Potholes And Power | How Cambridge's 'Sustainable' Traffic Policy Serves Development Interests

URL has been copied successfully!

Cambridge, a city celebrated for its cyclists and academia, is in the throes of a radical transformation. Major roads have been closed to through traffic. Bus gates and bollards split neighbourhoods. Cycling infrastructure has expanded dramatically. And yet, for many residents, congestion has worsened, pollution has simply shifted, and once-united communities are now divided by concrete and policy. All in the name of sustainability.

But is sustainability truly the motive? Or is the green narrative a convenient façade for unlocking prime development land, easing planning restrictions, and reshaping the cityscape to serve powerful landowners?

As explored in my earlier articles, ‘The Land of the Few’ and ‘Why UK Councils Aren’t Building the Homes We Need’, Britain’s housing and development landscape is dominated by opaque land ownership, developer-friendly policies, and councils that increasingly sidestep their social obligations. Cambridge offers a vivid local example of how these forces manifest on the ground.

This article examines how Cambridge’s traffic policy, spearheaded by the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP), appears less about active travel and more about development, control, and quiet profiteering.

The Greater Cambridge Partnership: An Unelected Powerhouse

The GCP was born out of the UK government’s City Deal initiative, which required Cambridge to merge influence with Peterborough under a metro mayor in exchange for a substantial pot of infrastructure funding. The catch? The creation of a new quasi-governmental body with sweeping authority but minimal accountability.

This partnership includes representatives from local councils and notably, a seat held by the University of Cambridge itself. The University is not only the largest employer in the region but also the dominant landowner, holding vast tracts within and beyond the city limits. Its influence over development and policy decisions, both formal and informal, is difficult to overstate.

Much like the national dynamic explored in The Land of the Few, the city’s planning environment appears tilted toward those who already control the land, allowing powerful institutions to shape local policy for private gain under the banner of public good.

A History of Half-Measures and Shifting Blame

Cambridge has long struggled with traffic. A partially built ring road remains a relic of an abandoned plan. Efforts to manage congestion have repeatedly focused on restricting motorists rather than expanding capacity. Instead of solving traffic, the city has opted to reroute, obstruct, and ultimately frustrate it out of existence.

With each intervention, routes have been closed, bus gates installed, and major arteries reduced to near-permanent gridlock. Critics argue that traffic hasn’t decreased, it’s simply been displaced. Pollution now concentrates in a few key corridors. Local businesses report declining footfall. Yet developments proceed apace.

Winners and Losers: Follow the Money

Behind every new low-traffic neighbourhood is a shifting set of planning requirements. Developers are no longer expected to widen roads or provide parking. With car access limited by policy, the burden of traffic mitigation vanishes from planning applications.

This benefits one group above all: landowners. Especially the University and its affiliated colleges, whose land holdings include major development sites like the North West Cambridge Project and the West Cambridge Innovation District. These areas now enjoy lighter planning scrutiny and easier approvals in the guise of ‘green growth.’

As highlighted in Why UK Councils Aren’t Building the Homes We Need, councils across the country are avoiding direct investment in affordable housing while enabling market-driven projects that benefit major landholders. Cambridge is no exception.

Mobility and Control: A Strategic Constraint?

Beyond the development incentives, reduced personal mobility may also serve another purpose: reinforcing institutional control. People without cars are less mobile, not just physically, but economically. Research from the Centre for Cities and the Social Mobility Commission has shown that access to reliable personal transport is a key factor in upward economic mobility, particularly in regions with poor public transport.

People who cannot easily travel for work are more likely to stay in low-wage, local employment and less likely to negotiate better terms or access distant job markets. Similarly, car ownership is closely linked to self-employment and entrepreneurship, particularly in service and trade sectors where transporting goods and tools is essential.

For large employers like the University of Cambridge and its satellite institutions, this could be advantageous. A more captive workforce means less staff turnover, reduced wage pressure, and a greater degree of control over local labour dynamics. It may also discourage competition, as potential small business owners face higher logistical barriers to entry.

Meanwhile, students and early-career professionals who are unable to afford or operate a vehicle are more likely to remain within employer-provided accommodation and depend on local services, reinforcing the economic centrality of dominant institutions.

In short, what looks like progressive planning may also function as strategic containment, anchoring people in place and shaping the boundaries of their economic freedom.

Surface Dressing over Resurfacing: Rural Roads in Ruin

Outside the city centre, road conditions tell a different story. Cambridgeshire’s rural highways are pockmarked with potholes. Resurfacing has been sidelined in favour of cheap, short-term fixes like surface dressing. Repairs rarely last more than a season.

While the GCP spends millions on urban cycling corridors and busway expansions, essential infrastructure in surrounding villages is crumbling. Residents feel abandoned, left to navigate deteriorating roads while city planners cut ribbons on cycle lanes and public realm schemes.

It is worth noting that active‑travel funding in Cambridge is largely ring‑fenced from central government, over £115 million invested so far, whereas pothole repairs depend on council priorities. Nonetheless, the city’s highways network remains in crisis, with Cambridgeshire reporting a £4.1 million allocation for repairs alongside a national pothole fund of £137 million, both figures not insignificant. Meanwhile, the guided busway cost upward of £116–181 million to deliver, showing that both active travel and mass transit projects command similar financial weight.

The Electric Vehicle Paradox

If environmental concern were truly central, Cambridge would be doubling down on electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure. Instead, the council has removed its own EV chargers from public car parks, handing the responsibility to commercial operators who now charge significantly higher rates.

The recently scrapped congestion charging proposal made no exemption for electric vehicles, a stark contrast to other cities’ policies. It’s not about emissions, it seems, but about removing cars altogether.

Conclusion: Who is Cambridge For?

The transformation of Cambridge is not just a story of bollards and bus gates. It’s a story of power and land. The GCP’s interventions have made development cheaper, planning simpler, and land more valuable, especially for those who already own it.

Publicly, it’s about sustainability. Privately, it may be about enabling the biggest landowners to develop previously inaccessible sites with minimal infrastructure costs.

The winners are easy to spot: developers, planners, and institutions that can navigate the system. The losers? Commuters, local businesses, rural residents, and a public increasingly shut out of the decision-making process.

Cambridge may yet become a model of 21st-century urban living. But right now, it’s worth asking: sustainable for whom? And as shown in my previous articles, this isn’t just a Cambridge story, it’s a nationwide pattern of development disguised as progress.

Sources and Citations