Cambridge Congestion Charge

[Magdalia]

None are very big, so most can't really sustain the kind of bus service to Cambridge (say half-hourly from 6am to 11pm) that people would see as good enough for people not to use their cars.

Let's look at the current service levels.

St Ives every 10 mins day, half hourly evening
Huntingdon every 20 mins day, hourly evening
Haverhill, St Neots half hourly day, hourly evening
Newmarket half hourly day, none evening
Ely, Saffron Walden, Royston hourly day, none evening

The busway clearly makes a big difference. My hunch is that journey times, especially not stopping much in Cambridge, are an important factor. Nice buses matter too.

A surprising number of people drive from further west to the St Ives and Longstanton P&R sites

And from further north. Car to St Ives, Longstanton or Trumpington for the guided bus is also popular for long distance journeys to outpatients appointments at Addenbrookes.

I don't doubt there's also the opposite of people cycling to the Busway and continuing by bus, but judging by the bike rack size and occupancy that doesn't seem very popular (unlike at railway stations going to London where you get that a lot).

Security is a big issue in Cambridge, which is the bike theft capital of Britain. Cambridge North has a very big bike park that is only lightly used because it is notorious for theft.

When it was built - about 30 years ago I'd guess - the local authority would have wanted it there to promote people coming into Cambridge.

Now they've decided to declare "war on the motorist" that changes the dynamic and a developer with a bit of foresight should look for a site just outside the reach of Cambridge City Council, easily accessible by the M11, A10, A14 etc -

In Cambridge the tension between retail and congestion has been rumbling on for more than 50 years. Its not new. I'm old enough to remember the construction of the Lion Yard and the Grafton Centre, with their big car parks but no roads for the traffic coming in and out of them. I'm old enough to remember the crazy 1980s schemes for subterranean car parks under the Market Square or Parkers Piece. You're right that the Newmarket Road retail park looked a lot better idea in the 1980s than it does now. A significant event then was the opening of Queensgate in Peterborough which was a competitor for the shoppers from all of Ely, St Ives, Huntingdon and St Neots. Retail is not so important now, though it is still a big factor in travel to and from the historic centre.

I suspect Newmarket Rd would be even worse for traffic if the retail park was converted into housing.

If that really was the case then the shops on the retail park would be unviable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Security is a big issue in Cambridge, which is the bike theft capital of Britain. Cambridge North has a very big bike park that is only lightly used because it is notorious for theft.

If there's one place in the UK where a bewaakte Fietsenstalling would be a sensible investment it's there. I know they're leaving the UK, but as Abellio are Dutch I'm surprised they've not looked at it.

 

[BrianW]

Security is a big issue in Cambridge, which is the bike theft capital of Britain (Magdalia, upthread)

I would imagine that, as in so many things, Oxford would so claim too. When living there I formed a view that 'the villains' loaded up a trailer with bikes (so many to chose from) in one and drive them to the other for sale there. Next month the top month- all those innocent 'Freshers' with a bike bought by parents ... poor if any lock; poor knowledge of where it was left before embarking on the hostelry evaluation essay ... Going 'off-piste' perhaps though it does relate to openness to the range of travel options.

 

[johncrossley]

If there's one place in the UK where a bewaakte Fietsenstalling would be a sensible investment it's there. I know they're leaving the UK, but as Abellio are Dutch I'm surprised they've not looked at it.

Abellio tried a poor man's version of OV-Fiets at their British TOCs and that fell flat on its face. OV-Fiets is popular in NL primarily because it is so conveniently located at bewaakte fietsenstalling. It should have been done simultaneously with "Bike & Go".

 

[Bletchleyite]

Abellio tried a poor man's version of OV-Fiets at their British TOCs and that fell flat on its face. OV-Fiets is popular in NL primarily because it is so conveniently located at bewaakte fietsenstalling. "Bike & Go" should have been done simultaneously.

OV-Fiets doesn't really work anywhere other than London, where the Sadiq cycles are sort of analogous. The reason for this is that most UK city centres are very compact, and "out of town" office parks are typically too far from the main station for people to be willing to cycle.

By contrast, safe and secure staffed indoor cycle parking at major London commuter stations in cycle friendly places like Cambridge (North), MKC etc is an utter no-brainer. It could be provided in conjunction with a local bike shop setting up there which would make it more economic, as their staff time dealing with it would be marginal and it would also offer repair services, sales etc. The railway could, if it's capable of allaying its avarice for a minute or two, offer a preferential low rent for the bike shop on condition of it providing the service for a suitably long opening day (just contracting a security guard to staff it out of hours).

 

[higthomas]

So I now live in Cambridge and am definitely supportive. Whilst it's not necessarily the scheme I'd have gone for (probably congestion charge in the centre with workplace parking levy over the wider area) it will only be a good thing in terms of creating a better city for people who live work and shop here.

But, I'm sadly rather pessimistic that it will ever take place.

(Also for everyone asking, I think I read somewhere that the P&Rs will be outside the zone.)

 

[camflyer]

And around and around we go again...​

"Cambridge might need light rail after all, says county council leader"​

Cambridge might need light rail after all, says county council leader

Buses alone ‘not the full answer for city’ says Cllr Lucy Nethsingha.

www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk

Cllr Lucy Nethsingha, the Liberal Democrat leader of Cambridgeshire County Council, acknowledged that light rail, trams and other new technologies including autonomous vehicles should be explored “for climate change reasons”.

She spoke in the week that the Greater Cambridge Partnership agreed to go ahead with a consultation over its highly controversial plans to expand and improve the area’s bus network by imposing a £5 road user charge on motorists driving in Cambridge.

Cllr Nethsingha told the Cambridge Independent that there is a need for the transport system to move to a “much more electrified system”.

“And that is likely to mean that we need to think about what type of vehicles we’re using and how they are powered,” she said.

“I wonder whether in the long term we’re going to need to think about how we power vehicles going out along our bus routes in different ways.

“Battery technology is improving all the time, but the size of the battery that you would need to run a bus for 30 miles is a lot and there may be other ways of doing that.”

 

[Magdalia]

And around and around we go again...​

"Cambridge might need light rail after all, says county council leader"​

Cambridge might need light rail after all, says county council leader

Buses alone ‘not the full answer for city’ says Cllr Lucy Nethsingha.

www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk

I read this too and thought that it didn't make much sense. I wondered if electric propulsion was a red herring to avoid addressing the real issue. The recent Stagecoach cutbacks have demonstrated that the congestion charge plus improved bus network model is fundamentally flawed because there won't be enough bus drivers for the expanded bus network. Something is needed that carries more passengers per driver: light rail (and heavy rail) does that.

 

[The exile]

If I were a developer, I'd be looking for a nice, large plot just outside that proposed Charge zone to put a *very* big retail park and look to attract the likes of Currys, Next, Boots at least one of the supermarkets and all the other companies on the Cambridge Retail Park with the advertising strapline of 'No £5 charge for your customers'.

If Cambridge Council want to rip people off, then fine - but retailers should make positive moves out of Cambridge and onto the margins to protect their business.

Which is precisely what planning regulations should be there to prevent. Time also that every car parking space at out of town retail parks is taxed (suggest around £1k - £2k per space per annum).

 

[A0wen]

Which is precisely what planning regulations should be there to prevent. Time also that every car parking space at out of town retail parks is taxed (suggest around £1k - £2k per space per annum).

At those rates you'd kill bricks and mortar retail or impose huge price rises which customers would not accept.

Retail margins are sub 10% by and large, such costs will kill it.

I take it you have no understanding of how retail works or the costs associated with it? Declaration - I do, and in my career spent over 10 years working in Head Office roles for major retailers.

Retail overheads need to be reduced not increased.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At those rates you'd kill bricks and mortar retail or impose huge price rises which customers would not accept.

Retail margins are sub 10% by and large, such costs will kill it.

I take it you have no understanding of how retail works or the costs associated with it? Declaration - I do, and in my career spent over 10 years working in Head Office roles for major retailers.

Retail overheads need to be reduced not increased.

Would it be a bad thing if out of town non food retail were to be killed off? Home delivery is probably more sustainable, to be honest. Town centre retail is better still.

 

[A0wen]

Would it be a bad thing if out of town non food retail were to be killed off? Home delivery is probably more sustainable, to be honest. Town centre retail is better still.

Town centre retail is dead. You live in Milton Keynes, go for a walk around Bletchley or Wolverton or Newport Pagnell - apart from food stores, a household (B&M / Wilko) and restaurants / takeaways, they're dead. Moribund. The traditional high street was being killed off over the last 30 years by tin eared, greedy councils. Covid finished it.

Poor shop units, excess rents, obstructive and greedy parking charges all killed it. And idiotic local councils and councillors are to blame.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Town centre retail is dead. You live in Milton Keynes, go for a walk around Bletchley or Wolverton or Newport Pagnell - apart from food stores, a household (B&M / Wilko) and restaurants / takeaways, they're dead. Moribund. The traditional high street was being killed off over the last 30 years by tin eared, greedy councils. Covid finished it.

Poor shop units, excess rents, obstructive and greedy parking charges all killed it. And idiotic local councils and councillors are to blame.

You're not completely wrong, but CMK shopping centre is doing fine. Yes, it's a shopping centre, but so is the Manchester Arndale. That it's in the city centre is the important bit.

Small town centre retail where a large town is nearby is probably dead, yes, but large town/city centre retail very much isn't. Anf there are examples where the "out of town supermarket" has been whacked next to the town centre so it didn't die completely, such as Ormskirk and Bicester, also being a useful provision of free or cheap parking.

As to blame it's not just Councils but also greedy landlords. But yes, it is avarice.

 

[A0wen]

You're not completely wrong, but CMK shopping centre is doing fine. Yes, it's a shopping centre, but so is the Manchester Arndale. That it's in the city centre is the important bit.

Small town centre retail where a large town is nearby is probably dead, yes, but large town/city centre retail very much isn't. Anf there are examples where the "out of town supermarket" has been whacked next to the town centre so it didn't die completely, such as Ormskirk and Bicester, also being a useful provision of free or cheap parking.

As to blame it's not just Councils but also greedy landlords. But yes, it is avarice.

Milton Keynes is doing OK, but not exceptionally - it has lost anchor stores like House of Fraser and Debenhams - if M&S decide to go, which given they have their site at MKOne they may do, then that'll hit CMK and if you look down the road Luton and Watford, both of which were large town centres are struggling. So are Coventry and Leicester.

And Oxford and Regent Streets in Central London are struggling yet both Westfield's are doing OK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Milton Keynes is doing OK, but not exceptionally - it has lost anchor stores like House of Fraser and Debenhams - if M&S decide to go, which given they have their site at MKOne they may do, then that'll hit CMK and if you look down the road Luton and Watford, both of which were large town centres are struggling. So are Coventry and Leicester.

And Oxford and Regent Streets in Central London are struggling yet both Westfield's are doing OK.

The CMK M&S is very, very busy. I would be unsurprised to see the Stadium one close instead if they wanted to cut. They had one at Kingston and binned that fairly quickly, for instance.

MK is a bit quirky when it comes to travel - it's like someone built a wall along Portway/Childs Way - people from Wolverton and Newport mostly won't go to Bletchley, and people from Bletchley mostly won't go to Wolverton or Newport. It is a bit like Manchester (north and south) in having a near hard divide, despite driving across the whole thing in rush hour taking 20 minutes and almost all bus services terminating at Bletchley at the southern end.

 

[A0wen]

The CMK M&S is very, very busy. I would be unsurprised to see the Stadium one close instead if they wanted to cut. They had one at Kingston and binned that fairly quickly, for instance.

MK is a bit quirky when it comes to travel - it's like someone built a wall along Portway/Childs Way - people from Wolverton and Newport mostly won't go to Bletchley, and people from Bletchley mostly won't go to Wolverton or Newport. It is a bit like Manchester (north and south) in having a near hard divide, despite driving across the whole thing in rush hour taking 20 minutes and almost all bus services terminating at Bletchley at the southern end.

You're miles off.

Kingston got binned because it was an old unit and the rents were high whereas MKOne is a decent sized, modern unit with more competitive rents.

CMK will be sky high on rents. And it's a large and relatively inflexible unit. The margins on CMK will be far lower than MKOne - they'll dump CMK long before MKOne.

M&S have worked out, belatedly, that they don't need to be on the high street and they do better with out of town stores than they did on the high street. Which is why Kettering, Northampton, Bedford, Luton, Stevenage and Welwyn Garden City no longer have an M&S on their high street. Instead the first 3 are covered by Rushden Lakes and the second 3 by an out of town unit at Stevenage which had been Debenhams.

 

[camflyer]

Cambridge and Milton Keynes are very different cities. One is ancient and the other was designed in the age of the car.

 

[A0wen]

Cambridge and Milton Keynes are very different cities. One is ancient and the other was designed in the age of the car.

No doubt.

But arguing - as some are doing, that killing out of town retail is a way to revive the high street is for the fairies.

Cambridge is an appalling place as a retailer - the rents are sky high, the retail units in the city centre are poor and not suited to modern retail trends, the local council is rabidly anti car. Frankly any mainstream retailer retaining their city centre store in Cambridge either needs their head examining or their P&L.

 

[Magdalia]

Cambridge is an appalling place as a retailer - the rents are sky high, the retail units in the city centre are poor and not suited to modern retail trends, the local council is rabidly anti car.

Cambridge has a thriving local economy and a rapidly increasing population, which is why rents are high. I was in Cambridge last weekend: there's very little empty retail property in the old centre, apart from a few units on the upper floor of the Grand Arcade, and that's with only a tiny number of charity shops. High occupancy at high rents is not a sign of it being an appalling place for retail.

But the Grafton Centre and the Beehive Centre are both in decline with proposals for repurposing to laboratory space for tech start ups. These were both built when Cambridge bowed to the car, they have the best access anywhere in Cambridge for cars, with the only bits of city centre dual carriageway leading to their car parks, yet both are now unsustainable. If access for cars was essential, then the Grafton would be thriving and the old centre would be moribund, not the other way around.

Cambridge is not anti car, it is pro protecting a mediaeval street layout and a constricted historic centre hemmed in on two sides by the river and the colleges. The street layout was designed for the horse and cart, and there is not enough road space for lots of cars. Unsurprisingly the dominant form of transport is the modern equivalent of the horse, which is the bicycle. In most cases there's no need to bring a car into the old centre and most people who want to drive instead of cycling use the Park and Ride.

 

[A0wen]

Cambridge has a thriving local economy and a rapidly increasing population, which is why rents are high. I was in Cambridge last weekend: there's very little empty retail property in the old centre, apart from a few units on the upper floor of the Grand Arcade, and that's with only a tiny number of charity shops. High occupancy at high rents is not a sign of it being an appalling place for retail.

But the Grafton Centre and the Beehive Centre are both in decline with proposals for repurposing to laboratory space for tech start ups. These were both built when Cambridge bowed to the car, they have the best access anywhere in Cambridge for cars, with the only bits of city centre dual carriageway leading to their car parks, yet both are now unsustainable. If access for cars was essential, then the Grafton would be thriving and the old centre would be moribund, not the other way around.

Cambridge is not anti car, it is pro protecting a mediaeval street layout and a constricted historic centre hemmed in on two sides by the river and the colleges. The street layout was designed for the horse and cart, and there is not enough road space for lots of cars. Unsurprisingly the dominant form of transport is the modern equivalent of the horse, which is the bicycle. In most cases there's no need to bring a car into the old centre and most people who want to drive instead of cycling use the Park and Ride.

I'm not sure your conclusions are correct - there's more to it than simple road access.

Let's look at the history of those 3 retail spaces:

The Grafton Centre was built in the early 1980s opening in 1984. It has about 40 retail units, some large, occupied by the likes of Next, some smaller ones, the likes of Three as well as a cinema and food outlets. It is the 'mainstream' shopping centre within Cambridge.

The Beehive Centre is away from the town centre - it is an 'out of town' style park of the late 80s / early 90s with about a dozen large units. The anchor unit is a large Asda supermarket, it also has a large B&M, Pets at Home, TKMaxx - it's very much a 'second division' park. Just over the road from it you have the Cambridge retail park which has Homebase, Boots, Currys, Halfords and Dunelm and B&Q - opposite it is a large Tesco.

The Beehive's in decline - as is often the case with the 'older' out of town parks, because the units have become old and run down. What tends to happen is the leading retailers - the likes of Currys, Halfords, Next etc leave those parks and move to new sites, because it's cheaper and easier than refurbing their existing units. Those units are then taken on by the more 'value' led retailers, like B&M, Poundland TKMaxx.

So I don't think you can compare The Beehive centre in isolation - I think you also need to look at the Cambridge Retail Park and peripheral stores like the Tesco which is off the park but is its neighbour.

Now we turn to the Grand Arcade - the newest of the 3 opening in 2007/8 - it has John Lewis as its anchor store. It is *very* fashion led and has smaller units - looking at its store listing it has the likes of Apple, Hobbs, Office, Pandora, Tesla, Swarovski. Those kind of shops appeal just as much to tourists as they do locals and may even generate some traffic to them - in the same way such stores generate traffic to the likes of Westfield. But they are not the stores which people visit "every" day.

