by rail, bus and Park & Ride. For trips within the city, the

cycling and bus mode share will need to increase

– Delivering efficiency and safety of movement by public transport and cycle modes to, within and

from Cambridge is therefore key to the future transport direction of the city



167

7.2 Population and Employment Projections

7.2.1 ONS Population Projections

The current population growth in Cambridge is expected to continue over the next two decades, reaching

over 136,000 in 2037; an 8.5% increase based on the 2012 population. Figure 2.1 shows that, after a small

dip in 2013, Cambridge’s population is expected to grow year on year.

Figure 7.1: Cambridge population projection, 2012-2037

Source: NOMIS

Table 7.1 summarises these figures.

Table 7.1: Cambridge population projection

Year Population

2012 125,200

2015 125,100

2018 126,100

2021 126,700

2024 128,100

2027 130,400

2031 133,100

2034 134,900

2037 136,700

Source: ONS

118,000

120,000

122,000

124,000

126,000

128,000

130,000

132,000

134,000

136,000

138,000

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

20

33

20

34

20

35

20

36

20

37

Po

pu

lati

on

Year



168

Similarly, the population of Greater Cambridge is expected to rise year on year until 2037. The region is

anticipating a 16% rise in population between 2012 and 2037, taking it to 750,100 by 2037 (see

Figure 7.2).

Figure 7.2: Cambridgeshire population projection, 2012-2037

Source: ONS

7.2.2 Local Plan

7.2.2.1 Population Projections

The Local Plan projections for population in Cambridge for 2031 are higher than the ONS forecasts:

150,000 compared to 133,100). The housing and employment targets included in the Draft Plan reflect this

higher projection. Table 7.2 outlines the Local Plan population forecast.

Table 7.2: Local Plan population projections for Cambridge

Year Population

2011 123,900

2031 150,000

Source: Draft Local Plan for Cambridge (2014)

7.2.2.2 Employment Projections

Table 7.3 sets out the employment targets for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire from the Draft Local

Plan. The table shows that there are 44,100 new jobs planned for the region to meet the needs of the

560,000

580,000

600,000

620,000

640,000

660,000

680,000

700,000

720,000

740,000

760,000

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

20

33

20

34

20

35

20

36

20

37

Po

pu

lati

on

Year



169

expected population growth. To accommodate this growth in jobs, there is a need for 7.42 extra hectares of

employment land in Cambridge and 433 extra hectares in South Cambridgeshire.

Table 7.3: Employment Targets

Location Jobs target

Cambridge 22,100

South Cambridgeshire 22,000

Source: Examination into the Soundness of the Cambridge Local Plan and South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2014) ‘Joint Matter 4

– Employment and Retail’

7.2.2.3 Housing Projections

Table 7.4 sets out the housing targets for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire from the Draft Local Plan.

The table shows that 33,000 new houses are planned for the region to meet the needs of the expected

population growth. It is anticipated that 36,389 dwellings will be delivered between 2011 and 2031 with a

10% surplus remaining which provides flexibility to respond to changing conditions.

Table 7.4: Housing Targets

Location Housing target

Cambridge 14,000

South Cambridgeshire 19,000

Source: Examination into the Soundness of the Cambridge Local Plan and South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2015). ‘Matter 8 –

Housing Land Supply and Delivery’

Figure 7.3 provides an overview of the key employment and housing sites planned for Cambridge and

South Cambridgeshire.

2 Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed Submission (p134)

3 South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2013: Proposed Submission (p25)

https://www.scambs.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Proposed%20Submission%20Local%20Plan%20(for%20website)_0.pdf



170

Figure 7.3: Planned developments in Cambridge/South Cambridgeshire

Source: The Greater Cambridge City Deal (2015)

7.3 Land Use Developments

The Draft Local Plan for Cambridge (2014) sets out the policies that will guide how Cambridge meets its

development needs to 2031. The land-use proposals that will support this development can be grouped

under the following headings:

Cambridge City Centre

Sites covered by existing area action plans (AAPs)

Area of major change (AOMCs)

Opportunity areas

Site specific proposals

The sites that have been considered suitable to contribute towards Cambridge’s needs to 2031 are

attached in Appendix E. Figure 7.4 provides an illustration of these sites in relation to the Greater

Cambridge area.



171

Figure 7.4: Cambridge Local Plan 2014 Proposed Submission Policies Map

Source: Cambridge City Council



172

7.3.1 Potential Transport Effects of Land Use Developments

The schemes that are planned in Cambridge are likely to impact upon the whole city, but may particularly

affect the areas and modes discussed in the following text.

7.3.1.1 North-West Cambridge

The schemes that form part of the North West Area Action Plan, such as a 66.9 ha mixed use development

and other major developments, will largely be accessed from Huntingdon Road and Histon Road. This will

therefore increase demand for trips on these two radial routes.

Currently in the weekday AM peak hour, Figure 6.13 above shows that Huntingdon Road experiences

significant delay along half its length in the inbound direction, while Histon Road experiences significant

delays along its full length. The situation is improved in the weekday PM peak, with short sections of

outbound delay on Histon Road only. Increased development on these links is likely to cause a

deterioration of this situation unless suitable mitigation is applied.

It is also noted that access between Huntingdon Road and the adjacent trunk network is limited, with direct

connection possible with the A14 (north) but not with the A14 (east), M11 (south) or A428 (west). Access

to:

A14 (east) requires use of Histon Road to reach junction 32 of the A14

M11 (south) requires use of Madingley Road to reach junction 13 of the M11

A428 (west) requires use of Madingley Road or The Avenue through Madingley

In all three of these cases, traffic must first be drawn towards the city centre before heading out on a busy

radial route, which increases pressure on sensitive areas of the network.

In terms of existing public transport provision, Figure 3.4 above shows that weekday peak hour bus

frequencies on Huntingdon Road and Histon Road are in the range of 6 to 9 services per hour in each

direction. These corridors are therefore well served by bus. However, there are no bus priority measures

on either route, so these services will be vulnerable to congestion disruption at peak times.

In terms of cycle provision, Figure 3.14 above shows that there are on-road cycle lanes along Huntingdon

Road and Histon Road. However, Figure 6.10 above shows clusters of cycle accidents on Histon Road,

including one fatality. Cycle safety should therefore be addressed on this corridor to ensure that new

development in this area does not result in either an increase in cycle accidents or a deterrence to use.

7.3.1.2 East Cambridge

The schemes that form part of the Cambridge East Area Action Plan, resulting in up to 1,500 new houses,

will be primarily accessed from Newmarket Road. This will therefore increase demand for trips on this key

radial route from the east, as well as on east and south elements of the outer ring road.

Currently in the weekday AM peak hour, Figure 6.13 above shows that Newmarket Road experiences

significant inbound delay towards the city centre, while the junction of Newmarket Road and Ditton Lane

results in significant delays on the Ditton Road arm. In the weekday PM peak, there is significant outbound



173

delay on Newmarket Road. Increased development on these links is likely to cause a deterioration of this

situation unless suitable mitigation is applied.


frequencies on Newmarket Road are in the range of 6 to 9 services per hour in each direction, including

Park & Ride services, and that there are two way bus lanes to help avoid some of the congestion sections.

Without P&R, however, the frequency of buses is half hourly in each direction. This service frequency

would require improvement to accommodate the new development.

In terms of cycle provision, Figure 3.14 above shows that there are on-road cycle lanes along Newmarket

Road. However, Figure 6.10 above shows clusters of cycle accidents along Newmarket Road between the

airport and the city centre, including several severe accidents. Cycle safety should therefore be addressed

on this corridor to ensure that new development in this area does not result in either an increase in cycle

accidents or a deterrence to use.

7.3.1.3 South Cambridge

A number of new developments are planned for the south of Cambridge, around the Trumpington area.

The planned schemes include a 68.2 ha medical service and biomedical research centre, a 60.7 ha

residential development with 2,250 new dwellings, and a number of smaller housing developments

providing over 1,000 new homes. This development will increase demand for trips on the key radial routes

of Trumpington Road and Hills Road, as well as on south and east elements of the outer ring road.

