The Joint Assembly considered a report to
be presented to the next Executive Board meeting, which provided an
update on further assessment work carried out on the proposed
Cambourne to Cambridge Better Bus Journey Scheme and proposed an
approach to the next stage of public consultation.
Helen Bradbury, Chairperson of the Local
Liaison Forum (LLF) attended the meeting and presented feedback on
the Forum’s views on the proposals. As part of her presentation, Ms Bradbury
summarised the following recommendations that were agreed at the
LLF meeting on 11th September 2017:
- The LLF welcomed the removal of Crome Lea
as a potential site for a new park and ride, but was concerned that
another site on Madingley Hill had been included in the
shortlist. The LLF did not consider
Madingley Hill as a suitable location because of poor
accessibility, poor connectivity, the unacceptably high
environmental damage caused by a site there and the fact that it
was located after congestion began, so would worsen, not alleviate
local traffic problems. The LLT
therefore recommended that all options for a perk and ride site on
Madingley Hill in the vicinity of the Madingley Mulch roundabout be
dropped.
- The LLF rejected claims made at the
Executive Board meeting on 26th July 2017 that it was
seeking to block all work. It was
concerned that projects were being set up in a sequence that was
not cumulative and which could be contradictory and could result in
excessive sums of money being allocated to schemes that may have a
short operative duration. The LLF
proposed that the Executive Board should differentiate at the time
of its approval between short term and long term
measures.
- The LLF did not consider that option 6
had been fairly presented in the documentation to date and asked
that before the next public consultation the GCP instruct officers
to work with the LLF to develop option 6 so that the best on-road
alternative was presented to the public.
- The LLF did not agree with the scoring of
the Enhanced Multi Criteria Assessment Framework (MCAF) which it
regarded as illogical and biased in favour of option
3a. It asked the GCP to instruct
officers to work with the LLF Technical Group over the next six
months to prepare the final business case documentation for the
three options under consideration and to conduct the next public
consultation.
- The LLF sought urgent clarification of
the logic of choosing Grange Road on the western edge of the City
as an end point for the proposed bus route and a detailed
explanation of how busses will journey between the key city
centre locations of Bridge Street and Drummer Street bus
station.
- The LLF remained concerned that the
environmental impact of a park and ride site on Madingley Hill and
the off-line 3a busway were being significantly underplayed in the
documentation and asked that these assessments were
re-analysed, with the possible future impacts of future
proofing considered.
- The LLF asked that the timing of the
consultation and associated documentation should be thought about
very carefully. It believed that
consultation should only be undertaken until key prices of
evidence/data were available, namely the outcome of the rapid mass
transit option appraisal; a full development of the alternative
community proposal (option 6); and a full analysis and description
of the proposed route of the bus between Grange Road and the City
Centre. It was also suggested that the
LLF be included in the content and design of questions to be asked
in the next round of consultations.
At this stage in the proceedings the
Chairperson invited members of the public to ask questions relating
to this item, which had been submitted in line with the provisions
of Standing Orders. He explained that a
response to the questions would be covered in the officer
presentation on the report. Details of
the questions and a summary of the answer given are set out in
Appendix A to the minutes.
The Executive Director of Economy,
Transport and Environmental Services in introducing the report drew
attention to the purpose of the report and stressed that the
Executive was not being asked to approve the of any particular scheme. This scheme had been one of the first schemes
proposed as part of the then City Deal process and had undergone a
significant amount of development over the past couple of
years. While the Executive Director
noted comments about engagement made by the LLF, he highlighted
that there had been extensive engagement throughout the process as
plans had been developed. He also drew
attention to recent surveys of existing Busway users and potential
users of the scheme along the A428 corridor.
It was noted that further analysis of the
proposed routes, using an extended version of the MCAF presented to
the Joint Assembly and Executive Board in July 2017, suggested that
although Option 1 [a sectional on road east bound bus lane running
from Madingley Mulch to Lady Margaret Road within the existing
highway] continued to perform well as a lower cost on road
comparator, the potential to achieve 2-way bus priority along the
existing highway via option 6 [a tidal, bi-directional bus lane
running from Madingley Mulch to High Cross] should also be
considered. It was therefore proposed
that options 1 and 6 should be taken forward for further public
consultation along with a number of specific route alignments
(SRAs) identified as part of option 3a.
