Agenda item

Cambridge Access and Capacity Study

To consider the attached report.

Decision:

The Executive Board:

 

(a)        NOTED the call for evidence analysis and the Cambridge Access Study Long List and Short List reports and outcomes.

 

(b)        AGREED the policy approach for a congestion reduction package, incorporating:

 

-       better bus services and expanded usage of Park and Rides;

-       better pedestrian and cycling infrastructure;

-       better streetscape and public realm;

-       peak congestion control points in the weekday morning and evening peak periods;

-       a workplace parking levy;

-       on-street parking controls (including residents’ parking)

-       smart technology;

-       travel planning.

 

(c)        NOTED the consultation and engagement principles attached to the report at Appendix D and agrees the principles of the engagement process on the proposed congestion reduction package, to commence in July 2016.

 

(d)        ENDORSED the proposal for a trial implementation of peak congestion control points, possibly on a phased basis in late 2017 using an experimental Traffic Regulation Order, with consultation on the Order held during the experimental period.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, opened the item by inviting those members of the public who had given notice to put forward questions to the Board.  Questions were grouped together based on their subject and were therefore asked and answered, as follows:

 

Question by Robin Pellew

 

Robin Pellew asked whether it was fair that the people of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire should be denied the opportunity to have their say in the choice of alternative packages to reduce congestion.  In particular, he reflected on a congestion charge package which he said had been rejected largely on the grounds of fairness and equality so asked, on behalf of Cambridge Past, Present and Future:

 

·         whether it was fair that the proposed peak hour control points would leave some people’s commuting journey completely unaffected whilst others would have their lives turned upside-down;

·         whether it was fair that people, particularly in rural areas of South Cambridgeshire, would be forced to put up with a lousy bus service when the funding that could substantially improve the service was denied them;

·         whether it was fair that people living in the vicinity of these control points would be subject to displaced traffic on quiet resident streets and rat-runs.

 

Question by Barbara Taylor

 

Barbara Taylor referred to the vast sum of £40 million to £44 million that could potentially be gained from congestion charging and be used to subsidise public buses, including Park and Ride facilities, by extending the hours and frequency of bus services.  She therefore asked why a congestion charge was being dismissed without going to public consultation.

 

Question by Charles Nisbet

 

Charles Nisbet was of the opinion that the Council’s traffic officers were determined to press ahead with destructive works, such as schemes identified at Histon Road, Milton Road and Cambourne to Cambridge.  He said that anti-congestion measures proposed for other parts of Cambridge would undoubtedly also have a beneficial impact in the Histon Road, Milton Road and Madingley Road areas so questioned the need to rush into irreversible and intensely unpopular engineering works without waiting to see if they were actually needed.

 

He therefore asked whether the Board would set these plans aside at least until the outcome of the traffic reduction measures proposed elsewhere had been studied and evaluated.

 

Councillor Herbert, in response to all three questions, said that comments had been received as part of the call for evidence sessions which had been assessed in accordance with the agreed criteria.  In collating the responses in line with the criteria, officers had put forward recommended options that best met the City Deal objectives.  He made the point that advocates for congestion charging would be able to make their views known as part of the public consultation, which would be taken into account when assessing the responses and outcomes of the consultation.  Councillor Herbert confirmed that the debate at this meeting would focus on what the Board felt the best option would be to consult upon to address congestion in Cambridge, but recognised this would not limit what members of the public might choose to submit as part of the consultation process.

 

Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, emphasised that officers were not solely pursing schemes in order to get the money spent.  He reminded those present that the City Deal’s objectives were very clear, as set by the Board, in relation to future growth and taking into account the Local Plans for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire.  This particular scheme had been prioritised as part of the City Deal’s Tranche 1 programme, with significant links to employment and housing. 

 

Mr Menzies was pleased that the call for evidence sessions confirmed, through people’s comments and contributions, that something needed to be done to address congestion and public transport in Cambridge and that there were differences of opinion on the detail of how to do that, which he said was a positive thing.  He also emphasised that the Board at this meeting was not making any decisions about which scheme to implement and that significant consultation still needed to take place.

 

It was noted that, as other transport schemes moved forward, associated modelling works would take place simultaneously.  The proposed peak time congestion control points would have already been put in place by the time final decisions on those schemes were made, so the impact of that intervention would be taken into account as part of the development of other schemes, ensuring a joined-up approach.

 

Mr Menzies also made the point that other cities from around the world, in successfully addressing congestion, had incorporated both the constraining of car use as well as investment in public transport infrastructure. 

 

Councillor Herbert reiterated that the Board and Assembly had considerable discussions over what should be included as priorities in the first tranche of the City Deal.  He acknowledged that the Government’s funding mechanism did provide challenges, in terms of targets for the first tranche having to be met in order to achieve the next tranche of funding for the following five years.  Schemes at Hilton Road, Milton Road and the A428 were included in the first tranche as priorities, alongside a commitment to improve cycling and public transport as part of those schemes.  This scheme, seeking to address the problem of peak time congestion in Cambridge, was also a key scheme in the Tranche 1 programme.

 

In terms of this scheme, Councillor Herbert said that the process had resulted in a proposed package consisting of a range of measures which sought to address congestion caused by people travelling in and out of the city, taking into account the needs of residents living on or close to affected roads and improving congestion, cycling and the city centre itself.  He was of the view that a range of measures was important, incorporating local transport infrastructure schemes and the city centre congestion scheme, and that congestion could not be resolved by a single solution.

 

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, reported that there had been significant discussion on this item at the meeting of the Assembly on 2 June 2016.  The following points from that meeting were noted:

 

·         an amendment requesting an alternative congestion reduction package as part of the consultation, led by peak hour congestion charging, was proposed but with 8 votes against compared to 3 votes in favour the amendment was lost;

·         concerns were put forward regarding peak time congestion control points in respect of the possibility of traffic displacement and whether the correct modal shift would occur;

·         Assembly Members were keen for the workplace parking levy not to be seen as an additional tax on businesses, noting that the business community would need to understand the reasons why such a levy would be introduced, together with a clear plan as to what the revenue would be spent on;

·         some employers had already removed car parking spaces from their premises, prior to the proposed introduction of a levy;

·         a comment was noted that many businesses in the area did not know about the City Deal, so it was important for necessary communication and engagement to take place.

 

Councillor Hickford confirmed that the officer recommendations contained in the report were supported by the Joint Assembly.

 

Mr Menzies presented the report to the Board, stating that the call for evidence sessions had generated a great deal of evidence.  The six main themes that materialised were noted as:

 

·         public transport infrastructure and service improvements;

·         infrastructure improvements for walking and cycling;

·         demand management and fiscal measures;

·         highway capacity enhancements;

·         behavioural change;

·         technology.

 

Taking this into account, and working with consultants to analyse the ideas submitted, the proposed package of measures consisted of:

 

·         better bus services and expanded usage of Park and Ride sites;

·         better pedestrian and cycling infrastructure;

·         better streetscape and public realm;

·         peak time congestion control points in the weekday morning and evening peak periods;

·         a workplace parking levy;

·         on-street parking controls, including residents’ parking;

·         smart technology;

·         travel planning.

 

In terms of peak time congestion control points, Mr Menzies reported that these sought to reduce peak time car trips in congested areas and also free up space for buses, cyclists and pedestrians.  It was proposed that they would:

 

·         operate only during weekdays at peak times;

·         provide access only to buses, taxis and emergency vehicles;

·         be controlled through automatic number plate recognition cameras.

 

It was noted that the peak time congestion control points would be coupled with the workplace parking levy, providing revenue funding to improve public transport and supporting a reduction in car use.  Mr Menzies explained that a proposed bespoke scheme for Cambridge would be based on the principles of the Nottingham scheme, with income used to fund transport infrastructure and services to support the transport needs of employers.  He added that bus providers in Cambridgeshire had indicated that they would invest in additional bus services, including addressing some of the gaps in rural areas, if the necessary infrastructure was in place and the issue of congestion in the centre of Cambridge was addressed.  Mr Menzies was of the view that this additional revenue stream would support the City Deal partnership in being able to do that.

 

Mr Menzies also referred to parking controls which would seek to limit commuter parking, as well as manage impacts of the work place levy and peak time congestion control points.  He added that behaviour change and travel planning would consist of travel planning advice and support for employers, schools and individuals.

 

Officers had considered congestion charging as an alternative, which could consist of several variations such as zoned, cordoned or a city wide zone.  The London scheme incurred a daily cost of £11.50 and a £5 a day rate for a congestion charge in Cambridge had been estimated to create £40 million to £44 million per year.  Mr Menzies, however, highlighted the following potential issues with introducing congestion charging:

 

·         alternatives needed to be put in place before implementation of a congestion charging scheme;

·         a congestion charge scheme could only be implemented as part of Tranche 2 of the City Deal programme at the earliest;

·         a congestion charge scheme raised questions of equity;

·         the price of the scheme would need to increase over time.

