Agenda item

The Joint Assembly received a report inviting comment on the progress to date of the City Access programme and any views on the options for achieving modal shift through demand management.  The Joint Assembly welcomed the fact that the City Access strategy had been further informed by the early findings of “Our Big Conversation”.

Members of the Joint Assembly felt that it was important that the “carrot” element of the proposals (ie: introducing an attractive system of public transport that encouraged behaviour change and modal shift) was introduced before any “stick” (demand management measures), and it was also felt that if demand management worked properly, then it would pay for the public transport network that was needed.  The Joint Assembly agreed that it would be important to be clear about what an attractive, integrated public transport network would look like and to have a blend of demand management measures.   Assembly Members also highlighted the need for increased capacity for cycle parking to be further investigated. 

Joint Assembly Members agreed that it was extremely important to address air quality and pollution issues to improve public health outcomes and a proposal to consider air quality in specific areas was put forward.  There was also general support for measures to encourage the shift to less polluting vehicles.

The Joint Assembly noted that there was currently no budget provision for any demand management measures given that the proposals were still at discussion stage.  Joint Assembly members acknowledged that demand management measures invariably attracted a divergence of views and was reminded that South Cambridgeshire District Council in January 2017 had indicated its opposition to the principle of congestion charging. Some Assembly Members emphasised the importance of designing an attractive and accessible public transport system that encouraged behaviour change and modal shift.  The Joint Assembly recognised that the proposals had been under discussion for some time and reflected on how best it might be able to support officers to progress the programme to achieve the objectives of reducing congestion and improving air quality.

The Joint Assembly indicated general support for further work to be progressed on the City Access programme, as indicated in the report, but felt that it was important that the public consultation should not take place during the summer holidays.

The Director of Transport introduced a report which invited the Joint Assembly to comment on the progress to date of the City Access programme and to provide views on the options for achieving modal shift through demand management.  In so doing, the Director first  gave a short presentation, highlighting, in particular, current mode split and air quality.

The Joint Assembly discussed the report and comments, including the following, were made:-

·         Councillor Noel Kavanagh highlighted the public health impact of air pollution and advocated the investigation of air pollution exclusion zones outside schools as part of the package of measures. He noted that a YouGov survey indicated that 60% of parents had indicated support for introduction of such an exclusion zone.  Additionally he commented on the impact of the peak time  “school run” on all routes.

·         Councillor Grenville Chamberlain referred to an FIA study on demand management and highlighted a number of relevant points including the need:-

o   to explore all other options for improving mobility before considering road charging;

o   to understand the rationale and scope of a charging scheme;

o   to estimate the impact on a range of scenarios, including congestion, accidents, energy consumption, carbon footprint, air quality and  modal split; 

o   to target options for income redistribution and to  make maximum use of technology available; and

o   to undertake a market oriented, rather than politically driven, approach to designing the scheme.

He felt that the charging would only be publicly acceptable if it was seen to deliver a solution to a problem.  Demand management measures needed to be equitable to all users and provide safe, secure and reliable alternatives which got people to their destinations rapidly but public transport had to be affordable and assist a reduction in pollution.  The scope for introducing restrictions on older, more polluting, vehicles entering the city could be considered as part of any demand management measures . 

·         Dr John Wells noted that there was no reference in the report to P&R and felt that it should be considered as part of access management design since P&R provided the interchange point for longer commutes.  Additionally, he highlighted the need to put attractive transport alternatives in place before any charges were introduced. He noted that the estimated costs of service enhancements outlined in paragraph 6.14 was £20m per annum, however a report later in the agenda seemed to suggest that the income from the demand management aspect of the city access project would not be generated until 2020.  Given that there did not appear to be any funding provision made to subsidise public transport improvements in the interim, Dr Wells sought clarification regarding the budgetary position.

·         Helen Valentine observed that there was only a passing reference to the Workplace Parking Levy in the report and questioned whether this potential initiative had been dropped.  She also commented that the lack of cycle parking was a key constraint in promoting cycling and suggested that it might be appropriate to commission research on cycle parking. 

·         Councillor John Williams referred to the opportunities presented by the Bus Services Act which had not been referred to in the report.  He agreed that public transport improvements needed to be made before any demand management measures were introduced and suggested that the Combined Authority could perhaps borrow the necessary funding to invest in the enhancement of services. This could then be repaid from the subsequent income from the demand management measures.

·         Councillor Kevin Cuffley indicated that there was the potential for the public to regard some of the demand management measures highlighted, such as workplace parking levy, pollution charging and intelligent charging as a congestion charge.  He reminded the Joint Assembly of the policy position of South Cambridgeshire District Council, which, on 26 January 2017, had passed a motion recording its opposition to the principle of a congestion charging scheme as it would penalise residents of South Cambridgeshire who had no realistic alternative to the car in travelling into Cambridge for work.

