Cambridge South station won’t cope with demand - and that could scupper Biomedical Campus growth, warns transport group
A transport group dismantled the plans of Network Rail for Cambridge South at the inquiry into the new railway station.
Edward Leigh, of Smarter Cambridge Transport (SCT), told the hearing the proposed station would be far too small and unable to cope with future demand, fuelled by rapid jobs growth in the area.
And he warned that the integration between the railway station and bus services was not up to scratch.
His comments came as it emerged that South Cambridgeshire District Council had withdrawn its objection to the station and was now offering conditional support, after being reassured by Network Rail over its biodiversity plans.
The public inquiry into the new station at Cambridge Biomedical Campus began on February 1 and is scheduled to continue until at least March 4.
While there is widespread support for the principle of a new railway station on the fast-growing campus to serve its hospitals, businesses and research institutes, there are major high-profile objections to the specific plans, including from AstraZeneca, the University of Cambridge, the Medical Research Council, environmental groups and landowners. Concerns over existing infrastructure, the impact on sensitive equipment at research buildings and land acquisition are key concerns for the objectors.
SCT’s objections are focused on Network Rail’s vision for the capacity of the station, which are based on a prediction of around two million passenger entrances and exits per year, rising to 2.3 million by 2040.
The transport campaign group is concerned there is limited scope for expansion at the station, which it suggests could need to cater for anything up to nine million passengers in a couple of decades.
In his presentation to the inquiry, Edward Leigh warned: “Nowhere else in the UK could, potentially in 2040, have 40,000 jobs and six regional hospitals within a 15-minute walk of a railway station.”
He presented data suggesting Network Rail had largely relied on national growth rates, using software called TEMPro, rather than taking into account the unusually rapid jobs growth seen in Cambridge and on the campus.
“We have actual job counts for the Biomedical Campus in 2017 and 2022. The forecast for 2031 used for modelling purposes by Network Rail is 27,000 jobs. What they haven’t corrected is the growth rate,” he told the inspector.
“The old adage, garbage in, garbage out, still applies. If you put incorrect data into the model, you will get useless data out of it and that is our contention.”
Mr Leigh argued that if the growth rate had been corrected, the number of passenger entries and exits to the station could quickly exceed Network Rail’s maximum stress test forecast of six million passenger movements a year by 2031.
SCT’s objection noted that the 1.3 per cent jobs growth forecast used by Network Rail was “implausibly low”.
“Two new specialist hospitals, for children and cancer treatment, are planned for the site, yet receive no mention in the application documents,” the group noted, adding that Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC) 2050 vision, which predicts an additional 14,000 to 20,000 jobs, was also nowhere to be seen in the plans.
“In future, a much larger proportion of trips to the CBC will have to be made by sustainable modes than is the case now. That means that naïve predict-and-provide modelling, based on historical mode shares and standard growth rates, is not appropriate,” the group said.
Mr Leigh told the inquiry that Network Rail had also made a “significant error” in assessing the number of people switching from the roads to use the station. Taking calculations from a separate Transport Needs Review, it said an extra 4,768 daily one-way trips, or 1.4-1.6 million annually, could be expected.
“What this has omitted is that the input is a one-way trip and the output, the annual trips, is two-way - so you need to multiply by two,” said Mr Leigh.
Adding these trips to those who will use Cambridge station instead of the main city station would take the number of annual users to 6.4-6.9 million, Smarter Cambridge Transport argues.
He pointed out that a potential congestion charge for Cambridge, and limited parking on campus sites, would drive further numbers from the roads to rails.
Getting the numbers wrong, Mr Leigh argued, would put a “cap on growth of Cambridge Biomedical Campus” that the government should note. And he said a potential congestion charge for Cambridge could drive further numbers from the roads to rails.
He questioned Network Rail’s assumption that most people would use rail for journeys over 10 miles.
“The road capacity constraint will not allow you to choose to drive,” noted Mr Leigh.
And he also argued Network Rail had not examined the broader catchment area “with as wide eyes as it should”, noting that there are 26 stations within 40 minutes of Cambridge.
And he pointed out that if proposals for a Cambridge South East Transport busway proceed, residents in the Haverhill and Linton areas would find “they have a fast route to Cambridge South railway station, which will then become their most convenient rail head”.
“We must not overlook the fact that this will be a very attractive station for people to travel out from and we want them to be arriving there by sustainable modes,” he added.
Only three bays for taxis and three bays for pick-up and drop-off are envisaged, meaning most people will need to walk, cycle or use the bus to get to Cambridge South.
But Mr Leigh argued the integration with the bus network for the new station was not sufficient. Bus stops will be between 180 and 290 metres from the station entrance.
Changing this to 20 metres would cut interchange time by two minutes 30 seconds to four minutes, Mr Leigh said.
“That would greatly improve the attractiveness of using bus to make the first or last-mile connection,” he argued.
Network Rail has argued that it is not its remit to consider the best location of bus stops at a new station.
“Who will ever do it?” asked Mr Leigh. “This is Network Rail’s project and I would argue it is Network Rail’s duty to deliver the government’s policy on the integration of public transport.”
He concluded that if Cambridge South did not play its full part, then there is “a cap on growth” at Cambridge Biomedical Campus, one of the world’s leading centres of life science activity, which has a major vision for expansion.
SCT suggests building the ticket hall above the tracks with a busway bridge at the same level and a cycle park to the south, with its own entrance.
Ahead of its impending cross-examination of Mr Leigh, Network Rail did not wish to comment.
But in a rebuttal document to SCT, it said: “The new station will, in the main, result in transport improvements for passengers travelling over distances of 10 miles and above where rail has a natural advantage over some other transport modes. Local trips, within the Cambridge area, will generally not see a significant improvement as highway travel and active modes will tend to have an advantage over rail.
And it pointed out that it used industry-accepted methods to calculate the expected capacity of 2.3 million passenger movements, but that small changes means the station could cope with six million.
“SCT’s figures include several key assumptions that are unrealistic, and which are not consistent with Transport Appraisal Guidance,” it argues.
“Overall, Network Rail’s view is that the current station design is sufficient for the projected demand and a significantly more costly and disruptive option delivering unnecessary scope would not be appropriate for Network Rail to propose.”
Read more
Visiting minister says Cambridge bio-innovation ‘has shown what’s possible’
New images of Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital as it earns government and NHS backing
Cambridge South railway station will be far too small, warn campaigners
The 30-year vision for Cambridge Biomedical Campus
