Agenda item

Questions by members of the public

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

Minutes:

The following questions or statements from members of the public, together with responses by Members of the Board or officers, were noted as follows:

 

1)         Dorcas Fowler

 

Dorcas Fowler spoke as a resident of Milton Road and said that the ideas put forward for Milton Road as part of the City Deal scheme were premised on the assumption that large numbers of people in the new developments, such as Waterbeach, would be adding to peak traffic.  She asked what evidence there was of growth of jobs in the City Centre as opposed to the periphery, such as on the Addenbrooke’s site.

 

Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, made the point that people visited Cambridge for a variety of reasons and said that there was significant congestion both in the City Centre and radial routes, meaning that several issues would need addressing to improve access in and out of Cambridge. 

 

Mr Hughes said that a significant amount of new employment sites were planned as part of Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils’ respective Local Development Plans.  Some of these sites were located on the periphery, but it was not always possible for people to travel around Cambridge to access them efficiently, resulting in people travelling through the City itself.  He also referred to the CB1 development at Cambridge Railway Station, which had seen a considerable rise in employment numbers.

 

Mr Hughes believed that there would be continued employment growth in the Greater Cambridge area, which he said was reflected in the proposals put forward as part of the City Deal package.

 

2)         Barbara Taylor

 

Barbara Taylor stated that proposals for structural changes to Milton Road and Histon Road were based on an initial technical study by external consultants and said that they would have been given a brief when they were commissioned by the City Deal Executive Board to undertake the work.  She asked where the brief had been published.

 

Mr Hughes said that the brief would be made available on the Greater Cambridge City Deal website.

 

3)         Lynn Hieatt

 

Lynn Hieatt referred to the Government’s official guidance on transport modelling and appraisal and the emphasis made throughout the City Deal programme that proposals for transport infrastructure must be evidence-based.  She said that, given the proposals for Milton Road, Histon Road and the A428 Madingley Road corridor had at their centre the introduction of separate bus-only lanes, residents were asking for the evidence that these measures were necessary and would work.  She asked for examples of where bus-only lanes had been successful and questioned when and where this evidence would be published.

 

Mr Hughes reflected on a number of examples he had given in the past in response to other public questions submitted to the Executive Board and Joint Assembly in respect of successful bus lane schemes.  He said that there were plenty of examples from around the world where significant changes to networks had led to a higher quality of service, with better reliability and frequency which in turn generate more patronage and usage as a result.  He gave the guided busway as an example in Cambridgeshire, the introduction of which saw a very dramatic growth in patronage locally.

 

Mr Hughes confirmed that, whichever options were chosen for the transport infrastructure schemes cited as part of this question, provision for buses would be of very high quality and consist of appropriate technologies for the area. 

 

Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, highlighted that statistical information regarding the guided busway was set out in a performance report scheduled for consideration by the County Council’s Economy and Environment Committee on 19 January 2016.

 

4)         Michael Page

 

Michael Page referred to the public consultation on the Milton Road City Deal scheme and referred to the options that had been included in the consultation document, which he said had omitted some of the options originally included in the consultant’s draft options report.  He therefore asked by what process the first two options proposed by the consultants had been removed, on what evidence this was based and what steps the Board was prepared to take to consider all of the original options.

 

Mr Hughes explained that the consultant’s draft options report consisted of a wide range of options for the scheme at Milton Road.  In reviewing the draft options and in working with internal teams, as well as with the consultants themselves, officers, in making a recommendation to the Board, put forward a consultation document that included what they felt would lead to an effective consultation process for the scheme.  The consultation had been supported by the Joint Assembly and subsequently approved by the Executive Board. 

 

In addressing the question regarding what evidence was used to determine which options were presented, Mr Hughes said that the experience of officers and their knowledge of how that specific section of the network operated, together with how the scheme could build the different elements together, was the ultimate determining factor in officers providing a recommendation to the Board.  He made the point that a significant number of the recommendations made to decision-makers in respect of schemes such as this were based on the experience of officers.

 

Councillor Lewis Herbert reminded members of the public that any alternatives submitted to the options set out in the consultation document would be carefully considered when analysing the responses to the consultation, emphasising that people’s views would be listened to as part of the process.