 

Mr Menzies made the point that officers were not suggesting a congestion charging scheme would not work, but reiterated that in his professional opinion the measures proposed as a package in the report were more deliverable and equitable in accordance with the City Deal’s objectives.

 

Mark Reeve, representing the Local Enterprise Partnership, was supportive of the measures set out in the report, stating that the business community wanted to see action and something change in order to move forward.  He added, however, that he did not see this as a final solution and that the workplace parking levy needed to involve businesses at an early opportunity.

 

Councillor Francis Burkitt, representing South Cambridgeshire District Council, in terms of parking restrictions asked about the potential introduction of residents’ parking schemes.  Mr Menzies confirmed that Cambridgeshire County Council as the Highways Authority was responsible for on-street parking and residents’ parking schemes.  The Cambridge Joint Area Committee was in the process of reviewing the scheme, but it was current policy to introduce such a scheme if the majority of residents were in favour of it.

 

Councillor Ian Bates, representing Cambridgeshire County Council, asked for further details regarding the introduction and trialling of peak time congestion control points.  Mr Menzies explained that technical work already undertaken had tested proof of concept options and it was proposed that implementation would be carried out on a trial basis through an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order from Autumn 2017, with consultation taking place during the trial.  It was noted that this would be very similar to the Cambridge Core Scheme but would be controlled through automatic number plate recognition cameras, requiring appropriate signage.  The trial would last for 18 months and in the first six months people would be able to put forward representations or objections as to how it was operating.  After the subsequent 12 months a decision would then have to be made as to whether to remove the scheme, make changes or introduce it permanently, dependant on the representations received and the way it worked in practice over the period of the trial.

 

Councillor Burkitt agreed with the dual approach to demand management and revenue, outlining that South Cambridgeshire District Council’s position in respect of congestion charging when it considered the issue a few years ago was that it was against the principle of congestion charging.  He welcomed the prospect of more buses in rural areas, which he felt the additional revenue as a result of the workplace parking levy could deliver.  Councillor Burkitt also looked forward to the introduction of smart city measures. 

 

Councillor Bates reminded those present that this scheme sought to address future housing and economic growth and so he supported the proposed package of measures on that basis, saying that the impact of peak time congestion control points would not be truly known until the trial went ahead.  Councillor Bates also reiterated the importance of early engagement with employers regarding the workplace parking levy and, in addition, welcomed the introduction of smart city measures as well as travel planning.  He said that the principal issue behind this and other City Deal schemes was about changing people’s behaviour.

 

Professor Nigel Slater, representing the University of Cambridge, said that he had seen the very large amount of detailed modelling work undertaken and confirmed that a number of different options had been looked at.  He said that the modelling indicated that the proposed package of measures would have an incredible effect on the balance of traffic in the most optimal way, providing a much better public transport system as a result.  He acknowledged that it was difficult to predict how many people would change their behaviour in terms of switching from cars to other modes of transport.

 

Councillor Herbert reflected on the key themes that had arisen from the call for evidence sessions and said that additional and reliable bus services and a reduction in car use during peak times would be key to addressing congestion in the city.  He was therefore supportive of the proposed measures going forward for public consultation.

 

The Executive Board unanimously:

 

(a)        NOTED the call for evidence analysis and the Cambridge Access Study Long List and Short List reports and outcomes.

 

(b)        AGREED the policy approach for a congestion reduction package, incorporating:

 

-       better bus services and expanded usage of Park and Rides;

-       better pedestrian and cycling infrastructure;

-       better streetscape and public realm;

-       peak time congestion control points in the weekday morning and evening peak periods;

-       a workplace parking levy;

-       on-street parking controls (including residents’ parking)

-       smart technology;

-       travel planning.

 

(c)        NOTED the consultation and engagement principles attached to the report at Appendix D and agrees the principles of the engagement process on the proposed congestion reduction package, to commence in July 2016.

 

(d)        ENDORSED the proposal for a trial implementation of peak congestion control points, possibly on a phased basis in late 2017 using an experimental Traffic Regulation Order, with consultation on the Order held during the experimental period.

 

Supporting documents: