Agenda item

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:

(a)  Welcome the findings of the Cambridgeshire Mass Transit Strategic Options Assessment.

(b)  Agree that the findings be commended to the Combined Authority with a view to developing a Strategic Outline Business Case.

(c)  Agree that the Greater Cambridge Partnership builds on the Mayor’s plans for the next stage of developing a CAM Metro network by ensuring GCP’s current and future plans for high quality public transport corridors are consistent and readily adaptable with the emerging proposition (subject to the future business case for CAM being agreed by the Combined Authority).

The Chairperson invited Roger Tomlinson to ask his question. Details of the question and a summary of the answer given are set out in Appendix A to the minutes.

Councillor Tim Bick, a member of the GCP Joint Assembly addressed the Executive Board under this item. He asked, in view of the Combined Authority’s adoption of a lead role in developing a Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro (CAM), how in practice the Board proposed to ensure an integrated approach to the development of this and other schemes? He believed that it was right that the CAM concept should be taken further but that it was important that CAM did not become “the only show in town” as it was unlikely that it would be able to deliver the solution for all transport needs in the area. He felt it was vital that local transport strategy did not become dominated by the CAM scheme and commented that Greater Cambridge needed a full integrated public transport system in which CAM was part of the solution, but that there was also a need for an upgraded bus service, a demand management scheme, encouragement for modal shift and a street environment that was conducive to the growth of safe cycling and walking. In his view, it had never been intended that the GCP would just be an infrastructure delivery vehicle, rather that it would develop an integrated system and bring together local interest groups and opinion formers in Greater Cambridge. He also felt that the GCP now had a professional officer team who were taking a more holistic approach to their work. Councillor Bick accordingly asked what approach the Board envisaged taking to ensure an integrated approach, given the role of the Mayor and the Combined Authority?

In response to the question, Executive Members made the following points:-

·         The comments about the professional team supporting the GCP were welcomed.

·         They agreed that whilst CAM would be an important element in addressing the transport needs in Greater Cambridge, it must not become “the only show in town” and referred to the wider programme of schemes the GCP was considering.

·         They emphasised the importance of all parties, along with the wider community in Greater Cambridge, working together collaboratively. 

·         They suggested that CAM presented an opportunity for a transformational change in the City Centre, but that a duality was needed from GCP so that it delivered whether or not CAM was achieved.

·         Whilst there might be technical issues to address, the biggest obstacle was likely to be funding.

·         It was important that the GCP continued to work on other projects and it would be necessary to link up rail, bus and other options with CAM; to consider measures to reduce the number of vehicles coming into the city; to improve air quality and look at urban design.

·         It will not be possible to operate a CAM scheme that needs a large long term subsidy.

·         Partnership working would be vital in the future. The GCP had a strong record in delivering schemes in the “zone 2” routes into the city and out into South Cambridgeshire and those were not being addressed with tunnelling options. The GCP therefore needed to hold a discussion with the Combined Authority on how CAM would link to those schemes and what role the GCP would play in this.

·         The Mayor has overall responsibility for transport strategy, but the Executive Board hoped that he would recognise the strengths of the GCP in delivering on the current programme and would address issues by collective decisions involving communities, business and the University.

·         All parts of the “jigsaw” need to fit together, including walking, cycling, residents’ parking, off street parking and rail.  CAM would only be one part of the “jigsaw”.

·         It was important that the GCP worked in partnership with the Combined Authority, the  City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils, Cambridgeshire County Council, communities, business, Highways England and Network Rail. Moreover there was a need for a common understanding of the objectives that all partners were trying to achieve. 

·         There was apparent general support for reviewing the opportunities presented by CAM and analysing its viability.  However there was also a need to look at behavioural change to manage the growth.  People wanting common good could work together, so the key was to get the main stakeholders together.

The GCP Interim Director of Transport presented the report which set out the key findings from the study and updated the Board on the next stage to develop a Strategic Outline Business Case for the CAM proposal.  The report also considered how the current schemes proposed by the GCP could transition to form part of the proposed CAM network.  In introducing the report, the Interim Director of Transport explained that, whilst the report recommended that the GCP commend the scheme to the Combined Authority, this should be against the background of the GCP continuing to deliver its current schemes with an eye to how those schemes could transition to connect with the CAM network.  He noted the advantage of CAM was that it could run on segregated or existing on-street infrastructure. Whilst the study concluded that CAM represented the best overall mass transport solution for the area, significant further work was required to develop the proposal and make a robust case for investment. Therefore the next stage would be to develop a Strategic Outline Business Case as indicated in paragraph 3.21 of the report.  However whilst CAM might form the backbone of the system, it should not mitigate against other schemes under consideration by GCP, rather it should be regarded as an integral part of an overall network of schemes.

In response to questions from members of the Executive Board, the GCP Interim Director of Transport:-

·         Confirmed his understanding that the Combined Authority was working on the development of a more tightly drawn brief and that he hoped that the GCP would be invited to comment upon that revised brief.

·         Concurred that it was important that the GCP was clear about the nature of the brief and advised that he was working closely with the Combined Authority to ensure that any schemes being developed by GCP had regard to the CAM proposals.

·         Confirmed that 2026 was the anticipated completion of the construction period, rather than the start. Other dates shown in the report were predicated on the current programmed schemes and therefore the work on the GCP schemes impacted on this timetable

The Executive Board discussed and debated the report and made the following points:-

·         There appeared to be an enthusiasm about the project and the step change it could achieve.  It seemed that the project was technically viable but the Strategic Outline Business Case needed to demonstrate that it was also commercially viable.

·         Paragraph 3.9 set out the benefits and risks of the proposal.  It was important that a further update on the proposal was presented to future Executive Board meetings indicating how the project could be developed jointly by all relevant partners.

·         The Vice-Chairperson highlighted four main issues:-

o   GCP already had a focus on “zone 2” routes going out west to Cambourne, south east towards Babraham and there was also consideration of improvements around the A10 where the GCP’s role was likely to be leading on non-road options, together with several other projects, including Histon Road and Milton Road. It was important to ensure the ability to deliver the linkages with CAM and tunnelling; and to focus on GCP’s existing programme and on future schemes, subject to consultation and further community input. GCP’s role was to deliver the surface network which would connect with the CAM tunnelling.

o   There was a need to look at interchanges on the edge of Cambridge, including continuing to investigate park and ride and other options to get people out of cars, and an overall strategy was needed.

o   With reference to the late publication of consultants’ report, there should be an opportunity for dialogue on some of the options, including community input.  GCP officers were requested to work with the Combined Authority and facilitate discussion as part of the scheme’s development as there had not yet been an opportunity for proper discussion on the proposals.  

o   The next phase of the programme needed to highlight the deliverability and fundability of the scheme. Whilst leadership of the core project was the responsibility of the Mayor, it was important that the brief specified the need for clear conclusions on the fundability of the project. Whilst it was laudable to have an ambitious timescale, this had to be predicated on the affordability of the project and the ability to raise funding.  

The Vice-Chairperson requested that these four points should be recorded as part of the GCP’s input into the brief and that it should be noted that the GCP was the potential deliverer of surface routes.  He further concluded that the GCP needed to work in partnership with the Mayor and Combined Authority, but noted that the GCP had already invested significantly in projects and that it was important that it continued to be the voice for Greater Cambridge.

·         The Chairperson welcomed the proposals in the report and supported the recommendations.  He suggested it would be regrettable if no further progress was made until the publication of the Strategic Outline Business Case and questioned whether it might be possible to progress any parallel processes, such as testing potential vehicles, in the interim.

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously:

(a)  To welcome the findings of the Cambridgeshire Mass Transit Strategic Options Assessment.

(b)  To commend the findings to the Combined Authority with a view to developing a Strategic Outline Business Case.

(c)  That the Greater Cambridge Partnership builds on the Mayor’s plans for the next stage of developing a CAM Metro network by ensuring GCP’s current and future plans for high quality public transport corridors are consistent and readily adaptable with the emerging proposition (subject to the future business case for CAM being agreed by the Combined Authority).