Agenda item

The Executive Board:

a)    NOTED the work to date on the City Access Programme;

b)    AGREED to undertake a second big conversation exercise to obtain feedback on the options to invest in and significantly improve public transport and manage demand for road space contained within the report; and

c)    AGREED to continue to work on developing a final package of City Access proposals and public transport improvements, incorporating public feedback, for the Executive Board’s consideration in 2019.

Councillor Tim Bick was invited to address the Executive Board and made the following comments:

·         City Access should have been the centrepiece of GCP policy around which other initiatives had been calibrated. Its absence had left the GCP unable to provide a complete context for its other schemes, which had led to them receiving more opposition than would have been the case.

·         Failure to approach City Access in an open minded and strategic manner, led to the ill fated road closures scheme.

·         Accessible first class public transport, safer walking and cycling, cleaner air and less wasted time was the cause for which this policy area was working.

·         The public needed to be given the opportunity to consider and evaluate the range of options.

·         Road charging needed to be discussed with the public to let them reach a view on this and what it could offer. Road charging was an important option, which officers had described as potentially the most effective option.

·         Councillor Bick expressed his support for the recommended approach, which he felt was honest and evidence based and he congratulated officers on a clear, fair and practical report. He encouraged the Executive Board to support the recommendations.

·         Councillor Bick queried whether the estimated cost of £20 million to put in place a first class transport system, was ambitious enough and commented that it seemed arbitrary.

·         He queried the fairness of the suggestion that revenue support for public transport could come from a form of general taxation, and whether this was deliverable; Councillor Bick was not aware of any power that would enable this to be achieved.

·         Regarding the table which compared alternative measures, Councillor Bick suggested inclusion of a further criteria for comment against each of the measures, called ‘backfill potential’, to help people understand the dynamics. For example, the prospect of some measures being successful in reducing car usage by only a certain class of users, would enable other car users to take their cars out uninhibited on the roads and fill this space up, thereby cancelling out the gain that had been made.

The GCP Transport Director responded to Councillor Bick and presented the report, which outlined the GCP’s transport vision and the challenges it faced. He referred to:

·         The £20 million estimate which was based on evidence suggesting the existing public transport offer needed to be doubled.

·         Locking in the benefits was critical and how this was done would need to be demonstrated to decision makers. Phasing and reassigning road space would be critical.

·         There were emerging Mayoral and Combined Authority powers to allow business levies to be raised.

·         The Transport Director was looking at the issues in the villages and how they would benefit. This work was ongoing, with a particular focus on Cottenham.

Councillor Herbert made the following comments on the proposals:

·         He highlighted the public transport issues in Cottenham, which had been raised at the Joint Assembly meeting.

·         The £20 million cost for a first class public transport system had been suggested by Councillor Wotherspoon. He explained this was based on a pro-rata comparison between Greater Cambridge and Greater London and the amount of subsidy given to London’s public transport.

·         All Joint Assembly members were of the view that this was an urgent challenge and wanted the Executive Board to address this as a matter of priority.

·         Clear questions should be asked to enable meaningful engagement with the public.

Councillor Bates proposed the following amendment to the recommendations (changes to the original wording shown in strikethrough/bold text):

The Executive Board is recommended to:

a)    Note the work to date on the City Access Programme;

b)    Agree to undertake a second big conversation exercise to obtain public feedback on the options to invest in and significantly improve public transport and manage demand for road space contained within the report with the exclusion of the demand management proposals;

c)    Request that officers undertake no further work on demand management as an option; and

d)    c)Continue to work on developing a final package of City Access proposals and public transport improvements, incorporating public feedback, for the Executive Board’s consideration in 2019.

Councillor Bates explained the following reasons for the proposed amendment:

·         Other phased measures needed to be put in place and reported back on before demand management was considered, to determine whether it was actually needed. Examples of measures to be put in place first were:

o   Travel planning with schools and businesses; congestion was much reduced during the school holidays.

o   The enhancement of traffic lights and signals to improve the flow of traffic.

o   The extension of Park and Ride.

o   Further implementation of residents parking; only four of 26 areas had been implemented.

o   On road/off road parking.

o   Road closures to increase the flow of traffic.

·         Low paid workers could not afford a demand management charge.

·         49% of poor air quality was caused by buses and coaches; this needed to be addressed with Stagecoach.

The proposed amendment was not seconded and therefore fell, however the points raised by Councillor Bates were noted.

Claire Ruskin suggested that access needed to be fair and not punitive; intelligent charging would be fair. Technology was more able to facilitate intelligent charging and excluding this would be illogical.

Professor Allmendinger suggested that measures needed to be evidence based and supported the inclusion of intelligent charging.

Councillor Van de Weyer emphasised the need to aim for a coherent City Access strategy that had as much public support as possible. Open public consultation was vital. Councillor Bates’ concerns regarding the lower paid were understood. The impact of all options and all residents needed to be clearly understood.

Councillor Herbert supported looking at a range of options on demand management. Businesses needed to be engaged with. There was not a good enough quality public transport alternative with the reliability, range of hours and range of services that was needed. There was also a near monopoly bus service provider, which would not deliver what was needed. Radical improvement was needed. Poor air quality needed to be addressed with investment needed in electric buses and electric vehicles. Businesses, major employment hubs and the university needed to be involved.

Councillor Bates suggested the Big Conversation regarding intelligent charging, needed to be expanded to a wider geographical area to include areas such as Haverhill, which was outside the GCP’s boundaries. He pointed out that many people who lived in surrounding areas, worked in Cambridge. The GCP Chief Executive reassured Members that the GCP wanted to build on the Big Conversation and widen this.

Councillor Bates informed the Executive Board that the County Council bus subsidy was £1.7 million across Cambridgeshire and whilst most bus services were self-supporting, smaller villages did not have a bus service. The rural isolation this brought needed to be addressed.

Following further discussion, Councillor Bates confirmed he would reluctantly support the recommendations set out in the report..

The Executive Board:

a)    NOTED the work to date on the City Access Programme;

b)    AGREED to undertake a second big conversation exercise to obtain feedback on the options to invest in and significantly improve public transport and manage demand for road space contained within the report; and

c)    AGREED to continue to work on developing a final package of City Access proposals and public transport improvements, incorporating public feedback, for the Executive Board’s consideration in 2019.