Agenda item

Cambourne to Cambridge Better Public Transport Project

Decision:

The Executive Board:

 

a)    CONSIDERED the outcome of the public consultation and the work to date developing the Cambourne to Cambridge Better Public Transport project;

 

b)    RECEIVED the key conclusions of the Interim Report and in relation to this:

 

                      i.        AGREED that Phase 1, Phase 2 and a Park and Ride location continue to be developed towards an Outline Business Case for a High Quality Public Transport route between Cambourne and Cambridge;

 

                     ii.        For Phase 1, NOTED that the recommended off-road route, defined as the Specific Route Alignment providing a new public transport corridor between Madingley roundabout and Grange Road best meets the strategic and policy objectives of the Greater Cambridge Partnership; and

 

                    iii.        AGREED to develop options for Phase 2 between Cambourne and Madingley roundabout for further Business case assessment including a public consultation and that this section of the route and final recommendation for a preferred Park and Ride site, be presented in the final Outline Business Case;

 

c)    AGREED that the outcome of further work required as a result of recommendation (b) above be included in the final Outline Business Case which will be presented for Board approval in accordance with the current programme (October 2019);

 

d)    REQUESTED that officers develop detailed technology and design solutions and draw up landscaping and ecological design proposals which would enhance the potential impact of the off-road option solution on the rural environment and ensure maximum transport benefit;

 

e)    AGREED that cycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements identified for Madingley Road are taken forward for delivery developed in detail as part of a separate project;

 

f)     AGREED that, following the review by the Combined Authority, proposals for the Cambourne to Cambridge High Quality Public Transport corridor align with the features of a rapid transport network (CAM);

 

g)    AGREED that through the CAM Programme Board, officers ensure that the interface point at the eastern end of the scheme aligns with the work on the tunnelled section of the CAM network; and

 

h)    AGREED that the ambition for the preferred mode for the scheme once open is an autonomous electric rubber-tyred metro, subject to final business case, and that any interim mode required will be an electric vehicle to ensure a beneficial impact on air quality.

Minutes:

Helen Bradbury, Chairman of the Cambourne to Cambridge Local Liaison Forum (LLF) summarised the outcomes of the LLF meeting which had taken place on 14th November 2018. In addition to a number of detailed comments on proposals, the LLF had agreed the following recommendations:

·         That no decision be taken on a preferred route until greater clarity on the Cambridge Autonomous Metro (CAM) was provided; the proposed network, connectivity and funding. It was felt that the off-road bus route due to its poor connectivity to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC), Science park and the city centre, it’s poor transport benefits and low BCR, did not stand up to scrutiny.

·          That a northern off-road option be developed. It was felt that there could be major advantages to this; it could better connect with the Oxford Cambridge Expressway and developments at the Girton Interchange in the longer term, and could link with the Science Park, CBC and the North West Cambridge site.

·         That given the lengthy timescale involved in building an off-road scheme, an in-bound bus lane be designed on Madingley Road immediately. This would provide significant public transport benefit to the residents west of Cambridge.

Nine members of the public were invited to ask their public questions. The questions and a summary of the responses are provided at Appendix A of the minutes.

 

Councillor Rod Cantrill was invited to address the Executive Board. Councillor Cantrill made the following comments:

·         The GCP had created the LLF structure to allow direct input into the development and delivery of transport schemes. The Cambourne to Cambridge LLF had sought to work with the GCP in a constructive way.

·         He asked if the Board would indicate how the report took into account the work of the LLF and whether the community’s preferred option would continue to be developed in parallel with other options.

·         He felt that the recommendation ignored the input of the LLF and sought to drive forward a proposed option that did not have the support of the local community.

·         He asked what role the LLF would play in the development of proposals going forward.

 

Councillor Gavin Clayton, local Member representing Cambourne, was invited to speak and made the following points:

·         Cambourne residents had not been involved and their opinions had not been heard as much as they could have been so far.

·         Cambourne was an important community to be considered in the GCP’s decisions; it consisted of over 4300 homes.

·         He had been a Cambourne resident for 19 years. He used his car on average once a week and cycled and used the bus from Cambourne the rest of the time. He was therefore well aware of the failings of public transport and the lack of cycling infrastructure between Cambourne and Cambridge. He cycled through Coton and empathised with the impacts the residents of Coton feared with an off-road solution. He would like to walk the route of the off-road option and suggested this may be useful for other councillors to do.

·         Cambourne residents needed an affordable and reliable public transport service that offered swift journey times and was frequent enough to serve residents’ needs to get to work and college on time. It also needed to serve night time engagements in Cambridge. The current bus service ended at 10.45pm, which was a problem if you worked or wanted to go out at night.

·         Cambourne residents experienced congestion at peak times; congestion was not just in Cambridge, there were traffic jams occurring on Broad Street in Cambourne.

·         Cambourne residents experienced an expensive bus service. Cambourne residents paid £7 return to Cambridge, whereas the return fare from Hardwick was £4.50. Councillor Clayton queried how Stagecoach could justify this.

·         The off-road solution addressed congestion but not in the immediate short term, therefore an interim measure was needed to address the issues.

·         The welfare of residents, including their mental health, was affected by having to commute and being stuck in congestion.

·         A constructive debate was needed; Councillor Clayton had attended the recent LLF meeting at Comberton and did not feel it had been constructive or professional at all times.

·         The clarity of arguments needed to be conveyed so that decisions could be made.

·         Councillor Clayton was keen for peak time congestion charging to be looked at, with money raised from this being shared between South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City.

·         He suggested an employer subsidy for bus services be worked on in order to make bus services more affordable for users, as many Cambourne residents could not afford to use the bus.

 

Councillor Tom Bygott was invited to speak and made the following points:

·         He supported the Cambourne to Cambridge route becoming part of the CAM metro, that the route would be built to metro standards and would operate using electric vehicles. The best route was that which did the least damage to the countryside, enabled swift journeys and would not have to be replaced at a later date.

·         The on-road option would damage the environment for residents on Madingley Road, which would become urbanised. The purpose of the project should be to reduce traffic along that road and preserve the environment of the American Cemetery.

·         Councillor Grenville Chamberlain, local Member representing Hardwick, was concerned about the destruction of the trees between the A428 and the St Neots Road; this could be avoided by using the north side of the A428.

·         Councillors Ruth Betson and Shrobona Bhattacharya, local Members representing Cambourne, had consulted widely in Cambourne and feedback was that residents wanted the fastest possible journey time. Time saving was most likely to encourage people to use the bus instead of their cars.

·         Extra care was needed to provide the most segregated route possible; the north side of the A428 west of Madingley Mulch, would minimise contact with other road users and allow faster journey times with fewer accidents. Councillor Bygott suggested this was the safest location for a route.

·         He raised concerns regarding two sharp bends near the Cavendish Lab, which Councillor Bygott thought was likely to severely impact journey times and may cause part of the route to need to be replaced after a few years at considerable extra cost.

·         Councillor Bygott asked that the GCP looked at these issues as the project was developed in more detail and looked at some of the work Cambridge Connect had undertaken regarding routes.

 

In response to the points raised by the councillors, the Executive Board was informed of the following:

·         The GCP Transport Director had agreed some next steps with the LLF Chairman in relation to the technical workshops, and a full response would be provided to the questions raised at the last LLF meeting.

·         The Transport Director would compile evidence on the northern route.

·         The views and involvement of Cambourne residents would be sought over the next 12 months. 

·         The importance of fast public transport journey times was recognised.

 

The GCP Transport Director presented the report providing an update on progress with developing the business case for the A428 Cambourne to Cambridge (C2C) Better Public Transport project. Attention was drawn to the recommendations, emphasising this was an update report following the public consultation that had taken place 12 months ago and following the 6 month pause that had been requested by the Combined Authority. Members were notified there had been a drafting error in the published recommendations and in recommendation (b);‘endorse’ should be read ‘received’.

 

It was noted that an Executive Board decision on an outline business case would be sought in Autumn 2019, following a formal public consultation on phase 2, which would start in the new year.

 

From the initial public consultation, a desire to take forward short-term cycling and walking improvements on Madingley Road, had been identified and this would be progressed as a separate scheme.

 

The Executive Board’s attention was drawn to the City Access paper which covered the whole of the West Cambridge Campus, and set out how a series of interchange facilities would be developed to provide for the maximum possible public transport offer.

 

Regarding the Cambourne to Cambridge route, Councillor Bates highlighted the need to take account of areas beyond Cambourne, going towards Bedford. The Transport Director pointed out that while these areas were outside the geographical scope of the GCP, the GCP was working closely with the Combined Authority and took account of the wider strategic development of the corridor.

 

Councillor Van de Weyer spoke on the proposals and made the following points:

·         He highlighted the enormous growth that Cambridge was continuing to experience, which was of national importance and should be supported and enabled without damaging the attractiveness of Cambridgeshire.

·         He highlighted a need to acknowledge that the GCP had not achieved as much as it had hoped, as quickly as it had hoped and in as consensual a way as it should have done.

·         He felt that the Mayor was not bringing people together and was attempting to impose his views, which had blighted the work on the Cambourne to Cambridge corridor.

·         Speed of delivery, quality of engagement and delivering a coherent strategy needed to be focussed on.

·         He did not endorse a particular scheme at this stage, but supported enabling work to continue.

·         He suggested that there had been a breakdown of trust between the GCP and the public and emphasised it was essential that the GCP had the public’s trust. Councillor Van de Weyer welcomed the continued discussion and engagement with the LLF.

·         Confidence was needed that the GCP was getting independent expert advice and that a range of local opinion was gathered.

·         Details of the impact on the environment needed to be looked at and concerns regarding this needed to be addressed fully.

·         Getting a good route that enabled residents of new communities such as Cambourne and Bourn Airfield, to reach Cambridge and employment sites in a timely way via public transport, was essential for the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan.

·         The off-road scheme would create extra road space for more cars. A balance between the attractiveness of cars versus public transport, was essential.

·         Councillor Van de Weyer welcomed plans to review information on the northern route and planned interim measures. He advised the Board that he supported the recommendations on the basis that further work was still to be done.

 

Claire Ruskin emphasised how fortunate the area was to have so many jobs and so much growth. A means of getting people to their jobs and colleges was needed, without using cars and more needed to be done for the residents that lived further outside the city. People needed to be enabled to live where they could afford and to be able to get to work without needing a car. She indicated her support for swift interim measures that could be implemented before 2024, and the recommendations.

 

Councillor Bates informed the Executive Board that he had walked the proposed off-road route, had walked around Madingley Mulch and was familiar with Cambourne and the A428. He had used public transport from St Ives to Cambridge, which in his experience was well used because it was frequent, reliable and people used the Park and Ride as parking was free.

 

While there were unanswered questions that needed to be addressed, Councillor Bates expressed his support for the recommendations.

 

Professor Phil Allmendinger also expressed support for the recommendations and commented that:

·         The bigger picture needed to be presented.

·         Access to the city needed to be restricted.

·         The conversation regarding intelligent charging and how the revenue generated from this could be used to tackle congestion in a holistic way, needed to be restarted. Other parts of the country such as Bath, were starting to consider this.

·         He requested the Local Plan Inspector’s report be brought to the fore, to develop the case going forward.

 

Councillor Herbert speaking on the proposals made the following points:

·         He highlighted that the Executive Board was not taking a final decision on the scheme. Before a final decision was taken in 2019, there would be further public consultation and more information would be known about related matters, such as whether Highways England would be taking forward improvements to the Girton Interchange.

·         The Cambourne to Cambridge scheme was much needed and it needed to stand alone; the off-road option did this and was not reliant on the CAM metro.

·         This scheme was part of the overall plan to tackle public transport issues; the 50,000 daily journeys to and from Cambridge, were largely due to the lack of reliable public transport.

·         Reliable public transport journey times were not achievable at peak times along the current on-road route.

·         The northern route had been looked at in considerable detail, with reports presented to the Executive Board in October 2016, and had significant additional environmental detriments; for those and other reasons, this had not been considered to be deliverable.

·         Councillor Herbert thanked the LLF for its work and appreciated that sometimes it and the GCP were not in agreement. He recognised that the LLF had much to contribute.

·         Councillor Herbert supported the interim measures for Madingley Road.

 

The recommendations were put to the vote and the Executive Board agreed unanimously to:

 

a)    NOTE the outcome of the public consultation and the work to date developing the Cambourne to Cambridge Better Public Transport project;

 

b)    RECEIVED the key conclusions of the Interim Report in relation to this:

 

                      i.        AGREED that Phase 1, Phase 2 and a Park and Ride location continue to be developed towards an Outline Business Case for a High Quality Public Transport route between Cambourne and Cambridge;

 

                     ii.        For Phase 1, NOTED that the recommended off-road route, defined as the Specific Route Alignment providing a new public transport corridor between Madingley roundabout and Grange Road best meets the strategic and policy objectives of the Greater Cambridge Partnership; and

 

                    iii.        AGREED to develop options for Phase 2 between Cambourne and Madingley roundabout for further Business case assessment including a public consultation and that this section of the route and final recommendation for a preferred Park and Ride site, be presented in the final Outline Business Case;

 

c)    That the outcome of further work required as a result of recommendation (b) above be included in the final Outline Business Case which will be presented for Board approval in accordance with the current programme (October 2019);

 

d)    REQUESTED that officers develop detailed technology and design solutions and draw up landscaping and ecological design proposals which would enhance the potential impact of the off-road option solution on the rural environment and ensure maximum transport benefit;

 

e)    AGREED that cycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements identified for Madingley Road are taken forward for delivery developed in detail as part of a separate project;

 

f)     AGREED that, following the review by the Combined Authority, proposals for the Cambourne to Cambridge High Quality Public Transport corridor align with the features of a rapid transport network (CAM);

 

g)    AGREED that through the CAM Programme Board, officers ensure that the interface point at the eastern end of the scheme aligns with the work on the tunnelled section of the CAM network; and

 

h)    AGREED that the ambition for the preferred mode for the scheme once open is an autonomous electric rubber-tyred metro, subject to final business case, and that any interim mode required will be an electric vehicle to ensure a beneficial impact on air quality.

Supporting documents: