Agenda item

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

Questions received and the answers provided were noted as follows:

Question by Anthony Carpen

"What assessment have Assembly Members made of the Board's communication strategy for the City Deal, with specific focus on social media and community outreach?”

"What views do Assembly Members have for improving how the people of Cambridge and its institutions communicate with each other?"

"Following my question on 28 January 2015 to the City Deal Executive Board regarding the Haverhill Rail Campaign, what assessment have Assembly Members made on the follow-up made by the Executive Board, and their own scrutiny of the plans and work the Rail Campaign has done?”

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, highlighted that the communications strategy had been adopted in November 2014 when the Executive Board was operating as a Shadow Board and prior to the establishment of the Joint Assembly.  He also reported that an appointment was yet to be made for the City Deal Communications Manager post and it was his view that the Joint Assembly should consider the communications strategy once the Manager had been appointed.  Councillor Bick was keen for this appointment to be made as soon as possible.

In terms of improving how the people of Cambridge and its institutions communicated, Councillor Bick said that this was an important issue but that the Joint Assembly’s considerations had to be in the context of the City Deal.

Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, stated that nothing had changed in respect of Haverhill rail from what was reported in response to Mr Carpen’s question at the Executive Board on 28 January 2015.  He reported that work was underway on the A1307 corridor, although it was noted that this would not look into the railway issue in any detail, and emphasised that the cost of a railway scheme at Haverhill was much larger than the budget available as part of the Greater Cambridge City Deal.

Question by Lynn Hieatt

“Recently a number of innovative proposals to deal with traffic congestion have come to light in the press and in presentations by individuals.  Some in my view are quite imaginative, dealing with the root of the problem by eliminating it through 'smart traffic management', as opposed to accommodating congestion as if it were inevitable. 

For example, ideas such as electronic 'gates' just outside the city, giving buses priority and thus predictable, quick journey-times for commuters, achieve the stated aims of the City Deal Options 1A-C and eliminate the need for vastly expensive, disruptive and extremely unpopular new bus-roads down residential roads or through valued green spaces. 

There are other ideas, including for a metro system; for 'road pricing' schemes (congestion-charging, employer parking-space tax etc.); for better cycle paths within and from the villages; for school transport via a fleet of buses at park and rides; for tourist-bus parking and the like.  The initial elements of some of these plans could be delivered quickly and would be better value for money; intelligent use of smart technology would undoubtedly gain international attention and plaudits for the Council.  

I am not in any way advocating one plan or the other, but believe that residents of Cambridge and surrounding villages should be allowed to consider very carefully all good ideas for dealing with a problem that is personal for them, every day.

Can residents expect at least some of these other proposals to deal with congestion to be added to the three currently on offer for City Deal money? If not, why not?”

Mr Hughes highlighted that the introduction of electronic gating, or queue relocation as it was otherwise known, posed very serous issues that would need to be assessed as this would essentially involve pushing queues to the outskirts of the City.  He did not think that this was necessarily a solution to the problem, in the way it had been expressed as part of this specific question.

In terms of the question itself, Mr Hughes said that this would be a decision for the Executive Board to make in terms of how and what it wanted to consult on.  The Board had made it clear that it wanted to start a debate with traffic generators in the City, such as employers, the university and retail businesses for example, prior to commencing with wider consultation. 

Councillor Bick asked whether it was likely that the consultation would incorporate a mixture of solutions to alleviate congestion in the City.  Mr Hughes was of the view that a mixture of solutions would provide a better outcome than a single solution in view of the complexity of the problems in and around Cambridge, but he could not say at this stage what they might look like or what they would involve. 

Question by Councillor Des O’Brien

“Can the City Deal Assembly confirm what research has been completed to determine the increase in passenger numbers that will justify the cost of the Cambourne to Cambridge bus route scheme by significantly reducing private car usage?  The latest figures on bus use at Cambourne come from the 2011 census and put the number of residents of Cambourne using the bus at 5%.  That indeed is all bus journeys not just to Cambridge so one would can assume the percentage of the population making bus journeys to Cambridge to be lower still.  What is the target percentage of resident from Cambourne, and potentially West Cambourne, that will make the route viable and the investment justifiable?  How has that target been determined and what are the guarantees it will be achieved?”

Mr Hughes emphasised that the A428 proposals were at a very early stage and the consultation process had not yet commenced, but was due to start on 12 October 2015.  This consultation would only set out options, in principle, with decisions on a favoured route and further development work scheduled to take place subsequent to that.  He reminded Members that any transport scheme had to have a detailed business case in place that would be subject to approval by the Department of Transport.  If the business case did not achieve this approval the scheme would not be given the funding to enable it to go ahead.  The business case included a variety of issues for all users of the network and so would not solely focus on the number of passengers using public transport.

Mr Hughes also made the point that current usage of the bus network should not be a determining factor for proposed schemes.  The current route along the A428 was not attractive to service users, with proposed transport schemes as part of the City Deal seeking to make bus routes in particular much more reliable and efficient in order that they attracted more people to use public transport rather than private motor vehicles.  He added that there was evidence from schemes elsewhere in the county that increased patronage would be achieved as a result of improving bus route infrastructure.  He gave the Busway and the A1307 corridor as examples of this.