Agenda item

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

 

(a)        Notes the call for evidence analysis and the Cambridge Access Study Long List and Short List reports and outcomes.

 

(b)        Agrees the policy approach for a congestion reduction package, incorporating:

 

-       better bus services and expanded usage of Park and Rides;

-       better pedestrian and cycling infrastructure;

-       better streetscape and public realm;

-       peak congestion control points in the weekday morning and evening peak periods;

-       a workplace parking levy;

-       on-street parking controls (including residents’ parking)

-       smart technology;

-       travel planning.

 

(c)        Notes the consultation and engagement principles attached to the report at Appendix D and agrees the principles of the engagement process on the proposed congestion reduction package, to commence in July 2016.

 

(d)        Endorses the proposal for a trial implementation of peak congestion control points, possibly on a phased basis in late 2017 using an experimental Traffic Regulation Order, with consultation on the Order held during the experimental period.

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman, opened the item by inviting those members of the public who had given notice to put forward questions to the Joint Assembly.  Questions were therefore asked and answered, as follows:

 

Question by Edward Leigh

 

Edward Leigh asked the Joint Assembly whether it would defer consideration of the Access Study options long list until it had been satisfactorily completed and its conclusions validated by a multidisciplinary panel.  He also asked whether the Assembly would defer consideration of plans for new bus lanes on any city road until the following had been completed:

 

-       trialling and evaluation of city centre access measures;

-       installation, programming and evaluation of smart traffic management;

-       determination of minimum space requirements for cycling infrastructure;

-       proper modelling, trialling and evaluation of inbound flow control, in conjunction with city centre access restrictions;

-       modelling of bus lanes using a baseline determined by all of the above.

 

Mr Leigh also asked whether the Joint Assembly would consider using the City Deal to set up a council-owned bus company.

 

Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, acknowledged that further work was required but thought that the scheme had reached a point where it could be shared with the public, which was what the Executive Board was being recommended to do.  He was keen for the work undertaken to date to be put in the public domain in order that it could be developed further through public consultation. 

 

In terms of baselines, Mr Menzies reflected on schemes from around the world that had addressed congestion which shared the common theme of constraining car use and investing in public transport infrastructure.  He emphasised that both aspects were vital and confirmed that this was what the City Deal programme was seeking to achieve.

 

Mr Menzies reported that very few municipal bus companies were in existence as they had struggled to compete in the market with private providers.  He made the point that municipal bus companies could not be favoured by local authorities and that strict tendering rules would still apply and have to be followed when awarding contracts for services.

 

Question by Councillor Markus Gehring

 

Councillor Gehring made the point that many residents were concerned with eliminating one option at this stage as an effective way of reducing core traffic.  He therefore did not understand why congestion charging was off the table without proper evidence.  He added that raw data had not been published and said that the evidence was not there in order to evaluate all of the options.

 

The Joint Assembly noted Councillor Gehring’s points.

 

Question by Robin Pellew

 

Robin Pellew asked why the public was being denied a choice between alterative packages and questioned why one approach was being employed, discarding alternatives.  He challenged the assumption within the report that one approach was better than another and referred to a peak hour charge which he felt could be more effective and generate more income.

 

Mr Pellew reiterated that members of the public should be offered alternatives and urged the Joint Assembly to adopt recommendation (b) in paragraph 86 of the report and requested that further work be carried out.

 

Mr Menzies responded by saying that this was a key question for debate by the Joint Assembly as part of this item.  He added, however, that a levy could be just as effective as congestion charging, as well as being fairer, highlighting that peak congestion control points, in his opinion, provided better options than a blanket congestion charge.

 

Question by Barbara Taylor

 

Barbara Taylor asked why a congestion charge had been dismissed without going to public consultation.

 

Mr Menzies referred to the answer given to the previous question.

 

Question by Jim Chisholm

 

Jim Chisholm asked whether the Joint Assembly would lobby the Government and Members of Parliament for civil enforcement powers to be enabled by the Department for Transport, particularly in respect of enforcing things such as illegal obstructions and manoeuvres which themselves contributed to congestion.  With these powers, and pragmatic civil enforcement leading to higher compliance, he felt that congestion could be reduced without expensive and disruptive engineering programmes.

