To receive a presentation from a representative of Stagecoach
Minutes:
Andy Campbell, Managing Director of Stagecoach East, provided the Joint Assembly with brief presentation on his perception of the congestion problems in the Greater Cambridge area.
He commenced by stating that Cambridgeshire County Council had a proven track record of implementing effective transport solutions and cited the introduction of the five Park and Ride sites with bus lanes either into or out of the city as an example. Car traffic had been held to manageable levels with the various phases of the core scheme, although each of these phases had proved successful by reducing traffic flows in the city centre itself which improved the environment and safety of Emmanuel Street. A consequence of that success, however, was that more traffic currently flowed on the roads surrounding the core schemes.
The Busway and Park and Ride projects had both required additional vehicles to cope with demand, which accounted for seven million passenger journeys a year. As a result of this proactive approach to public transport, Mr Campbell reported that Cambridge had seen significantly higher levels of investment by Stagecoach. However, he also highlighted that some more recent projects had resulted in increased traffic congestion and made bus operation more difficult. These included 20mph speed limits on some bus routes, the reduction of traffic lanes on Hills Road Bridge, additional traffic lights following the rail station development and the Catholic Church junction alteration which reduced the time given to motor vehicles and increased junction blocking following the removal of the yellow box. Further reductions to the road space were also planned on Hills Road and Huntingdon Road with the floating bus stop scheme.
Mr Campbell fully supported the segregation of cyclists to encourage more people to cycle more safely in Cambridge, but he felt strongly that this should not be done at the expense of traffic flows throughout the city.
Referring to the parking charges at Park and Ride facilities, Mr Campbell saw this as a reverse congestion charge which penalised those motorists actually reducing congestion whilst making travel into the city free to those motorists who caused it. He was therefore of the opinion that those motorists helping to reduce congestion by using the Park and Ride services should not be charged to park their vehicles. He added that the future expansion of Cambridge had to be linked to an effective transport system that managed traffic flows but did not bar motorists from the city centre.
Mr Campbell was supportive of the proposal for the improvements to the main arterial routes, although he accepted that some would be more difficult than others to achieve. For a number of years he had requested green routes for Cambridge that were enforced, similar to the red routes in London.
He closed by saying that, in his view, the most effective project that would deliver an instant improvement was Hills Road from the city centre to Addenbrooke’s hospital. He did, however, appreciate that this would be politically difficult but warned that if this section could not be achieved then the other schemes would not deliver the solution to Cambridge’s transport problems.
The Chairman invited Members of the Joint Assembly to ask questions.
Councillor Burkitt asked Mr Campbell to expand on his point of view regarding the link between Hills Road and Addenbrooke’s hospital being the most important project to aid city centre congestion. Mr Campbell reflected on the need to deliver quick results to achieve further funding in tranches two and three of the City Deal. He felt that developing the arterial routes would do nothing to assist the congestion problems in the centre of the city and stated that the biggest hotspots in Cambridge were the city centre station and Addenbrooke’s hospital. This was also where people drove through the city as there was no reliable alternative for them to use in order to get around Cambridge. Mr Campbell felt that without doing something radical this situation would not be avoided.
Councillor Noel Kavanagh reflected on pollution in the city centre and stated that Cambridge had been identified as being one of the most polluted parts of the United Kingdom. He was of the opinion that the bus fleet was still contributing to that and asked whether any of the £21 million to improve the fleet had gone towards investing into more environmentally friendly vehicles. Councillor Kavanagh also picked up the point about a radical solution and gave examples that could be introduced of limiting the number of vehicles, including buses, from entering the city centre and also pedestrianising the centre of Cambridge.
Mr Campbell highlighted that Stagecoach would be willing to keep investing and had held discussions with the City and County Councils on a range of proposals, which even included use of electric buses. Electric buses would pose some difficulties to the way in which services operated in the Greater Cambridge area. For example, the length of roads on some services meant that charging terminal points would need to be installed throughout the network and it would take 10 minutes to charge the vehicles when required. Mr Campbell stated that Stagecoach would be interested in entering into a business partnership agreement with the partners of the Greater Cambridge City Deal, whereby once an infrastructure was introduced that was delivering results, Stagecoach would invest in environmentally cleaner and more efficient buses. He reported that Stagecoach had experimented with different fuels and stated that 31 buses in the Greater Cambridge area were now running on bio fuel. 50 buses had also been renewed on city services and were fitted with the most efficient engines on the market at that time. In terms of reducing the number of buses in the city centre, Mr Campbell highlighted that Stagecoach made 20 million journeys a year based on demand. If the number of bus journeys into the city centre was limited, he was unsure how people who wanted to get into the city centre would be able to do so without adding to congestion by using their own vehicles.
Councillor Martin Smart was of the opinion that a modern and efficient bus service would sell products much better, especially in view of the 4 million tourists that visited Cambridge each year. He made reference to modern facilities, such as talking buses used in London for example, which told passengers where they were. He emphasised that cost, convenience and enjoyment were key factors for customers using a bus service.
Mr Campbell referred to the sightseeing buses for tourists, which were also used to try and attract people to Park and Ride sites. Discussions had been held with the City Council about what could be done to encourage people to stay in the city for longer periods of time. He also reported that work had been ongoing for two years to finalise talking buses on the Bus Way, with modern visual screens also due to be put in place. The University was also developing a mobile app to support the bus service, so work towards a modern service was already taking place.
Councillor Smart also made reference to the level of fumes at the bus station and asked what could be done to address that. He cited Southampton as an example where environmentally cleaner buses were being used to improve pollution. Mr Campbell reported that Stagecoach was looking at the same vehicles currently used in Southampton. He outlined that buses purchased since 2007 were of the latest European standards and were what the Councils had asked Stagecoach to invest in. Some of the buses used at the bus station were older and Stagecoach would be looking to replace them over a period of time, but it was also noted that other operators used the bus station as well. Mr Campbell emphasised that all Stagecoach buses were fitted with an engine cut-off facility that would come into effect after 5 minutes of the engine running when the vehicle was stationary.
Councillor Roger Hickford asked Mr Campbell to elaborate on his views of the bus schemes that had been included as part of the Executive Board’s tranche one priority list.
Mr Campbell’s main concern was in terms of the city centre and what would happen once people got there if nothing was done to the city centre itself. The schemes would enable buses to get to Cambridge quicker, but would then be stuck in and add to the congestion in the centre of the city. Without addressing the congestion in the city centre, Cambridge would not be able to have the transport infrastructure in place that it needed.
Helen Valentine asked for Mr Campbell’s views on banning cars from the city centre, or managing car use at peak times.
Mr Campbell responded by saying that a total ban on cars would have a detrimental impact on retail trade and people visiting the city. He emphasised that he was not looking to see a total ban on cars using the city centre but was in favour of monitoring peaks times of day and having controls in place to spread the congestion in favour of those people using public transport.
Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman, asked Mr Campbell how he thought the City Deal’s capital funding could help in the support for services where there were not any currently.
Mr Campbell reflected on the rural nature of Greater Cambridge and the significant number of small villages that were spread across the area. These villages did not necessarily want to be linked with each other and would prefer a direct service into the city, which was not currently deliverable. However, Mr Campbell felt that this was one of the things that could be looked into for some villages in the future due to more capacity derived from quicker and more reliable journey times during peak hours, should the City Deal invest in a better transport infrastructure in and around Cambridge.
Councillor Noel Kavanagh referred to the introduction of 20mph speed limits and asked Mr Campbell how that had impacted on timetables.
Mr Campbell agreed with the introduction of 20mph at residential areas and housing estates, but did have some reservations when looking at other roads such as C-roads. The introduction of 20mph limits had resulted in changes to some routes, as a reduction in speed meant that routes had to be shortened or additional resources put in place to ensure that services were not detrimentally affected. In terms of what had happened to date, Mr Campbell reported that it was manageable from his perspective.
The Chairman thanked Andy Campbell for his attendance and contributions at this meeting.