Building site on Newmarket Road
Paul Bolchover
more-or-less opposite Tescos on Newmarket Road?
Paul
DavidD
"Paul Bolchover" <pb1...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b451bc$lht$1...@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk...
> Does anyone know what is going to be built on the building site
> more-or-less opposite Tescos on Newmarket Road?
>
etc development. Should be complete in time for the christmas thing. I
believe Homebase are moving onto it.
Anyone know if they are going to put a link road through to ease traffic a
bit?
D.
Marcus Streets
I believe that there will be a link road with rising bollards, so buses
and taxis can use it but not cars.
I understand this was because the residents of Silverwood close
complianed that it would increase traffic.
Tis a pity as I would use the shortcut rather than going round by Wests
- but I still have to go past Silverwood close.
Marcus
G.W. Walker
Marcus Streets <mar...@eightflames.org> wrote:
>
>I believe that there will be a link road with rising bollards, so buses
>and taxis can use it but not cars.
>
>I understand this was because the residents of Silverwood close
>complianed that it would increase traffic.
>
>Tis a pity as I would use the shortcut rather than going round by Wests
>- but I still have to go past Silverwood close.
They seem to be adding another exit off the Beehive
Centre roundabout which would lead into the new development.
I sincerely hope that they're not going to have some daft
rising bollard system, leaving the Coldhams Lane/Newmarket
Rd junction to grind to a complete halt. It's bad enough
as it is without even more shops opening!
G.
Martin Burchell
> "Paul Bolchover" <pb1...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:b451bc$lht$1...@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk...
>
>>Does anyone know what is going to be built on the building site
>>more-or-less opposite Tescos on Newmarket Road?
>>
>
> Yes it is more retail units and parking, it is the next phase of the argos
> etc development. Should be complete in time for the christmas thing. I
> believe Homebase are moving onto it.
Great. Then the Beehive Centre can be demolished.
Martin
Killer
> DavidD wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Yes it is more retail units and parking, it is the next phase of the
>> argos
>> etc development. Should be complete in time for the christmas thing. I
>> believe Homebase are moving onto it.
>
>
> Great. Then the Beehive Centre can be demolished.
What would you put in its place?
Michael
Robert Macmillan
"Killer" <michael.kilpatrick@btinternet_spamwitheggs.com> wrote in message
news:3E674F46.5070802@btinternet_spamwitheggs.com...
> >
> > Great. Then the Beehive Centre can be demolished.
>
> What would you put in its place?
I'd move the council offices there from Shire Hall and redevelop the Shire
Hall site as a monster car park for people coming in from the west.
Robert
Ian Cowley
A honey farm.
--
Ian Cowley (Not Reverend), Cambridge, UK
**Perfecting pedantry through practice**
Remove safety net before mailing me
Roger Hume
"Robert Macmillan" <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b47k02$qoa$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
No....... any new development is not allowed parking spaces :-)
Roger
Paul Rudin
K> Martin Burchell wrote:
>> DavidD wrote:
>>> Yes it is more retail units and parking, it is the next phase of
>>> the argos etc development. Should be complete in time for the
>>> christmas thing. I believe Homebase are moving onto it.
>> Great. Then the Beehive Centre can be demolished.
K> What would you put in its place?
A nice park...
--
.. If I cover this entire WALL with MAZOLA, wdo I have to give my
AGENT ten per cent??
splodge
"Robert Macmillan" <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b47k02$qoa$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
>
...and north :-)
--
姣 Splodge 姣
Mary Pegg
> Great. Then the Beehive Centre can be demolished.
What have you got against the Beehive?
Marcus Streets
> Killer <michael.kilpatrick@btinternet_spamwitheggs.com> writes:
>
>>Martin Burchell wrote:
>
>
>>>Great. Then the Beehive Centre can be demolished.
>>
>>What would you put in its place?
>
>
>
Blue Streak or Black Arrow
Not Blakc Horse though, which is American single stage to orbit
conventional take-off and could use Marshalls
Marcus
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
Marcus Streets <mar...@eightflames.org> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> >> <Then the Beehive Centre can be demolished.>
> >>
> >>What would you put in its place?
> > Spaceport!
>
> Blue Streak or Black Arrow
Elevator! It'd look great swooping low over Romsey just like the aircraft
do at present, except not moving apart from the lift cars. And quieter!
> Not Black Horse though, which is American single stage to orbit
> conventional take-off and could use Marshalls
Not if there's an elevator nearby it can't. Handy during the construction
though.
"Space elevators - a monorail for the C21" ?
- Huge
Steve W
Great. More shops in the MFI / Homebase / Argos mould.
Sheesh. These barn like shops are so cheap, bland and featureless.
Isnt Cambridge depressing enough in that area anyway with the current
ones?
Also (This has probably been discussed here before but......) how did
Tesco manage to get planning permission on such a prime piece of land
so close to town anyway? This surely would have been ideal for
housing.
Peter
>
>
> What would you put in its place?
A nice big night club and enteratinment venue ;-)
Cambridge is missing a good night scene....
<ducks and runs>
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
Steve W wrote:
>
> Also (This has probably been discussed here before but......) how did
> Tesco manage to get planning permission on such a prime piece of land
> so close to town anyway? This surely would have been ideal for
> housing.
Yes, the housing is being built but, surprise!, although the
Tesco arrived on time, there seems to be a slight hold-up on
some of the housing.
Chris Brown
Peter <red__gremlin@hot_spam_mail.com> wrote:
>
>A nice big night club and enteratinment venue ;-)
>Cambridge is missing a good night scene....
The desire for nocturnal meat acquisition can now be pretty well satisfied
by Fulbourn Tesco.
--
/* _ */main(int k,char**n){char*i=k&1?"+L*;99,RU[,RUo+BeKAA+BECACJ+CAACA"
/* / ` */"CD+LBCACJ*":1[n],j,l=!k,m;do for(m=*i-48,j=l?m/k:m%k;m>>7?k=1<<m+
/* | */8,!l&&puts(&l)**&l:j--;printf(" \0_/"+l));while((l^=3)||l[++i]);
/* \_,hris Brown -- All opinions expressed are probably wrong. */return 0;}
Andrew Mobbs
>
>Great. More shops in the MFI / Homebase / Argos mould.
>
>Sheesh. These barn like shops are so cheap, bland and featureless.
>
>Isnt Cambridge depressing enough in that area anyway with the current
>ones?
>
>Also (This has probably been discussed here before but......) how did
>Tesco manage to get planning permission on such a prime piece of land
>so close to town anyway? This surely would have been ideal for
>housing.
Er... I'm confused. On one hand, Cambridge is too full over overpriced
boutiques and trendy clothes shops; and on the other it's too full of
bland cheap chains and supermarkets.
I'm beginning to think that between those types, the small local shops
on Mill Road and round Mitcham's Corner, the market, and the budget
shops like Aldi up Histon Road, that there might actually be quite a
reasonable balance of shopping for a mid-sized town, and all within
fairly handy cycling distance.
Certainly I rarely want to go outside Cambridge to shop. That's a
satisfied audience of one at least.
--
Andrew Mobbs - http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andrewm/
Ashley Stevens
> In article <xWe*Ms...@news.cam.virata.com>,
> Peter <red__gremlin@hot_spam_mail.com> wrote:
>
>>A nice big night club and enteratinment venue ;-)
>>Cambridge is missing a good night scene....
>
>
> The desire for nocturnal meat acquisition can now be pretty well satisfied
> by Fulbourn Tesco.
Really? Is that the in-place to pull these days then?
It's my 5-year wedding anniversary today, so the days of meat
markets are long gone for me.....
Ashley
Martin Burchell
It's in the wrong place for a strip mall. There should be houses there
instead.
Martin
Mary Pegg
[Beehive]
> It's in the wrong place for a strip mall. There should be houses there
> instead.
IMO it's in exactly the right place for a handy local shop.
Mark Schiffmann
<Ashley....@arm.com> wrote:
>Chris Brown wrote:
>> In article <xWe*Ms...@news.cam.virata.com>,
>> Peter <red__gremlin@hot_spam_mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>A nice big night club and enteratinment venue ;-)
>>>Cambridge is missing a good night scene....