 

Mr Menzies confirmed that local authorities outside of London could only enforce parking and bus lanes and welcomed more lobbying on this issue.

 

Question by Charles Nisbet

 

Charles Nisbet referred to paragraph 64 of the report which stated that work on the Access Study had not identified options for managing demand in the city that would remove the need for other City Deal interventions.  He therefore asked whether the study should be resumed with renewed vigour, since the identification of such options would render it unnecessary to pursue the engineering works  proposed for the Histon Road, Milton Road and Cambourne to Cambridge schemes, thus saving a great deal of public money and disruption to those areas.

 

Mr Menzies reiterated the point he made in response to an earlier public question where he said that cities worldwide constrained traffic as well as investing in public transport in order to successfully address congestion.  In cases around the world it was demonstrable that both interventions resulted in positive results.

 

Question by Dorcus Fowler

 

Dorcus Fowler referred to two of the aims stated by the Cambridge Access and Capacity Study as being:

 

-       to deliver a comprehensive and attractive Park and Ride service;

-       to deliver an increased rail mode share.

 

She referred to what she felt was a regular service offered by Oxford’s Park and Ride scheme and the significant reduction in people using Cambridge’s Park and Ride facilities since the parking charges were introduced.  She asked why the reduction in Park and Ride usage had not been addressed and why it was not possible to follow Oxford’s example to make the Park and Ride scheme more attractive. 

 

Dorcus Fowler also asked why the City Deal did not seize the possibility of making North Cambridge station a transport hub, to include a Park and Ride facility and a further adaptation to ease school traffic.

 

Mr Menzies clarified that the parking charge at Cambridge’s Park and Ride sites was not introduced for transport reasons but reflected the financial situation at the County Council.  It was noted that it cost approximately £1 million to run the Park and Ride sites in Cambridge.

 

Referring to Oxford, Mr Menzies reported that he and colleagues had visited Oxford and confirmed that a charge of £2 per vehicle was currently in place at Oxford’s Park and Ride sites.  He added that additional evening services had been trialled on the Park and Ride in Cambridge, but that these had proved not to be worthwhile and the services were therefore not introduced permanently.

 

Mr Menzies also confirmed that North Cambridge station had been designed as a transport hub, with 1,000 cycle parking spaces and 450 car parking spaces.  It was not proposed to convert that facility into a Park and Ride site as in view of this detrimentally impacting the city’s other Park and Ride facilities.

 

Question by Karrie Fuller

 

Karrie Fuller asked what progress had been made on the projected Eastern Orbital and why an Eastern Orbital route, along with the Western Orbital, was not being given priority over building bus lanes into the city centre along the residential streets of Histon Road and Milton Road, which failed to serve the large employment growth sites.

 

Mr Menzies confirmed that this was a large scheme which had not been included in Tranche 1 of the City Deal programme and that it was proposed for inclusion in the Tranche 2 programme.

 

The Chairman thanked members of the public for their questions and invited officers to present the report.

 

Mr Menzies, in presenting the report, also provided the Joint Assembly with a presentation on the Access and Capacity Study.  A number of key points were noted, including the following:

 

·         confirmation of the vision, aims and objectives of the City Deal partnership in respect of tackling congestion;

·         the Cambridge Access Study had been commissioned in May 2015, followed by an audit report in August 2015 and the subsequent call for evidence in the Autumn of 2015 which had generated hearings and written submissions;

·         the Executive Board in January 2016 had approved the assessment of submissions based on criteria in the following areas:

-       fairness

-       effectiveness

-       implementation

-       value for money

-       economic impact

-       dependencies and broader benefits

-       environmental impact and design

·         365 individual interventions were suggested as part of the call for evidence, with some having already been included in the long list.  Further to the assessment process 44 interventions were shortlisted, of which 30 had been suggested by respondents to the call for evidence;

·         the six main themes that materialised were:

-       public transport infrastructure and service improvements

-       infrastructure improvements for walking and cycling

-       demand management and fiscal measures

-       highway capacity enhancements

-       behavioural change

-       technology

·         taking this into account, the proposed package of measures consisted of:

