Agenda item

The Joint Assembly considered the report which outlined the development of the Western Orbital scheme and set out issues for public consultation in summer 2018 on a new Park and Ride (P&R) site at Junction 11 of the M11 and associated public transport/vehicular priority measures. The report also set out proposals to ask the GCP Executive Board to delegate to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chairman, a submission to Government for the inclusion of Girton Interchange and M11 smart motorway in the Highways England’s  second Roads Investment Strategy (RIS2).

The Joint Assembly discussed the extent to which the GCP’s approach to park and ride schemes was strategic.  There was some concern expressed that the Mayor did not appear to be supportive of park and ride but the Joint Assembly was advised that the CAM metro proposal considered by the Combined Authority had expressly provided for park and ride sites. Some reservations were expressed about the impact of the proposed park and ride site on  local villages.

The Joint Assembly provided positive challenge around the need more clearly to articulate the park and ride strategy and to provide a greater level of detail around the proposals prior to public consultation. Some Members expressed the view that the proposals should come back to the Joint Assembly prior to public consultation.   The GCP Transport Director indicated that he would reflect on the comments of the Joint Assembly,  including the need for outline proposals

The Joint Assembly acknowledged that the smart motorway proposal was only an interim solution but was supportive of continuing to lobby Highways England regarding the upgrade, acknowledging the scope to improve resilience, safety and junction performance. Additionally, Joint Assembly Members welcomed the proposals for seeking to increase capacity at the Girton Interchange to address current traffic congestion issues and support the delivery of improved public transport services and agreed that officers should continue to work with Highways England to develop the case for inclusion of Girton Interchange in  RIS2.

The Chairperson invited Mal Schofield to ask his question which related to this item and had been submitted in line with the provisions of Standing Orders.  Details of the question and a summary of the answer are set out in Appendix A to the minutes.

The Director of Transport presented the report which outlined proposals for the development of the Western Orbital scheme and set out issues for public consultation in summer 2018 on a new Park and Ride (P&R) site at Junction 11 of the M11 and associated public transport/vehicular priority measures. The report also outlined proposals to ask the GCP Executive Board to delegate to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chairperson, a submission to Government for the inclusion of Girton Interchange and M11 smart motorway in the Highways England’s second Roads Investment Strategy (RIS2).

The Joint Assembly discussed the report and made the following points:-

·         Councillor John Williams was concerned that the GCP was taking a piecemeal, rather than strategic, approach to its development of P&R schemes and felt that they needed to be considered in the round and taking account of the interactions between the sites and the CAM metro proposals.  He also commented that the Mayor did not appear to be supportive of P&R and sought an assurance that such proposals would be aligned to the CAM metro plans and would be a feature of the Local Transport Plan. 

·         Councillor Grenville Chamberlain commented on the need to give more weight to supporting the development of the Girton interchange, noting that the many of the traffic problems in the west of Cambridge and on the A428 were caused by inability of traffic heading to the M11 to join directly and having to go down Madingley Hill. He understood that the MP for South Cambridgeshire had been supporting the development of interim proposals to address capacity issues.

·         Andy Williams was of the view that the smart motorway option would not make a difference in terms of sustainable transport.  He also commented on the need to understand how the CAM metro proposal would integrate with other public transport plans.  With regard to potential take up of P&R, he did not believe that commuters would not use P&R facilities, but had been put off using the current facilities by the parking charge and lack of capacity at the Trumpington site.  There did appear to be a demand for P&R capacity at Hauxton and Whittlesford.

·         Councillor Dave Baigent stated that the views expressed by the Mayor to the Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny Committee suggested that he was not supportive of P&R options.

·         Councillor Tim Bick also believed that the Western Orbital would not constitute sustainable transport solution.  Use of the hard shoulder as an additional lane on the M11 motorway could not, in his view, be regarded as more than an interim solution.  He was interested to know how the Western Orbital would connect with CAM metro as it was not clear from the plans circulated. It was also not clear how the P&R site would be accessed from the M11 and where any bus only links across the M11 would be located. Councillor Bick therefore questioned whether the proposal was sufficiently developed for the purpose of public consultation.

·         Councillor Bridget Smith welcomed the proposals to improve the Girton interchange.  With reference to the smart motorway proposal, she commented on the compelling case in terms of achieving significant accident reduction.  Speaking on the P&R proposals, she read out a statement from the local ward councilor  who was concerned at the impact of the scheme and was anxious that any intervention should not increase the A10 traffic through Harston and to the M11 junction and ideally should reduce it and considered  that the impact of the proposals should be analysed against collected data on traffic flow before public consultation; that the option of prohibiting vehicle access or egress on to the A10 from the new P&R should be assessed; that the minimum size of the P&R should be constructed initially until demand was proven (such an approach was believed to be consistent with the development of temporary transport hubs); that other means of mitigating Harston traffic should be investigated along with dualling of the A505; and that improvements at Foxton station and development of a cycle park should be pursued to encourage use of the Cambridge stations.  Councillor Smith argued that more work on Foxton capacity should be undertaken alongside the work on the P&R site because it might be possible to promote other options to increase the effectiveness of the P&R site and to reduce the size required. She indicated that she would have liked more certainty on some of the proposals, together with additional evidence and information.

