Download the CSTA’s 28 June briefing.
The full transformation of bus services and improvements to active travel proposed in Making Connections 2022 are urgently needed. They are supported by at least 70% of consultees and cannot be achieved if the funding generated by the road charge reduces much below the consultation proposal level (£75 million per year in final state) (see section 10 in Agenda Item 10 of the agenda pack for the 29 June meeting). Any modified Making Connections 2022 scenario must also respond to the concerns raised in the consultation. We set out how a response could be made to consultation feedback without reducing the funds generated for investment in sustainable transport.
The annual generation of around £75 million of funding for sustainable transport is at the core of the Making Connections 2022 scheme; the scheme will not meet its objectives in terms of public transport and active travel if funding falls much below this
The Making Connections 2022 consultation brochure stated that the project would “give people a realistic and reliable alternative to the car” and the improvements to buses, walking, wheeling and cycling set out in the consultation proposal were supported by at least 70% of consultees. Around half of those who opposed the STZ supported the vision for better buses. Many people will lack viable alternatives to car travel if the sum available to spend on sustainable transport falls much below £75 million per year. (Scenario 1 would reduce the funding by nearly half; Scenario 3 would reduce it even further and the resulting impacts on meeting scheme objectives in terms of sustainable transport provision are clear to see in the second table on p.351 of the agenda pack for the 29 June meeting).
The sustainable transport offering should be expanded, rather than watered down. Those on low incomes are more reliant on bus services, with half of the poorest fifth of the UK population not having a car, rising to more than two-thirds of job seekers. Many people we have spoken to would like to see even better buses, (particularly in rural areas, but also in the city; shuttle buses from the Park and Ride to e.g. Addenbrookes and Cambridge North, orbital city routes and through routes that avoid terminating in the city centre should be explored further), as well as further investment in active travel. Rural transport, in particular, would be at risk if forecast funding levels fall.
A firm commitment will need to be made to maintain revenue levels so that transformed bus services and active travel enhancements are supported for the long-term. Existing road charges (for example those in London, Stockholm and Singapore) are ‘living schemes’, i.e. adjustments are made over time to charge amounts, days/hours of operation and zone boundaries to continue to, or better meet scheme objectives, especially when circumstances change. The GCP should make it clear that Making Connections would also be a ‘living scheme’ in the same way.
A commitment to add alternative funding sources e.g. a Workplace Parking Levy to the proposition will also be crucial if any modified Making Connections scenario taken forward will generate less than £75 million of funding for sustainable transport annually. Without this in place, the fairness of the modified scenario is questionable.
The GCP should investigate whether a scenario which applied free days to a road charging scheme that operated 7 days a week could generate at or near to £75 million of sustainable transport funding per year, while also providing greater fairness and flexibility than the consultation proposal
Scenario 2 (‘consultation proposal + free days’) is identical to the consultation proposal in its final state, as the number of free days tapers to zero in 2030. It therefore achieves the same level of funding for sustainable transport as the consultation proposals from 2030 onwards, but does not provide a long-term response to the concerns raised in the Making Connections consultation. It also significantly reduces funding for sustainable transport compared to the consultation proposals between 2026 and 2029.
We believe there should therefore be discussion and investigation of a different ‘free day’ scenario in which the STZ road charge applies 7 days a week (as opposed to 5) and account holders are allocated some free days each week or across the year (for example, 100 in the final state across the year; there would be the option to start with a larger number of free days, then taper down to the desired final number) for use whenever they see fit. This would be similar in many respects in terms of times of operation and allowance for free travel to the rules for the Oxford traffic filter scheme. We feel that this could potentially both generate a sum near to the £75 million funding required for sustainable transport (although confirmation would need to be provided via GCP modelling) and offer greater fairness and flexibility, therefore building public support.
- An annual allocation of free days for residential and business account holders would allow people the flexibility to make necessary car journeys when required without incurring a charge (not everyone has the same weekly routine, nor would be able to make necessary car journeys at weekends).
- In addition to providing more options for drivers, a scenario that combined road charging 7 days a week with free days for account holders would also extend the benefits of the STZ including reduced congestion, air pollution, reliable public transport and more space for walking, wheeling and cycling to every day of the week.
895 people suggested in their response to the consultation survey that expanded hours of operation of the STZ would be more appropriate (Figure 7-30). Road charging schemes in London, Singapore and Durham operate during parts of the weekend, so Cambridge would not be an outlier in that respect.
The GCP should give conscientious consideration to the 895 consultees who suggested expanding the hours of operation of the STZ (despite this not being an option mentioned in the original proposals) by committing to model scenarios that combine road charging 7 days a week with some free days for account holders.
A separate consultation would not be required to alter the hours of operation of the proposed Sustainable Travel Zone (STZ), but would be required to raise funds through a Workplace Parking Levy (WPL).
The 2022 consultation set out a proposal for a scheme which would operate from 7am to 7pm on weekdays (i.e. Monday to Friday), then asked in Q12 “Do you have any comments on the proposed hours of operation of the Sustainable Travel Zone?“.
As per the Gunning principles, a consultation must be carried out at a formative stage and so consultation proposals must necessarily be capable of change. Given that the whole purpose of the consultation was to understand whether the proposals consulted on were appropriate, and Q12 invited comments on the proposed hours of operation of the STZ, it is reasonable to understand that the proposed hours of operation might change to better meet scheme objectives (including the possibility of increasing the hours of operation) depending on the consultation findings without a separate consultation taking place.
It could arguably be contrary to Gunning if the GCP were to conclude that expanded hours of operation required a separate consultation, as that might imply that expanded hours of operation were not within the scope of the 2022 consultation. We therefore repeat that the GCP should give conscientious consideration to the 895 consultees who suggested expanding the hours of operation of the STZ and not dismiss out of hand the call to model scenarios that combine road charging 7 days a week with some free days for account holders. You can read our full argument as to why we believe a separate consultation would not be required here.
A Workplace Parking Levy would be subject to a separate statutory consultation (as stated in the agenda pack for the 29 June meeting). A separate consultation would therefore be required if decision makers watered down the Making Connections proposal and needed to put a Workplace Parking Levy in place to reach the desired funding levels for sustainable transport.
24 June briefing paper
Download the CSTA’s 24 June briefing.
On 24 June we published a briefing paper, which set out that:
- Measures to assist with behaviour change are essential to build public support and should be in place before charging starts;
- The provision of viable alternatives to car travel is central to the scheme’s fairness: the programme for sustainable transport should be expanded rather than watered down;
- The low-income discount would make the STZ road charge more progressive than major established road charging schemes.
It also discussed whether the STZ road charge could be more effective and more equitable (and public support greater) if it were more flexible.