Agenda item

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly:

(a)        NOTED progress to date.

(b)        NOTED the forward plan for delivery of the first phase.

Consideration was given to a report which provided a progress update on the Smart City Management Platform that formed part of the Smart Cambridge project.

Noelle Godfrey, Programme Director of Connecting Cambridgeshire, presented the report and reminded Members that the aim of the Smart City Platform was to collect, process and make available data to help improve transport and reduce congestion in Greater Cambridge.  She acknowledged that a vast amount of data already existed which could be collected, with the main problem being that it was neither joined up nor readily available for the public or professionals to use.  The Smart City Platform would therefore seek to resolve this problem by:

·         collecting transport and transport-related data from many existing and new sources;

·         combining and processing this data;

·         making this data readily available to the public, planners and other IT developers.

Noelle Godfrey reported that work to date had proceeded well and that the first project stream was already underway and would be complete by April 2017, with a second commencing in January 2017 and scheduled for completion in April 2018.  A project plan and outline timescales was appended to the report.

Dr Ian Lewis, Director of Infrastructure and Investment at the University of Cambridge, took Members through a presentation appended to the report which provided an overview of the development of the Smart Cambridge Platform and the architecture associated with the platform.  The following approach to achieve the project’s objectives were noted:

·         informing travellers about their travel choices.  A portfolio of ‘apps’ for use by the public would emerge using data from the Smart Cambridge Platform itself through collaborative contributors in the region including the University of Cambridge and commercial partners;

·         supporting intelligent planning of the transport infrastructure in the future.  The Smart Cambridge Platform was already collecting the data which could contribute to a practical analysis of the impact of transport schemes and the richness of information would grow with time.  The University of Cambridge would also exploit this data for research analysis, which could benefit the region;

·         providing the framework within which the digitally connected city would evolve.  There was ongoing discussion regarding other sensor data that would inevitably become available in the region, from air pollution data to cycling and footfall sensors and other traffic data.  The platform was being designed from the outset to accommodate additional sources as they became available.

Anne Constantine asked whether this data had been used as part of the modelling undertaken on some of the transport infrastructure schemes.  Dr Lewis confirmed that this data had not featured as part of the modelling used for City Deal schemes, but made the point that Local Authorities undertook their own modelling which required slightly different data.

Councillor Noel Kavanagh sought more explanation over the use of air quality sensors.  Dr Lewis reported that 20 air quality sensors had been deployed which were able to be moved to certain locations in order that data could be collected to better understand the impact of traffic.  This was taking place alongside other datasets that the project team felt would be of use and interest.

Councillor Dave Baigent asked whether this data would be sold to any third parties.  He was also interested to see how this data could be fed back to communities to tell them accurately, for example, how long it would take to travel somewhere during rush hour.  Noelle Godfrey reported that an ‘app’ would be produced for use by the general public.  She also envisaged commercial providers using the data to improve their services and ultimately the services available to the public, making the point that by sharing the data other people could then use this to develop their own ‘apps’ and use the data how they wished.  It was noted that this had occurred with other cities in the country.  In terms of the selling of data, it was envisaged that it would not be sold at this stage but this was something the project team would need to consider as things developed.

Councillor Bridget Smith referred to a workshop that Members had attended in February 2016 where a presentation was given, following which she had been very excited about the prospects that the smart city workstream of the City Deal could deliver.  She was slightly underwhelmed with this report, however, in the context of that presentation and sought an assurance that the aspirations set out in February were still achievable.  Noelle Godfrey responded by saying that the presentation had outlined what could potentially be achieved overall in due course, with this report being the first detailed progress report on implementation of the project to date.  She made the point that these things were aspirational and leading edge and could not therefore be delivered in such short timescales, but emphasised that the aspirations set out in February were still there. 

Sir Michael Marshall asked whether the data being collected could be used to confirm bus occupancy and also provide information on the reasoning behind congestion problems or bottlenecks.  He also questioned whether postcode data was being collected from employers to ascertain where employees lived in order that their commutes could be tracked to better understand where they were travelling to and from.  Noelle Godfrey confirmed that bus occupancy would not feature as part of this first stage but the team was looking into how this could be undertaken.  Reasons for congestion or bottlenecks were recorded in terms of them happening but not necessarily the reasoning behind them.  She also confirmed that other projects of the City Deal had already begun contacting employers in the way that Sir Michael had described.

Helen Valentine asked whether the finances available to the project were constraining its delivery in any way.  Noelle Godfrey explained that this workstream was established as a very lean programme and in some ways benefited from being more nimble as a result.  She cited examples of other cities that had committed millions of pounds for big systems to support smart city solutions which themselves had not been able to deliver the required outcomes and said that resourcing was not the only answer.

Claire Ruskin made the point that communication of some of the key benefits associated with this workstream would be very important.

Councillor Hickford informed the Joint Assembly that Members would be invited to a demonstration of the datasets associated with this piece of work and that they would also be given access to a portal in order that they could view the data.

The Joint Assembly:

(a)        NOTED progress to date.

(b)        NOTED the forward plan for delivery of the first phase.