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:
| Participants | Participants | Participants |
|---|---|---|
Alastair, Cambridge | Johannes, Cambridge | Sally, Cambridge |
Ben, Cambridge | Jose, Cambridge | Samrat, South Cambridge |
Benjamin, South Cambridge | Kathy, Cambridge | Seweryn, South Cambridge |
Bethany, Travel to Work Area | Laurence, Cambridge | Shona, Travel to Work Area |
Cliff, South Cambridge | Leonard, South Cambridge | Stephen, Travel to Work Area |
Doreen, South Cambridge | Lez, Travel to Work Area | Steven, South Cambridge |
Eleanor, South Cambridge | Lisa, Travel to Work Area | Steven, Travel to Work Area |
Estela, Cambridge | Marina, Travel to Work Area | Susan, Cambridge |
Fiona, Travel to Work Area | Mary, South Cambridge | Tim, Cambridge |
Gabriella, South Cambridge | Mike, Travel to Work Area | Sally, Cambridge |
Geoff, Cambridge | Naomi, Cambridge | Timothy, South Cambridge |
Gerda, Cambridge | Naomi, South Cambridge | Valerie, Travel to Work Area |
Glenys, Cambridge | Nicki, Cambridge | Vanessa, South Cambridge |
Hazel, Cambridge | Paul, South Cambridge | Victoria, Travel to Work Area |
Ian, Cambridge | Paul, Travel to Work Area | Vorn, Cambridge |
Jack, Travel to Work Area | Raymond, Cambridge | Zarah, Cambridge |
Jackie, Travel to Work Area | Robert, South Cambridge | |
Jeanne, Travel to Work Area | Sacha, Cambridge | |
Jennifer, Travel to Work Area | Sachidananda, Cambridge |
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
| Recruitment area | Postcode areas | Assembly Members (Total) | Assembly Members (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
Cambridge | CB1, CB2, CB3, CB4, | 22 | 41.5% |
South Cambridgeshire | CB21, CB22, CB23, CB24, CB25, SG8, SG19 | 15 | 28.3% |
Travel to Work Area | CB6, CB7, CB8, CB9, CB10, CB11, PE19, PE27 | 16 | 30.2% |
| Stratification Criteria | Local Population | Assembly members | Comparison | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Female | 0.502 | 0.491 | -0.011 |
Male | 0.498 | 0.509 | 0.011 | |
Age | 16-24 | 0.136 | 0.132 | -0.004 |
25-34 | 0.17 | 0.151 | -0.019 | |
35-49 | 0.261 | 0.245 | -0.016 | |
50-64 | 0.231 | 0.245 | 0.014 | |
65+ | 0.201 | 0.226 | 0.025 | |
Ethnicity | White | 0.922 | 0.887 | -0.035 |
Black and Minority Ethnic | 0.078 | 0.113 | 0.035 | |
Geography | Cambridge | 0.4 | 0.415 | 0.015 |
South Cambridge | 0.317 | 0.283 | -0.034 | |
Wider Travel to Work area | 0.283 | 0.302 | 0.019 | |
Socioeconomic | Professional | 0.375 | 0.396 | 0.021 |
Services | 0.165 | 0.17 | 0.005 | |
Skilled or Elementary | 0.141 | 0.113 | -0.028 | |
Student | 0.05 | 0.038 | -0.012 | |
Not working | 0.267 | 0.283 | 0.016 | |
Travel regularity | Cambridge | 0.4 | 0.415 | 0.015 |
Regular Travellers | 0.27 | 0.415 | Not relevant* | |
Other Residents | 0.13 | 0.0 | Not relevant | |
South Cambridge | 0.316 | 0.283 | -0.033 | |
Regular Travellers | 0.186 | 0.245 | Not relevant | |
Other Residents | 0.13 | 0.038 | Not relevant | |
Wider Travel to Work Area | 0.284 | 0.302 | 0.018 | |
Regular Travellers | 0.154 | 0.132 | Not relevant | |
Other Residents | 0.13 | 0.17 | Not relevant | |
Travel model | Walk or Other | 0.08 | 0.094 | 0.014 |
Cycle | 0.25 | 0.302 | 0.052 | |
Car | 0.51 | 0.434 | -0.076 | |
Bus or Train | 0.16 | 0.17 | 0.01 |
*: 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:
The following people provided local context support to the Advisory Group:
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 (7th & 8th September and 5th & 6th 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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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 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 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.
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.
| PROS | CONS | CONSIDERATIONS |
|---|---|---|
Less pollution / improved air quality | Congestion / Wider travel impact | Extent of closures |
| PROS | CONS | CONSIDERATIONS |
|---|---|---|
Reduces pollution | Less impactful measure | In relation to other measures / improvements |
| PROS | CONS | CONSIDERATIONS |
|---|---|---|
Air quality / Pollution / Health | Impact on bus fares and users | Incentives, consultation and flexibility |
| PROS | CONS | CONSIDERATIONS |
|---|---|---|
Air quality | Price impacts particularly on poorest | Public transport improvements and provision |
| PROS | CONS | CONSIDERATIONS |
|---|---|---|
Funding for better public transport | Unintended consequences | Need for alternatives in place |
| PROS | CONS | CONSIDERATIONS |
|---|---|---|
Revenue | Impact on employees if charge passed on | Money for better public transport |
| PROS | CONS | CONSIDERATIONS |
|---|---|---|
Funding source | Impact on business /shoppers rather than commuters | Money for better public transport |
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 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:
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:
"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:
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.
"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.
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:
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:
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.
| Item | Cost (incl. VAT) |
|---|---|
Assembly Member recruitment – invitation package and mail out; recruitment to stratification and initial on-boarding of assembly members | £9,300 |
Assembly Member honorarium travel expenses | £17,500 |
Facilitation team fees / accommodation, travel and subsistence expenses | £19,500 |
Advisory Group/ Speaker/ Expert lead honorarium/ accommodation, travel/subsistence expenses | £3,500 |
Venue catering costs | £15,200 |
Direct Cost Subtotal | £65,000 |
Setup, support design | £25,980 |
Digital strategy support | £4,680 |
Delivery reporting | £33,840 |
Democracy Support Subtotal | £64,500 |
TOTAL | £129,500 |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 0 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CB1 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 12 |
CB2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
CB3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
CB4 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
CB5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
CB6 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
CB7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
CB8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
CB9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
CB10 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
CB11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
CB21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
CB22 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
CB23 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
CB24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
CB25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
SG8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SG19 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
PE19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
PE27 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
53 |
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
GCP issues / questions
Measures
Issues with current infrastructure / public transport
Costs / Funding
Impacts
Future options and issues
Suggestions on where to look
Other
Solutions suggested / measures27
Revenue
Public transport / active travel improvements
GCP plans
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 well-being impacts of congestion eg 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 e.g. 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
Question: What is most important for us to achieve in Greater Cambridge by 2030? People were given 6 votes
In alphabetical order
| A | Enable predicable journey times | 9 |
B | Provide safe layouts for different users | 19 |
C | Be environmental and zero carbon | 28 |
D | Restrict the city centre to only clean and electric vehicles | 27 |
E | Minimise need for journeys (e.g. through flexible working, superfast broadband and co-located workspaces) | 16 |
F | Be people centred – prioritising pedestrians and cyclists | 26 |
G | Provide fast and reliable public transport | 32 |
H | Provide affordable public transport | 32 |
I | Support range of modes including private cars | 8 |
J | Have inter-connected cycle infrastructure | 21 |
K | Deliver major infrastructure improvements (e.g. metro, tramway, overhead monorail) | 19 |
L | Enable interconnection (e.g. north/south, east/west, urban/rural) | 25 |
M | Not make Cambridge an extension of London | 1 |
N | Use technology to be responsive to demand | 14 |
O | Be managed as one coordinated system (e.g. Transport for Cambridge) | 25 |
P | Provide transport equally accessible to all | 15 |
Q | Educate people about different options | 16 |
Total | 333 |
In order of highest preference
| G | Provide fast and reliable public transport | 32 |
H | Provide affordable public transport | 32 |
C | Be environmental and zero carbon | 28 |
D | Restrict the city centre to only clean and electric vehicles | 27 |
F | Be people centred – prioritising pedestrians and cyclists | 26 |
L. | Enable interconnection (e.g. north/south, east/west, urban/rural) | 25 |
O | Be managed as one coordinated system (e.g. Transport for Cambridge) | 25 |
J | Have inter-connected cycle infrastructure | 21 |
B | Provide safe layouts for different users | 19 |
K | Deliver major infrastructure improvements (e.g. metro, tramway, overhead monorail) | 19 |
E | Minimise need for journeys (e.g. through flexible working, superfast broadband and co-located workspaces) | 16 |
Q | Educate people about different options | 16 |
P | Provide transport equally accessible to all | 15 |
N | Use technology to be responsive to demand | 14 |
A | Enable predicable journey times | 9 |
I | Support range of modes including private cars | 8 |
M | Not make Cambridge an extension of London | 1 |
TOTAL | 333 |
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.
| A | Predictable time journeys |
B |
|
C |
|
D |
|
E |
|
F |
|
G |
|
H |
|
I |
|
J |
|
K |
|
L |
|
M |
|
N |
|
O |
|
P |
|
Q |
|
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 |
1st – Only exemptions are emergency vehicle, not more |
1st – 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) |
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 |
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 |
2nd – 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. |
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 |
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
1st – Only exemptions are emergency vehicle, not more
1st – 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
2nd – 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?
| Closing Roads to cars comments |
CLOSING ROADS – stops the creation of pollution in certain areas. |
Ideally the whole city centre should be pedestrian only. |
Closing roads to create clean air zones (e.g. schools) |
Preference would actually be roads closed to all but electric vehicles |
Unfortunately roads would still need to be open for larger essential vehicles which include HGVs. However the decrease in cars should still improve air quality. |
Charging comments |
#1 These are both subsets of flexible charge |
I understand that a CAZ would have the most effect, however once people switch to electric vehicles it will stop raising funds congestion will increase. A Flexible charge can therefore cover all vehicles target HGVs etc. more aggressively at first if desired. |
Pollution charge – consider means testing, incentives / loans to change vehicle. Introduce gradually |
Exemptions / Implementation/ Fairness considerations |
Closing roads – exemptions for disabled, essential car users + service vehicles |
Clean air zone – don’t charge small business too much (incl. self-employed on low income) |
Parking – don’t impact poorer residents, blue badge holders |
Flexible charge – same comment as parking (don’t impact poorer residents, blue badge holders) but also essential car users like care workers |
> (1, 2, 3,) Any charges should be based on incomes so that low income households are not paying as much as th highest earners (a % of earnings?) |
CAZ ULEZ need to not adversely affect low paid trade. |
Pollution charge + flexible charge: unfair to rural poor |
Incentives |
*INCENTIVES are needed for clear alternatives to cars (ideally a clean + zero carbon public transport system) |
Improvements first |
Again public transport must be improved before implementing changes – Money must not go to stagecoach shareholders |
Other Comments |
Why are we not discussing GROWTH |
We must do something dramatic. This is for our children’s health. |
Consider including further Measures to increase air quality e.g. planting hedges and living walls. |
Vote 3: What would be your preferred way of raising funds for improved public/ active transport in Greater Cambridge and across the wider area?
| Workplace Parking Levy Comments |
Work place parking levy – business income should be taken into consideration. If it’s a large firm they should pay more, if it’s a large firm they should pay less/none |
Workplace levy based on revenue, don’t let companies to pass it to employees to pay |
Workplace levy. An additional tax to work. |
Big business (with large profits) need to be charged more. The workforce/employees should not front the levy cost. Different prices on a levy would be needed for different sized businesses. |
|
WPL should be based on company revenues. |
Workplace levy. Can’t be passed to low income employees |
Flexible Charge Comments |
Flexible charge. How can you charge people for standing still. |
Flexible charge feels fairer than a pollution charge |
Flexible charge – exclude poorer residents, blue badge holders |
Pollution Charge Comments |
Pollution charge – increase gradually, offer incentives to change to clean vehicle. Bus companies cannot increase fares to cover |
Charging measures comments |
(2,3) Any charges should be based on incomes so that low income households are not paying the same as the highest earners. (as % of earnings?) |
#2 This is a subset of flexible charge, and is only a temporary source of money as all vehicles move to zero emissions |
I think a pollution charge workplace levy will be good short term ways of creating income. Long term I think a flexible charge is better. |
If we need a money raising mechanism after work place levy flexible charge may be used by having subsidies for poor. |
When combined with Other Measures that reduce traffic into the city, these measures will produce less funding. |
Other funding measures comments |
Hypothecating an extra 2% on sales of petrol/diesel to fund PT/cycling/walking initiatives in cities throughout the UK |
We need to raise as much money as possible and dramatically put people off their cars |
Multinational businesses to “sponsor” public transport in exchange for premises in Cambridge – they cash in on the prestige of a Cambridge address. |
Implementation considerations |
It may be necessary that if roads are closed in the central part of Cambridge, the main car parks will become inaccessible. |
Public transport improvements |
Taking into consideration that a proper public transport is already in place – or is taking place and people have a second option |
If the ring-fenced money was used to implement a comprehensive public transport system initially, then additional intervention could be introduced as the consequent affect took place. |
Transport must be totally reorganised removed from private hands. and into Greater Cambridge Transport. Franchise. |
Parking Charging Comments |
Parking charges are already exhorbitant – I would disagree with any charge that seem disproportionate. If anything, I think there should be no parking charge for those working for key services that benefit the greater community. |
Increasing Parking fees is a flat charge and will adversely effect low paid. |
#1 Don’t believe this would raise money as city council car park charges are set close to what the models predict as max. yield. |
PROVIDE FREE PARKING – 2 hrs / week on a certain day (off-Peak) if you decide to increase Parking charges. |
Parking cost already higher than a lot of other cities. |
Increase parking charges should be done as ‘surge charging’ not a blanket charge, so it doesn’t penalise lower income workers. Also, increasing charges would not put me off – I would just spend less time – higher space turnover – more congestions etc. |
|
Other Comments |
Why are we not discussing GROWTH |
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?
| Specific measures comments |
|---|
I ranked Flex Charge low as I think it will be hard to implement. I do however strongly support it. |
Implementation and choice of measures considerations |
#1 Would need widespread residents parking schemes to avoid displacement to residential streets |
There would have to be exceptions and considerations made when implementing these measures, i.e. working / emergency vehicles, low income. |
1st = Depends on keeping road open for essential vehicles hgv/delivery/small businesses. |
See comment suggesting additional condition in Q1: e.g. lollipop bus route, shared with taxis, 4 or more people in a car. – car share. |
***Workplace parking levy needs to take into account business turnover + the employers need to take more of the cost than the employees. |
Economic inequality has to be a huge consideration when deciding which measure to take – our low income residents are already experiencing extreme hardship. |
> (1,3,4) Any charges should be born on income (a % of earnings?) so that the lowest income households are not paying as much as the highest earners. |
> (5) if possible, workplaces should not be able to pass the charge off to workers. |
Improvements to public transport |
Improvements to the transport system would be key in order to facilitate change. + to promote a culture shift. |
These measures would be only effective if (as before) a comprehensive public transport system was introduced first, giving people a real affordable alternative. |
Public transport must be improved (franchise by the mayor) before implementing changes. |
Other Comments |
Why are we not discussing GROWTH |
Would like to see areas closed to all but electric vehicles eventually – can introduce these incrementally |
5 out of 8 items here are about raising money! And 3 items about “congestion charging”. |
There would need to be a mix of these measures. |
After voting table groups discussed their key messages around road closures and charging in particular. The focus of their discussion was:
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.
| Our Message Is… | Why |
|---|---|
Closing Roads |
|
Close the roads |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How will people pay the charges?How will it be enforced?
Be fair – lower income households – Look at London*
Trial run for 12 months, full range or yearly events
Need a structured way of protecting low-income households from impact of congestion charge
Might be something we do all at once – not iterative but in tandem"
Public transport needs to be fully accessible
Integrate ideas about more trees/hedges with e.g. segregating cyclists and drivers i.e. use hedges not bollards and maintain them"
Road closures
Charging
Don't just tax for sake of raising money – to go back into public transport
We need people to change their attitudes and behaviour – awareness raising is key
Exemptions and conditions on closing roads
Funding/cost
Integrated approach
Shorter term, immediate measures needed
Monitoring and feedback
Stagger business and school start times
Consider different filtering
Fairness
Road safety Making Cambridge a green place = the Cambridge USP
Business have a stake – a levy or limit on cars for the biggest businesses
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
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
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
Get on with optimising traffic signals
We need a Cambridge version of TFL
Planning for out of town depot
Re-wilding, encouraging community initiative – re-wilding, wildlife
Act now and get on with it
No metro
Growth not discussed
Tax businesses and private schools
More affordable housing
Key Message to GCP Board
Considerations
Other Important Messages
The Involve Foundation 18 Victoria Park Square London E2 9PF | 020 3745 4334 info@involve.org.uk @involveUK involve.org.uk |
The Involve Foundation
18 Victoria Park Square
London
E2 9PF
020 3745 4334
info@involve.org.uk
@involveUK
involve.org.uk
2:www.sortitionfoundation.org/
7:www.gov.uk/government/publications/innovation-in-democracy-programme-launch
8:https://consultcambs.uk.engagementhq.com/greater-cambridge-citizens-assembly/documents
9:This was defined as those who indicated they either travelled at least 5x per week or 2-4 x per week in and around Cambridge
10:www.greatercambridge.org.uk/cityaccess/greater-cambridge-citizens-assembly/advisory-group/
11:consultcambs.uk.engagementhq.com/greater-cambridge-citizens-assembly/documents
12:www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL19jDKboDATChvbx9q9F6xApVY_cPbFz4
13:Ibid - Livestream key messages feedback starts at 1hr 38mins on Day 4
14:consultcambs.uk.engagementhq.com/greater-cambridge-citizens-assembly
15:https://consultcambs.uk.engagementhq.com/greater-cambridge-citizens-assembly/documents
16:https://consultcambs.uk.engagementhq.com/greater-cambridge-citizens-assembly/documents
17:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pZPU5C3BfY&t=3360s
18:For example, if there were four choices on the ballot paper, the first preference would get four points, the 2nd would get three points, 3rd preference would get two points and the 4th preference would get one point. Any options not ranked (i.e. left blank) would receive zero points.
19:Note only 52 people completed the evaluation form
20:This is a selection of the comments made on the evaluation forms
26:The "bike rack" was a space for Assembly Members to log issues and comments throughout Weekend One that had not been part of discussions but that they wanted to record.
27:The "solutions basket" was a space to record thoughts about solutions to address aspects of the Assembly question.