Agenda item

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

A number of questions were submitted from members of the public and local City and District Councillors, which all related to item 9 in respect of the A428/Madingley Road Corridor Scheme.  Those questions asked, together with answers provided at the meeting, were noted as follows:

 

Question by Mal Schofield

 

Mr Schofield questioned reference in the minutes of the Board’s previous meeting on 27 March 2015 where it stated that the traffic and transport demands of Cambridge were "very unique".  He asked the Board whether it agreed with this statement. 

He added that perhaps the only sense that Cambridge was different was its chosen dependency upon bus based public transport.  The present guided busway was unique in that in its form it was a rarity in urban transport infrastructure.  He said that the Board could be minded instead to take the best from international 21st century urban transport developments and commission a modest study to shortlist the most appropriate for Cambridge growth needs to 2050.  Mr Schofield also felt that the Board should commission, in parallel, a corridor and gateway capacity management study before any substantial investment was considered.  He cited Liverpool as an example of good practice and a city where lessons could be learnt in respect of public bus infrastructure.

 

Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, said that all of the key radial routes, and some others, into Cambridge suffered congestion during the peak periods and this frustrated the ability for buses to access the City Centre quickly and efficiently.  This in turn reduced the incentive for people to use buses.  He therefore felt that there was no need for a study as suggested, as the problem was very clear.  The key task would be to start delivering improvements as soon as possible.

 

In terms of technology used, Mr Hughes confirmed that this would be considered on a case by case basis. 

 

Mr Hughes explained that Cambridge was very different to Liverpool, the latter being a large metropolitan area with a significantly higher population with well established infrastructure links in and around the city.  He supported the statement that Cambridge was unique in terms of its character when considered alongside the rural nature of the area surrounding it, compared to large metropolitan cities such as Liverpool.

 

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman, reminded those present that the City Deal would provide significant opportunities to the Greater Cambridge area, but that there were restraints.  The first tranche of schemes reflected a five year plan which had to deliver specific objectives to ensure that further tranches of funding could be accessed by Government.

 

Question by Edward Leigh

 

Mr Leigh felt thatthe Board had anticipated the conclusions of the consultation on Cambridge City access measures by commissioning only options based around new bus lanes or dedicated busways.  He thought it had ignored or dismissed the possibility that direct measures, such as reducing parking capacity in the City Centre, could reduce congestion on city roads enough to allow buses to run to time on existing roads.

 

He asked the Board whether it would consider commissioning an option 1(d) for public consultation that comprised at least the following:

 

·         2.5m cycle lanes in both directions along Madingley Road, at least as far as the Park and Ride site;

·         safe cycle and pedestrian crossing points at all junctions to permit easy and safe movement between sites north and south of Madingley Road;

·         an upgraded cycle link to Madingley village;

·         an extension of the Coton cycle path to Cambourne via Hardwick, Highfields and the proposed Bourn Airport development (if it went ahead).

 

Mr Leigh was aware of no good reasons not to commission such an option and was of the opinion that doing so would improve the breadth and quality of public debate.  He added that the Cambridge Cycling Campaign had endorsed this approach.

 

Mr Hughes reiterated the point he made at the meeting of the Joint Assembly on 3 June 2015 that all of the schemes would build in high quality cycling and walking facilities.  He said, however, that cycling and walking were not the total solution and it would be essential, therefore, that each of the corridors was provided with a bus, cycle and walking solution.  He reminded Members of the Board that the City Deal was for the Greater Cambridge area and beyond and so it was essential that people making these longer journeys were provided with options which would need to be by bus.  Mr Hughes was of the opinion that, essentially, the options set out in the report dealt with the suggestions Mr Leigh had put forward, as well as including bus access.

 

Question by Councillor Markus Gehring

 

Markus Gehring spoke as a Cambridge City Councillor representing the Newnham Ward.

 

Councillor Gehring did not understand why option 1(c) had been included as part of the proposed consultation, which he did not think was viable, and asked the Board to take a step back and give further thought to options that were actually deliverable.  He asked the following questions:

 

·         before a meaningful discussion of options (even at the high-level planning stage) is possible, shouldn’t the entire bus road all the way to the City Centre be available in outline?;

·         what in the Board’s definition is a ‘bus road’?;

·         what consideration is given to other sustainable transport options, especially in the light of climate change?;

·         why was the map for option 1(c) revised?;

·         are compulsory purchases envisioned?;

·         what was your methodology to estimate the costs for a new bridge across the M11?;

·         could the Board still opt for option 1(c) even if the consultation reveals serious shortcomings of this option?;

·         I was told that when the North West Cambridge development was approved that assurances were given that the rest of the green belt between the University West Cambridge Site and Barton Road would remain untouched.  How can these assurances be kept if option 1(c) is chosen?

