Home   News   Article

Subscribe Now

Federation of Cambridge Residents’ Associations argues Greater Cambridge Partnership’s road charge plan will hurt the most vulnerable




Cambridge needs a solution to the city’s transport problems that benefits everyone, according to an organisation that represents the views of residents.

The Federation of Cambridge Residents’ Associations (FeCRA) says it objects to the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s road-charging plans, which members believe will adversely affect the elderly, the most vulnerable and the low paid.

Wendy Blythe, chair of FeCRA. Picture: Keith Heppell
Wendy Blythe, chair of FeCRA. Picture: Keith Heppell

A statement submitted in response to the GCP’s Making Connections consultation said members were “very supportive” of measures to prioritise safe walking and cycling and plans for an improved bus and transport service. But they feel the “burden of a blanket” road charge operating from 7am to 7pm, from Monday to Friday, will result in some being “disproportionately affected”.

The statement continues: “They [residents] say that people who are unable to cycle and people who need to transport items and people who work in manual, frontline or face-to-face and/or carer roles, many of whom often work unsociable hours, will be disproportionately affected.

“For these reasons we object to this proposal as it stands. Cambridge needs a solution to the city’s transport problems that benefits everyone, not just big business and/or overseas investors.”

The GCP has been consulting on plans to provide cheaper bus fares and more frequent services with longer operating hours, funded by a road charge on motorists operating under a Sustainable Travel Zone. The fee would be priced at £5 for cars, with higher fees for larger vehicles, and would operate from 7am to 7pm on weekdays.

FeCRA is a grassroots civic voice for everyone in Cambridge and for its environment. It says residents want a say in shaping Cambridge’s development to ensure that the city grows in a way that is sustainable and inclusive, achieves balanced communities and addresses the issues of climate change and health, social equality and quality of life.

Its statement continued: “The importance of place and neighbourhood and wellbeing and belonging and mutual support is especially important in a university city that has earned the unenviable title of being the most unequal city in the UK.

“Residents say that rather than addressing inequality these plans are about enabling the very high level of growth proposed for the Local Plan by the businesses and officers who were involved in the CPIER Review.”

The independent Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) said Cambridge’s population is forecast to grow by 27.5 per cent between 2009 and 2031 to 151,800 people.

FeCRA also raised concerns about how the constrained historic spaces of Cambridge’s city centre will cope with the proposed increased number of buses while accommodating more cyclists and pedestrians.

Residents pointed out there was no analysis of the responses to the Cambridge market square consultation or how these transport proposals will impact the city’s famous traditional market and its users, many of them cyclists.

It stated: “Like others who have responded to this consultation, we don’t see any evidence that a significant increase in buses in the historic city centre can be achieved without detrimental impacts on heritage and active travellers and the lives and employment of people on low incomes.

“We also wish to highlight concerns raised by a senior member of the university at the market square stakeholders group that ‘the proposal disenfranchises the transport of many thousands of residents in the middle of Cambridge and the many staff that work in the central areas’.

“The historic streets of the city centre cannot be widened and by sharing them with buses, they will provide a poor environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

“At the present time it is impossible for us to see how these constrained spaces can successfully accommodate a greatly increased (even doubled) number of buses, more cyclists and more pedestrians in an attractive and safe environment.”

FeCRA also shares the concerns of the conservation charity Cambridge Past, Present and Future that the people who most benefit from the wellbeing provided by their parks will be severely impacted by these plans and that this has implications for social equality and wellbeing.

It adds: “Residents say that Greater Cambridge needs and deserves an integrated transport plan that considers all modes of public transport, not just buses and busways. They ask what part the railways should be playing and why Network Rail, local train companies and East West Rail are not involved in this exercise. Why is there no consideration of a metro service using existing lines and East West Rail as the core, to replace buses? What about the plans for light rail? Why is there no consideration of reopening the line to Haverhill and Sudbury to provide a third route to London instead of using part of the track-bed for a busway with limited capacity?

“Why is there no consideration of re-railing the existing busway to St Ives and beyond which is already running at capacity even though most of Northstowe is yet to be built?”

The group also questioned how much it will cost to collect the congestion charge, asking that the financial modelling underlying the proposal should be “made clear and easily and readily understood”, which it argued was not the case with the consultation.

“We believe that the scope of the plans should be reviewed, enlarged and changed in the light of the many comments and concerns before any final decisions are made and the evidence used should be transparent. There is otherwise a very real danger that sticking to the original brief will undermine support for the transport plans as a whole,” FeCRA concluded.

The Making Connections consultation closed on December 23, with the GCP receiving more than 24,000 responses. The results will feature in a final report on the proposals, scheduled for the GCP executive board in June 2023



Comments | 0
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies - Learn More