Issue - meetings

A City Deal representative has been invited to go through the proposals with residents.

The Committee received a presentation from the City Deal Lead on City Access regarding proposals to reduce congestion through an 8 point plan.

Members of the public made the following comments in response to the presentation:

       i.          Leaflets about City Deal proposals were not consistently available across the city.

     ii.          Proposals that generated revenue seemed to be favoured over those that seemed a better idea.

   iii.          Expressed concern that schemes to reduce congestion (eg Peak-time Congestion Control Points (PCCPs)) would:

·       Hinder people who had genuine need to travel across the city eg carers.

·       Trap people in their own city wards.

·       Create artificial barriers between wards or communities in wards.

·       Encourage rat running as people tried to avoid PCCPs.

·       Lead to people performing illegal manoeuvres in the road to avoid PCCPs.

   iv.          Signposted a petition against City Deal proposals.

    v.          Supported a congestion charge and underground railway scheme.

The Committee made the following comments in response to the presentation:

       i.          PCCPs may encourage a modal shift from private cars to walking, cycling and public transport.

     ii.          Expressed concern over the lack of consultation on City Deal proposals and details about them.

   iii.          Queried if funding from the City Deal could subsidise park&ride services to encourage a modal shift from cars.

The City Deal Director and Lead on City Access said in response to questions from members of the public:

       i.          Information on proposals to reduce congestion was set out on the City Deal website.

     ii.          Feedback was invited on the proposals during the 11 July to 10 October consultation period.

   iii.          Proposals aimed to reduce congestion and so improve bus services and the built environment. They were not designed to generate revenue or be a forerunner for congestion charging.

   iv.          The City Deal was applying for funding to get infrastructure for growth areas. It had to apply for funding in the short, medium and long term in three stages. Failure to achieve goals in one stage would stop future funding applications. An underground railway scheme would take 20 years to implement and so was not practicable.

    v.          Ways to speed up bus fare payments and so decrease journey times were being looked at.

   vi.          The City Deal was liaising with social care providers about siting PCCPs to achieve the goal of reducing congestion without impeding carers.

 vii.          PCCPs used a number plate recognition system, rather than a physical barrier. The aim was to encourage people to exit the city on the same route they came in, not travel across to exit.

viii.          Number plate recognition had been evaluated as a more practicable option over gating as a method to control congestion.

   ix.          People would receive a £50 fine for crossing PCCPs.

    x.          PCCPs had been trialled in the 1990s (Cambridge) and 1960s (Groningen, Netherlands).

Councillor Baigent made the following points as a City Deal Assembly Member:

       i.          Cambridge is a commercially successful city.

     ii.          The City Deal proposals aimed to help people travel across the city (specifically in buses) without getting stuck in traffic.

   iii.          City Deal proposals would not trap people in their own city wards by stopping them from travelling.