Currently in the weekday AM peak hour, Figure 6.13 above shows significant inbound delay in

Trumpington and on Babraham Road / Hills Road from the P&R site to the city centre. In the weekday PM

peak, there is significant outbound delay along the length of Trumpington Road and on part of Hills Road,

as well as inbound delay on both routes closer to the city centre. Increased development on these links is

likely to cause a deterioration of this situation unless suitable mitigation is applied.


frequencies on Trumpington Road and Hills Road are a minimum of 6 services per hour in each direction,

providing regular links to the city centre. There is also one outbound bus lane on Trumpington Road and

some inbound bus lanes on Hills Road, but not enough to avoid all areas of delay experienced by these

routes. The busway between Trumpington, Addenbrooke’s and the station does provide a traffic free route

for buses and cyclists between these destinations, but improving priority on the radial routes will also be

important for promoting sustainable travel from the new developments.

In terms of cycle provision, Figure 3.14 above shows that there are cycleways and on-road cycle lanes

along Trumpington Road and Hills Road and along the south and east sections of the outer ring road.

There is also a traffic free cycle route along the busway. However, Figure 6.10 above shows clusters of

cycle accidents along the length of Hills Road and on sections of Trumpington Road, including several

severe accidents. Cycle safety should therefore be addressed on these corridors to ensure that new

development in this area does not result in either an increase in cycle accidents or a deterrence to use.

7.3.1.4 City Centre

The centre of Cambridge has a number of new developments planned over the coming years, particularly

around the railway station and the River Cam. The planned schemes include a 9.4 ha mixed use



174

development (housing and commercial use) opposite the main railway station, 156 new dwellings on Hills

Road and over 200 new dwellings close to Mill Road. These developments will result in an increase in

residents in the city centre. Whilst this may reduce car dependency, it will also increase the number of trips

by walking and cycling, placing increasing pressure on cycle parking within the central area. It is therefore

important that cycle facilities are upgraded in the city centre so that they can meet the potential growth in

demand to ensure that all who wish to cycle can do so.

In addition to this, the city centre will experience increased trip demand from the new developments

described above which will exert pressure on the radial approach routes, the inner ring road and the inner

core area street space. This will need to be carefully managed to maintain the health and vitality of the

central core of the city.

7.4 City Deal Transport Schemes

The Greater Cambridge region will receive £100m of City Deal funding during the first tranche of the

programme between 2015 and 2019. The committed transport schemes under the City Deal for this period,

outlined in Table 7.5, add up to £156.42m including local contributions such as S106 funding.

Table 7.5: Committed City Deal schemes

Scheme Cost (£m)

Milton Road bus priority 23.0

Madingley Road bus priority 34.6

Histon Road bus priority 4.3

A428 to M11 segregated bus route / A428 corridor Park & Ride 24.5

City centre capacity improvements / cross-city cycle improvements 22.7

A1307 corridor to include bus priority / A1307 additional Park & Ride 39.0

Chisholm Trail cycle links / Chisholm Trail bridge 8.4

TOTAL 156.4

The programme is focused on delivering those schemes which maximize economic and network benefits

through transforming the area’s transport network. The programme has four main focuses:

1. Improving and enhancing sustainable transport capacity in the city centre using innovative and creative

solutions

2. Transforming sustainable transport movements from the north to the south of the city, and on towards

Haverhill

3. Supporting early housing growth along the A428 corridor with links to Cambridge Biomedical Campus

4. Bus priority and cycle and pedestrian improvements on the key radial routes to improve accessibility by

sustainable alternative means of travel to the key employment areas and new developments

Figure 7.5 provides an illustration of the committed schemes in the first tranche of the City Deal

programme.



175

Figure 7.5: Committed City Deal Transport Schemes




176

7.4.1 Potential Transport Effects of City Deal Schemes

The City Deal transport schemes may help to alleviate some pressure on the transport network associated

with the land use impacts discussed in the previous section. The following text provides an outline of the

possible impact of the City Deal transport schemes.

7.4.1.1 North-West Cambridge

As part of the first tranche of City Deal schemes, the schemes which could benefit North West Cambridge

are:

Bus priority measures for both the Histon Road and Madingley Road corridors

It is noted above that Histon Road currently experiences significant peak hour delays but has no measures

to allow buses to avoid the congestion. The proposed bus priority measures for this route will therefore

improve bus access to and from the proposed new development in this area and thereby encourage

alternatives to private car use. If these measures also involve increased priority for cyclists, then this would

also help resolve the existing cycle safety problem along this route.

The Madingley Road bus priority measures could benefit any areas of new development along Huntingdon

Road which have access to this neighbouring route.

However, with these schemes in place, the following above noted problems for new development in this

area will potentially remain:

Limited connections from Huntingdon Road to the trunk network

Congestion on Histon Road and Huntingdon Road

Bus delays on Huntingdon Road

Some cycle safety issues on Histon Road and Huntingdon Road


As part of the first tranche of City Deal schemes, the scheme which could benefit East Cambridge is:

The Chisolm Trail cycle link between Addenbrooke’s and the Science Park

This will cross Newmarket Road and so will provide improved orbital cycle accessibility to and from the

new developments on this radial route.

However, with this scheme in place, the following above noted problems for new development in this area

will potentially remain:

Congestion and bus delay on Newmarket Road

Low bus frequency beyond P&R site

Cycle safety issues on Newmarket Road



177


As part of the first tranche of City Deal schemes, the schemes which will benefit South Cambridge are:

The Chisolm Trail cycle link between Addenbrooke’s and the Science Park

Bus priority measures on the A1307 Babraham Road

The Chisolm Trail cycle route will improve orbital cycle access to the north of the city and especially to the

employment areas on Newmarket Road and the Science Park. This will allow some cyclists to avoid the

safety issues noted on Hills Road and Newmarket Road, and also on East Road and Milton Road.

The bus priority measures on Babraham Road could resolve some of the existing congestion issues on this

route for buses, but this depends on how far towards the city centre these measures extend.

With these schemes in place, the following above noted problems for new development in this area will

potentially remain:

Congestion and bus delay on Trumpington Road and Hills Road

Cycle safety issues on Trumpington Road and Hills Road

7.4.1.4 City Centre

As part of the first tranche of City Deal schemes, the schemes which could benefit the City Centre are:

City centre cycle/walking network and cycle parking improvements

This will encourage continuing and increasing use of cycles and walking to access and pass through the

city centre and so will help discourage an increase in car trips in this sensitive area.

The bus priority measures proposed for Madingley Road, Histon Road and Milton Road will also improve

bus access to the city centre along these radial routes. However, this increases the importance of ensuring

that buses can access and interchange effectively once they reach the inner ring road and historic central

core.

7.4.1.5 Other Areas

As part of the first tranche of City Deal schemes and not covered by the above, it is also proposed to

introduce bus priority measures to Milton Road. This will help improve P&R and bus service reliability along

this important radial route which serves both the city centre from the A10 approach and the Science Park.

7.5 Other Potential Transport Schemes

The transport projects that are being funded through the first tranche of the City Deal programme form just

part of the solution to improve transport infrastructure in Greater Cambridge. A number of other schemes

are in the pipeline and discussed in the subsequent text.



178

7.5.1 Other Projects

7.5.1.1 The A14

Up to £1.5 billion of investment has been committed by the Government to improve the A14 between

Cambridge and Huntingdon. The A14 is a strategically important route which connects the Midlands to the

East Coast, with nearly 85,000 vehicles per day using some sections of the route in Cambridgeshire.4 The

stretch of road between Cambridge and Huntington is a key route for both commuters and freight traffic

and the upgrades will help to relieve congestion, release growth and help to connect communities in

Cambridge and Huntington to boost the economy and unlock local housing developments.

The proposed schemes will provide a much needed capacity increase on the 22 mile route, including a

new 12 mile bypass around Huntingdon. Construction is due to start in late 2016 and be completed by

2019/20. Figure 7.6 provides an illustration of the proposed improvements on the route.

Figure 7.6: A14 improvements site details

Source: Highways England

7.5.1.2 Cambridge Science Park Station

A new railway station serving north Cambridge is planned for the Chesterton area of Cambridge. The

station will be located approximately 2 miles north east of the city centre on the Ely to Cambridge line,

providing improved access to the northern business and research parks of the City; particularly for people

travelling from South Cambridgeshire and Ely.

4 Peterborough City Council



179

The rail station will comprise the following:

Approximately 450sqm building (passenger waiting facilities; toilets; ticket office; retail; amenity space;

rail staff accommodation and facilities)

Two main line platforms

One terminating bay platform

Pedestrian / cycle bridge linking station building and platforms over the main line

Operational times 05:30-01:00 daily

The Interchange Facility will comprise the following:

New pedestrian and cycle links to surrounding area including; Discovery Way, Pippin Drive, Ribston

Way, Long Reach Road, through Bramblefields Local Nature Reserve and Nuffield Road Industrial

Estate

Approximately 1000 space cycle parking

Extension of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway into the site

Multi-modal interchange for cars, buses, trains, cyclists, pedestrians and heavy rail

Highway access from Cowley Road

Approximately 450 space car park5

The plans for the station also include excellent bus and cycling links to maximise the potential to reduce

car use.

7.5.1.3 East-West Rail

The Government has committed to the reopening of the western section of the closed Oxford – Cambridge

railway line to improve rail services between East Anglia, Central and Southern England. The scheme

involves upgrading and re-constructing underused and disused sections of the former railway between

Bedford and Oxford, Milton Keynes and Aylesbury.

The scheme is being funded by the Department for Transport and the East West Rail Consortium and is

being delivered by Network Rail within the 2014-2019 railway funding control period.6

Plans for the Central section of the railway (between Bedford and Cambridge) lines are not as well

developed as the Western section and have therefore not received a funding commitment. However, the

Government has said that it will work with the East West Rail Consortium to examine options for the

Central section and accelerate the delivery of an option if there is a robust case to do so.7

Figure 7.7 provides an illustration of the proposed East West Rail route.

5 Cambridgeshire County Council (2013) ‘Cambridge Science Park Station Interchange Transport Assessment.’

6 EastWestRail (2014) http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/frequently-asked-questions/

7 The Greater Cambridge City Deal (2015) http://www.gccitydeal.co.uk/citydeal/info/2/transport/1/transport/3

http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/frequently-asked-questions/

http://www.gccitydeal.co.uk/citydeal/info/2/transport/1/transport/3



180

Figure 7.7: The proposed East West Rail route

Source: East West Rail

7.5.2 Future City Deal Schemes

Under the first tranche of the City Deal, £100m has been committed to deliver seven transport schemes

outlined in the section above. In addition to these schemes, there a number of other transport schemes

seeking funding in subsequent phases of the City Deal fund. Table 7.6 provides a summary of these

potential schemes.

Table 7.6: Potential City Deal Transport Schemes

Scheme Deliverables Cost Timeframe

A10 corridor north of Cambridge

£360m

Major capacity improvements on the A10 £45M Mid to late 2020s

Major capacity improvements on the A10/A14 Milton interchange

£40M Mid to late 2020s

Relocated and enlarged Waterbeach Station £25M Mid to late 2020s

1,000 space Park and Ride site on A10 north of Waterbeach


Busway between Waterbeach barracks and north Cambridge


A428 corridor west of Cambridge

£66m

Busway/high quality bus priority. West Cambourne to Queens Road

£53m By 2020/21

1,000 space Park and Ride on A423 in the Bourn Airfield/Cambourne area

£8M By 2016/17



181

Scheme Deliverables Cost Timeframe

A10 corridor south of Cambridge

£65m

1,500 space Park and Ride site, Hauxton £12M By March 2021

Busway, Hauxton Park and Ride to Trumpington Park and Ride

£11M By March 2021

Bridge or underpass to replace level crossing on the A10 at Foxton

Interchange improvements at Foxton Station

Cambridge City package

£321m

Orbital bus corridor. West Cambridge to Addenbrooke's

£13M £40M - Tbc

By March 2025

Orbital bus corridor, Cambridge Science Park to Addenbrooke's

Radial bus corridors £43M By March 2022

Figure 7.8 illustrates these schemes in the wider Cambridge/City Deal context.

Figure 7.8: Other Potential Transport Schemes

Source: Cambridge News



182

7.5.3 Potential Transport Effects of Other Potential Transport Schemes

The programme of potential transport schemes identified above will go some way towards mitigating the

growth in travel demand predicted as a result of increased population and employment growth. The

following text provides an outline of the potential impact of these schemes.

7.5.3.1 North West Cambridge

Of the above additional potential transport schemes, the ones which could benefit developments in North

West Cambridge are:

Improvements to A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon

Cambourne P&R and A428 bus priority

West Cambridge to Addenbrooke’s orbital bus corridor

The A14 improvements will improve strategic access to and from the North West of Cambridge, but could

potentially add more pressure to the Huntingdon Road radial route into the city centre.

The proposed orbital bus corridor would open up a link between the Busway, Histon Road, Huntingdon

Road and Madingley Road. This would significantly improve the bus assessibility of this area and would

also open up new links for cycles. However, if this link were to also serve general traffic movements, with

sufficient bus priority provided, it could provide a valuable relief link for the city centre, taking a proportion

of traffic off the north side of the inner ring road as well as the connecting radial routes, and improving the

accessibility of Huntingdon Road to the trunk network.

With these additional schemes in place, the following above noted problems for new development in this

area will potentially remain:

Congestion on Histon Road and Huntingdon Road

Bus delays on Huntingdon Road

Some cycle safety issues on Histon Road and Huntingdon Road


Of the above additional potential transport schemes, the ones which could benefit developments in East

Cambridge are:

High Quality bus route on Newmarket Road

New P&R site on Newmarket Road

Orbital bus route from Science Park to Addenbrooke’s

New Science Park rail station

A High Quality bus route on Newmarket Road will improve bus accessibility for new developments in this

area, as long as it includes bus priority measures to improve bus reliability and journey times along this

radial route.

An new orbital bus link to the Science Park will further increase the bus accessibility of East Cambridge

and will provide valuable public transport and cycling connections to the north of the city and to the new

Science Park station.



183

If this new link to the Science Park were to also serve general traffic movements, with sufficient bus priority

provided, it would help to ease congestion on Newmarket Road and Milton Road and remove a proportion

of traffic from the inner ring road. This would also potentially enable greater road space reallocation to

cycle and bus on these radial routes.

With these additional schemes in place, the above noted problems for new development in this area will

potentially be largely resolved.


Of the above additional potential transport schemes, the ones which could benefit developments in South

Cambridge are:

New P&R at Hauxton and busway to Trumpington

Orbital bus route from Addenbrooke’s to North West Cambridge

Orbital bus route from Addenbrooke’s to Science Park

High Quality bus route on Hills Road, between rail station and city centre

The proposed orbital bus routes would significantly improve the bus accessibility of new developments in

South Cambridge. These routes would allow buses from South Cambridge to reach employment

destinations in the north and the busway to St Ives without having to pass through the city centre.

High Quality bus measures on Hills Road would potentially assist bus reliability on this congested radial,

but only if the measures involve bus priority. It is also not clear how much of Hills Road will be treated.

With these additional schemes in place, the above noted problems for new development in this area will

potentially remain:

Congestion and bus delay on Trumpington Road and Hills Road

Cycle safety issues on Trumpington Road and Hills Road

7.5.3.4 City Centre

Of the above measures, the city centre will particularly benefit from:

The proposed orbital bus routes

The Science Park rail station

Both these proposals will reduce routeing pressures on the city centre and therefore allow for greater road

space reallocation to buses, cycles and pedestrians.

7.5.3.5 Other Areas

The Science Park rail station and orbital bus route from Addenbrooke’s, together with the Chisolme Trail,

bus priority on Milton Road and capacity improvements to the A14/Milton Road interchange will

significantly improve the accessibility of the Science Park by sustainable modes.



184

7.6 Future Challenges

As summarised above, the Draft Local Plan for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire predicts that, by

2031, the population of Cambridge will be 21% greater than it was in 2011 and that there will also be a

25% growth in Cambridge jobs.

As noted in Section 2.4, about two-thirds of Cambridge’s economically active residents work in the city, but

about a third work elsewhere. Similarly, about two-thirds of the city’s employees travel in from outside

Cambridge. Figure 2.17 therefore shows that about two-thirds of all commuting trips in Cambridge either

start or finish outside the city, while Figure 5.13 shows that this proportion rises to 84% of all commuting

trips by car. Given that Cambridge is a centre of wider regional importance, it is expected that this pattern

would be reflected to varying degrees in other trips purposes also, such as education, shopping and health

trips.

This high external trip factor among car drivers presents a particular challenge for effectively managing the

city’s road space in the face of future growth, particularly as much of the growth is expected to occur on the

city’s fringes and beyond.

The Council’s aspirations are that city centre traffic levels in 2031 be no greater, and preferably lower, than

2011 traffic levels. This is a sensible aspiration as increased congestion would exacerbate the cycle

whereby declining bus reliability leads to increasing car use. However, to achieve this zero increase in

traffic levels in the face of projected growth forecasts will require the opposite cycle to be delivered: a

significant mode shift from car use.

How this is achieved will need to differ depending on where trips are coming from.

As noted above, 84% of commuting car trips start or finish outside the city. For non-Cambridge residents

travelling into the city, converting these trips to rail at journey source or to Park & Ride at the city fringes is

therefore essential, which requires the onward journey by these modes to be efficient and competitively

priced. For Cambridge residents travelling out, however, converting the journey en-route is not possible, in

which case cycle, bus and rail options must be attractive at source. Cambridge residents travelling within

the city must be encouraged to walk, cycle or use the bus for as many journeys as possible.

Based on this broad outlook, we have estimated a future 2031 commuting mode share based on the

following matrix of target behaviour:

Table 7.7: Target 2031 commuting mode share behaviour compared to 2011

Mode Target 2031 Change in Mode Share Compared to 2011

Rest of UK to Cambridge

South Cams to Cambridge

Cambridge to Cambridge

Cambridge to South Cams

Cambridge to Rest of UK

On Foot No change No change Increase No change No change

Bicycle No change Increase Increase Increase No change

Bus No change No change Increase Increase Increase

P&R Increase Increase NA NA NA

Rail Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase

Car etc Decrease (zero trip growth)

Decrease (zero trip growth)






185

Based on these parameters, we estimate the following mode share change would be required for

commuting trips in Cambridge in order to maintain 2011 traffic levels in the city (note that the increase in

bus use includes all increase in Park & Ride use).

Figure 7.9: Estimated 2031 Cambridge commuting mode share to maintain zero car trip growth

Source: 2011 Census, MM estimation

To achieve this commuting mode share in 2031, each mode would be required to accommodate,

compared to 2011 levels, the additional daily two-way commuting trips shown in the following chart:

Figure 7.10: Estimated additional commuting trips per mode to deliver target 2031 target mode share

Source: MM calculation based on 2011 Census data

Achieving this level of trip growth per mode for commuting presents some challenges. When applied

across all peak hour trip purposes, however, it is clear that a strong policy direction will be required.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

2011 2031

No

2-W

ay C

om

mu

tin

g Tr

ips

per

Day

On Foot

Bicycle

Bus

Rail

Car, Taxi, M'cycle, Other

On Foot Bicycle Bus P&R RailCar, Taxi,M'cycle,

Other

Trips 2604 8786 2677 4165 6462 0

Mode Share 11% 36% 11% 17% 26% 0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000Pr

opor

tion

of A

ddit

ion

al C

omm

utin

g Tr

ips

No

Add

ito

nal C

omm

utin

g Tr

ips

56% 45%

6%

8%

20%

9%

10%

12%

23%

10%



186

8.1 Introduction

The purpose of this section is to provide a summary review of European best practice examples of policy

measures that have helped to manage car use in cities comparable to Cambridge.

8.2 European Best Practice

Table 8.1 below presents a summary of relevant best practice examples from other European cities. The

example locations were chosen broadly using the following criteria:

Population around 200,000

University city

Reasonable level of cycling and public transport use

Managed/managing to respond to growth without increase in car trips, or managing to increase

sustainable mode share

The table provides an indication of where Cambridge sits compared to similar cities in Europe in terms of

cycling, car and public transport use, and some examples of measures that can help to guide Cambridge’s

future policy making.

Table 8.1: European best practice examples

City Population Uni Key industries Mode share Key fact Key measures

Cambridge, UK

124,000 Research & development, software consultancy, high value engineering, creative industries, pharmaceuticals and tourism.

Cycling: 43% Walk: 23% Car: 26% PT: 8%

Cambridge is the innovation capital of the country, with more patents per 100,000 population than the next six cities combined.

Guided busway

Park & Ride

Cycling infrastructure

Restrictions on car parking

8 European Benchmarking


There are a number of European cities with policies and schemes which are relevant to Cambridge

– Interventions range from:

– Advanced smartcard ticketing (Plzen, Czech Republic)

– Big Data dissemination to users (Aarhus, Denmark)

– Free public transport provision (Talinn, Estonia)

– ‘Superblock’ city centre access controls (Vitoria-Gasteaiz, Spain)

– Blanket 20mph zones and cycle streets (various)

For many of these schemes, ongoing revenue funding is as important as up-front capital funding



187

City Population Uni Key industries Mode share Key fact Key measures

Plzen, Czech Republic

170,000 Academic, business, manufacturing, automotive.


Plzen has the most advanced smartcard ticketing in the country

Advanced smartcard ticketing

Core tram routes and trolleybus routes covering majority of trips/mileage

Controlled parking zone in the city centre

Aarhus, Denmark

260,000 Academic, service sector, trade & transportation.


City keen to explore options to increase the performance of its transport system but current focus is on quick-and-easy access to data

BLIP (Bluetooth Local Infotainment Point) system

Data gathered on roads to provide a picture of each road user

Information warns traffic engineers about delays

Tallinn, Estonia

435,200 Finance, business, information technology, tourism, logistics, energy.

Historically, ticket sales only covered 33% of the costs of running the transit network

Zero fare public transport for residents and contactless travel cards

Traffic congestion was down 15% in the centre in the first quarter

Public transport use increased by 12.6% and car use reduced by 9%

Freiburg, Germany

219,665 Environmental economy, green industries.

Cycling: 27% Walk: 22%

420km (261mi) of cycling paths in the city, equating to about 2 metres per person.

90% of streets with car traffic have a speed limit of 30km/h (19mph)

Cycling streets

Münster, Germany

278,000 (55,000 students)

Service sector, retail, insurance, public services, banking.

Cycling: 35% Germany’s bicycle capital

71% of the region’s population live within 7km of the city centre.

Member of the national ‘Healthy Cities Network’.

New residential developments subject to strict planning guidelines

Residential streets are deliberately circuitous

Through traffic is diverted around the centre by two circular bypasses

Vitoria-Gasteaiz, Spain

242,000 Manufacturing, service sector, technology

Medieval town experiencing rapid urban development and increase in daily commuting trips. Administrative capital of the Basque Region.

European Green Capital 2012.

Superblocks scheme – areas of city where access is only granted to resident cars, emergency vehicles and freight vehicles

When all ‘superblocks’ implemented, 71% of public space will be allocated to pedestrians/bicycles

Haarlem, The Netherlands

155,000 Flower bulb exports, tourism, beer brewing.

Cycling: 26% Cycling is popular due to high fuel costs, limited parking and a high density population.

Bicycle Street: the bicycle is the main user and the car is a guest

Cyclists have priority: they don’t need to move aside to allow a car behind them to overtake

Rotterdam – Delft, The Netherlands

Rotterdam: 610,000

Delft: 96,100

Shipping, consumer goods, research & education

Rotterdam: Cycling: 14-22.5%

The historic city centre of Delft has a low accessibility for cars and large student population giving it a high potential for bicycle use.

Interurban Bicycle Highway

The 10 km route is mostly an off road bicycle track

Few intersections and no traffic lights



188

8.3 Summary

As the examples above show, there are a range of policy and scheme options implemented across Europe

that could be relevant and applicable to Cambridge city centre. Demand management measures, such as

the superblocks scheme in Vitoria-Gasteaiz, are good examples of how innovative solutions to reducing

car use and redistribute public space to pedestrians and cyclists can be delivered in a historic and

economically vibrant city.

It is important to note that a number of the measures delivered in the European examples e.g. free public

transport, smart ticketing and smart mobility schemes, require on-going revenue support as well as up-

front capital investment. This will be an important consideration when generating options to improve

transport conditions in and around the city.

Figure 8.1: European best practice examples

Source: MM 2015



189

Cambridge is a city with a rich history and a bright future. As a historic market town, it sits in the centre of a

network of radial routes which make it a natural focal point for the wider region. And as one of the country’s

earliest centres of academic excellence, it is as attractive to businesses as it is to residents and students.

Cambridge is therefore a growing city.

But the same heritage which positions Cambridge well for the future is one which also makes that future

potentially difficult to accommodate in transport terms. Due to the historic fabric of the city centre, road

space is limited and the potential for expansion minimal. And because of the high proportion of city centre

land uses occupied by the University, new development must be located in less central areas which are

typically harder to serve by sustainable transport modes.

Through the implementation of a package of forward-thinking measures by the local authorities, traffic

levels in Cambridge have remained stable over the last decade or so, despite a city population growth of

about 15% over the same period8. The key interventions which have contributed towards this are the:

Core Traffic Scheme in the city centre

Bus-based Park & Ride network

Introduction of Guided Busway services

Improvement of radial bus corridors

Ongoing improvement of cycle network

The steady increase in fuel prices and the 2008 economic downturn will also have contributed to the

stabilisation of traffic levels during this period.

Despite these very real successes, however, a number of transport issues remain which, if not addressed,

will not only affect the vitality of the city today but could potentially prevent the city from growing at the

pace it should. The main performance issues identified by this Access Audit study are as follows:

Road space congestion

– The volume of vehicles overwhelms available highway capacity at peak times, particularly on

inbound radial routes in the weekday morning peak and on city centre and outbound radial routes

in the weekday afternoon and evening peaks. This impacts on:

– Journey time reliability for all users, and particularly for time-sensitive users such as public

transport, emergency services and freight

– Air quality and visual impact in historic areas

Interchange congestion

– Constrained and relatively dispersed city centre bus interchange facilities can result in delays to

services and user confusion

– Insufficient cycle parking in city centre and at key destinations results in inappropriate cycle parking

and streetscape clutter, as well as a potential deterrent to use

– Insufficient facilities and accommodation for visiting tourist coaches could deter economically

important visits to the city

8 2001 to 2013, as per ONS mid-year population estimates – see Section 2.2.1

9 Access Audit Summary



190

User conflict

– Narrow streets and footways in city centre can result in conflicts between pedestrians and

vehicles/cyclists

– 60% of all reported highway accidents in Cambridge involve cyclists, which is a potential deterrent

to use of the mode

Unless these problem areas are addressed, they will either deteriorate further as the city grows or

potentially even restrict the growth rate itself. The Council’s aspiration is therefore that the past trend of

zero traffic growth in the city centre should be continued as the city expands to 2031, or even turned to

negative growth. This is a necessary aspiration for the city, but a very challenging one: as discussed in

Section 7.6 above, for commuting trips alone this target will require a mode shift from private car use of at

least 9%. This will be made more challenging still as new development is implemented, by necessity, on

the city’s fringes and beyond.

In the next stage of this study, measures will be developed, assessed and filtered in order to arrive at an

Access Strategy for Cambridge which fulfills this study’s Vision Statement of delivering:

“An exemplar transport system for Cambridge that unlocks the city’s significant potential for growth

while also enhancing its reputation as a unique and attractive place to live, learn and work”

In order to achieve this, the Access Strategy will need to propose a package of measures which both

address the above existing performance issues and lead to significant increases in the use of Park & Ride,

bus, rail, cycling and walking modes to sustainably accommodate the projected growth. The Strategy will

therefore need to propose measures which will:

1. Secure journey time reliability for bus services

This is the top priority for the Access Strategy. As 84% of all commuting car trips in the city start or finish

outside the city, being able to convert those car trips into bus trips through Park and Ride is essential for

achieving mode shift. However, if the bus then has to sit in the same delays as the car, then the appeal of

this mode is compromised. The same is true for conventional bus services.

However, securing bus priority along congested radial routes, which offer limited space and little to no

room for expansion, presents a particular challenge for Cambridge and various options will be explored to

achieve this. At this stage, the following points are noted:

Any unnecessary delay for all traffic should be resolved where possible through optimised signal

timings and strategies. It is noted from the congestion mapping in Section 6.7.1 above that many of the

most acute delay sections are along signalised corridors

There are currently a number of signalised junctions on radial routes which are equipped with bus

priority technology but which are inactive (see Figure 6.33 above). Many of these junctions experience

significant peak hour delays. Bus journey times could therefore potentially be improved by either re-

activating this equipment or installing new equipment and systems where beneficial

Improving and/or revising the current city centre interchange facilities could help improve journey time

reliability

New orbital bus links are proposed as part of future City Deal schemes (see Figure 7.5 above). These

would improve the reliability of certain bus routes by allowing them to avoid more congested radial

routes. However, if these routes were also available to general traffic, with sufficient bus priority



191

provided, it would further free up capacity on the radial routes to allow greater reallocation of road

space to buses and cyclists

2. Ensure an accessible and attractive bus network

It is demonstrated in Section 6.3.1 above that bus mode share is likely to increase the more that potential

users can access direct journeys for where they want to go. The bus network should therefore be reviewed

to ensure that existing and potential market is being served in the most efficient manner and that the

requirements of new developments are also fully taken into account.

Improvements in ticketing and interchange integration, as well as the location and quality of interchanges,

will also help to increase the overall mode share of the bus, including Park & Ride. The impact of the

recently introduced Park & Ride parking charge is a reminder of how sensitive the travel market is to

differential pricing within the overall transport offer, so strategies will be explored which are able to harness

this sensitivity to deliver overall increases in bus mode share instead.

3. Provide city-wide ease of access to and from rail stations

As noted in Section 5.3.3 above, use of rail to and from Cambridge is steadily growing. This growth rate

should increase further as new stations are opened at the Science Park and the Biomedical Campus.

However, most journeys involving rail continue beyond the station itself, so onward travel links and

connectivity is an important part of a rail trip to Cambridge; especially as the main station is about 1.7 km

from the historic core. In order to maximise use of this mode in future, measures will therefore need to be

considered which ensure that rail use to Cambridge is seen as convenient for travelling to all parts of the

city.

4. Expand an efficient, safe and attractive cycle network

As covered above, Cambridge offers an extensive cycle network compared to most other UK cities and

enjoys unusually high levels of cycle use. This therefore represents an excellent platform from which to

develop cycling to be the mode of choice for all short to medium range trips in and around the city. The

Access Strategy will therefore identify and assess measures which:

Increase capacity and priority for cyclists along key desire lines, building on innovative measures such

as the new cycle lane on Hills Road and adapting the best of measures from other comparable

European cities

Increase the quantity and quality of cycle parking at popular destinations

Increase cycle hire opportunities across the city, such as at Park and Ride sites

Directly address cycle accident blackspots and improve network maintenance

5. Improve pedestrian provision and priority along key desire lines

Priority for pedestrian movements has steadily increased in the city centre historic core area, particularly

with the implementation and expansion of the Core Traffic Scheme restrictions. However, there are still

areas of conflict and poor public realm for pedestrians within the centre, while outside the centre

movements on foot can be hindered by narrow or obstructed footways, lack of side road crossing priority

and long signal cycle times.



192

Most journeys, and particularly public transport journeys, involve an element of walking. In order for the

mode share of journeys which involve walking to be increased, measures will be explored which enhance

the provision and priority for pedestrians along key desire lines and linkages to transport nodes.

6. Deliver a smarter network for smarter users

Cambridge already has the basis of a smart transport network, with VMS and Car Park Guidance

information signs, RTPI equipped bus stops, traffic and cycle counters, CCTV and UTC systems, and

bluetooth journey time monitoring. However, with increased coordination and optimisation of existing

systems and the expansion of new systems, the city’s transport networks can be made to operate smarter

and more efficiently.

The Access Strategy will explore the best digital infrastructure measures to achieve this and also to equip

the network user with the real time information needed to make informed and appropriate travel decisions.

7. Address the growth in LGV traffic

It is noted in Section 5.3.6 above that the last decade has seen a decrease in HGV traffic in Cambridge but

a significant increase in LGV traffic. This reflects a number of changes in the delivery and logistics field,

such as the introduction of the Working Time Directive for HGV drivers and the rise of internet shopping.

However, unless this growth is addressed in the city, efforts to suppress peak hour traffic growth through

targetting the private car could be undermined. The above evidence is that this is already happening on

certain links.

As part of the Access Strategy, therefore, measures will be considered to increase the efficiency of

deliveries and servicing of businesses in the city, such as freight consolidation centres and last mile

delivery schemes.

8. Continue to directly challenge car ownership and use

And, lastly, in order to deliver continuing mode shift from the private vehicle in Cambridge, it will be

necessary to continue directly challenging the need for car ownership and use. Potential measures to be

considered for this are:

Car club schemes

Selective road space reallocation to prioritise bus and cycle, as noted above

Increased destination parking controls / charging / rationing

Fiscal measures, such as road user charging and workplace parking charging



193

Appendices

Appendix A. Accessibility Analysis Outputs ________________________________________________________ 194 Appendix B. Council Car Park Data _____________________________________________________________ 209 Appendix C. Select Link Analysis Output _________________________________________________________ 214 Appendix D. Air Quality Monitoring Results ________________________________________________________ 225 Appendix E. 2031 Land Use Proposals ___________________________________________________________ 232



194

Appendix A. Accessibility Analysis Outputs



195

Figure A.1: Public Transport travel time and employee origin catchment - Zone A




196

Figure A.2: Public Transport travel time and employee origin catchment - Zone B




197

Figure A.3: Public Transport travel time and employee origin catchment - Zone C




198

Figure A.4: Public Transport travel time and employee origin catchment - Zone D




199

Figure A.5: Public Transport travel time and employee origin catchment - Zone E




200

Figure A.6: Public Transport travel time and employee origin catchment - Zone F




201

Figure A.7: Public Transport travel time and employee origin catchment - Zone G




202

Figure A.8: Public Transport travel time and employee origin catchment - Zone H




203

Figure A.9: Public Transport travel time and employee origin catchment - Zone I




204

Figure A.10: Public Transport travel time and employee origin catchment - Zone J




205

Figure A.11: Public Transport travel time and employee origin catchment - Zone K




206

Figure A.12: Public Transport travel time and employee origin catchment - Zone L




207

Figure A.13: Public Transport travel time and employee origin catchment - Zone M




208

Figure A.14: Public Transport travel time and employee origin catchment - Zone N




209

B.1 Grand Arcade Car Park

The following chart shows the maximum vehicle parking occupancy recorded at Grand Arcade on each

day of each month surveyed in 2014.

Figure B.1: Maximum car parking occupancy recorded on each survey day

Source: CCC data

The following chart shows the average parking profile for Grand Arcade by day of the week.

Figure B.2: Average daily car parking profile

Source: CCC data

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Feb July Oct Dec

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

ar P

ark

Cap

acit

y

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

00

:00

01

:00

02

:00

03

:00

04

:00

05

:00

06

:00

07

:00

08

:00

09

:00

10

:00

11

:00

12

:00

13

:00

14

:00

15

:00

16

:00

17

:00

18

:00

19

:00

20

:00

21

:00

22

:00

23

:00

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

ar P

ark

Cap

acit

y

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun

Appendix B. Council Car Park Data



210

B.2 Grafton East Car Park

The following chart shows the maximum vehicle parking occupancy recorded at Grafton East on each day

of each month surveyed in 2014.


Source: CCC data

The following chart shows the average parking profile for Grafton East by day of the week.


Source: CCC data

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Feb July Oct Dec

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

ar P

ark

Cap

acit

y

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

00

:00

01

:00

02

:00

03

:00

04

:00

05

:00

06

:00

07

:00

08

:00

09

:00

10

:00

11

:00

12

:00

13

:00

14

:00

15

:00

16

:00

17

:00

18

:00

19

:00

20

:00

21

:00

22

:00

23

:00

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

ar P

ark

Cap

acit

y

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun



211

B.3 Grafton West Car Park

The following chart shows the maximum vehicle parking occupancy recorded at Grafton West on each day

of each month surveyed in 2014.


Source: CCC data

The following chart shows the average parking profile for Grafton West by day of the week.


Source: CCC data

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Feb July Oct Dec

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

ar P

ark

Cap

acit

y

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

00

:00

01

:00

02

:00

03

:00

04

:00

05

:00

06

:00

07

:00

08

:00

09

:00

10

:00

11

:00

12

:00

13

:00

14

:00

15

:00

16

:00

17

:00

18

:00

19

:00

20

:00

21

:00

22

:00

23

:00

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

ar P

ark

Cap

acit

y

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun



212

B.4 Queen Anne Terrace Car Park

The following chart shows the maximum vehicle parking occupancy recorded at Queen Anne Terrace on

each day of each month surveyed in 2014.


Source: CCC data

The following chart shows the average parking profile for Queen Anne Terrace by day of the week.


Source: CCC data

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Feb July Oct Dec

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

ar P

ark

Cap

acit

y

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

00

:00

01

:00

02

:00

03

:00

04

:00

05

:00

06

:00

07

:00

08

:00

09

:00

10

:00

11

:00

12

:00

13

:00

14

:00

15

:00

16

:00

17

:00

18

:00

19

:00

20

:00

21

:00

22

:00

23

:00

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

ar P

ark

Cap

acit

y

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun



213

B.5 Park Street Car Park

The following chart shows the maximum vehicle parking occupancy recorded at Park Street on each day of

each month surveyed in 2014.


Source: CCC data

The following chart shows the average parking profile for Park Street by day of the week.


Source: CCC data

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Feb July Oct Dec

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

ar P

ark

Cap

acit

y

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

00

:00

01

:00

02

:00

03

:00

04

:00

05

:00

06

:00

07

:00

08

:00

09

:00

10

:00

11

:00

12

:00

13

:00

14

:00

15

:00

16

:00

17

:00

18

:00

19

:00

20

:00

21

:00

22

:00

23

:00

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

ar P

ark

Cap

acit

y

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun



214

Appendix C. Select Link Analysis Output



215

Figure C.1: 2011 AM peak hour select link analysis results – Link No 1

Source: 2011 Base CSRM AM Peak model



216





217





218





219





220





221





222





223





224





225

D.1 AQAP Summary Table

The result of the 2013/14 monitoring data has been reviewed in order to assess the success of the AQAP

at improving air quality within the Cambridge AQMA. Table D.1 summarises the national air quality targets

and progress against each one. Further information is then presented in the following subsections.

Table D.1: Air Quality Action Plan – Hierarchy of Indicators

Hierarchy of Indicators

1 Air pollutant concentrations (District Councils to measure)

INDICATOR TARGET PROGRESS

Annual average concentrations of NO2 in 2015 at monitoring sites in Cambridge

· Parker

· Gonville

· Regent

<40 μg/m3 2013

46

35

38

2a Direct effect indicators (District Councils to measure)


Reduction in NOx and primary PM10 emissions through local authority’s estate and operations (NI 194) - Cambridge

To be confirmed Data no longer collected

Reduction in emissions of NOx from buses in Cambridge Central Area from baseline 2008 – 430,340 grams per week

This figure is different from that previously reported because changes to the extent of the Core Area were made in 2010

50% by 2015 2013 - 43% 246,483 g/wk

Reduction in emissions of PM10 from buses in Cambridge Central Area from baseline 2008 – 11,861 grams per week

This figure is different from that previously reported because changes to the extent of the Core Area were made in 2010

50% by 2015 2013 – 65% 4,072 g/wk

Reduction in emissions of NOx from taxis in Cambridge Central Area from Taxis from baseline 2008

50% by 2015 Base line to be calculated

Reduction in emissions of PM10 from taxis in Cambridge Central Area from Taxis from baseline 2008

50% by 2015 Base line to be calculated

2b Direct effect indicators (Cambridgeshire County Council to measure)


Reduction in NOx and primary PM10 emissions through local authority’s estate and operations (NI 194)

To be confirmed Data no longer collected.

Bus patronage (NI 177) 22.5m boardings minimum 2010/11

22.1m (2009/10)

19.7m (2010/11)

20.0m (2011/12)

19.1m(2012/13)

Modal share of journeys to school by private car (NI 198) – reduction from 23.7% in 2007

20% by 2010/11 21.04% (count 2010)

20.6% (count 2011)

Appendix D. Air Quality Monitoring Results



226


21.24% (count 2012)

25.6% (count 2013)

Number of cycle journeys (LTP target) Up by 10.6% by 2010/11 16.9 to end March 2010;

19.6 to end March 2011

32.8% increase from 2004/5 baseline (2013)

Number of journey kilometres in Cambridge Core Area made by pre-Euro and Euro 1 PSV

NONE 2,254 km (2008);

NONE (2011 and 2012, 2013)

Number of journey kilometres in Cambridge Core Area made by Euro 2 PSV

To be confirmed 10,428 km (2008)

3,824 (2012)

1,518 (2013)

Number of journey kilometres in Cambridge Core Area made by Euro 3 PSV

To be confirmed 2,503 km (2008)

1,070 km (2012)

1,932 (2013)

Number of vehicles crossing the Cambridge Outer Cordon (baseline 184,800, 2004)

No increase 185,820 – 2010

188,750 – 2011

188,380 - 20123

190,578 - 2013

Number of vehicles crossing the Cam screenline

No increase 61,000 – 2009

59,400 – 2010

60,860 – 2011

58,679 – 2012

60,151 – 2013

3a Indirect effect indicators (District Councils to measure)

INDICATOR Number PROGRESS

Number of developments with less than the permitted parking spaces agreed in Cambridge

No target, report amount Data not collated

Number of workplace/commercial travel plans established in Cambridge

No target, report amount Data no longer collected

Number of personal travel plans established in Cambridge

No target, report amount Data no longer collected

How many sites with S106 funding for air quality projects in Cambridge

No target, report number CB1

Trumpington Meadows

Number of cars in car clubs in Cambridge Year on year increase 6 cars in 5 locations, March 2010 (Streetcar)

15 cars and 1 van in 15 locations, March 2011 (Streetcar)

21 cars and 1 van in 21 locations, March 2012 (Zipcar)

15 cars and 1 van in 16 locations, May 2014 (Zipcar website)

Number of Low Emissions Strategies agreed for new development

No target report amount None



227


3b Indirect effect indicators (County Councils to measure)


Bus punctuality (NI 178) - % of non-frequent buses on time – now known as LTP06a

76% by 2010/11 71% (2010)

74% (2011)

74% (2012)

72% (2013)

Bus punctuality (NI 178) - the average excess waiting time for frequent services– now known as LTP06b

53s by 2010/11 59s (2010)

67s (2011)

41s (2012)

65s (2013)

Journey time in the morning peak hour (NI 167) – now known as LTP10

3 min 25 seconds per mile by 2010/11

4 min 8 seconds (2007/8)

4 min 6 seconds (2008/09)

3 min 59 seconds (2009/10)

3.98 minutes (2010/11)

3.84 minutes (2011/12)

3.78 minutes (2012/13)

Condition of surface footway (LTP target) – percentage with notional residual life of less than 0 years by 2010/11

Less than 19.2% 30% (2009/10)

23.7% (2010/11)

2011/12 data not available4

Definition tbc (2013)

Number of routes generated on Walk-It Year on year increase 16,124 (2009)

33,061 (2010)

31,903 (2011)

24,270 (2012)

29,500 (2013)

D.2 Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions

D.2.1 Results from Automatic Counters

Figure D.1 shows the results of NOx for 2014 and the past 5 years from the automatic survey counters.

The results show that there has been an overall decline in levels of NOx recorded since 2009. Parker

Street is the only survey site which exceeds the national objective level.



228

Figure D.1: City Centre NOX Annual Mean Concentrations - Automatic Counters


Table D.2 shows the NOx results for 2013 and the past 7 years against AQ Objective Level of 40µg/m3.

The target of 40µg/m3 is

the national objective for NOx by 2015. The results show that the sites are below

the national objective target for 2015 with the exception of Parker Street.

Table D.2: Progress based on continuous monitoring site results: 5-year rolling means

2006 base 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Target

2015 On Target

Gonville Place 42 52 40 35 35 40 μg/m3 Yes

Montague Road/Elizabeth Way

30 43 42 31 29 40 μg/m3 Yes

Newmarket Road 33 30 29 26* 28* 40 μg/m3 Yes

Parker Street 52 49 48 48 46 40 μg/m3 No

Regent Street 41 40 40 40 38 40 μg/m3 Yes


D.2.2 Results from the Non Automatic Counters

Figure D.2 shows the results of NOx for 2013 and the previous 4 years from a number of the diffusion tube

testing sites located within the AQMA. The results from the diffusion tubes are in line with the results show

from the automatic monitoring sites with the overall downward trend of NOx levels.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(µg/

m3 )

Gonville Place

Montague Road(Elizabeth Way)

Newmarket Road

Parker Street

Regent Street



229

Figure D.2: City Centre NOX Annual Mean Concentrations – Non Automatic Monitors


Table D.3 shows the NOx results from the non-automatic monitoring sites between 2009 and 2013 against

the 2015 targets. The results show that NOx emissions have been in decline at all sites since 2010

However, occasional annual increase in NOx emissions have been recorded. The results indicate that a

the majority of sites are currently achieving the NOx national objective.

Table D.3: Progress based on NO2 continuous monitoring site results: 5-year rolling means

Site 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Target

2015 On Target

Emmanuel Street 52 56 46 42 38 40 μg/m3 Yes

Magdalene Street 35 48 35 31 29 40 μg/m3 Yes

Northampton Street 50 54 45 41 38 40 μg/m3 Yes

Silver Street 44 53 43 35 32 40 μg/m3 Yes

Drummer Street 40 46 36 35 33 40 μg/m3 Yes

Pembroke Street 49 59 45 40 39 40 μg/m3 No

Victoria Avenue 39 50 44 41 41 40 μg/m3 Yes

Parker Street 48 57 47 41 39 40 μg/m3 Yes

Emmanuel Road 53 60 48 46 40 40 μg/m3 Yes

Downing Street 46 53 41 37 36 40 μg/m3 Yes

St Andrew's St 48 62 54 42 43 40 μg/m3 No


Further analysis was conducted on emissions from various Urban Backgrounds across Cambridge in order

to determine trends in NOx at various locations. For this study, emissions from within the AQMA were

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(µg/

m3 )

Emmanuel Street

Magdalene Street

Northampton Street

Silver Street

Drummer Street

Pembroke Street

Victoria Avenue

Parker Street

Emmanuel Road

Downing Street

St Andrew's Street



230

considered. The overall emissions for the sites within the AQMA are well below national levels. The results

from within the AQMA show that annual emissions are achieving the national objective for NOx.

D.3 Particulate Matter Emissions

Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM25) are recorded at the five Automatic Monitoring sites within the AQMA.

PM10 is recorded at Gonville Place, Montague Road and Parker Street. PM25 is recorded at Gonville Place

and New Market Street. The current national objective for Particulate Matter is 40 µg/m3.

Table D.4 shows the PM10 and PM25 results from the monitoring sites between 2009 and 2013 against the

national annual objective. The results show that PM emissions have varied at all sites since 2009

However, the results indicate that each site is currently achieving the PM national objective.

Table D.4: Results of PM10 & PM25 comparison with Annual Mean Objective

2006 base 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Target

2015 On

Target

PM10

Gonville Place 22 20 21 21 23 40 μg/m3 Yes

Montague Road/Elizabeth Way

22 20 21 23 23 40 μg/m3 Yes

Parker Street 27 24 23 26 27 40 μg/m3 Yes

PM25

Gonville Place 16 17 18 40 μg/m3 Yes

Newmarket Road 14 11 8 13 12 40 μg/m3 Yes

Figure D.3 shows current PM10 and PM25 levels for the period 2009 – 2013 against the national objective.

