Advisory board meeting - 26 November 2020

All board members were present in a personal capacity. They do not represent the organisations they work for. 

Chairing

• Nick Pettigrew, Ipsos MORI

Board members

• Chris Todd, Transport Action Network
• Prof. Dominic Kniveton, University of Sussex
• Dr. Gary Fuller, Imperial College London
• Rosie Sauvage, XR
• Prof. Julie Doyle, University of Brighton
• Steve Gooding, RAC Foundation
• Mark Prior, Brighton & Hove City Council
• Cllr. Phélim Mac Cafferty, Brighton & Hove City Council Green party
• Cllr. Nancy Platts, Brighton & Hove City Council Labour party
• Cllr. Prof Samer Bagaeen, Brighton & Hove City Council Conservative party

Observers and contributors

Contributors:

• Paul Carroll, Ipsos MORI
• Chloe Juliette, Ipsos MORI

Observers:

• Simon Newell, Brighton & Hove City Council
• Kirsten Firth, Brighton & Hove City Council
• Rachel Williams, Brighton & Hove City Council
• Nick Hibberd, Brighton & Hove City Council

Notetakers:

• Chloe Juliette, Ipsos MORI
• Faith Jones, Ipsos MORI

Apologies

• Dr. Lesley Murray, University of Brighton
• Simon Burall, Involve
• Rania van den Ouweland, Youth Strike 4 Climate
• Gavin Stewart, Brighton & Hove Economic Partnership
• Dr. Nicola Khan, University of Brighton
• Dr. Matthew Adams, University of Brighton

1. Introductions
2. Recommendations
3. Report structure
4. Other outstanding issues
5. Final steps
6. Impact highlights

Ipsos MORI team analysed discussions from session 4 and produced 10 recommendations.

Assembly presented with draft recommendations.

Reflective discussion on all recommendations – broad support across the assembly.

Each break-out group took one recommendation to amend and edit.

Assembly members shared final recommendations.

Groups reflected on changes made – captured in the report.

Assembly appraised and prioritised the recommendations.

Ipsos MORI team shared the prioritisation and final reflection.

This is the final wording of the recommendations, in the order of priority that the assembly gave:

1. Car-free city centre

Dependent on improved public transport infrastructure being in place. Additionally, dependent on private transport infrastructure i.e. walking and cycling.

Exceptions must be made for people who needs cars (and other vehicles), e.g. blue badge holders, deliveries. Those who can use other means should not use cars.

2. The public transport system should be affordable/accessible

This includes a ticketing system that encompasses all public transport.

Pricing should be relative to other forms of transport (in other words, taxis).

Open ended/flexible season tickets should be introduced.

Reconsider the times that buses are on the road, to ensure that there aren’t excess buses on the road with no one in them.

Options should be well communicated.

3. Healthier low traffic/pedestrianised communities

Including school streets.

Exceptions must be made for people who need to use their car, for example, disabled people, deliveries, but those who can use other means should not use their car.

Start small to demonstrate the value.

Messaging should include pictures or videos of where this has been implemented so people can see the value, in other words how a familiar place used to look vs. what it looks like after the changes (for example, George Street).

Need to make it clear that residents can get in and out of their own LTN (local transport network) with ease.

Benefits should be clearly conveyed (in other words, wellbeing, thriving community, reinvigorated local area).

4. The council should actively consult and engage with neighbourhoods within the community

There should be community advocates who act as middlemen between the community and the council, with a clear definition of their role and support from the council.

The council should:

• focus on educating the whole community, listening to them, and adapting their plans according to the feedback provided
• consider the methods of communication
• measure community involvement
• report back to the community about what was done with their feedback and why, evidencing that they are listening

5. Introduce mobility hubs

Research and consult on what mobility hubs should include.

In local neighbourhoods.

Greater city-wide availability of bikes.

City-wide rentable e-bikes.

Retrofit the BTN bikes to become e-bikes.

Make sure they are by a taxi rank, bus route and/or train station.

Transport resource distribution; everyone should be able to access one.

Cargo storage attachments should be available for the bikes.

6. Cyclists should be prioritised over cars through well-designed dedicated cycling networks that are safe and practical for day-to-day use as well as leisure

Cyclists should be actively encouraged to be safe and mindful of others.

Enforcement is needed around car users parking habits – if the network is squeezed into roads.

7. Introduce a park and ride to minimise car use in the city

There should be no need to use a car in the city centre – it should be easier not to use a car if you are a commuter or visitor.

Ensure linking transport infrastructure is in place and well communicated with full city information at the park.

Utilise public transport as the primary means of getting into, and travelling around, the city centre.

8. Make public transport a more convenient alternative to driving a car

Public transport should be faster, affordable and more reliable.

9. Messaging should focus on what people gain rather than lose and educate/expand citizens knowledge

Should emphasise public health issues and gains.

Should emphasise climate change.

Educate/expand people’s knowledge on the impact of their actions.

One message will not fit all – the council needs to segment the citizens of Brighton & Hove and explore how best to communicate with different people.

Not ‘if’ but ‘when/how’ it happens.

Information should be accessible to everyone.

10. There should be a focus on incentives rather than sanctions as interventions

Prioritise restrictive measures over charging-based measures.

Measures must account for disproportionate impacts on citizens.

The report will use these recommendations as headlines to help structure the report and ensure that there is a narrative flow to how the assembly reached these recommendations.

Board feedback and answers

Was there any discussion about types of public transport the assembly prioritised?

Conversations focussed on buses and cycling as they felt most achievable to people.

Was there any discussion on car parking?

People felt that starting off by reducing parking was too harsh, they thought the focus should be on reducing the need for cars and providing alternatives before reducing car parking availability.

How was access for taxis viewed?

The need for taxis was still there. There was a sense that it’s a part of the solution but also part of the problem. It presents a challenge that people didn’t quite resolve.

Was there any discussion on the use of technology to improve access to buses?

People were keen on having a more joined up network, but technology wasn’t explicitly discussed.

Was climate change an important driver of change?

We didn’t explicitly ask about messages around climate change. For some it was an important driver, others were persuaded by arguments around public health.

What were the risks to achieving these recommendations?

People emphasised the importance of slowly building outwards and assessing the reaction of the wider population. They were concerned that doing too much too fast would risk deterring people.

How important was creating a more pleasant environment?

Very important. This was emphasised in the ‘future self’ exercise.

Was there any discussion about what happens if this doesn’t deliver the changes hoped for?

This wasn’t discussed in depth. There was very little resistance to the idea that change needs to happen.

Was there any consideration of the consultation and engagement that the council does already?

It was clear that more needs to be done, many don’t know about existing consultation and engagement.

People are not generally asked to volunteer for this sort of process and there needs to be a greater focus on bringing a variety of different people along.

People are not used to being asked in a meaningful way, and don’t have the opportunity to engage because they don’t have the time. 

Did the recommendations differ across gender, race, age and so on?

No. It was designed to be a consensus building exercise, so we did not look at specific objections from specific groups. Objections aired by groups will be reflected in the caveats.

Was there any sense of scale of the car free city centre?

No. We didn’t ask people to give an indication of scale as it distracts from other aspects of the discussion.

Were people prepared to pay more tax?

We don’t ask that question because people generally say yes but we can’t be sure that reflects their behaviour.

Were there any omissions in recommendations when compared to assemblies in other locations?

A pronounced enthusiasm and support for going for net zero and lowering emissions, and the desire to have trams.

How are you going to use the assembly as ambassadors for the report?

We are doing some wrap up interviews with assembly members about how they found the process, the rest is up to the Brighton & Hove City Council communications team.

How was the behavioural change needed imagined by the assembly?

The assembly members highlighted the importance of addressing both practical and motivational barriers to behaviour change.

There needs to be some element of co-creation. People need to be involved in the design of these things themselves.

Behaviour change is cemented through ownership of the design and implementation.

Was there any sense of how many of people in the assembly used public transport?

We didn’t ask it as a screener question, the data indicates that everyone has had some interaction with public transport, although some primarily used cars.

• Executive summary
• Methodology
• Findings
  • Recommendations, including conditions/caveats
  • Session 1 
  • Session 2
  • Session 3 
  • Session 4
  • Session 5
• Implementation (in other words, conclusions from behavioural insights)
• Appendix – future-self letters, analysed feedback presented to assembly
• Separate technical report including materials/more detail on process

Questions for the board

• Should the appendices and detailed methodology be in a separate technical report?
• Should the “future selves” letters be in the findings report or technical report?

Board feedback - report structure

Where will dissenting, voices be referenced?

One of the underlying principles is that the report reflects the counterpoints, not just the consensus.

There will also be lots of variation, including counterpoints and objections.

Who is the expected audience for this report?

It’ll be publicly available, and we’ll be letting the assembly know when it is published.

The audience is primarily people in the council to guide policy decisions, but it’ll be written in a way that is easily accessible for the public/anyone stylistically.

Different audiences will be interested in different parts, should we be producing several different versions?

That is a question for the Brighton & Hove City Council communications team to decide. Decision making around wider communications and dissemination lies with them.

How much of the methodology should be included? 

There will be a methodology in the report.

Can the future self-letters be given to an arts project?

The letters are anonymised, they will be in the report.

If you think that’s worthwhile I think that’s a great idea, it’d be great if the council did that to promote and build legacy around it. 

Will there be a summary doc then for the public to find out the key headlines?

The exec summary will be best for that. Straightforward and can be put out separately.

General comments on structure

Most agree with the broad structure and feel that a technical report should be separate from the main report.

Some concerns around the methodology being too complex for lay version.

Would like a greater focus on implementation (including a “how to” guide on effective implementation by signposting to relevant, practical resources).

Updates

Most of the assembly members granted their consent to hold personal details for a year, with permission to recontact them about the assembly.

Many volunteers to be interviewed – we’re drafting questions with the council.

We’ll carry out a short feedback survey with the assembly – this is not an evaluation.

We’ll do the same with advisory board members – if everyone agrees.

It’s important to note that this is not a formal evaluation. That would need to be independent from us (Ipsos MORI) and the council, to conduct a process evaluation.

• Draft report to council tomorrow (27 November)
• Comments received from all stakeholders COP Tuesday 1 December
• Final report delivered on 7 December
• Published mid-January on the council website

Your input has really helped make the process better. There was a leap of faith when we decided to go ahead virtually, and we hadn’t done anything in the country of this scale. It was the first assembly to be fully online.

A few highlights for us were:

• focusing more on transport upfront, spending less time on climate - that helped us get into the detail much earlier and more effectively
• getting the materials right, the stimulus for the learning sessions – your input, particularly around terminology and tone (around park and ride for example) was vital - lots of back and forth, lots of helpful input making sure the language used were right for the assembly
• adding in an appraisal element to the prioritisation exercise, added a dimension of understanding for us and the assembly

Board feedback - other outstanding issues

Could we have an acknowledgements page for people who presented as experts too? 

Yes.