Below is my response to the GCP Making Connections 2022 Consultation. Looking back at this very irregular blog, this really is Congestion Charging groundhog day - pretty much the same plans have been dusted off from Oct 2016, and my views haven't changed much on them since then. When this round is over, we really do need to get to the bottom of who is trying to force this on Cambridge (as you struggle to find an elected politician who claims responsibility), and why we have wasted so much of the last 6 years when it comes to delivering actual transport infrastructure.
Anyway, here goes...
1) To what extent do you support or oppose the proposals for bus improvements and fare reductions?
Oppose. Some are OK, overall they won’t deliver significant enough benefit for the costs involved.
2) Do you have any comments on the proposals for:
Cheaper fares?
More routes?
Fast, high frequency services?
Longer operating hours?
Increased rural services?
Simpler ticketing?
Zero emission bus services?
Broadly supportive of cheaper fares, with some public subsidy. When I have used buses in the past, I was surprised by the high fare costs, which are clearly a barrier to more bus usage, particularly as it is an additional marginal usage cost for people who have already paid the fixed costs of car ownership.
The current service providers are not currently able to run the advertised bus service with any degree of reliability. Top priority should be ensuring that the current timetables can be sustained. I’d also support extension of service times on main routes to cover the evening rush hour.
However, most of the proposed changes to increase services into increasingly more rural areas, increase frequency and increase operating hours e.g. to the early hours of the morning are likely to involve enormous levels of public subsidy with very little benefit to the overall transport situation, as for reasons elsewhere in these responses they fall far short of what is needed to make a journey by bus a more appealing option for most journeys, and with lower population densities there won’t be enough demand to sustain the large ‘per passenger-journey’ subsidies needed. Our local Councils have repeatedly tried to subsidise various routes at extended hours, but usually cancel schemes when the extraordinary subsidy per person becomes apparent. (e.g. nightbuses were tried in Cambridge City in 2001 but cancelled later as it would almost have been cheaper to pay for taxis for the low usage numbers). The current Cambridge City Council budget consultation includes cancelling subsidies to reduce the location and hours of some routes.
Simpler ticketing is a great idea in principle, but hard to do in practice - would only make sense if using a commercial off the shelf solution and not trying to invent something bespoke locally.
Zero emission bus services are obviously a good idea, but are likely to be rolled out nationally in the near future anyway.
3) Are there any additional improvements to bus services that would be needed for you to use bus services for more of your journeys? If so, what are they? Or if you are a non-bus user, what would encourage you to use the bus?
Nothing at all would persuade me to use buses more as they are too slow and inefficient for any conceivable journey I would want to make. A 50% reduction in congestion (even if this did turn out to be achievable which is far from clear) and more frequent service wouldn’t significantly impact this calculation, as the speed of bus journeys is fundamentally limited by the speed limit of roads, residual congestion, the circuitous routes they need to take in order to cover sufficient population in any rural journey, and the time taken at bus stops. To put this into context - I used to live in central Newmarket, and work at Cambridge Airport, which has a direct bus route. My transport options were:
Drive: A good clear journey would take just over 15 mins door to door. Anything over 30 mins would constitute a very bad and unusual journey for congestion.
Train: If I was going elsewhere in Cambridge after work, I would use the train/folding bike combination. The train journey was around 25 mins, with about 10-15 mins cycling each end, so around 45-55 mins in total, but reasonably consistent journey time compared to car, although much less flexibility.
Bus never came into consideration - even with a bus service from Newmarket stopping outside my final destination, the journey time itself would have been at least an hour due to the route taken, plus 10 mins walk at the start, plus the need to arrive at the bus stop early. Journey times would be inconsistent, the service would always be less reliable and less comfortable than car or train. Even if it was free, and there was increased reliability due to less congestion, and an option to get a bus home later in the evening, and a congestion charge on car use, it still wouldn’t have come into consideration as it would remain far too slow and inconvenient, and the same would be true for anyone whose time is valued at any kind of commercial rate. For anyone with a similar journey without a direct door-to-door bus (ie most people living outside Cambridge) the time cost of buses would be enormously high.
I currently live in Chesterton in Cambridge. I walk or cycle most journeys. If I find myself somewhere without a bike and need to get home (eg. arriving at the main train station), I used to get a taxi/Uber, now I would get a Voi scooter - buses would take far too long to be a viable alternative regardless of congestion. I only use my car rarely, if I need to carry something too heavy for a bike - in which case the bus would similarly not be suitable. I am currently able to mostly use sustainable travel options because I am fortunate enough to be able to afford housing (almost) suitable to my needs in Cambridge. Because of generations of poor planning approach by the local authorities, we haven’t built enough new homes where they are needed within sustainable commuting distance of people’s jobs, friends and social lives. Many people work in the City but can only afford a family home some distance away from Cambridge. This problem can only be fixed by fixing the planning system and building more homes where they are needed nearer to Cambridge, concentrated around access points to new dedicated public transport corridors.
4) The bus improvements are proposed to start immediately after a decision in summer 2023 and ramp up over the following 4-5 years. What bus improvements would you want to see delivered first?
See answers to Q2
5) To what extent would you support or oppose the franchising of the local bus network by the Mayor and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority?
Don’t know
The current system of running buses is clearly broken - supply in the private sector has become monopolised (or acts like is has), services are unreliable and not well co-ordinated between providers and transport modes.
However, it is unclear if local authorities (particularly the mess of local authorities we suffer from in greater Cambridge) would do a better job, nor is it clear that there is an efficient and cost effective process to introduce bus franchising. The experience in Greater Manchester suggests that currently the statutory process to implement franchising is slow, complex, expensive and subject to delaying tactics like legal challenges. Given the size of the greater Cambridge area, it may make more sense to lobby government to introduce a much more streamlined route to franchising instead of trying to use the current system, possibly as part of a local devolution scheme.
6) To what extent do you support or oppose additional improvements to walking and cycling, accessibility and public spaces?
I am strongly supportive of improvements to walking and cycling. I have no confidence that these proposals or our current local authorities can deliver what is required.
The current high modal share for cycling in Cambridge is mostly in spite of the cycling infrastructure, not because of it. The delivery record of the local authorities is extremely poor, with projects such as the Chisholm Trail taking decades to approve, and even now is only half built, with phase 1 going significantly over budget and taking far longer than a project of that complexity should have done. The Greenways projects were proposed in 2016. Despite the large numbers of new homes proposed at Waterbeach, the relevant Greenway was again delayed this year, and is still years away from opening. There needs to be a step change in the approach to delivering cycling infrastructure to reduce costs and speed up delivery.
The proposals outlined for cycling and walking are vague and unambitious. We should plan to deliver a full dutch standard network of cycling and active travel routes to support safe and convenient cycling. By Dutch standard network I mean a dedicated network of interconnected segregated routes in and around Cambridge, with appropriate infrastructure such as bridges and underpasses to ensure cycling and micromobility is the most cost and time effective choice for most journeys.
An easy way to start down this road is for all new developments to include Dutch standard cycle facilities - we are still approving car based dormitory settlements that fall far below best practice standards for active travel.
7) If a Sustainable Travel Zone was introduced, are there any other improvements you would like to see funded?
I don’t believe the proposals to raise revenue through congestion charging are acceptable or will be implemented in anything like their current form, so this question is not applicable.
8) Do you have any comments on the proposal to introduce a Sustainable Travel Zone?
The proposals to improve the bus service do not amount to a significant intervention commensurate with the transport needs of the Cambridge subregion and its recent and potential growth. They cannot provide a comprehensive solution to sustainable transport as they will leave too many journeys that simply cannot be made in a reasonable timeframe by bus or active travel. They do not constitute investment in transport infrastructure, and do not provide new dedicated public transport corridors - they provide subsidies to operating costs that could be removed at any time if budgets get tight.
That so many long journeys in and out of Cambridge are required to support the local economy is testament to decades of failed planning policies that have not built sufficient new homes near to where they are needed, and have favoured the development of car based dormitory settlements, forcing people to commute long distances between homes they can afford to bring up their families, and the jobs they need to provide for them.
As such, it is implausible that the proposals will succeed in reducing congestion or speeding up journeys as predicted, further reducing their effectiveness, and the costs of the congestion charge will be unavoidable for many, so will function as a highly regressive new form of taxation on sections of the population that are already struggling with high living costs.
There are further problems with the congestion charging proposals. The operating costs of the system will be high so it will be a very inefficient form of taxation. The initial implementation will be capital intensive and technically risky. The proposals involve a significant degree of surveillance of people’s movements around the city - an intrusion of personal privacy that is hard to justify given the limited net benefits identified.
There is no democratic cover for this proposal, and political support is largely absent or opaque or both. Significant and controversial changes such as this, should not have been progressed to this stage without being clearly presented to electorates at local elections, where it is clear which authority is responsible for the proposals, and which candidates for those authorities support or oppose the proposals, so voters have the chance to not elect those supporting a controversial change. This has systematically not happened in this case. The program is being promoted by the Greater Cambridge Partnership - a body which is not directly elected, but functions through appointees. Whilst some of those appointees have been vocal in supporting those proposals, it is not clear they have the support of those that appointed them in doing so. None of my local Councillors at City or County level have expressed support for the plans, despite being pressed for their views repeatedly. At the local elections and since, no candidate in my area has publicised support for the plans. At a recent by-election in South Cambridgeshire, there was a very strong swing towards candidates opposing plans for congestion charging. This all suggests that there have been strong efforts to hide the plans from voters prior to elections, and remove this decision from effective democratic control - that is completely unacceptable. The mess of local authorities hasn’t helped, with it being very unclear which out of the combined authority, county council or greater Cambridge Partnership is responsible for introducing the measures or implementing them.
In order to progress proposals such as these, we need all the local authorities to be replaced in the Greater Cambridge area by a new Unitary Authority, with empowered directly elected representatives, with policies being clearly put to voters at an election before being progressed.
9) To what extent do you support or oppose the introduction of a Sustainable Travel Zone to fund improvements to bus services, walking and cycling?
Strongly Oppose.
10) If you do not support the introduction of a Sustainable Travel Zone to fund improvements to bus services, walking and cycling, what alternative funding proposals would you propose to tackle the challenges faced by Greater Cambridge?
Greater Cambridge is one of the most economically successful regions of the UK, with progress being made on science and technology that is transforming the world for the better. It is scandalous that this has not been accompanied by proper funding of transport and other infrastructure.
To fund the decent transport systems we need and deserve:
Create a Greater Cambridge Unitary Authority to improve the efficiency of local government, allowing it to deliver projects quicker and more cost effectively.
Seek devolved powers over local planning, and use those to build significantly more homes near Cambridge on new and existing dedicated transport routes (reducing the need for car journeys, and supporting active and sustainable transport)
Introduce significant community infrastructure levies on new developments that channel more of the uplift in value from planning permissions into new infrastructure (as happens in other countries) and use the funds for capital spending on new transport infrastructure, including a new network of dedicated public transport routes (e.g. Light Rail) and Dutch standard segregated active travel routes.
To fund ongoing operational subsidies for transport networks, more funding needs to originate from the successful businesses, for example:
A workplace parking levy
A better share of business rates from successful businesses going to the new local authority to use on transport subsidies, potentially as part of a local devolution deal.
If further revenue subsidy is required:
Move towards charging market rates for residents parking permits (currently would be £80-100 per month in central Cambridge) - this would have an effect in reducing demand, but would be more expensive in higher cost areas where there are more sustainable alternatives, so would be far less unfair and regressive than congestion charging that mostly hits the less well off
An additional Council tax precept for public transport
11) Do you have any feedback on the proposed Zone and its boundary?
If proposals are progressed, discussions on the zone will degenerate into a political calculation around how many people need to be removed from the scope of the charge to allow the scheme to progress.
12) Do you have any comments on the proposed hours of operation of the Sustainable Travel Zone?
If proposals are progressed, discussions on the timings will degenerate into a political calculation around how many people need to be removed from the scope of the charge to allow the scheme to progress. I would note that some of the most congested times (weekends on Newmarket Road) aren’t currently in scope, but quiet parts of the weekdays when congestion isn’t really an issue at all are currently in scope.
13) To what extent would you support or oppose the principle of phasing in the Sustainable Travel Zone charge?
Oppose
14) Do you have any comments on the suggested phasing approach?
Its hard to see how the phasing is anything other than a political calculation as to what might be acceptable. It significantly weakens the financial case for the plans and opens it up to significant risk.
The bus subsidies will be introduced early, followed by significant capex to introduce congestion charging followed by possible congestion charging revenue. This makes it very unlikely that an appropriately risk weighted net present value calculation of the costs and benefits of the proposals will be positive.
Specifically, there are a number of risks that may derail the introduction of the charging mechanism, including technical challenges, legal and privacy challenges, political challenges (ie elected representatives who continue to support charging being dumped from office causing plans to change) and potential changes in national government policy (e.g. if the takeup of electric vehicles causes a national road pricing scheme to be introduced to replace VED and fuel duty). In any of these cases, the local charging mechanism could be abandoned leaving no mechanism to continue to fund the buses, and with no progress made on delivering real transport infrastructure either.
15) Do you have any comments on the proposed charge levels?
The charges will be significantly detrimental to those working in lower paid jobs.
16) Do you have any comments on the proposed discounts, exemptions, and reimbursements?
17) Do you have any other comments on the proposed discounts, exemptions and reimbursements?
If proposals are progressed, discussions on the discounts and exemptions will degenerate into a political calculation around how many people need to be removed from the scope of the charge to allow the scheme to progress.
The exemptions scheme looks complex and adds to the overall complexity of the proposals. Specifically in this case, the proposals introduce an element of means testing into the process, that will be complex and bureaucratic to administer, as well as adding to the disbenefit of moving from benefits into work, when the high effective marginal tax rate (benefit withdrawal rate) for those on universal credit is already a significantly problematic disincentive to work. It is also unclear, for example, why a care worker who might have perfectly viable alternatives to driving like cycling would be exempt, but an electrician or plumber who has no choice but use a van to carry tools isn’t exempt.
18) Taking into account the improvements suggested above, are there any changes to the proposals or additional measures that would help enhance or address impacts on you / your business / your organisation and the way you travel?
No further comments
19) Please comment if you feel any of the proposals would either positively or negatively affect or impact on [people or groups with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010].
No further comments
No comments:
Post a Comment