Cambridge Past, Present & Future Wandlebury Ring, Gog Magog Hills Babraham, Cambridge CB22 3AE www.cambridgeppf.org Phone 01223 243830 CambridgePPF 2015 Statement on Transport This document sets out the position of CambridgePPF with regard to the growing problem of sustainable transport and traffic congestion in the Greater Cambridge area. It sets out a number of basic principles that CambridgePPF believes could provide a strategic policy framework for addressing the problem. It is not intended to be a comprehensive strategy with specific recommendations based on traffic modelling with fully costed proposals - that is the responsibility of the County Council which has recently produced its Transport Strategy for Cambridge & South Cambridgeshire (TSCSC). Instead it presents our position on what needs to be done to address the transport problem. We will use these principles to urge the local authorities, and particularly the City Deal, to re-think their approach to transport planning for the Greater Cambridge area. 1. Background 1.1 Unless Cambridge s traffic problem can be addressed effectively, the further success of the city will be compromised. A combination of house prices that are unaffordable even to middle management employees, public transport that is not sufficiently attractive for drivers to give up their cars, and traffic congestion that can make car commuting a nightmare, will collectively erode the reputation of Cambridge as an attractive location for inward investment. The problem is current and is urgent. 1.2 The transport problem in Cambridge is the consequence of the imbalance between demand and capacity. To date, attempts to ameliorate traffic congestion have focused on measures to increase capacity by alleviating traffic bottlenecks such as junction up-grades, enhancements of road intersections, new bus lanes, bollards, and the like. Such improvements typically have only a short-term benefit either because they simply shift the congestion elsewhere, or because they merely encourage additional traffic that overwhelms the improvement. A substantial amount of money has been invested in up-grading the infrastructure but the problem is getting worse. With the increasing pressure from the 35,000 new homes planned for the Greater Cambridge area, we need a more radical approach that addresses both sides of the imbalance between demand and capacity. 1.3 The goal of any transport strategy must be to facilitate the way people can move quickly and easily around the area in their daily lives. This must include all forms of transport from walking and cycling to public transport and the use of the private car. If congestion is to be reduced, more people must be persuaded to walk, cycle or use public transport in preference to their car and the transport strategy should set out how this is to be achieved. Clearly, these sustainable options must be made more attractive in terms of convenience, reliability, and cost saving compared with the use of the car. An approach that combines both stick (inducement) and carrot (penalty) is more likely to succeed. 1.4 Our principles are presented now in the belief that the Cambridge City Deal does at last provide the funding to enable a radical re-think of how people move around the area in their daily lives. However, its provisional funding allocations (see Appendix A) would seem to suggest that the bulk of the funding is to be spent in the usual way on measures to increase the infrastructure capacity combined with up-grades to the public transport system. We do not dispute that such measures are necessary but on their own they will not provide a long-term solution. It is our firm belief that the only way to have real impact is to include some form of demand management as part of a balanced package. And with the City Deal Page 1 of 7
funding, we have the opportunity to do something bolder and more radical than the alleviative approach of the past. 2. Basic Principles 2.1 Congestion Charge: i. There are a number of possible non-fiscal mechanisms to reduce the demand by drivers for road use, not least by allowing the congestion to become so intolerable that people are forced to seek alternatives. Measures such as re-allocating road space to more bus lanes or restricting the availability of parking have a valid role to play, but experience has shown that the most effective form of deterrent is a fiscal measure that creates a financial disincentive for using the car. This can be in the form of a workplace charge for those with a parking space allocated by their employer or through some form of user charge for entry to a designated congestion zone. The former is often regarded as a tax on employees so is likely to be unacceptable to businesses: the latter needs to be sufficiently sensitive in its application that it creates the incentive to give up the car but does not cause real hardship for people for whom the car is genuinely indispensable. i CambridgePPF proposes that a congestion charge should be introduced for vehicles entering or driving within the city. Such a measure should be coupled with a twin proviso that the income it generates is ring-fenced to subsidise a fast, efficient, and reliable public transport service that is sufficiently attractive to persuade drivers to give up their cars; and secondly, that the public transport alternative is up and running at the time the charge is introduced. Congestion charging has been shown to reduce traffic volumes elsewhere, particularly in central London, and we see no reason why it shouldn t work just as well in Cambridge. The debate about a Cambridge congestion charge rapidly descends into argument about how much and who pays. At the moment, CambridgePPF is more concerned about getting the principle of fiscal demand management accepted as part of a radical re-think of transport policy rather than exploring the operational details. Obviously there must be extensive research and public consultation over the design and operation of the scheme to ensure that it is implemented in a socially equitable way. We would urge that it is applied as inclusively as possible covering not just those entering the city, but also those starting their journey within the city. The amount of the charge is less important than the differential between the cost of using the public transport alternative and the cost of using the car, including the charge. If the income was used to subsidise the public transport, then the charge need not be great to still provide a real inducement. Faced with the extreme seriousness of the Cambridge transport problem, CambridgePPF believes there is no realistic alternative to a congestion charge as part of a balanced package. Unless some form of demand management is introduced that acts as a real deterrent to the use of private cars, measures to improve traffic flow and public transport will fail. We urge the County Council and the City Deal to give this approach the consideration it warrants. Indeed, the TSCSC recognises the merit of demand management to reduce congestion (page 4/33): In the medium to longer term, to maintain accessibility levels further demand management measures will be needed in Cambridge to ensure that buses, pedestrians and cyclists are able to travel through the city in a timely fashion. Modelling has demonstrated that unless there are further measures introduced that make it more inconvenient for people to drive into the city than to use alternative modes of transport, traffic levels will still increase despite the improvements to other modes. We urge that the further measures should include congestion charging at peak times. Page 2 of 7
2.2 Transport and Spatial Planning: i. It is our belief that sustainable transport must be the key determinant in spatial planning for the Greater Cambridge area. The draft Local Plans up to 2031 prepared by the City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils are based on the principle of keeping Cambridge as a dynamic, compact city with further residential development concentrated in new settlements outside the Green Belt in South Cambs. Such a spatial strategy is credible only if these settlements are located where fast and reliable public transport links can be provided. Sustainable transport must therefore be at the core of the overall spatial planning for the area. It is to meet this need that the City Deal investment must be focused to finance the proposals set out in the TSCSC even if these do appear to be more a consequence of, rather than a determinant of, the overall spatial strategy. Whilst CambridgePPF accepts that the expenditure on improvements to the main access corridors to the City set out in Appendix A will help both public transport and traffic flow, we believe that their value would be greatly enhanced if combined with a congestion charge as part of a more balanced package. Indeed, we question whether some of the investment could be redeployed to other needed services if vehicle use was significantly reduced by a user charge. 2.3 A Bus-based Transport Strategy: i. The practical alternative to the private car, particularly in a rural area like South Cambridgeshire, must be a fast and efficient bus service. Clearly, walking and cycling are also essential elements (see para 2.5 below), but the backbone must be bus-based. And the bus network must be made sufficiently attractive to get hesitant users to give up their cars. i The bus strategy must itself be based on the Park & Ride system. The success of the P&R has been undermined by the recent introduction of a parking charge, resulting in the take-up falling back to 2006 levels. The dual charge for both parking and for the ride puts out exactly the wrong public message if the intention is to increase the level of take-up to reduce congestion. It is our belief that the parking element should be made free and the bus cost substantially subsidised using the income from the congestion charge. A reliable, frequent, and cheap service, even including a skeletal night service, could revolutionise the level of take-up. The network of P&R sites should be expanded to cover all main arterial roads coming into Cambridge. A dual ring of sites is proposed with the outer ring several miles out from the city and the inner on the city fringe just before the beginning of the congestion charge zone. Special consideration must be given to their landscaping, especially when constructed in the Green Belt. A congestion charge will necessitate a significant increase in the P&R capacity so we would urge that other ancillary uses of the P&R that freeload on the car parking should be discouraged. P&R sites should serve as transport hubs for onward connection to major destinations around the city. Rather than travel into the centre to pick up a bus to Addenbrookes, the station, or the Science Park, the inter-change should be made at the P&R. This will be facilitated by the creation of the proposed Orbital Busway linking the P&R sites with the main destinations around the city fringe. v. The Guided-busway between Huntingdon and Trumpington has un-doubtably been a success. Its performance, despite its teething problems, has earned it a place in planning a future transport strategy. It could well provide an answer to the public transport links to some of the new satellite settlements proposed in the SCDC 2031 Local Plan. vi. CambridgePPF also supports the creation of high speed bus lanes along all the major arterial roads into Cambridge, as proposed in the TSCSC. Improving the transport links with the nearby market Page 3 of 7
towns like Ely, Newmarket, Haverhill, Royston, St Neots, and Huntingdon will encourage the wider spread of investment across the region. This will require cooperation across boundaries between Local Planning Authorities. 2.4 Potential of Rail Transport: i. Cambridge is well served by its rail links two lines to the South as well as a line to the North and East. However, until now the potential for rail travel to relieve congestion has not been adequately developed. One of the main strengths of the TSCSC is its recognition of the rail potential. CambridgePPF endorse the ambitious plans for the up-grade of the service from Cambridge to Ely and of the line to Newmarket. Both these lines could open up development corridors with a high quality sustainable transport system in place. CambridgePPF also strongly supports the development of the Cambridge North station that will boost the development of the Northern Fringe (East) site. A station to service the Addenbrooke s Biomedical Campus, that will eventually employ some 17,000 people, should also be considered. 2.5 Cycling and walking: i. Cambridge leads the UK in cycle use and further investment should be made to encourage even greater up-take. A network of high quality cycle and pedestrian routes, commencing with the Chisholm Trail, must be created linking all the major new developments with centres of employment, transport, and retail. This network should comprise not just cycle routes radiating out from the centre but also orbital linkages between main centres. This network should also extend out to the villages of South Cambridgeshire, including the proposed new settlements. Cycling has the potential to remove a lot of vehicle traffic but this potential will be met only if attractive cycleways are provided linking where people want to go along routes segregated from other vehicles. It is disappointing that the City Deal investment does not appear to recognise the benefits that a relatively modest investment in cycling and walking can bring. As much as possible of the city centre should be pedestrianised with access for trade vehicles restricted to set times in the early morning and late afternoon. Pedestrianisation will greatly enhance the enjoyment of the city centre by both residents and visitors. Experience in other cities shows that it is practical for pedestrians and electric shuttle buses to share the same common space without separate roads and pavements. 2.6 Urban Air Quality: i. Cambridge s air quality breaches both national and EU quality standards, particularly for concentrations of nitrogen oxides. The primary source of this pollution is vehicle emissions, especially old diesel buses. We would urge that the Air Quality Management Area be extended to cover the entire city centre which should be managed as a Low Emission Zone, along the same lines as the Zone in London. One of the principle sources of emissions is the older diesel buses. These buses should be progressively phased out so that over an agreed timescale, the only buses coming into the city centre meet the low-emission Euro 5 or 6 standard. To minimise the financial impact of this on commercial operators, advantage should be taken of Government initiatives such as the Green Bus Scheme, which subsidises ultra-low emission vehicles for use in cities with serious atmospheric pollution problems. The County Council needs to work closely with the bus operators to assist in upgrading their fleets, including obtaining the necessary finance. Higher emission buses can continue operating but should terminate at a P&R from where a shuttle bus service would take passengers to a number of different destinations. The shuttle buses servicing the P&Rs should be electric or hybrid Page 4 of 7
vehicles. A local Bye-Law should be introduced to prevent buses and lorries standing idle with their engines running for more than a few minutes. i Park & Ride sites should be connected to the city centre and other major destinations, such as employment centres, the railway stations, and Addenbrooke s by dedicated bus-lanes. Wherever possible these should follow the existing road network but using lanes segregated for other road users. The proposal for an Orbital Busway linking the P&Rs and other main destinations around the fringe of the city should be implemented using City Deal funds. 2.6 Traffic Flow: i. CambridgePPF urges the County Council to undertake a comprehensive survey and analysis of traffic movements both coming into the city and round the city, including information on origins, destinations, car occupancy, journey times, and the like. The Traffic Monitoring Report provides useful data but is too superficial for planning purposes. The Origin and Destination Surveys should be extended to quantify the principal traffic generators so that public transport investment can be more accurately targeted. A comprehensive Annual Traffic Census would seem a logical prerequisite for effective transport planning. i The Cambridge Core Traffic Scheme has been very effective in reducing traffic volumes in the historic core of the city and in improving the quality-of-life for residents and visitors. The Council is encouraged to extend the scheme wherever possible to cover the whole city centre, encouraging people to use public transport and providing improved facilities for cycling and walking. The benefits of traffic calming and the encouragement of car sharing schemes should be continued. It is conspicuous how much freer the traffic flows during the school holidays. Parents bringing their children into the Cambridge schools, particularly the private schools and sixth-form colleges, are a significant contributor to the peak hour congestion. It is proposed that all private schools and sixform colleges should accept responsibility for setting up a school bus service starting from each P&R so that out-of-town parents can drop off and pick up their children at their most convenient P&R without coming into the city centre and thus incurring the congestion charge. Another significant contributor to traffic congestion is the long-distance coaches. Inter-city and airport coaches should be encouraged where practical to use the P&R sites where onward bus connections can be made to the major destinations around the city. Drummer Street currently provides a valuable central hub for local buses but it does draw coaches into the city centre. It also is the worst location in the city for urban air quality. In the long-term, the future use of Drummer Street should be examined once the adequacy of the P&R inter-changes has been demonstrated. It is difficult to see how the tourist coaches can be excluded without compromising the City s tourism business, although the idea of a levy for coach entry into the centre should be explored. 2.7 High Quality Infrastructure Improvements: i. All too often, road improvements are regarded solely as a mechanical engineering project with inadequate regard to the wider landscape and streetscape considerations. CambridgePPF urge that all new infrastructure projects, but particularly those adjacent to green spaces or cross Green Belt, are carried out with sensitivity to their surroundings with extensive use of trees and shrubs to minimise their intrusion. Street furniture, signage, and general clutter should be kept to the minimum so as to enhance the urban environment. Consideration should be given to the experience elsewhere in Europe to the sharing of surfaces between vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians with minimum intrusive signage or Page 5 of 7
obvious separation such schemes tend to reduce vehicle speeds and provide an improved living environment 2.8 Tunnelling: i. The idea of tunnelling has been raised several times in the last decade but has never found traction with the transport planners. It would seem a serious option for generating a massive step-change to transport capacity. Cambridge clay is reported to be the ideal material for tunnelling, and the construction costs for tunnels are competitive compared with new surface roads, especially when the land supply is so restricted. Tunnels could be used locally, for example for a new crossing of the River Cam on the East side of the city as part of the proposed Orbital Route, or as a major public transport option linking the railway stations with the city centre and Addenbrooke s. Tunnelling has always been rejected in the past as too grandiose and expensive for Cambridge. There are a number of ways that a tunnelling programme could be financed, including part allocation of congestion charge income or a levy on tourist arriving by coach. The seriousness of Cambridge s traffic problems demands it be given objective consideration. 3. Conclusion i. So long as the focus of transport planning remains centred on increasing capacity through infrastructure improvements, the Cambridge traffic problem will persist and this could become a serious impediment to the continued prosperity of the city. A more radical strategy is need that balances capacity with demand from road users. The most effective means of controlling demand is through a congestion charge. i The County Council and the City Deal should explore now how a congestion charging scheme can best be implemented in Cambridge. The income from the charge should be ring-fenced to subsidise the cost of a fast and reliable public transport alternative based on the Park& Ride sites, and this alternative should be in place at the time the charge is introduced. The congestion charge should be part of a balanced package that includes a range of both bus and rail improvements to improve traffic flow and enhance public transport.. We call on the City Deal to allocate a relatively modest sum for a comprehensive assessment of the feasibility of introducing a Cambridge congestion charge. Facilities, including separate tracks and off-road routes, to encourage cycling and walking must be a core part of any transport strategy. Such enhancements could be financed at least in part through the congestion charge income. v. The greatest step-change in infrastructure capacity might be through the use of tunnels. This option requires the serious consideration it has not so far received. Again the City Deal funding should be used to undertake a detailed feasibility study of its suitability for congestion relief in Cambridge. vi. The spatial planning for the future growth of the Greater Cambridge area must include consideration of sustainable transport as a key determinant in the location of new residential and employment areas. Page 6 of 7
Appendix A: City Deal Transport Proposals CambridgePPF has pressed for several years for many of the proposals that are now being incorporated in the City Deal plans. We welcome their inclusion and endorse the strategic approach of directing investment to improve the transport links with the new settlements in South Cambridgeshire. Our criticism is that it is not sufficiently radical as it focuses only on the supply side of the problem and fails to tackle the basic issue of demand management. If a congestion charge was to be levied on entry into the city with the income hypothecated to providing an efficient public transport alternative, much of this investment would not be needed. The main proposals for City Deal investment include: North Corridor: ( 360m investment) Major capacity improvements to the A10 between A14 and Denny Abbey roundabout Major capacity improvements at A10/A14 Milton interchange Relocate and enlarge Waterbeach Station New P&R North of Waterbeach New busway between Waterbeach Barracks and Science Park/Cambridge North station West Corridor: ( 66m investment) New busway or bus-lane Cambourne to city centre New P&R at Madingley Mulch roundabout South-East Corridor: ( 41m investment) Bus lane on A1307 between Haverhill and Cambridge Additional 500 spaces at Babraham P&R (or possible new site) South-West Corridor: ( 6.5m investment) New P&R at Hauxton New busway linking Hauxton P&R with Trumpington P&R Bridge or underpass to replace level crossing on the A10 at Foxton Interchange improvements at Foxton Station Cambridge City: ( 321m investment) Orbital busway West Cambridge to Addenbrooke s Orbital busway Science Park to Addenbrooke s Chisholm cycle and pedestrian path Cambridge North to Cambridge Central Stations Radial bus corridors on main arterial roads Page 7 of 7