iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Plus the un-timetabled Tiger on Demand, six days a week, Monday to Saturday 06:30 – 19:00.

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 22/09/2026

It'd be interesting to get data on the 0.9% of miles that didn't get run, to see if there are patterns, such as specific times/days of the week, specific routes/locations that get 'cut' repeatedly.

000

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 18/09/2026

Right but for Cambridge (and Cambridgeshire) to get nice things, big things, it means those that need to, making big decisions now. Instead they just go for buses, in a few years, when there might be some funding for them, maybe. Delay deciding until another time. Next.

010

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

Unified ticketing could also then give CPCA access to the data that they claim isn't available to them. Of course they probably feel one of the operators won't want to do that, but either they want to work with them or they don't - phased approach until late 2030 won't change that, it's just delay.

010

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

Whole thing seems to be moving along about as fast as the buses stuck in traffic. Personally I think their chosen plan is wrong. They should bring in unified ticketing immediately (now), as the first stage. Direct award if needed on existing routes as next step. Pause unaffordable spend on depots.

110

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

There's a further consultation on Bus Franchising in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough: "the proposed approach to introducing franchising, including the timetable, how services would be grouped, and plans for buses and bus depots" cpca-yourvoice.co.uk/bus-franchis...

cpca-yourvoice.co.uk

Bus Franchising Supplementary Consultation - CPCA

Explore current public consultations in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Your input on key issues can influence the future of our community.

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 08/09/2026

So Cambridge to Cambourne Busway (C2C) is happening then. Will be interesting to see if CPCA Mayor Bristow, who said at the inquiry, that he may not support buses on it, sticks to his words. (from Oct 2025: cambridgetownowl.com/2025/09/30/c... and www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambrid...)

bbc.co.uk

Controversial £180m busway through orchard to go ahead

The Cambourne to Cambridge busway is hoped to provide 10,000 daily passenger trips.

202

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 08/09/2026

Multiple members of CPCA Overview & Scrutiny on live stream of meeting at the moment saying they had no idea the Bus Network Review consultation was taking place...?!

000

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

Appears from looking through it a few times for mentions, the Tiger 9 Peterborough Orbital has just been silently dropped (for now?) in the proposals in both Appendix A and B, even the Systra document about the updated proposals doesn't reference it or feedback on it received from the consultation.

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

'' T1 will now be operated commercially '' - Page 68 of Appendix B. That's the express Huntingdon to Cambridge route introduced by Mayor Nik Johnson as part of the initial set of Tiger branded routes funded by the precept.

100

Reposted by Simon

John Elworthy @johnelworthy.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

🚌 Major Cambridgeshire bus shake-up revealed. Tiger 12 could be withdrawn, Service 65 could take a new route, new services are planned around Haverhill and Newmarket, and several Fenland and Cambridge routes face changes. Here is the full list of proposals 👇 www.cambsnews.co.uk/cambridgeshi...

113

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

🐯 '' all new contracted services are expected to be delivered with the “Tiger” brand which will continue to be built on as services across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough move into the Franchised model '' - page 39 of Appendix A.

110

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

Pages 9-11 has a list "3. Current Service Performance" "outlines the performance of our current contracted services" This covers more routes than was published in the earlier social value scoring of contracted services, including latest "Cost Per Passenger (2025-2026)"

Screenshot of Page 9, showing the first page of the "Current Service Performance" from Item 8 "Bus Services Reimagined – Final Service Change Proposals", Appendix A "Appendix A - CPCA Technical Response Report" at https://democracy.cambridgeshirepeterborough-ca.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=138&MId=694

Screenshot of Page 10, showing the second page of the "Current Service Performance" from Item 8 "Bus Services Reimagined – Final Service Change Proposals", Appendix A "Appendix A - CPCA Technical Response Report" at https://democracy.cambridgeshirepeterborough-ca.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=138&MId=694

Screenshot of Page 11, showing the third page of the "Current Service Performance" from Item 8 "Bus Services Reimagined – Final Service Change Proposals", Appendix A "Appendix A - CPCA Technical Response Report" at https://democracy.cambridgeshirepeterborough-ca.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=138&MId=694

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

Page 53 onwards of Appendix A includes maps of the proposed routes. Tiger 1 not extended Huntingdon-St Ives as CPCA "approached by an operator who proposes to investigate the opportunity of providing this link commercially" at same time Stagecoach cutting frequency of Busway B...