-       better bus services and expanded usage of Park and Ride sites

-       better pedestrian and cycling infrastructure

-       better streetscape and public realm

-       peak congestion control points in the weekday morning and evening peak periods

-       a workplace parking levy

-       on-street parking controls, including residents’ parking

-       smart technology

-       travel planning

·         public transport infrastructure and service improvement proposals included:

-       improvements to Park and Ride sites and services

-       more frequent services

-       express services from satellite towns

-       bus priority measures

-       bus stop interchange improvements

-       Cambridge North Station

-       Addenbrooke’s Station

·         proposed infrastructure improvements for better cycling and walking included:

-       improved conditions for cycling and walking

-       reallocated road space for cyclists and pedestrians

-       strategic cycle routes

-       increased cycle parking the city centre core

-       increase cycle parking at workplaces

-       urban realm improvements

·         peak time congestion control points sought to reduce peaktime car trips in congested areas and also freed up space for buses, cyclists and pedestrians.  Technical work already undertaken had tested proof of concept options and it was proposed that implementation would be carried out on a trial basis through an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order from Autumn 2017, with consultation taking place during the trial.  It was proposed that peak time congestion control points would:

-       operate only during weekdays at peak times

-       provide access only to buses, taxis and emergency vehicles

-       be controlled through automatic number plate recognition cameras

·         the workplace parking levy sought to provide revenue funding to improve public transport, supporting a reduction in car use.  A proposed bespoke scheme for Cambridge would be based on the principles of the Nottingham scheme, with income used to fund transport infrastructure and services to support the transport needs of employers;

·         parking controls would seek to limit commuter parking, as well as manage impacts of the work place levy and peak-time congestion control points;

·         behaviour change and travel planning would consist of travel planning advice and support for employers, schools and individuals and would also incorporate:

-       a multi-modal journey planning app for Cambridge

-       school travel plans

-       car clubs and car sharing schemes

·         congestion charging, as an alternative, could consist of several variations, such as zoned, cordoned or a city wide zone.  The London scheme incurred a daily cost of £11.50 and a £5 a day rate for a congestion charge in Cambridge had been estimated to create £40 million to £44 million per year;

·         potential issues with introducing congestion charging included:

-       alternatives needed to be put in place before implementation of a congestion charging scheme;

-       a congestion charge scheme could only be implemented as part of Tranche 2 of the City Deal programme at the earliest

-       a congestion charge scheme raised questions of equity

-       the price of the scheme would need to increase over time.

 

Mr Walmsley recommended that the Joint Assembly supported the recommendations contained within the report, in that the Executive Board:

 

(a)        notes the call for evidence analysis and the Cambridge Access Study Long List and Short List reports and outcomes;

(b)        agrees the policy approach for a congestion reduction package, incorporating:

-       better bus services and expanded usage of Park and Rides;

-       better pedestrian and cycling infrastructure;

-       better streetscape and public realm;

-       peak congestion control points in the weekday morning and evening peak periods;

-       a workplace parking levy;

-       on-street parking controls (including residents’ parking)

-       smart technology;

-       travel planning;

(c)        notes the consultation and engagement principles attached to the report at Appendix D and agrees the principles of the engagement process on the proposed congestion reduction package, to commence in July 2016.

(d)        endorses the proposal for a trial implementation of peak congestion control points, possibly on a phased basis in late 2017 using an experimental Traffic Regulation Order, with consultation on the Order held during the experimental period.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Walmsley for his presentation and invited Members to debate the above recommendations. 

 

Councillor Tim Wotherspoon had some concerns regarding the workplace parking levy.  Referring to paragraph 53 of the report, he asked whether the creation of additional income was the sole reason for introducing such a scheme and, if so, was concerned that this would be construed as an additional tax.  He also thought this may cause a disincentive to the growth of businesses.  In addition, he questioned whether the levy was targeting the wrong people and was of the view that, if charging was imposed, those undertaking short journeys should be charged rather than those people commuting into the city and contributing towards the local economy.  Noting that those cities effectively tacking congestion had introduced demand management as well as investing in public transport, he was content to support the recommendations.

