CTC Cambridge

Friday 23 December 2022 

Below is the formal club response to the consultation Making Connections held by the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP).

We hope that many of our members have submitted their individual responses to the consultation and added their own personal thoughts on the details of the proposals.

This club response is intended as a high-level response dealing primarily with the cycling aspects of the proposals. The consultation provided a lot more details on the bus improvements than on the cycling improvements and our letter seeks to address that lacuna. We think these GCP proposals will be good for cycling. There should be an immediate benefit from the traffic reduction and over the longer term the scheme should deliver a series of cycling and walking infrastructure improvements.

Dear GCP

Making Connections: Public consultation – 2022

I am writing to you on behalf of CTC Cambridge, a local group of Cycling UK.

We support the principles of the Making Connections proposals on the basis that a road user charge is your preferred option to reduce the volume of motor traffic and that the charge is an essential element to provide the funding that is needed to deliver improvements to the bus services and to the cycling and walking infrastructure.

From a cycling perspective, the immediate benefit from these proposals is a reduction in motor traffic volumes throughout the city. The Making Connections documents suggest that the STZ will reduce car trips by 50% and that will have a huge beneficial effect on cycling on the City roads. Fewer cars on the city roads will make cycling and walking much safer and more attractive and hence will accelerate the modal shift that is needed. And then it will allow the road space reallocation to cycling and walking that is urgently needed to enable many of the substandard cycle routes to be improved.

We provide some general comments on the STZ and the bus improvements but our main focus is the proposed cycling improvements. Our main message is that we are disappointed with the proposed cycling improvements and we would like to see a complete rethink of the current Making Connections proposals. We would be happy to work with you and with other interested parties to develop an improved plan for the scale and quality of cycling infrastructure improvements that are needed.

SUMMARY COMMENTS

1. We support the principle of the STZ. We recognise that some form of demand management is needed to deal with the traffic congestion on Cambridge City roads. And we understand that a road user charge is likely to deliver the traffic reduction that is needed. We agree with the statement "if not now, then when": this change is needed now and we hope that GCP will have the courage to persist despite the opposing voices. We would also like GCP to address the statement "if not this, then what" and specify what they will do if the STZ is not approved by GCP Executive Board or the County Council.

2. We strongly support the need for city-wide improvements to cycling and walking routes, but we do not support the current "Cycling Plus" proposals. We conclude that the "Cycling Plus" proposals do not provide a suitable basis for the cycling and walking improvements that are needed. As a first step, there is a need for a more strategic approach, starting with a long term strategic plan for the delivery of a complete and contiguous cycle network. Some of the "Cycling Plus" improvements may persist, but only where they fit into that strategic plan. Additionally, the outline "Cycling Plus" proposals (as detailed in the 2021 consultation) do not deliver the step change in quality of cycling infrastructure that is required.

   We think that a larger percentage of the net STZ income – we suggest 40% - should be allocated to cycling and walking schemes to deliver the scale and quality of improvements that are needed. And this funding should be ring fenced to allow the development and delivery of a long term program of cycling and walking improvements.

3. We support bus franchising. We think bus franchising is an essential element of the bus improvement plans. We note that GCP have stated that bus franchising would make the bus improvements "a lot easier" and would allow the bus network to be designed to suit the needs of passengers rather than the operators: e.g. to optimise trip times and to subsidize non-profitable routes. We recognise that this decision is under the control of the CPCA: we simply argue that franchising is the preferred option and should be progressed as soon as possible as part of these plans.

   Separately, we think earlier action will be needed to deal with congestion at the start of the process so that bus journeys can offer a better and more reliable bus travel time at an earlier stage in the process.

DETAILED COMMENTS

The STZ proposal

We support the principle of the STZ.

GCP have been clear that some form of demand management is needed to control and reduce the volume of motor traffic within Cambridge City. The proposed road user charge is expected to achieve the reduction in motor traffic that is needed and it has the important added benefit of providing a funding stream to support improvements to buses and to active travel and we support this rationale. We strongly support the objectives of reducing the volume of motor traffic and to prevent it getting even worse as the region continues to grow. The road network has limited capacity and cannot support the projected number of trips if people continue to choose to travel in motor cars.

If not this then what? We understand that GCP have considered alternative methods of "demand management" and alternative ways of funding the bus and active travel improvements. The consultation tells us that the STZ design is based on earlier consultation results – i.e. that a lower charge covering a wider area is their preferred option. It was always clear that there would be strong opposition to a "congestion charge" and we think there needs to be an alternative plan for the way forward if the GCP Executive Board or the County Council do not approve the final STZ proposals.

The Bus Improvements

We support bus franchising and we think bus franchising should be an essential element. We understand that this is under the control of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA): we simply understand that franchising will make the proposed bus improvements a lot easier and hence this should be the preferred option. We also understand the franchising is not straightforward and could be expensive if there are legal challenges from bus operators, but the benefits surely outweigh these negatives. GCP should work with the CPCA to get this critical issue resolved as quickly as possible.

We also think that some earlier reduction in congestion would be helpful to enable the CPCA to properly deliver improved bus services. We are aware that GCP are proposing new busways and more P&R capacity but these will be less effective if the City roads are still congested. We think that alternative methods are probably needed to reduce congestion ahead of the introduction of the STZ charge. For example, consider implementing the recent "Road Classification" and/or new bus gates to reduce traffic levels on key bus corridors such as Hills Road. Alternatively, why not consider the option of introducing part of the STZ at the same time as the bus improvements? This early STZ could be restricted to a smaller area of the City and then expanded to the proposed full STZ zone at a later date as part of the phased STZ introduction.

The Cycling and Walking Improvements

We think that the cycling improvements in the Making Connections proposals need a lot more work. The proposed improvements based on the "Cycling Plus" consultation is not a good starting point for improvements in cycling infrastructure: we think these proposals do not deliver the step change in scope or in the quality of cycling infrastructure that is required. Much more ambitious proposals are needed to deal with the large increase in the number of active travel trips that the modelling predicts.

We conclude that the "Cycling Plus" proposals do not provide a suitable basis for the cycling and walking improvements that are needed. There is a need for a more strategic approach, starting with a complete long term strategic plan for a city-wide cycle network. Some of the "Cycling Plus" improvements may persist, but only where they fit into that strategic plan.

And we also think that the choice of the first two schemes (A1134 North-South and Hills Road) from the Cycling Plus shortlist should be reviewed in the context of that strategic plan. We consider that the complete short list of route improvements proposed in the original "Cycling Plus" was incomplete and too limited. These isolated sections – even if they are all implemented - will not create a complete and contiguous cycle network. It is time for a step change in planning and a step change in the quality of the infrastructure.

As a first step, there needs to be new strategic plan for a complete and contiguous cycle network, taking account of the proposed radial road improvements, the LCWIP, the Greenways and the Road Classification and more.

The plans for the City cycling network should be integrated into the wider plans for a cycle network for the Greater Cambridge area bringing together the Greenways and the other existing and proposed cycling routes to the surrounding villages. In this context, we have been disappointed with the quality of many of the recent Greenway proposals and we would again encourage you revisit these proposals and improve both the quality and the scope of these Greenway plans.

Within the City, the proposed short list of schemes needs to be expanded to cover all the gaps on the strategic network and the proposed priorities need to be reconsidered and revised. And there needs to be a plan for dealing with all the "difficult" sections – this could be mix of alternative parallel routes and/or planning for future road-space reallocation as part of the long term plans for reallocation when traffic volumes are reduced.

Moreover, the detailed improvements proposed in the "Cycling Plus" plans contain too many compromises that individually and collectively undermine the core objective of supporting a large increase in cycling trips. A cycle route is only as good as the weakest link, and these outline proposals contain too many omissions or poor compromises that leave many weak links in place on these routes. For example, these cycle improvement proposals rely on deprecated substandard elements such as advisory cycle lanes or shared use paths. This sort of fudge will fail to deliver the step change in active travel that is needed and these proposals need to be reworked to remove these elements.

Likewise, all of the difficult and dangerous junctions need to be addressed and redesigned – it's no good dismissing these issues because they are too difficult. The plan must either propose an alternative route or should be combined with traffic reduction so that the necessary changes and reallocation of road space can be achieved.

In short, a more ambitious plan for cycling and walking improvements is needed. And this will require a lot more funding. The Making Connections documents expect a larger increase in active travel trips (60,000 new trips is stated) when compared to the increase in bus trips (20,000 new trips). The "City Access" modelling suggests that the majority of the transport modal shift will be a change from driving to active travel modes of cycling and walking. As such, we think that a larger percentage of the STZ net income – at least 40% - should be allocated to cycling and walking schemes. And this funding must be ring fenced to allow the development and delivery of a long term program of these vital cycling and walking improvements.

We would be happy to work with you and with other interested parties to develop an improved plan for the scale and quality of cycling infrastructure improvements that are needed.

Yours faithfully

CTC Cambridge