Agenda item

City Access Congestion Reduction Proposals: Consultation Responses and Next Steps

Decision:

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

a)    Agrees that :

                      i.        Officers should work up and assess options for a package of physical demand management measures.[i] (please see footnote i at the end of this decision notice)

                     ii.        Officers should assess existing data and evidence of desired access between destinations to create an overview of measures that will increase access while reducing congestion.

                    iii.        Physical demand measures should make the best use of the limited road space and capacity in Cambridge, in order to improve bus reliability, cycling and walking, particularly within the designated Air Quality Management Area.

                   iv.        No further work is undertaken on the package of six peak-time congestion control points consulted upon.

 

b)    Agrees that officers should continue to work up and assess options for the other seven elements of the eight-point plan consulted on, including:

                      i.        A Workplace Parking Levy: Co-design a workplace parking levy (WPL) scheme with employers with more detail available for Board and public review later in 2017:

1.To work with individual employers and groups of employers during 2017 on the details of the scheme.

2.To determine the local transport priorities that will receive the revenue raised, building on employer evidence of transport needs and coordinated with Council infrastructure planners.

3.To be coordinated with and if feasible form a part of the City Deal and the Local Enterprise Partnership’s broader engagement with the business community.

4.The roll-out to include practical support for employers looking to manage their parking demand in advance of the levy coming into effect.

5.It is recommended that as far as possible, the Cambridge WPL should resemble the Nottingham template. However, there will need to be agreement on how to charge, the price, its geographical extent, exemptions and how it will be administered and enforced.

                     ii.        On-Street Parking Controls: Note that the Cambridge City Joint Area Committee (CJAC) is considering whether to recommend changes to parking policy in Cambridge and subject to business case, the City Deal would fund consultation on new residents’ parking zones and the costs of implementation. Although the Assembly NOTED this potential action, it DID NOT SUPPORT IT. The Assembly considered this should not go ahead until there was mitigating alternatives in place to counter the potential displacement of vehicles.

                    iii.        Improved Public Space and Air Quality: Agrees that officers should:

1.Assess the possibility of establishing a Clean Air Zone and the potential for the introduction of a pollution charge in central Cambridge within the existing Air Quality Management Area. Key criteria for assessing this should be its impacts on: health; the local environment, including air quality and public realm; bus reliability and cycling; business and the economy; deliverability and value for money.

2.Ensure that initiatives to improve city centre access should continue to consider opportunities for improving the city centre experience and economy and that this should be coordinated with other work across the Partnership that has similar objectives, including planning policy.

                   iv.        Better Bus Services and Expanded Park & Ride: Agrees that officers should continue work to identify how to reduce bus delays on key bus routes by engaging bus operators and finalising the Bus Network Review.

                    v.        Better Pedestrian and Cycling Infrastructure: Agrees that officers should continue to work with other partners to improve cycling and pedestrian infrastructure.

                   vi.        Travel Planning: Agrees that officers should continue to work with Travel for Cambridgeshire to support employers to adopt sustainable policies and practices with regard to travel to work and travel during work.

                  vii.        Smart Technology: Agrees that officers should continue to work with Connecting Cambridgeshire to develop smart technology solutions, and that there is more emphasis placed on Smart Technology by the Greater Cambridge City Deal going forward.

c)    Agrees that officers, with partner assistance, should delivery a City Access communication and engagement plan to support these recommendations if agreed. It is recommended that the plan focusses on communicating:

                      i.        Factual information about the vision for the future;

                     ii.        Statistics and research results;

                    iii.        The need for a package of complementary measures to ensure productivity growth without commensurate growth in congestion;

                   iv.        How we are developing workable solutions by designing them in partnership with those who will be impacted and those impacted if changes are not made;

                    v.        The plan will also set out how the City Access programme fits into the broader plan for city centre revitalisation, and the wider City Deal transport vision and housing plan.

 

d)    To take these recommendations forward, it is proposed that work on the individual elements of the City Centre access work be developed through a series of delivery plans. Proposed plans are:

                      i.        Data analysis and joined up strategy

                     ii.        Bus improvement delivery plan

                    iii.        Communications and engagement delivery plan

                   iv.        Cycling provision delivery plan

                    v.        Demand management delivery plan

                   vi.        Parking management delivery plan including a workplace parking levy and on-street parking controls

                  vii.        Public space and air quality delivery plan including pedestrian infrastructure

                 viii.        Smart technology delivery plan

                   ix.        Travel planning delivery plan

 

 

 

 



[i] Note that a vote was taken on removing the reference to ‘physical’ demand management, so that other eg. fiscal measures should be considered. The outcome was 6 votes for and 6 votes against.

Minutes:

Hilary Holden (City Access Programme) presented the report which set out the results from the consultation on Tackling Peak-Time Congestion in Cambridge, which were informing the work of the City Access project team and influencing the emerging work programme. The purpose of the report was to agree next steps on the city access work following the consultation, in line with the project objectives and scope agreed in January and June 2016.

 

The following public questions were addressed under this agenda item:

 

Question from Dr Joanna Gomula

Dr Gomula was not present at the meeting.

 

Question from Cathy Mitchell

Ms Mitchell was not present at the meeting.

 

Question from Aylmer Johnson

It is encouraging to see that the Council’s City Deal includes plans for orbital bus routes, which will greatly improve the city’s public transport network. However the main benefit will only be realised if the existing radial routes are made straighter and if ‘oyster’ cards are introduced to allow all passengers to change buses easily.

 

In response to this question, Mr Johnson was informed that:

·         The City Deal Executive Board had considered options for further investment in smart technologies in July 2016 and work to look at barriers to integrated ticket purchasing  had been commissioned. An initial report was expected in February 2017.

·         Improving bus and cycling infrastructure on radial routes was a key part of the overall transport programme and part of the proposed delivery plan for better buses.

 

Question from Robin Pellew on behalf of Cambridge Past, Present and Future

Will the City Deal Assembly recommend that the Executive Board should instruct officers to work up the measures in the proposed Access and Congestion package as proposed in agenda item 7, whilst at the same time ask the Board to elaborate what this pollution charge comprises and how it would be applied?

 

In response to this question, Mr Pellew was informed that:

·         Officers were recommending that physical demand measures be looked at further, with work continuing on this.

·         A congestion charge was not being recommended as a priority, given question marks around its deliverability.

·         It was pointed out that there was no congestion charge in any city outside London.

·         A pollution charge also had a deliverability risk and required the sign off of the Secretary of State for Transport. It was highlighted that a pollution charge was not the only way to deliver a clean air zone. The report recommended work on the feasibility of a clean air zone, in the light of consultation feedback that tackling congestion also provided an opportunity to address air quality issues.

 

Question from Robin Heydon

Doesn’t the Hills Road cycle scheme prove that when high quality cycling facilities are provided that they will be used? When will the City Deal extend these benefits to other main roads, and reallocate road space on other main roads for people walking and cycling?

 

In response to his question, Mr Heydon was informed that:

·         These benefits would be sought to be extended to other main roads as soon as possible, as it was recognised that there was a clear link between the facilities provided and an increase in people cycling.

·         The City Deal would continue with its ambition to continue to improve cycling infrastructure.

 

Question by Michael Paige asked on behalf of Lynn Hieatt

In advance of any County proposals, will the City Deal Assembly today unambiguously support the principle of (1) a city-wide solution to what is now an uncontrolled parking free-for-all; (2) a scheme designed in partnership with residents and businesses, allowing local flexibility and experiement, so that neighbourhoods can get the system that works for them and supports the City Deal’s objective of controlling congestion?

 

In response to the question, the following points were made:

·         On street parking controls were Cambridgeshire County Council’s jurisdiction. The City Deal’s role was a supporting role.

·         On street parking controls complemented the workplace parking levy.

 

Following the public questions, the Joint Assembly debated the recommendations.

 

Congestion charging was debated. The following points were made:

·         Councillor Bick thought the public should be given the chance to have their say on congestion charging with an illustration of how it could work.

·         The Vice Chairman argued that the only place in the country with a congestion charge was London. He expressed concern that the introduction of a congestion charge in Cambridge would be unfair, leading to only the most well off being able to afford to drive whilst those on lower incomes would be left choosing between poor public transport and high costs to drive to work.

