Agenda item - Tackling congestion: call for evidence

To consider a report by Graham Hughes, Executive Director (Cambridgeshire County Council).

The Executive Board:

(a) NOTED the summary of evidence received and the emerging key themes.

(b) AGREED the criteria for assessment of the ideas and proposals submitted to reduce congestion by reducing traffic volumes, managing traffic differently and 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.

(c) NOTED that the work referred to in resolution (b) would 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.

(d) AGREED 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 be taken forward through those routes rather than through the Cambridge Access Study.

(e) AGREED that the City Deal officer team bring forward plans for an early City-wide and City Centre package of congestion cutting measures informed by the call for evidence, covering each of the elements in table 2 of the report as well as continuing investigation on other options.

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 Executive Board that a further seven responses had been received in addition to the 77 responses set out in the report. 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.

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, took this opportunity to thank those who had contributed to the sessions.

Councillor Ian Bates proposed an amendment to recommendation (b) of the report, to replace the word ‘or’ with ‘and’. This was unanimously supported.

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, presented the Assembly’s recommendations following consideration of the same report at its meeting on 17 December 2015. He highlighted those issues raised as part of public questions received in respect of the item, as set out in his report, together with a list of comments made by Assembly Members in debating the contents of the officer’s report.

Councillor Bick reported that officers were asked to clarify whether demand management was part of the strategy for the City Deal, further to which Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, had confirmed that demand management had been part of the County Council’s strategies for the last ten years and was part of the current Long-Term Transport Strategy. At the Assembly meeting he added that it was part of the City Deal strategy and had featured in the original pitches to Government, but also stated that a strategy based solely on demand management or solely on the provision of alternatives would not work and that a successful programme for the City Deal had to consist of both in order to alleviate Cambridge’s congestion problems.

The Joint Assembly supported the recommendations set out in the report, subject to:

· the addition of the words ‘subject to the inclusion of an additional criterion to assess environmental impact and design’ to recommendation (b);

· the replacement of 22 July 2016 with 16 June 2016 in recommendation (c).

The Executive Board unanimously supported these amendments.

Councillor Bick highlighted that Claire Ruskin, Member of the Joint Assembly representing Cambridge Network, had offered to facilitate the continuation of the successful public engagement that had been achieved as part of this process through the Cambridge Network, to ensure that public interest, momentum and impetus could be maintained.

Councillor Herbert referred to Appendix 1 of the report, which he said was a good categorisation of the range of elements raised as part of responses to the call for evidence sessions. He proposed an additional paragraph to the recommendations set out in the report, as follows:

‘That the City Deal officer team bring forward plans for an early City-wide and City Centre package of congestion cutting measures informed by the call for evidence, covering each of the elements in table 2 of the report as well as continuing investigation on other options.’

John Bridge, representing the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Enterprise Partnership, felt that it was too early to comment on how demand management may or may not feature as part of the City Centre congestion project moving forward. He highlighted that a detailed report assessing the outcomes of the responses received to the call for evidence sessions would be submitted to the Executive Board in June 2016 and was of the opinion that committing to anything at this stage would be premature.

Councillor Ray Manning, representing South Cambridgeshire District Council, reflected on comments made by the Joint Assembly about congestion charging and referred to a Notice of Motion approved by the District Council in February 2009. This confirmed that the Council, at that time, did not support the proposal of a congestion charge or working place parking charge as this was against the best interests of the residents of South Cambridgeshire. He made the point that he would support demand management, but that he would not be supportive of fiscal measures until other measures had been tried and tested.