Agenda item

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

Questions asked, together with any responses from Members of the Joint Assembly or officers, were noted as follows:

Question by Heike Sowa

Mrs Sowa said that one focus of the City Deal was reducing congestion on the A1307 corridor between Haverhill and Cambridge.  She said that Railfuture had analysed the 2011 census travel to work data which showed that the majority of people heading along this corridor worked in Cambridge and the cluster of Science Parks to the South-East of Cambridge.  Although some road-based improvements were proposed, she felt that it was the reinstatement of the railway which would provide the long-term and high quality permanent solution to the problem.

Mrs Sowa claimed that the population of Haverhill was predicted to reach 50,000 in the medium future and the reinstated railway would soon be thriving as it served not just Haverhill but all the main employment centres in Cambridge and South-East Cambridge.  She said that the trackbed of the railway was largely unobstructed, making the re-opening relatively straightforward, and added that there was a large amount of support for the scheme.

She acknowledged that this proposal was beyond the individual funding levels provided by tranche one of the City Deal, but was of the opinion that the City Deal could help the scheme happen.  She asked for the City Deal to fund a feasibility study to establish the prospects for rail on this corridor and enable a long-term plan to be developed.

Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, said that the work requested by Mrs Sowa was already in hand and was one of the aspects of the A1307 study that was scheduled to be submitted to the Executive Board for consideration next year.  Mr Hughes wanted to manage expectations in relation to the outcomes of that report so made the point that a railway line would not be able to penetrate the centre of Haverhill, resulting in catchment limitations.  Whether or not the scheme included a large catchment area would be a key part of determining the viability of including railway provision.  This issue would be investigated as part of the study by the consultants, but officers were of the opinion at this stage that railway provision in this area did not immediately have the makings of a viable scheme. 

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman, reiterated the point that the study requested as part of the question was already taking place, the outcomes of which would be reported to the Joint Assembly and Executive Board in the New Year.

Question by Matthew Danish

Mr Danish spoke as a resident of Histon Road and cycled along the road into Cambridge everyday.  He saw many other people cycling and his main concern was seeing them having to manoeuvre around parked cars that obstructed the road at frequent intervals, often in restricted areas.  He said that the threats not only came from the moving traffic but also from the possibility of a car door being flung open suddenly.  The designs shown in the draft options report seemed to take a step in a better direction by putting additional parking restrictions in place.  Mr Danish asked what other steps could be taken to prevent illegal parking in the planned cycle lane.

Mr Hughes reminded Members of the Assembly that whatever restrictions were put in place relied upon motorists obeying them and enforcement.  He said that authorities did try to enforce restrictions as much as possible, but this could not occur everywhere across the City everyday.  Mr Hughes confirmed that, technically, double or single yellow lines could be placed in cycle lanes to make it clear that restrictions were in place.  This had been generally successful in other areas as most people tended to obey these types of restrictions.  He also said that if there were specific hotspots where problems with illegal parking in cycle lanes repeatedly occurred, traffic enforcement officers could be directed to those areas to enforce the restrictions which itself would act as a deterrent. 

Question by Edward Leigh

Mr Leigh said that the Better City Deal campaign group had noted the Executive Board’s approval to publicly examine the various ideas proposed for tackling congestion in the City.  He was concerned about the inconsistency of conducting such a consultation in parallel with consultations on specific schemes that were based on a belief that bus lanes were the best and most cost-effective way to get people out of cars.  Mr Leigh said that transportation was a connected system and changes required a coherent and comprehensive plan, which had not yet been produced. 

He added that Council officers and external consultants were churning out detailed assessment reports and proposals for public consultation, most of which were inter-dependent.  In particular, he said what measures were most appropriate to get more people onto buses, trains and bicycles would depend crucially on what measures were adopted to mitigate congestion in the City.  Mr Leigh felt that it would be a huge mistake to rush into building expensive infrastructure that had an expected life of at least 50 years and would change the landscape and City environment irreversibly. 

Mr Leigh suggested that the Joint Assembly and Executive Board should acknowledge that the City Deal timetable was unrealistic for the transportation workstream and that a request should be made to the Government for a pause of 12 to 24 months, with the explicit aim of using that time and part of the £20 million instalment to:

·         conduct a series of sessions across the region to explain the City Deal and invite the public to contribute constructive ideas;

·         conclude consultations on congestion and traffic generators in the City;

·         create the necessary joint-authority governance structures and staff-up sufficiently to deliver the City Deal effectively and efficiently;

·         draw up and put out for consideration a coherent outline 15-year transport strategy for the region, and a comprehensive 5-year transport plan for the City Deal programme;

·         put in place the ‘smart cities’ infrastructure needed to gather and analyse traffic and journey data, and to improve the quality and timeliness of information available to travellers;

·         conduct research, studies and trials of traffic management, access controls and bus routing.

Mr Leigh asked if the Joint Assembly would make this recommendation to the Executive Board.

