Agenda item

The Chairman welcomed consultants from Steer Davies Gleave who presented the Rapid Mass Transit Options Appraisal. The Joint Assembly members thanked the consultants for their work and were generally enthusiastic about the study's findings, which they welcomed. Views were expressed regarding the length of tunnelling and physical nature of the autonomous metro scheme, its accessibility for residents and there was some anxiety expressed regarding financial sustainability and sources of revenue for subsidies. The Joint Assembly members felt that there was a key role for the Greater Cambridge Partnership to be involved in the development and delivery of the elements of the network that were within the Greater Cambridge area.

The Chairman welcomed consultants from Steer Davies Gleave who presented the Rapid Mass Transit Options Appraisal. The Joint Assembly members thanked the consultants for their work and were generally enthusiastic about this and the study's findings, which were welcomed. The following comments and queries were expressed by the Joint Assembly members:

·          The reasons for the presentation not being made available to the public in advance of the Joint Assembly meeting were queried. It was felt that the detailed press releases issued by the Greater Cambridge Partnership the day before the meeting, had pre-empted discussions. In response to this the GCP Interim Chief Executive informed the Joint Assembly that the consultants’ report was still being finalised and would be presented to the Combined Authority on 31 January 2018. This report would be made available in the public domain a week before the meeting and would also be presented to the GCP Executive Board. The intention of this presentation was to give the Joint Assembly the opportunity to ask questions of the consultants before the final report was presented to the Combined Authority.

·         In response to a query regarding projected demand figures, the Joint Assembly was informed that a detailed demand study would be carried out. The initial assessment took account of double the level of Local Plan growth beyond 2031. The balance of demand and service provision would need to be worked out around each of the corridors.

·         In response to a comment regarding ambitious delivery timescales for assessment modelling, the Joint Assembly was informed that the timescale given was for the assessment period of the design work, which would build on initial work that had already been carried out.

·         Some members commented that this work had been commissioned and carried out well and were pleased to see progress, which it was thought residents would welcome.

·         The length of tunnelling for the autonomous metro was queried. In response to this the consultant clarified that the detailed design of where the tunnel would come in and out of the city, had not yet been carried out. The costings allowed for tunnelling of up to 6km. It was not envisaged that the entry/exit point of the tunnel would be in the city centre and suitable locations would need to be considered.

·         It was commented that proper scrutiny of the ongoing financial sustainability of the metro would be needed, to ensure it would be affordable for users.

·         It was observed that the map shown in the presentation left many residents a long way from being able to access the service.

·         The city centre stop illustrated on the map was queried. A Joint Assembly member commented that that there were two city centres in Cambridge, which were a distance apart and that it was important that the metro did not commercially disadvantage one part of the city over the other.

·         Concern was expressed regarding the potential effect of the autonomous metro on the economic viability of other public transport services. A coordinated approach would be needed which bore in mind these other services, so as not to remove their viability with the introduction of the metro. In response to these concerns, the consultant assured the Joint Assembly that the autonomous metro scheme would not be designed in isolation and would be part of an integrated network, designed to complement other transport schemes.

·         In response to a query, the Joint Assembly was informed that it was a realistic expectation that an autonomous metro service could coexist with other autonomous transport services and driven vehicles.

·         It was urged that the metro should not be developed at the expense of other road improvements that were needed.

·         It was pointed out that parking for those accessing the metro would need to be provided.

·         In response to anxiety expressed regarding financial sustainability of the scheme and potential sources of revenue to subsidise it in its early stages, the consultant clarified that the scheme would be commercially viable before its completion. The next stage of work would look at this in more depth.

·         The Joint Assembly members felt that there was a key role for the Greater Cambridge Partnership to be involved in the development and delivery of the elements of the network situated within greater Cambridge.