The Plan B for Cambridge transport: ‘Why light rail is a better option to solve congestion crisis than GCP road-charging plans’
Dr Colin Harris, founder of the independent light rail campaign group Cambridge Connect, writes for the Cambridge Independent on an alternative to the GCP’s road-charging and bus network plans.
The Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) congestion charging and ‘Making Connections’ consultation (closing at midday on December 23, 2022) has ignited intense debate, with strong views expressed for and against the Sustainable Travel Zone.
Vehicle charges would apply within the zone between 7am and 7pm on weekdays, including most of Cambridge city.
The plans would substantially expand bus provision across the region. A spokesperson for the GCP executive board has said “There is no Plan B”, and suggested the public either accept the scheme put forward, perhaps with minor tweaks, or ‘do nothing’ at all. But is that a fair statement of the case? Are there alternatives, and if there are, why have they not been presented to the public as options for consideration?
An alternative using light rail
Cambridge Connect was set up seven years ago to develop one such alternative based on light rail. The light rail lines would be on two main axes (see network graphic) to provide a mass transit service on a core backbone.
The Isaac Newton Line would extend from Cambourne to Haverhill via the Cambridge city centre, central rail station and Addenbrooke’s. The Darwin Line would extend from Cambridge North station to Trumpington via the Science Park, Eddington, the University of Cambridge’s West Campus and the city centre.
Working together, these two core lines would provide a fast, frequent and reliable service from the periphery right into the heart of Cambridge. A short – approximately 2.5km (about 1.5 miles) – tunnel overcomes the difficulty of running a mass transit system into the city centre. This is especially the case in Cambridge with its unique historic setting, high environmental values of the river and practical constraints of a mediaeval street layout. A short tunnel also avoids the need to dig up inner city streets and utilities to lay tracks, which is costly and disruptive.
Light rail was identified as the best technology to enable this scheme because it has been proven to be most effective at generating modal shift (persuading people to switch from driving cars), has the strongest environmental performance of any mode of public transport (the most energy efficient and lowest emissions), and because it has the required capacity to meet the demands of mass transit now and in the future.
This last point is important to meet the needs of a growing population. Two constraints of light rail, however, are that it needs a higher upfront capital investment and, with fixed lines, it is also less flexible than running buses on roads.
Balanced against these limitations, the permanent investment made in light rail also offers some advantages. For example, the permanence provides investors with confidence that it will be operating for a long time into the future. Bus services running on normal roads can be withdrawn as easily as they are added – as we have seen in recent months – and this makes investment around those services less attractive.
In addition, the high upfront capital cost of light rail is offset to a degree by lower operating costs (eg higher energy efficiency, greater capacity and fewer drivers). Overall, light rail has a lower carbon footprint than buses carrying equivalent numbers.
Cambridge Connect’s background
Cambridge Connect is an independent, informal collaboration with Railfuture, UK Tram and a range of individuals and companies working in the light rail industry.
It was set up to develop transport options to improve quality of life in the Cambridge region, especially given the pressures of growth and climate change, with the aim of developing an integrated and long-term plan for public transport.
In 2017, the then-mayor of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, James Palmer, promised to implement the light rail scheme we proposed.
A mass transit study was undertaken, which concluded light rail was the best available technology for mass transit, although that study also considered light rail could be too expensive. The study therefore proposed a type of autonomous bus solution known as the Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro (CAM), which Mr Palmer adopted.
We opposed CAM because the technology was risky and unproven, and it was environmentally less sound than light rail. The CAM suffered from many of the weaknesses of buses but few of the benefits.
CAM also had a very extensive and complex plan for a tunnel, which we considered unaffordable and undeliverable. This untested CAM scheme was also going to be extremely expensive. The new mayor, Dr Nik Johnson, cancelled Mr Palmer’s CAM, and we welcomed that decision. However, we believe light rail still represents the best available technology to provide mass transit for the region, and we have continued discussions with the Combined Authority.
We modified our scheme to reduce costs substantially, in particular by reducing the length of the proposed tunnel. There seems to be a growing recognition that light rail has a role to play, although more work is needed, and discussions are ongoing.
The Cambridge Connect / Railfuture network model
The model proposed by Cambridge Connect is very different to the GCP ‘Making Connections’ bus scheme. The GCP scheme uses buses only and extends generally in a radial pattern outwards from Cambridge city.
In some senses, this wide reach has benefits, since buses can access many places light rail never could. In contrast, our scheme has two principal lines, which are optimised for higher passenger volumes.
In our scheme, people would connect onto these core lines at stops spaced all along its length, including at Park & Rides and train stations. Connections would be made on foot, by bus, train, bicycle, taxis and by private car. Because of the frequency and reliability of the segregated light rail service, people could turn up at a stop with confidence of getting a connecting service, very much like you do when you travel on the London Tube.
Thus, the light rail mass transit would work in combination with other modes, including buses, which together provide that wider reach that light rail lines on their own cannot provide. We also support leveraging the heavy rail network as much as possible, for example by twinning the track from Cambridge to Newmarket and installing commuter stops on this line, for example at Cherry Hinton and Fulbourn.
Accessibility
We analysed the accessibility of those core lines and stops to built-up parts of Cambridge city and the surrounding villages, finding that almost 90 per cent of these areas would lie within an eight-minute cycle ride or a 20-minute walk of a stop (see Accessibility map).
This indicates that these lines would attract a high level of ridership, with connections being relatively easy for people living nearby. It’s fair to say that some areas would be better served than others, and it would take time to develop a more comprehensive network. Those areas would, of course, still have bus services (which could be enhanced). The scheme is designed to be delivered in phases, with new lines brought forward as and when demand emerges. For example, we anticipate East Cambridge will be an important extension, with demand created by new housing developments on the Marshall airfield and the sewage works when they move. Those developments are still some way off, and we have not pre-empted their scale and timing.
Capacity
A strong, modern, integrated regional transport strategy needs to have the capacity and quality to be fit for purpose for the 2030s and beyond. The strategy needs to address pressures of growth and climate change, and help secure the health, welfare, environment and economy for present and future generations.
Ambition for improvements should be high, but we also need to be practical. We propose proven solutions rather than speculative technologies. It is clear that existing approaches have failed to deliver an excellent public transport system for this region, and that a new approach is needed.
Rather than expanding the old approach of buses and busways, we believe there is a need for a step-change to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Light rail is complementary to bus and train services, and supports cycling and walking. Light rail is the most practical, well-developed and proven technology to provide mass transit in a small city context. Many cities throughout Europe similar in size to Cambridge, and smaller, have successful light rail systems. For example, in France almost 20 cities of a similar size to Cambridge or smaller have light rail / trams.
Alternative to the bus model
One of the problems with the GCP bus scheme is that it is likely many thousands of buses, operating from 5am to 1am, will run close to empty. In England outside of London, average occupancy is 10 people, and that is an enormous waste. It is hardly surprising that it is not economic in a lot of cases to run services. By pooling demand onto a more limited number of lines using light rail, higher levels of occupancy can be achieved, and therefore less waste.
This also allows a more frequent and efficient service over longer time periods, with fewer drivers.
True, connections still need to be made on to the light rail from locations away from the main lines, but those links are shorter and more manageable. The alternative of running bus services extending widely from the centre out to the remote periphery in a spider’s web form is extremely expensive to support, since the demand is by nature widely dispersed. We believe this is one reason why the Making Connections bus subsidy would be so costly to run.
Another significant problem with the GCP scheme is that no information has been given on how things will function in a practical way with the increased numbers of buses in the heart of Cambridge.
When we asked the GCP recently how many buses would be coming into the heart of the city at peak times, they were not able to give an answer, suggesting this analysis will be “considered in more detail in the next phase” of scheme development.
In our view, this should be a fundamental consideration in the plans, since if it will not work practically then the scheme is undeliverable. It seems surprising that the GCP has not considered these implications before rolling out their scheme proposals. Based on analysis of bus numbers in 2017-18, and factoring in growth and modal shift of 15 per cent, we calculated that around 200 to 300 buses per hour will be needed at peak to sustain that level of service.
Yet the GCP’s scheme is even more ambitious, proposing a 50 per cent drop in vehicle traffic, with buses presumably picking up that demand.
This could have an enormous impact on the inner city realm, and compete for space with cyclists and pedestrians. The large increase in heavy bus traffic will impact roads, increasing works and disruption. When this occurred in Caen, France, and it became too expensive and unreliable, this small city replaced its bus metro system by light rail.
It is already unpleasant here at times, and the GCP plans seem to have major implications for the future quality of inner urban space, yet according to the GCP this has yet to be considered.We are thus sceptical about how this will work in practice, and this is one reason why we have proposed a short tunnel to serve demand for mass transit in Cambridge.
Our scheme also differs from the GCP busway schemes by selecting routes that protect important landscapes and habitats surrounding Cambridge, choosing instead to co-align with existing transport corridors, and to minimise intrusion into precious (and diminishing) Green Belt. For example, in the west we propose to align the light rail line alongside the A428 and extend from Cambourne to the Girton Interchange, from where the line would follow the M11 to serve Eddington before reaching the West Campus.
Not only does this route protect important unspoiled landscapes near Coton and Madingley, the route also proceeds via one of the most important strategic road junctions in Cambridgeshire – the Girton Interchange, the convergence of the M11, A14 and A428.
To the south, we would abandon the GCP CSET busway in favour of reinstatement of the former rail line to Haverhill, passing Sawston, Granta Park and Linton. Because our routes are different, it is simply not the case that busways planned by the GCP can easily be converted to light rail in future.
Financing
We recognise the budget of £1.4bn-£1.8bn for light rail is challenging, and clearly is much greater than resources currently available through the City Deal/GCP.
We note this investment would be similar to the A14 road upgrade, and similarly the benefits to the region would be immense.
When spread in phases over five to 10 or more years, this level of investment is achievable. Some will no doubt say this cannot be afforded, to which we respond that in the context of the climate emergency and extraordinary growth Cambridge is experiencing, can we afford not to?
The stakes are high, and past approaches have failed. It is time for our leaders, including businesses actively encouraging the growth, to show courage and commitment to a better and longer-term approach that will actually deliver the improvements that are so badly needed. One of the chief beneficiaries is the university, which would see all of its three main campuses joined up by a fast and frequent transport link.
Clearly the finance needs to come from somewhere. The public have been told by the GCP that a congestion charge is the only way to raise finance for these types of improvements. However, we have identified at least 15 different financing mechanisms that could be employed. For example, £350m already exists from remaining City Deal funds, and substantial resources earmarked for transport were also committed under the Combined Authority Devolution Deal.
A range of other sources of finance could be leveraged, such as tax increment financing, a workplace parking levy, developer contributions (eg Section 106, community infrastructure levy), and a tourist bed-night supplement of a few per cent could also be brought in. Crossrail funding mechanisms, which included business levies, could also help pay for light rail.
A land value capture scheme, whereby a share of profits when land values are uplifted as a result of development is invested back into transport infrastructure, could also be adopted. These potential sources could raise large amounts of finance, and more than enough to invest in light rail.
If none of those mechanisms can be implemented, then there remains the option of some form of congestion charge, although there should be careful scrutiny of this type of scheme to ensure fairness and equity in how, when, where and who pays, and operational costs should not wipe out a large share of any finance raised.
Is there a Plan B?
So, is there a Plan B? Not if you sit in the Greater Cambridge Partnership. It has shown no willingness to consider light rail as an option, and the mantras have often been repeated that “Cambridge is too small”, “we can’t afford light rail”, and “light rail is too long-term, we need improvements now”.
We have listened to those arguments, and while there is a grain of truth in them, almost no effort has been made by the GCP to investigate fully the options. Well, if it has, we certainly haven’t seen their results and reports. We have not been consulted on light rail – and neither has the general public. In truth, light rail could be afforded if the scale of congestion charging proposed by the GCP was introduced. So, if that’s the case, why has the public not been informed and presented with that option?
We challenge these assumptions and ask – what is long-term? When we started this initiative, long-term was seen as about 10 years. After seven years we have seen very little delivery from the GCP and yet expenditure of almost one third of their £500million budget.
If they had started a long-term, phased delivery of light rail from when we started, we could already have parts of the scheme delivered, and the longer-term plan would be taking shape. But, as they say, we are where we are, and much has been spent on GCP schemes with little practical delivery. The GCP busway schemes originate from about 10 years ago, when the population of Cambridge was predicted to reach 147,000 by 2031.
But everything changed when the recent Census showed we reached that population in 2021 – a decade sooner than everyone thought. That should be a huge wake-up call to the authorities, especially when we can see the scale of growth that is still coming forward in the next decade, and consider this in the context of failures to meet targets to address the climate emergency. Scrapping the planned GCP busways and instead investing in light rail now would be a much more progressive, modern and environmentally sound approach, and one that would save millions in the long-term by completely avoiding the need to convert those busways in the future.
Complementary short-term and long-term improvements – a practical Plan B
Adopting a modern light rail network as part of the solution now does not mean we should abandon improvements to traditional bus services, active travel and other access improvements now. We need both short- and longer-term improvements, brought forward together.
The light rail will take longer to deliver, so it is absolutely right to bring forward more immediate bus and active travel improvements now, although perhaps not in the way envisaged by the ‘Making Connections’ consultation. More modest improvements could be made alongside investment in the first phases of light rail for the longer-term.
We believe the time has come to commit to an enduring transport vision using light rail, brought forward in practical phases. This approach can meet this region’s needs both now and for a long time into the future, and do so in the most environmentally sustainable way. Our children will thank us for it.
Dr Harris is director of the environmental planning and spatial data business Environmental Research and Assessment, located in Cambridge. Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of other organisations and individuals with which Cambridge Connect is collaborating.