·         Andy Williams noted that the issue of demand management had been subject of discussion for a considerable time  and acknowledged that there was a divergence of views. He asked what support businesses could provide to ensure that officers felt able to present the optimum technical solutions from a professional perspective  which could then be debated by the politicians. From a business perspective, he recognised that there was a need for a decision to be made. With reference to paragraph 6.21, he questioned whether revenue generating ability should be regarded as a critical success factor.

·         Christopher Walkinshaw commented on the need to have regard to the traffic that used the city as a thoroughfare. Additionally, noting that 44,000 new jobs were forecast by 2031, it would be important that people coming into the city had the option of  accessing public transport not just from the nearest point to them but also the shortest route for their journey.

·         Councillor Dave Baigent noted the projected significant further increase in businesses, industry and commerce locating to Cambridge and that this would result in a further associated increase in traffic.  One of the restrictions to this potential growth would be the lack of infrastructure for public transport.  It was important therefore that there were appropriate transport hubs on the periphery of the city which enabled people to complete their journeys on public transport.  Responding to the comments regarding the potential burden on South Cambridgeshire residents, he argued that if there was an attractive partially subsidised public transport alternative, there should not be additional cost burdens and commuters would benefit from shorter journeys.  He believed that demand management would need to be the “stick” but that it was important that the “carrot” was in place first.  He stressed that in order to sustain the anticipated growth in businesses, appropriate measures to control cars, including electric cars, coming into the city centre were essential. 

·         Councillor Bridget Smith welcomed the report but suggested that the next iteration should include ambitious targets in respect of the proposed measures set out in paragraph 3.2.  She commented that consideration should also be given to controlling tourist buses in the city centre and to taking an innovative approach to school transport. Whilst managing transport was a key concern, Councillor Smith felt that improving air quality was the priority in terms of improving public health outcomes.  She hoped that the Joint Assembly would receive the next iteration of the report in a timely manner.

·         Councillor Tim Bick welcomed a good report but regretted that it had not been possible to bring it forward earlier in the life of the GCP. He observed that a range of measures were being considered and noted that the proposals were now underpinned by evidence from “Our Big Conversation”.  It was important that “carrots” and “sticks” were not looked at separately but as part of an integrated approach to tackle congestion and improve air quality.   Councillor Bick sought further clarification on the suggestion in the paper that there was a need for a blend of measures to ensure that the GCP realised its objectives in the most optimal way. He also noted that it appeared from the report that consultation would take place during the summer and recommended that such an important consultation should not take place during the summer holidays.

·         Councillor Ian Bates, the Transport Portfolio, commented that all parts of the “jigsaw” needed to fit together.

In response to the comments expressed about the time taken to bring forward the report, the Chairperson reminded the Joint Assembly of the significant changes that had occurred with the GCP, noting in particular, that the GCP now had the benefit of its own professional and technical officer support.

Responding to Members’ questions, the Director of Transport:-

·         Acknowledged the need to understand the benefits of  the various demand management measures and what each required in transport terms.  He agreed that P&R would be part of the strategy.

·         Confirmed that the Workplace Parking Levy was still being considered as part of the measures and more work on cycle parking was planned.

·         Explained the budgetary position, noting in particular that the GCP had not yet made a policy decision to proceed with the demand management initiative.  He cited the example of London where bus services had been enhanced prior to the introduction of the congestion charge and the income had then been used to offset the costs of the public transport improvements.

·         Confirmed that the proposal relating to air pollution exclusion zones could be looked at as part of the package of proposals to be reviewed.  GCP officers were already working with the City Council on developing clean air zones. It would be important to understand the options available and the impact of introducing such measures from the Cambridge perspective and to develop appropriate evidence based conclusions.

·         Advised that the bus survey review would be undertaken by the Combined Authority this year.

·         Indicated that adopting a blended and holistic approach to the different types of demand measures would help to ensure that the measures were effective and equitable, taking account of the impact on the locality and on different stakeholder groups.

·         Confirmed that the consultation would not take place during the summer holidays.

Referring to the question on how businesses could support officers in progressing the initiative, the Chief Executive indicated that officers would seek to bring forward the evidence in a measured way for review and determination. She further commented that revenue raising had not been identified as a critical success factor as that might suggest pre-determination, instead it was appropriate to bring forward the evidence to enable the right solution to be determined. Referring to “Our Big Conversation”, the Chief Executive observed that the qualitative evidence was now available to the GCP, but the next step would be to look at the technical evidence.

Subject to the comments and concerns as outlined above, the Joint Assembly indicated general support for further work to be progressed on the City Access programme, with their views to be incorporated into the Chairperson’s report to the Executive Board.