Bristol connections: Metro, Bus Rapid Transit, PTE, ITA and local councils - discussion

[whole diary]

[swrural]

FTN  A lot of interesting points made.  If I may take one:

You wrote:

From Temple Meads, we could do with a light rail loop around the city centre via Cabot Circus. The rail bridge over the Avon has a turn-off to the right, presumably to allow access to the Digby Wyatt shed in days gone by. That could lead our tram-train into a state-of-the-art transport hub, before going off via a signal controlled Temple Circus Gyratory between Redcliffe Way and Portwall Lane.

In fact, unless I am misunderstanding you, the 'right turn' was the Bristol Harbour Railway that crossed over Temple Gate and proceeded via the Redcliffe Wharf (now a hotel) through the tunnel under St Mary Redcliffe to the docks behind the General Hospital.

Turning a bit more right it descended into the largest covered goods depot in the world.  Those are the new offices now alongside Temple Way.

You are indeed spot on with the fact that a tram train / tram that can proceed to the major employment, entertainment and shopping areas is needed to make commuting by train and tram from outlying places around Bristol a goer.

As an example, the poor people theTrout mentioned a while back who had to queue at the barrier at TM^‡(resolve), just to buy a ticket, could get on at Keynsham and be taken direct to the locations you mention - great stuff.

There is one problem with my example.  The trains we have now from that location are already 'rammed' (an expression I picked up here) and I doubt that the Keynsham line has the capacity to deal with the possible demand with a non-expandable two track line through those tunnels.  I don't think that we have begun to appreciate what the reversion to rail (modal shift) means for capacity should it ever be attempted to be catered for.

Next time you are on the Motorway, try to envisage its traffic being transferred onto existing lines. 

Can't happen can it?  Can it?  A Four track Foxes Wood tunnel anyone?

[Chris from Nailsea]

I am replying not pm, just so that others may wish to comment.  I think there should be one heading for the strategic stuff and it should not be in this 'chat' area but in the 'new services campaigns' one (but thanks for trying to accommodate my suggestion).  I also started off one about Temple Meads Hub and that also ought to be merged in (sorry I started it as I could have used an existing thread in 'campaigns for new services').

So on Bristol area, there would be one thread for commuters and operational stuff (as now) under 'journey by journey' and one for the general development of services in the Greater Bristol area (under Campaigns).

Thanks again for your constructive suggestions, swrural. I think I may have been interrupted by external circumstances while carrying out my intention in editing here, which was to achieve exactly what you describe. 

However, I've now completed my work here, so we now have a topic in Bristol Commuters for the operational items, and this one in Campaigns for all the merged discussions about the sort of transport options we would like to have in Bristol (incorporating your Temple Meads Hub topic, too). 

Hope this helps!  Chris. 

[swrural]

I am replying not pm, just so that others may wish to comment.  I think there should be one heading for the strategic stuff and it should not be in this 'chat' area but in the 'new services campaigns' one (but thanks for trying to accommodate my suggestion).  I also started off one about Temple Meads Hub and that also ought to be merged in (sorry I started it as I could have used an existing thread in 'campaigns for new services').

So on Bristol area, there would be one thread for commuters and operational stuff (as now) under 'journey by journey' and one for the general development of services in the Greater Bristol area (under Campaigns).

Thanks again for your constructive suggestions, swrural. I think I may have been interrupted by external circumstances while carrying out my intention in editing here, which was to achieve exactly what you describe. 

However, I've now completed my work here, so we now have a topic in Bristol Commuters for the operational items, and this one in Campaigns for all the merged discussions about the sort of transport options we would like to have in Bristol (incorporating your Temple Meads Hub topic, too). 

Hope this helps!  Chris. 

Your a star, take a bow and pour a ....

[Chris from Nailsea]

... gin and tonic - which I'm enjoying as I type now.

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Could an Avon barrier protect Bristol from storm tides?


It is not the first time a barrier has been proposed for the Avon

With nearly 30,000 properties in Bristol at risk of flooding, defences similar to the Thames barrier in London have been proposed as a way of protecting the city from storm tides.

Concerned by November's flooding across the country, Bristol's newly-elected mayor George Ferguson said it was a "stark reminder" of the effects of climate change. He believes in the long term a rising sea level threatens the city centre, and a barrier is necessary for protection.

Although not caused by tidal flooding, many Bristolians in their 50s can remember how low-lying parts of the city flooded after freak thunderstorms on 10 July 1968. Parts of Ashton, Bedminster, Stapleton, Eastville and St George were among numerous locations badly affected. It showed the devastation that can be caused in a relatively short period of time once a river bursts its banks.

Next month councillors are due to hear the results of the Bristol central area flood risk assessment. This looks at what could happen when there is a combination of stormy weather at the same time as particularly high tides in the Severn Estuary - which in turn feeds the River Avon.

The city council has been recommended to look into whether a rising tidal barrier across the River Avon would be effective and what the costs are likely to be. But would a Thames-style barrier work in Bristol?

Retired University of Bristol lecturer Dr John Loveless said although the idea was a "positive thing" it would never pay for itself on the flooding issue alone. He said developing the River Avon was the "right thing to do" as part of a bigger picture and that Mayor Ferguson was "talking sense".

Hydrology, the science of water, its properties, distribution and quality, is something Mr Loveless has been passionate about all his life. He believes by putting a number of structures across the Avon the city could also unlock a host of other benefits. He wants to talk to Mayor Ferguson about his idea to build across the river at Netham Lock, Bathurst Basin, Cumberland Basin, Sea Mills and Shirehampton.

"Once you have river crossings this opens up all sorts of possibilities like putting rail crossings on them," he said. "Then you could start to build the city's equivalent of London's Circle Line which would help ease Bristol's transport problems. And there are other benefits. You could generate electricity, you can increase land values in the vicinity by up to five times, improve navigation and even make the area look beautiful.

"Imagine creating something like the Harbourside development on the New Cut, the section of river which runs along Coronation Road," he said.

The idea of a barrage across the River Avon is not new.

In October 1990 a feasibility study into the benefits of a weir across the Avon was published. The then Bristol Development Agency proposed a 30m (98ft) weir at Bathhurst Basin. The ^5m project would have led to permanent high water over a four-mile stretch to Netham Lock. But it noted more than 100 sewage or storm water outlets would have to be diverted to other pipes.

Then environment minister David Trippier described the idea as "very innovative" and one which would do "a great deal of good" for Bristol. It was scheduled to be finished in 1994 but never got off the drawing board.

[TonyK]

... gin and tonic - which I'm enjoying as I type now.

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Could an Avon barrier protect Bristol from storm tides?

Go to Muller Road to think about this idea. George Muller (or more correctly Johann Georg Ferdinand M^ller) was of course one of those famous Bristolians who, like Cabot and Brunel, came from somewhere else. He cared for 10,024 orphans in Bristol in his time - German record keeping was meticulous in those days, too. Many of his charges were orphaned following the 1836 outbreak of cholera in Bristol. That in turn was in part attributed to the state of the sewage-ridden water in the Floating Harbour, opened in 1809. Water flow through the closed bit was supposed to be maintained by William Patterson's Overfall Yard, but silting was a constant problem, as well as cholera, finally relieved when IKB^▸ (Isambard Kingdom Brunel) constructed the Underfall Yard.

All this was brought to the attention of the modern-day citizen when the Bristol Development Agency proposed the weir over the Avon. There was widespread opposition to it then, and would be to a permanent barrage were it mooted again. Whilst no-one thinks cholera would be a problem again, you mess with natural water flows at your peril. The Law of Unintended Consequences will bite you every time. The New Cut is not natural, but at least provides somewhere for the tidal flow to go without inundating the Harbour, which is the original course of the Avon, and moves a huge volume of water through the city and out again, twice a day. At the moment, with the height of the river at the Netham weir, it flows continuously.

A movable equivalent to the Thames Barrier would be too expensive for a city the size and importance of Bristol. It would also probably have the unintended consequence of encouraging development on what is currently flood plain, because "It's pretty, by the river, and we can always shut the barrier if things look bad". Given that Weston super Mare was recently partly flooded because no-one closed the gates in its impressive new flood defences, you can imagine where that would lead.

