Speaker's Corner: John Hall says five years after Bristol appointed transport director, nothing has changed
John Hall believes little has changed when it comes to transport in BristolFive years ago the Post told us of the imminent appointment of a transport director for Bristol, to be ^... a transport supremo with the vision to sort out Bristol^s problems^. (City Director Required ^ Involves Travel, Post, Aug 12, 2009) Five years on, what has been achieved by having a visionary transport director?
The short answer is that nothing discernible has been achieved, in particular there is no evidence of any long-term strategic planning or systematic interaction with national bodies responsible for transport provision.
Fiddling around with parking restrictions is not a strategic vision, the supposed benefits being largely unmeasurable, and as far as I can tell unmeasured.
There is no strategic vision, and in particular no understanding of the role of railways as the essential backbone of any effective city level transport system ^ fast, off-road and high capacity. Nor is there any understanding of why a tram cannot be imitated by a bendy bus (electrification, guided path, high capacity, smooth ride, user friendly, long life, low pollution). Trams do cost about 25 million Euros per kilometre of double track tramway, but ^150 million is going into a bypass through South Bristol disguised as a fast bus network so we are not actually short of money, just short of a policy of spending it wisely.
There is no understanding of the need for interchange between bus, tram and train. The oyster card heralded for so long and now partially in use is an irrelevant nonsense, using high technology to disguise continued failure to provide a simple attractive fare structure, with modal interchange. It does less than the many old-fashioned methods like books of tickets, or universal card tickets that have been in use for decades throughout Europe. We have zonal fares on the Avonmouth railway but the ticket machines still seem to require half a dozen pushes. Even the old fashioned bus ticket machines used on the Sheffield tram can issue a day rider in two presses.
A useful strategy cannot be implemented overnight, and will cost money, so it needs long term constancy of intention and interaction with central government and there is no evidence that the transport director post provides this. It is rather obvious that through the West of England Partnership the rural tail wags the city dog in all transport matters.
In rail the past five years have been a period of stagnation, with the successful Avonmouth railway line initiative not followed by continued development, for example in South Bristol, or movement towards the 15 minute electrified inner suburban service. There is no evidence that any official has even asked the Government about an electrified inner suburban network, or even the Sea Mills loop, which would allow a 15-minute interval service on the Avonmouth route.
The bus network continues to run at only semi-rural frequencies and there is not even a bus shelter at every bus stop, even at the major stops like the Triangle. Vastly expensive new bus shelters have been provided in some places, with a design that is open to both the weather and the road. Providing space on the roads continues to be based on lateral segmentation with fragmentary bus lanes whereas other towns have started to use bus operated traffic lights that can be applied throughout a route.
The disappearance of ^20 million into Cycling City without trace, except some useful bike stands, happened mostly before the appointment, but there is still no evidence of any strategic vision that might help with cycling and making the town centre attractive. There is no expectation that the next ^35 million will produce any visible results. The coming 20mph limit should benefit cyclists and seems to have worked well so far, but there are obvious concerns that the absence of enforcement effort will make it less effective in the outer suburbs. Cycling City was a classic example of the way local government funding works, the main object being to obtain funding from whatever government programme is available and spend the money, then move on to whatever budget line is fashionable next. Improving conditions for cycling is directly hindered by most other transport initiatives, which tend to involve bus lanes, and build-outs for bus stops, school crossings, etc. Moving to a system of selective traffic lights rather than bus lanes to speed bus flows would ease this.
Of course the transport director cannot be wholly blamed for this; it is a decades-long failure by councillors to develop any fundamental understanding of transport and infrastructure issues that lies at the root of the lack of progress.
The lack of strategic vision has got worse under Supreme Mayor Ferguson, whose big idea is to put public funds intended for infrastructure into the entertainment industry (arena), or into scattered listed building modification projects (Engine House, Council House rearrangement, Central Library conversion to a school, etc). These priorities presumably reflect his own background in entertainment and listed building work.
The only thing that can be said for the Transport Director post is that the title at least tells you what it should be about, unlike the People, Place, Business Change and Neighbourhoods Directors listed as the strategic leadership team. Which of these is the Borough Engineer, and which the Town Clerk, which the Borough Treasurer? It is probably significant that the Transport Director post does not appear in the list of Strategic Leadership team posts on the council website.
