Agenda item

Western Orbital: Progress on additional Park and Ride capacity; and submission to Highways England on Girton Interchange and M11 Smart Motorway

Meeting of Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive Board, Wednesday, 21 March 2018 4.00 p.m. (Item 8.)

Decision:

Following approval of amendments to recommendations i and ii in the report, the Executive Board:-

(1) AGREED unanimously that, in respect of any new Park & Ride (P&R) at M11 Junction 11 and associated public transport/vehicle access on and off the M11 and A10, further analysis should be undertaken and opinions sought, and brought back to a future meeting of the Joint Assembly and Executive Board, in the form of an Outline Business Case for these or better options, for further discussion and a decision at that time whether or not to proceed. Any Public Consultation will be deferred until after that decision.

Such analysis should include, as a minimum:

(a) the rationale for the scheme, including who it would serve and why there is a need for change from existing provisions;

(b) Traffic modelling along the A10 and M11 including air and noise pollution;

(c) dovetailing with the study currently being undertaken on the need to provide better transport links to Addenbrooke’s, the new Papworth Hospital and the growing number of jobs at Cambridge Biomedical Campus together with patients and visitors;

(d) dovetailing with the potential interventions at Foxton, being greater car parking to serve the train station and/or a bridge/underpass for the A10 road to avoid the level crossing;

(e) dovetailing with the emerging plans for a new train station at Cambridge South;

(f) dovetailing with the emerging plans for the CAM Metro; and

(g) a compare-and-contrast exercise as between (i) no new P&R; (ii) a new P&R immediately west of Junction 11; and (iii) expansion of the existing Trumpington Road P&R, either multi-level or on a larger site footprint; (iv) alternative transport options.

and such opinions should be sought, as a minimum, from:

(h) Harston and Hauxton Parish Councils and Trumpington Residents’ Association;

(i) Addenbrooke’s, the new Papworth Hospital and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus; and

(j) the Mayor for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and/or the Combined Authority.

(2) AGREED unanimously that, based on the ongoing analysis set out in the report, to delegate to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chairperson, authority to make a submission to Highways England for the inclusion of Girton Interchange and the M11 smart motorway in the second Roads Investment Strategy and that the Mayor/Combined Authority be asked to support the submission.

(3) NOTED the development of a “West of Cambridge” package of interventions to replace the previously described “Western Orbital” scheme.

Minutes:

The Chairperson invited public questions from Jane Ward, Chair of Hauxton Parish Council, Niall O’Byrne, Chair of Harston Parish Council, District Councillor Janet Lockwood and Jan Nanor, Member of Harston Residents’ Group. The questions and a summary of the answers are provided as an appendix to the minutes.

The Transport Director presented the report, which outlined the development of the Western Orbital scheme and set out issues for public consultation on a new Park and Ride site at Junction 11 of the M11, and associated public transport and 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 Chairperson, a submission to Highways England for the inclusion of Girton Interchange and M11 smart motorway in the Highway England’s second Roads Investment Strategy.

The Transport Director highlighted the significant increase in traffic on the M11 around Cambridge which was partly due to it being used as a local distributor road to get around Cambridge. As a result of this the M11 had no resilience, with the slightest problem bringing it to a standstill. Smart motorway would deliver use of the hard shoulder at peak times when needed, providing additional capacity and improved resilience. The GCP was continuing to work with Highways England to demonstrate the case for this.

The Executive Board discussed the report:

· In response to a query, the Transport Director informed the Executive Board that the slip road off the M11 may go under the A10 and explained that this would be done by grade separation. The Chairperson felt that any proposals to go over the A10 would encounter strong resistance from the public.

· The Executive Board was informed that the aim was to avoid buses being caught in general traffic. To achieve this, either a significant enhancement to the junction was needed, which would be costly, or the existing agricultural bridge could be used. The Executive Board was informed that whatever was implemented would be screened with trees around the boundary.

· Regarding the Trumpington Road interventions, the Executive Board was informed that officers were considering the whole journey to and from park and ride sites; an improvement to the general flow of traffic needed to be ensured and not just an improvement to the flow of public transport. Length of journey and reliability of journey were critical. The Transport Director clarified that the report presented a very early look at Trumpington Road.

· The Executive Board was informed that Highways England was onboard with the concept for the M11 and as Highways planned in five year units, the GCP was trying to feed into their next five year unit (RIS2).

· In response to a query, the Transport Director clarified that with regards to the Girton Interchange scheme, the GCP was trying to get this included in the Highways England East/West Oxford to Cambridge Expressway scheme. The GCP had written to the Chief Executive of Highways England and had been using Highways England’s consultants and framework to demonstrate the case for the interventions.

· In response to a query from the Vice Chairperson, the Transport Director informed the Executive Board that given the lack of success of the M4 bus lane, there was little chance that Highways England would consider giving priority of the third lane on the M11, to buses. The GCP would continue to work with Highways England on how to use the additional capacity.

· The importance of ensuring Highways England‘s different projects and teams were joined up was emphasized, as different teams were working on projects which influenced one another. The Transport Director advised the Board that a key role for the GCP was to ensure that projects were joined up.

· Concern was expressed regarding the approaches to Junctions 11 and 13 on the M11 where the hard shoulder was already being used by queuing traffic, which was very dangerous.

The Executive Board discussed the recommendations and made the following points:

· Whilst some members felt that a new park and ride was not an ideal or long term solution, it was a critical short term solution due to the large number of employees currently at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC) and Addenbrooke’s Hospital, as well as the patients and visitors of the hospital. There would be an additional increase of at least 5000 employees on the CBC site this year, therefore accelerating a short term solution was critical. Members suggested that the earlier on in the commute that the cars could be collected and people put on buses, the better.

· Members felt that rail would be an ideal solution however it was acknowledged that there was not yet a Cambridge South Station.

· Members commented that Park and Ride was an effective way of encouraging modal shift and existing Park and Rides were well received and well used.

· Members felt that the traffic signaling on Trumpington Road needed to be updated.

· The Vice Chairperson commented that the out of town transport options needed to be increased and investments at Foxton needed to be brought forward.

In summary, all Board members felt that the proposals were needed and whilst keeping the public questions in mind, the Chairperson proposed an alternative recommendation. Taking into account the comments that had been raised by residents, the Board supported the Chairman’s proposed recommendation. The two non-voting Board members also indicated their support for the proposal, whilst highlighting the need for urgency.