Member-led Review of Cycling Infrastructure

Similar documents
Member-led Review of Cycling Infrastructure

Member-led Review of Cycling Infrastructure

Appendix 9 Melbourn Greenway Review

Powder River Training Complex Special Use Airspace General & Business Aviation Survey

Royal Parks Stakeholder Research Programme 2014

Appendix 6 Fulbourn Greenway Review

The Future of Street Lighting in Leeds November 2017 to January 2018 Public Consultation Document

Those with Interest in the City of Cambridge Trail System

Proposed Housing Developments In Great Horkesley

Q1 Did you know that Salt Lake City has a Trails & Natural Lands Program?

Port Gamble Shoreline Area Conceptual Trail Proposal

3.0 LEARNING FROM CHATHAM-KENT S CITIZENS

Service user feedback on access to hospitals within Lancashire

Binley Woods Parish Plan - Analysis of Main Survey Responses Section D1 Sports Activities & Play Equipment

Timetable Change Research. Re-contact survey key findings

FAQS and Code of Conduct for use under the Tamar Trails heading on the Tamar Valley AONB and Tamar Trails websites: Tamar Trails FAQs

Environment Committee 24 September 2015

Christchurch City Council. Major Cycleways. Activity Management Plan. Long Term Plan

SCOTLAND S PEOPLE AND NATURE SURVEY 2013/14 SPECIAL INTEREST REPORT NO.1 PARTICIPATION IN OUTDOOR RECREATION

IOW Ramblers Submission Paper to the Sept 2016 ROW Improvement Plan Consultation.

Wimpole Estate Multi-use Trail 2017 Frequently asked questions

Macleod Trail Corridor Study. Welcome. Macleod Trail Corridor Study Open House. Presentation of Proposed Design Concepts

Appendix A: Summary of findings drawn from an analysis of responses to the questionnaire issued to all households in Trimley St Martin

COASTAL CAR PARK CHARGING TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

M621 Junctions 1 to 7 Improvement Scheme Public Consultation Report

M621. Junctions 1 to 7 Improvement scheme. Share your views

Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Master Plan Survey Results. October 2018

Minutes of the Cambridgeshire Local Access Forum (LAF) Meeting Held on Tuesday 17 May 2016 at 7 pm at The Monkfield Arms, Cambourne

OUTLINE RESPONSE FROM WELWYN PLANNING & AMENITYGROUP (WPAG) TO CONSULTATION OVER PROPOSED EXPANSION OF LUTON AIRPORT

Major Scheme Business Case Summary Report for Programme Entry

AAPA 2017 COMMUNICATION AWARDS CATEGORY: OVERALL CAMPAIGN

Tourism Impacts and Second Home Development in Coastal Counties: A Sustainable Approach

LLANBEDR ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS

OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GRAZUTE REGIONAL PARK

Attendance Presentation

Sevierville, TN. Technical Appendices

*Please note all questions marked with an asterisk (*) are required.

2015 Metro User Christchurch

Minehead Seafront Refurbishment Survey Analysis

Queensland infrastructure research

Christchurch and Waimakariri

In your group you are going to prepare a one minute talk on travelling safely.

Minnesota River Valley Area Survey Summary Report

Public Workshop #1 Results Report. October 31, 2017

A TRANSPORT SYSTEM CONNECTING PEOPLE TO PLACES

Waterfront Concept Plan: Community Survey Summary

Gold Coast. Rapid Transit. Chapter twelve Social impact. Chapter content

2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Next Generation Cycleway Design. Improving connectivity and cycling behaviours through design

Stainforth & Keadby Canal Installation of Multiuser Path

BOAT DOCKS AND LAUNCHES. Public Engagement Report July 2015

Living & Working Access and Recreation

Port Macquarie-Hastings Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan. Working Paper COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

A63 Preferred Route Announcement

Te Awa is a shared cycle/walkway travelling 70 kms along the banks of New Zealand s largest & longest river the Mighty Waikato.

Appendix 3. Greenway Design Standards. The Whitemarsh Township Greenway Plan

Park and Ride Summary

Adelaide Public Transport Survey Aug 2012

03 Opportunities and Strategies Union Canal Study 17

F I N A L R E P O R T. Prepared for. MetroWest Phase 2. May CH2M Burderop Park Swindon Wilts SN4 0QD

Felixstowe Branch Line FAQ

CONSULTATION PROCESS AND FEEDBACK - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Business needs consumers! Get people back in to Port by attracting them!

