Cambridge Connect and Railfuture’s new proposals are about one third of the cost that was originally mooted for Cambridge Light Rail – for the first two phases of the Isaac Newton Line and Darwin line the overall cost, including the tunnel and two underground stations would be ~£1.4 bn. This will require a sustained commitment and investment. Cost is certainly a valid and relevant consideration, although also is value. Light rail has proven to be an investment of enduring value in cities where it has been implemented. For example, the Nottingham NET has been very successful, pays its way, and extensions are already being planned. Manchester Metrolink has also been hugely successful, as have other schemes in the UK. In Europe there are countless examples of successful light rail schemes.
The Greater Cambridge Partnership
Substantial resources have been committed to the Greater Cambridge City Deal, although at this stage none of its priority schemes include Light Rail. Instead, the GCP has pursued busways, but after almost 7 years and expenditure of ~£100 million, no busways have been delivered. It is time for a major re-think of strategy, and we think the integrated scheme we have put forward for Cambridge Light Rail will attract far greater public support and be a lot more deliverable.
Public – Private Partnership Financing
Public – Private Partnership (PPP) financing is a well-established mechanism used to finance infrastructure projects worldwide. A range of options for PPP implementation exist, and these should be explored for Cambridge Light Rail. There seems merit in combining public resources available through the GCP and Combined Authority with resources from the private sector, perhaps with investments from other institutions. Investments will be returned by the economic, environmental, educational, cultural and social benefits of the scheme, and different stakeholders might benefit in different ways. Failure to invest could see current vibrant growth weaken and wither as barriers to connectivity increase, and much we value about Cambridge placed at risk. We note that the Northern Line extension to Battersea is being funded through developer contributions, showing that major private investment in underground rail developments is feasible in some circumstances.
Congesting charging
There has been discussion of a congestion charge for Cambridge, and potentially this could discourage people from driving private vehicles into the City centre. Viable and practical alternatives to private vehicles are likely to play a key part in gaining public support for congestion charging. Indeed, it could be argued that a Light Rail system is a necessity in Cambridge to provide people with those practical alternatives to driving private cars.
Let us assume that the objectives of congestion charging are to a) reduce congestion, b) improve air quality and c) reduce the carbon footprint of commuter travel. A Cambridge Light Rail system may in itself be an effective way in which to deliver on those targets simply by achieving more widespread consumer adoption of public transport. A congestion charge may not be needed to dissuade people from driving – people will choose public transport because it is faster, more reliable, more frequent and more convenient.
Giving people positive choices rather than beating them with sticks would receive a warmer welcome than congestion charging. On the other hand, congestion charging, or perhaps employer parking fees (such as implemented in Nottingham), could help fund the public transport system. If so, local residents may be more positive about paying if they see real and tangible benefits. Support may not be as forthcoming if residents see congestion charging as another tax, particularly if a poor public transport system is the result.
Fares
Fares from an operational Cambridge Light Rail line would raise revenue to operate the service, and pay back some of the up-front investment. Work on fare revenue remains to be undertaken, although we note that the Nottingham NET light rail system pays its way and fares on the NET are affordable to most.