 

Councillor Noel Kavanagh noted that the Nottingham workplace parking levy had accomplished 100% compliance by employers.  He asked whether officers had a sense of how employers in Cambridge would react to the introduction of a workplace parking levy and whether dialogue with employers on that basis had yet commenced.  Mr Menzies confirmed that engagement with employers on this issue had not yet taken place.

 

Councillor Maurice Leeke referred to paragraph 5 of Appendix B where it stated that measures would focus on providing support for journeys to and from work, such as support for peak hour express bus services from major satellite settlements and orbital bus services.  He felt that this statement contradicted Mr Menzies’ presentation, thinking that the definition was too narrow, and said that services needed to be put in place to ensure that people could use them in order to get to work in mornings and enable them to get home in evenings.

 

Councillor Leeke was also concerned that peak congestion control points would simply move congestion elsewhere, creating less convenient journeys for people and creating more pollution.  He was also of the view that there was not enough information as part of the report to consider the benefits of congestion charging and was keen for the Assembly and Board to look at the long-term issue of congestion rather than in the short-term.  Councillor Leeke called for more work to be done on that element of the report before accepting it for public consultation.

 

Councillor Bridget Smith was disappointed that more detail on proposals to reduce car parks in the city had not been included in the report and felt that a study on that issue should be undertaken, which she thought in itself would encourage model shift.  She also highlighted a growing concern of sixth formers from villages in South Cambridgeshire who had difficulty travelling in and out of the city for college and other educational institutions.  She reported that an increasing number of young people were dropping out of Cambridge colleges as they could not afford to travel to the city, so felt that access to education was a key issue that the City Deal should seek to resolve.

 

Councillor Kevin Cuffley said that it should be made clear how funding gained from the workplace parking levy would be used. 

 

Helen Valentine felt that the introduction of a workplace parking levy would actually encourage model shift.  She said that Anglia Ruskin University had already removed car parking from some of its sites, so from an employer perspective did not think it would be a significant concern. 

 

Christopher Walkinshaw, advisor to the Local Enterprise Partnership, highlighted that the major problem was in areas where there were no alternatives to using private cars to enter the city.  In terms of the workplace parking levy, Mr Walkinshaw made the point that sometimes employees did not have anywhere else to park, referring to Park and Ride sites that themselves only consisted of 200 to 300 spaces.  In addition, public transport did not provide adequate enough services to ensure that people could get to work on time in the morning and be able to get back home in the evening.  He indicated that he would be worried if the workplace parking levy turned into a tax on jobs.

 

Andy Williams reported that he had attended a recent business event with representatives of Cambridge based business and said that most of the people he spoke to had barely heard of the City Deal, and that a lot of them would be surprised by the introduction of the levy.  He was of the opinion that such a levy would be a hard proposal to sell if the charges for parking at Park and Ride sites were not removed.  He felt that a clear and compelling vision for what any additional revenue would be spent on as a result of introducing the levy would be extremely important to the business community. 

 

Councillor Kevin Price reflected on the equity of a congestion charge and said that Cambridge was already becoming a city where people could not afford to work and live, with lots of people moving out of the city but continuing to work in Cambridge.  He reminded the Joint Assembly that the average wage of people in Cambridge was £31,000 per year and that 40% of people earnt less than £22,000.  In terms of the least worse option, he said that the workplace parking levy, although impacting employers, would be a much lower level than that of a congestion charge.  Councillor Price took this opportunity to remind Members that the Park and Ride parking charge was a result of the significant budgetary pressures that local authorities faced and if that charge was removed the County Council would need to make service cuts elsewhere. 

 

Councillor Tim Bick felt that there was an obvious omission from the recommendations and that congestion charging as an alternative should be included in the public consultation, reflecting on paragraph 75 of the report where it clearly set congestion charging out as an alternative approach.  In his opinion it was quite clear that a congestion charge would have a larger impact in reducing congestion and create significant opportunities to raise revenue.  He accepted the comments made about fairness and equality, but still wanted the public to be given an opportunity to put forward their views on this proposal and on what they felt was fair and equitable.  Councillor Bick added that the part of the recommendations that really tackled congestion was the proposed introduction of peak congestion control points, but he was concerned about the impact these would have on people’s journeys and the inequality that itself may introduce depending on which part of the city you are accessing and from where.  In addition, he was concern with the resulting displacement that would occur with such a scheme. 

 

Councillor Bick said that the recommended approach closed down the option of congestion charging too early making the process too restrictive, indicating that in his view there should be two approaches put forward for consultation.

 

Claire Ruskin highlighted the substantial back office costs that would need to be put in place prior to any trial for congestion charging, which she said could be justified in a city the size of London but was more challenging for a city such as Cambridge.  In terms of peak congestion control points, she recommended ensuring that improvements to bus services and Park and Ride sites were in place prior to the commencement of any such trial. 

 

Mr Menzies responded to some of the points made by Members and the following points were noted:

 

·         officers would work with schools regarding peak congestion control points in order to target those roads where there were significant problems;

·         engagement needed to take place with employers in order to develop  a package of public transport improvement and better understand their employees’ needs in that respect;

·         there were significant problems with buses caught in congestion, with Hills Road given as an example, and Stagecoach itself often sent out additional buses to ensure that services were uninterrupted;

·         a car parking strategy had been in place for many years across the city and county, with rates set to encourage short-stay parking aimed a promoting retailers.  A high turnover was therefore the target for city centre car parks and as a result they did not contribute to peak-time congestion;

·         the improvements to public transport as a result of the City Deal transport infrastructure schemes should result in vast improvements to bus services from South Cambridgeshire to Cambridge, therefore addressing the problem that young people faced in terms of being able to access education provision in the city;

·         it would be a requirement to identify, at an early stage, how the revenue incurred as a result of the workplace parking levy would be spent;

·         very useful data was being gathered from the business community, with this engagement with employers continuing in view of it being a very important part of the project.

 

Councillor Tim Bick proposed an amendment to the recommendations set out in the report, replacing paragraph (b) with the below wording:

 

‘The Executive Board asks officers to work up an alternative congestion reduction package led by peak hour congestion charging with a view to inviting informed public input on this, as well as the currently proposed package, before a decision on the final approach is made’.

 

Councillor Bridget Smith seconded the amendment.  She said that not including congestion charging as part of the next stage of consultation was denying people the opportunity to put forward their views on the issue.  Councillor Smith acknowledged the investment that would be necessary to set up the back office associated with a congestion charge scheme, but was of the view that this was the only scheme able to generate sufficient revenue to fund necessary improvements to the Greater Cambridge area. 

 

Councillor Maurice Leeke said that he understood behavioural change as being the key to success in terms of addressing congestion and that a way to alter people’s behaviour would be to provide a much better bus service.  Additional revenue was vital in being able to deliver the improvements that were required and he believed that a congestion charge scheme was the only realistic way in which the required revenue could be raised.  He added that the majority of people had not had the opportunity to look into the data and said that the public deserved to be consulted on the issue.

 

Councillor Tim Wotherspoon made the point that people looked to elected Members and bodies such as the Joint Assembly to act as community leaders and make these kind of decisions.  In reading the technical report, he could not see any technical reasons setting out how a congestion charge could benefit Cambridge. 

 

Voting on the amendment, with 3 votes in favour and 8 votes against, the amendment was lost.

 

Voting on the recommendations set out in the report, with 8 votes in favour and 3 votes against, the Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

 

(a)        Notes the call for evidence analysis and the Cambridge Access Study Long List and Short List reports and outcomes.

 

(b)        Agrees the policy approach for a congestion reduction package, incorporating:

 

-       better bus services and expanded usage of Park and Rides;

-       better pedestrian and cycling infrastructure;

-       better streetscape and public realm;

-       peak congestion control points in the weekday morning and evening peak periods;

-       a workplace parking levy;

-       on-street parking controls (including residents’ parking)

-       smart technology;

-       travel planning.

 

(c)        Notes the consultation and engagement principles attached to the report at Appendix D and agrees the principles of the engagement process on the proposed congestion reduction package, to commence in July 2016.

 

(d)        Endorses the proposal for a trial implementation of peak congestion control points, possibly on a phased basis in late 2017 using an experimental Traffic Regulation Order, with consultation on the Order held during the experimental period.