Mr Hughes explained that there was strong evidence from around the world in respect of making changes to urban environments which supported the need to both provide alternatives to the use of private vehicles and improve key strategic radial routes.  He said that by doing one of these things without the other would simply not solve the congestion problems in Cambridge and added that the City Deal programme very clearly set out schemes which addressed both.  Schemes such as the A428 and Western Orbital were cited as examples of those key routes that would be improved, together with provision that was being put in place to offer people alternative modes of transport to that of the private car.  The programme also included a clear plan for liaising with local people and traffic generators in respect of the congestion issue in Cambridge, prior to moving to public consultation.  He also reported that the Cambridge Access Study was currently ongoing, which monitored and managed traffic movements.

Mr Hughes said that the City Deal programme was very joined up and that it had to be delivered and managed in a way that accommodated the profile in which funding was being received by the Government.  He added that even if all of the City Deal money was received at this stage, it would still not be possible to deliver everything at once. 

Councillor Tim Bick asked whether Members should be worried about delivery over the period of the first tranche of funding.  Mr Hughes reminded the Assembly that the Executive Board had allocated approximately £180 million of schemes with £100 million of City Deal funding available, with the balance coming from other funding such as developer contributions and additional external sources.  He added that this over-profiling would account for the fact that this was a complex programme and, in reality, some schemes may be delayed or changed during the development stages.  He was confident that £100 million of schemes from City Deal funding would be delivered, and was also confident that they would bring with them significant benefits, so did not feel that Members should be worried about delivery.

Mr Hughes added that a 15% to 20% reduction in traffic would be needed to improve congestion in Cambridge, which needed to be addressed by doing a number of things.  This was exactly what the City Deal programme was working towards.

Councillor Francis Burkitt responded to the request to recommend that the City Deal be paused for 12 to 24 months.  He said that almost everything asked for as part of the question by Mr Leigh was being done already, that consultations were beginning to take place and that the City Deal was really beginning to move forward, citing the Executive Board’s Forward Plan as an example of what was coming up.  He endorsed everything that Mr Hughes had said and felt that by asking the Government for a break would make things much worse.

The Joint Assembly did not agree with the request to make the recommendation to the Executive Board, but noted Mr Leigh’s comments.

Question by Roxanne De Beaux

Ms De Beaux, in respect of the Histon Road scheme, stated that the Cambridge Cycling Campaign welcomed proposals to improve cycling along Histon Road, crucially separating people on bikes from motor traffic and from pedestrians.  She added, however, that the limited space on Histon Road meant that this could not be an option along the full length.  Ms De Beaux asked what additional studies would be undertaken to explore options for ways to reduce through-traffic along these roads, such that bus lanes would not be required whilst still allowing reliable bus journeys, reduced air pollution and safer walking and cycling routes.

In terms of the Milton Road scheme, Ms De Beaux was of the view that this proposal had started with the narrow focus of improving bus services without trying to understand and solve the root causes of the congestion problems in Cambridge.  As such, it was mostly an assumption that the best solution for moving the most number of people with the fastest, most reliable journey times, and in the most sustainable way, was achieved by buses with bus lanes.  The Campaign thought this was a rash approach and that more should be done to reduce the overall level of traffic so that all transportation options could be safe and viable.  She added that, in the Campaign’s opinion, the current proposals were just bus lanes with cycling provision tacked on.

The Campaign urged the Joint Assembly to recommend that these plans be pushed back to ensure a more comprehensive proposal could be made and that if this was not possible it should strongly encourage the ‘do maximum’ option to ensure that cycling facilities were not compromised as part of the scheme.

Ms De Beaux said that the Campaign had identified a number of ways the proposal could be improved and asked whether it would be possible to meet with the consultants to share the Campaign’s views.

Mr Hughes, in responding to the comments regarding Histon Road, referred to a call for evidence that was being managed to engage with people to consider their ideas for addressing the congestion problems in Cambridge.  He said that officers had always been clear that there would be a two-pronged approach to the transport infrastructure aspect of the City Deal, as set out in answer to Mr Leigh’s question earlier, with regard to offering alternative modes of transportation and addressing key radial routes.  He added that other specific measures were already in place, such as the Cambridge Access Study, which would continue to look at improved movement and traffic flow, particularly for the benefit of pedestrians, cyclists and buses.

In terms of Milton Road, Mr Hughes said that the Campaign’s comments were understandably focussed on the perspective of cyclists, but officers had to balance the needs of all users.  Officers were seeking to put forward something that supported vulnerable users, making them safe, but also allowing for other modes of transport.  In terms of the radial routes, Mr Hughes made the point that many people used these as a way of getting into Cambridge where cycling simply was not an option for them.  Mr Hughes made it clear, however, that there was a commitment to improve cycling as part of these schemes. 

Mr Hughes said that, as with the A428 Madingley Road corridor scheme previously considered by the Assembly and Board, the schemes at Histon Road and Milton Road at this stage set out indicative options for the purpose of an initial consultation process.  He expected a range of comments to be submitted as part of the consultation exercise and welcomed support or hybrids of the options contained within the documentation that would be published, together with any other options put forward as part of that process.  Much more detailed proposals could then be developed around the views received which would be judged against the needs of all users.

Councillor Bridget Smith, in response to the request from the Cambridge Cycling Campaign to meet with the consultants to share their ideas, asked why this could not occur.  Mr Hughes highlighted that a number of stakeholder meetings on both schemes had been held, which the Cycling Campaign was involved in, so assured the Assembly that these discussions had already taken place.  He reiterated that all points of view from all user groups had to be taken into account when developing these schemes.