Good news on Resurfacing

Good news from the County Council! Cherry Hinton Road is set to be resurfaced from Perne Rd to Cherry Hinton. This has been one of Coleridge Conservatives long standing requests for action to improve the road surfacing, and we welcome this news (although there are some sections nearer Hills Road that also could do with attention).

The County Council adds: 'It is anticipated the programme of work will commence mid June and will take approximately 6 weeks to complete. As the process is totally weather reliant it is impossible at this stage to give precise dates for each site.  However, notices to inform road users of the works will be displayed at each location at least seven days before any work is undertaken.'

Gritting Cambridgeshire

I've just been chatting to County Cllr John Reynolds on the phone, who as a former portfolio holder for transport was recounting detailed facts and figures about the gritting process. This is John's recent message to his constituents on the subject:

I want to update you on both the Cambridgeshire and national gritting situation and as I write this report (January 12th) the snow in our area is at last melting away but many other parts of the country are still gripped in deep snow and ice.

Cambridgeshire started the gritting season with all our four salt barns full with a total of some 12,000 tonnes, enough to do at least 60 full gritting runs which is the average number over each of the winter periods in the past 15 years. We have over the past ten years invested in 35 gritting lorries designed to the latest standards each of which can spread up to 5 tons of salt.

Salt works by turning the ice or snow surrounding each salt granule into a saline solution which has a lower freezing point than water. The action of traffic is essential for salt to be effective - moving the salt granules around and eventually meting the ice and snow.

Since 16th December we have carried out well over 40 runs, including on Christmas Day, plus undertaking a couple of secondary runs and numerous bits of spot salting on footways and cycleways. Each full gritting run uses over 200 tons of salt and covers about 42% of all county roads, the Highways Agency are responsible for the national road network.

We do have some material that is not suitable for the gritters which we are using in a targeted way to fill grit bins and to treat some of the busier footways. During this extremely cold spell we have worked with city, district and parish councils to treat as much as we can. Our teams have been working very hard, around the clock in very challenging conditions.

Nationally many areas have been harder hit than us, for example in the north and Scotland, this has meant that deliveries of replacement stocks normally destined for us have had to be redirected to those most in need. This happened last year and is a partnership between the Department for Transport, Local Government Association and salt suppliers to prioritise which authorities receive deliveries and when. Each council provides regular information on their salt stocks to help decision making.

As you know, like last year, we are seeing many potholes with many more likely to form in these extremely cold conditions. We are asking people to let us know of any problems in their area - they can notify us via our website or via the contact centre on 0345 045 5212 (contact centre is open 8.00 am-8.00 pm, Monday to Saturday). We will repair them as soon as resources and weather conditions allow.

Apparently there are a number of measurement stations across the county and information from them is combined with hourly predictions from the meteorological office to produce charts from which the decision to grit is made. The threshold for gritting is a predicted 2°C.

There is an arrangement with the city council for the city to have a daily supply of salt, which they can and do take to distribute to city centre footways as they see appropriate.

Cycling town proposed works

Some specific improvements for cycling have now been put forward by the county council for consultation as part of the cycling demonstration town works.

As a general rule I'm sceptical of splashing paint around, which is often just a way of cutting transport capacity of particular kinds for ideological purposes, but welcome genuine improvements. It looks like there's a mixture planned:

Cherry Hinton Road
Facilities for cyclists have been reviewed in detail to see what improvements could be made. Due to the relative narrowness of the road, it is not realistic to have on-road cycle lanes on both sides of the road. The proposals involve improvements to the shared use off-road cycle route.

Madingley Road
The team have been looking at improving the provision for cyclists with a combination of onroad and off-road cycle paths. From Queens Road to Storey’s Way the existing off-road shared use path will be widened. From Storey’s Way to the Park and Ride there will be a combination of on-road and off-road paths, as the width of the road varies considerably.

The Tins
Discussions are currently taking place regarding the purchase of land to widen the route on the north and/or south side. From initial survey work carried out the most likely improvement will be to the north side.

Gilbert Road
The proposal is to introduce traffic calming measures and improve the cycle lanes along Gilbert Road. There is a separate leaflet available with more details of the proposals.

