Agenda item

City Access Congestion Reduction Proposals: Consultations Responses and Next Steps

Decision:

The City Deal Executive Board:

a) AGREED 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) AGREED 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: NOTED that the Cambridge City Joint Area Committee (CJAC) recommended changes to parking policy in Cambridge. The Executive Board REQUESTED that officers bring forward a report on complementary measures to be implemented at the same time as changes to on street parking controls.

iii. Improved Public Space and Air Quality: AGREED 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: AGREED 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: AGREED that officers should continue to work with other partners to improve cycling and pedestrian infrastructure.

vi. Travel Planning: AGREED 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: AGREED 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) AGREED that officers, with partner assistance, should deliver a City Access communication and engagement plan to support these recommendations. The plan will focus 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, the Executive Board AGREED that proposed 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 & air quality delivery plan including pedestrian infrastructure

(viii) Smart technology delivery plan

(ix) Travel planning delivery plan

Minutes:

Hilary Holden, City Access Programme, delivered a presentation to introduce the report which informed the Executive Board of 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.

Councillor Roger Hickford updated the Executive Board on the Joint Assembly’s views of the recommendations set out in the report:

· There had been much debate by Joint Assembly members regarding omitting the word ‘physical’ from recommendation (a)(i) regarding physical demand management measures. A vote was taken on this, which was split six against and six in favour of removing the word ‘physical’. As the vote was split, the word ‘physical’ was not removed from the recommendation.

· The Joint Assembly felt that there should be more evidence-based assessments by officers. Officers had agreed that there was more than enough data for them to assess and evidence desired access between destinations to create an overview of measures that would increase access while reducing congestion. This was incorporated by the Joint Assembly into a new recommendation (a)(ii).

· There was concern from some Joint Assembly members that the workplace parking levy would be seen as another tax, urging care regarding what funds raised would be used for.

· Regarding on-street parking controls, there was almost unanimous agreement that this should not proceed until there were mitigating alternatives in place for those currently driving into the city and parking. There was concern that rather than reducing vehicles in the city, this would lead to the dispersal of vehicles further out to avoid paying the high parking charges in the city. Councillor Hickford advised that the park and ride parking charge be removed as a key mitigation.

· It was pointed out and noted by the Joint Assembly that smart technology consistently appeared at the bottom of lists and objectives, implying that it was an after thought and not as important as other measures. The Joint Assembly was a robust supporter of smart technology and requested as much emphasis as possible be put on this.

· Councillor Hickford pointed out the Joint Assembly’s addition to recommendation (c)(iv) of ‘…and those impacted if changes are not made’, which was to emphasise that ‘doing nothing’ would have adverse consequences and that, in considering the consequences of actions, it was also important to look at the impacts of inaction.

Councillor Tim Bick was invited to speak and addressed the Board with the following points:

· Councillor Bick asked the Board to envisage a scenario of bus services increasing by 50% with new services to the villages in and out of the city, bus fares being halved and the park and ride parking charge being removed. Councillor Bick advised that the only way of achieving this was with peak time congestion charging, the benefits of which he advised could be great if implemented with the revenue generated being used to fund better public transport and cycling infrastructure and to subsidise bus travel. He felt that no other demand management measure was likely to be as efficient at achieving modal shift. Councillor Bick pointed out that the Executive Board had not publically debated congestion charging.

· Councillor Bick asked the Executive Board to debate congestion charging, to consider its direction and to give people an opportunity to have a say on congestion charging.

Councillor John Hipkin was invited to speak and addressed the Board with the following points:

· There was strong support in Councillor Hipkin’s ward for on-street parking controls.

· In response to the view of on-street parking controls failing the test of fairness, Councillor Hipkin pointed out that residents of Cambridge had the right to park outside their homes, as those travelling into Cambridge had the right to park outside their homes outside Cambridge.

· Councillor Hipkin believed that on-street parking controls should be trialled and tested over large sections of the city and on large arterial roads. During the trial there should be no charge to residents in order for them to see how the scheme affected them.

· Councillor Hipkin called for an extension of the principles of the core traffic scheme to a wider area of the city, urging the Executive Board to work up this scheme, believing that an increasing number of Cambridge residents supported it.