·         Cllr Smith argued that unlike big infrastructure projects such as busways and park and ride sites, a congestion charge could be reversible, flexible and adaptable so it could be trialled and implemented at different times of day. It was felt that the City Deal should consult on these options and people could  be given the choice between a congestion charge and large infrastructure projects. She added and Cllr Maurice Leake also argued that a congestion charge would generate income, which would subsidise a better public transport system. Cllr Leake thought that those who could afford to drive in would, while those who could not would benefit from subsidised public transport.

·         If a congestion charge was introduced, concern was raised regarding whether groups who provided services such as carers, district nurses and taxi firms for example, would have to pay the charge. Cllr Cuffley stated that he opposed a congestion charge until significantly improved infrastructure and public transport were in place.

·         Cllr Kavanagh recalled that Edinburgh and Manchester had decided not to proceed with congestion charging. He thought the costs and investment in the equipment needed to collect and enforce a congestion charge would outweigh the income received and that the congestion charge would need to be raised to be effective, as was the case in London.

·         Claire Ruskin made a plea for 2017 to be ‘the year of evidence’. She suggested a change to the recommendation to require officers to assess data and evidence and look at measures to increase access and reduce congestion. Andy Williams agreed that there was a need for good analysis and for ongoing engagement with the public. John Wells stated that modal shift needed either an economic or a physical incentive or signal and wanted to see more numerical information on the impact of doing nothing and on what was needed to achieve objectives.

 

A vote was taken on congestion charging and other fiscal demand management being investigated further with six members voting in favour of this and six members against.

 

The workplace parking levy was discussed and debated, with the following points made:

 

·         Further information was provided by officers regarding income that was projected from congestion charging and the workplace parking levy. The Joint Assembly was informed that it was estimated that the workplace parking levy (WPL) could generate £7-11 million and congestion charging could potentially generate £40 million.

·         Sir Michael Marshall declared an interest in the work place levy, as Marshall Group would be affected by the proposals as currently set out. He thought that the workplace parking levy would be seen as another tax and that it would not achieve any tangible benefits. He also worried that it would create burdens for employers needing to administer it, that the impact of the workplace parking levy would fall largely on the outskirts of the city and that the impact would be felt by employers rather than employers.

·         Officers were asked by Cllr Bick what evidence they had of the Government’s willingness to approve a workplace parking levy scheme. The City Deal Programme Director replied that officers would be meeting with the Department of Transport to follow up if the Board agreed to the proposed further work on a Workplace Parking Levy.

·         Officers were asked what the offer was to employers on the edge of the city regarding the workplace parking levy. In response to this, the Joint Assembly was informed that should the Board agree to continue to work on a workplace levy, officers and the Local Enterprise Partnership would work with business on the potential offer to employers.

·         Officers were asked by Cllr Smith asked about revenue generation, running costs, governance and enforcement of the workplace parking levy. In response to this, the Joint Assembly was informed that:

o   The WPL would be an efficient form of revenue generation, with the proportion of reinvestment of revenue higher than with a congestion charging scheme.

o   Employers would have to apply for a licence and organisations would have to declare the number of parking spaces they had.

o   Enforcement would be through spot checks. Further work was needed on where the responsibility for enforcement lay. The example of Nottingham was given, where responsibility for this was a City Council function.

·         Cllr Leake argued what the funds raised from a workplace parking levy would be used for needed to be defined very specifically. It was felt that these should be ring fenced for public transport improvements. Reassurance was sought that this be defined in the next part of the process. He expressed concern that imposing a workplace parking levy would be a less efficient way than a congestion charge of achieving modal shift, which was needed in order to reduce congestion.

·         A paper which assessed the impact of the introduction of a workplace parking levy in Nottingham would be circulated to Joint Assembly members.

·         It was felt that the purpose of the introduction of a levy would be to protect the city centre. Therefore businesses in the city centre with fewer than ten parking spaces should not be exempt from the levy.

·         A request was made that exclusion from the workplace parking levy should not be based on number of spaces held by a business, but on the revenue of the company.

·         Claire Ruskin said it was important to consider the incomes of those impacted.

 

On street parking controls were debated, with the following points made:

·         Cllr Cuffley wanted further data analysis of movement and parking within Cambridge City was needed. He wanted to understand why retail traffic information, including how long people were parking in spaces, was not included in data assessments. In response to this, the Joint Assembly was informed that this level of detail had not been captured in a survey of 12,000 parking spaces, which had provided a snapshot of activity.

·         Cllr Kavanagh felt that restricting parking in Cambridge would lead to a modal shift, thereby reducing the number of cars in Cambridge.

·         Cllr Hickford expressed concern that until other options for people to use were in place such as better public transport, that the implementation of parking controls would disperse many vehicles further out of the city rather than reduce the number of vehicles. The impact on people in South and East Cambridgeshire of changes to parking controls needed to be considered.

·         Modal shift was needed in order to reduce the number of vehicles in the city but until other mitigating alternatives were in place to facilitate this, on street parking controls should not be implemented. Officers responded to this, informing the Joint Assembly that over time, other options would be in place and that if residential parking were to be introduced, it would be implemented by area and not across the whole city at once.

·         Officers were asked what the timescale for the first residents’ (or controlled) parking zones was. In response to this the Joint Assembly was informed that, under the existing policy and the proposed new policy, it would be for an area to request residents’ parking rather than it being imposed them. Once a parking zone was requested there would be a public consultation before implementation. The Joint Assembly was informed that where requested, parking zones could be set up within 12 months.

·         Cllr Smith felt that new residents’ parking zones failed the test of fairness for low-paid workers and students.

·         Concern was raised that by the City Deal funding a consultation on new resident parking zones, it would be held to account on something about which was the responsibility of the county Council, advised by the Cambridge Joint Area Committee.

·         Cllr Bick expressed support for work to improve air quality, such as the proposed work on a clean air zone. He wanted to know what impact it would have on congestion and how easily it could be implemented. The Joint Assembly was informed that a Clean Air Zone would need Government agreement.

·         Claire Ruskin felt that smart technology should be higher up on the list and integral to the strategy; it must not be an afterthought.

·         Encouraging more people to car share was suggested by Cllr Kavanagh.

·         The Joint Assembly highlighted the importance of bearing in mind the people who would be impacted if changes were not made and agreed an amendment to the recommendations to that effect.

 

The Joint Assembly was keen to see more evidence and data on the impact of ‘do nothing’ and what was needed to achieve the headline objectives and vision for Cambridge Access. Officers explained that the vision was to reduce traffic volume in Cambridge by 10-15%, based on 2011 levels. Officers would assess existing data by July 2017. Bob Menzies offered to arrange a briefing session on the transport evidence base.

 

Following debate, amendments were proposed to recommendation (a)(i). It was  proposed that the word ‘physical’ be removed from the recommendation. The proposed amended recommendation was that ‘Officers should work up and assess options for a package of demand measures’. This was so that other, for example fiscal, measures such as congestion charging should be considered.

 

A vote was taken on this proposed amendment with six votes in favour and six against the proposed amendment.

 

It was proposed that recommendation (a)(i) be replaced with ‘Officers should assess existing data and evidence of desired access between destinations to create an overview of measures that will increase access while reducing congestion’. This was discussed with Joint Assembly members indicating their support for the inclusion of this recommendation, in addition to the existing recommendations. This recommendation was therefore added as (a)(ii).

 

Regarding recommendation (b)(vii), following discussion the Joint Assembly agreed that an emphasis on smart technology going forward be included in this recommendation.

 

Regarding recommendation (c)(iv), concern was expressed for those who would be impacted if changes were not made and the Joint Assembly agreed that this should be added to the recommendation.

 

Regarding recommendation (d), following discussion the Joint Assembly agreed that data analysis and joined up strategy should be included in the proposed plans listed.