>>
>>
>> The desire for nocturnal meat acquisition can now be pretty well satisfied
>> by Fulbourn Tesco.
>
>Really? Is that the in-place to pull these days then?
>
>It's my 5-year wedding anniversary today,
Congratulations.
> so the days of meat
>markets are long gone for me.....
Wait till your fifteen year anniversary, those meat markets start to
look pretty good again.
Mark
--
"I sometimes wonder if all women are this difficult, and then I think
to myself, My G-o-d! Wouldn't it be marvelous if I turned out to be
a homosexual."
Stewie. Family Guy.
Paul Oldham
Ashley....@arm.com (Ashley Stevens) growled:
> Chris Brown wrote:
>
> > The desire for nocturnal meat acquisition can now be pretty well
> > satisfied by Fulbourn Tesco.
>
> Really? Is that the in-place to pull these days then?
>
> It's my 5-year wedding anniversary today, so the days of meat
> markets are long gone for me.....
S'OK Ashley, Lana doesn't read cam.misc. You can be honest with us. :-)
PS: congratulations.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ maintainer ---> http://the-hug.org/paul/camfaq.html
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on"
to...@tonyrobinsonnospam.com
> Cambridge is missing a good night scene....
Rose: Goodnight John-Boy, good night Mary Ellen.
Mary Ellen: Goodnight Rose, good night Elizabeth.
Happy now?
Tony
PSM
to...@tonyRobinsonNOSPAM.com says...
"We all went to the sunrise service that Easter morning, and there was a
special joy in all our hearts as Peter stood leaning on Tony's arm,
facing into the first glorious rays of the sun which rolled back the
darkness and warmed the wakening world to new life and hope. Many
Easters have passed since then, other Springs have been slow to come,
but inevitably Winter has yielded to Spring amd Microsoft rolls out a
new release. The years have brought the full quota of blessings and
trials, joys and heartaches, bugs and patches. The same old questions
recur - Why my wife? Why my girlfriend? Why me? And the search for
answers has been taken up by new generations of grandchildren, but it's
still reassuring for me to catch the echo of those dear familiar voices
on that Easter, long, long ago".
Elizabeth: Mama?
Olivia: Yes, Elizabeth?
Elizabeth: Which Linuxes do you like the best, red hat, or the yellow,
or the mandrake?
Olivia: They're all so lovely I like them all equally.
Elizabeth: Same as us children?
Olivia: That's right!
Elizabeth: 'Night, Mama.
Olivia: Goodnight, Elizabeth.
--
Cheers, Peter
to...@tonyrobinsonnospam.com
Paul Oldham
growled:
> PSM <p...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
> > In article <87bs0l3...@tonyRobinson.com>,
> > to...@tonyRobinsonNOSPAM.com says...
> > [excellent /Waltons/ parody snipped]
>
> Help someone - wake me up - WAKE ME UP!!!
Giggle. One of the funniest posting here in a long while. Is someone
here still cross posting to ahbou? I do hope so.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ maintainer ---> http://the-hug.org/paul/camfaq.html
"I saw a subliminal advertising executive, but only for a second."
Colin Rosenstiel
stevenw...@hotmail.com (Steve W) wrote:
> Also (This has probably been discussed here before but......) how did
> Tesco manage to get planning permission on such a prime piece of land
> so close to town anyway? This surely would have been ideal for
> housing.
By winning an appeal to the Secretary of State against the City Council's
refusal of planning permission. :-(
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
david_...@hotmail.com (DavidD) wrote:
> "Paul Bolchover" <pb1...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:b451bc$lht$1...@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk...
> > Does anyone know what is going to be built on the building site
> > more-or-less opposite Tescos on Newmarket Road?
> >
> Yes it is more retail units and parking, it is the next phase of the
> argos etc development. Should be complete in time for the christmas
> thing. I believe Homebase are moving onto it.
> Anyone know if they are going to put a link road through to ease
> traffic a bit?
The main access will be via yet another set of traffic lights on Newmarket
Road by the pedestrian/cycle entrance to Tesco's and *not* via Coldham's
Lane.