Question from Pete Howard

Mr Howard was not in attendance at the meeting. The Chairman read out Mr Howard’s pre-submitted question in his absence:

“Given the concerns raised from the 10,000 plus residents and businesses who signed the petition against the planned road and traffic restrictions, will the council now agree to consult and listen to all stake holders regarding its planned roads closures or traffic congestion measures, well before any degree of implementation?”

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

· Following the public consultation in the second half of 2016, public engagement would be maintained. Business input would be coordinated with the assistance of the Local Enterprise Partnership.

· The consultation had shown there was real concern from businesses regarding the potential dispersal of vehicles that may result from the implementation of peak congestion control points and the impact on staff.

Question from Neil Mackay

Neil Mackay read out his pre-submitted question:

“ Given that Cambridge small businesses were at the heart of the recent protests against the introduction of peak time road closures by the use of PCCP cameras. Why is it that small business is not now being fully consulted with, in an attempt to find a solution to the problem.

The future of a considerable number of small businesses and the livelihoods of all those employed by those businesses depend on the correct solution being implemented. We feel that rather than you simply concocting an 'even more Scary City Deal' and then effectively paying 'lips service' to consultation once more. It is our opinion that you should be inviting the 'involvement' of all the small business potentially effected, to be included in the process of developing the proposals. Are you willing to do so?”

In addition to this Mr Mackay pointed out that the Mouchel report was not prominent on the City Deal’s website.

In response to this Mr Mackay was informed that:

· Businesses, including small businesses, would be consulted. Work would be undertaken with the Local Enterprise Partnership regarding how best to consult with businesses.

· Thinking had altered regarding peak time congestion control point (PCCP) cameras in response to the concerns raised by small businesses.

· The need for small businesses to be able to access their clients as well as their clients accessing them, was recognised.

· The Mouchel report would be made more prominent on the City Deal’s website.

Question from Dr Joanna Gomula

Dr Gomula read out her pre-submitted question:

· “Among the “number of projects to help to achieve” the transport vision set out by the Greater Cambridge City Deal, what new bus routes have been planned or are being considered (in addition to the bus route from Cambourne to Cambridge along the A1307) to ensure better bus services into, out of and around Cambridge?

· Are there any new bus routes under consideration that would allow the area of Newnham to be properly linked with the rest of Cambridge by bus?

· Do the projects related to the vision of the Greater Cambridge City Deal include new bus routes and services, which would allow students of schools located in the areas subject to traffic congestion to reach and leave their respective schools by bus? Have the schools been consulted regarding this issue and have any co-operative arrangements or projects been proposed to the schools by the City Deal team?”

The following points were made in response to this question:

· Buses were a core part of the transport strategy. Working collaboratively with bus operators, enhanced and additional services could be introduced as development took place, linking the city more effectively with surrounding areas.

· It was recognised that to make the bus the first choice for many journeys, it needed to be more attractive than other options and include consistent and reliable journeys. This could only be enabled as part of the wider transport strategy that restrained vehicle movements in favour of buses, walking and cycling.

· For the new settlements to be built outside the city, it was recognised that a regular bus service needed to be in place throughout the day and during evenings and weekends in order to offer an attractive alternative to car use. These services would benefit from new busways and on-street bus priority measures.

· In response to Newnham being linked with the rest of Cambridge, Dr Gomula was informed that the universal bus service, which was financially supported by the university but could be used by everyone, linked Newnham with the railway station. The City Deal proposed improvements to services across and beyond the city, which included operating the core urban services more frequently, building on the established ‘citi’ network.

· Regarding bus routes and services for schools, Travel for Cambridgeshire had worked closely with private schools on travel planning. Private minibus services have been put in place by many of these schools for their students to reduce car journeys.

· The workplace parking levy offered the opportunity for further dialogue with schools.

Question from Andrew Dutton

As Mr Dutton was not in attendance at the meeting, the Chairman read his pre-submitted question:

“I note that you still intend to introduce the non progressive parking tax on those who work in Cambridge. Whilst £1.75 might not be significant to many of the well paid workers in cambridge (Most companies will pass this charge on to their employees) for the low paid or disabled this is a significant and unfair burden. Many of these people have no option but to drive due to physical disability or time constraints of running a family i.e getting children to schools and working. I am surprised a socially responsible party such as yourselves have not considered the negative implications of this.

How do you plan to resolve this unfair burden on some of the lowest paid workers in Cambridge? These people have to drive due to housing costs and cannot use public transport or cycling due to physical disability or time constraints and the need to both work a full day and take children to schools. Would you consider a wage limit below which it cannot be passed on or an exemption for those below a certain wage or for those with disabilities?”

The Chairman advised that a response would be provided to Mr Dutton outside the meeting and the response would be made available on the City Deal website.

Question from Dr Drew Milne

As Dr Milne was not present at the meeting, the Chairman provided an overview of his question which addressed the tackling of air pollution in Cambridge and diesel cars. The Chairman advised that a response would be provided to Dr Milne and this would be made available on the City Deal website.

Question from Magda Werno

Ms Werno was not present at the meeting. Her pre-submitted question related to closing Cambridge city centre to traffic during peak hours, the quality of public transport and the poor value for money offered by city buses, the park and ride and guided buses.

In response to the issues raised in Ms Werno’s question, Hilary Holden responded as follows:

· Recommendations 3.a.i and 3.1.ii in the report prepared for the meeting state that: It is recommended that the Executive Board agrees that officers should work up and assess options for a package of physical demand management measures. These 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.

· This aligned with Policy TSCSC 2 of the Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Transport Strategy which stated that Pedestrians, cyclists and buses will be prioritised for trips across the city. General vehicular traffic will not be prohibited and accessibility will be maintained, but a car journey may be longer and more time consuming than at present for many trips.

· The petal diagram used in the Joint Assembly meeting was purely conceptual and showed one of the draft ideas behind the work we are doing to develop options for managing general traffic - to retain access for those who need it while restricting cross-city through movement. It tries to show that the areas between the main routes coming into the city centre are surrounded by quieter residential streets where rat runs need to be prevented. This idea is less disruptive than the PCCPs, as it restricts access on local streets, rather than on main radial roads.

· We want to turn the vicious circle of low bus use leading to high fares into a virtuous circle where high bus use leads to lower bus fares. This will only be achieved by making bus the first choice for many journeys, which requires consistent and reliable journeys, working collaboratively with bus operators. In the near term there will be a need for the public sector to continue to financially support off-peak bus services so that a reasonable level of service is maintained. The funding available from the County Council has declined over recent years which has seen a contraction in the level of bus service. The City Access plan contains a potential revenue source through a workplace parking levy. This will provide an income stream that the City Deal may wish to invest in local bus services and/or in making buses more affordable for local residents.

Question from Nichola Harrison

Nichola Harrison asked her pre-submitted question:

“Will you please confirm whether your plan for physical demand management measures, illustrated by the flower petals drawing with the title "Concept diagram of local area accessibility" that was tabled at least week's Assembly meeting, might involve partial or full road closures at peak times in Cambridge?”

In response to this question the following points were made:

· There would be no road closures at peak times in Cambridge. There would be a prioritisation of uses on these roads but there would be no full road closures for all vehicular movements.

Ms Harrison went on to ask the Executive Board to consult the public on congestion charging, pointing out that the poorest had the most to gain from the improved bus service that congestion charging would fund.

Question from Cambridge Past, Present and Future

A pre-prepared statement was read out by a representative from Cambridge Past, Present and Future:

“We all agree that to improve access and reduce congestion we need a modal shift from cars to public transport. We also all agree that such a modal shift cannot emerge unless we can provide a high quality public transport service that is sufficiently attractive to get drivers out of their cars. So, how is this high quality service going to emerge?

The City Deal can provide the tarmac on which the buses will run, but it cannot subsidise or underpin the operation of a quality public transport system. The only realistic option for substantial additional funding is the income derived from some of fiscal demand management which can be reinvested into creating an improved public transport system.

Most people agree that demand management must form part of the congestion package, with options for both physical measures- such as road closures and parking restrictions, but also for fiscal measures, such as workplace parking levies and congestion charging. The problem is that the City Deal is seeking to select from a basket of measures that include options based upon inadequate analysis and evidence demonstrating their likelihood of success. Do we know what effect a workplace parking levy will have on future inward investment? Do we know if the business community in the area would support this? Do we know what the level of transport investment a congestion charge might generate? Do we know what the effect on car use will be of progressively removing the existing 40,000 on street parking spaces?

We simply do not have the quantitative information on which to base a rational decision on at this time. Yet, the decision (whatever combination of measures is eventually adopted) will have a profound impact on the future prosperity of Cambridge. We are dealing with very high, indeed the highest, stakes of all and yet the decision on how to proceed is being based largely on supposition, subjective opinions and preconceived thinking, which we believe is irresponsible and inappropriate for the significance of the proposal.

The Assembly, last week, recognised that a decision of such magnitude must be informed through an even-handed comprehensive comparison of existing information and evidence of all of the options- including both physical and fiscal demand measures.”

Question from Lynn Hieatt

Edward Leigh read out the pre-submitted question on behalf of Lynne Hieatt:

“In three 'zones' surveyed, 3,612 non-residents' cars parked on residential streets in the morning. That's higher than the capacity of our 5 multi-storey carparks and parked at Park/Rides.42,149 vehicles come in between 7am-10am[4] – commuter parkers = 8.5% of all morning traffic. Add in areas not surveyed, and that's 10%. CJAC policy for parking controls is a start. The City Deal could propose alternatives for commuters:

· Increased P/R capacity

· Improved bus frequency, directness, start/end times

· Deter residents from filling de-congested streets

· Employers could create 'travel-to-work' plans.

· Rail commuters should be able to use Cambridge Leisure carpark for the same price as at the station.

A 'carrots & sticks' package could be developed – and it could work. Will the City Deal Board seize this opportunity for a joined-up plan to tackle congestion and the problems commuters face?”

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

· The City Access plan was a balanced 8 point plan that was designed to be joined up and which included travel planning, demand management and bus improvements. All elements of the plan needed to be progressed in parallel. The City Deal transport programme included investment in several new Park and Rides.

· If there was a significant number of areas in favour of residents parking, the existing policy enabled consultation on residents’ parking zones and the proposed new policy would simplify the process.

· It was acknowledged that if there were going to be residents parking zones, that complementary mitigating measures needed to be in place.

Question from Robin Heydon

Robin Heydon read out his pre-submitted question:

“With regard to Agenda item 7, paragraph 3.b.v, we believe that the Greater Cambridge City Deal is missing a long term vision of the pedestrian and cycling infrastructure that it will need to accommodate the modal shift expected. As shown with the proposed City Deal Design Guide there is a significant lack of ambition for the high quality of infrastructure needed to enable the modal shift required. Our estimates have determined that the number of people cycling will double within the city and the surrounding area by 2031. This vision would provide the Greater Cambridge City Deal Board with a strategic view of what is needed to accommodate this increase in cycling and walking traffic so that the city doesn't grind to a complete stop and help validate the cycling provision delivery plan.

We would like to offer to work in partnership with the members of the City Deal, the County Council officers, and other stakeholders and partners to create this long term walking and cycling vision, and help create the delivery plan that could over the next 15 years provide infrastructure that caters for people walking and cycling of all ages and abilities. Is this possible?”

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

· Reference was made to recommendation (b)(v) in the report. The recommendation included measures that contributed to the long term vision of the pedestrian and cycling infrastructure that would be needed to accommodate the modal shift expected.

· The City Access Team would be working with the County Council Cycling Projects Delivery Team that was delivering on the elements proposed in Policy TSCSC 12 of the Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Transport Strategy. The schemes being delivered accorded with this policy. It was anticipated that this discussion would lead to workshops including officers, members and stakeholder groups to seek views on the issues and interventions needed. A specific strand of this work could be a working party to investigate cycle parking and in particular a new large covered cycle park.

· The City Deal had to date approved investment of £17 million in cycling.

· The City Deal welcomed the offer of partnership working and the Chairman confirmed he would follow this up with Robin Heydon directly.

Following the public questions, the recommendations were discussed and debated. The following points were made:

· Support was expressed for the recommendations as amended by the Joint Assembly.

· It was clarified that a delivery plan was a way of packaging up a work plan for each of the elements listed at recommendation (d). Lead and support roles would be assigned to each plan.

· Support was expressed by Executive Board members for the removal of the parking charge at park and ride sites. Councillor Bates informed the Executive Board that he was actively looking at the £1 parking charge to be taken off the park and ride. This was welcomed by Executive Board members.

Congestion charging:

· Executive Board members did not believe that congestion charging was the right solution. It was felt that congestion charging would not be fair, particularly to those outside Cambridge without alternatives and people on lower incomes.

Peak time congestion control points:

· The concept of six peak-time congestion control points to restrict all vehicles except buses and bicycles raised significant concerns, although there was some support for it in consultation. The Board agreed that this should not be proceeded with.

On street parking controls:

· The Cambridge Joint Area Committee (CJAC) had recommended changes to parking policy in Cambridge. Whilst this was supported by Executive Board members, the potential issue of the dispersal of vehicles was recognised.

· Executive Board members agreed with the Joint Assembly’s recommendation that complementary mitigating measures needed to be in place before on- street parking control measures were implemented. The likely impact of on- street parking controls needed to be known in order to better understand the potential mitigation required.

· It was felt that city residents should not be prevented from parking outside their homes.

· Regarding figure 2.1 of the Mott MacDonald Cambridge on-street residential parking study, a plea was made for officers to think about implementing a dedicated bus stop for students attending sixth form college in Area 4 on the map.

· Support was expressed for the parking proposals which had been considered by the Cambridge Joint Area Committee on 24^th January 2017.

· A vision for better bus services was supported, however it was not felt that a revenue generating blanket congestion charge was the way to achieve this.

· Executive Board members did not support a city wide residents parking zone.

· It was advised that residential parking zones needed to follow similar policies.

Smart technology:

· Support was expressed for the Joint Assembly’s recommendation that greater emphasis should be put on smart technology.

· The Executive Board was informed that a smart technology proposal was likely to be presented to the Executive Board in March 2017 as part of the 2017/18 budget proposals.

Better bus services:

· It was highlighted that there were a considerable number of traffic lights in areas around Cambridge, which it was felt caused congestion. Officers were urged to look at this.

Workplace parking levy:

· A timeline for this was requested. In response to this, the Executive Board was informed that a two to four year programme was estimated. The Board was informed that it had taken 11 years to implement the scheme in Nottingham.

· The Executive Board was informed that consultancy support would help to develop options, which would come back to the Executive Board, potentially in July 2017, before going out to public consultation. The Vice Chairman requested this be added to the Forward Plan for the July 2017 meeting.

· Reference was made to the Mott MacDonald non-residential parking study and the following points were made:

o Officers were urged to think of how this compared to Nottingham and to take account of and adapt to local circumstances.

o It was felt that the number of parking spaces in the health sector may be skewed by the number of spaces at Addenbrooke’s hospital.

· It was clarified that the workplace parking levy would only apply to those who were working and therefore those attending places of worship, school and hotel guests for example, would not be affected.

· Support was expressed for making the park and rides free. It was felt that this was a potential attraction of the workplace parking levy, if a deal could be done with the County Council to make park and rides free.

Air quality:

· Officers were asked to carry out further assessments and to undertake work on clean air zones.

· Support was expressed for issues of air pollution and air quality to be investigated and it was advised that Public Health be engaged with on these issues. Assurance was sought that this would happen.

· Executive Board members asked for examples of other places with clean air zones. In response to this the Executive Board was informed that to date only London had a clean air zone, however five cities were being put forward as pilots and had been asked by the Government to look at a clean air charge. An air quality action plan steering group was undertaking work and a feasibility study was being developed.

· It was pointed out that air pollution was a sign of queueing vehicles as well as the types of vehicles in the city.

· In the vision for tackling air pollution, the residents who were breathing polluted air needed to be focussed on.

· Given the importance of transport in tackling air quality and that air quality was a key theme emerging form the consultation, including when caused by congestion, Executive Board members agreed that an Air Quality Management Zone including the potential for fiscal intervention through pollution charging should be investigated.

The Joint Assembly’s recommendations were discussed:

· Recommendation (a)(ii) – the Executive Board agreed with the addition to this recommendation regarding the assessment of existing data and evidence.

· Recommendation (a)(iii) – the Executive Board noted the reason for the addition of the word ‘physical’ to this recommendation, which was due to syntax with the insertion of the additional recommendation (a)(ii).

· Recommendation (b)(ii) – following discussion, the Executive Board noted the Cambridge Joint Area Committee’s recommendation of changes to parking policy on 24^th January 2017, and requested that officers bring forward a report on complementary measures to be implemented at the same time as changes to on-street parking controls.

The City Deal Executive Board unanimously: