Cavendish III

What is it?

The next iteration of the Cavendish laboratory, moving from its current site in the corner of West Cambridge Site to a new site next to Madingley Road on the western side of JJ Thomson Ave where there are currently paddocks.

Planning application

• Cavendish III is now city council planning application 17/1799/FUL and is out for consultation as of October 2017.
• The planning application incorporates some changes to JJ Thomson Ave and Madingley Road based on the West Cambridge outline planning application. The Cavendish III planning application will likely be approved long before the overall outline planning application does, but as a result, anything done as part of Cavendish III will set-in-stone certain design choices on JJ Thomson Ave and will be difficult if not impossible to change later.
• The West Cambridge outline planning application has also been updated as of October 2017. There are significant problems with the revised application, including the removal of most segregated cycling infrastructure from the street redesigns. If Cavendish III goes ahead as planned then it will rebuild JJ Thomson Ave without the segregated cycling infrastructure that was originally promised.

Consultation

• 5th July 2017 poster session. Consultation boards posted here: File:University of Cambridge Shared Facilities Hub Cavendish III Exhibition.pdf

Response Ideas

Matt:

I queried them about the driveway for the service entrance to the Cavendish III building along Madingley Road.

They estimate approximately 2-3 long vehicles per week and 20 vans per day making use of this service entrance. This is currently a badly flared but closed-off driveway opposite Conduit Head Rd. Obviously there are safety issues for people walking & cycling along Madingley Road that need to be addressed. Also, there is no right turn into this driveway and they do not plan for there to be in the future, so it will require vehicles coming from the west to enter and circle around JJ Thomson & Charles Babbage Road to get to Cavendish III during construction. Later there will be an access route from the High Cross junction area.

In addition this driveway across from Conduit Head Road will be part of a north/south cycling route that will continue from Cavendish as an off-street path south to Charles Babbage Road. Presumably the northern section is going to be shared with the service vans. But south of Cavendish III in the poster boards it is currently shown as a pair of tiny paths. Clearly there is much work to be done.

I brought up Clerk Maxwell, as the current plan is to put all the car parking into several multi-storeys, one in particular being located at the northern part of Clerk Maxwell. Their goal is to remove parking from the street and replace it with cycle lanes. Very well though, I was also curious about their plans to do something about the massively flared junction. They have not put much thought into it, supposedly, although their plans do show a set of Advance Stop Lines at Clerk Maxwell, as if they had a thought to signalise it. There had been talk of signalising that junction in the past, but the word now is that they plan to leave it as a priority junction.

I also asked if there was any plan to fix the outstanding problems with Madingley Road, especially where it passes University land. For example, at Clerk Maxwell, as we all know the south-side walking & cycling provision turns into basically nil, despite the fact that it would be on University land and there's nothing but scrub & brush there right now. In return I got a lame excuse about trying to preserve some greenery, which is all well and good, but seems to be completely upside-down on priorities: providing a decent pavement so that your students & staff don't get killed walking or cycling along Madingley Road ought to be priority number 1, and if they're looking to cut back on tarmac then look at the rather wide motor carriageway first.

Of course the 'City Deal' can throw a spanner in all of this based on what the Cambourne to Cambridge scheme turns out to be.

In addition, the University is submitting amendments to the big outline planning application so that will be more to examine shortly.

Planning objection (WCAT)

West Cambridge Active Travel (WCAT) is a grassroots organisation seeking to help enable walking, cycling and public transport on and around the West Cambridge site. We object to the proposed designs for JJ Thomson Avenue and JJ Thomson Gardens contained in 17/1799/FUL as they have significant problems and require substantial redesign. Our preference would be for the plans for JJ Thomson Avenue and JJ Thomson Gardens to be split off from the application for the building, with the condition that the works are agreed and constructed before occupation of Cavendish III. We have discussed our objections with the University and expect that some of them will be addressed in a later submission.

It is intended that the working population of the West Cambridge Site will grow substantially over the next few years while the number of cars travelling to the site remains constant or decreases. To achieve this a substantial increase in the proportion and number of people arriving by cycle, walking, or public transport will be required. This means that substantial numbers of people who presently consider such means of travel to be inconvenient or unsafe must be provided with infrastructure of sufficient quality that they change their mind. The plans for JJ Thomson Avenue, JJ Thomson Gardens, and improvements to the surrounding transport network fall short of fixing the present problems on and around the site, do not follow modern design standards, and do not provide sufficiently good quality infrastructure to deliver the required modal shift. In addition to this the move to multi-storey car parks and the construction of more buildings deeper into the site will increase the volume of cycling and walking traffic within the site.

The earlier designs for JJ Thomson Avenue (in 16/1134/OUT), while having some problems, were better than the present designs and we object to the council officers forcing the University to alter their plans such that they are no longer a viable solution.

To encourage walking and cycling on and around the West Cambridge Site it is necessary for this to be a stress-free, enjoyable, safe and convenient process. Shared-use paths do not provide such a facility except in extremely low traffic conditions. The bursty nature of undergraduate travel patterns, with whole lecture theatres full of students arriving in 5-10 minute windows, means that the routes on and around the site regularly experience extremely high traffic conditions under which shared-use paths are entirely inappropriate. The move of the Cavendish Laboratory to the Cavendish III site will place additional pressure on the WCS's internal links as the the Cavendish will no longer be connected directly to the Coton Path and the main flow of undergraduates will therefore have to travel across the site. The existing site links are already over-capacity at peak times.

1) To deliver a transport network that works on the WCS people walking, cycling, and using motor vehicles must be kept segregated as far as possible. The original plans for JJ Thomson Avenue in 16/1134/OUT proposed segregated walking and cycling along both sides of the road. This is necessary to meet the capacity and ease of use requirements for these paths. The present plans for a shared-use path will have neither sufficient capacity, nor sufficient desirability of use, to meet the needs of the site. Requirements for an adequate facility are detailed later.

2) The plans for the path through JJ Thomson Gardens include a 6m-wide shared-use path, which will form the first stage of the route through The Green. While this will be sufficient when the path does not go anywhere, as is the case until the Vet School is demolished, it will be entirely insufficient when The Green is completed and it becomes a through route. The planning application should contain a commitment to turn the path into a segregated walking and cycling route (no increase in width required), or to provide a separate cycling route, during later phases of development. The University has told us that it is willing to consider this.

3) The crossing of JJ Thomson Avenue at the junction with Madingley Road is poorly designed and will not be attractive to use. The central refuge is too small, the crossing is staggered, through motor traffic has priority and the highly flared junction means that this traffic is moving at speed. This makes using this crossing dangerous and unattractive. The University has told us that it intends to investigate the technical constraints on the junction and whether the two northbound lanes are necessary (in the short and long terms) and then investigate whether improvements to that junction can be made.

4) The designs for the cycle parking around the Cavendish are generally good but some of the aisles are narrower than the 1.8m minimum width (2.4m minimum width where double-stacker cycle parking is used) and so will be difficult to use and the effective number of cycle parking spaces will be reduced as a result.

5) The crossing of Charles Babbage Road at the junction of JJ Thomson Avenue is not proposed to be improved as part of these plans. However, there should be a crossing with priority for walking and cycling, and it will be even more important once Cavendish has relocated. The University has told us that it intends to propose an improved crossing for the intermediate period until Charles Babbage Road is fully redeveloped.

6) At present the plans give priority to the driveway for the small visitors car park for the William Gates Building over through traffic on the path along the east side of JJ Thomson Avenue. The University has told us that it intends to correct this and provide priority for the path. The sign for the William Gates Building currently obstructs intervisibility between drivers entering the car park and people walking or cycling on the pathway. It needs to be relocated to a safer place.

7) The proposed re-opened junction of the Cavendish III access road with Madingley Road does not provide an indication of how pedestrians and cyclists are supposed to cross it. Given that this is a minor access road with very low levels of motor traffic, pedestrians and cyclists should be given priority across the junction. In addition the quality of the footpath on the south side of Madingley Road adjacent to the West Cambridge site is awful, and there is no provision for safe cycling.

Requirements for JJ Thomson Avenue

Motor traffic, people walking, and people cycling need to be kept separate as far as possible on JJ Thomson Avenue and where their paths cross, people walking should have clear priority over those cycling and those in motor vehicles, and people cycling should have clear priority over those in motor vehicles. This ordering of priorities is best practice in general but is particularly required on this site where motor traffic needs to be deprioritised to meet modal shift goals. The proposed plans call for cycling on the road, an admission that the shared-use paths are inadequate, but this is not safe and attractive due to the regular large, heavy, and hard buses which do not mix well with small, light, squishy cyclists. High volumes of cycling and walking traffic are expected on JJ Thomson Avenue. The proposed Cavendish III building contains 520 seats of lecture theatre capacity and with 80% of students arriving by cycle if 90% of these seats were in use simultaneously for lectures then 370 cyclists might arrive in the preceding 10 minutes, equivalent to 2,250 per hour. The adjacent proposed Shared Facilities Hub has 280 seats of further lecture theatre capacity equivalent to a further 1,200 per hour rate and the William Gates Building opposite contributes a further 389 seats equivalent to 1,680 per hour. Hence, JJ Thomson Avenue should expect to support a flow rate equivalent to 5,000 people cycling per hour. This level of cycling precludes the use of on-road cycling for 20mph roads according to IAN 195/16 Table 2.2.2 as it is equivalent to a daily rate of over 5,000/hour, segregated cycle tracks must be provided. Table 2.2.11 from IAN195/16 indicates that the desirable minimum width for a two-way cycleway with over 150 cyclists per hour is 4m and the absolute minimum is 3.5m. Additionally it specifies in Table 2.2.11.1 that a vertical feature above 600mm high at the edge of the path requires an additional 500mm of width. Some sections of the paths along JJ Thomson Avenue are lined with hedges resulting in this additional width being necessary if the cyclepath is adjacent to the hedge.

This leads to the requirement for a 2m footway segregated from a 3.5m cycleway along each side of JJ Thomson Avenue, a total width of 5.5m. This should be level separated as per Figure 2.3.2.1 of IAN195/16 with a forgiving Cambridge Kerb between them. The cycleway should be surfaced with flat red tarmac.

The present carriageway is 7.3m wide, only 6.1m is required and the width should be reduced to this level to encourage drivers to comply with the 20mph speed limit. There is presently a persistent speeding problem on JJ Thomson Avenue. The 1.2m of removed width could be switched from one side of the road to the other over the length of the road (though not near crossings) so as to create a horizontal traffic-calming effect.

The present paths along the side of JJ Thomson Avenue are 3m wide and 5.5m is required (or 6m if the cycleway is adjacent to the hedge). This represents an increase in width of 2.5m. This is likely to require the existing hedges to be moved further away from the carriageway on some sections as well as a narrowing of the verge. The net increase in hard surfacing (2.5*2-1.2=3.8m) means that permeable paving may be required on the pedestrian section for drainage purposes.

This is achievable on the east side of JJ Thomson Avenue. Running south from the junction with Madingley Road: initially there are bushes on both sides that can be narrowed to provide space; just before the northmost tree the path would need to bend east a bit and the hedge outside the Whittle Lab moved further away from the road to provide sufficient width. This can be continued until the William Gates Building cycle park, where the hedge has to be removed completely and replaced with climbers growing on the fence behind the present hedge and more of the verge will be required. This works until the Maxwell Centre where the space available is much more constrained. The section past the Maxwell Centre can probably only support a 2.5m-wide cycleway, with the 1500m of additional width coming solely from the verge. Beyond the Maxwell Centre there is more space up to the junction with Charles Babbage Road. The reduced width past the Maxwell Centre may be adequate because most cycle traffic is expected to use the path from Clerk Maxwell Road which runs between the William Gates Building and the Maxwell Centre and is to be upgraded in a later phase of development.

On the west side of JJ Thomson Avenue most of the length is adjacent to the proposed Cavendish III and SFH development; there is space on the verge on this section that is not adjacent to new developments and so it should be possible to find sufficient space.

Detailed analysis of submitted documents

Cavendish III Design and Access statement

p28 shows "Pedestrian Route" where both pedestrian and cyclist routes should be shown. p68 shows many aisles that are narrower than the 1.8m minimum (2.4m minimum width where double-stacker cycle parking is used) in the Camcycle cycle parking guide (https://www.camcycle.org.uk/resources/cycleparking/guide/). This may make some of the spaces very hard to use, reducing the effective capacity of the cycle parking by making some spaces difficult to access. p122 "Desire lines are maintained and conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians are minimised;" This is not achieved in the current plans. In particular p127's "A shared cycle and pedestrian path that will, in later phases connect JJ Thomson Avenue with High Cross" deviates from that and from the careful phrasing earlier in the document ("pedestrian paths and cycle routes") that refers separately to pedestrian and cycling routes as these should be separately provided. p128 It is not clear that sufficient thought has been given to how desire lines for cyclists and pedestrians using the junction of The Green with JJ Thompson Avenue will work and how conflict will be minimised. A secondary foot and cycle route is shown crossing a grassy verge. p132,133 As discussed previously this design for JJ Thomson Avenue is of poor-quality and does not meet the requirements of the site. p135 'Woodland Edge' completely ignores the desperately needed cycling and walking improvements on Madingley Road at that point. p136 No provision is made for those walking and cycling to cross over the newly-reopened service road for Cavendish III, which should have a priority crossing. p137 Uses the phrase "foot and cycle routes" rather than the rather better phrase "pedestrian paths and cycle routes" used earlier in the document. p140 This needs to be reworked to provide a segregated causeway (4m cycling, 2m walking) in a later phase of development and this should be committed to at this stage. p141 Tar spray and chip provides a particularly poor-quality surface for cycling with increased risk of slipping and should be avoided if possible. If it is used then very careful and thorough sweeping is required to avoid severe risk of injury and regular punctures. Regular (annual?) mechanised sweeping will be required over the lifetime of the surface to maintain it to a usable standard. p148 The cycle access route from the south along the path along the western side of JJ Thomson Avenue is not shown.

Cav Transport Assessment

In general: use the term "cycle" rather than "bicycle", not all cycles have two wheels, particularly those for disabled users or cargo bikes. p13 3.4.1: 53.1% of staff cycle and at least 64.9% of students cycle --- since most of the students in the survey were not travelling to the WCS it will be higher than 65% as students who work in town may not need to cycle but those working on the WCS will need to. 75 or 80% of students cycling would be more realistic. p14 3.6.2 9km would be a much better distance to use here as that is half an hour's cycle. Cycling in from 24km away is plausible though unusual as there are presently University staff doing that. Electro-assisted cycles increase cycle speed and range. p15 3.7.8 This junction is awful and dangerous for cyclists as cyclists going straight on are placed to the left of the left-turn lane for motor traffic, among other design flaws. p16 3.8.1 Additionally:

• There are chicanes blocking the cycle route onto Clerk Maxwell Road from JJ Thomson Avenue.
• The bridge and junction connecting Clerk Maxwell Road with the Coton Path is narrow, has poor visibility and is of poor-quality.
• The bridge and access across the M11 on the Coton Path is of poor-quality being too narrow and having multiple tight corners at the bottom of slopes. It is also poorly maintained in autumn and winter when leaves and ice cause a slip hazard.
• The path through to Storeys Way is obstructed by chicanes.
• The path through to Horse Chestnut Avenue by CASP is of poor-quality and obstructed by a gate.
• The junction of the Coton Path with Adams Road is of poor-quality and obstructed by a low wall, there is a design in the Master Plan which addresses this (mentioned elsewhere in the document).
• The Ridgeway connecting through to Eddington is obstructed by gates.
• Wayfinding is unclear from Storeys Way through to the WCS.
• Cycling provision on the south side of Madingley Road is poor along almost its entire length, particularly so on the section that runs along the edge of the WCS.

p16 3.9.1 Shared-use paths are a low-quality design and inadequate for this site as discussed previously.

p26 4.5.5 566 covered spaces and 203 uncovered spaces. Covered spaces are much preferable to uncovered as they prevent damage to cycles caused by exposure to the weather. 7.2.3 541 spaces utilised during survey conducted during the peak time of 15:00 Thursday 16th February. This one-off survey at one time of day may not be representative. The assumption of a 15:00 peak could be wrong and different days could have different usage levels. Additionally one-off events could cause substantially higher usage, for example, undergraduate induction lectures when all the first years are in the building at once rather than being split across multiple labs. While there might presently be adequate cycle parking in total, fly-parked cycles are observed on the present Cavendish site (due to parking not being provided where it is needed) and it is not clear whether cycles not parked in allocated spaces were counted in this survey.

No provision for the pool bikes that are part of the University's transport strategy is mentioned when calculating the number of spaces required, though pool bikes are mentioned later in the document.

p62 11.2.1 Shared-use paths are not high quality and do not enable increased cycling and walking as they provide a poor-quality of experience to both walkers and cyclists due to conflict between them. p63 11.2.8 "Pinchpoints along the Madingley Rise connection to Huntingdon Road;" This is not addressed by the plans.

Appendix A Figure 3.4 shows the Coton path as being an "Off Road Shared Footway/Cycleway". It is not, it is much better than that, it is an "Off Road Segregated Footway and Cycleway". It also shows part of the Coton path as being "on road" but it is not. Additionally the category "Segregated On Road Cycleway or Off Road Shared Footway/Cycleway" should be split up so as to distinguish between poor-quality facilities (shared-use) and high quality facilities (segregated routes following the route of a road or off-road). Appendix A Figure 3.9: The existing publicly accessible Computer Laboratory Cafe is missing from the map, as is the cafe in CAPE. However, the Roger Needham Building is indicated as having one, when it doesn't.

1. 1. Travel plan

Large sections of the travel plan are copied from earlier in the document and so the comments made there also apply here.

p20 7.3.2 The existing West Cambridge Active Travel Group (WCAT) should be mentioned rather than a non-existent BUG-WAG. p21 7.3.4 Again BUG-WAG is mentioned rather than WCAT. p21 7.3.8 The Cavendish website's page on directions to the site should prioritise sustainable means of arrival. p22 7.3.15 WCAT already exists. p23 7.3.29 Academics and research staff are generally already on extremely flexible working hours. p23 7.3.37

* "will" rather than "could". We could do anything, but what will we actually do?
* Great Shelford railway station? Not really relevant to WCS.

p24,25 8.3.5

* "cycle parking" not "cycle storage", as "storage" implies irregular use while "parking" makes it sound much more regularly used.
* "as required" not "if required" --- it will be required.

Figures 2.3 and 2.4 are modified copies of Figure 3.4 above and have many of the same issues. Figure 2.9 is a copy of 3.9 above and has the same problems.

Appendix B 2011 University Travel Plan It says it will be reviewed every two years and so presumably there is a 2017 version which should be included instead of this six-year-old version.

Appendix C Figure 2 home postcodes map. Presumably the postcodes form Cornwall and Scotland are for visitors who do not regularly physically travel to the building each day. Weighting people by their FTE proportion might give more realistic distance distributions.

Appendix E Action Plan WCAT already exists and so a BUG-WAG doesn't need to be created.

Appendix H No details are shown on how pedestrians and cyclists are supposed to cross this junction: they should clearly have priority over such a minor access road and so a priority crossing should be provided.