These SRAs did not represent final detailed specific fixed design
proposals, as that would only be appropriate as part of the next
stage of work and would require significant additional on site
surveys. The proposals which would form
the basis of the public consultation were set out in appendix 4 to
the report.
The Executive Director explained the key
conclusions from the stage 2 parks and ride study which had liked
in detail at the five sites shortlisted by the Executive Board at
its July meeting. This had concluded
that the two sites that merited further consideration were Scotland
Farm and The Waterworks.
With reference to the proposed
consultation process, the Joint Assembly noted that subject to
further development of the full outline business case, a two stage
public consultation strategy was proposed. This would involve an initial stage, programmed
for November 2017, focused on phase one of the scheme; from
Madingley Mulch to Long
Road. This was the section of the route
with the most significant known strategic issues, given current and
projected levels of congestion. It was
proposed that more analysis of the full outline business case for
the entire corridor and that subject to this analysis a further
round of public consultation on alignments west of Long Road take
place in the autumn of 2018. This would
be more fully informed by emerging strategic considerations which
impact the phase 2 element of the scheme, including the proposed
alignment of the phase 1 scheme.
The Joint Assembly was invited to
consider and comment on the recommendations to be presented to the
Executive Board. The main points of
discussion are summarised below:
- Councillor Grenville Chamberlain was of the view that modal shift
would only be achieved if public transport was rapid, reliable and
served destinations that people wished to go to. He was concerned that the site at Madingley Hill
did not have direct access to the A428 and consequently any
vehicles wishing to go from there towards the north or east of
Cambridge would have to go via the City Centre. He commented that the Madingley Hill site was not
suitable, as delays along Madingley Road into Cambridge meant
people would have little incentive to use park and
ride. He also suggested that the suite
was not future proofed as it was not compatible with the aim of
creating a travel corridor of rapid transport around
Cambridge. Councillor Chamberlain
believed that the GCP should look to provide access to a park and
ride site which people could drive to easily. He suggested that if people were taken off the
road further back at Scotland Farm there was a much greater chance
of people using the park and ride.
- Councillor Bridget Smith expressed
concern about the quality of the paper, which she felt was paper
was poorly written and contained illegible maps. She commented on the 49 separate background
reports which had been issued to the LLF a week before its
meeting. It was unacceptable to expect
the LLF to deal with that amount of reading in such a short
timescale. With reference to the
proposals, Councillor Smith was concerned that having concluded
that the Crome Lea was unsuitable, she found it hard to understand
why the Waterworks Site was being recommended. This site was only two fields away from Crome Lea
and in her opinion was equally unsuitable. In response the Executive Director confirmed that
the Waterworks Site had been included on the basis of the outcome
of a technical sifting process based on its assessment against the
agreed criteria.
- Councillor Smith also commented on the
importance of journey times and asked for clarification of what was
defined as the City Centre. She pointed
out that there was a significant difference between busses dropping
passengers at Silver Street or John Lewis. She also reported that in response to a question
at the LLF Atkins had confirmed that there were no engineering
reasons why option 6 could not be developed in its entirety and
asked officers to comment on this. In
response the Executive Director stated that at this stage we were
dealing with the infrastructure but it was vitally important as
this process progressed that it was clear about what happened east
of Grange Road. A considerable amount
of work was going on as part of the City Centre Assess Study to
look at bus movements generally and that would play a big part in
informing that process. No doubt it
would identify that there were specific infrastructure measures
required to make this work but that will come from further
work. He accepted the need for options
to be joined up but work was not yet at that stage. However he imagined it would be necessary for
busses to turn left and right at Grange Road but it would be
essential to demonstrate that it was possible for them to do
that. With reference to the comment
made by Atkins, the Executive Director confirmed that this was
correct but pointed out that there was a difference in what could
be engineered; because in reality you could engineer most things,
and what the impact of the engineering would have.