Introduction...1. Methodology...2. Questionnaire design...2. Method...2. Sample size...3. Data analysis...3. Limitations...3. Key findings...

2013 Weld County Community Health Survey

South Lanarkshire Core Paths Plan Statutory Final Consultative Draft October 2010

Appendix 8 Sawston Greenway Review

Community Rail Partnership Action Plan The Bishop Line Survey of Rail Users and Non-Users August 2011 Report of Findings

Citrus Heights Creek Corridor Trail Project Trail Advisory Group Field Trip #2 September 11, :00 11:00 am Trellis Hall, Citrus Heights

2015 General Trail User Survey February 2016

British Horse Society-Scotland Developing Falkirk s Access Network- In the Hoof Prints of the Kelpies!

Creating Content for Travellers.

Travel to Work Report 2017

TRUMPINGTON MEADOWS COMMUNITY MEETING (MEETING 1) held at Trumpington Meadows Primary School Meeting Room 2 on 27th November 2017, 19:30 21:00 MINUTES

JATA Market Research Study Passenger Survey Results

Dunsmuir Community Park

EAST DON TRAIL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. Community Liaison Committee Meeting #3 July 15, :30 to 8:30 pm Flemingdon Park Library

Trails Classification Steering Team Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Alberta TrailNet Society

2013 Business & Legislative Session Visitor Satisfaction Survey Results

Riverbank Precinct Footbridge

Lake Manchester RECREATION GUIDE. seqwater.com.au

BROWN EDGE VILLAGE SURVEY

Queen s Circus Roundabout

2.2 For these reasons the provision of tourist signing will only be considered:

Have your say... on the Ian McKinnon Drive Cycleway Project

Roundhouse Way Transport Interchange (Part of NATS City Centre Package)

Engagement Summary Report. Trans-Canada Highway 1 RW Bruhn Bridge Replacement Project. Community Engagement November 15, 2016 to January 15, 2017

Better Towpaths for Everyone. A national policy for sharing towpaths

City of Fremantle. Joel Levin, Aha! Consulting INTRODUCTION 2 BACKGROUND 3

Planning Future Directions. For BC Parks: BC Residents' Views

Tourism Impacts and Second Home Development in Pender County: A Sustainable Approach

Summary of Public Comments and Preliminary Cost Estimate January 30, 2014 (Updated February 20, 2014)

A303. Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling Scheme Preferred Route Announcement

SUMMARY. Make the town centre better for pedestrians with shared spaces and improved connections

Appendix 7 Local Green Spaces - Detailed Evidence

Trail Use in the N.C. Museum of Art Park:

Highlights of the 2008 Virginia Equestrian Tourism Survey Results

State Park Visitor Survey

RE: Victoria Road upgrade (RTA December 2007). Thank you for the briefing from your department and the invitation to comment on the above.

POLICY ON VISITOR USE AND ACTIVITIES IN PARRAMATTA PARK

Transcription:

Member-led Review of Cycling Infrastructure Survey Results: A1 Cambridge to Royston June 17 cambridgeshire.gov.uk

Contents 1. Introduction... 3. About you... 3.1 Age... 3. What is your gender?... 3.3 Do you have a disability that impacts on the way you travel?... 3 3. Your experience of the cycleway... 3.1 Do you cycle on the Cycleway?.... Not choosing to use the cycleway....1 Are your reasons for not using the Cycleway to do with the facility itself?.... Is there anything that would have to be changed about the cycleway to make it more usable for you?... 5. Your journeys... 5 5.1 How frequently do you use the cycleway?... 5 5. What is the most frequent journey you make that involves using the cycleway?... 5 5.3 Why do you choose to use the cycleway? Please select all that apply.... 5 5. What do you use the Cycleway for? Please select all that apply.... 6 5.5 Compared with how much you cycled before the Cycleway was available to use, how much do you cycle now?... 7 6. Safety and User-friendliness of the Cycleway... 7 6.1 How safe, in general, do you feel using the Cycleway?... 7 6. If you make journeys that use more than one cycle link (i.e. cycle path/cycleway), how well do you feel that Cambridgeshire's cycle links are publicised and signposted?... 7. The Cycleway and wider public safety... 7.1 Do you feel the creation of the core A1 Cycle Link has had an impact on the safety of any other user groups? If Yes, please explain how..... The Cycleway and the local environment....1 What impact do you feel that the introduction of the Cycleway has had on the aesthetics and feel of the local environment?... 9. Implementation of the Cycleway... 9 9.1 The quality of public consultation in the planning and design of the Cycleway:... 9 9. The quality of information provided during implementation of the cycleway:... 1 9.3 The consideration shown for public safety during construction has been:... 1 9. The level of consideration shown for residents' needs during construction:... 1 9.5 The efficiency of the construction process on the cycleway has been:... 11 1. Any other comments... 11 1

For further information including details of responses, please contact ESBusiness.Support@cambridgeshire.gov.uk

Number of respondents Forms started and completed: 3* Forms started but not submitted: Total forms started: 51 * This survey reports on the 3 respondents who completed the survey only. 1. Introduction. About you.1 Age Chart.1: Age of Respondents 1 1 1 6 Under 1 3 1 1-5-3 35-5-5 55-6 65-7 75+ Prefer not to say Age 1 1. What is your gender? 35 respondents (1%) were male and seven (16%) were female. In addition, one respondent answered prefer not to say..3 Do you have a disability that impacts on the way you travel? 1 respondents (95%) indicated that they had no disability that impacts how they travel, while two respondents preferred not to say. 3

3. Your experience of the cycleway 3.1 Do you cycle on the Cycleway? 3 respondents indicated they use the Cycleway (%), while 5 respondents do not (1%). Respondents were invited to answer the following sections of the survey: Table 3.1: Sections of survey answered Section in survey form Users of the cycleway (3 respondents) Non-users of the cycleway (5 respondents) 1. Introduction n/a n/a. About you 3. Your experience of the cycleway. Not choosing to use the cycleway 5. Your journeys 6. Safety and user-friendliness of the Cycleway 7. The Cycleway and wider public safety. The Cycleway and the local environment 9. Implementation of the Cycleway 1. Any other comments. Not choosing to use the cycleway This section was answered by the 5 respondents who indicated that they do not use the cycleway..1 Are your reasons for not using the Cycleway to do with the facility itself? Of the five respondents who do not use the Cycleway, one indicated that the facility is not the reason for not using the Cycleway. Two respondents do not use the cycleway due to the facility itself, while two people said the cycleway was to an extent the issue. Five respondents provided further comments. The key comments were: Design: the section through Harston on the footpath does not feel safe with multiple drives and some road crossings. Maintenance: the cycle path has clutter and branches. Destination: the cycleway stops short of Royston.. Is there anything that would have to be changed about the cycleway to make it more usable for you? One respondent indicated that nothing could be done to make the cycleway more useable, while said there were changes that could be made.

Number of respondents 5 comments were received, with the key issues being: Design: the cycleway should go off-road in places to avoid crossing roads; can the road crossing change so that cars give way and not cyclists; widen the path from Melbourn to Royston wider; resurface; needs better lighting. Signage: If it were correctly signed as a Non-Motorised User facility (NMU) it would be safer as cyclists and pedestrians would then be aware that it is in fact an NMU. Destination: Extend it to Royston (although need to think about how to cross into Royston across the dual carriageway) 5. Your journeys This section was answered by the 3 respondents who indicated that they use the cycleway. 5.1 How frequently do you use the cycleway? Chart 5.1: Frequency of use 16 1 1 1 6 15 Daily or almost daily 9 About once a week 1 About once a month Less than once a month 39% % 6% 11% Frequency of use 5. What is the most frequent journey you make that involves using the cycleway? There were 3 from journeys provided by respondents and 3 to journeys. 1 5.3 Why do you choose to use the cycleway? Please select all that apply. When asked why they chose to use the cycleway, respondents answered as follows: 1 This information can be provided by emailing ESBusiness.Support@cambridgeshire.gov.uk. 5

Number of respondents Chart 5.3: Reasons for choosing to use the Cycleway 35 33 3 5 5 15 1 17 16 1 5 3 5 Exercise Speed of journey Reducing my carbon footprint Avoiding traffic Saving money Enjoyment To be able to travel with a less confident cyclist, e.g. a child No viable alternative Other (please specify): 7% 37% 5% 66% % 5% % 13% 5% Reasons for choosing the Cycleway There were two responses provided for other reasons, the main one being: Safety: it is much safer to use the cycleway than national speed limit roads. 5. What do you use the Cycleway for? Please select all that apply. Chart 5.: Purpose of journeys made on the Cycleway 55% Commuting to work 1 1 % Commuting to school/college/university % Occasional journeys, e.g. to shop in the city centre, to visit friends and family 7% Recreational cycling 16 5% Other (please specify): Other responses given for using the Cycleway were: Appointment Training 6

Number of respondents 5.5 Compared with how much you cycled before the Cycleway was available to use, how much do you cycle now? 16 1 1 1 6 Chart 5.5: Cycling comparison before/after the cycleway 1 13 15 Much more A bit more No more or less A but less Much less 6% 3% 39% % % Cycling after the Cycleway 6. Safety and User-friendliness of the Cycleway This section was answered by the 3 respondents who indicated that they use the cycleway. 6.1 How safe, in general, do you feel using the Cycleway? The majority of respondents (97%) felt relatively safe/very safe using the Cycleway. Chart 6.1: Safety using the cycleway 1 1 6% Very safe 71% Relatively safe 3% Relatively unsafe % Very unsafe 7 7

Number of respondents 6. If you make journeys that use more than one cycle link (i.e. cycle path/cycleway), how well do you feel that Cambridgeshire's cycle links are publicised and signposted? 1 1 1 6 5 Chart 6.: Publicity of cycle links 7 Very well Well Adequately Inadequately Very poorly I don't often make such journeys: can't say 13 11 % 13% 1% 3% 5% 9% How well cycle links are publicised 7. The Cycleway and wider public safety This section was answered by all 3 respondents i.e. users and non-users of the cycleway. 7.1 Do you feel the creation of the core A1 Cycle Link has had an impact on the safety of any other user groups? If Yes, please explain how. 65% of the respondents felt that the Cycleway had an impact on other road users, while 35% disagreed. There were 9 comments given by respondents, with the key themes as follows: Encourages other users: including pedestrians, runners, dog walkers, children s scooters, disability scooters, bikes, wheelchairs, horse-riders, push-chairs Safety: Made it safer for cyclists and vehicles by separating them.. The Cycleway and the local environment This section was answered by all 3 respondents i.e. users and non-users of the cycleway..1 What impact do you feel that the introduction of the Cycleway has had on the aesthetics and feel of the local environment? All 3 Respondents were asked what impact they felt that the introduction of the Cycleway has had on the aesthetics and feel of the local environment and they responded as follows:

Chart.1: Impact of cycleway o the local environment 1 9 5% Positive 5 19% More positive than negative 1% Neither positive nor negative % More negative than positive % Negative 9. Implementation of the Cycleway This section was answered by all 3 respondents i.e. users and non-users of the cycleway. 9.1 The quality of public consultation in the planning and design of the Cycleway: 3 1 6 15 1 1% Very good % Good 35% Adequate 7% Inadequate/poor % Very poor 9

9. The quality of information provided during implementation of the cycleway: 5 13 19 9% Very good % Good 3% Adequate 1% Inadequate/poor 5% Very poor 9.3 The consideration shown for public safety during construction has been: 1 17 19% Very good 35% Good % Adequate % Inadequate/poor 5% Very poor 15 9. The level of consideration shown for residents' needs during construction: 5 17 19 1% Very good % Good % Adequate 5% Inadequate/poor % Very poor 1

9.5 The efficiency of the construction process on the cycleway has been: 1 11 7 6% Very good 16% Good 7% Adequate 9% Inadequate/poor % Very poor 1. Any other comments There were comments made, which are summarised below: Incomplete works: Until the Royston to Melbourn section of the link is completed, a key section of commuters can't take advantage; when complete it will be a very viable travel option. Design: have separate pedestrian and cycle path through Harston; the approach to Royston and the crossing of the A1/A55 roundabout have to be made on road due to the very poor quality of the path; eliminate the A55 roundabout from the cyclists journey to and from Royston; the path leading to the A1/M11 roundabout should be improved; improve lighting; the cycleway should have the same priority as the main carriageway so that it takes precedence over side roads. Signage: It would also benefit from signage giving distances in miles and journey times in minutes for a "utility" cyclist; there is no signposting from Trumpington. Cost: It does seem to have been a very expensive undertaking to do what appears to be relatively simple alterations to an existing path; Maintenance: Parts appear to be getting a bit narrower with grass at the sides starting to grow over surface; The path is not swept and so is dangerous and causes punctures Implementation: It is taking a very long time to implement. Compliments: This fulfils a need that many cyclists would like to see implemented; Keep it up! 11