Agenda item

To consider the attached report.

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:

(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.

The Executive Board considered a report which provided an update on further assessment work carried out on the Cambourne to Cambridge Better Bus Journey Scheme and proposed an approach to the next stage of public consultation.

Councillor Bridget Smith, Vice Chairperson of the Local Liaison Forum (LLF) attended the meeting and presented feedback on the LLF’s views on the proposals.  Councillor Smith expressed concern about the time available for the LLF to comment on the proposals and stressed that expecting 49 reports to be reviewed in a week was unreasonable and compromised good decision-making.  She asked that in future reports were issued as they were received.  She commented that LLF members were disappointed to hear that they were being viewed negatively by the GCP following suggestions that they were trying to block progress.  Councillor Smith emphasised that the LLF, as much as anyone, wanted residents to be able to get to work and leisure cheaply, quickly and reliably.  The LLF was keen to ensure that the proposals took account of the best decisions possible, based on all relevant information.  Given the proximity of major new information, specifically the mass transit assessment sponsored by the GCP and the Combined Authority, it was sensible to consider waiting for that information, rather than pressing on to spend taxpayers’ money on detailed evaluation of options that may conflict with that.  The LLF would also welcome a distinction being made between cheaper short term and more expensive long term solutions, which would acknowledge the urgency of some interventions, but allow for the later incorporation of these other schemes.  Characterising this negatively as some kind of head in the sand or “go away” attitude, was unfair.

On a more positive note, Councillor Smith reported that the LLF welcomed the decision to drop Crome Lea as a potential park and ride site, but failed to see why the Waterworks site, only 400m away, was materially less damaging and undesirable, given that it was still located after the start of congestion; could still be seen as a blot on the landscape from many miles around; and was still not directly accessible from the A428 in either direction.  She welcomed the amendments proposed by the Joint Assembly, which supported a number of the resolutions of the LLF.

Councillor Smith drew the Executive Board’s attention to three other areas of concern, which are summarised below:

·         There was an anomaly in the figures presented for baseline, off peak journey times.  The LLF asked how it was possible that an optimised on-road service, using the uncongested A428 dual carriageway and segregated online bus priority measures to within half a mile of Grange Road, could be so much slower that the current Citi 4 service operating without bus priority measures?  Although the peak hours journey time was more important, the off-peak time was an essential baseline; and if that was grossly inaccurate, it called into question the underlying assumptions.

·         The LLF shared concerns expressed at the Joint Assembly regarding the issue of onward travel from Grange Road.  It was considered critical that concrete information about onward journeys to the City centre, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and the Science Park, including credible journey times, was provided in the consultation documentation so that people could provide informed feedback.

·         The LLF remained concerned about potential environmental impact and the risk that a busway through the Green Belt would create a barrier to wildlife and block existing wildlife corridors.  It asked that the assessment was not too narrow and took account of the wider impact; drawing in as much independent expertise as possible.

In conclusion, Councillor Smith asked that the Executive Board arrange for the LLF to be included in the design and approval of the questions to be asked of the public in the next round of consultation.  She suggested that this would head off any criticism afterwards about the impartiality, fairness and balance of the consultation process.

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.  Eight questions had been submitted.  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 answers given are set out in Appendix A to the minutes.

The Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environmental Services in introducing the paper drew attention to the purpose of the report and stressed that the Executive Board was not being asked to approve any particular scheme at this stage.  The report being considered presented a range of options and recommendations on how a combination of those options could be put together. 

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 onsite 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 park and ride study which had looked 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 Executive Board 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 take place 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 impacted on the phase 2 element of the scheme, including the proposed alignment of the phase 1 scheme.