 

The Joint Assembly therefore RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

a)    Agrees that :

                      i.        Officers should work up and assess options for a package of physical demand management measures.

                     ii.        Officers should assess existing data and evidence of desired access between destinations to create an overview of measures that will increase access while reducing congestion.

                    iii.        Physical demand measures should make the best use of the limited road space and capacity in Cambridge, in order to improve bus reliability, cycling and walking, particularly within the designated Air Quality Management Area.

                   iv.        No further work is undertaken on the package of six peak-time congestion control points consulted upon.

 

b)    Agrees that officers should continue to work up and assess options for the other seven elements of the eight-point plan consulted on, including:

                      i.        A Workplace Parking Levy: Co-design a workplace parking levy (WPL) scheme with employers with more detail available for Board and public review later in 2017:

1.To work with individual employers and groups of employers during 2017 on the details of the scheme.

2.To determine the local transport priorities that will receive the revenue raised, building on employer evidence of transport needs and coordinated with Council infrastructure planners.

3.To be coordinated with and if feasible form a part of the City Deal and the Local Enterprise Partnership’s broader engagement with the business community.

4.The roll-out to include practical support for employers looking to manage their parking demand in advance of the levy coming into effect.

5.It is recommended that as far as possible, the Cambridge WPL should resemble the Nottingham template. However, there will need to be agreement on how to charge, the price, its geographical extent, exemptions and how it will be administered and enforced.

                     ii.        On-Street Parking Controls: Note that the Cambridge City Joint Area Committee (CJAC) is considering whether to recommend changes to parking policy in Cambridge and subject to business case, the City Deal would fund consultation on new residents’ parking zones and the costs of implementation. Although the Assembly NOTED this potential action, it DID NOT SUPPORT IT. The Assembly considered this should not go ahead until there was mitigating alternatives in place to counter the potential displacement of vehicles.

                    iii.        Improved Public Space and Air Quality: Agrees that officers should:

1.Assess the possibility of establishing a Clean Air Zone and the potential for the introduction of a pollution charge in central Cambridge within the existing Air Quality Management Area. Key criteria for assessing this should be its impacts on: health; the local environment, including air quality and public realm; bus reliability and cycling; business and the economy; deliverability and value for money.

2.Ensure that initiatives to improve city centre access should continue to consider opportunities for improving the city centre experience and economy and that this should be coordinated with other work across the Partnership that has similar objectives, including planning policy.

                   iv.        Better Bus Services and Expanded Park & Ride: Agrees that officers should continue work to identify how to reduce bus delays on key bus routes by engaging bus operators and finalising the Bus Network Review.

                    v.        Better Pedestrian and Cycling Infrastructure: Agrees that officers should continue to work with other partners to improve cycling and pedestrian infrastructure.

                   vi.        Travel Planning: Agrees that officers should continue to work with Travel for Cambridgeshire to support employers to adopt sustainable policies and practices with regard to travel to work and travel during work.

                  vii.        Smart Technology: Agrees that officers should continue to work with Connecting Cambridgeshire to develop smart technology solutions, and that there is more emphasis placed on Smart Technology by the Greater Cambridge City Deal going forward.

c)    Agrees that officers, with partner assistance, should delivery a City Access communication and engagement plan to support these recommendations if agreed. It is recommended that the plan focusses on communicating:

                      i.        Factual information about the vision for the future;

                     ii.        Statistics and research results;

                    iii.        The need for a package of complementary measures to ensure productivity growth without commensurate growth in congestion;

                   iv.        How we are developing workable solutions by designing them in partnership with those who will be impacted and those impacted if changes are not made;

                    v.        The plan will also set out how the City Access programme fits into the broader plan for city centre revitalisation, and the wider City Deal transport vision and housing plan.

 

d)    To take these recommendations forward, it is proposed that work on the individual elements of the City Centre access work be developed through a series of delivery plans. Proposed plans are:

                      i.        Data analysis and joined up strategy

                     ii.        Bus improvement delivery plan

                    iii.        Communications and engagement delivery plan

                   iv.        Cycling provision delivery plan

                    v.        Demand management delivery plan

                   vi.        Parking management delivery plan including a workplace parking levy and on-street parking controls

                  vii.        Public space and air quality delivery plan including pedestrian infrastructure

                 viii.        Smart technology delivery plan

                   ix.        Travel planning delivery plan

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: