Future of road and motorway network around Cambridge

[jgharston]

At the moment the only railway route from Oxford to Milton Keynes is via Coventry or London there is however a coach service from Oxford to Cambridge but 4 hours on a bus is not my idea of fun. As I recall they make stop at Milton Keynes Coachway, when my mum came to visit she always went via coach and I would pick her up here.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.055544, ... &entry=ttu

Off topic, but many thanks! In 2014 I went by coach to London and back, and on the return we stopped at "some little bus station in the middle of nowhere". For ages I've been trying to remember or work out where it was. That's it! Milton Keynes Coachway. Coachway? No wonder I couldn't find it, I'd searched for things like "coach station", "bus station", etc.

[6637]

The government has announced their commitment to a Development Corporation in Cambridge, to oversee the construction of some 150,000 homes to be built between now and 2050 in and around the city. With it being estimated as 2.4 people for each home, that would add 360,000 people to the population of cambridge, already at circa 146,000, meaning the future city could have just over 500,000 people. This would make it around the size of Bristol or Edinburgh, making it one of the biggest cities in the UK, probably well within the top 10. Obviously I suppose the government will be hoping there will be greater reliance on public transport, but with essentially a large city being added onto to an existing city, surely the M11 and surrouding roads will either need major upgrades, or entirely new motorways/A roads will have to be built?

Considering that the A14 and A428 have both recently been upgraded, the routes that strike me as potentially being useful to upgrade are a dual carriageway north of Cambridge (Ely/Wisbech/King's Lynn direction), and upgrading the A505 to grade separated dual carriageway all the way between the M11 and A1(M) (and potentially to the A1 too).

[KeithW]

Another way would be to just dual the current 421 online bit by bit. Even a basic 60mph D2 would be ideal and achievable but doing up the sections either side of Buckingham when you already have a bit of D2.

Here are the problems with that.

The A421 to the M1 at Brogborough is already dualled however from Brogborough you would need to find a route across the Woburn Sands Conservation area which is quite heavily defended
https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/sites/ ... -03-10.pdf

Not only is it a protected area but it sits on to of a major aquifer that supplies much of the water for Milton Keynes.

[roadtester]

Another way would be to just dual the current 421 online bit by bit. Even a basic 60mph D2 would be ideal and achievable but doing up the sections either side of Buckingham when you already have a bit of D2.

Here are the problems with that.

The A421 to the M1 at Brogborough is already dualled however from Brogborough you would need to find a route across the Woburn Sands Conservation area which is quite heavily defended
https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/sites/ ... -03-10.pdf

Not only is it a protected area but it sits on to of a major aquifer that supplies much of the water for Milton Keynes.

Of course there are always obstacles to development but it is normal to overcome them.

Did our forefathers say “We’ve got the spinning Jenny, the steam engine and the Bessemer converter ready to go but we’re going to throw away our chance to lead the Industrial Revolution because it would be too hard to expand Manchester and Birmingham by building some new canals and railways”?

[Bryn666]

It is widely accepted that the changes to the Chat Moss area such as draining peat bogs and rerouting the Irwell and Mersey to provide the Manchester Ship Canal caused irreparable ecological damage to the area and further development in this manner is now fiercely resisted. This is before you factor in the Irwell being made into one of the most toxic waterways in the western world in the name of "progress" which took decades to undo.

Cheerleading environmental vandalism to make short term economic gains is not an acceptable political position. I'm starting to sound like Helvellyn, who has a valid point in this regard. People saying "just concrete over Cambridgeshire!" are completely missing the point about how we should be expanding and developing on a human scale that reflects the actual needs of the region, not some mad "we must be better than the Germans" nationalistic pride thing.

[camflyer]

Several projects are needed

1) Widening of the M11 from Stansted to the A14 junction. Very little roadside development to deal with so this is just a matter of cost

2) Upgrade of A10 from Milton to Ely. Ideally with a new alignment leaving the existing route for local traffic

3) Accelerate development of the Oxford to Cambridge rail corridor between Bedford and Cambridge

4) A proper city centre public light rail/tram transport system and car-free areas based on similar-sized small European cities to improve journeys around the city for those who cannot cycle.

