[Members] CPPF Board Letter for your information

[Wendy Blythe]

7 June 2016



Councillor Lewis Herbert

Chairman

Greater Cambridge City Deal

The Guildhall

Cambridge



Dear Councillor Herbert



*Public Consultation on Reducing Congestion in Cambridge*



The City Deal is poised to make the most significant decision it will ever
make on the future growth and prosperity of the Greater Cambridge area –
how best to alleviate the city’s chronic traffic congestion and create the
high quality public transport system that every growing, thriving city
region must have.  It is therefore crucial that the decision is the right
one - not only in terms of the effectiveness of the measures proposed, but
also in that it has the general support of the public.  It is particularly
on this second point that I am writing.



CambridgePPF has until now appreciated the open and consultative way in
which the City Deal conducts its business, so it is all the more surprising
that, when it comes to the most important decision of all, this commitment
to democracy is lost.



Why is the City Deal proposing to deny the public the choice between
different alternative measures to reduce congestion?  The agenda papers for
the Assembly and Executive Board recommend a single approach when the
consultant’s analysis shows clearly that there is a second -  a Congestion
Charge-led approach -  that would be equally, or most likely more,
effective in reducing congestion whilst generating five times the revenue
income.



The option of a road user charge has been dismissed by City Deal officers
on various grounds which we consider to be poorly substantiated and in some
respects inaccurate. In particular, we are concerned at their assertions
regarding fairness.  *All* interventions leading to behaviour change will
affect some people more than others, and it is important to look at the
implications of the proposed congestion reduction package as well as those
arising from a Congestion Charge. For example:



·         Is it fair that the Peak Congestion Control Points will leave
many commuting journeys by car completely unaffected, whilst others will
become effectively impossible?

·         Is it fair that the poorest, most disadvantaged, and most
isolated in our society, who are least likely to have access to a car, will
have to put up with a second rate bus service, when an option exists that
could provide a truly excellent subsidised service?  And is it fair on
residents in the rural areas that they may be forced out of their cars
without a top quality bus option?

·         Is it fair that city residents will face increased rat-running in
their streets by traffic displaced by the road closures?  And is it fair
that increased commuter parking on residential streets (displaced from the
workplace) will put pressure on residents to agree to the cost and hassle
of residents’ parking schemes, which they may otherwise not need or want?

·         Is it fair that well-paid employees of small organisations will
avoid the Workplace Parking Levy, while low paid people working for large
bodies face paying a daily parking fee if the charge can indeed be passed
on to employees?

·         Is it fair on future generations to adopt an option which will do
less than could be done to reduce air pollution and carbon emissions?



All these questions will be of huge interest to the public, in the same way
that they would want to interrogate the pros and cons of a Congestion
Charge-led approach. So rather than taking your officers’ assertions at
face value, would it not be right to ask the public?  After all, 59% of
people supported Congestion Charging in an extensive public consultation in
2008 – why would it be wrong to ask again?



We therefore call for the City Deal Board to delay approval of the proposed
congestion reduction package to allow the public the opportunity to
consider the choice between the two alternatives – either the package as
proposed by the City Deal or an alternative comprising the same package but
with the Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) and Peak Hour Control Points replaced
by a Peak Hours Congestion Charge.  Let the opinion of the public be heard
in determining which is the most fair and effective.



The Cambridgeshire County Council’s consultation procedures, as set out in
its *Listening and Involving Strategy,* states in Principle A that
consultation will be clearly linked to decision-making – but apparently not
in this case. The proposed ‘Engagement Process’ does not cover both
alternatives in that it is simply a means of telling the public what is in
the package that has been already agreed.  The City Deal risks being in
breach of the Council’s own procedures, and thus exposed to legal challenge.



A delay of a few months to allow the necessary consultation would also give
time for further work on the City Deal package to answers some of the basic
questions that were raised during the Assembly discussion but to which no
answers were forthcoming:

1.       *How will the income from the WPL be spent*?  If the public could
see the proposed benefits, it might help make the package more acceptable;

2.       *What will be the reaction of employers to the WPL, and is it
deliverable*?  The Nottingham experience shows that the WPL has only a
marginal effect on congestion unless the charge is passed on to
employees.  Again
in the Nottingham case, this has not happened so it becomes in effect a tax
on employment. How will Cambridge react with major employers like the
University of Cambridge, the NHS, and the Local Authorities?

3.       *What will be the impact of traffic displacement in the vicinity
of the Control Points?*  Has the displacement effect of drivers trying to
find new routes around Control Points and the creation of rat-runs on
residential streets been modelled?

4.       *How does the proposed package integrate with the bus-lanes*
planned for Histon and Milton Road and elsewhere?  If the target reduction
in congestion is achieved, will the new bus-lanes still be needed?  Officers
are very strident in their assertion that these schemes will still be vital
even if the traffic reduction target is achieved, but where is the evidence
to support this?

5.       *Are the Control Points in the right locations*?  What about
congestion reduction in the northern half of the city? And does their
location permit the investment in ANPR technology to be incorporated into a
network of sensors for a road user charge should this eventually be
required?

6.       *How will the effectiveness of the proposed package be monitored*?
A comprehensive monitoring programme must be set up not just of traffic
volumes and journey times but including the impact of traffic displacement,
creation of rat-runs, and the impact on people getting to and from their
place of work.



We all recognise that reducing congestion requires changing driver
behaviour. It is our belief that the heavy-handed imposition of
prohibitions, controls, and penalties is not the best way to achieve this
change: success is more likely if people have the opportunity to make
choices and have their voice heard.  By denying the public this opportunity
on this most important of issues, you risk antagonising drivers and
reducing the likelihood of success, which will be to the great detriment of
us all.



Yours sincerely

Robin Pellew
cc City Deal Executive Board members

Chairman, CambridgePPF Planning Committee                 City Deal Joint
Assembly members










Wendy Blythe
Chair, FeCRA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fecra.org.uk/pipermail/members_fecra.org.uk/attachments/20160608/91bf28da/attachment-0002.htm>