You can't assess the health of Cambridge's high street based on Grand Arcade being busy - it's too narrow in its store selection by far. And if, as you claim, the Grafton and Beehive are struggling then in terms of absolute footfall those are the centres which *will* generate footfall. The likes of Next, Primark (which is just outside the Grafton), Clarks, Boots are all mainstream stores - if they're struggling then the city centre will struggle. Yes, you'll get the hipsters heading to the Grand Arcade to be fleeced in the Apple store and pay £ 20 for a vegan soy maccachino - but that's one person, not the hundreds who would go into Primark or Next for a new outfit, into Clarks to get the kids the new school shoes and so on.

Yesterday, Marks and Spencer announced they'll be closing another 67 stores over the next 3-5 years, mainly older 'traditional' sites - let's wait and see what happens there. And John Lewis have closed stores in places like Sheffield and York - don't be surprised to see them retreating in the future and expensive, restricted units will bear the brunt of it.

 

[camflyer]

Cambridge may have a very successful economy (which has kept me employed for the past 20 years) but it's a terrible place for shopping. I would rather drive to Ely or BSE. A congestion charge is only going to put more people off.

 

[Magdalia]

The Grafton Centre was built in the early 1980s opening in 1984. It has about 40 retail units, some large, occupied by the likes of Next, some smaller ones, the likes of Three as well as a cinema and food outlets. It is the 'mainstream' shopping centre within Cambridge.

The Grafton has never been the mainstream shopping centre in Cambridge, it has always been a poor relation to the old centre. It started with big anchor tenants such as C&A, BHS and Debenhams, which had not had a presence in Cambridge until the Grafton opened, but al have fallen by the wayside. They were never enough to shift the centre of gravity away from Robert Sayles and M&S in the old centre. Now the Grafton is half empty and the only significant tenants remaining in the Grafton are Next, which is in the old C&A site and also has a shop in the old centre, and H&M. It is now in the bizarre position that its anchor tenant isn't even on site, it is Primark in the old Co-op site in Burleigh Street, the rest of which is almost entirely charity shops. I'm not surprised that the new owners of the Grafton are proposing to repurpose it for business use because it is finished as a shopping centre. That's not because of road access, it is because of market changes, especially the migration of mid market clothes retail online.

The Beehive Centre is away from the town centre - it is an 'out of town' style park of the late 80s / early 90s with about a dozen large units. The anchor unit is a large Asda supermarket, it also has a large B&M, Pets at Home, TKMaxx - it's very much a 'second division' park. Just over the road from it you have the Cambridge retail park which has Homebase, Boots, Currys, Halfords and Dunelm and B&Q - opposite it is a large Tesco.

The USP here for retailers has always been the extensive ground level car park that enabled customers to take away bulky items in trolleys and load them straight into their cars. But now most of that sort of stuff gets delivered, again it is market changes that have precipitated the decline, not road access.

You can't assess the health of Cambridge's high street based on Grand Arcade being busy

And I wasn't. I was referring to the old centre as a whole. Walk through St Andrews Street, Sidney Street, Bridge Street, Trinity Street and Market Street: it is hard to find anything empty, and Oxfam is the only charity shop that I can think of. It is the high end of retail that will survive, because it provides the personal touch missing from a website.

Yes, you'll get the hipsters heading to the Grand Arcade to be fleeced in the Apple store and pay £ 20 for a vegan soy maccachino - but that's one person

In Cambridge there are many more than one of those!

 

[A0wen]

In Cambridge there are many more than one of those!

And they're completely fickle - they'll move on to the next "trendy" place or fad in due course.

I'm not surprised that the new owners of the Grafton are proposing to repurpose it for business use because it is finished as a shopping centre.

Happening in alot of places - but high street retail sites designed in the 70s or 80s aren't fit for purpose any longer.

The USP here for retailers has always been the extensive ground level car park that enabled customers to take away bulky items in trolleys and load them straight into their cars. But now most of that sort of stuff gets delivered, again it is market changes that have precipitated the decline, not road access.

No - with the Beehive, you just look over the road, the Cambridge Retail Park has taken the kind of retailers who would have been in the Beehive centre originally. It's just that refurbing a 20 year old unit and continuing to trade is a nightmare, so it's easier to relocate to a shiny new unit 250 yards away and the old site gets taken on by the "second tier" budget retailers. That's what has happened.

 

[Bletchleyite]

it is because of market changes, especially the migration of mid market clothes retail online

Not just online, but also the ease and relative cheapness of getting to London, which gets you your clothes *and* a nice day out. It's the argument I've also tended to use with regard to places like Ormskirk when people complain of it losing clothing shops - why would you not just have a day out in Liverpool if you want to try stuff on?

 

[gingerheid]

Well well well... It's like Stagecoach are trying to sabotage the plans!

Every day I see a FB advert saying that if the proposals go ahead the buses will be amazing. Stagecoach have cancelled more than 250 services (and a lot of them on routes that are hourly or less that really can't cope with multiple cancellations) yesterday and today, so it all rings a bit hollow...

 

[Magdalia]

Well well well... It's like Stagecoach are trying to sabotage the plans!

Every day I see a FB advert saying that if the proposals go ahead the buses will be amazing. Stagecoach have cancelled more than 250 services (and a lot of them on routes that are hourly or less that really can't cope with multiple cancellations) yesterday and today, so it all rings a bit hollow...

The congestion charge proposal does not stack up without an explanation of how the operators are going to recruit and retain the drivers needed for the enhanced bus service.

 

[JamesT]

The congestion charge proposal does not stack up without an explanation of how the operators are going to recruit and retain the drivers needed for the enhanced bus service.

If it's anything like Oxford, the argument goes that the bus companies have had to increase their complements to keep the current service level due to congestion. If you're stuck in traffic and the round trip takes 50% longer, that's 50% more buses/drivers to keep the same frequency. If the charge decongests the roads, then they've now got spare resource to improve services with.
Oxford are intending on using bus gates and a zero emission zone rather than a congestion charge, but the aims and reasoning are the same.

 

[camflyer]

Consultation has closed

More than 23k respond to city congestion charge plan - BBC News

The consultation received more responses than any other run by the Greater Cambridge Partnership.

www.bbc.co.uk

More than 23,000 people completed an online survey about the plans and another 900 emails were sent to the GCP during the 10-week exercise.
Elisa Meschini, a Cambridgeshire county councillor who also chairs the GCP's executive board, said: "There has never been a more important time for us to find ways to create and provide a modern transport network that is fit for our growing and thriving region, so I would like to thank the thousands of people that contributed to the debate over the last 10 weeks.

 

[Fraizer Caan]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-62692057 (Aug27th/22)

Cambridge drivers could face congestion charges by 2027
The Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) is proposing a £5 charge to be introduced by 2026-27, -private vehicles - 07:00 and 19:00 on weekdays.
Cambridgeshire County Council would have final approval of any plans.


According to the council, people favoured road based charges over increased parking charges, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.
Transport Director at the GCP, Peter Blake, said a further consultation on exemptions and discounts would be held.

The GCP cannot unilaterally impose the charge, although it can make a recommendation to Cambridgeshire County Council, which has the power to approve the plans.
also fall to the county council as the highway authority to manage the charge in the future after the GCP reaches the end of its work.

Improvements to bus services are also being considered under the new proposals, including cheaper bus fares, longer operating hours and "a huge increase" in rural services.
Mr Blake said the GCP would work closely with partners at the Combined Authority and the county council on the plans.
The authority also set out ambitions for the entire bus fleet to be zero-emission by 2030.
Income from the proposed congestion charge would be ringfenced for public transport, the GCP said.

Mr Blake said: " opportunity to create a world-class transport network Greater Cambridge and
more "people-centric" spaces in the city, the GCP said.

https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/news/2...rm-how-people-travel-around-greater-cambridge ( Oct17th/22)

A news release from Greater Cambridge Partnership.
These changes would be paid for upfront by the GCP and phased in over four years before the proposed introduction of a Sustainable Travel Zone with a road user charge.
The zone would fund the bus network .
*changes would create better bus services , plus better walking and cycling routes.
-more services to more locations, with cheaper fares at £1 or £2 per journey.
-New bus routes, additional orbital and express services to key sites across the city, and a huge increase in services for villages and towns across the travel to work area.
-Buses supported by flexible services known as Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) – which you can book that picks you up from near your home, such as the popular Ting service currently being trialled in West Huntingdonshire.
Longer operating hours from 5am to 1am and more frequent services - 6-8 buses every hour in the city and from market towns, and hourly rural buses.
Flat fares to make public transport cheap and accessible for all; with passengers paying £1 to travel in the city and £2 in the travel to work area.
Options for new cycling routes in the city and connections between villages and the wider active travel network, including the 12 Greenways routes.
Improvements to public spaces to make Cambridge more ‘people-centric’.
All vehicle movements into, out of and within the proposed Sustainable Travel Zone (STZ) would pay a flat daily charge between 7am and 7pm on weekdays.

Cllr Elisa Meschini, Chair of the GCP’s Executive Board, said: “create a city that prioritises people over cars.
Cambridge would also have cleaner air and safer spaces.

“With the City Deal in place to pay for these improvements up front, we have a once in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform how we travel around Greater Cambridge. I encourage everyone to engage with the proposals online, in print, or through public or online events and have your say.”

The scheme would also cut the number of car trips in Cambridge by 50% and reduce carbon emissions from transport by about 5%.
provide 10,000 additional Park and Ride spaces around the city region.

To view the proposals and have your say visit the Consult Cambs webpage. The ten-week consultation closes at midday on 23 December.
The findings will be used to put together a detailed Business Case that would be put to the GCP’s Executive Board next year to decide whether to go ahead with the proposals and consider the timeline to implementing each part of the scheme.
Cambridgeshire County Council, as the Highway Authority, has ultimate responsibility for any proposals around charging policies and would make the final decision.

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/ne...-congestion-charge-protest-cambridge-25616473 (Nov28th/22)

'It'll kill the city centre': Hundreds protest Cambridge congestion charge​

The protesters converged in Parker's Piece waving banners and banging drums
____________________
https://www.smartertransport.uk/city-deal-new-approach/( Aug16th/2016)

1. There is no aspiration to achieve outstanding design. The projects are being led by civil engineers at the County Council, and being worked up by consultants who mainly employ civil engineers. Few have adequate understanding or sensitivity to behavioural psychology, social impacts and place-making (creating welcoming, distinctive, attractive and useful public spaces). This is amply illustrated by the woeful Urban Design Guidance document (currently being revised). But even with a good design guide, mediocre designers will still produce mediocre designs.
2. Communication is poor (though improving slightly), not reaching enough people. The website is difficult to navigate and key information is difficult to find (e.g. scheme timetables). Scheme documentation has lacked clarity, being either too superficial (so-called ‘concepts’ with inadequate explanation), confusing (e.g. the many euphemisms used for bus lanes/ways), or too technical (detailed engineering drawings). Key stakeholders are not defined or identified transparently, and many are not being invited or notified of public meetings.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60819662

As well as a congestion charge, the proposals to fund the network also include introducing a levy for parking spaces at workplaces.

• Congestion charge plan to decrease pollution
• Where have emissions fallen the most in England?
• What you can do to reduce emissions

Labour county councillor and chairwoman of the GCP, Elisa Meschini, said: "The only way we can rule out any kind of charging scheme is if we do nothing with the public transport.
"We haven't decided if we're going to do a congestion charge at all, there are a lot of other options in terms of how you could fund public transport and the consultation outlines all of them."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-59220558 (nov/2021)

More "direct services" to employment areas around the city are also proposed.
As well as a congestion charge on car drivers, a workplace parking levy for organisations to pay for parking spaces is in the plans.

• Where have emissions fallen the most in England?
• What's been agreed at COP26 so far?
• What you can do to reduce emissions

The partnership estimates the proposed bus network could cost up to £40m each year, and that lower traffic levels would be needed to run "regular, reliable and fast" bus services.
They propose to pay for that through parking charges, a flexible charge, and a pollution charge.

if the government is giving Cambridgeshire 400milion over the next 7 years - why do the CGC need to impose sush a large congestion charge so soon ?

 

[Jammy Dodger]

Something is needed that carries more passengers per driver: light rail (and heavy rail) does that.

I agree. Based on looking at the previous CAM proposals, it seems that it was going to be somewhere between people-mover type pods, to small, rubber-tyred tram-buses, both of which would have been terrible value, as the existing bus network could be modified for comparatively very low amounts (initial CAM proposals were upwards of £4bn). An actual light rail network (inspired by the DLR), and not a "tram re-badged as an LRT" would be a much better value for money.