Agenda item

To consider a report by Graham Hughes, Executive Director (Cambridgeshire County Council), scheduled for consideration by the Executive Board on 15 January 2016.

The Joint Assembly recommended to the Executive Board that it:

 

(1)        NOTES the summary of evidence received and the emerging key themes.

 

(2)        AGREES the criteria for assessment of the ideas and proposals submitted to reduce congestion by reducing traffic volumes, managing traffic differently or managing access as part of the Cambridge Access Study, including any further ideas submitted by 31 December 2015, subject to the inclusion of an additional criterion to assess environmental impact and design.

 

(3)        NOTES that the work referred to in resolution (2) above will be brought back to the Executive Board on 16 June 2016, including an assessment of impacts of potential City centre measures on other elements of the City Deal programme.

 

(4)        AGREES that where proposals relate to additional infrastructure that would be better considered as part of either an existing or future corridor study (i.e. one of the tranche 1 or prospective future City Deal schemes), that those proposals are taken forward through those routes rather than through the Cambridge Access Study.

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman, invited three members of the public who had given notice of questions in relation to this agenda item to put forward their questions.  Questions were therefore asked as follows:

 

Question by Penny Heath

 

Penny Heath referred to paragraph 16 of the report for this item, which listed the criteria following the call for evidence sessions on tackling congestion in Cambridge.  She asked why no criterion for environmental impact had been included, which should cover issues such as impact on pollution, character, conservation and landscape of the City. 

 

Question by Lynn Hieatt

 

Lynn Hieatt asked what steps the Joint Assembly was now taking to prepare for a public debate and meaningful consultation on any proposed parking controls or congestion-charging schemes in Cambridge.  Furthermore, she asked what timeframe residents could expect for these ideas to be researched and developed into proposals and put into public discussions about the future of congestion in the City and their neighbourhoods.

 

Question by Robin Pellew

 

Robin Pellew said that the call for evidence had been a thoroughly worthwhile exercise in bringing together a wide diversity of skills and expertise, but said that its value depended on the next step of how this body of information and experience was to be used.  He added that there was now a widely held expectation that the City Deal would build on this foundation by pursuing some of the main proposals throughout the appointment of consultants to take them forward to the stage where they could be subject to the detailed scrutiny of public consultation.  Mr Pellew therefore asked what assurance the Joint Assembly or County Council could give that sufficient funding would be made available to enable the more promising proposals to be advanced.

 

Mr Pellew also referred to what he perceived as being a lack of synchronisation with the various public consultations, referring to consultations currently ongoing in respect of the A428 corridor, Histon Road and Milton Road.  The options presented by the City Deal were all based on the assumption that bus lanes were the answer to the peak-hour congestion at these pinch-points, however, the call for evidence showed that there were genuine alternatives.  He therefore asked how any new measures for alleviating congestion emerging from the call for evidence would feed into the examination of the options for these arterial roads.

 

Councillor Bick stated that answers to the questions would be provided as part of the subsequent discussion.

 

Consideration was given to a report which provided an initial summary of submissions received in response to the tackling congestion call for evidence sessions that had recently been held and sought agreement to the means of assessment of the submissions received through the Cambridge Access Study or, where more relevant, through individual City Deal schemes.  Jeremy Smith, Head of Transport and Infrastructure Policy and Funding at Cambridgeshire County Council, presented the report and informed the Joint Assembly that 77 responses to the sessions had been received to date.  The main areas of focus had been captured in Appendix 1 of the report and were separated into the following categories:

 

·         demand management and fiscal measures;

·         technology;

·         public transport infrastructure and service improvements;

·         infrastructure improvements for active modes;

·         highway capacity enhancements;

·         behavioural change.

 

Mr Smith highlighted that officers had not yet had the opportunity to carry out any qualitative analysis of the information at this stage, but reported that all submissions were available for viewing on the Greater Cambridge City Deal website.  The report set out a proposed assessment criteria to be used with regard to the call for evidence submissions and proposals.  This would ensure that analysis supported City Deal objectives and consisted of the following criteria:

 

·         fairness;

·         effectiveness;

·         value for money;

·         economic impact;

·         dependencies and broader benefits;

·         implementation.

 

In answer to Mr Pellew’s question regarding examination of the options, Mr Smith said that consultants had been commissioned to assess the options and that a report on outcomes was scheduled for submission to the Executive Board in June 2016.  Mr Hughes added that if the conclusions were pertinent to the radial route projects, there would be sufficient fluidity to weave these into them as necessary.

 

Councillor Bick reflected on the demand management and fiscal measures aspect of the responses, as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, noting the following suggestions or proposals that had been received under that theme:

 

·         further limiting access to the city centre and further selective road closures;

·         further parking controls;

·         road pricing;

·         workplace parking levy;

·         ‘gating’ and queue redistribution;

·         tourist tax.

