We want to thank those of you who’ve emailed already and to emphasise that we’re not transport experts, we’re experts in facilitation and designing engagement processes, so we really need your input to get these materials right.
Board feedback - pre-materials
- Pre-material cites WWF. Need to look into the allegation of WWFs involvement in human rights abuses in DRC
- Missing content regarding the long life cycle of CO2 in the atmosphere. Without this information we are lacking a sense of urgency
- Distinguish early on between climate and weather
- Check consistency of figures about air pollution from transport and 50 deaths in the city in the document
- Make sure that we use illustrations and images where possible. We don’t want this reading to be a chore
- Need to consider that transport is derived from demand. We need to place greater emphasis on understanding why people are making journeys, the extent to which the economy is benefiting from people travelling in and out etc. without making value judgments
- Include some links to speakers rather than just additional reading
- Need to set the scene better, for example car ownership
- Do we specifically ask the assembly to identify barriers to change? My behavioural science friends are very keen on this type of focus
Discussion - local context
I struggled with the language and framing but for different reasons. I was worried it’d skew perceptions of the citizens. We talk about physical activity and bus fees as though they’re problems. If we look at travel statistics, you find we have massive bus patronage which stands out in the UK and makes us unique. People need to play with that and push it further but here it’s presented as a problem.
I’m not an expert on physical activity but I think I’ve read somewhere we’re good on that. It doesn’t say the positive bits, we shouldn’t just frame it as a problem – we’re going with the flow where we already have patronage. We’re not starting from zero. I would like travel statistics that are more generalised.
There’s also cautioning that some changes might not be popular, if you read articles on cycle lanes it’s that, but there are other bits of the community who do support it. Part of the assembly’s challenge is to come up with solutions that would get buy-in from the whole community.
Board feedback - local context
Criticisms:
- Language should be more balanced – focusing on what is gained as well as what is lost
- Danger of alienating people in the language used, “we”, “our”, “done already”, it sounds like solutions are underway. It might take away a sense of autonomy and involvement in the process
Suggestions:
- More travel statistics should be shared to show how Brighton compares to other parts of the UK
- The diversity of view across Brighton should be acknowledged – getting widespread support for action is a challenge the assembly should face
- Increase sense of urgency
- In the material there were figures for how far you can walk/cycle in an hour. We need to think about what would have to be true to get more people to switch to bicycles and so on
- Parking charges must be linked to traffic management objectives and not specifically to revenue generation
Question:
- Are we providing interpreters?
Paul: Interpreters are out of scope but could be picked up in wider engagement
Discussion - possible interventions
Topic selection
- Started with a long-list
- Whittled down to current topics based on what will impact the public most/require the most from the public
Feedback so far
Fewer and cleaner cars should be moved to the final slot so the assembly are thinking about alternative measures as well as direct measures on car traffic.
Accessibility of content
There is a real danger that presentations aren’t accessible. We need to make sure that there is a broad range of speakers, people need to hear voices with lived experiences not just experts.
Suggestions welcome
We have got 11 expert speakers on the list at the moment for transport. It would be good if advisory board members could suggest more names and how we should prioritise.
On tech solutions
We don’t want to talk about tech as a silver bullet and will also discuss social elements to transport.
Board feedback - possible interventions
Main concern is in the pursuit of simplicity we make crass points that miss the point entirely. For example, in trying to tabulate we seem to have over-simplified the last table. Parking availability and cost, for example yes, loss of revenue from parking which could be offset by higher charges, but on the flipside, we would be criticised if we started over-charging.
Concerned that evidence indicates that park and ride increase car emissions, disperses them in a different way, to the edge instead of the centre of the city (and this doesn’t come across).
- Time of 5 to10 minutes for presentations is too short and may not allow for issues to be adequately contextualised.
- Ensure we have benefits and drawbacks for each suggestion.
- Incorporate behavioural science approach throughout rather than in the last session
- Importance of maintaining a focus on public health both short term and long term
- Anything relating to scooters or e-bikes?
Questions:
- Does it end with a vote?
- Importance of drawing together 2 issues – urgency and personal responsibility. We can encourage active travel as part of Covid and climate. How can we get that across and weave it in and get their direct responses about level of responsibility?
- Can we do council communication differently? There’s been no consultation and the stuff on the website can tend to be a bit text heavy like the documentation we’ve seen today. Perhaps using social media could increase the spread of information in a more accessible way.
- Are we going to be looking at community engagement more generally in the next meeting?
Paul’s response to questions
On over-simplification
The virtue of discussions before simpler recommendations is that the complex conversation doesn’t get lost.
The final report/recommendations will reflect the nuanced detailed discussions. There will always be a trade-off but it’s useful to have that feedback about not over-simplifying – we’ll make sure we look at that.
On behavioural science
It is something we are considering carefully. The initiatives will be used as stimulus for discussions about what participants want to change.
We’ll introduce these piece by piece to members: headline, detail, impact, Pros/Cons and we’ll reflect what we think the data says, then ultimately, we’ll ask them to put together their own recommendations – should we go with these, benefits/barriers? That’s broadly the process.
On voting
A vote can give a recommendation an air of faux-representivity, it’s 50 people and could be misinterpreted/misused. That said, voting can help focus the minds of assembly members and give us a sense of their preferences.
It’s a conversation to be had, it’s an easy thing to drop into a process.
On urgency and personal responsibility
It’s part of the process, we have to push them on pros and cons; we have to say what they’ve lost as well as gained. That’s very much part of the recommendation phase, we have to make people confront this stuff – we can’t present something that sounds too easy.
On scooters and e-bikes
We’ll see if it comes up. It was one of the topics we cut from the long-list because we tried to prioritise. That may be on the cutting room floor.