There's a chance to view the plans and air views at the consultations:

Tuesday 19 January 2010 - 4.30 - 7.30pm
Cherry Hinton Village Centre, Colville Road

Wednesday 20 January - 8 - 10am and 4.30 - 7.30pm
Madingley Road Park & Ride waiting room

Thursday 21 and Monday 25 January - 4.30 - 7.30pm
Chesterton Community College Lounge, Gilbert Road

Wednesday 27 January - 4.30 - 7.30pm
Cambridge Central Library, Lion Yard (Third Floor opposite the Café)

Coleridge Conservatives are keen to know what residents think of the ideas.

Coleridge Betrayed

The letter from Chris Howell in today's Cambridge News (but not online) reminds us how Coleridge residents were badly let down when their newly-elected Labour county councillor voted for congestion charging in October.

I WELCOME Richard Normington's letter warning that we may now be heading for congestion charging in Cambridge, without further approval from councillors. The damage was done when a bid to the Transport Innovation Fund was agreed, which included the charge, and council officers have already drafted a report presenting options in detail for how the charge would work.

I would however go further. The problem is that councillors, sadly including the Labour county councillor for Coleridge, have already voted to approve this bid, including the charge. This was despite clear assurances given during the recent county council elections that he was opposed to congestion charging in Cambridge. The only solution is that we should hold a public referendum, free from all the spin of those obsessed with introducing the charge, and let the people decide.

I stood at the recent county council elections on a pledge to oppose congestion charging (Bower's Blueprint, no. 2), so I was really disappointed when I discovered that my Labour opponent, who had spent the whole campaign trying to imply that I would support congestion charging, went and voted for it himself.

While a Labour councillor suggested that pursuing my pledges would have led to me losing the whip if elected, it turns out that only Conservative members and the member for Ramsey voted against the TIF bid that included the government's congestion charging blackmail. Those Conservatives still take the whip. The Labour members for Coleridge and Cherry Hinton could have decided to vote against but they did not.

Central Library has reopened

After a lengthy closure for redevelopment, the Central Library reopened about 3 weeks ago. I had a chance to look round today, and I think it has been worth the wait - the County Council has done a really good job. The layout seems very clear and welcoming, and as might be expected as well as the books, there has been a significant investment in IT with computer terminals and free wi-fi access to help those who want to use the library for studying. Judging by today, it already seemed to be very popular.

More details available from the library's website http://hipweb.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/central/ or visit yourself - the entrance is from the first floor of the Grand Arcade, and the library is now open seven days a week.

Station Guided Bus works to start next Monday

Confirmation that the station guided bus works will start next Monday:

"Construction of a new bus terminal to give guided bus passengers easy access to the rail network will begin on Monday (20 July).

The new bus terminal at Cambridge Railway Station will allow passengers to leave the train and get straight onto a guided bus. Using the purpose built guideway passengers can then glide smoothly to Addenbrooke’s Hospital in four minutes. It will also provide a direct link to and from St Ives, and the villages in between, to Cambridge Railway Station.

To build the new stop the short stay car parking at the station will be permanently moved to the opposite side of the entrance roundabout. The marking out of this parking area has already begun so station users will not be affected."

Interesting Meeting later today

I'll be very interested to see the outcome of the County Council Conservative group AGM on Friday, in particular who the new Matt Bradney in charge of transport in the City will be. Whoever he or she is can expect a phone call - I have a little list...

UPDATE: Sounds like it will be a little while longer before we can see the white smoke...

Bower's Blueprint #4 - A Conservative voice on the county council

This is the fourth of a series of posts on Bower's Blueprint for Coleridge - a set of pledges to which I would work if elected as county councillor on 4th June.

A Conservative voice on the county council
I want the county council to continue the good work as the fastest improving county council in the country but to give city residents a voice at the heart of county decision making.

The county council has a good reputation for efficiency, especially, so I understand, compared with the days when it was under no overall control. Even opposition councillors from both parties have praised the county council for its record on transport and the quality of scrutiny.

However, no Conservatives have been elected to the county council from within the city boundaries since 1993 (Trumpington) and from within the city constituency since 1989. The seats won in 1989 were: Castle, East Chesterton, Queen Edith's, Trumpington, West Chesterton. (Trumpington is moving into the Cambridge constituency at the next general election).

This inevitably means that important perspectives are lacking within the ruling Conservative group. City residents often seem to get a raw deal, but with loony ideas coming from Lib Dem councillors elected from the city such as asking for congestion charging and development on Marshall's it's no wonder!

Similarly, Labour councillors here have been unable to use influence with the government to get proper funding for concessionary bus fares or free swimming (both eye-catching government initiatives with questionable funding), to remove the congestion charging blackmail for vital transport funding or to curtail the ridiculous housing targets.

Conservative county councillors from the city are desperately needed to represent city residents - councillors from the other parties are simply not getting results in these really important areas.

Transport commission response summary

The Cambridgeshire Transport Commission has released a summary of the responses it received from the public consultation on transport.

Coleridge Conservatives are pleased to note that the report seems to have been fair in representing the views of respondents from across the spectrum of opinions and to have aired some of the alternative ideas that people have come up with. Of course I remain completely opposed to congestion charging for Cambridge.

This is despite initial reservations by City Conservatives due to the duumvirate's history in recommending Labour's flawed TIF package in Reading.

The summary rightly starts off with some members of the public's criticisms of the premise of the questions and of the government's absurd regional housing targets.

1. With the congestion in and around Cambridge and plans to build a large number of new homes in Cambridgeshire, do you think transport improvements are needed?

Several respondents were critical of this question, which they saw as a leading question that would attract the self-evident response ‘yes’, luring respondents into then accepting the inevitability of a congestion charge.

“This is a leading question with all the subtlety of a double-glazing salesman - ask an opening question everyone… will say ‘yes’ to and leave the price (congestion charge) until question 5…” (email 9.2.2009)

Whilst indeed, many respondents did answer simply “yes”, accepting implicitly the growth agenda for Cambridgeshire and the consequent need for transport improvements, the survey found evidence of some very vocal opposition to Cambridgeshire’s development plans. There is concern that development is being pushed through despite the views of local people, and against their best interests.

“Why is Cambridge being forced into a policy of growth at all costs.” (427)

“We shouldn’t be building any more houses – the area is already ruined.” (18)

“Your first point assumes that this area is going to have thousands more houses built, because government and an unelected body (supposedly representing the Eastern Region) have deemed it to be necessary…” (email 5.3.2009)

“Building more homes should not be taken as a given but fought tooth and nail.” (737)

The commission also seems to have been perfectly willing to grill county officers in public meetings, confronting what sometimes seems like blind acceptance of the Labour Government's flawed plans for congestion charging and excessive and ineffective housing targets.

One thing missing from the summary, which various Conservative respondents had mentioned, was that it should not just be accepted that TIF requires congestion charging - the Conservatives have pledged nationally to abolish the blackmail link and the Conservative county council has asked Geoff Hoon to remove the link. Will Labour accept the challenge?

We look forward to the final report, due in June, as solutions to transport problems in Cambridge that do not involve punishing lower earning workers such as Labour's congestion charging would be highly welcome, such as the county's highly successful Park & Ride scheme.

Good news on 114 bus route

Some good news from the County Council on the 114 bus route. This route is subsidised by both the City and County Council, and the service has recently been reviewed and retendered.

Following complaints about the large, old buses in particularly using Lichfield Road I've been lobbying the County council for some time to ask that the retendering exercise included specifying smaller buses that have better access for people with limited mobility.

I've just had this back from the County Council:

"I can now confirm that the service level on the 114 service will be maintained from April. There is a small change on a Saturday where the gap in the timetable for the drivers break has shifted but the same number of journeys remain.

In terms of the vehicles these will be newer low floor vehicles, although the vehicle provided by Whippet may not be available by mid-April. It has been bought but is being refurbished at present and should be delivered soon after the new contract starts."

Many thanks to the County Council for responding to our concerns here.

Congestion Charging in Cambridge: Have your say

I have just responded to the Transport Commission appointed to look at the issue of congestion charging in Cambridge and the County Council's TIF bid. They have been asking for responses to 5 questions, shown below.

