|
Policies implemented during the past fifty years
have:
The consequences of these policies have
been:
-
an increase in housing prices
-
people employed in Cambridge forced to live in areas
beyond the Green Belt
-
increased separation between jobs and dwellings
-
more long distance, car-based commuting
-
rising congestion and thus traffic pollution.
Current policies are becoming unsustainable
because :
-
higher living and production costs are threatening
the area’s economic sustainability
-
increased social segregation is making the City and
the surrounding area the preserve of the very wealthy or of those protected in social
housing, thus threatening social sustainability
-
increased congestion with the consequent rise in
emissions and thus pollution threaten environmental sustainability.
The options analysed can be grouped into
three classes:
-
those which would prevent further development
of the City and its immediate area
-
those which would encourage the development of
the City and its immediate area
-
those which would allow a measure of
development within the City but spread the rest.
Options which would prevent further
development of the City, such as Option 1: Minimum Growth, Option 3: Necklace, Option 6:
Virtual Highway and Option 7: New Town, would
-
reduce the area’s economic efficiency by
increasing production costs. Particularly hard hit would be high-tech and higher education
sectors. Traditional employment would also suffer.
-
increase social segregation as the City and South
Cambridgeshire would become the preserve of the very wealthy unless people are protected in
social housing
-
protect the man-made environment and open spaces in
and around the City to the detriment of the districts beyond.
-
Emissions and pollution would increase because of
long distance car commuting in the first two options, but less in the other two (Virtual
Highway and New Town).
Options which would encourage further
development of the City, such as Option 2: Densification, or of the surrounding Green
Belt, such as Option 4: Green Swap, would:
-
maintain economic efficiency, as the cost of living
and of production would rise by manageable proportions
-
improve social equity, as lower socio-economic groups
could afford to live in and around the City
-
reduce open space in and around the City, potentially
causing environmental deterioration, but this would be compensated for by more public open
space beyond the Green Belt and by reducing agricultural land conversion.
-
increase congestion, emissions and pollution, due to
more people using the existing infrastructure, despite a smaller percentage of them using
cars.
Intermediate options, such as Option
5: Transport Links, would not score highly in any respect, but neither would they score
badly. This might make them more sustainable in the long run. Impacts would include:
-
reduced economic efficiency, with living and
production costs increasing by 25% over the period 2001-2016, the export sector would need
higher efficiency gains to compensate for the extra costs, although these would not be as
steep as in those options which prevent development
-
social equity remaining similar to the present
situation, without further segregation of socio-economic groups within the City
-
a high environmental score: uptake of green open
space is minimal, ‘brown’ land is used for more intensive development. Car use
is lower than in other options (except Virtual Highway) as are emissions and pollution.
-
It remains a matter of judgement as to
whether there is a single preferable option. Would a combination of options be more
acceptable?
-
Would it be worth sacrificing economic prosperity and
social equity to protect the City’s environment and the surrounding countryside?
-
Or would it be worth changing these elements in order
to maintain the area’s economic power, and its place at the top of the European
research league?
-
Could growth be accommodated by innovative schemes
for transport corridors or telecommunications technology?
-
There are choices to be made about the future of
Cambridge. It is important to know what they are, and perhaps more importantly, what their
consequences would be for the City, the region, and of course, for the individual.
-
It has been
Cambridge Futures’ purpose to set out
basic options for discussion and review. Since each option has different strengths and
weaknesses, some sort of combination should be sought as most nearly meeting the criteria
of the three ‘E’s – equity, efficiency, environment – thereby
leading Cambridge boldly and confidently into the next century.
|
|
