Agenda item

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

Questions asked or statements made, together with an responses from Members of the Executive Board or officers, were noted as follows:

Statement by Edward Leigh

Mr Leigh spoke about a bigger vision for transport in Greater Cambridge and acknowledged the Board’s desire to get more people onto public transport, which he stated was a big challenge for practical, social and financial reasons. 

He felt that Park and Ride sites were needed on all arterial routes into the City, making them easily accessible to as many people as possible and minimising the need to travel on the M11 or the A14 to reach one.  Mr Leigh believed that there was a strong case for eight or nine new sites, which could be complemented by a network of cycle-and-ride hubs in the villages and outskirts of the City and bus-and-cycle hubs within the City.  He was of the opinion that this would take some pressure off roads, but would not solve the problem.  He added that Park and Ride sites had shown to abstract users from regular bus services, making those less financially viable and leading to a reduction in rural services with more people having to drive to Park and Ride sites.  He made the point that some people did not have their own vehicles and said that there was a real danger that the poorest people living in rural communities could be cut off from the City.

Mr Leigh proposed a solution known as ‘gating’ or queue relocation, whereby vehicles were held at points outside of the City where there was space to increase road capacity.  Traffic lights, connected to queue detectors in the roads ahead, could release cars only as fast as they could move freely and a bypass lane could be introduced to allow access for emergency vehicles, buses and other classes of road users to skip the queues.  He had identified a possible sixteen locations where roads would need to be gated, mostly close to Park and Ride sites.  These measures, in terms of building more Park and Ride sites and introducing gating, he felt, were affordable within the City Deal programme.

Mr Leigh explained that he was working with a small group of people, currently resourced by the Cycling Campaign, to expand this vision for enabling everyone to use the most convenient and appropriate combination of driving, public transport, cycling and walking to get around Greater Cambridge.  He welcomed the opportunity to discuss how this could be developed further.

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, informed Mr Leigh that he and representatives of the Executive Board would welcome a discussion around these proposals ahead of a report on city centre congestion scheduled for consideration by the Board later in the year.  He agreed that more investment in Park and Ride facilities was needed and recognised the significance of tackling congestion as part of City Deal investment.

Question by Jim Chisholm

Mr Chisholm referred to the support that had been received for the proposed Chisholm Trail route at the meeting of the Joint Assembly held in July, but understood some of the concerns that had been highlighted by objectors at that meeting.  He made reference to a revised proposal for the route that had very recently been published and included some changes to reflect discussions that had subsequently taken place.  He said that everyone needed to work and communicate better together to ensure that any main differences were resolved before a more definite route went before public consultation in the Autumn.  Mr Chisholm added that the completed route should give many who currently drove, from Milton to Addenbrookes or Trumpington to the Science Park for example, a more pleasant and healthy option by cycling and also contribute to reduced congestion within Cambridge.

Mr Chisholm said that there was a lack of good evidence about the mode changes that occurred when good facilities for cycling were constructed.  He felt that ‘before and after’ studies were needed, not just solely counts of cycles, and asked whether that would happen.

He also said that the improved access for both cycling and walking on the east side of the railway would give much added value to an eastern entrance for the main railway station.  Hills Road should then have reduced congestion and there would be added benefits for the Chisholm Trail.  He asked whether this would happen.

Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, informed Mr Chisholm that pre and post impact analysis and studies of the Trail would be undertaken to quantify the benefits, which was standard practice for major transport schemes. 

The latter question related to a proposal by Network Rail that had been considered in 2010/11 which consisted of an extension to the existing overbridge with an entrance to the eastern side.  Mr Chisholm felt that this would be an easy way to achieve a reduction in congestion.

Mr Hughes felt that there were broader issues that needed to be considered as part of this matter, notwithstanding consulting with Network Rail and taking into consideration the planning issues for that area.  He added, however, that this was something that did have potential and could be explored further.

Councillor Herbert, as local City Councillor for that specific area, highlighted that there were issues at both ends of the proposed Trail that needed to be considered, specifically in terms of how the Trail connected with other routes and cycling linkages.

Statement by Chris Blencowe

Mr Blencowe spoke as a Trustee of Cambridge Past, Present and Future and reiterated its support for the Chisolm Trail.  He also welcomed the proposal that the Leper Chapel should become a focus for the Trail and appreciated that the Trail would improve the visibility and accessibility of the Chapel.  Furthermore, Cambridge Past, Present and the Future supported the plans for a café and public car park on the southern side of Newmarket Road.

Mr Blencowe reported that representatives from Cambridge Past, Present and Future had met with the consultant who had agreed that the part of the original preferred route that would have seen the underpass opening directly in front of the Chapel was unacceptable and should be withdrawn from further consideration.  An alternative plan had been submitted to the County Council that moved the underpass further to the East along Newmarket Road, which he said was a significant and much welcomed improvement. 

Cambridge Past, Present and Future felt it would be more acceptable if the underpass was located towards Coldham’s Brook so that there was less impact on the Chapel.  Mr Blencowe reported, however, that Cambridge Past, Present and Future had been told that it was not possible to locate the route any closer to the Brook than the location proposed in the newly submitted plan, for drainage reasons.  He disputed this and referred to subways constructed below the ground water table that did not flood elsewhere in Cambridge and in other countries such as Holland.  He felt that this was more a matter of cost than of engineering, which he then said raised the question of how much it was worth to protect the setting of Cambridge’s oldest entire building.

Mr Blencowe closed by reporting that Cambridge Past, Present and Future was working with the County Council to carry out both a heritage survey of the Chapel curtilage and an ecological survey of the Chapel Meadows.  He said that until this information was available it would not be possible for his organisation to take a final position on the optimal route and urged the City Deal Executive Board to do the same.

Councillor Herbert was pleased that progress had been made since the meeting of the Joint Assembly on 15 July 2015 and stated that it was proposed to consult on the revised route, although options would be kept open.

Mr Hughes said that progress had been made following very useful conversations with representatives of Cambridge Past, Present and Future.  Picking up the point about cost and engineering, he highlighted that there always had to be a balance between the two.  He was keen to continue discussions with Cambridge Past, Present and Future as part of the consultation process in order to reach agreement on a proposal that suited everyone.

Statement by Roxanne De Beaux

Ms De Beaux spoke on behalf of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign and expressed the Campaign’s support for the proposed consultation for the cross-city cycle routes and the Chisholm Trail.

She said that improving infrastructure for people to cycle into and around Cambridge would have numerous benefits at an individual, community and business level.  Ms De Beaux added that cross-city cycle routes were just one part of making a transport system than could support growth and the Campaign looked forward to seeing the details of these plans and working with the Councils and their consultants to ensure the improvements could best meet the needs of cyclists and other road users.

Ms De Beaux said that the Campaign strongly believed that the focus of cycling investment in the coming years must be on improving the radial routes in Cambridge and the inner ring road, which were extremely poor for cycling.  Areas like Newmarket Road desperately needed a complete redesign and the Campaign would like the City Deal to be more ambitious in proposing improvements in Cambridge in the coming years.

She also urged the City Deal Executive Board to apply further consideration to the roundabout at Fen Causeway to Lensfield Road and consider more ambitious and effective solutions for one of the worst intersections in Cambridge.  In addition, Ms De Beaux urged the Board to be bold in its plans so that the infrastructure of Cambridge could be as world leading as the technology and discoveries the City was known for.  She highlighted that the Cycling Campaign and other groups were working together to make suggestions about how this could be achieved, which it was hoped could be shared with the Board in the coming months.

Councillor Herbert welcomed the support of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign and what he perceived as being significant common agreement over the schemes proposed.  He was also pleased to hear that further work would continue to be undertaken to suggest further improvements. 

Councillor Herbert explained that, had the £500 million of Greater Cambridge City Deal funding been delivered in one tranche, it would have been possible to produce a deliverable programme for significantly improving Newmarket Road.  However, the phased way in which funding would be allocated by the Government for the City Deal meant that further tranches of funding would only be provided upon delivery of prescribed objectives for specific schemes and that Newmarket Road would be considered for investment in future tranches.  He emphasised that other City Deal projects, such as the city centre congestion project, and those in respect of radial routes would provide further opportunities to consider how Newmarket Road could be improved.

Question by Sophie Hyde

Mrs Hyde asked whether the Executive Board was happy with the route of the Chisholm Trail at the point where it crossed the river.  In particular, she asked whether the damage to green space was justified, whether mitigations had been costed, whether the current modelling was accurate, whether this was a crossing point as opposed to an upgrade of existing infrastructure and whether this was a good use of public money.

Mrs Hyde was also concerned that the route could be used by motorised vehicles. 

Mr Hughes explained that this was a relatively early stage of the process and a lot of the issues raised as part of the question could be fed in as part of the consultation exercise.  He emphasised that there was no final scheme at this stage and that this would be worked up after the consultation process had concluded.

Councillor Herbert made it clear that there was no intention for this proposed Trail to be used by motorised vehicles.