5) Better public transport (rail and road) links to the places in Greater Cambridge - Ely, Newmarket, Soham, Haverhill, Cambourne etc

Should be all do-able for around £20bn....

[Owain]

[...]Cheerleading environmental vandalism to make short term economic gains is not an acceptable political position. I'm starting to sound like Helvellyn, who has a valid point in this regard. People saying "just concrete over Cambridgeshire!" are completely missing the point about how we should be expanding and developing on a human scale that reflects the actual needs of the region, not some mad "we must be better than the Germans" nationalistic pride thing.

Surely in Cambridge it's more a case of "We must be better than Oxford?".

Incidentally, I do recall my father telling me, "If you're tempted to apply for Oxford or Cambridge, choose Cambridge because it's a much nicer city". Certainly it seems a lot smaller, and easier to get around.

I think the main priority should be road/rail connections that make for better connectivity between the two cities via Milton Keynes. Both cities are already pretty well connected to other local and national destinations.

[Bryn666]

One of the magnets to both cities is they're, compared to say London, not megalopolises.

I'm not sure how expanding the size of Cambridge to make it a massive city does anything to entice people in, quite the opposite springs to mind.

As you say, connections are more important. Commutes are now dynamic thanks to remote working and not everyone needs to live in the same postcode as their place of work.

Concentration of population in select areas is the very worst use of land especially when the resources just don't exist in some areas to sustain it.

[roadtester]

I think the main priority should be road/rail connections that make for better connectivity between the two cities via Milton Keynes. Both cities are already pretty well connected to other local and national destinations.

It’s worth remembering how pathetically minimal the plans to link our two main potential growth centres are.

In terms of roads, we’re talking about filling gaps to get a sub-motorway standard mixed quality dual carriageway route that isn’t particularly direct.

In terms of rail, we’re looking at gap-filling, re-opening and a bit of new-build to get a route that will be single track for much of its length, restricted in places to sixty mph. It will not be electrified.

If, as a country, we can’t even get that done, we might as well give up.

[KeithW]

Of course there are always obstacles to development but it is normal to overcome them.

Did our forefathers say “We’ve got the spinning Jenny, the steam engine and the Bessemer converter ready to go but we’re going to throw away our chance to lead the Industrial Revolution because it would be too hard to expand Manchester and Birmingham by building some new canals and railways”?

So when are they going to demolish all those useless colleges along the Cam to make way for modern industry ?

No its not a serious proposition but the reality is that most of what we have seen since the 1970's has been good old fashioned ribbon development along roads such as the A14 and they are now infilling the spaces such as those between the M11 and A14 in the north west and south of the A14 - see Orchard Park, the Science Park etc.

Perhaps its inevitable but I liked Cambridge as it was in 1973 when I had an interview with Pye/Phillips. So with Cambourne filling nicely they are now building like crazy along the Cambridge Road in St Neots.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Cambr ... &entry=ttu

The A421 has attracted another ribbon of growth between the A1 and M1 so I guess that means we have to sacrifice historic sites of Woburn Abbey etc. What they seem to have in mind is not so much Greater Cambridge as Greater Milton Keynes I suspect. Went I first went to college ribbon development was not considered a good thing and we seem to have consigned notions such as green belts to history !

If you want to see how things end look no farther than the A34 west of Oxford which has grown like topsy !
There is not even a pretence of planning any more.

[KeithW]

It’s worth remembering how pathetically minimal the plans to link our two main potential growth centres are.

In terms of roads, we’re talking about filling gaps to get a sub-motorway standard mixed quality dual carriageway route that isn’t particularly direct.

In terms of rail, we’re looking at gap-filling, re-opening and a bit of new-build to get a route that will be single track for much of its length, restricted in places to sixty mph. It will not be electrified.

If, as a country, we can’t even get that done, we might as well give up.

I seem to recall that the opposition to the proposed Oxford-Cambridge Expressway was considerable hence the new euphemism is Oxford-Cambridge Arc

See here
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... bridge-arc

[B1040]

Surely in Cambridge it's more a case of "We must be better than Oxford?".

Incidentally, I do recall my father telling me, "If you're tempted to apply for Oxford or Cambridge, choose Cambridge because it's a much nicer city". Certainly it seems a lot smaller, and easier to get around.

In terms of "niceness", not much in it. Some folk in Oxford are way ruder than the rudest folk I've come across in Cambridge, but that's not many. Age and employment skew the folk I meet anyway.
When I lived in Oxford, it was never hard to get around. Both cities have agreeable architecture. Oxford had better countryside.

[KeithW]

Several projects are needed

1) Widening of the M11 from Stansted to the A14 junction. Very little roadside development to deal with so this is just a matter of cost

2) Upgrade of A10 from Milton to Ely. Ideally with a new alignment leaving the existing route for local traffic

3) Accelerate development of the Oxford to Cambridge rail corridor between Bedford and Cambridge

4) A proper city centre public light rail/tram transport system and car-free areas based on similar-sized small European cities to improve journeys around the city for those who cannot cycle.

5) Better public transport (rail and road) links to the places in Greater Cambridge - Ely, Newmarket, Soham, Haverhill, Cambourne etc

Should be all do-able for around £20bn....

Rather more than that I expect.

Frankly I would rather upgrade the railway from Cambridge to Kings Lynn with increased use of park and rides. There seems to be ample space at Kings Lynn and Ely while Cambridge North is already there !

East West Rail currently has a budget of £6.6bn and is expected to open as far as Bletchley with one train per hour and the problems really start between Bedford and Cambridge, the proposed new route is very circuitous as the route has been built over.

This was part of the old route
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1363393 ... ?entry=ttu

As was this
http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/p/potton/index.shtml
and
http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/g/ga ... ndex.shtml
and
http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/l/lo ... ndex.shtml

Lords Bridge now is better known for the Radio Observatory
https://www.astro.phy.cam.ac.uk/about/d ... tacts/mrao

[Phil]

.....
and the problems really start between Bedford and Cambridge, the proposed new route is very circuitous as the route has been built over.

But a brand new alignment will be designed to be as smooth as possible in terms of curvature and thus be capable of sustained high speeds so the grater distance is not necessarily a problem. It means it won't have any lacks level crossings - a confounded nuisance for the public and railway operators alike and something which can also potentially restrict train speeds / throughput.

[jnty]

Concentration of population in select areas is the very worst use of land especially when the resources just don't exist in some areas to sustain it.

Surely the last 2000 years of urban development proves that density has something going for it? It's certainly better than smearing suburbia across the whole country.

[Bryn666]

Concentration of population in select areas is the very worst use of land especially when the resources just don't exist in some areas to sustain it.

Surely the last 2000 years of urban development proves that density has something going for it? It's certainly better than smearing suburbia across the whole country.

There's a sweet spot. Suburbia is terrible land use but equally nobody's rooting for the Kowloon Walled City to come back either are they. Medium density seems to be better for emotional and social well being too, the sky slums of Hulme failed but the medium rise replacements are quite desirable in contrast.

[jnty]

Concentration of population in select areas is the very worst use of land especially when the resources just don't exist in some areas to sustain it.

Surely the last 2000 years of urban development proves that density has something going for it? It's certainly better than smearing suburbia across the whole country.

There's a sweet spot. Suburbia is terrible land use but equally nobody's rooting for the Kowloon Walled City to come back either are they. Medium density seems to be better for emotional and social well being too, the sky slums of Hulme failed but the medium rise replacements are quite desirable in contrast.

Well yes but wall to wall slums or hundreds of high rises isn't what's being proposed either, is it? Expanding to the size of Edinburgh is ambitious but not ridiculous.

[Bryn666]

Well yes but wall to wall slums or hundreds of high rises isn't what's being proposed either, is it? Expanding to the size of Edinburgh is ambitious but not ridiculous.

It is when there is inadequate transport infrastructure and the 'dash for growth' everyone is cheerleading will mean endless car dependent suburbs, I don't think anyone can say Edinburgh is a good example of transport planning (even the trams are absolutely awful to use thanks to poor signal staging and shared corridors where motorised traffic takes priority) so to replicate that seems distinctly unwise.

Now I am willing to be proven wrong, but I'd say less than 5% of urban expansions in the last 40 years have done anything to tackle car dependency and the other 95%+ have gone out of their way to exacerbate it.

[jnty]

Well yes but wall to wall slums or hundreds of high rises isn't what's being proposed either, is it? Expanding to the size of Edinburgh is ambitious but not ridiculous.

It is when there is inadequate transport infrastructure and the 'dash for growth' everyone is cheerleading will mean endless car dependent suburbs, I don't think anyone can say Edinburgh is a good example of transport planning (even the trams are absolutely awful to use thanks to poor signal staging and shared corridors where motorised traffic takes priority) so to replicate that seems distinctly unwise.

Now I am willing to be proven wrong, but I'd say less than 5% of urban expansions in the last 40 years have done anything to tackle car dependency and the other 95%+ have gone out of their way to exacerbate it.

I'm not going to argue that the UK is a beacon in sustainable development, but development in a city is generally going to be much better in this respect than development anywhere else. If there's anywhere that has the right basis for achieving it (as well as the right mindset) then it's surely somewhere like Cambridge.

I'm not sure where you've got the idea that Edinburgh is some kind of car-dependent hellscape - as with any city, there is much room for improvement, but close to half of households don't have access to a car, the bus network is the best in Scotland and public transport/cycling modal share is comparatively high. It also has a centrally-placed railway station with fast and frequent services to key places like London and Glasgow. The tram has reserved or restricted ROW pretty much all the way into and through the centre from the west and enjoys signalling priority throughout, the only major shared section being the lower end of Leith Walk. It was partly built to support major housebuilding in Newhaven.

[Bryn666]

Well yes but wall to wall slums or hundreds of high rises isn't what's being proposed either, is it? Expanding to the size of Edinburgh is ambitious but not ridiculous.

It is when there is inadequate transport infrastructure and the 'dash for growth' everyone is cheerleading will mean endless car dependent suburbs, I don't think anyone can say Edinburgh is a good example of transport planning (even the trams are absolutely awful to use thanks to poor signal staging and shared corridors where motorised traffic takes priority) so to replicate that seems distinctly unwise.

Now I am willing to be proven wrong, but I'd say less than 5% of urban expansions in the last 40 years have done anything to tackle car dependency and the other 95%+ have gone out of their way to exacerbate it.

I'm not going to argue that the UK is a beacon in sustainable development, but development in a city is generally going to be much better in this respect than development anywhere else. If there's anywhere that has the right basis for achieving it (as well as the right mindset) then it's surely somewhere like Cambridge.

I'm not sure where you've got the idea that Edinburgh is some kind of car-dependent hellscape - as with any city, there is much room for improvement, but close to half of households don't have access to a car, the bus network is the best in Scotland and public transport/cycling modal share is comparatively high. It also has a centrally-placed railway station with fast and frequent services to key places like London and Glasgow. The tram has reserved or restricted ROW pretty much all the way into and through the centre from the west and enjoys signalling priority throughout, the only major shared section being the lower end of Leith Walk. It was partly built to support major housebuilding in Newhaven.

I've been to Edinburgh enough times to disagree there - it is a car dependent hellscape in most of the city. The cycle lanes are often terribly designed and counter-intuitive; Leith Walk became a meme for this. Princes Street is choked with buses and is deeply unpleasant as a pedestrian and the trams get stuck at every set of signals along there - talk of signal priority is a laugh, it's faster to walk in the city centre than travel across it by tram thanks to mistimed signals. The radial routes are hardly exciting other than a few bus lanes which don't really get things ahead of the queues because they still dump buses into the same traffic before a signal stop line without having priority signals. Much like Manchester, Edinburgh does a lot of self-congratulatory publicity but the reality does not match the hype.

Recent developments in Cambridge are better than the old DB32 nonsense most places still chuck up but it's still extremely rudimentary and still favours car ownership despite efforts to discourage it. The stuff out on Newmarket Road is still miles from a truly liveable neighbourhood concept and this level of progress is inadequate to sustain 150,000+ homes no matter how anyone spins it.