The Joint Assembly had supported the proposal but had suggested amendments to recommendation (a), which had been agreed unanimously and are shown in italics below:

(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 ……

The Executive Board was invited to consider and comment on the recommendations, taking into account feedback from the Joint Assembly, comments from the LLF, questions from the public and officer responses.  The response to questions of clarification and the main points of discussion are summarised below:

·      In response to a question from Councillor Lewis Herbert about the route options to the east of the M11, it was clarified that ultimately all of the options being considered had the potential to link into a suitable interchange at West Cambridge.  Discussions were taking place about where that could be but this would be influenced by where the busses needed to ultimately go and a number of practical factors such as the need for suitable crossing points for an off road solution.  Councillor Herbert asked when it came to consulting and comparing the on road options as well as the combination that might be possible between on road and off road, were officers considering the possibility of off road coming on road for a section of the journey and then rejoining off road.  In response, it was confirmed that this could be considered as a result of the outcome of the consultation and evaluated appropriately.

·    Councillor Bates asked for further clarification of MCAF and its links to WebTAG recommendations from the Department of Transport.  It was confirmed that MCAF was a particular tool developed by a consultant and was not in itself a tool taken from WebTAG.  However, WebTAG set out a number of possible approaches and MCAF was one of those.

·    In response to question from the Chairperson it was confirmed that the Waterworks site had been included in the proposed shortlist on the basis of an assessment against the objective scoring criteria.  Referring to the table at the top of page 41, the Chairperson asked on what basis the journey times, including the base line off peak numbers, had been calculated.  In response, it was confirmed that the numbers were projections based on 2031 figures, reflecting local planned development scenarios.  The way that this was currently modelled was at a conceptual stage using a combination of assessments.  The overall journey time calculations had been discussed with the LLF and officers had explained what assumptions had been made about how busses operated under different road conditions.  These figures had been tested for accuracy. 

·      The Chairperson noted officer comments about the possibility of mixing and matching some of the proposed route alignments where this was considered appropriate.  He asked that the consultation make it extremely clear that this was an option.  In response to a further question about tunnels, it was clarified that the aim was to secure routes that were future proofed but as proposed at the moment there were no specific plans for tunnels, although this could be incorporated into some of the proposed routes at some point in the future.

·      With reference to the telephone survey of over 1,000 users of the potential scheme, it was noted that the research had been commissioned by the County Council’s Research Team and had involved a sample drawn from places connected to the proposed corridor, specifically residents from Cambourne, Hardwick, St Neots, Caldecote, Dry Drayton, Highfields, Coton, and Madingley.

·      In response to a question from the Chairperson, the Public Transport Projects Team Leader confirmed that he was happy to meet with the LLF Technical Group as requested by the LLF Vice Chairperson.  Responding to a further question from Councillor Ian Bates, it was confirmed that officers would engage with the Environment Agency and seek specialist advice on the emerging proposals. 

·      Councillor Lewis Herbert commenting on the need to seek the public’s views on the proposals.  He emphasised the importance of making evidence based decisions and confirmed he remained open minded about the way forward.  Referring to the options east and west of the M11, he felt there was a need to look at the on road option and was particularly interested in views expressed about Madingley Road.  He was supportive of seeking views on a mix and match approach as part of the consultation.  With reference to the potential park and ride sites, he supported the proposed shortlist, but highlighted the need for the consultation to address many of the questions raised by the public.  With reference to the Local Plan, Councilor Herbert highlighted the need to progress plans to enhance the transport network to support planned development. 

·      Councillor Ian Bates commented that he had studied the potential routes very carefully.  There was a clear need to improve transport links given the level of planned growth in the Cambridge area and beyond.  It was crucial that beyond Grange Road, busses went to where the employment was and there was already a considerable amount of data available to inform this.  He welcomed the planned consultation and looked forward to hearing what the public had to say, alongside further input from the LLF Technical Group.  He was also interested in the Environment Agency’s comments on a number of environmental issues raised. 

·      Mark Reeve supported the recommendations and emphasised the need to establish a level of certainty so that local businesses could plan accordingly.

·      The Chairperson confirmed that he was supportive of moving to the next stage in the process.  He referred to a recent district council meeting with Parish Councils to discuss rural transport hubs, where there had been a unanimous call for improved public transport provision in the area. 

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:

(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 set out in the report.