Colin Rosenstiel
David Braben
news:memo.2003032...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
You're not serious! Why not connect to the road that joins the
Argos/Currys/Boots/PC World car parks?
Is this part of the campaign to get the 'street-with-the-most-lights' record
or something? It is ludicrous already. There is already insufficient length
of road for the queues at the existing lights backing up to the previous
sets.
David
Colin Rosenstiel
(David Braben) wrote:
I can't disagree with you. I think it's the result of the Council trying
to avoid a further junction on Coldham's Lane. The developers will have
had to demonstrate that the effects you complain about will not occur.
Colin Rosenstiel
Marcus Streets
Why the attempt to keep Coldhamds land free of junctions.
The main reason COldhams lane jams up is the queue of Traffic trying to
trun right onto Newmarket Road.
A decent road through the new business park from the Asda Roundabout to
a decent junction on Newmarket Road - not the staggered junction at
Wests, would have relieved some of that congestion - and keep the
through traffic away from the houses on Silverwood Close.
Marcus
William Munns
news:jimh6vkntoqajnbnr...@4ax.com:
> Wait till your fifteen year anniversary, those meat markets
> start to look pretty good again.
>
While your sat outside waiting to pick your daughter up.
Malcolm Gray
>"Colin Rosenstiel"
>> The main access will be via yet another set of traffic lights
>> on Newmarket Road by the pedestrian/cycle entrance to Tesco's
>> and *not* via Coldham's Lane.
>
> You're not serious! Why not connect to the road that joins the
> Argos/Currys/Boots/PC World car parks?
The queues out of the car park might be quite impressive if you did
that.
I made the mistake of diving there a few months ago and regretted it
instantly
BTW - was there an assumption that everyone leaving tesco would
head out of town - the roadmarkings don't seem to really expect people
turning right out of the tesco?
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
But they *do* occur already! Presumably *that* makes your point for you
too? ;-)
- Huge
David Braben
"Hugo 'NOx' Tyson" <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote in message
news:m3d6kga...@foo.surfingsuggestion.co.uk...
>
> rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
> > In article <FRNT490...@frontier.co.uk>, dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk
> > (David Braben) wrote:
> > > "Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:memo.2003032...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
> > > > In article <3e660a80$0$234$ed9e...@reading.news.pipex.net>,
> > > > david_...@hotmail.com (DavidD) wrote:
> > > > The main access will be via yet another set of traffic lights on
> > > > Newmarket Road by the pedestrian/cycle entrance to Tesco's and *not*
> > > > via Coldham's Lane.
> > >
> > > You're not serious! Why not connect to the road that joins the
> > > Argos/Currys/Boots/PC World car parks?
> > >
> > > Is this part of the campaign to get the 'street-with-the-most-lights'
> > > record or something? It is ludicrous already. There is already
> > > insufficient length of road for the queues at the existing lights
> > > backing up to the previous sets.
> >
> > I can't disagree with you. I think it's the result of the Council trying
> > to avoid a further junction on Coldham's Lane. The developers will have
> > had to demonstrate that the effects you complain about will not occur.
>
> But they *do* occur already! Presumably *that* makes your point for you
> too? ;-)
Put it another way, the developer of the previous site (ie Argos, PC World
etc) would also have "had to demonstrate" it wouldn't occur... which clearly
was wrong. I'm sorry to be sceptical, but experience shows that this is not
taken seriously. Adding an additional junction will make the problem very
much greater.
Presumably the planning has already gone through (though I've not noticed
the little notices)? If so, I wonder what provision there is for the extra
traffic?
There is already a suitable junction on Coldham's Lane, in any case. Why
can't this be used?
David
Colin Rosenstiel
(Marcus Streets) wrote:
> > I can't disagree with you. I think it's the result of the Council
> > trying to avoid a further junction on Coldham's Lane. The developers
> > will have had to demonstrate that the effects you complain about will
> > not occur.
> >
> > Colin Rosenstiel
>
> Why the attempt to keep Coldhamds land free of junctions.
> The main reason COldhams lane jams up is the queue of Traffic trying to
> trun right onto Newmarket Road.