- Councillor John Williams sought
clarification of the estimated journey times set out in paragraph
19 of the report. He also asked why
journey frequency had not been included in the transport criteria
used to assess the shortlisted options.
In doing so he highlighted the importance of service frequency and
suggested that the he was not convinced that the proposals would
result in a frequent bus service that was sufficient to persuade
people to leave their cars. The
Executive Director confirmed that the tables set out in paragraph
19 provided a comparison of the estimated journey
times. The Scotland Farm journey times
were slightly longer as there was a greater diversion to the
site. With reference to frequency he
agreed that service frequency was key but it was difficult to
incorporate this into the assessment process as it depended on the
actual services that the bus companies ultimately agreed to
run. From a purely objective point of
view it was easier to model how long a particular vehicle would
take to get from A to B. However, if
the right route was selected and it generated sufficient passenger
numbers then a high frequency service would be
forthcoming.
- Councillor Williams drew attention
paragraph 13 of the Western Orbital report which referred to a
potential site for a new park and ride interchange hub. He was disappointed that the report looked at the
A428 proposals in isolation and did not take account of the needs
of people travelling to the Biomedical Campus and the Science Park
as well as those travelling into the City Centre. He suggested that the options being considered
would do little to help those people travelling to work outside the
City Centre and stressed the need for a high frequency orbital
service which interchanged with one of the busway options from
Camborne to Cambridge. In response the
Executive Director explained that while it was not possible to
provide an everywhere to anywhere service, there would be key route
connections to be made. Where demand
existed he was confident that bus operators would link those
routes.
- Andy Williams recognised this was an
important transport corridor and drew attention to figures
confirming that around 10% of those travelling to the Biomedical
Campus used the A428 corridor, a figure that would grow as planned
development around the City progressed.
This confirmed the need for another park and ride site as soon as
possible. He supported Councillor
Williams’ comments about the need for this to link to key
work sites and in the longer term ensure links with the western
orbital route and the M11. In response
the Executive Director explained that at this point in time there
were only potential alignments, not clear routes but agreed it was
essential to consider possible links.
Connecting thousands of people with thousands of jobs was the
rationale behind the whole scheme and this would need to be made
clear in subsequent iterations of these proposals.
- Andy Williams also stressed the need for
a reliable service and commented that the report did not include a
definition of reliability, which had formed part of other schemes
such as Milton Road. Mr Williams
suggested that it was important to be clear about this in the
consultation. He also commented that
not everyone would be familiar with what was meant by reference to
Cambourne to Grange Road and suggested that people were more likely
to engage in the consultation if it referred to journey times to
places they wanted to travel to, such as John Lewis or
Addenbrookes.
- Claire Ruskin commented that it was
evident from the questions being asked that a compelling case for
change was not being made, with the exception of those people who
had to sit in the traffic jams each day. It was clear that there was huge congestion on
this road and staff had to travel to work extremely early to get to
their desk at a sensible time. Ms
Ruskin commented that it was clear that something needed to be done
in the short term until such time as more radical solutions, such
as tunneling, could be developed. She
agreed that it was desirable to provide a big park and ride site
further out as soon as possible, using busses to bring people in
from rural villages and taking them to the placed they needed to
get to. It was important to base a case on data which evidenced the
need for change and clarify the level of improvement it was
expected to achieve as a result of the proposed options and this
should be made clear as part of the planned
consultation.
- Councillor Tim Bick asked for
clarification of the impact of the option 1 proposals on existing
and future provision for cyclists and pedestrians along Madingley
Road. In response the Executive
Director confirmed that bearing in mind the current narrowness of
Madingley Road there would be an impact on existing
provision. It would be possible to
engineer an option that maintained or enhanced existing provision
but this would come at a price and an impact on the
scheme.
- Councillor Bick confirmed that he
accepted the underlying strategic case for a fast and efficient
transport corridor to the west of Cambridge and highlighted the
importance of acknowledging that strategic need. There were there large numbers of people living
there and working in Cambridge now and there would in future be
vastly more given planned developments.
He confirmed that at this point in time he regarded an off road
solution as the one to beat; using buses, based on the existing
Busway, or one of the other methods of transport being considered
as part of the wider strategic study.
With reference to the proposed park and ride sites, Councillor Bick
welcomed removal of Crome Lea from the shortlist and pointed out
that the suitability of the remaining sites would be tested through
the consultation process. He also
welcomed the fact that there was a clear aim to minimise the
impact of the proposals on West Fields.
Councillor Bick echoed comment made by others about the importance
of integrating this proposal with other schemes, in particular
plans to split travelers to the north and the south as they crossed
the M11. He accepted that it was not practical to bring all related
schemes to the table in the same state of preparedness. However, he explained that before he was willing
to support the A428 proposals as absolutely the right thing to do,
he would need to see at least how a fully integrated scheme
including connections to the north and the south was going to be
achieved. With reference to the public
consultation exercise, Councillor Bick commented that he was
genuinely interested in hearing people’s views on the
proposed options and welcomed the possibility of having his
preconceptions challenged. He hoped
that others shared this view; otherwise there was no point in
having any form of consultation.
- In response to a question from Councillor
Noel Kavanagh, the Executive Director confirmed that the timescale
for securing the statutory approvals needed could take between 12
and 36 months. He explained that the
reason for the wide range related to the fact that the exact
process would depend on the nature of the final
proposals. A straightforward planning
application would take significantly less time than a Transport
Works Act Order.
- Helen Valentine referred to the results
of the telephone survey set out in paragraph 27 of the report which
expressed support for the notion of doing something along this
corridor and contrasted this with the reservations being expressed
by the LLF. She asked if those surveyed
were people living further out who would not be as directly
impacted as those living in the vicinity of the
development. In response it was noted
that the survey sample had been drawn from residents who lived
along the A428 corridor, specifically Cambourne, Hardwick,
Highfields, Caldecote, St Neots Coton, Dry Drayton and
Madingley.
The Joint Assembly considered the officer
recommendations being presented to the Executive Board, taking into
account comments from the LLF and public questions.
Councillor Bridget Smith proposed the following amendment
which was duly seconded by Councillor Grenville
Chamberlain:
Add to recommendation 2a:
‘subject to:
- Further work with the LLF to produce an
optimal on road solution;
- Detail regarding routes and journeys to
the key employment sites; and
- Further detail on the connection to the
M11’.
Responding to the proposed amendment, the Interim
Chief Executive explained that there was now time available to
prepare consultation materials and, subject to the Board approving
the recommendations, this would take account of the
Assembly’s comments on being really clear about what this
scheme would bring in terms of links to the employment sites and
links to other routes. With reference
to further work with the LLF she confirmed that there was a
continued commitment to work with the LLF but was concerned that
this very precise wording could impact on the consultation
timetable.
Councillor Smith thanked the Interim Chief
Executive for her comments and in response agreed to amend the
wording to read as follows:
Add to the end of recommendation
2a:
‘subject to a further meeting with
the LLF Technical Group to further refine option 6 and the
consultation including further detail on the connectivity to key
employment sites and on the connection to the M11; subject to work
with Highways England’.
The amendment in its revised form was
seconded by Councillor Grenville Chamberlain and on being put to
the vote was agreed unanimously.
The
Joint Assembly agreed unanimously to RECOMMEND that
the Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive Board:
(a)
Agree, based on the considerations in the report, to
undertake further public consultation on the Park and Ride options
and route alignments identified in Appendix 4 for the Cambourne to
Cambridge Better Bus Journey scheme as part of the ongoing
development of the Full Outline Business Case, subject
to a further meeting with the LLF Technical Group to further refine
option 6; and the consultation including further detail on the
connectivity to key employment sites and on the connection to the
M11 subject to work with Highways England; and
(b)
Agree the timetable in the report.
Changes to the officer recommendations are shown in
italic text.