End of term report: How is James Palmer doing as mayor of Cambridgeshire & Peterborough?

Cambridge. Image: Getty.

Continuing the Centre for Cities’ round up of the first half-year of metro mayors, we look at James Palmer, Conservative mayor of Cambridgeshire & Peterborough.

The collapse of the vast East Anglia devolution deal in November 2016 looked to have killed off devolution in the East of England. But a late push locally saw Cambridgeshire and Peterborough (C&P) announce a deal to set up a Combined Authority in March this year, ahead of the mayoral elections in May.

The rapid nature of this process meant that there was less time to prepare the ground politically and institutionally for the new metro mayor than in other city regions. As a result, the successful candidate James Palmer (previously Conservative leader of East Cambridgeshire District Council) is working with an entirely new political geography – which throws up a range of issues which some of his mayoral counterparts don’t face.

Six months into the job, we look at the challenges this poses for the new C&P mayor, and the progress he has made so far on achieving the objectives he set out upon taking office.

Progress and opportunities

To gauge Palmer’s headway so far, a good place to start is his ‘first 100 days’ strategy, which set out 32 priorities focused on transport, skills and housing. These included plans to explore options for a county-wide light rail scheme to link smaller towns into the jobs of Peterborough and Cambridge (which will report back in December), and for an underground transport system in Cambridge. They also included a pledge to launch new affordable housing schemes across the city regions.

These priorities reflect the need to deal with the costs of growth in the city region, such as high house prices (Cambridge is the third least affordable city in the UK), congestion, and economic disparities. And while many of Palmer’s ambitions are long-term projects which will take years, not months, to be completed, the new mayor has already made progress towards realising them. For example, he has launched feasibility studies into his transport ideas, and has announced 11 new housing schemes which will bring over 250 new affordable homes.

There is clearly much more to do to address housing and transport issues in the city region, but these steps indicate that Palmer recognises these problems and intends to tackle them. There is also a real opportunity for the mayor to use his strategic planning powers – which include oversight over a housing and infrastructure fund worth £100m, and the ability to implement a non-statutory spatial plan – to unlock more housing sites and transport.

Moreover, as a Conservative mayor for a city region which the National Infrastructure Commission has highlighted as strategically important, Palmer might expect to draw on government support as his feasibility plans become concrete proposals and plans. This theory will be put to the test if (and when) the government responds to his calls for greater Land Value Capture powers, and when the Department for Communities and Local Government makes a decision on C&P’s bid for £200m investment to build 7,600 homes in North Cambridge.


Toughest challenge

Geography is the main reason C&P stands out from the other areas electing a metro mayor in May. Largely rural, with two distinct and separate economies – Peterborough in the north and Cambridge in the south – the geography of the city region places unique demands on Mayor Palmer. Spending and policy geared to Peterborough will have little impact on (and may be potentially unsuited to) Cambridge, while those living in small towns or villages in rural areas may feel completely ignored. Making policy at the C&P level that works for everyone in the city region will therefore be a bigger challenge than in other places.

However, the strong economic performance of places across the area should make this a more manageable task than in more geographically coherent mayoral combined authorities which are less economically buoyant. Moreover, Palmer’s ambitions to improve transport connections between the north and south of C&P – and to better link people across the city region to jobs in Greater Cambridge – show that he is attempting to deal with the challenges that the city region’s unwieldy geography poses.

Biggest moment

The one institution that existed at the C&P geography before the combined authority was the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), which in October had its funding frozen due to a National Audit Office investigation into its finances. Mayor Palmer responded to this development by writing an open letter to say that the LEP was causing reputational damage to the area and failing to represent or support local businesses. He also called for a new governance structure that would bring the LEP in house, to restore confidence and address some structural issues in the LEP.

This represented the most high profile moment in Palmer’s mayoralty thus far. More importantly, his call for the LEP to be integrated into the combined authority makes sense, as it would allow the mayor and LEP to work more strategically and coherently, while maintaining a strong voice for local businesses. Indeed, in other city regions such as Tees Valley and the West of England, the Combined Authorities have grown out of the LEPs, which are therefore highly integrated with the mayoralty. The resolution of issues with the LEP in C&P will have a significant impact on ensuring there is a shared, efficient and effective vision for the C&P economy in the coming years.

Simon Jeffrey is a researcher and external affairs officer at the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this article first appeared.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

Here are eight thoughts on TfL’s proposed cuts to London’s bus network

A number 12 bus crosses Westminster Bridge. Image: Getty.

In 2016, the urbanism blog City Observatory had a modest proposal for how American cities could sort out their transport systems: “Londonize”.

Its theory, the name of which referenced another popular urbanism blog, Copenhagenize, was that the key plank of Transport for London’s success was something that even transport nerds did not consider very sexy: its buses.

Though the Tube might get more glamorous press, London’s bus service really is impressively massive: It carries roughly 2.3bn passengers per year—much more than the Tube (1.3bn), close to the New York City subway (2.8bn), and nearly half as much as every bus service in America combined (5.1bn), while serving a population roughly 1/35 as large.

How has TfL done this? By making its bus network high frequency, reliable, relatively easy to understand and comprehensive. We rarely talk about this, because the tube map is far more fun – but the reason it’s so difficult to fall off the transport network in Greater London is because you’re never that far from a bus.

Given all that, we should probably talk about TfL’s plans to rethink – and in most cases, cut – as many as 36 different central London bus services over the next few months.

I’m not going to rehash details of the changes on which TfL is consulting from next month: there are just too many of them, and anyway it’s someone else’s scoop. The story was originally broken by Darryl Chamberlain over on 853 London; there’s also some fascinating analysis on Diamond Geezer’s blog. You should read both of those stories, though preferably not before you’ve finished reading this one.

Before offering my own analysis of the proposed changes, though, I should offer a few examples. More than a dozen routes are facing a trim: the 59 from King’s Cross back to Euston, the 113 from Oxford Circle to Marble Arch, the 171 from Holborn all the way down to Elephant & Castle and so on. A couple – the 10, the 48, the C2, and at most times the special routemaster version of the 15 – are being withdrawn altogether.

On, and one new route is planned – the 311, from Fulham Broadway to Oxford Circus. This will help plug some of the cuts to the 11, 19 and 22.

So, what does all this mean? Some thoughts:

1) This might not quite be as awful as it initially sounds

TfL says that demand for buses has fallen by around 10 per cent in London in recent years. It predicts it’ll fall further when Crossrail opens, as passengers switch to the new line, or to the tube routes relieved by the new line. So: the idea of taking some unwanted capacity out of the system is not, in itself, terrible.

Striping out unnecessary buses should also improve air quality in some of London’s worst pollution hot spots, and improve traffic flow, hopefully speeding up journeys on those buses that remain. 

A map from the presentation in which TfL explained its plans, showing the reduction in bus numbers on key arteries. Hilariously, notes Darryl Chamberlain, “It no longer produces its own maps, so has had to use one prepared by a bus enthusiast”.

The plans might even free up buses and staff to increase frequencies in outer London where demand hasn’t fallen – though these plans won’t be unveiled until next year and, for reasons I’ll come to below, I’ll believe it when we see it.

2) For many bus users, a lot of these changes will pass almost unnoticed

By my count, I use nine of the affected routes with any regularity – but only three of the changes are things that I’m likely to be at all inconvenienced by. Most of the changes either affect a part of the route I don’t take, or one where there are easy, and pain free, alternatives.

This is anecdotal, obviously – perhaps I’m just lucky. But my suspicion is that a lot of these changes will go unnoticed by most passengers. It’s only the sheer number of them happening at once that makes this look like a big deal.

3) The Hopper fare makes this easier...

Once upon a time, if you had to switch buses, you had to pay a second fare. This isn’t true of journeys on the tube or railways – and since bus passengers have, on average, less money than tube passengers, it amounted to a pretty unfair tax on poorer Londoners.

But in January, in what is probably his most notable policy achievement of his two years in office so far, London’s mayor Sadiq Khan changed the rules. Now you can take as many buses as you want within an hour, for a single fare: that means you can switch buses without paying a penalty.

That will have made it easier for TfL to cut routes back: replacing a direct bus journey with one that requires a change no longer means imposing a financial penalty on passengers.


4) ...but not that easy

That’s about where the good news stops, though – because there are reasons other than cost why people prefer direct bus routes. Needing to change buses will be difficult for anyone with any form of mobility impairment, for example. Even for those of us lucky enough not to fall into that category, it’ll be annoying: it’s just easier to stay in one seat for 40 minutes than to get turfed off and have to fight for a new one halfway through.

More than that, from the passengers’ point of view, excess capacity feels quite good a lot of the time: it means your bus may well be nice and empty. Reducing the number of buses along those key corridors will also make those that remain more crowded.

5) The motive is almost certainly financial

Another of Sadiq Khan’s big policy promises was to freeze fares. He made this promise at a time when central government is massively reducing the financial support it gives TfL (the work, Chamberlain notes, of Evening Standard editor George Osborne, back when he was chancellor). And the Hopper fare, while a great idea in many ways, means a further reduction in income.

So: TfL is scrambling for cash: this is why I remain cynical about those new outer London bus routes. I would be amazed if money wasn’t a motivation here, not least because...

6) TfL thinks no one will notice

Any attempt to reduce tube frequencies, let alone close a station, would result in uproar. Hashtag campaigners! Angry people pointing at things in local newspapers! Damning reports on the front of the Evening Standard from the bloke who made it happen!

Buses, though? Their routes change, slightly, all the time. And do you really notice whether your local route comes every 10 minutes or every 12? That’s not to mention the fact that bus passengers, as previously noted, tend to be poorer – and so, less vocal – than tube passengers.

So cuts, and the savings they bring, are much easier to sneak through. TfL probably would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn’t been for those meddling bloggers.

Although...

7) Scrapping the C2 might be a mistake

The C2 runs from Parliament Hill, through Kentish Town and Camden to Oxford Circus. In other words, it links north London, where a lot of journalists live, to the offices of the BBC and Buzzfeed.

As occasional New Statesman writer James Ball notes, this is probably not the easiest route to quietly shelve.

8) None of this is set in stone

The consultation doesn’t even begin until next month and then will run for six weeks – so all these plans may yet be forgotten. We shall see.

Anyway – here’s Darryl Chamberlain’s original scoop, and here’s some detailed analysis on Diamond Geezer. Please support your local bloggers by reading them.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.