Firstly one must question the attractiveness of a P+R at Cribbs. It would certainly attract traffic from the South although this would be better served by a P+R on the Portishead line. For traffic from the North and East it would not be so attractive as it would mean going past the normal turnoff to the A38 into Bristol and then coming back again on the tram. Traffic from the A38 would have to divert onto the M5 if they wished to reach it.
Secondly a better method of reaching Cribbs might be by using the Severn Beach/Henbury Loop line rather than an extension from Line 1.
If the line is to achieve its aim of attracting motorists it would seem essential to have a P+R at the M5/A38 junction and if the original selection cannot be reached than another location should be used irrespective of whether the line were to be extended to Cribbs. Looking at the sites considered in the public consultation (see Line 1 consultation) proposal 'E' seemed the most promising as it left the LRT line pointing towards any future extension to Cribbs as well as little change over the existing plan but shorter.. This site would not remove any traffic off the A38 roundabout as would the northern sites but it would not increase it either with P+R traffic going ¾ round the roundabout instead of ½ way inbound and ¼ instead of ½ outbound. There might have been the opportunity to use land to the North of the P+R site shown blank on plan 'E' to improve access. This land is now unfortunately in the process of being developed so that the opportunity is lost.
It is of the greatest importance that whatever action is taken it is not done in such a way as to introduce more delays into the process - we have waited too long already for this line! Update May 2002 Now that South Gloucester have decided to insist on going to Cribbs while Bristol has plans to go it alone just to Parkway one must wonder whether we deserve to have a light rail system. To complicate matters the Bristol evening Post is running a telephone poll asking readers to vote whether the LRT should go to the Mall or to Parkway. It is almost certain that the majority would prefer parkway but that is not really the right question. The questions that should have been asked are:
Should the LRT go to:
- The mall - even if this delays the project by a further 2 years (and may lose the allocated funding}
- M5/A38 to the Bristol side of the Junction - with a commitment to extend to the Mall asap.
- Parkway - with a commitment to extend to Bradley Stoke and the Mall asap.
If as reported Bristol City Council blocks the study into local rail services it will be doing a great disservice to public transport in Bristol. It seems incredible that a study to look into the best way to rejuvenate the local rail lines such as Severn Beach should be stopped on the grounds that there is not enough rail capacity for trains and trams. Because Bristol is keen to expand it proposed light rail system and possibly convert some lines to light rail it seems perverse that the study, which was to look into the best options for the lines as light or heavy rail, should not proceed. If we are ever to have a proper integrated public transport system then it is important that the rail and tram systems are planned as a whole and not done piecemeal.
While I believe that lines such as Severn Beach would be better as light rail this is not something that should be decided unilaterally but needs proper investigation into the advantages and disadvantages. Nor does it mean that services on the lines should not be improved in the mean time.
I also believe that the worries over capacity have been exaggerated in part by the franchising process now ongoing which has brought a number of aspirations for increased services to the fore. As someone who grew up on the South Coast and remembers the intense services on the then Southern Region I find it hard to accept that the current two line section between Temple Meads and Filton is at capacity let alone a quadrupled line.
Update 25/04/01
Thankfully it would appear that sense has prevailed with the Joint Committee for Strategic Planning and Transport (comprised of the former Avon counties) deciding to proceed with the study once a separate examination has been carried out by the Strategic Rail Authority.
The state of the bus services in Bristol is of great concern. With the local paper making much of the problems it is important to understand what part of the problem is due to the Bus company and what is outside its control.
What is certain is that the congestion on Bristol's roads is a major contributor to the unreliability of the services. The approach roads into Bristol are in the main narrow and subject to problems often congestion can vary so that it is difficult to plan recovery times into a service that one day can be extensively delayed and on others can be relatively free. even on a single day congestion may start and finish at different times so that providing a reliable service is not easy. Having said that one must ask if the bus company is doing all it can to overcome the problem? One of the most frustrating things about using the buses in Bristol is the amount of time that is spent at stops. This is due to the slow method of fare collection in use here. Although traffic congestion may be the major cause of late running the longer the bus stays at each stop the more likely is the phenomenon of bunching. This occurs when one bus is delayed which means that it is likely to have more people waiting for it and therefor the boarding time is lengthened making it further behind - even if the following bus is delayed an equal amount by traffic its numbers of passengers will not increase so that it will start to catch up and as it catches up the number of passengers at each stop will fall so the catching up accelerates. If the boarding time could be reduced then this effect could also be reduced. Unfortunately the bus company has always resisted ways of speeding up boarding. The simplest and often called for method is to employ conductors. The problem here is not only the extra expense but also the problems of recruitment. It also increases the problems of unreliability as it would then be required to ensure that there was two staff for every shift instead of one and if one is missing then the bus would be cancelled. On the Continent they manage to have fast boarding without conductors. This is done by having prepaid tickets which are validated one on board. This can give rise to fare evasion (which is why the bus company is not keen on this system) and does need extra revenue staff. Most continental urban transit is operated by the local authorities who spend more on supporting services that me do in this country and it is likely that if we do require real improvements to services than we will have to give greater support through the rates to achieve this improvement.
