Issue - meetings

Cambridge Access and Capacity Study

Meeting: 09/06/2016 - Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive Board (Item 9)

9 Cambridge Access and Capacity Study pdf icon PDF 1 MB

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,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9


Meeting: 02/06/2016 - Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly (Item 8)

8 Cambridge Access and Capacity Study pdf icon PDF 1 MB

To consider the attached report.

Decision:

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

 

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

 

(b)        Agrees 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)        Notes 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)        Endorses 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 Roger Hickford, Chairman, opened the item by inviting those members of the public who had given notice to put forward questions to the Joint Assembly.  Questions were therefore asked and answered, as follows:

 

Question by Edward Leigh

 

Edward Leigh asked the Joint Assembly whether it would defer consideration of the Access Study options long list until it had been satisfactorily completed and its conclusions validated by a multidisciplinary panel.  He also asked whether the Assembly would defer consideration of plans for new bus lanes on any city road until the following had been completed:

 

-       trialling and evaluation of city centre access measures;

-       installation, programming and evaluation of smart traffic management;

-       determination of minimum space requirements for cycling infrastructure;

-       proper modelling, trialling and evaluation of inbound flow control, in conjunction with city centre access restrictions;

-       modelling of bus lanes using a baseline determined by all of the above.

 

Mr Leigh also asked whether the Joint Assembly would consider using the City Deal to set up a council-owned bus company.

 

Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, acknowledged that further work was required but thought that the scheme had reached a point where it could be shared with the public, which was what the Executive Board was being recommended to do.  He was keen for the work undertaken to date to be put in the public domain in order that it could be developed further through public consultation. 

 

In terms of baselines, Mr Menzies reflected on schemes from around the world that had addressed congestion which shared the common theme of constraining car use and investing in public transport infrastructure.  He emphasised that both aspects were vital and confirmed that this was what the City Deal programme was seeking to achieve.

 

Mr Menzies reported that very few municipal bus companies were in existence as they had struggled to compete in the market with private providers.  He made the point that municipal bus companies could not be favoured by local authorities and that strict tendering rules would still apply and have to be followed when awarding contracts for services.

 

Question by Councillor Markus Gehring

 

Councillor Gehring made the point that many residents were concerned with eliminating one option at this stage as an effective way of reducing core traffic.  He therefore did not understand why congestion charging was off the table without proper evidence.  He added that raw data had not been published and said that the evidence was not there in order to evaluate all of the options.

 

The Joint Assembly noted Councillor Gehring’s points.

 

Question by Robin Pellew

 

Robin Pellew asked why the public was being denied a choice between alterative packages and questioned why one approach was being employed, discarding alternatives.  He challenged the assumption within the report that one approach was better than another and referred to a peak hour charge which he felt could be more effective and generate more income.

 

Mr Pellew reiterated that members of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8