travel in Cambridge

Much have I travell'd in the realms of gold,
 And many goodly states and kingdoms seen

This week a number of people came and asked me whether our infrastructure in Cambridge is going to hamper the growth of the cluster.

For most of us, growth is not always and everywhere a good thing, at least not in our own back yard. Cranes hauling new buildings into place on the West Cambridge site block our wonderful open skies. Affordable local housing planned on brownfield sites to cut the long commutes of key workers into the city also put great strain on utilities and local schools, and bridge widening work causes queues. Hiring and training new staff requires everyone in the business to stop doing their day job and interview lots of aspiring candidates, and then supervise and develop the happy new joiners.

Paying for growth also raises difficult questions about equity. Limited regional government funding for asset development directed into our already highly successful cluster reduces that which is available for areas with real social issues elsewhere. Congestion charges required to raise the money for decent public transport inevitably reduce the rights of some people living in CB postcode villages and privilege others living in CB postcode suburbs. Restructuring the organization and promoting able staff to supervise new joiners changes the job descriptions of existing staff.

They asked me: "what's your plan?". I demured. Cambridge could well be described as a great example of anarchy without any particular plan. Unlike some other University towns, we did not have an industrial policy that invited heavy manufacturing to provide jobs for unskilled workers. Our flat, wet fenland requires us to keep green space very close to the heart of the old city which can never be built on, part of a region wide green belt, so only clean, high-margin businesses that can afford expensive space could ever set up shop here. Our oldest University does not seem to have planned to create the larger companies in our local high technology cluster either, despite the likely causality in that conjunction. These companies are often second or third generation offspring of companies independently set up by individual academics to exploit niches they could see. So the conservatism and long term thinking of the colleges that own great swathes of local land seem to have served us well as a community. Government intervention for industrial sector planning and support elsewhere has had patchier results. Organic growth with no particular plan seems to have worked here.

But sadly, anarchy will not address our social equity issues: "Anything goes means everything stays". When London wanted to reclaim Trafalgar Square for the people, an open plaza for public demonstrations far enough from Parliament and Palace to prevent bloodshed, they introduced a congestion charge which was broadly accepted, despite strong criticism. Trafalgar Square is nicer than it was when I first moved down to London 22 years ago, and cycling from Kings Cross to members in London is now quite pleasant. Of course, unlike Manchester, Londoners had a decent public transport system but just were not using it. But my point is that Londoners planned for an outcome and got it. I am just not comfortable knowing that I cycle happily past traffic jams full of people who have to drive an hour and a half each way because they can't afford local house prices, can't find work where they live and they have no public transport alternative to get into Cambridge.

It is so much easier not to think about infrastructure. Cambridge Network wants to serve more members better, so we can all grow both personally and economically. But where will those people live and how will they get to work? What's our plan? Do we agree with Cambridge Horizons, the Greater Cambridge Partnership or East of England Development Agency - will they get us the capacity to grow? Please write in your comments on the blog - so the next time someone asks me I have an idea what you think!

A friend from Valletta wrote:

"I was involved as an advisor in the planning, development, politics and implementation of the Valletta scheme. We looked at London, Durham and Edinburgh when we were still developing our ideas (2004-2005) then went on to convince Cabinet and published a consultation document (2005). A
tender was issued for the development, installation and management of the Controlled Vehicular Access (CVA) system (2006) and the system went live on 1st May 2007.

The system uses ANPR but is less intrusive then London. Basically the cameras are much smaller and the system is wireless. The technology is flexible and gives us very good performance. The developers are Superior Traffic Systems Ltd whose shareholders are all involved in CVA Technology Ltd who are currently running the system in Valletta.

My words of wisdom are shop around, have a clear objective of why you want to introduce RUCs, find the right timing and support, technology today can do miracles so don't be shy to ask, and finally
just go for it. If you have public support (which we got by engaging very early on the civil society and ensuring as much as possible equity along the lines of the objectives) then you should not wait.

Valletta's implementation went on without major problems. People eventually understood the system and now it's already accepted.  Since the technology is flexible I am sure that whatever changes are made to the system in the future (in terms of methods of charging, area and so on), there will not be major problems ."

Comments

[Philip Shaw]

Speaking of travel in Cambridge, can anybody explain the point of "guided" in the Guided Bus scheme?

The bus can also run on normal roads and requires a driver, so why didn't they (save money and) just tarmac the old railway line and declare it to be a road for buses only? Is it so the driver can have a nap between stops?

And since overtaking is not possible in the guideway, presumably a breakdown of a single bus will bring the entire system to halt...

[Jim Downing]

Hi Matt,

I'd say CN should be interested in the improvement of transport infrastructure through all of Cambridge's travel to work area, especially public transport. Whilst strategies that focus on housing and communities (such as Cambridge Horizons) are socially essentially, I don't think they speak to the technology industry's need for wider access to the region's talent pool.

By the by, I'm not convinced the park and ride would actually raise funds beyond its costs...