Why petrol prices should remain high 14/09/00
Read this report from the United Nations Foundation titled
AIR POLLUTION: Traffic Fumes Killing Thousands then read the facts file The Price of Petrol on the Transport 2000 site and also the press releases on the Friends of the Earth site!
You think fuel prices are high?
Rail land sell-off Update 14/09/00
Although it has been quiet on the sell off scene for some time Rail Property Ltd. is now asking for details of any transport proposals for lands on their list. The following property is affected locally:
Original item - 11/11/99
Once again the spectre of railway land being sold off is making the news. Although the land is not in current railway use and belongs to the British Rail Board rather than Railtrack this does not mean that is does not have a potential railway use. The rail pressure groups locally and nationally have campaigned for these sales to be stopped, at least until a proper assessment has been made as to the likelihood of any future rail use. Although this time round some advance warning has been given to local authorities who may wish to purchase the land to further their transport aspirations, finding the money to compete with other possible purchasers will be difficult.
Certainly the list of local sites is extremely worrying - the loss of the route from Portbury to Portishead could prevent plans to reopen the line for passenger service - Henbury station could prevent linking Cribbs Causeway to the rail system while many of the others could prevent station re openings or the expansion of freight operation.
With the suggestions of reuse of the local rail lines either as heavy rail or conversion to light rail this is not the time to be jeopardising the infrastructure that may be needed to bring the plans to fruition.
Line 1 City Center route
Bristol City Council has chosen the route via Redcliffe Way, the Grove and Prince Street over the alternative via Bristol Bridge. Of the two options this gives the better provision for extension to South Bristol. The selected route also includes a loop Neslon Street, Union Street, Rupert Street and Bridewell in place of a stub terminal in Broadmead. The map in the section New route for Line 1? has been amended to show this. This gives the possibility of a better connection to the bus station dependant on where the stop is sited. Union Street can be heavily congested especially in the pre-Christmas period and is also the location of a number of bus stops. Care will need to be taken to ensure that the line is not disrupted at this point and that the needs of the buses are accommodated and interchange with them is properly coordinated.
South Gloucestershire CC's decision on the Northern end is still awaited.
Response to Bristol City Council's questionnaire on the Local Transport Plan showed that 85.4% believed that light rail would be effective/very effective and received 89.1% support while a similar study by the Citizens Panel the figures were 85.6 & 90.4 respectively while a survey of business managers indicated 80% support.
Consultation is now taking place on two sections
of Line 1 of Citylink. These are the City Centre options which are as shown
in an earlier item New
route for Line 1? . The only difference is that the stub end has now
been replaced with a loop but is the same for both options.
The second subject of consultation is the location of the P+R sites
at the Northern end of the line. This has been a thorny problem in the
past see: P&R at Bradley Stoke? .
The three current options are described below:
This option uses land which is at present a council Highway Maintenance
Depot. It gives good access to traffic coming from the north on the A38
as well as from both directions on the Motorway. Access for buses is also
reasonably good. The disadvantage is that the tramway will have to cross
both the A38 and the Motorway slip roads. This option being on the North side of the Motorway still has the problems that the tramway will need to cross the motorway junction but not the A38. It would be better for bus interchange than option C as buses continuing southbound would not have to cross the A38 twice. The land required is currently a playing field which may be the deciding factor in not choosing this option.
This option being on the South side of the Motorway does not give such
good access. This is a very busy junction and there are likely to be delays
in gaining entry. It is not so good for bus interchange but it does serve
passengers working in the Aztec West Business Park better than the other
options, but it does involve crossing the A38. It does leave the possibility of continuing to Cribbs Causeway open. It also means that motorists from the Motorway do not need to drive in the wrong direction to reach the P+R site. Two exhibitions showing the details of the options have been held with
two more to be held this week in the centre of Bristol (see News page for
details). There are forms so that you can make your comments on both the
central area and P+R proposals. For further details contact the Tram Information
Line (0117)903 6541.