The deadline for responses has just been moved to the 13th of March - more details on the Commission and how to respond are available on their website http://www.cambstransportcommission.co.uk/ - if you have strong views on this issue, we recommend you get in touch.

Coleridge Conservatives are completely opposed to plans to introduce congestion charging in Cambridge - the Labour government is trying to force Cambridgeshire into introducing the charge by blackmail - claiming there will be no money for transport infrastructure if we don't agree. We think this blackmail should be rejected - as the residents of Manchester have already done - not least because the policy of a new Conservative government would be to drop all requirements for congestion charging in these transport bids.

The questions are as follows, with my responses to the commission below:

1. With the congestion in and around Cambridge and plans to build a large number of new homes in Cambridgeshire, do you think transport improvements are needed?

2. What do you think should be done to improve public transport, walking and cycling facilities, and the road network, to cope with congestion in and around Cambridge now and in the future?

3. Cambridgeshire County Council has bid for £500 million from Government under the Transport Innovation Fund scheme. What are your views on the proposals? Do you think it will help solve congestion in and around Cambridge?

4. Is Cambridgeshire County Council planning to spend the £500million for transport improvements in the right way? What changes would be better, or more acceptable, for local people and businesses?

5. To obtain the £500 million of Government money to improve public transport, walking and cycling facilities, and the road network in and around Cambridge, a form of demand management, such as congestion charging, is needed. This is part of Cambridgeshire County Council's proposals. Does the need to tackle congestion justify a charge for most vehicles coming into Cambridge in the morning peak (7.30am until 9.30am)? Are there alternative ways of reducing congestion and greenhouse gases?

My response follows:

1.

1.1. Yes obviously. There is currently a deficit in transport infrastructure, so investment is required to fill this deficit and support new growth, both in terms of housing demand and the needs to support business and other economic activity.

1.2 It should be noted however that there is already transport investment planned outside the TIF bid, e.g. to improve the A14, through the cycling demonstration town funding etc.

2.

2.1 The key to reducing congestion is to significantly increase transport capacity of all types. The effectiveness of this investment can be increased by planning new developments to reduce the demand for travel.

2.2. Transport improvements within the current City of Cambridge boundaries:In many areas of the city, potential for improving transport infrastructure is already constrained by the physical layout of the historic city, although even here there are measures that can be taken to increase total transport capacity rather than merely reallocating it (e.g. new cycle routes, making best use of existing corridors such as Newmarket Road, and possibly more radical steps such as bus tunnels).

2.3 Transport improvements outside the historic central areas:There are numerous areas where increases in capacity can and should be achieved – upgrading the A14, an Eastern Bypass, new station at Chesterton, new public transport corridors in new developments, but we should particularly focus on building cycle infrastructure into new developments consistent with the very best in continental Europe, such as areas of Holland or Denmark, not merely slightly better than the UK average as is current practice.

2.4 We can reduce congestion by reducing the natural demand to travel, particularly at peak times, through sensible planning policies – for example housing and jobs close to each other or to major public transport corridors.

2.5 Building employment near to housing will not however work on its own. We need to ensure the right types and tenures of property are built. The 2007 Hills Report into Social Housing provides important evidence on the likelihood of residents moving for job related reasons. “the rate of employment-related mobility within social housing is strikingly low. Nationally, one in eight moves is associated with work, but only a few thousand social tenants each year move home for job-related reasons while remaining as social tenants (even within the same area), out of a total of nearly four million.” (Hills Report, p5)

2.6 It is clear from this evidence that merely building housing near to employment is not remotely sufficient to ensure shorter, more sustainable journeys. Overall, the vast majority of people put factors other than proximity to employment such as suitability of housing as higher priority when deciding where to live. From this I would conclude that to avoid a transport problem from significant daily commuting, we need to ensure that the right types of housing (including family housing of all types and qualities) are available near to employment.

2.7 But we also need to recognise from this evidence that the obsession in planning circles for ever higher levels of ‘affordable’ housing, in particular in the social rented sector with high security of tenure at significantly below market rent levels, is disastrous for work related mobility which as noted above is almost non-existent in the social rented sector. This leaves those likely to be hardest hit by congestion charging plans least able to move for employment reasons, and thus providing a double barrier to social mobility. We need to find a way to ensure everyone has access to a choice of housing suitable to their needs at a cost they can afford, but current policies towards affordable housing are clearly not the answer.

3.

3.1 The current TIF proposals are completely unacceptable, because theyinclude congestion charging for Cambridge.

3.2 The proposals would be helping to solve congestion by taxing the poor off the road, which is completely unacceptable on social justice grounds.

3.3. The proposals say to businesses thinking of locating here or relocating elsewhere that we do not and will not have sufficient infrastructure to solve transport problems, so we are attempting to reduce demand – in other words, we aren’t fit for business. Recently announced job losses at employers such as Cambridge University Press are a timely reminder that the Cambridge economy cannot be taken for granted by policymakers assuming that the local economy can continue to be successful no matter how business unfriendly we make the area.

3.4. The Congestion proposed is another tax on motorists, who are already overtaxed, in a country that is already overtaxed, and a very inefficient to collect tax at that – it may even cost money to collect it by the time the infrastructure, possibly including yet more snooping cameras, is paid for and maintained, and the scheme administered. Congestion charging is completely unsuitable for a small city like Cambridge, that lacks the significant public transport infrastructure including urban railways, underground and buses of a city like London.

3.5 Not unrelated to all these factors, congestion charging will make the current TIF bid impossible to implement politically, so it can’t contribute to the solution. When you don’t try to rig consultations in favour of people concluding we should accept congestion charging, you realise that it is deeply unpopular.

3.6 We already have plenty of evidence for this from Manchester. I dare say proponents of their TIF bid used responses such as the following from a survey carried out by Manchester evening News: "Is congestion charging a price worth paying to get £3bn Government cash to improve public transport in the region – including the expansion of the Metrolink to Ashton under Lyne, Oldham and Rochdale, as well as South Manchester and Manchester Airport?": Yes – 55%; No – 44% (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1002/1002412_congestion_charge_survey__manchester.html). However, when the question of congestion charging was put to a straight referendum, over 78% of the electorate opposed congestion charging despite the linkage to the TIF bid funding, including a large majority in every part of the region. Congestion charging is deeply unpopular in Cambridge, and will not be accepted by local residents.

4. My comments on transport investment required are as per question 2.

5.

5.1. Having lead people in to this question by encouraging people to reflect on the current state of transport infrastructure, possible future demands, and the improvements proposed in the TIF bid, your consultation now suggests there are only two ways forward – accept congestion charging as part of the TIF bid, or have no further investment in transport despite the levels of house building that the Government is trying to force on the Cambridge sub-region. This is a false dichotomy, and such an obviously false one at that it frankly discredits this whole consultation exercise, in the same way that the previous sham consultation exercise that you quote on the Transport Commission website was discredited.

5.2 There are many scenarios in which money will be available to support transport improvements in Cambridgeshire without requiring congestion charging.

5.3 For example, if the General Election due by June 2010 at the latest results in a Conservative government, then the County Council will be free to pursue a TIF bid without the congestion charging element, as this is the current Conservative party policy nationally. The Conservatives will also abolish much of the regional planninginfrastructure that is attempting to force unsustainable levels of house building on us, thus removing another element of the appalling blackmail that the Government is trying to use to force Cambridgeshire to be its congestion charging guinea pig.

5.4 Even if the current government continues forever, it is nonsense to suggest that we will end up building huge numbers of houses without any transport investment if we reject TIF – as we should just say no to the housing if the transport funding isn’t available (or not even worry about saying no - its not as if the current regional spatialstrategy is remotely deliverable). It will have been a nice try from the government to persuade us to help with its desired social engineering experiment, but if everyone just calls bluff, there will be no choice but to go back and look again at how best to allocate central resources to transport in the areas that desperately need those resources.

5.5 The solution to the ‘problem’ in so much as there is a problem is simple - significant increases in the transport infrastructure of all types, including roads, cycling and public transport must be built as part of any significant increase in the number of houses in the sub-region, coupled with sensible planning policies that reduce the need for journeys. If the alternatives are in place so that it isn’t necessary for people to sit in traffic jams, then people can either make a personal choice appropriate to their personal circumstances, or the question of congestion charging can then be put to the electorate in a separate referendum, to be considered on its merits uncoupled from the outrageous blackmail of the current TIF proposal.

