Agenda item

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

 

(a)        Notes the responses to the consultation on the Western Orbital bus infrastructure improvement scheme.

 

(b)        Agrees the next steps as set out in the report for the ongoing strategic assessment of the Western Orbital scheme as part of the City Deal programme to supported related potential Tranche 1 schemes.

 

(c)        Agrees to take a key role in working with Highways England to establish clear priorities along the M11 corridor and for these discussions to form part of the next report on the Western Orbital.

The Joint Assembly considered a revised version of the report which had been published as a supplement, summarising the outcomes of the consultation on possible future options for bus and cycle infrastructure improvements along the Western Orbital corridor.

 

Ashley Heller, Team Leader of Public Transport Projects at Cambridgeshire County Council, presented the report and highlighted the following key messages received in response to the consultation exercise:

 

·         over 64% of respondents supported the need for public transport improvements along the corridor;

·         over 67% of respondents felt it was important or very important that cycling and pedestrian facilities were improved within this scheme;

·         the greatest support was given for option A, consisting of a route on the existing M11, with 61.8% supporting or strongly supporting this option;

·         53.4% of respondents supported or strongly supported option B, east of the M11;

·         the greatest opposition was shown for option C, west of M11, with 43.1% opposing or strongly opposing this option.

·         the majority of respondents supported the concept of Park and Ride, with the greatest support expressed for a new Park and Ride site at the Junction 11 exit of the M11, with 70.9% of respondents supporting or strongly supporting this option;

·         over 70% supported a Park and Ride and/or a Cycle and Ride at Junction 12 of the M11.

 

Mr Heller reported that the outcomes of the public consultation would form part of the ongoing strategic assessment of options.  He acknowledged that the Western Orbital scheme had a close link with the Cambourne to Cambridge Better Bus Journeys scheme on the A428.  This would be taken into account as part of ongoing assessment work which he expected to be complete by July 2017, at which time the Executive Board was programmed to make a final decision on options for detailed consultation on the Cambourne to Cambridge scheme.

 

Mr Heller highlighted the ongoing communication with Highways England in terms of its development proposals for the M11 motorway and anticipated that Highways England would provide further clarity on longer term measures to be taken on the M11 during 2017 when its next Route Investment Strategy was set out.  He expected the City Deal to engage at the highest levels with Highways England to influence this process.  In view of the timescales relating to Highways England’s decision-making in this respect, Mr Heller made the point that any significant decisions by the City Deal Executive Board on this scheme at this stage were not essential, particularly given that currently the Western Orbital scheme was an unfunded tranche 2 scheme.

 

Helen Bradbury, Chairman of the Local Liaison Forum, reported that the Forum had decided not to meet in order to consider this report since it did not put forward any recommendations on preferred options.  The Local Liaison Forum would instead meet on 17 January 2017 and give consideration to the report and, committing to circulate a full statement of discussions and any resolutions passed, asked that its recommendations be given due consideration in shaping the preferred options. 

 

With regard to the Western Orbital scheme, Helen Bradbury raised the following points that had been discussed at previous meetings of the Local Liaison Forum:

 

·         whilst the Local Liaison Forum could see the benefits of an on-road Western Orbital route with bus only slip lanes in linking the north-west and west Cambridge sites to the Biomedical Campus, it did not believe that sufficient evidence had been provided on projected usage and commercial viability to justify the expense and environmental impact of an off-road solution;

·         the Local Liaison Forum supported the idea of extending the current Park and Ride site at Trumpington to capture more motorway traffic;

·         the Local Liaison Forum did not support siting a new Park and Ride at Hauxton on the west side of the M11 and instead favoured bringing forward an extended Foxton level crossing interchange project into tranche 1, which could accommodate bus, rail and cycle users as part of the existing plans.  This would be a better location for people to transfer onto sustainable modes of transport as it would capture traffic before the congestion began on the A10 and link with the mainline railway station;

·         the idea that Park and Ride locations should be sited further from the city had been consistently made by the Local Liaison Forum;

·         the question of how the Western Orbital would connect with the Cambourne to Cambridge busway remained unclear, whereas an on-road Cambourne to Cambridge busway would connect directly.  The Local Liaison Forum therefore wanted to see a full assessment made of A428 Cambourne to Cambridge options that made better use of existing infrastructure.

