Mill Road Traders Association Objection to the Proposed Traffic Regulation Order for a Bus Gate on Mill Road Bridge

 

Dear Cambridgeshire County Council,

I am writing on behalf of the Mill Road Traders Association to formally object to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for the implementation of a bus gate on Mill Road Bridge. We object to this proposal based on an extensive review of the potential adverse effects this could have on our community, local businesses, residents, and the overall connectivity of the area.

 

1. Purpose of the TRO

 

a. Safety Justifications:
The claim that the TRO is necessary to prevent danger to road users is not sufficiently supported by evidence. Any argument for this measure should be grounded in concrete data, such as accident reports specific to Mill Road Bridge, demonstrating how a reduction in motor traffic would have prevented incidents. Moreover, many residents have shared that they felt increased anxiety about personal safety during prior closures of the bridge, particularly in the evenings, due to the reduced presence of vehicles.

 

b. Traffic Flow Improvements:
The idea that the TRO would improve traffic flow for all road users is misleading. The proposal primarily restricts private vehicle access and imposes fines for violations, which seems more punitive than facilitative. This approach does not appear to enhance mobility or accessibility for the broader community.

 

c. Preservation of Local Amenities:
The assertion that the TRO will enhance local amenities is questionable. During earlier closures of the bridge, there was no observable improvement in local amenities. In fact, in Romsey businesses experienced a decline in foot traffic and accessibility, leading to a less vibrant local economy. The supposed benefits to the quality of life have not materialised as expected.

 

2. Key Issues with the Current Proposal

 

a. Signage and Communication:
The existing signage, such as the "no right turn" into Devonshire Road, is insufficient and easily overlooked. It is critical that any signage related to the bus gate be clear, strategically placed, and well-publicised to avoid confusion and unintended violations.

 

b. Traffic Calming Details:
The proposal to introduce a build-out on the southern approach to the bridge for traffic calming is vague. The specific location and anticipated impact on traffic flow need to be clearly outlined to allow for proper assessment.

 

c. Cycling and Parking Adjustments:
Proposed changes to cycle parking on Argyle Street to increase carriageway width need further explanation. How will these adjustments impact both cyclists and motorists? Detailed plans are necessary to understand the full implications.

 

d. ANPR Enforcement:
While ANPR cameras are proposed to enforce the bus gate, it may be more beneficial to deploy these resources toward addressing speeding, a significant safety concern on the bridge. This would likely have a more direct impact on improving road safety.

 

3. Consequences for Residents and Local Businesses

The introduction of a bus gate would disrupt the daily lives of residents and harm local businesses. Tradespeople, delivery services, and others who rely on crossing the bridge for work would face increased costs and logistical challenges, ultimately reducing the quality of life for residents. Additionally, the limited access would strain carers and other professionals who need to travel across the bridge, making their work more difficult and less efficient.

 

4. Pavement and Infrastructure Concerns

While we recognize the need for wider pavements in certain areas, such as along Mill Road in Petersfield and near the Ross Street junction, closing the bridge is not the appropriate solution. A more effective approach would involve regular maintenance, such as trimming overgrown hedges and improving specific junctions, as well as enforcing illegal parking without causing the widespread disruption a bus gate would bring.

 

5. Environmental Concerns and Traffic Diversion

The proposal fails to consider the broader environmental impact and potential traffic displacement to surrounding roads, such as Coldham's Lane, Coleridge Road, and Tenison Road. Without proper analysis, there is a risk of simply shifting traffic congestion and pollution to other parts of the city, exacerbating existing issues rather than resolving them.

 

6. Fairness and Accessibility Challenges

The TRO disproportionately impacts individuals who cannot use active travel modes, such as the elderly, disabled, or those with health conditions. The current provisions for blue badge holders are inadequate and do not fully account for those who struggle with mobility but do not qualify for a badge. This exclusion risks increasing social inequality and reducing access to essential services.

 

7. Implementation and Community Engagement

If the Council decides to proceed with the bus gate, it is imperative that the implementation is managed with minimal disruption. This includes clear communication with the public, adjustments to satnav systems to prevent routing issues, and provisions for alternative routes for delivery vehicles. Furthermore, there should be more

 

(continued next column)

(continued)
comprehensive community engagement, with opportunities for residents to propose and discuss alternative solutions.

 

8. Accessibility of Public Consultations

We must address the poor accessibility of the Council's survey process, which fails to meet legal obligations for public sector services. The survey's design does not cater to those with disabilities or for many of the Cambridge residents’ users of Mill Road away during the consultation, thereby excluding a significant portion of the community from participating in this crucial decision.

 

9. Economic Consequences and Local Employment

The potential economic impact on local employment is a significant concern. The introduction of a bus gate could make it more difficult for tradespeople, delivery drivers, and other workers to access their clients or workplaces, leading to potential job losses or reduced working hours. This disruption could harm the local economy and negatively affect the livelihoods of those who depend on easy access to Mill Road.

 

10. Impact on Emergency Services

There is also concern about the potential delays for emergency services such as ambulances and fire engines. Any delays caused by restricted access to the bridge could pose serious risks to public safety, particularly in time-sensitive situations.

 

11. Alternative Proposals

Rather than implementing a bus gate, we urge the Council to consider alternative solutions that could achieve the desired outcomes without the negative impacts. These could include targeted traffic-calming measures, improving public transport options, or enhancing pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure in ways that do not restrict vehicular access.

We believe that any significant changes to Mill Road Bridge should involve more comprehensive community engagement, including workshops or town hall meetings where residents can propose and discuss alternatives. Additionally, a pilot program with regular reviews could be considered before making any permanent changes, allowing for adjustments based on real-world impact.

 

12. Tourism and Cultural Impact

Mill Road is known for its cultural significance and unique shops, attracting visitors to the area. Reduced accessibility could diminish its appeal, leading to a decline in visitors and a subsequent economic downturn. This could harm the vibrant cultural and social fabric of the community.

 

13. Long-Term Urban Planning

We question how this proposal fits into the broader long-term urban planning goals for Cambridge. A more holistic approach to traffic management, considering future growth and infrastructure needs, would better serve the city. The current TRO proposal appears to be a short-term fix that could have long-term negative consequences.

 

14. Environmental Impact Beyond Air Pollution

In addition to concerns about air pollution, we also worry about potential increases in noise pollution in surrounding areas as traffic is diverted, affecting residents' quality of life. Furthermore, the impact on local wildlife or green spaces due to changes in traffic patterns should also be considered and addressed.

 

15. Technological Reliability

The reliability of the ANPR systems proposed for enforcement is another concern. Errors in enforcement could lead to unjust fines, causing unnecessary stress and financial burdens for residents and visitors. Additionally, the technological infrastructure must be robust enough to handle the proposed changes smoothly, without causing additional problems.

 

16. Congestion and Traffic

The county council routinely requires extensive traffic analysis studies for minor changes to the road network, such as adding a new access. However, in the case of the bus gate, the council proposes severing a major arterial route in the middle of the city but has failed to conduct any analysis of the impacts the bus gate will have on traffic volumes and congestion in other parts of the road network.

 

17. Road Safety

There has been no independent third-party road safety audit to assess whether the proposal is likely to meaningfully improve safety along Mill Road.

 

18. Air Pollution

Without an assessment of the impacts of the bus gate on traffic, the county council cannot adequately assess the impacts of the bus gate on air pollution. At best, the proposal would simply shift vehicular air pollution to less affluent areas of the city.

 

19. Economic Impacts

Finally, without an assessment of the impacts of the bus gate on traffic, the council cannot adequately assess the economic impacts of the closure, either in regard to the local impacts due to reduced access to businesses or lost productivity from increased traffic congestion.

 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposed TRO for a bus gate on Mill Road Bridge presents numerous challenges that could have lasting negative effects on our community. We urge the Council to reconsider this proposal, taking into account the substantial concerns raised here, and to explore alternative solutions that truly benefit all users of Mill Road.

Thank you for considering our objections.

 

Sincerely,
Abdul Kayum Arain
Treasurer
Mill Road Traders Association
millroadtraders@gmail.com