Issue - meetings

Maps (Appendix 1) enclosed separately. 

Officers presented visualisations of the types of vehicles envisaged for public transport, including hybrid / hydrogen buses and zero emission buses.  Articulated buses and raised curbs could be used to maximise capacity and ensure ease of access for people with physical disabilities, wheelchairs or pushchairs.  SmartCard technology was being investigated to allow for cashless transactions.  Visualisations of segregated busways with priority at signalised junctions, were also presented, and the officer noted that segregated routes would significantly improve the reliability of journey times.

Officers noted that a wider transport strategy was also underway, looking at the possibility of introducing fleets of hybrid buses across Cambridgeshire. The County Council was in discussion with bus operators; it was expected that operators would fund the new vehicles.  Developer contributions and other funding streams would be explored for Cambridge East public transport.

Councillors expressed concern about the proposed transport link across Coldham’s Common and a crossing next to Coldham’s Brook.  Councillor Smart preferred an underground link if possible; otherwise one running parallel to the railway, although any deviation from the proposed route would increase journey times.

Other points made included:

·                      Integration with existing public transport in the city and across the County was essential;

·                      Although a 60:40 modal split in favour of public transport / walking / cycling could not be achieved during Phase 1, a higher split was expected during later parts of development, to achieve a 60:40 split overall;

·                      Public transport would not mitigate longer distance journeys through Teversham to Fulbourn and onwards to join the A11;

·                      The proposed rail station at Chesterton Sidings had been included in the modelling; and

·                      There would be extensive public consultation on the wider transport strategy, which, once completed, would need full Cambridgeshire County Council approval.

Councillor Reid asked that officers include in future reports updates on the three authorities’ political processes between meetings of the Group.  The Head of Service Transport Policy and Strategy agreed to provide to members the margin of error for the evidence in the study.

The Group NOTED the update.

For recommendation to the Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder. 

Appendices 1 and 2 are attached to the paper and online versions of this agenda.

Technical Notes A, B and C (Background and Context, Strategic Choice and Demand Assessment), which form part of Appendix 1, are available for viewing as part of the online version of this agenda.

The Planning Policy Advisory Group considered a report outlining the contents of a study commissioned by Cambridgeshire County Council to examine the potential transport issues arising from the proposed development of Cambridge East.

Martin Higgett of Steer Davies Gleeve made a PowerPoint presentation to Members, focusing on:

·                The Cambridge Growth Area

·                Cambridge East Development Proposals

·                Area Action Plan – planning and transport policies

·                Purpose and objectives of the transport study

·                The process

·                Main destinations and options – Cambridge Northern Fringe, City centre, Cambridge Southern Fringe and the wider area

·                Phasing

·                Implications

·                Impact on the surrounding road network

The following points were discussed:

·                The intended routing of public transport from Cambridge East to the Cambridge Southern Fringe

·                Promotion of the local accessibility within Cambridge East while allowing easy access to the wider City

·                employment opportunities

·                the future of Cambridge Airport and the implications of its relocation, including sustainability

·                 The mechanics of the County Council’s modelling process

·                 the viability of Cambridge East as a self-standing community

the proposed 60/ 40 (public / private) transport split

To note the officer’s report and to comment on the consultant’s report.

Introduction to the Study

The Head of Service Transport Policy and Strategy introduced the study ‘Cambridge East Sustainable Transport Strategy Report’, prepared by consultants Steer Davies Gleave.  The study had been commissioned to inform the Area Action Plan for the proposed development in Cambridge East and would be used to respond to queries raised by the Inspector at the South Cambridgeshire Examination of the Cambridge East Area Action Plan, scheduled for summer 2007.  The study set out a number of options which could be considered as a way of achieving a 60/40 split in favour of sustainable modes of transport.  It was emphasised that the study was not a strategy for implementation but merely options which could be considered.  Members would have plenty of opportunity to consider the options.

Consultants’ Presentation

Cambridge East would be a major growth area with between 10,000 and 12,000 new dwellings and 5,000 new jobs.  The construction would take place in 3 phases:

1.                  North of Newmarket Road

2.                  North of Cherry Hinton

3.                  Airport site

The objectives of the study were to maximise potential for sustainable transport and to minimise and mitigate negative traffic impacts.  The core challenge was to achieve a target modal split of:

40% Car

35% Public Transport

25% Walking/Cycling

The study looked at these key journeys from Cambridge East:

1.                  City Centre

2.                  Addenbrooke’s (Southern Fringe)

3.                  Northern Fringe

Journeys to the wider area and the railway station were also considered.

For each destination the consultant set out the options for public transport routes, cycling routes and highway improvements.  The benefits and drawbacks for each option were also set out in the study.

The consultant emphasised that in order to achieve the desired reduction in car travel a ‘Smarter Choice’ element needed inclusion, promoting the sustainable travel options in a variety of ways through, for example, travel plans, marketing and real-time information.  Smarter Choices would be a fundamental part of the package.

Phase 1 was a projected 1,750 houses to be built by 2016 and the 60/40 modal split would not be achieved during this phase of the development: all the phases would need to be completed before the desired 60/40 split would be achieved.

Members’ Comments

Questions were raised concerning members’ involvement with this study:

·                      Confirmation of the timetable for the study: the study would be presented to the Inspector in the summer of 2007 and the Inspector’s verdict was likely to be received at the end of 2007.

·                      Incorporation of members’ comments into the strategy, the influence members would have over the content of the study and who would make the final decision on what would be submitted: the Head of Transport Policy and Strategy assured members that the study was not a strategy and that their comments would be taken into account.  It had been commissioned by Cambridgeshire County Council to answer the Inspector’s question whether the 60/40 split was achievable.  This study had not gone to the Cambridgeshire County Council Cabinet and therefore was not the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4