You've answered your own question. Traffic from the new Coral Park would
be added to the jams on Coldham's Lane.
> A decent road through the new business park from the Asda Roundabout to
> a decent junction on Newmarket Road - not the staggered junction at
> Wests, would have relieved some of that congestion - and keep the
> through traffic away from the houses on Silverwood Close.
I think that's planned for limited use, public transport and I know not
what.
I'm not a ward councillor so I don't have the details to add more I'm
afraid. We have more than enough shopping schemes on our hands in my own
ward, thank you.
Colin Rosenstiel
Alan
news:memo.2003032...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk:
But aren't you on the "Cambridge Environment and Transport Area Joint
Committee"? Doesn't that have an interest in big schemes like this?
Alan
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE!
Replace 'deadspam.com' with penguinclub.org.uk to reply in email
Meldrew of Meldreth
Colin Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.co.uk> writes
>The developers will have
>had to demonstrate that the effects you complain about will not occur.
Oh please! Apart from death and taxes, one of the few certain things in
life is that no-one can predict the effect of new traffic systems.
--
"It used to be that what a writer did was type a bit and the stare out of the
window a bit, type a bit, stare out of the window a bit. Networked computers
make these two activities converge, because now the thing you type on and the
window you stare out of are the same thing" - Douglas Adams 28/1/99.
Colin Rosenstiel
Meldreth) wrote:
> In message
> <memo.2003032...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>, Colin
> Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.co.ukwrites
> >The developers will have
> >had to demonstrate that the effects you complain about will not occur.
>
> Oh please! Apart from death and taxes, one of the few certain things in
> life is that no-one can predict the effect of new traffic systems.
Actually, the accuracy of predictions recently hasn't been bad.
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
a.b...@deadspam.com (Alan) wrote:
> > I'm not a ward councillor so I don't have the details to add more I'm
> > afraid. We have more than enough shopping schemes on our hands in my
> > own ward, thank you.
>
> But aren't you on the "Cambridge Environment and Transport Area Joint
> Committee"? Doesn't that have an interest in big schemes like this?
No. Planning applications are not within its remit.
Colin Rosenstiel
Alan
news:memo.2003032...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk:
> In article <Xns93495B9D5B179...@193.150.150.3>,
I can understand that applications as such don't come under the committee,
but surely a big project like this affects the Environment and Traffic, so
I would have thought it would have some interest in it.
David Braben
news:memo.2003032...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
You asserted a few mails back in this thread that "developers will have had
to demonstrate that the effects you complain about will not occur", relating
to this junction on Newmarket Road.
Surely you can't have it both ways? Either the current mess on Newmarket
Road WAS predicted, but allowed to go ahead despite this, or it was not
predicted as you imply, in which case recent predictions have been wrong, so
we can't rely on them in the future.
David
Colin Rosenstiel
a.b...@deadspam.com (Alan) wrote:
> rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote in
> news:memo.2003032...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk:
>
> > In article <Xns93495B9D5B179...@193.150.150.3>,
> > a.b...@deadspam.com (Alan) wrote:
> >
> >> > I'm not a ward councillor so I don't have the details to add more
> >> > I'm afraid. We have more than enough shopping schemes on our hands
> >> > in my own ward, thank you.
> >>
> >> But aren't you on the "Cambridge Environment and Transport Area Joint
> >> Committee"? Doesn't that have an interest in big schemes like this?
> >
> > No. Planning applications are not within its remit.
>
> I can understand that applications as such don't come under the
> committee, but surely a big project like this affects the Environment
> and Traffic, so I would have thought it would have some interest in it.
It's supposed to be addressed in the planning process which may parallel
the AJC but doesn't include it.
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
(David Braben) wrote:
I wasn't thinking of Newmarket Road but the Core Scheme closures. I've no
idea what modelling was done for the Retail Park scheme. Tesco's was
refused by the City Council but granted on appeal over our heads.
Colin Rosenstiel
Ian Cowley
"It'll be hell".
That was easy, and probably pretty accurate too :)
--
Ian Cowley (Not Reverend), Cambridge, UK
**Perfecting pedantry through practice**
Remove safety net before mailing me
"No man that speaks German could possibly be evil."
MB_UK
> that.
> I made the mistake of diving there a few months ago and regretted it
> instantly
Was that because you didn't take into account the lack of water? I
could imagine that resulting in a regretable nasty head injury.
< sorry, couldn't resist :-) >
David Braben
It's the extra junction for the retail park (also later used by Tesco) that
first cause the problems on Newmarket Road. Was this planning also granted
nationally on appeal, or was that granted locally?
David
Colin Rosenstiel
(David Braben) wrote:
I'm afraid I don't know.
Colin Rosenstiel
Grizzlyslade
> Colin Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.co.uk> burbled:
> > In article <mWCvNbIv...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk
> > (Meldrew of Meldreth) wrote:
> >
> >> In message
> >> <memo.2003032...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>, Colin
> >> Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.co.ukwrites
> >>> The developers will have
> >>> had to demonstrate that the effects you complain about will not
> >>> occur.
> >>
> >> Oh please! Apart from death and taxes, one of the few certain things
> >> in life is that no-one can predict the effect of new traffic systems.
> >
> > Actually, the accuracy of predictions recently hasn't been bad.
>
> "It'll be hell".
>
> That was easy, and probably pretty accurate too :)
Funny that, as i have lived along Newmarket road for 5 years, i would
have to agree that is exactly what driving along it is now - HELL.
Just to think, that the redevelopment of newmarket road started
because it was such an eye sore. Now it is a conjested, polluted over
grown shopping centre, just what we needed instead of affordable
housing.
bob_builder
Having visited Cambridge Retail Park on Saturday I would suggest the
the current traffic system is not working as well as it could. There
are a lot of cars turning right from Coldhams Lane onto Newmarket Road
only to turn right again into the retail park. If you could access the
retail park from Coldhams Lane all these cars would free up the CL/NR
junction and CL would flow a lot more easily. (The right turning cars
are the bottleneck at the CL/NR junction and a queue of more than a few
of these blocks the junction to all left turning cars.)
Keeping the NR junction and allowing cars to use the CL junction to the
retail park would not bring any more cars to CL than already use it.
I understand there are fears about rat-running but nobody is going to
choose to drive through a jammed-full car park on a Saturday. Can the
bollards not be opened at selected times like those on Silver Street?
They could be shut during quieter times to stop rat-running but I would
have thought that openning them on a Saturday would make a huge
difference to the traffic (a very simple traffic survey could be
performed to find out as well). The bollard openning could be trailed
for a month and if it did not work then nothing is lost and it could
revert to how it is now.
Neil Matthews
> Having visited Cambridge Retail Park on Saturday I would suggest the
> the current traffic system is not working as well as it could. There
> are a lot of cars turning right from Coldhams Lane onto Newmarket Road
> only to turn right again into the retail park. If you could access the
> retail park from Coldhams Lane all these cars would free up the CL/NR
> junction and CL would flow a lot more easily. (The right turning cars
> are the bottleneck at the CL/NR junction and a queue of more than a few
> of these blocks the junction to all left turning cars.)
>
> Keeping the NR junction and allowing cars to use the CL junction to the
> retail park would not bring any more cars to CL than already use it.
>
> I understand there are fears about rat-running but nobody is going to
> choose to drive through a jammed-full car park on a Saturday. Can the
> bollards not be opened at selected times like those on Silver Street?
> They could be shut during quieter times to stop rat-running but I would
> have thought that openning them on a Saturday would make a huge
> difference to the traffic (a very simple traffic survey could be
> performed to find out as well). The bollard openning could be trailed
> for a month and if it did not work then nothing is lost and it could
> revert to how it is now.
This was compounded by the Homebase parking area on the Coldhams Lane
side of the bollards being full, so people were pulling in off the
Beehive roundabout only to drive around the car park, find no space and
emerge to join the traffic continuing on up to turn right onto NR and
right again to get to the parking spaces the other side of the bollard.
Aboslutely ridiculous!
Meldrew of Meldreth
<neil.ma...@ntlworld.com> writes
>> I understand there are fears about rat-running but nobody is going
>>to
>> choose to drive through a jammed-full car park on a Saturday. Can the
>> bollards not be opened at selected times like those on Silver Street?
>> They could be shut during quieter times to stop rat-running but I would
>> have thought that openning them on a Saturday would make a huge
>> difference to the traffic (a very simple traffic survey could be
>> performed to find out as well). The bollard openning could be trailed
>> for a month and if it did not work then nothing is lost and it could
>> revert to how it is now.
>
>This was compounded by the Homebase parking area on the Coldhams Lane
>side of the bollards being full, so people were pulling in off the
>Beehive roundabout only to drive around the car park, find no space and
>emerge to join the traffic continuing on up to turn right onto NR and
>right again to get to the parking spaces the other side of the bollard.
>Aboslutely ridiculous!
Everyone involved in this farcical situation needs severe censure. What
is a person to do?
--
"now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing"
Jonathan Larmour
>
>
>bob_builder wrote:
>
>> Having visited Cambridge Retail Park on Saturday I would suggest the
>> the current traffic system is not working as well as it could. There
>> are a lot of cars turning right from Coldhams Lane onto Newmarket Road
>> only to turn right again into the retail park. If you could access the
>> retail park from Coldhams Lane all these cars would free up the CL/NR
>> junction and CL would flow a lot more easily. (The right turning cars
>> are the bottleneck at the CL/NR junction and a queue of more than a few
>> of these blocks the junction to all left turning cars.)
>This was compounded by the Homebase parking area on the Coldhams Lane
>side of the bollards being full, so people were pulling in off the
>Beehive roundabout only to drive around the car park, find no space and
>emerge to join the traffic continuing on up to turn right onto NR and
>right again to get to the parking spaces the other side of the bollard.
>Aboslutely ridiculous!
It sounds like the balance is wrong and the bollarded off bit should
be readjusted.
But the problem "Bob the builder" reports looks more like some people
are too lazy to park their car on the Coldham's Lane side and walk the
50 yards.
And you can be sure there would be rat runners at all times. Assuming
all drivers behave responsibly in busy car parks is demonstrably
false unfortunately :-(. Nevermind the ones who only want to pass
through there as quickly as possible.
A different shape of car park would have worked instead of dividing
it into a NR half and CL half.
Jifl
--
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine
bob_builder
> >bob_builder wrote:
> > > Having visited Cambridge Retail Park on Saturday I would suggest
> > > could. There are a lot of cars turning right from Coldhams Lane
> > > onto Newmarket Road only to turn right again into the retail
> > > park. If you could access the retail park from Coldhams Lane all
> > > these cars would free up the CL/NR junction and CL would flow a
> > > lot more easily. (The right turning cars are the bottleneck at
> > > the CL/NR junction and a queue of more than a few of these blocks
> > > the junction to all left turning cars.)
> > [snip]
> > This was compounded by the Homebase parking area on the Coldhams
> > Lane side of the bollards being full, so people were pulling in off
> > the Beehive roundabout only to drive around the car park, find no
> > space and emerge to join the traffic continuing on up to turn right
> > onto NR and right again to get to the parking spaces the other side
> > of the bollard.
> > Aboslutely ridiculous!
>
> It sounds like the balance is wrong and the bollarded off bit should
> be readjusted.
>
> But the problem "Bob the builder" reports looks more like some people
> are too lazy to park their car on the Coldham's Lane side and walk
the
> 50 yards.
Except they cannot due to there not being enough room in the CL side
car park as you just observed. They could park in the Beehive Centre
but that would increase the walk and technically would be bad as all
the signs in that car park tell you that it is only free for customers
of the Beehive Centre for two hours, otherwise you have to pay (I am
still not sure how they could make you pay as they still do not seem to
be using the barriers they installed over a year ago but that is a
different topic).
> And you can be sure there would be rat runners at all times. Assuming
> all drivers behave responsibly in busy car parks is demonstrably
> false unfortunately :-(. Nevermind the ones who only want to pass
> through there as quickly as possible.
Then why did they just not use the "standard" technique of installing
speed bumps and/or creating a convoluted route through the car park?
Meldrew of Meldreth
bob_builder <bob_b...@london.com> writes
>> And you can be sure there would be rat runners at all times. Assuming
>> all drivers behave responsibly in busy car parks is demonstrably
>> false unfortunately :-(. Nevermind the ones who only want to pass
>> through there as quickly as possible.
>
>Then why did they just not use the "standard" technique of installing
>speed bumps and/or creating a convoluted route through the car park?
I think that's because they wanted it to be an "easy" bus-route. But
there's no bus (now who'd have expected that in Cambridge...)
bob_builder
> In article <1099055080.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> bob_builder <bob_b...@london.com> writes
installing
> >speed bumps and/or creating a convoluted route through the car park?
>
> I think that's because they wanted it to be an "easy" bus-route. But
> there's no bus (now who'd have expected that in Cambridge...)
They could have allowed an easy bus route controlled by bollards at
each end and allowed free access to the car park, though.
In fact, there used to be a bus going to the Beehive Centre but, I
believe, it no longer runs - that would explain why they have removed
the bus only barrier from the Beehive exit.
Meldrew of Meldreth
bob_builder <bob_b...@london.com> writes
>> I think that's because they wanted it to be an "easy" bus-route. But
>> there's no bus (now who'd have expected that in Cambridge...)
>
>They could have allowed an easy bus route controlled by bollards at
>each end and allowed free access to the car park, though.
I'm not sure how that would work, because cars need to get past such a
bollard to reach their "half" of the carpark. Having the bollard where
it is (well, where it was last time I saw it) making the barrier between
the two "halves", makes sense. The problem is that the CL "half" is too
small compared to the NR "half".
bob_builder
> In article <1099059657.9...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> bob_builder <bob_b...@london.com> writes
> >> I think that's because they wanted it to be an "easy" bus-route.
> >> But there's no bus (now who'd have expected that in Cambridge...)
> >
> >They could have allowed an easy bus route controlled by bollards at
> >each end and allowed free access to the car park, though.
>
> I'm not sure how that would work, because cars need to get past such
> a bollard to reach their "half" of the carpark. Having the bollard
> where it is (well, where it was last time I saw it) making the
> barrier between the two "halves", makes sense. The problem is that
> the CL "half" is too small compared to the NR "half".
No I meant, instead of "halving the car park", something like this:
+-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ |
-+0===============0+-
Yes, it would reduce the parking space available but that could be seen
as a "good thing" as it promoted public transport over car use!
Meldrew of Meldreth
bob_builder <bob_b...@london.com> writes
>No I meant, instead of "halving the car park", something like this:
>
>+-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+
>| | | | | | | | | |
>| | | | | | | | | |
>| +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ |
>-+0===============0+-
>
>Yes, it would reduce the parking space available but that could be seen
>as a "good thing" as it promoted public transport over car use!
But there's no bus service, dear Liza!
Jonathan Larmour
>
>
>Meldrew of Meldreth wrote:
>> In article <1099059657.9...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> bob_builder <bob_b...@london.com> writes
>> >> I think that's because they wanted it to be an "easy" bus-route.
>> >> But there's no bus (now who'd have expected that in Cambridge...)
>> >
>> >They could have allowed an easy bus route controlled by bollards at
>> >each end and allowed free access to the car park, though.
>>
>> I'm not sure how that would work, because cars need to get past such
>> a bollard to reach their "half" of the carpark. Having the bollard
>> where it is (well, where it was last time I saw it) making the
>> barrier between the two "halves", makes sense. The problem is that
>> the CL "half" is too small compared to the NR "half".
>
>No I meant, instead of "halving the car park", something like this:
>
>+-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+
>| | | | | | | | | |
>| | | | | | | | | |
>| +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ |
>-+0===============0+-
OOI the approach I was thinking of was:
NR
|
\/
| |
| |
------------------+ +------------------
| +--------+ +----0----+ +--------+ |
| | ____ | | ____ | | ____ | | ____
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---- | | ---- | | ---- | | ---- | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
_____+ +--------+ +---------+ +--------+ |
CL -> |
----------------------------------------------
With bollards at '0'. And possibly non-automatic,
but removable bollards at other places to allow redistribution
of parking spaces.
Obviously I have a secret desire to be a town planner.