 

In respect of the A428 Cambourne to Cambridge scheme, the Local Liaison Forum had agreed a recommendation to the City Deal Executive Board that the hybrid scheme it proposed to the Assembly and Board in September 2016 be fully assessed as an alternative to options 3 and 3a of that scheme on the basis that it made better use of existing infrastructure.  She raised a number of points in support of this recommendation, saying that no valid two-way comparison using existing infrastructure had ever made, with the only option that addressed using existing infrastructure not fitting the basic criteria of the scheme.  She also claimed that comparative journey times used to assess the different options were misleading.

 

In addition, Helen Bradbury asked whether misinformation regarding the capacity of the Junction 13 bridge, and then the non-disclosure of contrary information, had influenced the options assessed and the decision taken.  She referred to a report produced by Atkins in May this year, claiming it had not been made publicly available but which stated the opposite view to that given by officers.  The Local Liaison Forum therefore believed that the bridge did have the capacity to take four lanes, could be widened to the north or to the south, or could be supplemented with a bus-only or cycle-only bridge directly alongside it and would be a tiny fraction of the cost of the new bridge advocated by officers.

 

Helen Bradbury asked the Joint Assembly to support the following:

 

·         given the new information on the Junction 13 bridge, recommend a full appraisal of the hybrid solution proposed by the Local Liaison Forum, including transparent evaluation of strategic fit, benefit-cost ratio and wider economic benefits;

·         note that key information was misrepresented or not disclosed that was relevant to the feasibility of solutions which made use of existing road infrastructure;

·         pause all further work on preferred option 3a until this was completed;

·         in light of the results, reconsider whether the preferred option 3a was the best strategic fit, or the most sensible solution.

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, asked officers to respond directly to Helen Bradbury regarding her points on the A428 Cambourne to Cambridge scheme since the item under consideration at this meeting was the Western Orbital scheme.  He acknowledged, however, that the two schemes were closely linked.  It was agreed that all Members of the Joint Assembly would be sent a copy of the response.

 

Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, explained that the strategic case behind the Western Orbital scheme was to collect areas of significant housing growth in north-west and south-west Cambridge, together with significant employment growth sites in those areas. 

 

Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, in respect of bus patronage made the general point that the number of bus rapid transit passengers was increasing whereas traditional bus services were seeing their passenger figures decrease.  In relation to rail and bus passengers and cyclists, Mr Menzies acknowledged that a lot of different passenger flows needed to be catered for as part of this scheme.  Referring to the east/west railway, which was a route from Bedford, he reported that officers were currently looking at what potential routes along that broad corridor could be delivered but made the point that the Assembly and Board would be some way off knowing what these proposals may consist of, thereby supporting the case that this should be a tranche 2 consideration.  Foxton level crossing had originally been included in the tranche 1 programme on the basis of it being fully funded by Network Rail, who had since made a decision to remove this scheme from its funding programme.  Discussions with Network Rail would continue in respect of delivering that scheme.

 

Mr Heller made the point that there would be operational issues with a Park and Ride site if it was located too far away from the city on the basis that the further away they were, the more expensive the operational costs would be.  In order to make bus use effective, bus priority would also need to be introduced in both directions.  In the case of Foxton, therefore, he explained that this would mean creating a long stretch of bus priority on the A10 in both directions.  He added that a Park and Ride on the M11 junction would pick up two-way traffic, whereas a site at Foxton would only pick up the traffic travelling in one direction. 

 

Councillor Hickford referred to the ongoing liaison with Highways England in terms of its developing proposals for the M11 motorway, noting that 2017 was the point where their proposals were likely to be known and where the City Deal could have an influence, with a final decision anticipated in 2019/20.  He said that the outcome of this liaison with Highways England was hugely influential as to what the Executive Board would ultimately decide to do with the Western Orbital scheme.  He asked how robust negotiations had been so far.

 

Mr Menzies reiterated that Highways England had its own strategies and programmes and that in 2017 it would be consulting on its five year plan.  The City Deal and other key stakeholders would be consulted upon with the intention of putting the plan before the Department of Transport for approval in 2019.  The City Deal and other key stakeholders would therefore have an opportunity to influence that in 2017, with Highways England being very open to suggestions put forward, but he emphasised that the Department for Transport would make the ultimate decision.  Mr Menzies made the point that Highways England and the Department for Transport had to consider the whole network, not just that of the network in the Greater Cambridge area, so other councils, partnerships and bodies would be seeking to influence the outcome too.  The City Deal would therefore need to press Highways England during that period of consultation to ensure that those schemes on the network within the Greater Cambridge area were considered as priorities.

 

Councillor Bridget Smith reflected on what she called the Foxton interchange and requested that it no longer be referred to solely as Foxton level crossing.  She felt that this was more than a level crossing project and was effectively an interchange and transport hub.  She also emphasised that the Greater Cambridge City Deal included South Cambridgeshire and that there was more to this scheme than linking up with new developments in Cambridge.  Councillor Smith stated that lots of people in South Cambridgeshire used their cars due to there being no public transport services available, so a facility such as an interchange at Foxton where they could park their cars and then proceed with journeys on public transport or bicycle would be an extremely useful facility for them.  She also felt that there was the potential to extend the footprint of the site due to land adjacent, owned by the County Council, being available which could see additional car parking spaces added to support this opportunity to create an effective transport hub serving the city and South Cambridgeshire. 

 

Sir Michael Marshall highlighted Girton interchange as another significant issue and felt that the City Deal also needed to coordinate with Highways England regarding that aspect of the infrastructure inline with City Deal schemes.  He felt that representatives of Highways England should be invited to attend a meeting of the Joint Assembly.  Mr Menzies agreed to extend such an invitation.  He reminded the Assembly that the Girton interchange had been considered by Highways England as part of the A14 regrading Development Consent Order and reasons were given at that time as to why the proposal for Girton interchange did not go ahead as part of the regrade.  Mr Menzies offered to share this with Joint Assembly Members.

 

Councillor Noel Kavanagh asked why, if the Local Liaison Forum had access to the document, why Joint Assembly Members had not been given access to the Atkins report referred to by Helen Bradbury.  Mr Heller explained that the Atkins report had been presented to the Local Liaison Forum in June 2016 and was therefore been publicly available from that point.  It was agreed that a link to this document would be sent to all Members of the Joint Assembly.

 

Dr John Wells made the point that consideration should be given to the strategic overview of the scheme, to include the designing of transport solutions, before any decisions were made regarding the physical infrastructure.  He emphasised that system integration was a key aspect of this scheme. 

 

Dr Wells in respect of Park and Ride locations made the general point that if the current 38,000 journeys a day by private motor vehicle into Cambridge were converted to travelling by bus, each Park and Ride site would need to be able to accommodate approximately 5,000 parking spaces for each of the radial routes.  He made the point, therefore, that considering in so much detail a single Park and Ride site did not grasp the magnitude of the problem.  Dr Wells acknowledged that for the purpose of illustrating this point these purposely very high level calculations had assumed that all car traffic would transfer to public transport, which he accepted was not realistic. 

 

Dr Wells reflected on the City Deal’s strategy of modal shift from private motor vehicle to public transport or sustainable transport and creating segregated bus provision to remove the congestion.  These were considered to be fundamental principles so he subsequently questioned why he himself, despite all of the things he had previously mentioned already being available to him via the guided busway, chose to drive to where he worked at Addenbrooke’s. Dr Wells therefore called for further work to be undertaken to explain why he and many other people like him were not mode shifting when the infrastructure and services were currently there to enable people to do so.

 

Mr Menzies accepted the significance of the challenge the City Deal was facing regarding modal shift, but said that a key contributing factor to the example put forward by Dr Wells was that people commuting to work currently had places to park their cars.  He also reiterated that people were using the guided busway and that people had already changed their travelling behaviour as a result of its introduction.

 

In terms of the points raised regarding Park and Ride, Mr Menzies saw the solution not just as Park and Ride provision but also in getting people on buses from other areas where they lived so that they were not having to drive along the corridor at all.  This solution would rely upon people cycling and using trains as well as buses, emphasising that there had to be a mix of methods of transport available to people.

 

Councillor Kevin Cuffley felt that the report had concentrated on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, whereas he saw Sawston as a key hub with its science park and residential development.  He was disappointed that very little reference had been made in the report to Sawston station, when the infrastructure in the area was ready to be utilised, which he thought would take pressure off other links.  Councillor Cuffley also felt that the report did not make enough reference to bus journeys to and from southern sites.

 

Councillor Tim Bick welcomed Dr Wells’ analysis and agreed that the City Deal had an obligation to get people from where they lived to where they worked.  He was disappointed with the composition of the consultation responses in that the majority of people responding were not really daily travellers along that route at peak times of the day, which was the main issue seeking to be addressed as part of the scheme.  In terms of considering an on-road or off-road M11 option, taking into account the timescales associated with knowing the details of Highways England’s programme, Councillor Bick said that it was likely that an off-road scheme would be looked at further particularly in view of the congestion along the motorway which currently existed.  In terms of an on-road option he said that the real test in transport terms would be whether this could achieve the City Deal’s objectives.  Reflecting on the consultation questions, he sought clarity as to what basis people were being asked the questions on as there appeared to be a lack of context to the questions in the document. 

 

In terms of the question in the consultation document on Park and Ride, Councillor Bick highlighted that this was the same type of conceptual question that had been experienced with the A428 Cambourne to Cambridge scheme.  He was therefore of the opinion that there was not enough information or evidence to form a view as to the exact location of a Park and Ride site at this stage of the scheme. 

 

Under the options heading of the report, Councillor Bick highlighted that an option that had not been recommended to the Executive Board consisted of officers working up and recommending a preferred option for the Western Orbital in 2017, allowing for full integration into the Cambourne to Cambridge scheme.  He asked why this had not been put forward as a recommendation as part of the report.

 

Mr Heller, in response to the point made about consultation responses, reported that extensive documentation had been circulated throughout the area and that there was very little control officers had in terms of the numbers and type of responses received to a consultation such as this. 

 

Addressing the point regarding the option set out in the report which had not been put forward as a recommendation at this stage of the process, Mr Heller explained that the Western Orbital was a tranche 2 scheme and that its demand was more future orientated, which may explain why there was a relatively low response to the consultation.  He added that the consultation was relatively high level and conceptual and sought to ascertain how people saw the future of transport provision along that corridor.

 

Mr Heller reported that officers had been asked to undertake a comparison of Park and Ride sites as part of the A428 scheme, which would assess the following:

 

·         accessibility;

·         relatively;

·         operational ease;

·         frequency of services;

·         cost;

·         opportunity for further development;

·         environmental impact.

 

Claire Ruskin asked whether there was an evidence base for traffic flows, together with projections for future use along the corridor.  In terms of modal shift, she made that point that people were unlikely to make the shift if it meant having to make a change at the later stages of their journeys and that hubs further away from the city should help address that aspect of modal shift.

 

Mr Heller confirmed that statistics were available, both in terms of existing data and projections, and had been used for strategic modelling. 

 

Helen Valentine felt that the consultation document had not portrayed the scale of the challenge that the City Deal was confronted with and was keen to see this data be incorporated in the future as part of the consultation documentation.

 

Councillor Bridget Smith questioned why a Park and Ride site located further away from the city would cost more to operate as a site.  Mr Menzies explained that a site too far away from the city would mean that it cost the operators more to run the service, meaning that passengers’ ticket prices would be increased to make up for the additional cost which in turn could result in people choosing not to use the facility.  He said that each Park and Ride site would need to be considered on its own merits and that the whole system, such as operational issues, had to be included as part of that consideration. 

 

With 12 votes in favour and 1 abstention, the Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

 

(a)        Noted the responses to the consultation on the Western Orbital bus infrastructure improvement scheme.

 

(b)        Agreed the next steps as set out in the report for the ongoing strategic assessment of the Western Orbital scheme as part of the City Deal programme to supported related potential Tranche 1 schemes.

 

(c)        Agreed to take a key role in working with Highways England to establish clear priorities along the M11 corridor and for these discussions to form part of the next report on the Western Orbital.