The saga of the Floating Harbour is one of many in the history of Bristol that show a particular attitude to civil engineering in this lovely city. You identify a need, try to do it on the cheap, then have to pay somebody else a shed load of cash to put it right, so costing much more in the long run. Then you find that events have overtaken you, and it turned out not to be needed in the first place. The Floating Harbour, whilst useful once and attractive now, never reached the levels of commercial success it was intended to achieve. During the period it was being built, ships grew larger, and couldn't get past the Horseshoe Bend to reach it. The railways grew rapidly at the same time, and with them came a new way to transport goods.

Bristol Development Agency identified large areas of undeveloped land in the 1990s, and proposed building on it for homes, industry, and offices. Bristol City Council, still smarting from having control of strategic planning taken from it, pointed out that much of it lay on ground at danger of flooding. This led in turn to the barrage / barrier / weir proposals. If we go ahead with the barrier, we will probably finish it, just as the Severn Barrage gets approved (I hope it doesn't), making it all irrelevant. In the end, the cheapest, and most sensible, conclusion was eventually arrived at - the Bristol Development Agency was scrapped.

So we now have the West of England Partnership, which took the original Avon Metro proposals, and reduced them to a ponced-up bus route instead, called it BRT^▸ (Bus Rapid Transit), and put a picture of an imaginary ponced-up bus on a website. Except with "value engineering", it isn't really ponced-up any more. Opposition to it, especially the stupid ^50 million BRT2 route, which will do away with the only remaining rail corridor in the city centre, is growing steadily. One of BRT's former proponents, a Labour councillor who would have held the transport brief in the mayoral cabinet had his superiors not forbidden it, descrbes it now as a "lame duck project with virtually zero public support". I disagree, but only on the use of the word "virtually".

A wise man learns from other peoples' mistakes. A fool repeats his own, in the vain hope it will turn out better next time. Put me down as a "No".

[/rant] Think I'll have a gin and tonic too. Cheers!

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

It is interesting to read of the mention of "value engineering". I first heard of this some 30 or more years ago in a lecture by a then prominent engineer. He said that the ultimate product of value engineering was the little BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) piece of very thin plastic used as a sugar stirer in a paper cup of BR coffee. Just enough materials used with the minimum of manufacturing costs to produce the product to do just the job. He then went on to describe how value engineering brought the downfall of BMC and Leyland car manufacturing in Britain. A car such as the old Austin Ellegro was designed to last for 10 years before rusting away and the mechanics for for 100,000 miles use before irretrievably breaking down. This was just at the time that the very reliable Japanese cars were being introduced to Britain. That was "value engineering" as described to me.

[TonyK]

It is interesting to read of the mention of "value engineering". I first heard of this some 30 or more years ago in a lecture by a then prominent engineer. He said that the ultimate product of value engineering was the little BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) piece of very thin plastic used as a sugar stirer in a paper cup of BR coffee. Just enough materials used with the minimum of manufacturing costs to produce the product to do just the job. He then went on to describe how value engineering brought the downfall of BMC and Leyland car manufacturing in Britain. A car such as the old Austin Ellegro was designed to last for 10 years before rusting away and the mechanics for for 100,000 miles use before irretrievably breaking down. This was just at the time that the very reliable Japanese cars were being introduced to Britain. That was "value engineering" as described to me.

I love the sugar stirrer example, and shall quote it often. Value Engineering is all the rage in Bristol at the moment! It explains why WEP have plumped for BRT^▸ (Bus Rapid Transit) over light rail, and why it will never be as effective. This began as a project to build a light rail system, something that foundered when the local authorities involved couldn't agree on the finer details of routing. The previous government were in any case not sympathetic to light rail in the same way as the current transport minister seems to be. So instead, they opted for a design for a busway that is largely segregated from other traffic, is guided, and has high quality low emission articulated vehicles.

With a rail-based system, there is very little you can do to cut corners. Single track sections reduce capacity, and bring maintenance problems. Control systems have to conform to set standards. Materials have to be robust. Value engineering, or cost-cutting as it is also known, is not as easy to do as it is with bus-based systems, which can always use a road.

So the BRT project has already lost much of the segregation other than ordinary bus lanes. The exceptions are the proposed guided stretch through the harbour and along the alignment of the harbour railway, over the bridge at Ashton Vale, and on over the Portbury rail line to Ashton Gate park and ride, and a personal junction onto the M32 near Frenchay. The former stretch has already lost a proposed foot and cycle path over the Ashton Bridge, and the guided stretches have been cut so that the bus leaves and re-enters guideways about 8 times, slowing for each one. Residents of homes on Cumberland Road, who will lose all their parking, are up in arms, as are the many people who enjoy the Harbour as a recreational area, and don't want to see 60 buses an hour running through it. Two historic bridges will be wrecked. I shall leave further details to Stop BRT2 to explain. If built, it will open just about the same time as the Portishead line reopens, something that will greatly reduce use of the park and ride site it is designed to serve. The M32 junction is fiercely opposed by allotment holders who will become former allotment holders.

Meantime, the high-quality low emission articulated vehicle has been value engineered down to a longer standard bus, and an admission that the Harbourside route will be open to any legal bus of whatever fuel - in fact, Stop BRT2 had argued at the Public Inquiry that without that, the business case for the route would collapse even further than it did when they spotted that a lot of the figures quoted had not been calculated to the same exacting standard seen in the West Coast franchise fiasco.

I am one of thousands of Bristol residents, including the new Mayor and some members of the ruling group on the council, who hopes the PI will put an end to this nonsense. I have yet to meet a supporter of the scheme who maintains his support after reading the facts.

[trainer]

Thank you FTN for putting such cogent and fact filled arguments against something which I am already against but don't have your ability to articulate as the details are not at my fingertips.  Many of us who have a bias towards public transport and have seen good schemes in other European countries are fed up with half-baked solutions to making travel easier for all and I think you have shown that the BRT^▸ (Bus Rapid Transit) proposal is not even half-baked.  Sadly our economic situation doesn't seem to be the best time for proposals of well engineered and high-quality publicly funded transport to be well received.  I do not live in Bristol, (and North Somerset is hardly a beacon of good practice) but I hope the Mayor may be able to get some sense into all this to improve things for the Greater Bristol area.

[swrural]

What would be an acceptable rail scheme for the trajectory of the Ashton Vale BRT^▸ (Bus Rapid Transit)?  Some of the drawbacks of the BRT, as mentioned by FTN, seem to apply to the rail /tram one.  i did have a web reference for a tram sceme butseem to have mislaid it.  I'll post it if I can find it.

It seems to me, as I posted in the TM^‡(resolve) Hub thread, that the trick is to be able (as an example) to travel from Nailsea to Cabot Circus (was Broadweir in my day) or The Centre (was St Augustine's Bridge before my day) without getting out of one's seat.   Either that or have the exchange with tram at TM and then wizzed around the inner ring road, what's left of it, by frequent tram.

[swrural]

Update.  I fired off a bit too soon.  The site cited by FTN does the business, I think.

[TonyK]

Update.  I fired off a bit too soon.  The site cited by FTN does the business, I think.

I'm glad that I incited you to catch sight of the site cited by me.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Indeed: thanks for that insight. 

[swrural]

Actually, alliterations apart, I did once have a link to a local Bath /Bristol Tram development site that was most interesting but I think it was taken down.  A pity, since it had some good information on possibilities on it.

I think the 'light tram' system is interesting but I think Bristol needs something more like Metrolink to handle the kinds of traffic I suspect will need to be catered for, once the car begins to recede as a competitor.

I can't see how one can re-use the harbour line formation for mass transit without upsetting some of the instances instanced by FTN (whoops here I go again).   
 

[TonyK]

The big difference is that a rail route would be entirely separate from the road network (BRT^▸ (Bus Rapid Transit) would use the disused rail corridor outwards, and Cumberland Road for the return journey), would be available only to trams and the harbour railway, and might just attract people out of cars. That final end would be worth any disruption, and would be popular both locally and across the city. In due course, a tram-train route could be brought into the city centre.

Having a small amount of time on my hands for a changed, I thought I would go back to the first posting on this thread, and I read the letter sent to Lee in July 2007 by Cllr Mark Bradshaw, who had just been given the transport brief in the then Labour controlled cabinet at Bristol City Council. Here are selected extracts:

As you have observed, proposals to construct a rapid transit (tram) network serving Bristol were not successful...          ... government funding was similarly not made available for schemes also at an advanced stage of preparation in Leeds, Liverpool and South Hampshire (Portsmouth/Gosport).

Department for Transport advice has been for local authorities seeking to promote fast mass public transport systems to concentrate instead on bus rapid transit which are seen as being able to provide most of the benefits of a rail-based tram as well as greater flexibility at a fraction of the cost. Bus rapid transit uses current bus technology, but with greater use of design of the vehicle and operating environment to provide fast and attractive services, segregated as far as possible from traffic congestion. An example of the type of vehicle being considered is to be found currently operating in York.

Taking heed of the government advice, the development of a bus rapid transit network for the greater Bristol area was recommended in the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study which was published last year and carried out by consultants acting on behalf of the Government Office for the South West, the Regional Development Agency, the Highways Agency and the four local authorities in the greater Bristol area.

This advice has now been included in the Joint Local Transport Plan for the period up to 2010/11 , adopted last year by the four local authorities. I believe that this plan provides an extremely comprehensive approach on a number of fronts to deal with traffic congestion that you refer to, and also other transport issues, and I consider that this is the effective plan you seek.

However, I do draw some comfort from the recently-published draft Transport Bill which, when enacted, will provide the opportunity to create a Strategic Transport Authority covering the greater Bristol area. I am enthusiastic about this idea recently supported by members of alLPolitical parties locally - as I believe it will provide an opportunity for greater co-ordination of plans, a common purpose and above all - unlock further funding for investment.

Yours sincerely,

Councillor Mark Bradshaw

Executive Member for Access and Environment

Compare and contrast that enthusiasm with the sentiments in Mark's letter to mayor George Ferguson, declining the offer of the transport brief in George's cabinet because the Labour leadership would not allow him to take it:

My view is that BRT (especially BRT2) is now a lame duck project with virtually zero public credibility.

As I said above, my only disagreement with that statement is the inclusion of the word "virtually".

Recently, Bristol Evening Post reported a story about a report by Atkins, transport consultants to the West of England Partnership (WEP). Coming soon after the election of the new independent Mayor of Bristol, the nub of the report is that all the transport projects currently under way will bring untold riches to the Greater Bristol area, by the simple expedient of removing congestion. Curiously, at first sight, the spending on rail does not achieve much more benefit per pound spent than does spending on BRT, GBBN, and other bus schemes. But we should bear in mind that Atkins has history. Atkins it was, in 2005, that recommended to then Transport secretary Alistair Darling that the Severn Beach line be ripped up in favour of a guided busway. Atkins promoted the BRT plan, originally to the ruling Labour group, the Government Office for the South West, and the Regional Development Agency. Atkins developed BRT, Atkins did the flawed consultation that led to Atkins producing the figures for cost benefits for BRT2, found to be wildly inaccurate when subjected to scrutiny. Atkins could therefore hardly find that rail is better than BRT, or people might start to think that they were in this business for their own good, not because their ideas might help traffic in the area.

Since Lee's original post, the Labour government has gone, as has the Labour council in Bristol. Government Office for the South West and the Regional Development Agency have been abolished, and the Mayor of Bristol has been given transport powers for Bristol. The Severn Beach line was not ripped up, was improved at a very low cost, and is thriving. Apart from that, the only constant has been... Atkins. So who is really in charge of transport policy for the Greater Bristol Area, and if it is Atkins, then how are they accountable?

[swrural]

Who's in charge of Bristol transport policy?  Well, it's none of those you mentioned above FTN (IMO^▸ (in my opinion)).  It's the government because they hold the purse strings for BRT^▸ (Bus Rapid Transit) or any alternative.  That's why pouring scorn on people like the previous or present portfolio holders is a bit empty of purpose (IMO) because they have been told, including the new Mayor and the WOEP, that they either accept the money for BRT or they get nothing.  Whether the Minister will hold to that is unknown.  I suspect he will await the Inspector's BRT Report, submitted (in early 2013?) to see with what wriggle-room he is presented.

Anyone think what I just wrote is not substantially correct?  Would love to hear if so.