The introduction of an HOV lane on the Avon Ring
Road is controversial. While welcoming measures that will improve the reliability
of the bus services there is concern as to how beneficial this HOV lane
will prove to be. Certainly at peak hours traffic on this stretch of road
is very heavy and it is not clear whether sufficient users will be persuaded
to share cars or use public transport to maintain capacity without causing
extra congestion. A suggestion made at a recent transport meeting
was that bus lanes should be available for use by commercial vehicles and
one wonders if this would be a better alternative to allow Heavy &
Light goods vehicles to use the HOV lane rather than cars with multiple
occupancy. This would certainly be easier to police. Problems with policing
HOV lanes have been the use of dummies to give the appearance of passengers,
the dangerous practice of enterprising children thumbing for lifts to earn
extra pocket money and motorists offering lifts to people waiting at bus
stops thus abstracting revenue from the bus companies. While the location
of this road makes it unlikely that the latter options would be a problem
one cannot assume that HOV lanes will be an unqualified success.
With regard to the bus lane section, again welcome,
there must be some concern about the entry to the M32 roundabout. motorists
using this section at present need to get in the correct lane dependant
on the exit they will be using. With the left hand lane reserved for buses
this means that a car wishing to use the first exit for the motorway may
find a bus proceeding straight on in his path as he is turning left. How
that will work in practice remains to be seen.
Possibly the most important item in the quality partnership between
Bristol CC & the bus company is the commitment to through ticketing
between bus routes. One hopes that that a start could be made fairly swiftly
on this item. It would be fairly easy to implement on the Centracity Ten
and City Ten tickets as their boundaries are well known and the time of
boarding is printed on the ticket. A period of 1 hour for the former
and 90 minutes for the latter would probably be sufficient. Also the reinstatement
of the day rider would be a welcome move.
Once again it looks like dissent on where a park and ride site will
be built in or around Bradley Stoke to serve Line 1 of the proposed light
rail line. Bradley Stoke council say that with most of the cars coming
from the north they would have to negotiate two already congested roundabouts
to reach the site. They propose that it should be sited North of the M5
motorway to capture traffic prior to the congestion points. Almondsbury
would oppose this as it would mean that the site would be in the Green
Belt possibly taking a local sports ground.
Whatever site is eventually chosen it is important that it is successful
in capturing motorists and also that good interchange facilities are provided
between the buses and trams. There are a number of bus routes only lightly
loaded that spend almost half of their running time getting from the M5
into Bristol. If these instead were converted to feeders the need no longer
get held up and the service to the rural areas could be doubled for the
same number of buses.
New electric bus (see News
page for details)
Having seen the new bus and realised its low capacity - partly due to
no standing being allowed under British regulations - one must ask why
once it was realised that this was the case they bothered to continue with
the trial? This lack of capacity is highlighted by the fact that
only a few hundred yards from the unveiling the Parry People Mover - which
is a similar size but with seats for 16 and is allowed to carry standees
- was operating in revenue service!
The reported changes in the route for Line 1 from Bradley Stoke to the
City centre are worrying development. While it is likely that the alternatives
would be somewhat cheaper than the original Horseshoe route one must wonder
what the effect on patronage will be. With the line not going through the
Broadmead shopping centre and being at the end of the route it is possible
that the line will not attract as much custom as the original. The preferred
route via Redcliffe Way and the Grove is not much shorter than the original
and although the alternative via Baldwin Street is shorter this route does
not lend itself so well to extensions towards South Bristol. Even with
Redcliffe Way it means that from the South, Temple Meads will not be served
without interchange. Until full details of the proposals are available
it is difficult to judge their full impact.
At the time of the ringrail study the following times were given:
City Centre to Temple Meads : North Route
14 mins; South Route 7 mins
The main advantage of the new route is that there will be less disruption
in the Broadmead shopping centre which, now that the Mall at Cribbs Causeway
is open, will be a relief to the traders. It is believed that although
the length is not much different the construction costs will be much lower
as the sections where the tracks were separated will not be needed. It
has been suggested that the route be looped at the Broadmead end and this
would increase costs to little benefit. It would also mean that the trams
would have to navigate the congested bottom end of Union Street.
Neither of the routes are really satisfactory in serving the Bus Station
and it is difficult to see how this could be improved. At the moment it
is not clear whether proposals to redevelop the area around Lewins Mead
are likely to proceed in the short term and so it is not known how this
could affect plans.
The final concern with a terminal at the edge of Broadmead is that the
trams will not be so visible in the shopping area. Also it is not clear
how this terminus could serve any further extensions.
This map has been amended to show the terminus loop which has replaced the stub terminal proposal.
Plans to reopen the rail line to Portishead are to be welcomed. As yet
full details of the proposals are not known. As far as is known the intention
is to run some form of rail vehicle from Portishead to link up with
the recently opened railbus to gain access to the city centre. Suggestions
that the railbus service would be extended from Prince Street Bridge to
the Centre and to Temple Meads are of some concern as this would conflict
with the proposals being worked on for the light rail line 1 from Bradley
Stoke to the centre. While the current railbus is suitable for its present
task it is important to realise that it is not in the same class as a full
size light rail system. Exaggerated claims for the railbus do not do it
any favours and there is a danger, given Bristol's history of failed plans,
that opponents of light rail will try to use it to defeat progress with
Line 1.
The roads into Bristol are in general fairly narrow. This, combined
with a higher level of car ownership and usage that the average, causes
severe congestion in many parts of the City. It is likely that the reason
for the high car usage was the poor state of the bus services in Bristol
in the 60's. Although the bus services have improved considerably, and
ridership in Bristol has bucked the national downward trend, the buses
are prevented from operating a reliable service due to being held up in
the traffic delays. The bus company has campaigned for more bus lanes and
some have been installed. While moderately successful there has been a
lack of enforcement, and due to the Bristol's narrow roads, are not able
to be installed where they might be most needed.
While one can have some sympathy with the bus company the problems are
made worse by the single entrance design of the buses and the fare structure/ticketing
system which causes buses to spend longer at stops than is really necessary.
Slow boarding combined with traffic delays causes the bunching/leapfrogging
effect which charachterises so many bus services.
The problems with traffic in Bristol have caused the interest in rapid
transit which could use the underused rail lines around the area and thus
avoid the traffic delays. If these plans come to fruition it is important
that they are properly integrated with the city's buses. A common
fare structure is required with rapid boarding and well designed interchange.
The centre of Bristol has been bedevilled for many years by traffic
problems, being used as part of the inner ring road and being a giant roundabout.
The closure of Queens Square and College green to traffic were a start
in reducing this effect. Plans have been discussed for many years to remove
much of the traffic from the Centre and to effectively close the inner
ring routing traffic round the Eastern side of the ring. There was much
argument as to whether the old docks should be reopened but the present
plan is to create a water feature above part of the former dock area. Original
ideas were to remove all cross traffic other than buses leaving only a
connection from the North to Park Street. Opposition from the traders in
Park Street, who were faced with a long detour caused this to be dropped.
It was intended that the South side of the centre was to be an open area
while the North end would be used as a transport interchange. Due to Millennium
money being available the South end is being developed on its own.
This will still mean changes to the layout of bus stops as those in
the South will have to be repositioned in the North. (It
now seems that this is not so.) The bus company is concerned that
there will not be enough room for all their services. Even during the discussions
on the transport interchange the inclusion of all the required stops plus
the LRT was shown to be difficult. Without the money to redesign the area
properly the question of bus stops remains a bone of contention. It must
be said that some of the problem is due to the bus company itself. The
design of the buses and slow boarding due to the fare structure/ticketing
system mean that more bus stop space is required that would otherwise be
the case. This is further compounded by the centre housing the companies
offices/canteen. This means that the area is used for staff changeovers
and bus layovers thus requiring space for these activities. From
the bus company's point of view this is the most economical place for these
activities but one must ask whether this practice can continue? It is also
a downside of the bus service as buses with passengers on board must stay
shut in until the replacement driver appears while intending passengers
wait outside in the wet or cold. This is an interesting sideline of the
'flexibility' of the bus where because it can be left without a driver
without causing chaos to the service it often happens, while with a tram
because it can't it doesn't!
There has been one objection to the proposed remodelling of the Centre
- the Bus Company! It is expected that this can be overcome by negotiation
rather than the need for a public enquiry. As the first stage still leaves
the bus stops scattered all over the Centre it is not entirely clear as
to the nature of the objections.
Perhaps the Chancellor should reduce the price of beer!
If you believe that any of the above have a valid potential transport use then you should contact your local council to ask if they will be providing comments to Rail Property ltd.
HOV Lane
Quality Partnership (see
news item)
The
siting of a P&R has been a bone of contention for a long time - originally
ATA proposed a site at 1 on the map. Residents of BS opposed this at the
time fearing that it would attract traffic into their estate. After consideration
a site (2) on the opposite side of the A38 was proposed. Residents of BS
opposed this on the grounds that as their estate was now bogged down with
traffic anyway they would rather have the benefit of using it themselves
and therefore wanted it back in BS! The next proposal brought it back into
BS (3) but entailed knocking down the Stakis Hotel. This was also rejected.
This proposal was the first worked out in detail. While avoiding use of
the A38 roundabout for incoming traffic it was rather small, also the possibilities
for bus/tram interchange were poor. The current proposals for Line 1 show
the line ending at 1, having come full circle. Consideration has
been given to sites at 5 (Council depot) and 4 (Sports Field). There have
been suggestions that the line should be extended to the new shopping mall
at Cribbs Causeway (6) with P&R along with bus interchange. The consortium
promoting the line do not seem to be keen on this option.
Broadmead to Temple Meads :
8.75 :
12.25 mins
So travellers to the Centre gain 7 minutes to the loss to Broadmead
of 3.5 minutes so this is possibly not as bad as might at first be expected.
Portishead and the railbus?
Bristol's transport problems
City Centre