·         Christopher Walkinshaw welcomed the plans but felt that the report did not demonstrate how the proposals would help to address the significant capacity issues to 2031.  The report noted that 200,000 additional jobs were planned just in the west and to the south of Cambridge but did not quantify the scale of the P&R scheme at Junction 11 needed to deal with the anticipated capacity issues.

·         Councillor Kevin Cuffley was concerned at the potential for additional traffic through Harston and Hauxton and agreed that there was a need for the Foxton level crossing bypass and travel hub and station improvements to be looked at alongside this with the aim of promoting modal shift and reducing traffic.  He had reservations about the smart motorway proposal as he was concerned it had the potential to create more vehicular traffic.

·         Dr John Wells was supportive of the proposals for Girton Interchange and concurred that the smart motorway would provide some temporary additional capacity and safety advantages.  However he emphasised the importance of being clear on how the P&R strategy would integrate with other public transport plans. The creation of additional capacity on the M11 would be of little value if the proposals did not address bottlenecks at junctions.  There was a need to either improve junctions and/or achieve modal shift.  He also pointed out that the report did not address proposals to manage traffic at the biomedical campus.  The P&R proposals were conceptual but there was no clear indication in the report of the number of spaces proposed at the facility and how it would connect with other transport links to transit into the city. Dr Wells felt that it was perhaps rather premature to go to public consultation on the scheme as, in his view, there remained a number of disconnected elements.

·         With reference to paragraph 3.8 of the report, Councillor Tim Bick noted the indication given that more detail about bus priority interventions along Trumpington Road would be provided in the consultation and would include input from the engagement group.  He asked whether the Joint Assembly would have the opportunity to see the further detail before it went to public consultation and commented that previously the intention had been that the Joint Assembly would see proposals before they were put out to public consultation so that there was an opportunity for the Joint Assembly to balance feedback from residents/engagement groups against strategic aims. He was therefore concerned that the Joint Assembly might not have another opportunity to review proposals before they went to consultation and felt that there was too low a level of detail in the current proposals upon which to consult.

·         Councillor Dave Baigent commented that the new P&R site at J11 was needed to provide for the additional demand from the biomedical campus and to contribute towards delivering the strategic aim of reducing traffic in the city.

·         Helen Valentine sought further explanation about the proposed interventions along Trumpington Road which she felt were unclear from the maps provided.  She noted that there were problems with both access and egress, particularly in the vicinity of the Waitrose junction which was very congested, and felt that bus priority improvements alone would not address the problem.

In response to questions raised above, the Director of Transport:

·         Indicated that he did not consider that a piecemeal approach was being taken to the delivery of P&R schemes and that there was a recognition of the need to provide a range of transport interchange options, not solely focusing on arrival by car.  However he did take on board the Joint Assembly’s concerns at the need more clearly to articulate the P&R strategy and to provide more information about the proposed size and capacity of the P&R facility.

·         Advised that the CAM metro proposal considered by the Combined Authority had expressly provided for  P&R sites and that a key component of the CAM network was a recognition of the need for access points.

·         Acknowledged that the smart motorway proposal was an interim solution, but noted that it would create additional capacity and achieve junction improvements.

·         Noted that the report referred to increasing capacity at the Trumpington Road site by 299 spaces to address short term capacity constraints associated with the expansion of the biomedical campus.

·         Agreed that there was a need to align consideration of this scheme alongside the proposals relating to the Foxton level crossing and travel hub.

·         Confirmed that traffic modelling would be undertaken and would take account of anticipated future growth.

·         Acknowledged the potential need for discussion with the Combined Authority on prohibition of access to or from the P&R site onto the A10.

·         Advised that the detailed proposals had not been produced for Trumpington Road. It had not been intended to bring the proposals back to the Joint Assembly but he would reflect on the comments made.

·         Commented that the Foxton and M11 schemes would serve different markets and there was a need to communicate this in a more coherent way.

The Chief Executive indicated that she would circulate information to the Joint Assembly about work the GCP had undertaken with Highways England on whether some of the initial improvements at Girton interchange could be delivered in a quicker timeframe whilst the highway improvement work was on-going. Officers were continuing to lobby to seek the inclusion of the Girton Interchange in RIS2

The Joint Assembly noted the proposals to be submitted to the GCP Executive Board, with their views and concerns, as above, to be incorporated into the Chairperson’s report to the Board.  Key elements of feedback to the Board included:-

·         The positive challenge around the need more clearly to articulate the P&R strategy and how it linked to the CAM metro proposal and other public transport schemes.

·         The need for a greater level of detail around the proposals prior to public consultation, including on the proposals for Trumpington Road. 

·         The Joint Assembly’s support for continuing to lobby Highways England regarding the smart motorway proposal in view of the scope to improve resilience, safety and junction performance, whilst acknowledging  that this was only an interim solution.

·         The Joint Assembly’s welcome for the proposals to seek to increase capacity at the Girton Interchange to address current traffic congestion issues and contribute to the delivery of improved public transport services and its support for officers continuing  to work with Highways England to develop the case for inclusion of Girton Interchange in  RIS2.