Could Cambridge be the next city to embrace an underground transport system? The question arises as the university city faces the prospect of severe traffic congestion due to its planned growth and the existing limitations of its infrastructure. With the government's ambitious plans to create 'Europe's Silicon Valley' by connecting Cambridge with London, the need for efficient public transport has never been more critical.
The Cambridge Growth Company (CGC) and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) are exploring various options, including trams and a light rail network, to address the impending transport crisis. However, a confidential report obtained by the BBC through the Freedom of Information Act highlights the urgency of the situation. It predicts a more than 30% increase in traffic levels within the next five years, leading to a doubling of time spent in congestion compared to current conditions.
One potential solution that has been proposed is the construction of tunnels. The idea is not entirely new, as former Conservative mayor James Palmer's Cambridge Autonomous Metro (CAM) plan included a significant tunnel component. However, the project was abandoned due to its estimated cost of £2-4 billion. The new report reassesses the feasibility of tunnelling under Cambridge, citing successful projects in similar geological conditions and urban constraints.
An independent transport group, Cambridge Connect, has proposed a shorter tunnel route, approximately 4km long, running from Cambridge Central Station through the city centre to the west, where several research centers and laboratories are located. The estimated cost of this project is £300 million, with an additional £100 million per underground station. Colin Harris, the group's director, believes the project is feasible, citing Cambridge's economic growth and its role as a driving force in the UK.
However, the CGC report also acknowledges the challenges associated with tunnelling, including high upfront capital costs, complex logistics, and less flexible routing due to the presence of heritage buildings. The route's preference to avoid these buildings and reduce under-river crossings is a significant consideration.
The CGC spokesperson emphasizes an evidence-led approach, stating that all options are being considered. The reports, they clarify, do not endorse or suggest a future approach but provide a basis for evaluating various transport modes and technologies. The CPCA, in collaboration with the CGC, is developing a strategic outline business case for a potential MRT, with no options ruled out.
Other alternatives, such as repurposing the existing guided busway or converting certain roads to one-way systems, are also being explored. However, the light rail option comes with the challenge of prolonged full closures of the busway, similar costs to new construction, and a lengthy implementation process of approximately 11 years.
As Cambridge grapples with the need for sustainable transport solutions, the debate over the most viable option continues. The city's future depends on making the right choices to accommodate its growth while preserving its unique character and heritage.