 

Mr Hughes responded by saying that all of the options presented were possible and, as noted at the Assembly meeting, these were only indicative at this stage to elicit broad views before a single scheme or hybrid was chosen.  The process of undertaking a public consultation in this manner was the same as would be carried out for any other major transport infrastructure scheme.

 

The key definition of a bus road was a route that only buses could use.  The details of whether it was guided and, if so, what form of guidance would come later depending on circumstances.  The main point was that the infrastructure was provided for buses only and so complete free running for the buses was guaranteed, which was the key to providing reliability and journey time benefits.  Mr Hughes explained that it was not the bus that made it good or bad environmentally, but the method of propulsion.  Once a bus road was built, it would be able to take vehicles of any form of propulsion whether that be electric, hybrid, regenerative braking or diesel.  Cycling and walking would be built into all of the scheme proposals.

 

It was noted that there had been a slight error in the presentation of the map for option 1(c), so it was considered prudent to amend this.  Mr Hughes emphasised, however, that the maps were only indicative.

 

Mr Hughes explained that a normal schedule of rates was used to calculate the cost of the bridge, alongside benchmarks for similar forms of structure.  However, as the whole scheme and location of any bridge at this stage was indicative, the costs were very indicative too.

 

Councillor Herbert stated that the consultation would generate responses, which would help identify and shape preferred options to address the A428 and Madingley Road Corridor.  Those options would then be worked up for a second stage of public consultation.

 

Question by Councillor Rod Cantrill

 

Rod Cantrill spoke as a Cambridge City Councillor representing the Newnham Ward.

 

Councillor Cantrill said that the discussion at the last Joint Assembly meeting highlighted the lack of detailed analysis undertaken on the possible options for the proposed bus route from the West into Cambridge.  He felt that this was further emphasised by the comment from officers that the proposed Park and Ride at Madingley Mulch would not take place in parallel with the introduction of a bus route.  He therefore asked the Board:

 

·         to postpone the public consultation to allow for a more detailed analysis of the possible bus route options, setting out clearly the route each option would follow and to present the detailed analysis to the Board in October with a view to go out to public consultation at the end of the year;

·         during this period for officers to meet with key stakeholders to get their input in to the current options proposed and any other route that could achieve the objectives of the scheme in a more efficient way;

·         to establish what steps or funding would be required to move the Park and Ride to a new location in parallel with the introduction of the proposed bus route;

·         to consider that the detailed analysis should include but not be limited to:

-       how the bus route would serve key employment areas to the north of the city and link into the science park station – all options in the report;

-       the impact of the route on existing cycle and pedestrian provision – options 1(a) and 1(b) in the report;

-       how the physical environment would change as a result of the route being introduced – all options in the report;

-       the viability of option 1(b), given the covenants that exist on the land surrounding the American cemetery;

-       whether a tidal bus lane system could be introduced – option 1(a) and 1(b) of the report;

-       the route of travel of the bus once it leaves the dedicated bus route as set out in option 1(c) – what steps do officers propose to remove traffic movements on the route to allow for a reliable service.

 

Councillor Cantrill, recognising that the City Deal was in its very early stages, was of the opinion that it had to win the confidence of residents and stakeholders in order to be credible for the Greater Cambridge area, as well as the wider region.

 

Mr Hughes reiterated that the options at this stage were only indicative.  The reason for that was so that initial feedback could be given to guide decision making and further detailed scheme development.  Given the cost of scheme development, it would not be possible to develop in detail each of the options set out in the report.

 

Mr Hughes said that the engagement mentioned in the question could be put forward as part of the consultation process, which was the point of carrying it out.  He added that all of the detailed points noted in the question would be addressed as the scheme proposals were refined and developed.

 

Question by Stephen Coates

 

Mr Coates asked the following question:

 

Given that option 1(c) would blight the Coton Corridor with a new access road across the Great West Field, countryside that is key for the setting of Cambridge and given that the High Court prevented the land North and South of Barton Road being developed for landscape reasons in 2008, how can the University of Cambridge now use its position as one of five members of the City Deal Executive to promote a route for consultation (especially with little detail) that will so severely damage this critical landscape and thereby assist a major development of potentially over 3,500 houses that could secure Cambridge University and partners gains in excess of £1 billion? Why has this conflict of interest and the conflict in option 1(c) passing the University’s two key town centre development sites (Silver Street, New Museums) not been disclosed by Cambridge University and challenged and fully investigated by the City Deal Joint Assembly who should hold them accountable?

 

Roger Taylor, representing the University of Cambridge, said that the mission of the University of Cambridge was to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.  In pursuing that mission it directly made major contributions to the economy, social fabric and culture of the Greater Cambridge area and it also attracted other vital employers and activities.  The future success of the University and the City were closely aligned and one could not flourish without the other.  It was therefore appropriate that the University had a voice through the City Deal Executive Board.

 

He added that the location of the University’s sites were public knowledge and it would declare any interests that it had in property or developments that were being discussed or considered by the Board.  The City Deal was intended to encourage and enable the major stakeholders in and around the city to be involved in key discussions.  The elected Members remained the decision makers and as a matter of law neither the Local Enterprise Partnership nor the University could have a vote on any of the Board’s decisions.

 

Councillor Herbert reflected that the University would sometimes have conflicts of interest due to land that it owned and its holdings, but made the point that so to did other partners on the Executive Board and Joint Assembly.  He added that he welcomed the University’s contributions to the City Deal process.

 

Councillor Steve Count, Leader of Cambridgeshire County Council, reported that the University had played a key part in negotiating the City Deal with the Government and that the University had never promoted its own interests as part of being represented on the Executive Board.

 

Councillor Ray Manning, Leader of South Cambridgeshire District Council, said that without the help and advice of the University the City Deal would not have materialised for Greater Cambridge.

 

Question by Stacey Weiser

 

Stacey Weiser, on behalf of Cambridge Past, Present and Future, asked whether the Board would consider postponing the public consultation for a few months to allow time for the strengthening of the evidence base on the route options.  She was of the view that the suspension of the examination of the Local Plans meant that there was some flexibility in the timescale to allow for the collection of necessary information.

 

Mr Hughes responded by saying that this was an early stage consultation and that no decisions on routes were yet being taken.  As noted at the Joint Assembly meeting, if different, better or hybrid options emerged from this consultation, then they could be taken on board.  He was of the view that to delay the consultation at this stage would not increase consensus and therefore simply delay the overall delivery.  It was vital for the economic health of the Greater Cambridge area that the schemes proposed for the first tranche of the City Deal were developed as quickly as possible, with full public consultation.  For that reason, Mr Hughes said that it was important that the process started now.  He confirmed that it was also not possible to develop more details for all of the options at this stage of the process as that would be extremely expensive.  

 

Question by Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer

 

Aidan Van de Weyer spoke as a South Cambridgeshire District Councillor.

 

Councillor Van de Weyer was supportive of public transport as a means of enabling sustainable transport around Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, particularly where routes consisted of segregation and no missing links.  He asked what evidence the City Deal Executive Board had to make it believe that each of the three options for bus improvements along Madingley Road would bring the required benefits. 

 

Councillor Van de Weyer also queried reference in the report to ‘engagement with interested local Members’ and sought clarity over what this entailed.

 

Mr Hughes said that there was much evidence nationally and internationally that journey time improvements and, more importantly, reliability for public transport systems would lead to increases in patronage.  Journey times for buses on the A428 and Madingley Road Corridor were currently unreliable, unnecessarily long and offered no advantage over the private motor vehicle.  If one of the proposed options proceeded, the intention was to address that issue.  Each of the options had different levels of benefit in this respect, as discussed at the Joint Assembly meeting.  Mr Hughes added that, generally, the higher impact options would ultimately have the greater benefits.

 

Mr Hughes reported that locally there was a very good example of how improvements in bus infrastructure could stimulate demands and thus achieve the proposed benefits.  It was noted that the Busway now carried around 3.7 million passengers per year, above target.  Many of those had not been using the bus before its introduction.  The services were commercially operated and at the start of operation there were seven buses per hour from St Ives to Cambridge, whereas there were now 17.  At peak hours buses were full and the frequency would be increased again soon.  This demonstrated how improved infrastructure would drive passenger growth, reducing use of the private motor vehicle and thus achieving the City Deal objectives.

 

In terms of local Member engagement, it was proposed that this would be through Local Liaison Forums, which was usual practice for significant transport infrastructure schemes such as this and would ensure that local Members and key stakeholders were kept fully informed of developments as the scheme progressed.

 

The Chairman thanked members of the public and City and District Councillors for their questions.