CambridgeshireLive readers have clashed over plans for new Grantchester to Cambridge walking and cycling path with sharp differences over demand, cost and transport policy
CambridgeshireLive readers have been sharing their thoughts on the plans for a new walking and cycling path, with sharp differences over demand, cost, and the wider aims of transport policy.
A new walking and cycling path has been planned on a route currently used by around 20 people each day. The route connecting Grantchester and Cambridge is expected to attract more than 300 people per day once complete, according to the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP).
The new all-weather path is planned alongside the historic ‘Baulk Path’. Forecasts predict that more than 250 cyclists and around 50 pedestrians will use the new path each day, according to papers published by the GCP.
The plans have certainly divided our readers, with Calumen Nomen writing: “Nobody wants, or has asked for, these ‘greenways’. Anyone who wants to cycle or walk from Barton to Cambridge has already got at least three options right now.”
While Weneedqueenmeghan disagrees: “We need more cycleways. It always makes sense. Dig up some roads and convert them!”
Skipper asks: “Do we have a costing for this? Who made the estimate of the number of people likely to use it? Are cyclists going to be charged a fee for their use until the cost has been paid off (like the Dartford Bridge, even though it was paid off years ago, and we are still paying)? The idea of a toll for push bike riders to pay for their facilities is a good one, I think.”
Freddly says: “This is good as far as it goes, but it’s tinkering at the edges. Real modal shift, the sort that will transform cities, will only come by taking space away from car and van drivers on main roads in cities. They do not remotely pay the actual cost of driving, and their taste for larger and larger battering-ram type cars holds up buses and ambulances and makes active travel unpleasant and unviable.”
Brexit498 comments: “We had ridiculous forecasts for the use of Milton Rd by cyclists, and that upgrade (£33 million) has made little difference to cycling and walking use – I have lived close to it for 10 years. The GCP needs to be shut down. The size of the car makes no difference to congestion. Don’t forget, bus drivers and emergency vehicle drivers need cars to get to work. The contribution car drivers make to the economy is £22 billion and 538,000 jobs: a tad more than cyclists, of which I am one.”
Freddly writes: “Driving creates significant costs that are not reflected in the price of petrol or vehicles, such as air and noise pollution, which contribute to healthcare costs and environmental damage. Traffic jams represent a major “deadweight loss” to the economy, resulting in lost time, reduced productivity, and wasted fuel.
“Roads, parking, and associated infrastructure are often subsidised by governments, meaning non-drivers often pay for the infrastructure that drivers use. For individuals, the high costs of car ownership (depreciation, insurance, fuel) can consume a large share of disposable income. Auto-dependency encourages urban sprawl, which is less dense and, in the long run, can be less economically efficient to service with infrastructure than, for example, public transport, studies suggest.”
Whynot3 asks: “Which century are you actually living in? Do you have electricity or gas? Do you still have an outhouse, or do you use a chamber pot at night? Power goes off in the middle of the night. Sorry, can’t fix it till tomorrow. The maintenance crew can’t get to work. Buses don’t start till 0600 hours! I take you don’t get mail or packages delivered to your door? Need an ambulance, sorry you’ll have to wait. The horse is getting new shoes put on, but the cargo bike will be ready once we fix the puncture! Where would you be without motor vehicles?”
Banthebikes questions: “Why build cycle ways? Nobody uses them, anything that involves cycling is a complete waste of money.”
Specialized says: “You’re deliberately missing the point. The current facility is poor. So it is little used. When it is improved it will be more used. Build it and they will come. It won’t change van drivers at all. Vans are necessary as you state. Singly-occupied cars at the busiest times of day, less so. This path will enable people to bypass traffic jams, thereby helping them. It doesn’t affect vans and doesn’t affect you, so why are you objecting?”
Whynot3 comments: “Just remember the old adage, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink it. If they go ahead and build it, it’ll make that £98 a bus passenger look cheap, but as it’s not their money, so why should they care?”
Brexit498 adds: “Driving creates significant revenues that are not reflected in the price of petrol or vehicles, such as road fund licence, repairs and spares, motorsport (VAT) and a viable infrastructure (roads) so businesses can operate an effective distribution system – I am assuming that you consume.”
Is a new cycleway really needed? Comment HERE or below to join in the conversation.
