Agenda item

GCP Transport Strategy

Update on work to further define the public transport elements of the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s transport strategy.

Decision:

The Joint Assembly considered the report which updated the Assembly on the work to further define the public transport elements of the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s transport strategy, and provided a reminder of the range of schemes under development.

 

There was broad agreement from the Joint Assembly members who welcomed the paper.

Minutes:

Edward Leigh was invited to ask his public question. The details of this and a summary of the response are set out in Appendix A to the minutes.

 

The GCP Transport Director presented the report which provided an update on the work to further define the public transport elements of the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s transport strategy, and provided a reminder of the range of schemes under development.

 

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

 

·         Cllr Williams pointed out that the main mode of public transport at least in the short term was the bus, the main difficulty with which was deregulation. Even if the Mayor chose to pursue franchising, this would take a long time to achieve. Therefore a way had to be found to work with Stagecoach and other bus operators for the Greater Cambridge Partnership to achieve what was set out in the report. It was felt that the report was light on detail in relation to this.

·         The report highlighted that public transport journey times, even for short journeys, were appalling. This made the car a more attractive option even for short journeys. Councillor Williams suggested that as the precedent had been set by the Greater Cambridge Partnership subsidising the Park and Rides, until demand management measures were brought in the GCP should be prepared to subsidise an enhanced bus services from areas with poor bus journey times, so that the shift from car to pubic transport could be made.

·         Councillor Kavanagh supported the intention to  trial autonomous on demand vehicles on the southern section of the Busway between the railway station and Trumpington Park and Ride, via Addenbrooke’s. However he raised concern for safety along the proposed route; it was thought this was getting more dangerous due to cyclists and walkers being directly alongside buses, with no barrier between them. Councillor Kavanagh requested that the Greater Cambridge Partnership put aside funds to make this stretch of route safer as it due to its success, it was only going to get busier with cyclists and pedestrians.

·         The creation of the Bus User Group was supported and their input to the Greater Cambridge Partnership was welcomed and encouraged.

·         Councillor Price pointed out that although the Mayor was not in favour of buses, the Joint Assembly recognised that they had a part to play.

·         Making effective use of buses was essential in the short term at least. However Councillor Topping felt the GCP needed to look further into the future on the concept of mobility as a service, making use of IT systems that made the best use of bus routes to collect the most number of people on a route. Councillor Topping urged the Greater Cambridge Partnership to work with private sector partners such as the science parks in South Cambridgeshire, who were currently spending nearly a £1 million a year on providing travel for their employees from the railway station to the science hubs, to make better use of bus services. Councillor Topping suggested that these companies wanted to work with bus companies and the GCP on the concept of mobility as a service. 

·         Christopher Walkinshaw felt that the report did not recognise the part that cars needed to play in an integrated plan, especially outside the city. More needed to be made of this and the opportunity to interchange between the car and other modes of transport.

·         Councillor Bick highlighted the importance of services and suggested that weekend travel should also be factored in, as this was just as much a part of the economy as weekday travel and also created congestion.

·         Helen Valentine felt that the graphs in the report were alarming and reinforced CAM Metro as the only solution to the projected increase in traffic, as the problem could not be resolved just with buses and cycling.

·         Councillor Massey emphasised the need to reduce the cost of public transport which she felt was currently unaffordable for the regular user, with the car being the cheaper option. This needed to be addressed.

·         Councillor Sollom felt that the report was missing case studies and lessons learned from other parts of the world that had tried to execute an equivalent level of mode shift to that which the GCP was trying to achieve.

·         Councillor Wilson pointed out that sixth form students travelling to Hills Road and Long Road colleges by car needed to be taken into account in the scale of the challenge outlined in the report. Due to the lack of bus services from villages outside the city, many of these students drove into the city to attend college in order to reduce their journey times.

·         Councillor Kavanagh thought that while a lot was being done for cycling, a lot more could be done and that the aim should be to have a cycling network similar to that of the Netherlands. A large number of people were already cycling however more would cycle when it was made safer and there was a more comprehensive network of segregated cycle routes and safer junctions.

 

In response to the points raised, the Transport Director responded:

·         While cycling was key, the report focussed on public transport.

·         It was acknowledged that the bus should be part of the GCP’s plans. The GCP wanted to work with partners to deliver the CAM metro system however this would not cover the whole of the GCP’s area. Buses were therefore integral and needed to be made as attractive as possible.

·         Members were assured that mobility as a service was being addressed under the GCP's Smart theme.

·         It was recognised that the existing public transport network focussed on the city centre, but people needed to get to areas such as the Cambridge Biomedical Campus.

·         The GCP’s information would be fed into the Combined Authority’s bus review.

·         Cost and fares would need to be a consideration. The GCP had found that cost was not a driver for commuters but the GCP needed to ensure students and off peak commuters were catered for.

 

Councillor Wotherspoon referred to London’s franchised bus system, the cost of which was £500-600 million per year.

 

Supporting documents: