The Greater Cambridge Citizens' Assembly was a group of 53 citizens broadly reflecting the population from Greater Cambridge and the wider travel to work area, who came together over two weekends to consider how to address congestion, air quality and improve public transport in Greater Cambridge. They were:

The Involve Foundation¹ is a UK-wide public participation charity. Involve ran the citizens' assembly - facilitating and designing the process by which the assembly members learn, consider and come to recommendations about the topic. They also wrote this report on the outcomes of the citizens' assembly.

The Sortition Foundation² promotes the use of sortition (random selection) in decision-making. They were responsible for recruiting people to take part in the citizens' assembly. Their aim was to ensure the citizens' assembly was broadly representative of the Greater Cambridge community.

The Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) is the local delivery body for a City Deal with central government, bringing powers and investment worth up to £1 billion over 15 years to deliver vital improvements in infrastructure and support the creation of new jobs, new homes and apprenticeships. The GCP aims to develop a sustainable transport network for Greater Cambridge that keeps people, businesses and ideas connected as the area continues to grow; to make it easy to get into, out of, and around Cambridge by public transport, by bike and on foot. Decisions are made by an Executive Board with three voting members: Cambridge City Council³, Cambridgeshire County Council⁴, South Cambridgeshire District Council⁵, and two non-voting members: University of Cambridge⁶ and a representative of the business community.

GCP was awarded funding and support from the UK Government's Innovation in Democracy Programme⁷ to hold this citizens' assembly. The Innovation in Democracy Programme (IiDP) is trialling innovative models of deliberative democracy to involve residents in local government decision-making. It is supporting three local authorities to open up a key policy decision to citizen deliberation, complemented by online engagement. IiDP is jointly delivered by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government. For more information on the support provided see the Annex section.

Thank you to everyone who was involved in making the Greater Cambridge Citizens' Assembly on congestion, air quality and public transport happen, including assembly members, expert leads, expert contributors, facilitators, support team, funders, advisory group and contributors to the evidence calls.

The Greater Cambridge Citizens' Assembly brought together 53 randomly selected residents from Greater Cambridge and the wider travel to work area during September and October 2019 to develop recommendations on how to reduce congestion, improve air quality and provide better public transport.

Across its two weekends, the citizens' assembly heard a range of evidence outlining the situation in Greater Cambridge, the impacts, visions for the future and measures to address the issues.

Assembly members developed and prioritised their vision for transport in Greater Cambridge, with the following outcomes commanding the highest support:

• Provide affordable public transport (32)
• Provide fast and reliable public transport (32)
• Be environmental and zero carbon (28)
• Restrict the city centre to only clean and electric vehicles (27)
• Be people centred – prioritising pedestrians and cyclist (26)
• Be managed as one coordinated system (e.g. Transport for Cambridge) (25)
• Enable interconnection (e.g. north/south/east/west/urban/rural) (25)

The citizens' assembly voted on a series of measures to reduce congestion, improve air quality and public transport. Of the measures they considered, assembly members voted most strongly in favour of road closures, followed by a series of road charging options (clean air zone, pollution charge and flexible charge).

In addition to these measures, assembly members developed and prioritised a number of other supporting measures:

• Mayor to franchise buses (40)
• Plant trees and hedges to absorb carbon (33)
• Encouraging the use of electric bikes (32)
• Introduce a lollipop bus service with low emission electric vehicles (31)
• Explore the viability of long-distance buses using the Park & Ride (25)
• Establish a heavy-duty depot outside of Cambridge, with last mile delivery through electric van/ pedal power (24)
• Optimise traffic signals (24)

There was a high level of support for action and ambition to address the citizens' assembly question. Across all votes "no intervention" received the least number of preferences in all votes and be bold and brave was a repeated comment.

To what extent do you support or oppose the following measures being part of the solution to improving congestion, air quality and public transport in Greater Cambridge and across the wider area?

Key messages developed by the citizens' assembly included:

• Be brave, be bold and take action
• Improvements in public transport need to come first
• Funding raised through charging needs to be ring-fenced for transport in Greater Cambridge and the wider area
• Better integration and co-ordination of transport across Greater Cambridge
• Fairness is a key principle
• Exemptions: Provide access for essential services/users
• Be the best and make Cambridge no.1
• Progress immediate actions and those improving the Greater Cambridge environment
• Transparency, monitoring and feedback
• Communication, education and behaviour change
• Consider trials/ pilots and phasing
• The question of growth and planning
• Don't forget to consider longer term measures

The Greater Cambridge Citizens' Assembly on congestion, air quality and public transport brought together 53 randomly selected residents from Greater Cambridge and the wider travel to work area for two weekends during September and October 2019.

The citizens' assembly was set the task to develop recommendations to the Greater Cambridge Partnership in response to the question:

How do we reduce congestion, improve air quality and provide better public transport in Greater Cambridge?

Across the two weekends, the citizens' assembly heard a range of evidence relating to the challenges of congestion, air quality and public transport – this included learning, exploring and discussing:

• The situation in Greater Cambridge now and projections for the future;
• The impacts of congestion, air quality and public transport on health; the environment; and people's lives;
• Visions and approaches locally and from further afield on different ways to tackle the problem; and;
• The range of measures that could be used to address the situation.

They identified outcomes they wanted to achieve and deliberated on the pros, cons and considerations of different measures before taking a series of votes to arrive at their collective recommendations. They then looked at their recommended measures and developed a series of messages for the GCP, including about why they were chosen, how they should be implemented.

A copy of the programme for both weekends is included available on the Consult Cambs⁸ website along with the information provided to assembly members over the weekends and copies of the speaker presentations.

This report sets out how the citizens' assembly worked and what conclusions it reached. It has been written by Involve, based on the work and recommendations of the citizens' assembly. We have sought to represent the citizens' assembly as faithfully as possible – reporting its conclusions and drawing out key themes.

The members of the citizens' assembly were recruited by the Sortition Foundation through a civic lottery sent to 10,000 postal points in the Greater Cambridge and the wider travel to work area (see Annex for further information). Households which received the invitation were able to register their interest in participating.

The Sortition Foundation then randomly selected individuals from this pool to be broadly representative of the Greater Cambridge population in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, geography, and socio-economic group. As the assembly topic was on congestion, air quality and public transport the random selection process also considered whether selected individuals were ‘regular travellers⁹'. This was considered a minimum target rather than a stratification target. In terms of geographic spread the recruitment focused on Cambridge, South Cambridgeshire and the wider Travel to Work area.

The Sortition Foundation recruited 60 assembly members in total and 53 assembly members completed the two weekends.

Assembly members were given a £300 Thank You Gift (in cash or vouchers) to recognise the commitment and time they gave. They were also paid travel expenses.

The map below shows the geographical area where invitations were sent to recruit Assembly Members:

*: This was considered a minimum target rather than a stratification target. The aim was for at least 61% of the assembly to be regular travellers in and around Cambridge.

More detailed information about the postcodes of assembly members can be found in the Annex section.

The independent advisory group was tasked with providing advice and oversight to ensure the citizens' assembly's plans, evidence and materials were accurate, balanced and unbiased. Further information on their role can be found on the GCP website¹⁰

The members of the advisory group were:

• Andrew Carter, Chief Executive, Centre for Cities
• Dr Tom Cohen, Senior Research Associate, University College London Centre for Transport Studies
• Carolyn Daher, Coordinator of the Urban Planning, Environment and Health Initiative, Barcelona Institute for Public Health (ISGlobal)
• Steve Gooding, Director, RAC Foundation
• Professor Michael Neuman, Professor of Sustainable Urbanism, University of Westminster
• Darren Shirley, Director, Campaign for Better Transport.

