Agenda item

To receive any questions from members of the public.  The standard protocol to be observed by public speakers is attached.

Questions asked or statements made, together with any responses from Members of the Executive Board or officers, were noted as follows:

 

Question by Mal Schofield

 

Mr Schofield presented a document entitled ‘issues concerning growth and modal shift – travel to work to 2021’ which set out statistical information relating to:

 

·         travel to work in Cambridge City by mode in terms of trends in travel behaviour from 2001 and forecasts up to 2021;

·         travel to work in terms of numbers, destination and mode of transport based on 2011 census data;

·         travel to work, actuals and forecasts for the next census in 2021.

 

As part of presenting this information he welcomed the findings of the Capacity Study and asked the following questions:

 

“There was a commitment to switch road capacity in the city, from cars to other modes.  How will that be achieved?”

 

“Travel to work by public transport has stayed more or less consistent, around 7% since 2001.  Is this modest percentage expected to continue?  If not, what figure is forecast in relation to planned further investment in dedicated busways?”

 

“This analysis is a first attempt at providing a ‘route map’ for commuter patterns. A detailed forecasting and modelling is essential.  Is that intended?”

 

“As cycle traffic increases, so does the need for segregation from pedestrians on major routes through the City.  What is the planned target for dedicated cycleways?”

 

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, thanked Mr Schofield for this additional analysis.

 

Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, agreed with the comments Mr Schofield had made in light of the data and findings of the recent Capacity Study that had been carried out, originally commissioned by the County Council. 

 

Councillor Herbert acknowledged the questions and noted that they covered a range of topics which represented real challenges for the Board to face.  He said that the Board’s initial focus would be to tackle congestion at peak times, aiming for a 20% reduction in vehicle usage, which would also improve capacity on radial routes.  Councillor Herbert added that the list of measures set out in Mr Schofield’s documentation were part of that, but said that there would be other things to consider as well. 

 

In terms of bus usage, Councillor Herbert said that there was currently very little incentive for people to use buses instead of private vehicles as they themselves were often held up in traffic.  Referring to the Chisholm Trail, he reflected that there was lots planned in tranche one for cycleways and was conscious that there had to be a focus on on-road issues as well.

 

Question by Lynn Hieatt

 

Lynn Hieatt referred to the outline proposals for the Madingley Road corridor and said that, in speaking to literally hundreds of people, she had not found enthusiasm for them. 

 

She reflected on a number of innovative proposals that had been suggested over the last few months, some of which, in her view, were quite imaginative and aimed at resolving the root of the congestion problems in Cambridge by eliminating them through traffic management, as opposed to accommodating congestion as if it were inevitable.  Mrs Hieatt said that other places had managed to get commuters’ cars out of the city, especially during rush hours, so that cleaner-technology buses could get people to their destinations without being stuck in traffic.  Her suggestion was to look at what had worked elsewhere and spend the City Deal money on more pedestrian and cycleways, more village and city bus services more Park and Ride facilities and more innovative ways of getting private car traffic out of the city. 

 

Mrs Hieatt wanted the Executive Board to explore more practical and holistic proposals so that residents could be consulted properly on ways for dealing with a problem that was personal for them every day.  She therefore asked whether residents could expect to see this in the forthcoming consultation.

 

Councillor Herbert explained that there would be a further consultation and call for evidence on the different options available for holistic citywide issues, which was something that had been discussed at the last meeting of the Joint Assembly.

 

Councillor Herbert respected the feeling that there was in the West of the City regarding some of the detail in the options put forward for consultation.  He emphasised that the consultation was an open one and urged people to participate, putting forward alternative options if they wanted to which would be considered along alongside all responses.  He reiterated, however, that issues around bus capacity and better cycling provision needed to be addressed for peak times and non-peak times. 

 

Councillor Herbert closed by saying that the issue of congestion in Cambridge needed to be resolved and he hoped that people would respond to the consultation, recognising that a deliverable option was needed rather than deny there was a problem that needed to be addressed.

 

Question by Stephen Coates

 

Mr Coates’ question was in connection with the campaign of more than 3,500 residents of Cambridge, its surrounding areas and beyond to preserve the West Fields. 

 

He said that the campaign was concerned that the draft interim report of June 2015 on the A428 options appeared to be flawed in a number of fundamental and substantive aspects and believed it should be amended whilst there was still time.  The report and ‘SWOT’ analysis it contained, he said, were based on a number of material inaccuracies, resulting in an imbalanced presentation that appeared to many readers as favouring one option over another.  Mr Coates felt that the inaccuracies could well lead to a flawed appreciation of the options presented and were even likely to be seen as misleading.  Some examples included:

 

·         attributing to Option 1(c) ‘the potential to upgrade cycling facilities along the line of the Coton footpath to Grange Road’ was incorrect, because this had nothing to do with Option 1(c).  The already announced and long-overdue implementation of the Section 106 Agreement of the West Cambridge site would allow this without buses running alongside;

