CSET busway money ‘better spent on reopening Haverhill rail line’ says councillor

Concern has been shared that the money spent on plans to build a new busway into Cambridge would have been better spent on reopening the Haverhill rail line.

Cllr Heather Williams said she believed reopening the railway between Haverhill and Cambridge would make a “big difference” and help “relieve pressure on the growth of the city”.

However, others have said they still want to move forward with building the new busway as part of the Cambridge South East Transport (CSET) scheme.

The CSET project was paused by the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) last year after increases in construction costs meant it did not have enough money to fund all of its projects.

However, earlier this year the government announced it would give £7.2million of funding to start progressing the project again.

The scheme proposes to build a new dedicated and mainly off-road busway, as well as a segregated walking and cycling route, from a new travel hub off the A11 to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus.

The GCP will ask Cambridgeshire County Council, as the highways authority, to submit a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) application to ask for permission to build the new busway, if approved by its executive board later this month.

The partnership is also proposing to separately start early work to build improved cycling and walking infrastructure along Francis Crick Avenue, as well as new bus stops to support the planned opening of Cambridge South station in 2025.

Members of the GCP’s joint assembly met on Thursday (September 12) to discuss the plans.

Cllr Williams, opposition group leader at South Cambridgeshire District Council, said it was a ‘difficult and challenging’ project as she said the infrastructure was needed.

However, she said she could not support the project moving to the next stage as she said she did not think the busway was the right proposal.

Cllr Williams (Con, The Mordens) said: “Hundreds of millions of pounds that have been spent would have been better off being spent to reopen the railway with Haverhill – but I appreciate there are other things with that.

“It actually makes me feel really sad, because I know the work that has gone in by officers, and I know it has been really challenging for residents as well, and the many, many rounds this has gone through, for everybody involved, whether you are for or against, it has just been a rollercoaster.

“But I can’t sit here and say ‘go to the next round’, because I just don’t think it is the right thing for residents, that doesn’t mean I don’t respect the work that has been done on all sides, but I can’t support that going forward.

“The reopening of the railway I think really would make a big difference to transport and also to relieve pressure on the growth of the city as well.

“We have seen expansion at Haverhill, but if we don’t start looking at these things where development can happen further afield than just Cambridge, I really worry we are just going to be engulfed into a massive housing arena, especially with the new targets.”

Peter Blake, interim director of the GCP, said as part of the business case process for CSET, the GCP has assessed reopening the Haverhill line.

He said: “The cost was put at somewhere between £600million and £700million to reopen the rail line.

“Clearly you will be aware there has also been a number of national reopening of rail station projects since and [Haverhill] has not gone at any traction with the rail industry in terms of that rail line.

“That has been assessed and should we move to the next stage of the planning inspectorate that will be laid before the planning inspector as one of the alternatives we have looked at.”

Joint assembly business representative Claire Ruskin said the busway proposals were “not ideal” but they are “better than the other options we have had”.

Cllr Katie Thornburrow (Lab, Petersfield) said better connecting Cambridge to Haverhill was important, but said a full scheme of that nature was “beyond” the county council and GCP.

However, she said it was an issue that needed to be resolved as she said there was a “huge number” of people travelling from Haverhill to Cambridge for work and said they are a “key part” of the city’s workforce.

Concerns were also raised by members of the public about the new off-road busway being built, arguing an alternative on-road bus lane would be a lot cheaper.

Some claimed the plans for the off-road busway had only been progressed due to the previous Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mayor’s plans for the Cambridge Autonomous Metro scheme, which was later dropped.

Members of the joint assembly said they still supported moving forward with the busway, as they hoped it could be converted to allow for light rail or autonomous vehicles in the future.

Cllr Thornburrow, who represents Cambridge City Council, said “future proofing” the busway so that it could be converted was an important issue for her.

She said: “I do not know what is coming along, but we need to ensure any routes we do like this can enable autonomous vehicles and new forms of mass transit that might be cost efficient and effective.

“I hope we can ensure that while we might be calling it a busway, it will also be a future route for all forms of light mass transit in the future.”

Assembly chair Cllr Tim Bick also picked up on the point about potentially adapting the busway in the future.

He said providing the route initially as a busway meant it could be adapted into something else, like light rail.

Mr Blake said the proposals for the CSET busway were not as “highly engineered solution as the current busways”.

He said the “segregated solution” meant they could take off the buses in the future and retrofit the route to provide other transport options, such as light rail.

The GCP’s executive board is due to meet later this month and will be asked to agree that work can start along Francis Crick Avenue, and to request the county council to submit a TWAO application for the busway.