5.6 How could we pay for the required transport infrastructure? Even in troubled economic times, it is likely there always be an uplift in value from granting permission for new developments in an area like Cambridge, and new residents will provide a new stream of local taxation revenue – the rules, be they local or national could be changed to ensure that these economic benefits from development are channelled into transport infrastructure, rather than being remitted to local Councils via s106 agreements or central government via changes in the Council tax base, to be spent on things that aren’t transport – if these policies were to change to allow existing local residents to benefit from new developments (which again is current Conservative party policy nationally), it might have the happy side effect of making new housing development rather easier to deliver than the current situation, with Arbury Park a half-completed monument to the failure of current planning policy, Northstowe barely off the starting blocks, and the southern fringe on hold.

Crossing Success

Usually when residents complain about the timings on crossings, there response from the Council is that there is nothing that can be done, as they are optimised already. But with the crossing on Coleridge Road near Greville Road, it turns out that there was a problem, and I've now had this back from the Council:

"I am pleased to advise you that our maintenance contractor has repaired and upgraded the crossing, and it is now working correctly. The settings have been checked and the clearance period following thepedestrian/cycle green signal is now variable - dependent on the presence/absence of people on the crossing. This will result in minimal delays to vehicles at times of low pedestrian flow."

Many thanks to the County Council for sorting this one out.

Hurrah for the County Council part 2

The new footbridge across the Cam at Riverside is due to open to the public from midday on Thursday, 5 June.



The landmark £3 million bridge for cyclists and pedestrians will be the first new river crossing in Cambridge since the Elizabeth Way Bridge was opened in 1971, and will provide a much-needed cycling and walking link into and out of the City Centre. The bridge design was the winner in a competition voted for by the public and a panel of experts.

The spectacular new bridge spans the River Cam and provides a link from St Andrew's Road in Chesterton across to Riverside. It includes features such as a low level walkway, a separate cycleway, and seating areas for people to relax and enjoy views of the river. The bridge is made up of a 70-tonne arched steel frame, with approach ramps either side.

Cambridgeshire County Councillor Matt Bradney, Cabinet Member for Growth and Infrastructure, said: "The new bridge will bring major long term benefits for pedestrians and cyclists in the area and will help to build fantastic links between the communities in the East Chesterton and Abbey areas of Cambridge. As well as this, the striking modern design of the bridge gets the right balance of respecting the existing surroundings whilst providing a high quality, innovative and attractive structure."

The bridge is to be opened on Thursday by John Grimshaw, Chief Executive of the sustainable transport charity Sustrans, who says, "This bridge is a fantastic addition to the National Cycle Network in Cambridge and its high quality design will provide a fast, seamless and attractive route for cyclists and pedestrians alike. I'm delighted to play a part in the opening of the bridge and I look forward to seeing people use it for the first time. "

Delivery of the new bridge was managed from inception to completion by Cambridgeshire County Council. It was designed and engineered by a multi-disciplinary team from architects Ramboll Whitbybird, with the seating areas designed by the artist Gerry Judah. Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering built the bridge, and the supervising consultants were Atkins.


Works to build the bridge have been underway since April of 2007 and it was funded by Central Government's Growth Area Fund and by developers working in the area.

Congestion Charging Consultation

This morning at a packed presentation including Councillors, Council Officials and Press, the County Council announced results of the consultation exercises undertaken relating to congestion charging. I asked some questions about how the surveys were conducted, but have many more left to answer!

For me, the key result was from the question asked in door-to-door interviews (i.e. not a self selecting set of people), to what extent do you support the principle of congestion charging: (MRUK report, p56):

Strongly support: 7%
Tend to support: 24%
Neither support nor oppose: 19%
Tend to oppose: 16%
Strongly Oppose: 33%

I.e. opposing 49%, supporting 31%, in a statistically valid survey conducted across Cambridgeshire. In Coleridge whilst door-knocking, we found approx two-thirds against, one-third in favour. We also found that a lot of those in favour in principle became anti in scenarios in which they would be affected by the charge.

The Council's online survey (i.e. self selecting respondents) was even more anti-Congestion Charging, so those less happy with the plans were more likely to go out of their way to make their view known.

Despite these results, I also believe the questionnaire was designed to make it as hard as possible to disagree with congestion charging. The in 'principle' question was followed by the question: if all money raised was spent on improving transport, would you be in favour. Of course, more were then in favour, but the question is nonsense - there won't be any money raised, it will all go on administering the scheme - it may even cost money to operate. Why not ask, if the Congestion Charging scheme involved your car number plate being constantly tracked as you drove round Cambridge, would you still be in favour, or if the scheme didn't cover its costs and Council tax had to go up as well as paying the charge, would you still be in favour.

To me the result is clear - Cambridgeshire residents do not want congestion charging, and any politicians going to the polls next May still supporting it could be in for a rocky ride with the electorate - we must drop plans for Congestion charging now.

There was a slightly conspiratorial air to the meeting - the next big step for the Congestion Charging debate is the County Conservatives group meeting on Friday, when a new leader will be elected - this could trigger a change of tack from the County. I could tell you the gossip, but I'll be sensible...

Meanwhile I'd be interested to know what brief the market research company was given, and who came up with some of the blatantly biased questions. I feel some Freedom of Information requests may be coming on...

Full results and reports should be available from 5pm here.

Congestion Charging

Last night I went to an internal party meeting to discuss congestion charging – it wasn’t a decision making meeting, just a chance for City Conservatives to talk to our County Council Colleagues.

I think our Conservative County Councillors do a great job running the County Council. They are continually dealt a bad funding hand by the Government and deal with it in a way that tries to protect Council Tax payers now and in the future. (In the disasterous period of Lib/Lab control of the County in the 90s, some of the budgets set we’re clearly not designed to think about who would be picking up the mess again a few years later…). With the Guided Bus, they are delivering on a multi-million pound transport scheme that will bring real benefits to the County, when many critics would have sabotaged these plans without any way of delivering an alternative.



But when it comes to the tentative plans for Congestion Charging, I have to admit to considerable disagreement with my County Colleagues. Don’t get me wrong – I drive very little, cycle to work, and would like to see serious action against climate change. But the proposition being put to residents in areas like Coleridge is not one I can sell on the doorstep – here, have a high density housing estate parked on your doorstep, with transport in Perne Road and Newmarket Road predicted to be chaos even under best case scenarios, and we’ll tackle this by charging you for driving to work in the morning.

The case is made that Congestion Charging is the only way to make other transport improvements work in Cambridge i.e. people would prefer to sit in their cars on congested roads rather than use viable public transport/cycling alternatives, unless you setup some hugely bureaucratic system to track cars every move throughout the City and charge them £3-£5 for the privilege - in addition to the car tax, fuel tax, VAT, insurance, depreciation, parking charges etc etc already being paid, when miraculously the drivers will get out of their cars and do something else. I don’t buy this argument – mainly because I think the argument has been constructed around the fact that the County is being blackmailed by the Government. They have said, please make a so called ‘TIF bid’ for millions of pounds to spend on transport improvements, but only if you ask for congestion charging as part of the bid.

Cambridge is too important for Gordon Browns bankrupt government to treat in this shoddy way. Residents are being fleeced for all the new taxes introduced to fund feckless Labour areas elsewhere. We are being forced to accept thousands of new houses when existing residents are very concerned about the effects of this rapid development, and the government is saying we can’t have sufficient funds for the transport infrastructure unless we take part in one of their pet social engineering schemes. This stinks.

My alternative plan – tell Gordon Brown we must have the funds needed for transport improvements desperately needed now, for the A14, buses, cycle routes etc, or we’re not even going to think about building the 60,000+ houses you want to us to build in the Cambridge sub-region. Only after this happens, local residents should decide if they think it would then be a good idea to introduce congestion charging as well.

I again let County Councillors know my views. I am encouraged that they are clearly going to listen to the public consultation (that now closes on 24th March – please make your views known here). I hope the plans will be quietly (or even noisily) dropped after that!