Best to lobby the Mayor, Andrew. The @greatercambs.bsky.social Cambridge greenways already stretch out far into the rural hinterland. If Mayor Bristow will work with all the other public bodies much can be achieved.

And Chris Whitty reminds us that cycling is, in fact, a perfectly normal thing to do, a perfectly healthy thing to do, and a cheap form of transport. No lycra necessary. (Or cycle helmets, IMO. Shhhh!!!)
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025...

In summary, what are the implications of the High Court ruling in favour of West Dulwich Action Group's legal challenge against Lambeth Council in relation to Cambridgeshire County Council's TRO implementing the Bus Gate on Mill Road Bridge?
None. (13/13)

In other words, failure to consider motor-traffic displacement is not part of FoMRB2’s claim. Moreover, the documentation clearly shows that officers are alert of the possibility and are actively monitoring this. (12/13

Officer’s comments
"Monitoring of alternative routes will be ongoing and mitigating measures put in place if issues arise." (11/13)

"Impact on side streets of Mill Rd from increased traffic (Tenison Rd, Ross St, Cavendish Rd all cited, in particular station access avoiding Hills Rd)."
With a response... (10/13)

Amongst documentation for the Highways & Transport Committee, 4 Oct 2024, we find, in Appendix 3 - Summary of Representations Received (p3)...
Objection subheading: Impact on traffic and congestion
"There will be increased traffic and congestion on surrounding roads...
(9/13)

3. The county council "erred in failing to take into account the petition conducted by the Mill Road Traders' Association".
4. The county council "granted the TRO for an improper motive or purpose".
These do not argue that traffic will be pushed onto other roads. (8/13)

The 4 FoMRB2 grounds against the TRO are:
1. That it is "unreasonable to make the TRO for reasons that are unsupported by evidence".
2. Failure to provide legally adequate reasons...
(7/13)

Let’s compare that with Emma Rose’s (FoMRB2) application for Judicial Review, and @CambsCC's processes of having regard to various factors.
The 4 grounds for Ms Rose's case against the TRO do not include 'traffic displacement'. (6/13)

However, he added: “I did not harbour any significant concerns about the conduct of the consultation and engagement as a whole." (5/13)

"The 53-page presentation did not form part of the council's considerations in its decision to make the [LTN] orders. It should have done.
"The failure to have regard to it was a serious failing, rendering the decision to make the orders unlawful."
(4/13)

Judge Smith allowed 1/3 WDAG claims dismissing 2 others.
"The dossier created by WDAG, which argued traffic would be pushed on to heavily congested boundary roads affecting thousands of school & nursery children, was highly relevant to the decision confronting officers". (3/13)

This was a ruling on one of three grounds by West Dulwich Action Group.
It's not the same as the Mill Road bus gate.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/article... (2/13)

It's the way the drivers park, though.