 

Councillor Bick sought feedback from Members of the Joint Assembly as to what their initial reactions were in respect of these six proposed approaches to demand management.  The following comments were noted:

 

·         this was the beginning of the process so it was too early to make any judgements on each proposal or suggestions without the greater detail that the consultants would be able to provide having properly assessed them.  Consideration of this issue should therefore wait until the report was available in June 2016;

·         any proposals or suggestions that increased business costs would be concerning and went against the aspiration of attracting new businesses into the Greater Cambridge area;

·         more evidence would be required in respect of road pricing, or congestion charging, and there was a danger that fairness of such a scheme could not be achieved in terms of the those living within and visiting the city boundary, as well as potentially targeting the wrong types of user;

·         there was not enough information available at this stage on the majority of proposals or suggestions to form a view.  However, it would be important not to waste time or money on those ideas that were not realistic, so some sensible decisions at an early stage may be necessary;

·         the concept of congestion charging did not have to be the same as the model used in London and could, for example, being introduced during peak times in the mornings and evenings;

·         an additional revenue stream from a scheme such as congestion charging would enable the City Deal to provide much better quality and frequency of transport, both in the city centre, beyond Cambridge and perhaps even beyond the Greater Cambridge area;

·         lots of residents within Cambridge wanted further parking controls to be looked into further;

·         the difficulty with road pricing, or congestion charging, was that it would be seen as penalising people for using their vehicles.  If the revenue gained from such a scheme contributed to bus subsidies, people may be much more open minded about it;

·         the issue of charging cyclists as part of a road pricing or congestion charging scheme was suggested, further to which there was significant support by Members of the Assembly that cyclists should not have to pay to go into Cambridge;

·         a tourist tax placed on each tourist coach or bus coming into the City could provide a significant revenue stream;

·         there were significant practical problems with introducing a system such as gating or queue redistribution that would need investigating.

 

Councillor Bick, in reflecting on the discussion and the issue of demand management, asked whether the Assembly could expect confirmation from the Executive Board that demand management should be part of the City Deal’s wider strategy.  In discussing this specific issue the following further comments were noted:

 

·         the real issue was wanting people to want to go into Cambridge;

·         the key problem was how people travelled into the City, with the main objective being to provide an attractive, easy and sustainable way for people to enter the City, so that it was a positive experience that they would want to repeat;

·         it was far too early as part of this specific piece of work to determine how demand management should feature as part of the City Deal’s strategy.

 

Councillor Bick asked whether inclusion of demand management in the City Deal’s strategy would have an impact on the decisions and outcomes of radial route transport infrastructure schemes.  Mr Hughes confirmed that demand management had been included as part of the County Council’s strategies for the last ten years and was also part of the Long Term Transport Strategy.  He said that managing demand was essential but that it was not about stopping people coming into the City and principally about how they travelled there.  Mr Hughes added that there was overwhelming evidence from around the world that a strategy solely based on demand management or solely based on alternative routes did not work and that a successful programme for the City Deal had to consist of both issues to alleviate Cambridge’s congestion problems.  In terms of demand management featuring as part of the City Deal strategy, Mr Hughes was of the opinion that it was already part of the strategy and that it had been included in the original City Deal pitches to Government, as well as being envisaged as part of the Access Study.  He emphasised, however, that congestion charging was only one way of managing demand.  The situation as he saw it was that the City Deal had not yet approved a particular approach to demand management and Mr Hughes clarified that all demand management measures would be assessed as part of this call for evidence process. 

 

In answer to the question by Penny Heath, and having been proposed by Councillor Kevin Price and seconded by Councillor Francis Burkitt, the Joint Assembly unanimously agreed that a criterion to assess environmental impact and design should be added to the list of criteria set out in paragraph 16 of the report.

 

Addressing the question raised by Lynn Hieatt regarding further public debate, Mr Hughes said that the consultants were ready to commence work on assessing the proposals and suggestions received as part of the call for evidence sessions and report back on outcomes at the meeting of the Executive Board in June 2016.  That would then provide for a more informed public debate when more detailed had been worked up.

 

Councillor Bridget Smith reflected on the successful public engagement that had been achieved as part of this process and did not want this impetus to be lost.  She asked whether anything could be set up to maintain this interest and momentum, further to which Claire Ruskin offered to facilitate this through the Cambridge Network.

 

The Joint Assembly recommended to the Executive Board that it:

 

(1)        NOTES the summary of evidence received and the emerging key themes.

 

(2)        AGREES the criteria for assessment of the ideas and proposals submitted to reduce congestion by reducing traffic volumes, managing traffic differently or managing access as part of the Cambridge Access Study, including any further ideas submitted by 31 December 2015, subject to the inclusion of an additional criterion to assess environmental impact and design.

 

(3)        NOTES that the work referred to in resolution (2) above will be brought back to the Executive Board on 16 June 2016, including an assessment of impacts of potential City centre measures on other elements of the City Deal programme.

 

(4)        AGREES that where proposals relate to additional infrastructure that would be better considered as part of either an existing or future corridor study (i.e. one of the tranche 1 or prospective future City Deal schemes), that those proposals are taken forward through those routes rather than through the Cambridge Access Study.