Lack of adequate transport is harming quality of life and curtailing the economy in Cambridge 

Quality of life should be the guiding principle for decisions about Cambridge’s future, and quality of life in Cambridge is dependent on the right transport services and enabling infrastructure.  

The impact of poor transport on quality of life in the Cambridge city region is consistently captured in data and analysis supported by Cambridge Ahead1,2.  

The economic potential of the Cambridge economy is huge. As Europe’s most intense innovation cluster3, and the UK’s most innovative city4, Cambridge’s economic success is nationally significant, vital to regions encompassing Cambridge including the East of England and the OxCam Corridor, and of course to vital the immediate city region – where economic potential means good jobs and future prospects for local communities. 

The impact of poor transport options and lack of consensus on future solutions is significant and inescapable. Cambridge’s economic potential, and sustainable future, is being held back by the impact of poor transport, public transport in particular. Employers consistently cite transport as a concern5, and it remains a major contributor to the overall “infrastructure gap”. Cambridge Ahead has modelled this gap and highlighted the possibility of £79.3bn to £93.7bn of lost GVA, equating to 124,900-143,600 lost jobs, by 2051 if infrastructure and housing are not delivered6.   

2026 is a sliding doors moment of opportunity 

2026 is the chance to confront and resolve those things that have held back progress up to this point. The Combined Authority, Cambridge Growth Company, Local Authorities, and Government are working together in a way not seen before – presenting a major opportunity. The Greater Cambridge Transport Strategy and the Rapid Mass Transit Review are two direct opportunities to determine a long-term transport vision and delivery plan.  

The Greater Cambridge Local Plan to 2045, the Cambridge Growth Company’s plan, and the Combined Authority’s Local Growth Plan and Spatial Development Strategy are opportunities to plug a transport plan into long-term land-use and infrastructure plans that provide people with homes, places to work, public services, nature, amenities and leisure. Leaders across our system will need to come together in a momentous and memorable way to grasp this window of opportunity. 

Cambridge Ahead’s suggested priorities for transport decision-makers  

Cambridge Ahead has considered this in detail with its membership over many years, and discussed with leaders and policy experts across the city region and nationally. We have settled on the following key areas where we think decision-makers should focus their attention. We remain committed to working with all parties to support this direction of travel. 

  1. Clarity and certainty are needed – which will require the complex governance system that oversees transport planning and delivery in Cambridge to find a more optimal operating model 
  2. Quality of life outcomes should guide system design – for example reliability, accessibility, affordability, and user-friendliness should be key metrics7. In particular, the ease of multi-modal journeys for users (such as single ticketing, interchange between modes) should be prioritised in system design 
  3. Further delay or failure will lead to massive economic cost – growth and investment will be lost in the short-term, the competitiveness and status of the Cambridge economy are risked in the long-term.  
  4. Segregated public transport corridors are gold dust – the reliability of any mass transit system relies on the level of segregation from other transport modes. Options for corridors are sparse and diminishing. Where there are options in front of us that have been through due process, these should be recognised for the major assets that they are – and we should use them before we lose them. 
  5. A credible solution for cross-city connectivity must emerge – this represents a strategic gap in current adopted plans and 2026 should be the year to confront this.  
  6. City centre vibrancy and bus service viability are intertwined – congestion management can be contentious, but Cambridge must tackle city-centre congestion to support both the economy of central Cambridge and the ongoing viability of city-region wide transit8. 
  7. Hardnosed business case discipline needs to be applied to Rapid Mass Transit assessment – so that there is market confidence that the solution pursued by authorities and politicians will be delivered. The operating cost of options needs to be strongly considered within this. Much of the rhetoric is focused on capital costs which risks missing the important point that the system chosen must be affordable to operate on a year-to-year basis. 
  8. Options appraisals should consider future solutions and flexibility – not just working with the restrictions of today’s operating assumptions. This may be the defining point on capital expenditures, operating expenditure, and benefits. So just focussing on existing technologies and operating models risk being backward looking.