The following people provided local context support to the Advisory Group:

• Peter Blake, Director of Transport, Greater Cambridge Partnership (adviser on Greater Cambridge transport)
• Philipp Verpoort, Co-Director, Sortition Foundation (adviser on sortition/deliberative democracy)

The development of the citizens' assembly was informed by a stakeholder session held in July 2019 and an online evidence survey run through the Consult Cambs website. These sought to reach out to ask the wider community about what the assembly should hear about and from whom. A copy of the evidence survey results is available at Consult Cambs.¹¹

In addition, through Consult Cambs a wider range of "travel stories" were sought to enable assembly members to reflect on experiences beyond their own. These were displayed on boards outside the citizens' assembly room at each weekend.

All of the evidence given to assembly members over the course of the two weekends was livestreamed to the GCP Facebook and is now available on the GCP YouTube page¹². The livestream also included key feedback from the assembly members¹³.

Copies of all the presentations and other written materials were made available immediately to assembly members online and are available on the Consult Cambs website¹⁴. Paper copies of presentations were also available at the citizens' assembly.

The citizens' assembly met over two weekends (7^th & 8^th September and 5^th & 6^th October 2019) and took part in over 24 hours of learning, deliberation and decision-making. The process was designed by Involve, with input from the advisory group and GCP officers.

The assembly weekends were designed and facilitated by Suzannah Lansdell and Tim Hughes from Involve and supported by an independent expert lead Honorary Professor David Metz from University College London, and Peter Blake from GCP who gave a Greater Cambridge context. There were also eight (weekend one) and seven (weekend two) independent table facilitators who facilitated the conversations on tables of six to eight assembly members. Assembly members were sat according to a seating plan to ensure a mixture of demographics at each table and this was refreshed each day to ensure they got to hear from a variety of views and perspectives.

Observers were present throughout both weekends and were able to hear the evidence giving and observe the process in action. They were not allowed to listen in to table discussions or approach members of the citizens' assembly in order to prevent interruption or undue influence. Observers were both individuals and organisations with an interest in the assembly question and/or process of running a citizens' assembly. They came from the local area and from national organisations.

The first weekend of the citizens' assembly focused on providing the assembly members with key background information and reflection about the impacts of congestion, air quality and public transport. Assembly members also heard from local stakeholders and other cities that have faced similar challenges to take inspiration for how things might be different.

Assembly members were welcomed by Rachel Stopard – Chief Executive of the Greater Cambridge Partnership and Aidan van de Weyer, Chair of the GCP Executive Board, who both emphasised the importance of the citizens' assembly in helping inform what is a challenging topic in the area.

Assembly members then heard from the first two speakers – Stephen Kelly, Joint Director of Planning & Economy for Cambridge & South Cambridgeshire Councils and Lynne Miles who is seconded to GCP from Arup. Their presentations covered the current situation in Greater Cambridge in respect of the growth and congestion trends.

Handing back to the tables, assembly members reflected on their own experiences of the impacts of congestion, air quality and public transport on their lives and started to generate a starter list of impacts. They reflected on the presentations and then agreed questions on their table to put to the presenters during the plenary (whole group) Q&A.

Assembly members were asked to develop conversation guidelines to help the assembly run productively

After lunch, assembly members heard from a series of speakers focused on the impacts on our lives of congestion, air quality and public transport options. Assembly members posed questions to the speakers in plenary.

The impacts panel constituted:

• Impacts on our health – Jo Dicks, Air Quality lead, Cambridge City Council and Dr Liz Robin, Director Public Health Cambridgeshire County Council & Peterborough City Council
• Impacts on our environment and climate: Dr Justin Bishop, Arup
• Impacts on our work/ business: Dan Thorp, Cambridge Ahead
• Impact on our lives: Hon. Professor David Metz, Centre for Transport Studies, UCL

At tables, assembly members discussed what they had heard and picked up their initial starter list of impacts from the morning to generate additional thoughts on: "What impacts do we want to address in any future measures/actions to reduce congestion, improve air quality and provide better public transport in Greater Cambridge." They then fed back to the rest of the citizens' assembly their six to eight impacts which represented the range of views on the table.

Overnight these impacts from the tables were grouped and collated and made available to assembly members the following day. A copy of the full and consolidated list of impacts is available in the Annex section.

After welcoming assembly members back and running through the aims and agenda for the day, assembly members were introduced to a "solutions basket" to capture ideas assembly members had about how to address aspects of the questions put to them.

The Sunday morning focused on inspiring assembly members with visions of the future for Greater Cambridge. A panel of local stakeholders gave 5-minute lightning talks.

The panel was made up of:

• Anne Miller – Carbon Neutral Cambridge
• Edward Leigh – Smarter Cambridge Transport
• James Littlewood – Cambridge Past, Present and Future
• Alex Plant – business (Anglian Water)
• John Grant – Fen Line Users Association
• Roxanne De Beaux – CamCycle.

After the panel, table facilitators worked with assembly members to prioritise questions to ask in the plenary Q&A.

After lunch assembly members heard from Peter Blake about the existing plans GCP has for improvements in relation to public and active transport. In addition, Dr Rachel Aldred from Westminster University talked about the scope for change and gave a worldwide tour of examples of other cities and places who have addressed the challenge of congestion in different ways.

After a further Q&A, assembly members then worked at tables to think about their vision for a future Greater Cambridge that had addressed the assembly question under the heading "What do we want to achieve by 2030". Tables were asked to come up with four to five outcomes that represented the range of opinions on the table. These were taken and consolidated into a list for prioritising.

In the meantime, assembly members heard from Hon. Professor David Metzwho outlined the challenge of getting to a vision and broadly the measures that are at GCP's disposal.

Then, assembly members were asked to choose up to eight vision outcomes they would like to prioritise.

In concluding the weekend, assembly members were asked to reflect on the vision priority outcomes and identify any burning questions or evidence gaps they had.

Some assembly members requested further information to find out more about how other locations had addressed the issues of congestion, air quality and public transport. Although no extra work was required of assembly members between the weekends, we provided a selection of videos, which had been reviewed by the Advisory Group, to address this further interest in other examples. The list is available on Consult Cambs¹⁵.

After welcoming assembly members to the second and last weekend of the assembly and running through the aims and agenda, members talked about what they had discussed with friends and families about their participation in the assembly.

Peter Blake then led a short presentation to clarify key points that had come up as a result of Weekend One in relation to the role of GCP, the area they cover and the focus of the question.

Involve reminded assembly members of the impacts and vision they had developed from Weekend One, copies of which were available to assembly members for reference throughout the weekend. Hon. Professor David Metz then introduced the measures available to address congestion, air quality and public transport and the notion of packages of measures.

The measures were taken in the following order:

• Closing roads to cars – restricting cars in certain lanes, roads or zones
• Restricting or removing parking – prohibiting parking and/or removing parking spaces
• Clean Air Zone – charging the most polluting vehicles (but not cars)
• Pollution charge – a clean air zone including the most polluting cars
• Flexible charge – charging for driving when roads are congested
• Workplace Parking Levy – charging businesses for their parking spaces
• Increase Parking charges – charge (or charge more) for council-operated parking

Lynne Milesfrom GCP/ARUP outlined the measures in greater detail in bundles of two or three, and panellists provided additional commentary of aspects to consider as starter thoughts.

The panellists were:

• Professor Jillian Anable, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds
• Dr Steve Melia, Centre for Transport & Society, University of the West of England
• Richard McGreevy,Strategy & Planning Manager, Transport for London

Table groups then discussed the measures drawing on the panellists, Lynne Miles,Hon. Professor David Metz and Peter Blake as a resource as required to consider the pros, cons and considerations for each measure. Assembly members also had a toolkit booklet which described all the measures as reference. Each table drew up a list of the pros, cons and considerations and highlighted what for their group were the most important points.

A list of the top pros, cons and considerations developed by assembly members is included in Section 2.2 by measure.

You can see a copy of the booklet containing the measures outlined above on the Consult Cambs website¹⁶.

Before breaking for lunch assembly members watched a video from the young travel ambassadors. This gave a snapshot of some of the views of the younger generation. The video is available on the GCP YouTube page¹⁷.

The last part of the day was spent discussing supporting measures – these were described as measures which may not have a significant impact in terms of reducing congestion, improving air quality or proving better public transport, but nonetheless are important behavioural or systems measures that might support a shift towards the vision. As before, the panellists provided additional thoughts on the following key supporting measures outlined by Lynne Miles:

• Optimising traffic signals
• Travel planning
• Car sharing
• Electric vehicle charging network
• Other ways to raise revenue

Back at tables assembly members considered these measures and developed additional supporting measures that they thought would make a difference (including any identified in Weekend One).

Assembly members were welcomed to the last day of the assembly.

Some assembly members at the end of Saturday asked about the improvements that were listed in the booklet. The Sunday started therefore with a slight change to the agenda and Lynne Miles outlined the possible improvements that could be made as outlined in the booklet and how they could be realised. Many of the improvements were aligned with the priorities identified by assembly members in their vision and Lynne touched on what might be needed for them to be realised in terms of road space and/or funding.

Assembly members then introduced each other at their new tables and as a warmup exercise also indicated their priorities in terms of the improvements.

Lynne then refreshed the idea of packages of measures – on Saturday we had looked at measures to get to the vision or improvements individually but in practice it might be a combination of measures that is needed to address the assembly question.

At table groups assembly members worked through what was effectively a practice vote, indicating with small strips of post it notes what their preferences for different measures were and discussing as a group what that might offer in terms of meeting the assembly question and their vision. They were able to draw on Lynne, Peter and David to test their views and seek clarifications if required. The purpose of the exercise was not to reach a table consensus and no output was expected, it was for assembly members to test and consider different combinations of core measures in advance of the vote.

Assembly members were taken through the five votes that they were to complete via private ballot papers. Ballots 1, 2 and 3 asked assembly members to give their preferences of measures directed towards different aspects of the assembly question:

• Ballot 1 in terms of creating road space for improved public and active transport in Greater Cambridge
• Ballot 2 in terms of improving air quality in Greater Cambridge
• Ballot 3 in terms of raising funds for improved public and active transport in Greater Cambridge and across the wider area.

Ballot paper 4 was different in that it asked assembly members to vote on how strongly they supported or opposed the different measures listed.

Ballot paper 5 listed all the measures and asked for a preference in terms of the whole assembly question.

A copy of the ballot papers is included in the Annex section. The results of the ballots are explained in the next section of this report.

While the ballot paper count was being finalised assembly members turned their attention to the supporting measures they had generated.

Assembly members were given eight choices to indicate which of the supporting measures they thought should be prioritised to improve congestion, air quality and public transport.

The supporting measures and their prioritisation are explained in the next section of this report.

Once the votes had been announced, assembly members developed key messages back to GCP around the top-voted measures of road closures and charging. The focus of their discussions was:

• A reflection on key messages on the rationale for why measures were chosen;
• Considerations in implementation of those measures
• Other messages that they wanted to send to the GCP Board.

A full copy of the points recorded during the discussions is included in the Annex section.

Assembly members worked together on the first weekend to think about their vision for transport in Greater Cambridge, looking at "What do we want to achieve by 2030" to reduce congestion, improve air quality and provide better public transport in Greater Cambridge.

Assembly members were asked to come up with four to five outcomes that represented the range of opinions on their table. These were then consolidated down to seventeen outcomes and presented back to the assembly. Assembly members then weighted these outcomes by choosing up to eight which they would like to see Greater Cambridge achieve by 2030. The numbers indicate the number of people who chose the outcome as one of their eight priorities.

Assembly members were presented with a variety of core measures available to reduce congestion, improve air quality and public transport, and the notion of packages of measures.

• Closing roads to cars – restricting cars in certain lanes, roads or zones
• Restricting or removing parking – prohibiting parking and/or removing parking spaces
• Clean Air Zone – charging the most polluting vehicles (but not cars)
• Pollution charge – a clean air zone including the most polluting cars
• Flexible charge – charging all vehicles for driving when roads are congested
• Workplace Parking Levy – charging businesses for their parking spaces
• Increase Parking charges – charge (or charge more) for council-operated parking

They considered the pros, cons and considerations for each measure, drawing on the expert leads and panellists as a resource as required. Each table drew up a list of the pros, cons and considerations and highlighted what for their group were the most important points.

The following tables lists the priority points made. The bold italic text has been inserted to show thematic suggestions for similarly grouped items.

Assembly members were taken through the five votes, which they completed via private ballot papers.

Ballots 1-3 asked for preferences of measures directed towards different aspects of the citizens' assembly question –

• Ballot 1 in terms of creating road space for improved public and active transport in Greater Cambridge
• Ballot 2 in terms of improving air quality in Greater Cambridge
• Ballot 3 in terms of raising funds for improved public and active transport in Greater Cambridge and across the wider area.

Ballot paper 4 was different in that it asked assembly members to vote on how strongly they supported or opposed the different measures listed.

Ballot paper 5 listed all the measures and asked for a preference in terms of the whole assembly question.

A Borda count was used to count ballots 1, 2, 3, and 5, which gives points to preferences.¹⁸ Assembly members did not have to use all their preferences and there was an option of "no intervention". This is the most common count form used in citizens' assemblies as it seeks to find where the broad consensus in a room lies.

The results of the ballots are explained below.

A copy of the ballot paper comments is included in the Annex section.

The first vote considered measures that could make a substantial impact on reducing congestion and improving public and active transport. The citizens' assembly considered five measures, as well as the option of not making an intervention. Across those options, closing roads to cars came out on top with 263 points.

Looking at how the first three preferences were cast, closing roads to cars was selected by 46 assembly members within their top three preferences. This was followed by flexible charge (34) and restricting or removing parking (29). No intervention received the fewest number of first to third preference votes (5).

The second vote considered measures that could make a substantial impact on improving air quality. The citizens' assembly considered five measures, as well as the option of not making an intervention. Across those options, closing roads to cars again came out on top with 220 points.

Looking at how the first three preferences were cast, closing roads to cars was selected by 39 assembly members within their top three preferences. This was followed by clean air zone (34) and pollution charge (32). Again, no intervention received the fewest number of first to third preference votes (4).

The third vote considered measures that could make a substantial impact on raising funds for improved public and active transport. The citizens' assembly considered four measures this time, as well as the option of not making an intervention. Across those options, a flexible charge came out on top with 189 points.

Looking at how the first three preferences were cast, flexible charge was selected by 41 assembly members within their top three preferences. This was followed by pollution charge (40) and workplace parking levy (26). Again, no intervention received the fewest number of first to third preference votes (13).

The fourth vote asked assembly members to state the extent to which they supported or opposed all of the measures. Closing roads to cars received the greatest amount of support, with 30 assembly members giving it strong support. Other options of a clean air zone, flexible charge, pollution charge, and restricting or removing parking also received a clear majority of support. Views on the workplace parking levy and increasing parking charges were, however, much more mixed, with increased parking charges being the measure most strongly opposed by 11 members.

Taking a count of those who voted for "support" or "strongly support" across the measures, all except workplace parking levy and increased parking charges commanded 70% or over votes for "support" or "strongly support", with closing roads to cars again coming out strongly with 48 votes or 91% of assembly members supporting or strongly supporting that measure to address the assembly question.

All measures were supported by more people than who opposed. Only increase parking charges and workplace parking levy were opposed by more than 20% of assembly members.

The fifth vote asked assembly members to prioritise the measures across all of the outcomes of reducing congestion, improving air quality and providing better public transport. They therefore considered all seven measures, as well as the option of not making an intervention. Across the options, closing roads to cars came out on top with 341 points. This was followed by the three road charging options, with Clean Air Zone (269), pollution charge (261) and flexible charge (259) all on similar points.

Looking at how the first three preferences were cast, closing roads to cars was selected by 41 assembly members within their top three preferences. This was followed by pollution charge (30) and flexible charge and clean air zone (25). Once again, no intervention received the fewest number of first to third preference votes (4).

While the ballot paper count was being finalised assembly members turned their attention to the supporting measures they had generated.

A list of all the measures generated from the previous day was run through. The full list of measures was:

1. Optimise traffic signals
2. Car sharing
3. Electric vehicle charging network
4. Other ways of raising revenue (e.g. council tax)
5. Introduce a mayoral franchise for buses
6. Encourage travel planning by businesses
7. Plant trees and hedges to absorb carbon
8. Allow driving on alternative days depending on odd or even number plates
9. Introduce mini franchising (e.g. universities, businesses, schools organising transport)
10. Encourage deliveries in city via cargo bikes
11. Seek alternative funding sources for public transport (e.g. sponsorship by companies)
12. Explore viability of long-distance buses using the Park & Ride
13. Introduce more bike parking
14. Introduce incentives to use public transport (e.g. points systems, free coffee, subsidy for frequent users)
15. Establish Park and Rides further outside of town
16. Introduce a lollipop bus service with low emission or electric vehicles
17. Setup charging points at transport hubs (e.g. Park & Ride, stations, etc.)
18. Establish car-share only lanes
19. Encourage the use of electric bikes (e.g. using subsidies, loan schemes, hire schemes)
20. Establish a heavy-duty depot outside of Cambridge, with last mile delivery through electric van / pedal power
21. Support on-demand transport (e.g. help fund community car schemes for villages, establish a dial-a-ride system for people living outside of Cambridge)

Assembly members were given up to eight choices to indicate which of the supporting measures they thought should be prioritised to improve congestion, air quality and public transport.

The top supported measures reflect some of the key priorities from the vision and key messages in terms of being environmental and zero carbon and a push for a more co-ordinated transport system.

After the results of the ballots were announced, the citizens' assembly was asked to consider why they thought the top measures (i.e. closing roads to cars and some form of charging) had been chosen/

For both closing roads and charging measures there were comments around it only working as part of a package and the need to improve public transport first before any measures are introduced.

Further detail can be found in the pros, cons and considerations and key messages, but key rationales that came out from assembly members were as follows:

• It addresses air quality and congestion
• It being a simple and effective action that was also felt to not hurt people's pockets
• Creating space that can enable reallocation for people and cyclists
• Creating space for public transport to move
• Creating a safer, healthier and more pleasant City and better quality of life.
• It moves reliance away from cars

"Cambridge city centre just isn't a pleasant place to be" (Assembly Member plenary feedback of key messages)

This concurred with key vision outcomes prioritised by members of "being environmental and zero carbon"; and "be people centred – prioritising pedestrians and cyclists" as well as "provide fast and reliable public transport".

Whilst road charging attracted some of the same comments as that for road closures, there was some sense of caution around charging – of it being a "necessary evil". The strong rationale for charging for road usage however clearly was for:

• Providing funding for better transport and enabling a switch to other modes of travel

This concurred with key vision outcomes of "provide affordable public transport" and "provide fast and reliable public transport".

Whilst votes were taken on the core measures, these were discussed as being part of a package. Desire to see progress on implementing some of the supporting measures was strong, with a sense that some could also be taken immediately – in particular around planting schemes.

Assembly members were asked to consider the result of the vote and provide key messages back to the GCP Board. These are transcribed in the Annex section. Looking across the key messages and the feedback in the final plenary session the following key messages have been drawn out.

The assembly members wanted action and bold brave action. They wanted to see politicians have courage to take the difficult decisions in the face of increased congestion, worsening air quality and poor public transport choices.

"..have some backbone – we can't afford not to act on what this assembly has concluded" (Assembly Member plenary feedback of key messages)

A strong theme was that improvements in public and active transport need to happen before changes, and particularly if any charging is implemented. People need to have viable alternatives to use. Some of the supporting measures most highly prioritised were also seen as combining to support improvements in public transport, in particular the orbital/lollipop bus route and park and ride provision.

"Public transport needs to improve first and reach a level that makes it usable before charging" (Table key message)

"Improve public transport first then gradually introduce road closure" (Table key message)

Despite this being something that was referred to a number of times throughout the citizens' assembly as a principle the Executive Board had agreed; it was a consistent theme in what was recorded and fed back, with the emphasis on funding being used not just for the City but for the wider area too.

"Charging – money must be ring-fenced for public transport" (Table key message)

There was a sense that more needed to be done to integrate transport across Greater Cambridge; to address disconnects in the system and create a seamless travel experience. A theme highlighted in the vision to "be managed as one co-ordinated system – e.g. Transport for Cambridge" repeated through the second weekend's messages as the need for transport to come "under one umbrella". The top priority in supporting measures was for the Mayor to franchise buses. In addition, there was a call to ensure that planning for new developments were connected in to the public transport network.

"Reiterate: we need to move towards an integrated Transport for Cambridge - More joined up thinking!" (Table key message)

The implications of measures, especially of charging on exacerbating inequalities in Greater Cambridge came out strongly. Ways to structure charging to reflect people's ability to pay or not to unduly affect smaller business for example came out.

"We cannot widen the gap between rich and poor when introducing these measures" (Table key message)

Consideration particularly with road closures for access those who need essential access – for example emergency vehicles, blue badge holders, traders and carers.

Some assembly members saw addressing congestion, air quality and public transport as a unique selling point for Cambridge to get right and others that if it wasn't addressed would put off people and businesses from coming to Cambridge. Any measures were also seen as needing to be designed for the Greater Cambridge specific circumstances.

"Making Cambridge a green place = the Cambridge USP" (Table key message)

"We need to be bold and radical – if we don't act business will stop coming because we have become such a polluted and congested place" (Table key message)

There was a sense of actions that could be taken now to improve the Greater Cambridge environment or progress some of the supporting measures identified. In particular, planting schemes which had high support in the prioritisation of supporting measures.

"Implement supporting measures first e.g. planting hedges, more bike parking, electric charging points, living walls" (Table key messages)

A consistent theme was being open and honest about what measures are being taken and why and what impact measures are having. There was a desire for feedback on progress to the assembly members and beyond on progress - after a year and thereafter.

"Be transparent, open and honest with the public" (Table key message)

Clarity of communications around the issues as well as any measures – was seen as essential to make the necessary shift in behaviours.

We need people to change their attitudes and behaviour – awareness raising is key (Table key messages)

Whilst pushing for bold action there were also some calls to trial approaches through pilots and to consider phasing measures, with a sense of road closures preceding charging.

"Charging – consider a trial period then revised or vote" (Table key messages)

Growth was not something that was directly addressed as part of the Assembly question but was seen by some assembly members as a challenge and something that had to be part of the conversation moving forwards. There were reminders of not just being Cambridge centric but being inclusive in solutions for those in the towns and villages.

"This citizens' assembly hasn't addressed bigger issues like growth. The GCP must make sure it addresses the challenges of growth" (Table key messages)

Whilst the citizens' assembly question had looked at measures over the next ten years, there were some key comments about the longer term measures that could also help – from trains through to the proposed metro. There were clear differing views on the metro in particular.

The Greater Cambridge Partnership Citizens' Assembly on congestion, air quality and public transport was the first citizens' assembly exploring congestion in the UK.

It has demonstrated the role that residents from all walks of life can play in developing a local approach to tackling difficult issues.

The recommendations will now be presented to the GCP Joint Assembly and Executive Board in January and February 2020 (moved back from original dates referenced at the Assembly due to the General Election being called). A response to the recommendations will be made after those meetings in early 2020.

The work of the citizens' assembly is being evaluated by Renaisi. The full evaluation report will be made available when it is published before the end of March 2020. The following is a snapshot of the evaluation data in relation to the recommendations.

¹⁹

"Good ideas, team work, just hope they are actioned!"

"Generally good but worried it will be diluted in report/by GCP"

"Well-rounded! Ambitious and important, I hope they are carefully considered by GCP"

"Most of the recommendations are completely brilliant. I was so happy lots of tables came up with similar, bold ideas"

"Amazing and really strong and clear"

"I would support them though they are not exactly my preference. I can see that they enjoy broad support"

"Good overall. Need reassurances the nuances and caveats won't get lost in translation"

"I feel that they really reflect everything we've spoken about and take everyone's different experiences into consideration"²⁰

This annex contains further detailed information relating to the recruitment, programme and deliberations of citizens' assembly members.

• Innovation in Democracy Programme support and funding
• Final 53 Assembly members by Postcode and Outward Sector
• Bike Rack & Solutions Basket
• Impacts assembly members wanted to address
• Consolidated vision outcomes put to mentimeter:
• Copy of ballot papers
• Comments made on Vote Forms
• Key Messages to GCP Executive Board

The Innovation in Democracy Programme (IiDP) is trialling the involvement of citizens in decision-making at local government level through innovative models of deliberative democracy. It is supporting three local authorities to open up a key policy decision to citizen deliberation, complemented by online engagement. IiDP is jointly delivered by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government.

Following an Expression of Interest process, the following local authorities were selected to be part of the Innovation in Democracy Programme:

• Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council – What can communities and the Council do together to make Dudley and Brierly Hill town centres places that are vibrant, welcoming, and somewhere to be proud of?
• Greater Cambridge Partnership (Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council) – How do we reduce congestion, improve air quality and provide better public transport in Greater Cambridge?
• Test Valley Borough Council – How do we improve the area around Crosfield Hall and the Bus Station to deliver the maximum benefit to Romsey?

Part of the purpose of the Innovation in Democracy programme is for local authorities to learn about what is involved in putting together a citizens' assembly.

Officers from the Greater Cambridge Partnership therefore worked alongside Involve in the development of the citizens' assembly. Their involvement in the citizens' assembly included:

• Working with Involve and the Sortition Foundation to develop a stratification criteria for recruitment that worked for the citizens' assembly question,
• Development of the Consult Cambs website to reflect the work on the assembly,
• Management of press, media and social media promoting the assembly,
• Liaison to recruit Advisory Group members, with advice from Involve on achieving balance,
• Following advice from the Advisory Group, securing speakers to give evidence to the assembly,
• Development of the toolkit used by assembly members in Weekend Two, which was developed in collaboration with and approved by the Advisory Group,
• Undertaking some logistics around the assembly (e.g. printing and securing venues),
• Providing staff to support the assembly organisation on the day (e.g. timekeeping, observer liaison, livestreaming).

Furthermore, staff from the member authorities of GCP (Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridgeshire County Council) and GCP were trained in facilitation techniques by Involve ahead of the first citizens' assembly session as part of the Innovation in Democracy Programme's building capacity, skills and learning element. Two table facilitators were selected to form part of the table facilitation team – one from the Cambridge City Council and one from Cambridgeshire County Council. These table facilitators do not work on GCP activities and operations.

Each participating area in the Innovation in Democracy Programme has support from the Democracy Support Contractor Consortium made up of Involve²¹, The Democratic Society²², mySociety²³ and the RSA²⁴, as well as up to £60K to cover the direct costs of running the citizens' assemblies. The programme is being independently evaluated by Renaisi²⁵ who will publish findings when the programme completes at the end of March 2020.

The Greater Cambridge Partnership allocated a further £10K contingency fund recognising the high venue costs in Cambridge and the desire to recruit over 50 assembly members.

The following is a broad breakdown of how the £60K and contingency funds were spent on direct costs. In addition, it shows the breakdown of the £64.5K allocated to the Democracy Support Contractor Consortium.

CAMBRIDGE –22 Assembly Members –41.5%

CB1, CB1, CB1, CB1, CB1, CB1, CB1, CB1, CB1, CB1, CB1, CB2, CB2, CB2, CB4, CB4, CB4, CB4, CB4, CB4, CB4, CB4

SOUTH CAMBRIDGE -15 Assembly Members –28.3%

CB1, CB3, CB5, CB21, CB22, CB22, CB22, CB23, CB23, CB24, CB24, CB24, CB24, CB25, CB25

WIDER TRAVEL TO WORK AREA–16 Assembly Members –30.2%

CB6, CB6, CB6, CB6, CB6, CB8, CB8, CB8, CB10, CB10, CB25, PE27, PE27, SG19, SG19, PE19

Rural travel²⁶

• Is a rural transport system better than no rural transport system?

GCP issues / questions

• What has been done and spent so far £100m?
• Given how controversial transport projects can be (e.g. guided busway) is there a PR plan in place to keep stakeholders especially the local press informed (and hopefully supportive) of decisions made?
• Why does the university and business not have a vote on the GCP Board if it is so important to the area
• What is the legal status of GCP?
• Lynne mentioned lack of funding for public transport. But we were told there is 100m in the bank and potentially 400m to 2030

Measures

• Use the river – river taxi / bus
• Congestion charging to offset cost of public transport
• How to combat additional time for each bus along the line e.g. village -> bus stop -> feeder stop -> inner circle -> destination
• Could nudge psychology and economics be used to change individual behaviours, re. car versus local transport use in Cambridge?
• Travel hubs and put park and ride where the people can walk to it not ½ way where no one lives

Issues with current infrastructure / public transport

• A dotted line on the side of the road is NOT a cycle path!
• Complex car parking machines - no one is the same
• Why does it say ‘END' on the cycle path, just before you get to the roundabout?
• Low floor buses aren't enough for wheelchair users. We need automatic ramps like London and more than 1 place per bus. More to inclusive design than level access

Costs / Funding

• NHS doesn't / can't make a profit. Public transport funding need to rethought
• Where funding comes from? Funding ‘tree'

Impacts

• Traffic noise affects the environment too
• What is the current annual cost (£) of all the time and fuel consumed in traffic congestion?
• Who will be recycling the old diesel cars?

Future options and issues

• Massive planting of trees which will live for 100s of years as they did in previous centuries
• Cambourne business park (not being utilised by employers) – introduce incentives, benefits for employees/employers
• A Cambridge that is green and leafy with trees and grass (a forest?)
• How do proposals for increase cycle use and changes to street scape impact on people with visual impairment
• View investment in better public transport systems as a valuable long term investment, not as a cost (can we afford not to do it?)
• New housing estates – new regulations to builders to build houses that include solar panels, water recycling, alternative heating solutions, turbines etc
• How long do electric vehicles last?
• Too human centric
• Would rail electric transport (e.g. train, tram) enable them to not have to use batteries?
• Electric bikes – can these be championed better by local government?
• You cannot put everybody on bikes without having regulations – i.e. lights, clothing, insurance, road safety. Motorists won't put up with it
• Will todays microplastics turn into tomorrow's particulate problem?