 

5)         Gabriel Fox

 

Gabriel Fox referred to the recent call for evidence in respect of congestion and Dr Steve Melia, Senior Lecturer in Transport and Planning at the University of the West of England, who had been invited to provide expert input and had advised that the best examples of sustainable urban transport often had a ‘wow factor’, which was largely absent in the United Kingdom.  Gabriel Fox stated that Bus Rapid Transit was one of the fastest growing urban transport solutions with hundreds of successful installations worldwide, including more than a dozen in the United Kingdom, with several more under construction. 

 

She asked the Executive Board if it agreed with Dr Melia on the importance of a ‘wow factor’ and whether the Board would be prepared to provide competitive grant funding for one or two projects to assess the viability of a Bus Rapid Transit system for Cambridge.

 

Councillor Lewis Herbert, in providing an initial response, said that the Board welcomed innovative proposals.

 

Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, said that Bus Rapid Transit and high quality public transport was already part of the Transport Strategy for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire.  She agreed that Bus Rapid Transit was a cheaper and better way of delivering public transport services where existing railway lines were not already in place, but highlighted that there were space constraints in Cambridge and also emphasised the need to protect other user groups and modes of transport.

 

Councillor Herbert acknowledged the question regarding grant funding, saying that he would give the issue some further consideration and provide a response in writing.

 

6)         Edward Leigh

 

Edward Leigh asked officers to refer him to the modelling that had been done on future traffic flows on and within the inner ring road and, in particular, was interested to know what modelling had been undertaken on the impact of increasing road capacity on radials with the introduction of new bus lanes. 

 

Mr Leigh had estimated that the number of bus arrivals in the City at peak times in 2031 would be between 250 and 300 buses per hour on the eight major radials.   He thought it was highly unlikely that Drummer Street or any of the connecting streets could accommodate that frequency of bus movements in addition to over 10,000 people an hour disembarking in the City Centre.  This suggested to him that bus operators would have to use a ring-and-spoke routing model, where buses circulated the City Centre but did not traverse it, which he said would have some advantages over the current hub-and-spoke routing model.  However, he noted that this would make the inner ring road the most crucial part of the bus route network and questioned whether this had been studied or modelled.  Mr Leigh suggested that what was needed to support this model was Smart Traffic Management and Inbound Flow Control, rather than new bus lanes.  He therefore asked how it made sense to commission engineering consultants to propose bus priority schemes on isolated parts of the outer road network before having a clear understanding of the capacity constraints at the centre of the network.

 

Mr Hughes reported that a huge amount of modelling had taken place and continued to take place with regard to traffic flow in the City Centre and on radial route networks.  As part of the Long-Term Transport Plan development, significant work had been undertaken around the ring road which had fed into the Local Development Plan processes of Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils.  Links to this modelling work would be made available on the Greater Cambridge City Deal website.

 

Mr Hughes referred to Mr Leigh’s estimations for bus capacity in 2031 and said that forecasting undertaken by consultants a few years ago resulted in similar projections, suggesting 200 to 220 buses per hour.  He also said the point Mr Leigh raised regarding the criticality of the ring road was one consistently shared by officers as well as the Joint Assembly and the Executive Board in debating the issue. 

 

Mr Hughes said that the City Centre’s core scheme had moved traffic onto the ring road which resulted in the ring road itself becoming particularly congested.  This meant the ring road was a key problem, with blocked junctions subsequently impacting radial routes and causing congestion and gridlock.  He said that Smart Traffic Management would no doubt be a component of proposals introduced to change the way in which the network operated, but emphasised that it would take something more than solely Smart Traffic Management to solve the issue.  The call for evidence sessions saw a number of innovative ideas come forward and it was hoped that they could be developed into packages that would contribute to an effective solution.  He acknowledged that the ring road needed addressing but emphasised that this had to be via a system-wide approach.

 

7)        Robin Pellew

 

Robin Pellew reported that Cambridge Past, Present and Future strongly endorsed the recommendation for the production of an Environmental Design Guide for City Deal transport infrastructure schemes.  It urged that a statement of design principles was prepared, incorporating both social and environmental issues as a standard consideration in the planning of all City Deal transport infrastructure projects, with the aim of creating a high quality public realm. 

 

Mr Pellew said that his organisation was becoming increasingly concerned about the manifest disconnect between the various infrastructure engineering projects the City Deal was now pursuing and the search for an appropriate demand management scheme to alleviate congestion across the whole City.  He reflected that the City Deal had a duty to proceed on an evidence-led basis, but because no evidence had been forthcoming, Cambridge Past, Present and Future did not know whether there would be a need for the scale of heavy engineering proposed for the Milton and Histon Road schemes once effective demand management measures were in place. 

 

He added that reassurance that the outcomes from the consultant’s review of the call for evidence would in some way be included into these engineering projects at a future date, in his organisation’s view, was not good enough.  He therefore called on the City Deal Executive Board to defer the current consultations on radial road projects until, firstly, a comprehensive transport strategy had been produced that included a better balance between demand management and infrastructure engineering and, secondly, until the necessary social and environmental design guidelines had been agreed for all transport infrastructure projects.

 

Mr Hughes made the point that whatever came out of the process that had been started by the call for evidence sessions would be reported to the Executive Board well before any final decisions were scheduled to be taken on those transport infrastructure schemes where consultation had already commenced, such as the A428 Madingley Road corridor scheme.  He confirmed, therefore, that it would be possible for these things to come together and ensure that they were not misaligned. 

 

He said that significant improvements were needed to bus infrastructure, principally on the radial routes, to get the very large numbers of people living in the areas surrounding Cambridge into the City Centre in a way that did not cause the same problems that currently existed with regard to congestion.  His professional opinion was that some sort of demand or congestion management system would be the answer, but this had to include much better facilities for buses and cyclists.  Schemes were therefore being developed to ensure that provision for buses and cyclists, in particular, were of very high quality, which would be reflected in their final designs.

 

Councillor Herbert confirmed that options as part of a City-wide package would be presented to the Executive Board in June for consideration, which would be before any final decisions were made on transport infrastructure schemes thereby reiterating the point that any outcomes following the call for evidence sessions could be combined if necessary.

 

8)         Mal Schofield

 

Mal Schofield referred to the minutes of the Executive Board meeting held on 3 December 2015 in relation to the Western Orbital technical report and a study of home addresses of commuters to the Biomedical Campus that had been carried out by employers.  This showed a concentration in the CB23 and CB24 postcode areas, which it was claimed implicitly strengthened the case for a Western Orbital bus route.  He asked for confirmation of the statistics and fuller context for this commentary and questioned whether it was not more urgent to support an alternative travel mode such as cycling.  He felt that commuters in the areas cited would, in a majority, have their needs better served by a Park and Cycle facility adjacent to Barton Road, providing a cross-city commute of less than 20 minutes.

 

Mr Hughes reminded the Board that the Western Orbital scheme was at a very early stage.  The basis of the question in respect of the Western Orbital scheme focussed on use of the Biomedical Campus, but Mr Hughes said that another key element was orbital capacity and the ability to distribute traffic around Cambridge rather than it going into the City Centre.  He extended an offer to Mr Schofield for representatives of his team to meet with him outside of the meeting regarding the specifics of the work that they had carried out in this respect.

 

Mr Hughes also took this opportunity to remind Board Members that all schemes needed to consist of a viable business case before the Executive Board would be able to make any decisions on them, and reiterated that, in respect of the Western Orbital scheme, there was a lot of work to do.  He did believe, however, that there would be a valid case as part of the Western Orbital scheme to allow traffic to move around the City.

 

Jeremy Smith, Head of Transport and Infrastructure Policy and Funding at Cambridgeshire County Council, reported that the study referred to in the question had been commissioned by AstraZeneca, noting that the results showed interesting statistics in respect of maximising use of public transport for cyclists and pedestrians.  In terms of the CB23 postcode, Mr Smith reminded the Board that a significant number of new houses were proposed for development in that area and that Papworth Hospital would soon be moving, with its staff consequently and subsequently seeking to access the campus too.  He reiterated the point that there was currently no reliable or timely public transport option that could guarantee efficient travel from the CB23 area to the Biomedical Campus.

 

9)         Councillor Susan van de Ven

 

Councillor van de Ven updated the Board on efforts that had been undertaken to realise the Cambridge to Royston A10 cycle link. 

 

It was noted that the northern half of the route had won funding from the Department for Transport’s Cycling Ambition Grant.  The core cycle link between Harston and Foxton was completed a few weeks ago, with minimum disruption, in the space of about ten weeks.  Councillor van de Ven said that, even in winter, this had been described as transformative for people who were finding cycling to Cambridge much quicker than driving.

 

She reported that the southern half of the corridor that included Melbourn and Royston was without funding, consisting of two components.  The first was a bridge over the A505 roundabout near Royston.  It was noted that Hertfordshire County Council had completed its feasibility study with a conclusive costed option for a bridge and the Greater Cambridgeshire Greater Peterborough Enterprise Partnership had also indicated that it was keen to help find a funding solution.  The second component was the cycle link in and out of Melbourn, consisting of approximately two miles and was entirely Cambridgeshire County Council owned land.

 

Councillor van de Ven was pleased to report that the A10 Corridor Cycling Campaign had organised fundraising for a community contribution towards the missing Melbourn to Royston link and exceeded its initial target of £1,000 managing to raise £1,500.  Employees at several local businesses were now planning fundraising to add to that community contribution.  She closed by saying that this scheme had demonstrated how quickly A10 cycle links could be delivered and how instantly transformative small links a mile or two in length could be for people needing to get to work.  She therefore urged the Executive Board to keep in mind the relatively small amount of funding needed to complete the A10 scheme.

 

Councillor Herbert said that the Executive Board would review how the first wave of City Deal funding had been spent at the end of the first tranche programme.

 

John Bridge, representing the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Enterprise Partnership, committed to take this issue back to the Enterprise Partnership as a separate issue and establish what help it could provide.

 

10)       Robin Heydon

 

Reflecting on the increase of the number of people driving to work in Greater Cambridge between 2001 and 2011 being 6.9%, Mr Heydon reported that the increase in the number of people cycling to work in the same timespan had increased by 34%.  He said that the numbers for Cambridge were even more dramatic, with almost a 36% increase in the number of people cycling to work and a decrease of 2.5% in the number of people driving to work. 

 

He added that these increases should be considered in the context of the working population increasing by over 10,000 people.  If these population increases were extrapolated out to 2031, then he claimed that the number of people cycling to work in Greater Cambridge could be almost 42,000 people, compared to 75,500 people driving to work without taking into account that the available space for cars was severely limited already.

 

Mr Heydon reported that the Cambridge Cycling Campaign believed that the only way to enable 38% of people to cycle to work in 2031, reducing the pressure on roads, was to provide world-class bicycle infrastructure.  He therefore asked the Executive Board to recognise the valuable contribution that cycling made to Greater Cambridge, to the productivity of its businesses, to the health of the population and to reducing congestion in the region.  He also asked the Board to make a clear commitment that world-class bicycle infrastructure must be included in all City Deal infrastructure projects.

 

Councillor Herbert questioned the definition of ‘world-class’ and said that different people would probably have a different perception as to what this should represent.  He added, however, that the Board would commit to providing a far higher standard of cycling provision as part of transport infrastructure schemes to that which was already in place.  He was of the opinion that cycling was a central part of transport in Cambridge and he appreciated the expertise that the Cycling Campaign was able to provide.

 

Mr Hughes explained that there was already a significant amount of investment going into cycling with lots of work taking place, citing the Chisholm Trail as an example which would see a £10 million investment to link employers in and around Cambridge.  He felt that schemes such as this would help address the issues set out in Mr Haydon’s question.  Mr Hughes added that all transport infrastructure schemes, such as the A428 Madingley Road corridor scheme and the Histon Road and Milton Road schemes for example, would include high quality cycling and walking provision as part of them.  He reminded the Board, however, that the schemes had to balance the needs of all users and different modes of transport.

Supporting documents: