Agenda item

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly considered the report which presented a feasibility report on the development of Rural Travel Hubs in South Cambridgeshire and sought approval to proceed to phase two of the project. This would involve the preparation of full business cases for the proposed pilot sites of Oakington, Whittlesford and Sawston, a detailed analysis of planning considerations, refined costings of construction and an outline of the evaluation of methods to review the success of the pilots.

In considering the report, Joint Assembly members expressed differing views with some members feeling that the case had not been made for Rural Travel Hubs while others were supportive and felt that these could provide a significant contribution towards modal shift. The District and County Councillors for two of the potential pilot sites, Oakington and Sawston, expressed their support for these.

The Chairman invited Councillors Philippa Hart and Janet Lockwood to ask their questions which related to this item and had been submitted in line with the provisions of Standing Orders. Details of the questions and a summary of the answers given are set out in Appendix A to the minutes.

The Joint Assembly considered the report which presented a feasibility report on the development of Rural Travel Hubs in South Cambridgeshire and sought approval to proceed to phase two of the project. This would involve the preparation of full business cases for the proposed pilot sites of Oakington, Whittlesford and Sawston, a detailed analysis of planning considerations, refined costings of construction and an outline of the evaluation of methods to review the success of the pilots.

In considering the report the Joint Assembly members expressed differing views:

·         Some members felt that the case had not been made for Rural Travel Hubs while others were supportive and felt that these could provide a significant contribution towards modal shift.

·         It was felt that public transport from Rural Travel Hubs had to be frequent and reliable and that reference to ‘relative frequency’ in the consultant report was not good enough.

·         It was suggested that some of the language in the report did not appear to suggest confidence in the proposal.  Particular reference was made to the final paragraph of the Skanska feasibility study report at Appendix 1 which indicated that due to the relatively high costs, it might be prudent for the construction at the pilot sites to initially be more temporary in nature. In that context, reservations were expressed about whether it was wise to invest significant funding in sites if they were only temporary.

·         Referring to the travel hub at Swavesey, it was commented that this was not a travel hub but was a bus stop with one bus every two hours and from which bicycles were stolen on a weekly basis.

·         Concern was raised about conflicting priorities between what parishes wanted in terms of doing something to benefit their local community, and what the Greater Cambridge Partnership wanted to achieve in terms of modal shift. There was concern regarding transparency and whether parishes fully understood the implications with regard to Rural Travel Hubs. It was suggested that parishes needed to be revisited and objectives needed to be aligned.

·         The Rural Travel Hub at Whittlesford was referred to, which some members thought was no more than an extension to the railway car park rather than a travel hub for Whittlesford village. Some members felt that travel hubs would be extended car parks for the nearby railway stations, which would not benefit the villages and would not deliver better and more sustainable public transport.

·         Some members expressed their support for Rural Travel Hubs and thought that these were steps towards making things better.

·         The local member for Sawston, who was also a resident of Sawston, informed the Joint Assembly that having a travel hub in Sawston would be a great improvement for the village, taking traffic off the A1301. The local member commented that Sawston was looking at this holistically and was supportive of the Rural Travel Hub. He felt that Rural Travel Hubs would take cars off the roads, thereby making roads and cycleways safer.

·         The local member for Oakington spoke in support of trying things out in a more temporary way regarding Rural Travel Hubs. As the local member for Oakington he informed Joint Assembly members that there had been extensive discussion with the wider local community as well as with the parish council, which was aware of the conflicting priorities. The local community was supportive of the Rural Travel Hub, which offered the chance for the Oakington bus service to service the Oakintgon busway stop. This would open up access to Cottenham, which was pushing for a cycleway in conjunction with Oakington. The Joint Assembly was informed that Oakington had opted for a modest amount of car parking, which was more than was needed to take cars off Station Road. If this was successful then the amount of parking could be extended.

In response to the concerns raised, the Interim Director of Transport informed members that:

·         This stage of the work was about concept and a full business case would be developed, worked up with Parish Councils and presented to the Joint Assembly for consideration at a future meeting.

·         In the case of Whittlesford, it was confirmed that a Transport Master Planning Exercise was to be undertaken which would look to incorporate any proposals in respect of potential Rural Travel Hub facilities.

·         In response to comments made regarding temporary work, this allowed for things to be tested and Joint Assembly members were informed that there was support for carrying out temporary work.

·         The GCP was trying to get groundswell back so that people used the services that were available to them.