Suggestions on where to look

• Look at what other cities do (and talk to them about it)
• Read/listen to work people have already done

Other

• Stagecoach has a monopoly here
• Are we asking the right questions?

Solutions suggested / measures²⁷

• Light / safety lights – better (powered by day by solar panels for cycling , walking)
• Someone needs to make it easy to get bikes fixed at home for those of us whose bike has seen better days!
• Want to consider future greener transport – e-scooters
• Prioritise cleaner transport over others
• Make Cambridge city centre traffic free!
• Safer cycling
• Electrification of public transport – how and when
• Electrification of transport network
• Subsidised car clubs
• Solution – complete larger ring road around the city by filling in re (words not able to be deciphered) third M11/A14 (southwest)
• ‘transport' for GC like the ‘London transport system'
• Accommodate multimode transport
• Reduce the number of journeys in the city
• Encourage business to move to peripheral locations
• Establish more hubs for business in areas outside Cambridge including infrastructure
• Sensible speed limits
• Can taxi and bus drivers be forced to switch off stationing vehicles? in the city immediately?
• Improve air quality
• How can we regrow trees and plants in to our inner city ring areas?

Revenue

• Raising revenue – why should cyclists have a free ride. They have to contribute
• Tax alternatives like cars to offset public transport

Public transport / active travel improvements

• Look to businesses e.g. supermarkets and use their empty car parks as bus hubs. Supermarket car parks – can these be multistorey to save space?
• Cheaper/free public transport
• Rural public transport quicker
• Better access for rural areas – buses!
• Improve reliability and efficiency of public transport
• Improve rural public transport – more frequent
• Continuous footpaths and cycle ways over side roads (aka Netherlands)
• Establishment of a cycle infrastructure within and around Cambridge
• Make park and ride more accessible and cheaper!

GCP plans

• How to ensure work carried out for metro/tram does not escalate – e.g. guided bus
• Do we want to recommend that the GCP invites an east Cambridgeshire representative to join? YES
• GCP to improve their "better" transport aims, to something concrete e.g. double public transport use or half car journeys

What impacts do we want to address in any future measures to reduce congestion, improve air quality, and provide better public transport in Greater Cambridge?" (consolidated list)

• Time wasted by people by being stuck in traffic – lost opportunity to do other things!
• Health impacts of poor air quality – particularly for children or vulnerable people
• Quality of life and wellbeing impacts of congestion e.g. stress, frustration
• Lack of a reliable, effective, affordable public transport service across the whole area
• Effects on wildlife / natural environment
• Limited parking spaces and costs of parking
• Lack of joined up transport options – that would allow effective route planning
• Risk to cyclists and pedestrians due to poor infrastructure, skills and crowded road space
• School run congestion
• Poor maintenance of existing infrastructure eg bike lanes
• The ‘growing pains' of Greater Cambridge growth – increasing economy and population
• Non-inclusive transport design
• That ‘green' alternatives are expensive – e.g. electric vehicles, public transport
• Economic and organisational impacts of congestion – e.g. time lost to businesses
• A lack of awareness of alternative travel choices – and their positive impacts
• Lack of joint planning and co-ordination of infrastructure and built developments

Time wasted by people by being stuck in traffic – lost opportunity to do other things!

• Time lost through congestion – business /staff local transfers – personal
• Delays and wasted time stuck in jams
• The impact of congestion on people's time and quality of life
• Journey length time in cars due to congestion. Impacts on quality of life

Health impacts of poor air quality – particularly for children or vulnerable people

• Air quality – impact on children
• High pollution in particular places, or affecting particular people
• Health impacts from poor air quality
• Health – children's health – physical and cognitive development
• Children's health – getting to school and effect of pollution, environmental impact to animals

Quality of life and well-being impacts of congestion eg stress, frustration

• Health – personal wellbeing challenged due to congestion
• Reducing stress to – positive wellbeing
• People are more unhealthy, more stressed and don't enjoy a quality of life

Lack of a reliable, effective, affordable public transport service across the whole area

• Public transport is slower, unreliable and too expensive = no trust
• Lack of public transport
• Unattractive, expensive, slow, full unreliable buses
• Poor public transport is rural areas and at certain times

Effects on wildlife / natural environment

• Impact on wildlife – lack of green spaces

Limited parking spaces and costs of parking

• Limited parking space (cars), cost of parking increased, limited cycle space

Lack of joined up transport options – that would allow effective route planning

• Lack of joined up transport options
• Inefficient timetabling, connectivity of transport, frequency and how long the take to get to destination. Can lead to isolation
• People aren't able to route their journeys to suit (e.g. cross city routes ) or with efficiency
• Standardisation of services – address reason people travelling in first place

Risk to cyclists and pedestrians due to poor infrastructure, skills and crowded road space

• Not wanting to cycle/walk due to safety fears
• Safety of cyclists (road traffic collisions)
• Safety
• Safety cars and bikes
• Poor environment and infrastructure for cyclists and lack of cycling skills
• People first (hierarchy) -pedestrians, cycling, public transport
• Other modes impacting on Cambs pedestrians e.g. Joint cycle/pedestrian lanes/cyclist safety due to poor /crowded road space
• Personal risk – cyclists at risk due to cars and road surfaces. Risk to pedestrians to cyclists and vice versa

School run congestion

• School run crush/congestion

Poor maintenance of existing infrastructure e.g. bike lanes

• Lack of suitable, effective and well maintained infrastructure

The ‘growing pains' of Greater Cambridge growth – increasing economy and population

• To move to a large conurbation radical transformation is needed
• Too much growth in city centre – not spread to other areas that need it
• The challenge of ‘endless' growth is Cambridge

Non-inclusive transport design

• Lack of inclusive design – thinking e.g. forgetting certain demographics
• Some people who are more vulnerable are kept out of decisions – lack of opportunity

That ‘green' alternatives are expensive – e.g. electric vehicles, public transport

• Cost and affordability of switching to electric disposing of diesel. Public transport and cost of living
• Personal costs -public transport. Not value-effective, buses are very expensive
• Lack of green initiatives

Economic and organisational impacts of congestion – e.g. time lost to businesses

• Economic – impacted by all of the other impact factors
• Losses to local economy of people trapped in cars
• Transport delays have become a normal part of organisations planning things like hospital appointments

A lack of awareness of alternative travel choices – and their positive impacts

• Lack of education on how to make better choices in life e.g. Not taught economy

Lack of joint planning and co-ordination of infrastructure and built developments

• Infrastructure/public services are not well integrated/joined up
• Lack of planning/building regulations around new developments
• No forward/joint planning for future and competing priorities e.g. speed vs pollution

Question: What is most important for us to achieve in Greater Cambridge by 2030? People were given 6 votes

In alphabetical order

In order of highest preference

Tables were asked to submit up 5 outcomes that represented the range from their tables in response to the question: This table shows how they were grouped.

Image: Copy of ballot papers

The following are the comments Assembly Members made on their ballot papers in relation to each of the votes (except Vote 4 which did not have a comment box). The bold italic text has been inserted to show thematic suggestions for similarly grouped items.

Vote 1: What would be your preferred way of reducing congestion and creating road space for improved public/ active transport in Greater Cambridge?

Closing roads to cars/ re-allocating road space comments

Removing car parking – smaller car parks could be removed altogether, creating purpose built cycle parks

Closing roads to cars or limiting number of cars (e.g. by having only one lane for cars) is by far the best option in my opinion

Close roads and then restrict parking near the area to prevent people using this as an alternative place to go

Closing roads to cars – Difficult to vote on this without specific roads being named

Closing roads to cars – To include lollipop bus route, mini bus for less able people;

Be ambitious with closing roads to private vehicles (except for those with mobility issues)! We need lots of space in the city centre to improve public transport and cycle lanes

Closing roads to cars – Would need widespread residents' parking schemes to avoid displacement to residential streets

Exemption comments

1^st – Only exemptions are emergency vehicle, not more

1^st – This measure is dependent on only closing the road to non-essential drivers e.g. cars, HGV, service vehicles, small businesses would still be able to use the road

- Closing roads – Exempt essential users eg. service vehicles and blue badge holders

There would be have to be exceptions for working/emergency vehicles to go down closed roads

Charging related comments

Flexible charging needs to be simple to understand and well communicated

Any charges should be relative to income so that low income households are not paying as much as the highest earners (a % of earnings)
If possible, workplaces should not be allowed to pass off the charge on to workers

People who to be on the road at congestion times would need to be considered when thinking of charging prices as well as lower income drivers

The charging should be widespread so it doesn't just hit central Cambridge.

- Do pollution charge gradually and offer incentives and interest free loans to swap to cleaner vehicles
- Flexible Charge – Don't impact essential users (blue badge holders, community nurses etc.)

I think there should be a road user charge – should include cars/ bikes/ horseriders/lorries et al.

A public charge needs to include subsidies and incentives for zero carbon and clean alternatives

Pollution/Flexible charge unfair to poorer people who have to use their cars which public transport is rubbish.

Flexible charge could be a ‘future software upgrade' from the initial pollution charge

Workplace Parking Levy Comments

Workplace parking levy will be passed onto employees

Closing roads to cars – This in conjunction with the bus lollipop system would really help

2^nd – Although it is impossible to stop businesses from passing the fees to employees the companies should be ‘lobbied' to try and stop this. Also only larger companies should incur the levy

- Workplace Levy – Don't impact small businesses with low income

Businesses need to think compassionately about their employees needs as well as their (business) bank balance. Happy/content/supported employees are more productive which ultimately benefits business

Flexible work place levy taking in account limited capacity of small businesses; but include taxi companies so they can keep using bus routes

Workplace levy should target large companies making unnecessary profits! It should not affect charities and public sector

Workplace charging will just push cars into side roads if the cost is passed onto staff

Large multinationals should support city area (GCP) development through workplace levy – keep small business out of it

Workplace Parking Levy – People will find other parking eg. on street parking, causing more congestion

Also could put off talent applying for companies – companies might move out of Cambridge – less investment into Cambridge

I think the workplace levy would be good initially to put place off providing parking

Restricting Parking Comments

Restricting Parking – Don't impact poorer residents. We have a huge inequality problem in Cambridge

We must do something dramatic = major road closures and a pollution/flexible charge to raise money.
Workplace parking levy should be across the whole region so it doesn't drive business out of Cambridge to rural areas that are impossible for employees to reach by public transport

Public transport improvements first

All measures would need to be taken after the introduction of a first class comprehensive bus service covering the whole of the city which of course needs to be electric buses, non-profit making and centrally controlled

Bus routes to be used by cars with 3/4 more people in them – this car share schemes

All the above options would only be acceptable if public transport had been improved to allow people travelling a true choice to not use the car – Mayor Franchise

Other comments

Residents needs need to be adequately addressed now

Consider traffic coming in and going out which creates congestion

Why are we not discussing growth

My answers would have been different if it was just for Cambridge city

Closing roads to cars

Restricting or removing parking

Pollution charge

Flexible charge

Workplace Parking Levy

Vote 2: What would be your preferred way of improving air quality in Greater Cambridge?

Vote 3: What would be your preferred way of raising funds for improved public/ active transport in Greater Cambridge and across the wider area?

Vote 5: What would be your preferred ways, from the following demand management measures, to improve congestion, air quality and public transport in Greater Cambridge and across the wider area?

After voting table groups discussed their key messages around road closures and charging in particular. The focus of their discussion was:

• Key messages about the measures chosen and the rationale for why measures were chosen
• Key messages about considerations in implementation of those measures
• Other important messages that they wanted to send to the GCP Executive Board.

The following is the transcript of the points made around rationale for why measures were chosen. Groups were asked where possible to identify 3-5 key points – where this was achieved, they are indicated in bold text.

• You can't charge people unless there are other options
• Provide a way of getting around Cambridge
• Closing roads need to have permission for:
  • Emergency vehicles
  • Traders
  • Disability
  • Carers
  • Have permit system for the exemption categories
• Really clear signage needed
  • Dynamic warning alert signage – flexible charge
  • Big publicity and information raising is essential
• Flexible charge should have a premium amount of ceiling for a day
• Explore other avenues for funding e.g. private investment

• How will people pay the charges?How will it be enforced?

• Be fair – lower income households – Look at London*

• Public transport needs to improve first and reach a level that makes it usable before charging*
• Franchise public transport to make it more reliable and more affordable*
• Consider shift workers, poor mobility, essential staff, carers, essential tradespeople
• Access to Grand Arcade via Tennis Court Road
• Be holistic and brave – use all the tools – pocket parks – have a vision*
• Decent PR campaign – this will be an advantage – you can't stand still, future generations
• A really good IT system which can improve the system by tweaking"

• Trial run for 12 months, full range or yearly events

• Need a structured way of protecting low-income households from impact of congestion charge

• Protect local independent businesses
• Use green methods to close off roads to cars e.g. planters made from recycled plastic (can be temporary and re-used for other trial areas)
• Efficiency of public transport and cycling should proceed charges for congestion and road closure
• Consider impact (positives and negatives) of property values
• Not to discourage visitors too much that they go elsewhere e.g. Bury
• If closing roads give thought to essential workers

• Might be something we do all at once – not iterative but in tandem"

• Public transport needs to be fully accessible

• Don't forget people who cannot cycle e.g. aged, infirm
• Parking charges need careful consideration – don't want to impact small businesses and some people need to be able to use town centre car parks
• Parking is both a choice and a necessity issue
• Transport for Cambridge – central coordinated transport network
• Park and ride – current charges dissuade people who are in a larger group because the charge is by person not by car
• Need a more integrated approach to designing/managing transport systems
• Needs to be seamless experience for travellers
• Address the disconnect in park and ride
  • Profit driven buses
  • System trying to control access to city
• Charging scheme needs to be a Greater Cambridge Scheme not just mirroring elsewhere
• Public transport has to be affordable and more convenient/frequent
• Safe cycling infrastructure that is maintained
• Need a Cambridge ‘oyster' that would access everything
• Public transport needs to be available so that everyone can access regardless of where they live

• Integrate ideas about more trees/hedges with e.g. segregating cyclists and drivers i.e. use hedges not bollards and maintain them"

• Road closures

  • Road closures consider pilots or trial periods
  • Road closure could be by time period
  • Consider what road closures enable e.g. cycling
  • Link road closures with lollipop bus system
  • With links to an outer ring
  • Need for accessible park and ride by housing developments
  • Road closure – deliveries must be enabled (electric vehicles or out of hours?)

• Charging

  • Charging – consider a trial period then revised or vote
  • Charging – money must be ringfenced for public transport*
  • Road users including cyclists and riders (horses) should pay
  • Viable alternatives have to be available if charges were introduced*
  • Charging has to be clear and simple
  • Charging could be bounded by a ‘ring' and other circle with park and ride – outer ring for outsider, inner ring for residents
  • Residents should be recognised
  • Charing higher rate than park and ride for vehicles into Cambridge from o/s park and ride ‘ring'
  • Charging enables measures like expanding park and ride to accommodate tourist coaches
  • Charging must not adversely impact on tourism/local economy"

• Don't just tax for sake of raising money – to go back into public transport

  • Be transparent
• We cannot widen the gap between rich and poor when introducing these measures
• Pollution charges need to reflect people's ability to pay
• Subsidise small businesses/exemption/low income

• We need people to change their attitudes and behaviour – awareness raising is key

• Exemptions and conditions on closing roads

  • How will you stop the roads which are not closed being used instead
  • Close roads to cars only in peak times for bus to move faster in peak times
  • Give immunity to carers and emergency services to road closures

• Funding/cost

  • Growth cannot be allowed to go on forever
  • Initial and ongoing funding for public transport must be the priority
  • Cap the price rises on council tax to help people for the extra charges (pollution, flexible)
  • Need to think through who is being charged
  • Keep it simple
  • People do not like additional taxes for transport but will keep paying more if services become more reliable

• Integrated approach

  • PT system
  • Charging system
  • Other measures
  • Implement at the same time

• Shorter term, immediate measures needed

  • Plant trees
  • Implement school buses
  • Stop idling buses, taxis, HGVs (stop start)
  • School buses, idling taxis/buses
  • Implement supporting measures first e.g. planting hedges, more bike parking, electric charging points, living walls
  • Busses for football matches

• Monitoring and feedback

  • Monitoring of new measures when in place is essential to change or adapt if things don't work out

• Stagger business and school start times

  • Discuss with businesses and schools regarding staggered start/finish

• Consider different filtering

  • Allow all 2 wheelers to use bus lane like Plymouth

• Fairness

  • Bear in mind that there are a lot of low-paid workers struggling financially already. Consider the impact of any extra cost on them
  • Charges effect differently but it must be fair to the whole community in and around Cambridge
  • Charging must be seen to be fair – used as a carrot as well as a stick. Support for low-waged
  • Support for alternative transport systems link must be made clear
  • Local residents in Cambridge need to be considered – especially those living in or close to the city centre in particular regarding congestion charge
  • Charges (flex, pollution) revenue generated should be equally used for developing total (PT/Metro) Cambridgeshire rather than city only!"

• Be brave
• Blue sky thinking ‘out of the box' is worth considering as well
• Road/cycle lane tax of about £5-10/annum for bikes (ring fence for bike lane improvement)
• Getting decent public transport sorted will get things happening

• Road safety Making Cambridge a green place = the Cambridge USP

• Business have a stake – a levy or limit on cars for the biggest businesses

• Business improvement district for science parks
• GCP must report back to us after a year
• Incentivise people's usage of public transport and children should go free
• Oyster card – freebies, free journeys – multiple journey discounts, day out and commercially valuable
• Cycle routes to schools (secondary)
• Charging coaches – bringing tourists in
• Bike carriers on buses
• Secure bike sheds – use vital funding for this then charge nominal amount
• Subsidised electric bikes and improve secure parking for bikes
• Green buses as soon as possible
• Use city deal money to research this properly – research grants – consequences
• New developments must improve cycle ways and improve buses
• New developments should be designed to be car free
• There will be a reducing number of cars to charge with pollution charge

• Design a multipurpose community transport scheme that provides bookable journeys and also replaces postal packages, care workers, hospital trips – business sponsored

• Ask them to encourage all new business to be further out-spread

• Extend CBI postcode to make further out more attractive
• Don't forget about the long term e.g. trains
• Have courage to make bold decisions
• Key to all of this is better public transport
• Transport links first – building second
• We need to be bold and radical – if we don't act business will stop coming because we have become such a polluted and congested place
• Be transparent, open and honest with the public
• We want you to make sure Cambridge is still seen as the hub of innovation
• Just please ensure that you get on and do it!
• Please try to find a way to separate this from party politics – this is more important than party politics

• How does the public stay in control of this work – yearly public audit on transport in GCP perhaps?

• This citizens' assembly hasn't addressed bigger issues like growth. The GCP must make sure it addresses the challenges of growth

• This citizens assembly hasn't really tackled the issues for the towns and villages – it has been quite Cambridge focused
• Messaging/comms to the community needs to be very clear about what we can and can't do
• Reiterate: we need to move towards an integrated Transport for Cambridge - More joined up thinking!
• Cambridge and other areas need to lobby central government to do things better/more joined up

• The GCP area is a massive centre of growth for the UK as a whole – GCP should make a case to central government for a Transport for Cambridge and for more money

• Car clubs in new build communities/discourage car ownership

• Follow the great 8 from the vote (on measures)!
• Link to carbon neutral commitments
• Any GCP development should include effects to mitigate pollution
• Consider green or solar routes (with power to bus stations and for bus shelters)
• Charging can enable council to provide subsidised seedling for green planting
• Cycle routes must be separate from the road

• Get on with optimising traffic signals

• We need a Cambridge version of TFL

  • Transport for Cambridge needs to come under one umbrella
  • Connect up departments/address whole system
  • Overhaul of public transport system

• Planning for out of town depot

• If we charge for car usage, we need to create alternatives for those who can't use public transport (e.g. tradespeople, disabled etc.)
• Loan scheme for electric bikes and cars (and security)
• Be bold and brave, needs backbone and will to make decisions and take forward
• Be harder on developers replanting and replacing more trees

• Re-wilding, encouraging community initiative – re-wilding, wildlife

• Act now and get on with it

  • Action now – messages are clear but get on with it – immediate PLEASE for out grandkids
  • Get on with it – someone will always object

• No metro

  • Don't spend the money on the metro–spend it on electric car infrastructure
  • No metro

• Growth not discussed

  • Growth cannot be allowed to go on forever – why not discussed all weekend?
  • Why could we not discuss and vote on the next issue of growth?
  • Solar panels as ‘roof type structures' at park and ride will pay for itself in very short space of time

• Tax businesses and private schools

  • Large businesses wanting to come to Cambridge – make them pay for the privilege and use the money to improve public transport – sponsorship?
  • Tax private schools in central Cambridge for road use

• More affordable housing

  • More realaffordable housing so local people not pushed out for town- necessitating more travel journeys – way not discussed all week?

Key Message to GCP Board

• Transport system doesn't work
• Cambridge will come to a standstill
• Cambridge will become a coastal town – carbon neutral 2030
• Air quality is killing us and our children
• Cambridge city centre isn't a pleasant place to be
• Be brave and bold – decisive action
• 1) Create a public transport system which is credible and excellent alternative, publicly owned bus franchise system
• 2) Reallocate road space to pedestrians, cyclists and buses
• 3) Funded through a fair charge against car use

Considerations

• Not to reinforce or widen the gap between rich and poor
• Charges reflect ability to pay
• Subsidies/exemption small business and low earners
• Massive culture change – attitudes, behaviour and education
• All money raised needs to be transparently invested in transport system

Other Important Messages

• Transport for Cambridge – integrated system, not dispersed between different government agencies and private companies
• Cambridge area needs to be treed and green, be hard to developers
• Community initiatives – tree planting schemes
• Help to buy electric vehicles and bikes (e.g. loans)
• Credible transport options for those who can't use buses e.g. delivery depot
• Have some backbone – we can't afford not to act on what this assembly has concluded!

The Involve Foundation

18 Victoria Park Square

London

E2 9PF

020 3745 4334

info@involve.org.uk

@involveUK

involve.org.uk