The results again show that recorded PM10 and PM25 levels are well below national objective targets.



231

Figure D.3: PM10 & PM25 comparison with Annual Mean Objective


D.4 Other Emissions

Cambridge City Council measure levels of Benzene on an ongoing basis. The results of the 2013 AQMA

report highlighted that annual Benzene emissions are 0.84ug/m3 which is far below the national objective

of 5.00 µg/m3.

0

10

20

30

40

50

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

PM10 Gonville Place

PM10 MontagueRoad/Elizabeth Way

PM10 Parker Street

PM25 Gonville Place

PM25 Newmarket Road



232

Table E.1: Land use proposals in Cambridge Local Plan 2014 (draft submission)

Site Address Area (ha) Existing uses Capacity Planning status

Residential

GB1 Land north of Worts’ Causeway

7.84 Agricultural 200 dwellings

45 dph

New local plan allocation

GB2 Land south of Worts’ Causeway


45 dph


R1 295 Histon Road 0.71 Shop, education centre, squash club, garden

32 dwellings

45 dph


R2 Willowcroft, 137‐143 Histon Road

1.59 Mixed commercial 78 dwellings

49 dph

Includes Cambridge Local Plan 2006

allocation 5.07 and part new local plan

allocation (SHLAA site CC312)

R3 City Football Ground, Milton Road

1.71 Football club and parking

138 dwellings

81 dph

Cambridge Local Plan 2006 allocation 5.05

Planning consent granted subject to S106 agreement

R4 Henry Giles House,

73‐79 Chesterton Road

0.78 Offices and parking 48 dwellings 62 dph


R5 Camfields Resource Centre and Oil Depot, 137‐139 Ditton Walk

0.86 Resource storage building and oil depot

35 dwellings

41 dph


R7 The Paddocks, 347 Cherry Hinton Road

2.79 Mixed commercial 123 dwellings

44 dph


R8 149 Cherry Hinton Road & Telephone Exchange, Coleridge Road

0.76 Commercial laundry and shop telephone exchange

33 dwellings

43 dph


R9 Travis Perkins, Devonshire Road

1.23 Builders’ merchant 43 dwellings

35 dph


R10 Mill Road Depot and adjoining properties, Mill Road

2.7 Council depot and offices, community facilities, language school and garages

167 dwellings

62 dph


R11 Horizon Resource Centre, 285 Coldham’s Lane

0.82 Day centre and car parking

40 dwellings

49 dph


R12 Ridgeons, 75 Cromwell Road

3.27 Builders’ merchant and sale of household decorating etc supplies

245 dwellings

75 dph

Part of Cambridge Local Plan 2006 allocation 5.15

Partly new local plan allocation

R14 BT telephone Exchange and car park, Long Road

2.01 Telephone exchange, offices and car park

76 dwellings

38 dph


Part new local plan allocation

R16 Cambridge Professional Development Centre, Foster Road

1.49 Training centre, open space and car park

67 dwellings

45 dph


Appendix E. 2031 Land Use Proposals



233


R17 Mount Pleasant House, Mount Pleasant

0.57 Offices and car park 50 dwellings

88 dph


M4 Police Station, Parkside

0.50 Police station 50 dwellings

102 dph

Part of Cambridge Local Plan 2006 allocation 5.12

R40 Land north of Teversham Drift


40 dph

Allocated within the Cambridge East AAP2008

Local plan re‐allocation

R41 Land north of Coldham’s Lane


45 dph

Allocated within the Cambridge East AAP 2008


R42a Clay Farm, south of Long Road

60.69 Agricultural 2,250

dwellings

Cambridge Local Plan 2006 allocations 9.05 & 9.06

Approval granted for 2,250 dwellings and supporting community facilities

R42b Trumpington Meadows 15.50 Agricultural research centre

598 dwellings Cambridge Local Plan 2006 allocation 9.08

Approval granted for 598 dwellings

R42c Glebe Farm 1 8.79 Agricultural 286 dwellings Cambridge Local Plan 2006 allocation 9.13

Approval granted for 286 dwellings

Glebe Farm 2 1.00 Agricultural 35 Dwellings

45 dph



R42d Bell School, Babraham Road

7.61 Agricultural and playing field

347 dwellings, 100 student beds


Approval granted for 347 dwellings and 100‐ bed student living accommodation

R43 NIAB 1 52.87 Agricultural and research centre

1,780 dwellings Cambridge Local Plan 2006 allocation 9.03

Outline planning consent granted subject to S.106

R44 Betjeman House 1.17 Offices 156 dwellings Cambridge Local Plan 2006 mixed use

allocation 7.02

R45 Land north of Newmarket Road

1.27 Agricultural 0 Identified within the Cambridge East AAP 2008

Mixed Use

M1 379‐381 Milton Road 2.43 Car showrooms and garages

95 dwellings

50 dph

0.53 ha employment



M2 Clifton Road Area 9.43 Industrial, office and leisure uses

Maximum capacity of 550 dwellings at a range of densities to reflect residential




234


character 2 ha employment and leisure related uses

M3 Michael Young Centre, Purbeck Road

1.3 Office, industrial and warehouse uses

50 dwellings

70 dph

0.5 ha employment


M5 82‐88 Hills Road and 57‐ 63 Bateman Street

0.50 Offices and educational

20 dwellings Residential over 0.5 ha employment


R6 636‐656 Newmarket Road, Holy Cross Church Hall, East Barnwell

Community Centre and Meadowlands, Newmarket Road

1.01 Community facilities and

mixed use buildings

75 dwellings

74 dph


R21 315‐349 Mill Road and Brookfields

2.78 Warehouse and health facilities

128 dwellings

46 dph

Up to 1 ha employment floorspace

Part Cambridge Local Plan 2006 allocation7.12

Part new local plan reallocation

M13 West Cambridge Site 66.90 Agricultural, University and research institutes

Higher education, research, sports, shared facilities

Cambridge Local Plan 2006 allocations 7.06

Outline approval granted in 1999; masterplan agreed with University of Cambridge for 250,000 sq m of space

M14 Station Road West 8.77 Mixed business and railway uses

Mixed uses including

residential, and A and B classes and other amenities


Outline approval 2010, number of reserved matters approved, some completions on site

M15 Cambridge Biomedical Campus,

Including Addenbrooke’s Hospital

68.21 Agricultural, medical and research uses

Medical services and biomedical research

Cambridge Local Plan 2006 allocations 9.02 & 9.09

Current outline approval allows for:

Relocation of Papworth Hospital

NHS and private clinical development

Clinical, biomedical and biotechnology R&D within class B1

Sui generis medical research institutions

Related support activities

Application submitted for energy innovation centre

Employment

E4 Church End Industrial Estate, Rosemary Lane

5.77 Mixed industrial, office and

warehouses

5.77 ha employment uses




235


E5 1 and 7‐11 Hills Road 1.40 Offices 1.40 ha employment uses


GB3 & GB4

Fulbourn Road, west 1 & 2

3.7 Agricultural 3.7 ha employment uses


University

U1 Old Press/Mill Lane 2.00 University of Cambridge

academic and administrative faculties

Up to 150 dwellings, up to 6,000 sq m commercial use, up to 75 bedroom hotel and up to 1,000 sq m other uses



Subject of the Old Press/Mill Lane SPD 2010

U2 New Museums, Downing Street

1.97 University of Cambridge museums and faculties

Subject to detailed

proposals for university related uses



U3 Grange Farm off Wilberforce Road

1.22 Uncultivated land and a tennis court

120 student units Cambridge Local Plan 2006 allocation 7.09

Residential Moorings

RM1 Fen Road 0.98 Green space Residential moorings use

Capacity to be assessed


Local plan reallocation

Documents

Cambridge Access Study · T 349260 ITD ITN 2 B P:\Birmingham\ITB\349260 Cambridge Access Study\1.4 Reporting\Access Audit Report\Cambridge Access Audit Report.docx 27 July 2015