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

The two additional documents have appeared Appendix A - CPCA Technical Response Report (62 pages) - detail of each proposal, including changes from initial proposals (no T1 extension, no Peterborough Orbital? @honeybadger200.bsky.social) Appendix B - SYSTRA Technical Consultation Report (74 pages)

Screenshot of front cover of "Appendix A - CPCA Technical Response Report" from Item 8 "Bus Services Reimagined – Final Service Change Proposals" of the CPCA Transport Committee meeting on Wednesday 9th September 2026 at https://democracy.cambridgeshirepeterborough-ca.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=138&MId=694

Screenshot of front cover of "Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority Bus Services Reimagined September 2026" from Item 8 "Bus Services Reimagined – Final Service Change Proposals" of the CPCA Transport Committee meeting on Wednesday 9th September 2026 at https://democracy.cambridgeshirepeterborough-ca.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=138&MId=694

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

29MB ... plus I see this afternoon another two documents adding a further 136 pages (for the bus network reimagined item)

010

Reposted by Simon

Antony Carpen @acarpen.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

This is a draft of what Cambridge’s new transport network might look like. Frustratingly vague on what ‘Mass Rapid Transit’ actually means. Past form says ‘buses on roads with signs prohibiting other traffic’ others say it could mean light rail. cambridgetownowl.com/2026/09/02/g...

011

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 01/09/2026

A141 project (item 14) has this new: "option has therefore been proposed which focuses on widening of Harrison Way with an additional lane to operate as a tidal flow system" ''add more lanes'' always works to solve congestion doesn't it... (note it doesn't appear to be "add a bus lane")

Screenshot of "Changes between HP3 and HP4" (page 19) of Appendix B of Item 14, Update on A141 Outline Business Case at https://democracy.cambridgeshirepeterborough-ca.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=138&MId=694

(Highlighting added for clarity)

Screenshot of "Operation of a Tidal Flow system on Harrison
Way" (page 22) of Appendix B of Item 14, Update on A141 Outline Business Case at https://democracy.cambridgeshirepeterborough-ca.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=138&MId=694

000

Reposted by Simon

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 01/09/2026

🚌🚏 This has just appeared on the CPCA website for the upcoming Transport Committee on 9th of September 2026: "Bus Services Reimagined – Service Change Proposals" Changes due February 2027 and August 2027 @cbgbususers.bsky.social @cambstravelall.bsky.social @acarpen.bsky.social

screenshot of sections 2.1 and 2.2 from Item 8 "Bus Services Reimagined – Final Service Change Proposals" of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Transport Committee meeting on Wednesday, 9th September, 2026, at https://democracy.cambridgeshirepeterborough-ca.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=138&MId=694

Note that both Appendix A and B are "to follow"

"Appendix A: CPCA Technical Response Report – Appendix to follow

Appendix B: SYSTRA Technical Consultation Report - Appendix to follow"

screenshot of sections 2.3 - 2.6 from Item 8 "Bus Services Reimagined – Final Service Change Proposals" of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Transport Committee meeting on Wednesday, 9th September, 2026, at https://democracy.cambridgeshirepeterborough-ca.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=138&MId=694

Note that both Appendix A and B are "to follow"

"Appendix A: CPCA Technical Response Report – Appendix to follow

Appendix B: SYSTRA Technical Consultation Report - Appendix to follow"

screenshot of sections 2.6 - 2.7 from Item 8 "Bus Services Reimagined – Final Service Change Proposals" of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Transport Committee meeting on Wednesday, 9th September, 2026, at https://democracy.cambridgeshirepeterborough-ca.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=138&MId=694

Note that both Appendix A and B are "to follow"

"Appendix A: CPCA Technical Response Report – Appendix to follow

Appendix B: SYSTRA Technical Consultation Report - Appendix to follow"

201

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 01/09/2026

Full agenda for the Transport committee meeting is on the CPCA website here:

democracy.cambridgeshirepeterborough-ca.gov.uk

000

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 01/09/2026

201

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 29/08/2026

Reveals that CPCA had a target of "200 responses". Seems very unambitious, considering the population and amount of bus passengers in the region. The "Bus Network Review Engagement" survey/consultation received 1182 responses.

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 29/08/2026

It seems to be saying how, based on O&S feedback they used a "revised approach enabled broader, more inclusive participation by combining digital, printed and community-based communications" I didn't see anything promoting it, other than social media site I don't use. Only knew as I watch meetings.

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 29/08/2026

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny meeting on 8th of September covers the "Bus Network Review Engagement", but not the results... Item 6 democracy.cambridgeshirepeterborough-ca.gov.uk/ieListDocume... @cbgbususers.bsky.social @cambstravelall.bsky.social

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 24/08/2026

There must (?) be more detailed higher count data available. I can't see how less than 3 per day, or less than 8 per day, in a town location, is any sort of representative sampling of real world speeds. It the total numbers in the data from one day, it'd be really clever use of the tech.

000

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 24/08/2026

Full details in Item 6 at democracy.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/moderngov/ie... which follows their Pre-Submission Local Plan to 2046 at Item 5. (the complete meeting Agenda pack PDF is a ridiculous 2418 pages long!) #Huntingdonshire #Cambridgeshire #Huntingdon #Parking #LocalPlan #Growth #Future

democracy.huntingdonshire.gov.uk

Huntingdonshire.gov.uk

ModernGov Template

010

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 24/08/2026

🚗🅿️ Huntingdonshire District Council Parking Strategy 2026-2046 is an item at the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Performance and Growth) meeting on Wednesday 2 September 2026 Not a single mention of "solar" in the strategy. Yet it made the public consultation report. So why not in 'to 2046' strategy?

Screenshot from front page of "Huntingdonshire District Council Parking Strategy 2026-2046" document included in the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Performance and Growth) meeting on Wednesday, 2 September 2026, Item 6 at https://democracy.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=10235&MId=8688

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

...wonder if it's caused by a limited number of vehicle tracks from the Compass IoT service (equiv' of around 7.95 per day?), which isn't really representative of actual speeds if every single real vehicle speed had been recorded? Feel this report should be questioned by Cllr's in a lot of detail.

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

...being "successful" as it's lead towards the correct direction, but it suggests far too many vehicles that would have done (average speed) "30.1" in a 30, are now doing only marginally slow at "27.0" in a 20, far above the 20mph signs-only limit. 35% over the speed limit. But, again I do...

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

...Cambridge Rd in St Neots example shows: avg mph 85% 30.1 35.4 (30mph limit) 27.0 31.3 (20mph zone) That means ~435 (of 2904 tracked) vehicles going even faster than 31.3mph in a 20mph... how is that seen as successful? Obviously seeing a "drop" vs "increase" is seen as...

Screenshot of page 38 of Item 5 Appendix 1 "Appendix 1 - Speed and Collision Data Analysis" from 1st September 2026 Cambridgeshire County Council Transport Committee meeting at https://cambridgeshire.cmis.uk.com/ccc_live/MeetingsCalendar/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/397/Meeting/2705/Committee/62/SelectedTab/Documents/Default.aspx

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

...with the 20mph zones or not. Personal experience is that many vehicles of all types and sizes aren't, especially during the morning/evening peaks, and especially when it's dark (particularly the winter months). I can't see all "sign-only 20mph limits" are as fully successful as CCC claim? ...

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

...so there's no data given for what the maximum speed was recorded, such as at the 100th percentile speed, nor does it appear to give any data other than for "Light Vehicle Speeds", and surely you'd also want to know if the heavier vehicles, articulated lorries, buses and the like are complying...

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

...which could impact the numerical statistical averages, particularly where there's parked cars at the side of the road resulting in traffic having to give/take, as seen to the East of the location shown in the above example, along "High Street" in Ramsey. The report also omits all actual speeds..

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

...another aspect that makes my inner-data-scientist questions things, is has speed been reduced because of the simple fact of more vehicles on the road year on year? It could be that a little more traffic, resulting in a little less free flowing traffic particularly at/approaching junctions...

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

...often the argument given is people don't want a "blanket 20", or they agree it should be "20 outside schools, and in town centres and where there's a lot of pedestrians". Yet this very (limited?) data shows that people haven't slowed down and aren't keeping to the 20 even outside a school...

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

...and on the heatmaps, showing average speeds (recorded by the Compass IoT Telematics) there appears to show pre-implementation (30mph zone) avg speed at 85% past infant school at 25-30mph (light green), after 20mph, it's 25-30mph. Infant school. 20mph. 85% doing 25-30mph. 15% doing faster...

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

...the eight intervention areas covered by this report, the Executive Summary concludes: "Overall, the findings suggest that sign-only 20mph limits can deliver meaningful speed reductions, particularly where existing speeds are already relatively low" So I thought I'd dig a bit deeper...

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

...any county council highways team claim it's successful? Certainly on average the speeds have been pulled down (success) but when you have (some) vehicles going <=20 that will naturally pull down numerical averages won't it. Fact is many cars are going way faster than the 20mph zone in some of...

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

...the report from Highways Officers says "All eight locations recorded statistically significant reductions in average speeds, generally exceeding the background reductions seen elsewhere in Cambridgeshire" But when a 20 zone has an avg of 46% over the limit, and 70.5% over at 85%, how can...

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

...but what the data does show, for low amount tracked, is awful compliance with the speed limits, both before and especially after implementation. avg (mph) 85th percentile 33.5 37.7 (30 limit) 29.2 34.1 (20mph zone) Avg of 29.2 in a 20? 85% doing <34.1 15% doing faster...

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

...can such low data be representative of all "Light Vehicle Speeds" along a road over a year? 2.93 tracks (on average) per day could be one vehicle. It could be one delivery van doing those speeds. For example, it could be Amazon delivery van ~3 times a day, as per the Appendix 3 source of data...

Screenshot with highlight added from Item 5, Appendix 3 of Cambridgeshire County Council Transport Committee meeting 1st September 2026, at https://cambridgeshire.cmis.uk.com/ccc_live/MeetingsCalendar/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/397/Meeting/2705/Committee/62/SelectedTab/Documents/Default.aspx

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

...the smaller the town the lower the Compass IoT Telematics tracking appears to be, such as Ramsey, which shows "Upwood Rd, Ramsey" (it's actually Upwood Road in Bury, Ramsey Road, and High Street in Ramsey) tracking as 1023 N'bound, and 1071 S'bound. 1071 / 365 = 2.93 vehicles per day?! How...

Screenshot of page 33 of Item 5 Appendix 1 "Appendix 1 - Speed and Collision Data Analysis" from 1st September 2026 Cambridgeshire County Council Transport Committee meeting at https://cambridgeshire.cmis.uk.com/ccc_live/MeetingsCalendar/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/397/Meeting/2705/Committee/62/SelectedTab/Documents/Default.aspx

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

...St Neots (@arj2024.bsky.social) for "Cambridge Street, St Neots" has 2904 E'bound, 2792 W'bound recorded 01/12/2024 to 30/11/2025. 2904 / 365 = 7.95 vehicles per day?! And that's used as the way to measure speeds of "all" vehicles in the area...

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

...have data in the report to compare a before and after implementation. But, does have analysis for High Street, Great Abington, with 436 N'bound and 631 S'bound in a year. Divide that by 365 days, and it's not much evidence. It's not just villages, for example the data for the market town of...

100

Simon @simuk.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

...org's such as Cambridgeshire County Council an ability to see what the 'average speeds' are across the network (the 20mph zone) and on specific stretches of road. All seems reasonable, but the data seems really really limited. One village, Great Abington, had <400 tracks in a year, so doesn't...

Screenshot with highlight added of '5.30' from Item 5 report "20mph Programme Review – Tranche 1 (March 2026)" of Cambridgeshire County Council Transport Committee meeting 1st September 2026, from https://cambridgeshire.cmis.uk.com/ccc_live/MeetingsCalendar/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/397/Meeting/2705/Committee/62/SelectedTab/Documents/Default.aspx

100