Agenda item

The Joint Assembly considered the report which set out the preliminary concept design for Histon Road. There was broad support for the proposals in the paper and

Assembly members were pleased to note the intention to provide as much priority as possible for pedestrians and cyclists.  However Joint Assembly members felt that the Assembly should have had the benefit of the input from the Local Liaison Forum

( LLF), noting that the report was not due to be considered by the LLF until the following week.  Whilst acknowledging that the scheduling had been agreed in consultation with the LLF Chair, the Joint  Assembly asked that consideration should be given to scheduling LLFs in advance of the Joint Assembly to enable it to hear the views of LLFs.

 Joint Assembly members generally welcomed the expectation that the bus lane would improve future inbound bus journey times by up to 2.5 minutes in peak times, enhancing reliability of service, although a challenge was made as to whether that level of time reduction merited the extent of investment.  Concerns around the impact on businesses, together with the interaction between deliveries and cycle lanes were noted and acknowledged by the Joint Assembly.

Overall, the Joint Assembly indicated a guarded welcome for the proposals presented.

The Chairperson invited Lillian Rundblad, Chair of the Histon Road Residents’ Association and Deputy Chair of the Local Liaison Forum (LLF) to ask the two questions in her name and three questions on behalf of other residents.  He then invited Matthew Danish of Camcycle and Michael Page to ask their questions.  A further question had been received from the Windsor Road Residents’ Association and, as the questioners were not present, the Chairperson noted that a written response would be sent.  Details of all questions and a summary of the answers given, are set out in Appendix A to these minutes.

The GCP Director of Transport presented the report which set out the preliminary concept design for Histon Road.  The design met the original objectives of the scheme and also took into account the considerable public engagement that had taken place since the consultation on the previous options. Approval was sought to consult on the proposed design in the spring of 2018 and, following analysis of the consultation, it was proposed to bring the final preliminary design back for consideration by the Joint Assembly and Executive Board in late 2018.  The Director of Transport drew attention to on-going dialogue with the LLF and noted that further engagement would take place in order that feedback could be provided to the GCP Executive Board on 21 March 2018.

During discussion on the report:-

·         Helen Valentine noted that the costs of the project appeared to have escalated significantly.  In response, the Director of Transport acknowledged that whilst the original estimate had been too low, the revised cost estimate also reflected the new scheme priorities.

·         Councillor Noel Kavanagh asked what measures would be taken to restrict deliveries, given that delivery vehicles prevented the free flow of traffic.  He also echoed the point raised by one of the questioners around the need for pedestrians to have priority at side roads.  The Director of Transport responded that delivery restrictions would need to be controlled by properly enforced traffic regulation orders.  Additionally, he reported that the intention remained to provide pedestrian priority at side roads where visibility and other safety issues allowed.

·         Councillor Bridget Smith indicated her broad support for the proposals but had a number of concerns including the impact on businesses; the need for additional cycle parking; the objective to “maintain or reduce general traffic levels”, given the original aim to reduce traffic levels by 10-15%; the small reduction in journey time of 2.5 minutes that the bus lane was expected to achieve and whether this  outcome was worth the investment proposed and the apparent wide cost benefit ratio range indicated in paragraph 3.15.  In response, the Director of Transport indicated that further work to mitigate the impact of parking was ongoing; it was aimed to introduce cycle parking where appropriate; there was no one initiative that was a magic bullet to reduce traffic levels and congestion, but the scheme aimed to promote public transport, walking and cycling as an alternative by demonstrating to people that it was quicker and more reliable to use those options; he did not feel that 2.5 minutes was a small reduction in journey time and that it would be hugely valuable if such a time saving could be achieved on every journey across the network; and explained how the cost benefit analysis of the scheme had been undertaken, advising that benefit to cost ratio of 1.6 – 2.9 was within the expected range.

·         Councillor Tim Bick indicated that the Joint Assembly was accustomed to seeing a more definitive level of detail before a scheme was put out to public consultation and noted that it was difficult to get a sense of the proposals from the circulated plans.  He also was concerned about whether the LLF would still be able to influence the proposals before they went to consultation and suggested that the proper route would have been for consultation to have taken place with the LLF at an earlier stage in order that the Joint Assembly’s own consideration could have been informed by the LLF’s comments. The Director of Transport reported that the date of the LLF meeting to consider the proposals had been agreed in consultation with the LLF Chair and that there would still be an opportunity for feedback to be provided to the GCP Executive Board.  There had been no intention to short cut the usual procedure.

·         The Chairperson confirmed that the usual practice was for discussion to take place with the LLF in order to inform the Joint Assembly’s deliberations. The Director of Transport agreed to take on board the comments raised about process.

·         Dr John Wells commented that the forward plan of decisions on page 62 indicated that an outline business case for this project was due to be submitted to the Executive Board on 21 March 2018, but noted that no business case had been enclosed with the Joint Assembly’s papers. He asked if the outline business case would be presented to the Executive Board.  The Director of Transport reported that it was not anticipated that any additional information above that in the report before the Joint Assembly would be presented to the Executive Board.

·         Councillor Tim Wotherspoon, the Vice-Chairperson, sought further clarification about the possible use of floating bus stops; with reference to paragraph 2.1(f), indicated that he was of the view that even maintaining current traffic levels on Histon Road would be a positive outcome; and welcomed the proposal in GA006 on page 21 to provide a better defined cross over point for vehicles wanting to cross the cycle lane to get into the left filter lane, as a potential safety enhancement. The Director of Transport noted that extensive work had been undertaken by the County Council on developing the current floating bus stop design, working with disability groups, cycling groups and other stakeholders and had concluded that zebra crossings should not be included in the design of floating bus stops and these were not currently included in any bus stops in the city.  There would therefore be a concern about introducing them at one corridor in the city. This did not mean that such an option could never be pursued however and officers would continue to work with County Council colleagues on this.

·         In response to a question from Councillor Bridget Smith, the Chief Executive provided an update on progress with the review of LLFs, noting that a facilitated workshop was due to be organised to follow up on the work with the Consultation Institute. 

The Joint Assembly indicated its broad support for the proposals in the report to be presented to the Executive Board, subject to the concerns and comments above,  with their views to be incorporated into the Chairperson’s report to the Board.