·         no engineering detail was provided for Option 1(a), when this kind of supporting detail had been included for Milton Road and Histon Road.  Without having provided this, the ‘SWOT’ analysis stated that Option 1(a) would mean ‘possible loss of cycling amenity on Madingley Road’.  According to an initial feasibility study, commissioned by Philip Cooper at Cambridge Architectural Research, bi-directional bus lanes, along with appropriate provision for pedestrian and cycle routes, were viable options on Madingley Road.  This also meant that the choice of a single bus lane gave the impression that Option 1(a) was slower than Option 1(c);

·         no ecological impact assessment was included in the draft interim report, when there was clear evidence that the West Fields were a habitat for protected species;

·         the draft proposed route of Option 1(c) went directly against the ruling of the High Court in 2008, which stated that the Coton corridor was critical for the setting of the City.

 

Mr Coates asked whether the public could expect these problems to be addressed and corrected when proposals were published at the consultation stage.

 

Mr Hughes explained that what was taken to the Board in June 2015 were a number of very outline, conceptual proposals in terms of what to initially consult on.  The report in June 2015 was not supposed to be a detailed analysis of each option.  By including these options in an initial consultation process at this stage would provide a way of ruling out some of the options and understanding what a preferred route may look like ahead of a further, more detailed, consultation on the preferred route itself. 

 

He emphasised that all views were welcomed and would be considered to inform a detailed process of evaluation for the detailed scheme.  The scheme was currently at the conceptual stage, with more detailed surveys, such as ecological and engineering surveys, being undertaken at a later stage of the process.

 

Question by Edward Leigh

 

Mr Leigh followed up on his speech at the last meeting of the Executive Board in relation to ‘gating’ and referred to a document he had circulated to Board Members entitled ‘trialling smart traffic management’.

 

He felt the document addressed the concern that Council officers had raised about the lack of road capacity to accommodate queues created by gating, stating that the maximum number of additional vehicles queued behind a gate being in the region of fifty was a theoretical maximum that would not be reached in practice. 

 

Mr Leigh strongly urged the Board to consider smart traffic management as a viable solution to the City’s congestion problems and suggested that the next steps should be to:

 

·         invite professional and academic experts to advise on the viability and appropriate implementation of smart traffic management;

·         trial the system at up to three sites, as identified in the document circulated to Members of the Board;

·         task the Smart Cities Team to set up the necessary data gathering equipment to monitor the trials.

 

Mr Leigh also presented a proposal for Girton Interchange, which had also been circulated to Members of the Board.  He called for the Board to push for and, if necessary, part-fund a scheme which would:

 

·         create an all-ways junction, shortening journey times;

·         reduce pressure on local roads, in particular the A1303 (Madingley Road);

·         significantly lower the cost of construction.

 

Councillor Herbert acknowledged this detailed piece of work in respect of gating, or smart traffic management, and referred to discussions held at the last meeting of the Joint Assembly in respect of City centre congestion.  He said that the Board was currently not in a position to be able to undertake trials on specific proposals and that other alternatives and views also needed to be taken into account.

 

Councillor Herbert reported that officer advice in respect of gating had been that it provided more significant challenges than first seemed apparent and that a dialogue needed to be opened up in order to determine some of those issues. 

 

He also referred to the review of the A14 and the process of examination that was currently taking place by a group of Inspectors.  The Board would not have any direct influence on the Inspectors’ decision other than through representations by partner authorities at a public enquiry. 

 

Mr Hughes felt that it was highly unlikely for the Girton Interchange proposals to be fed into Highways England’s scheme or schemes for the A14 at this stage due to it already being very constrained on budget and deliverability, together with the fact that a vast amount of design work had already been done and with work onsite expected to commence early next year.  Mr Hughes agreed to liaise with Highways England to ascertain whether any proposals relating to Girton Interchange could be fed into the scheme or schemes for the A14, and provide Mr Leigh with any feedback.

 

Pat White

 

Mrs White asked the following questions:

 

“What is the northern Chisholm Trail for and is it value for money?”

 

“Why have the environmental impacts been deliberately ignored?”

 

“Why haven’t greater priorities in the City like widening Mill Road bridge been looked at?”

 

“Why, at two meetings I attending regarding the bridge, has it been presented as a fait accompli with no mention of the Chesterton bridge not yet being a ‘done deal’?”

 

Councillor Herbert explained that the Board had taken a decision to go out to public consultation on the proposals for the Chisholm Trail, so there was still an opportunity for people to have their say and respond.  He did not feel that the environmental impacts had been ignored and these would become clearer in the consultation document.

 

In explaining the Chisholm Trail it was noted that the Trail was essentially an off-road route, with the intention being to take the route off the bridge and use side tunnels that were not currently used.  He said that this was a great opportunity to provide better links with existing cycle routes and important sites such as employment, residential and development areas, as well as provide  people with an alternative route to use instead of main roads.