Railway Path Still Targeted for Bus Route

Since the Liberal Democrats came to power in Bristol just a year ago we all assumed that the plans to run Bus Rapid Transit (BRT, more popularly known as bendy-bus) down the Railway Path to link Emerson's Green to Temple Meads would be finally laid to rest. Noises were made about giving the Path greater protection and removing the BRT proposal from the development plans for the city. More recently the West of England Partnership published their proposals for their Hengrove to North Fringe BRT route (BRT3) which included a link to Emerson's Green via the Ring Road. So I for one thought that with Emerson's Green to Bristol city centre served by BRT via the M32 and Ring Road we could finally lower our guard on the original proposals for the Railway Path route.

But last night I got a shock. I was in the audience at a Civic Society meeting where Jon Rogers and Peter Mann, Bristol's new Service Director for Transport, were giving a presentation on the council's transport plans when the new plan above (click to enlarge) was briefly displayed. The plan shows diagrammatically the network of what Bristol City Council and the West of England Partnership (WoEP) consider the important transport links (i.e. ignoring walking and cycling) to be secured and improved.

The planned BRT routes are shown in cerise and comprise the Bath route (BRT1), the Long Ashton P&R to Centre route (BRT2), the Hengrove to North Fringe route (BRT3) and the South Bristol 'Link' (Ring Road) route (Hengrove to Long Ashton P&R). All depressingly familiar stuff to those of us that follow these things, but there is one more BRT route shown that comes as something of a shock - Emerson's Green to Temple Meads. There are only two viable BRT routes from Emerson's Green to Temple Meads - the M32/Ring Road corridor followed by BRT3 and the Railway Path (as shown on the map below). So the line shown can only mean the Railway Path is still targeted.


View BRT to Emerson's Green in a larger map

No doubt the WoEP will insist that the Emerson's Green to Temple Meads line is only notional and potential routes have yet to be assessed. But what potential routes are there other than the Railway Path? For comparison I've identified the best available road route (yellow above), mainly via Stapleton Road, Fishponds Road, Downend Road and Westerleigh Road. The road route is slightly shorter than either BRT3 (blue above) or the Railway Path (red above), but narrow, congested, subject to low speed limits and with many traffic signals, totally unsuitable for BRT. Journey times could not begin to compete with the Railway Path or BRT3. A road route for BRT to Emerson's Green is simply not viable.

The WoEP plan document properties show that this version has only just been published this month. It represents the latest thinking of the West of England Partnership and Bristol City Council (the two being effectively the same thing in Bristol transport planning terms). So all the recent talk of finally burying the BRT-on-Railway Path plan seems to have been a smokescreen to distract us from the real strategy of lining the Railway Path route up for implementation on the back of the hoped for success of BRT routes 1, 2 and 3.

Two years ago there was a massive campaign to stop the BRT-on-Railway Path plan, a campaign that succeeded in getting the plan "shelved". Now we know what some of us long suspected, that "shelved" merely means delayed until a more expedient time arrives. So will the campaigners of 2008 rise to the challenge in 2010? With an election on the way now is the moment to finally put the BRT-on-Railway Path plan to death. If we wait for the WoEP to choose a time more favourable to themselves then we might live to deeply regret it.

Prince Street Bridge - Changes Afoot

The physical features to enforce the traffic restrictions on Prince street Bridge appear to be changing. The ugly kerbing has been removed and replaced with traffic cones, although those are surely a temporary feature until something more permanent is installed. My guess is that bollards will be installed instead which will allow cyclists to percolate through the closures instead of being funnelled into narrow, sub-standard gaps by the footway.



This is progress of a sort, although one has to ask why this wasn't done in the first place. Indeed on the approach from the Arnolfini side there is no need for any physical restrictions at all since there is no reason why motor vehicles should attempt to cross on the 'wrong' carriageway. It is only the southern, Wapping Road approach where any deflection is required in the first place.

The removal of the kerbs will particularly benefit cyclists travelling south from Prince Street who formerly had difficulty diverting from the cycle lane across to the narrow cycle gap when they found the lights changing to red against them (which they often do due to the lights being set to favour car movements). Now they should be able to switch across with relative ease.



The question remains whether the Council will contemplate a total closure to motor traffic as requested by many cycling interests and others to deliver a significant overall benefit to cyclists as befits the funding from the Cycling City budget. However we now know that they intend to run BRT bendy-buses over Prince Street Bridge on the half currently open to motor traffic, controlled by traffic signals in the same way as at present.

We must assume that they will want to maintain the current arrangements for motor traffic in order to keep open the option of using the same arrangement for BRT. If they trialled a complete closure and it was popular and successful, leading to its adoption on a permanent basis, there may well be significant opposition to a subsequent degradation of the environmental improvement arising from the introduction of BRT bendy-buses.

So we have a situation where the demands of BRT are denying cyclists and pedestrians the sort of environmental improvements that they need and deserve if we are serious about encouraging the only truly green modes of transport.


Lest we forget - those daft kerbs

Prince Street Bridge - At Last The Truth

Following my post yesterday morning about continuing evasion on the part of the West of England Partnership over their plans for Bus Rapid Transit and Prince Street Bridge a series of comments by Executive Member Jon Rogers has revealed the truth. As pointed out here repeatedly over the last 6 months and contrary to the claims of WoEP, the intention is to use Prince Street Bridge as it is, subject only to strengthening to take the heavy (30 tonne) bendy buses.



The comments, which give a detailed account of email exchanges with senior officers, can be read in full and in context here but the salient points posted by Cllr Jon Rogers are as follows -

In summary, Officer A disputed that the partnership had (1) "seemed most anxious to scotch our suggestion that the BRT buses would use Princes Street Bridge" and (2) "quietly published the BRT plans".

Officer A concluded,

"I understand that, following amendments to the scheme as a result of consultations, consequent cost pressures resulted in necessary revisions to certain aspects of the RT Scheme. This included retaining and modifying the Prince Street Bridge rather than financing the cost of a replacement bridge and associated harbour wall modifications. Before finalising the change in the case of the bridge, an independent surveyor's report was also obtained to assist in costing the bid.

Whilst the cost pressures and cash limited funding means there is unlikely to be finance to change this proposal I understand the general traffic management issues could be further considered as part of developing the Transport and Works Act Order which is to be submitted by December 2009."

To which I (Jon Rogers) replied,

"The plans have clearly changed.

"The plans have changed without alerting the Executive Members to the major impact on the Prince Street Bridge, which is known to be politically controversial.

"(1) The Nov 2008 press release said unambiguously, "The current bridge is not suitable for rapid transit." This was despite the repeated questions at that time "will the BRT cross the Prince Street bridge". I cannot be surprised that people don't believe what we say.

"(2) "On 2nd April 2009 you (and others) received an email from Officer E referring you to the bid on the Partnership's website." - This is not the same as letting the general public know. They discovered it perhaps a week or so later. Why didn't we press release the publication on the web (or better still "twitter" it)?"

Officer A responded yesterday with

"(1) The November press release did say "The current bridge is not suitable for rapid transit". This meant that the current bridge would at the very least need to be strengthened and the Programme Entry bid costings provide for this.

"(2) I take your point; our February press release couldn't go that far because the bid was not finalised. When Officer E wrote to some 45 stakeholders, plus Councillors and MPs a further press statement would have been appropriate."

The definitive response from Officer D said

"Further to the correspondence last week, following a briefing this morning from Partnership officers and the opportunity to read your correspondence and the response you received last Tuesday from Officer A my observations are as follows:-

The statement that the current bridge is not suitable for rapid transit remains true. The proposals as shown for Programme Entry require the existing bridge to be rebuilt to accommodate the increased loading from BRT vehicles. Heritage considerations would mean, however, that the rebuilt bridge would look very much like the old one.

For BRT and Prince Street Bridge, three options were considered:-

· Rebuild the existing bridge to accommodate additional loads (this could include or exclude general traffic).

· Replace existing bridge with a wider bridge to provide segregation for BRT whilst allowing for general traffic.

· Install separate bridge for BRT alongside existing structure.

Following consultation and a review of costs, the first of these options was chosen and subsequently agreed by the Rapid Transit Project Board when approving the Programme Entry Bid.

I accept that it would have been helpful to have shared the revised plans with members. Unfortunately, the pressure of the bid deadline and also the change in administration reduced the opportunity to do this.

Having said that, Officer A is right to refer to the further public consultation that will be necessary as part of securing the Transport and Works Act order which authorises the powers (including planning issues) to implement the scheme. This provides further opportunities to review what is set out in the plan in the bid.

Any such changes that are considered will need to take account of their impact on the overall scheme objectives including their impact on adjacent parts of the network. In other words, additional or different engineering solutions at the bridge or in nearby locations may need to be considered.

There is a wider point. I would expect Programme Entry bids to be as near final as possible, but detailed design work and public consultation in the period up to conditional approval does provide the opportunity for change. In this case, that would be against the backcloth of serious cost pressures and the further value engineering that is envisaged.

So there we have it. Prince street Bridge will be used by the BRT bendy-buses, as first reported here back in October! I'll leave it to you to decide whether the obvious need to strengthen the bridge justifies the claim in WoEP's November Press Release that "The current bridge is not suitable for rapid transit. We may need to build a new bridge instead, either for the rapid transit, or for other vehicles as well as cyclists and pedestrians."



The WoEP officers continue to be evasive about the need to close Prince Street Bridge completely to general traffic, as well they might in the run up to the elections in June. Conservative leader Richard Eddy is already pledged to oppose any plans to close the bridge to cars and it is very likely to become an election issue.

The plan is to have BRT bendy buses passing over the single lane bridge at 2 minute intervals, to accommodate two BRT platforms just to the north of the bridge and to keep the area of Wapping Road by the Museum of Bristol clear for access to the busway running behind the museum, plus to accommodate heavy flows of cyclists and pedestrians. All that is simply incompatible with the continuing use of Prince Street Bridge by general traffic. For a start where could traffic queues be accommodated if the whole area from the Grove junction to the back of the museum needs to be kept clear for bendy-bus movements?

Here's another comment just posted by Cllr Mark Wright (Cabot) which is very pertinent.

Interesting that WoE seem to think that removing Redcliffe roundabout and moving Redcliffe Way is compatible with closing PSB to cars, as this seems to contradict the results of a piece of work by Halcrow on Temple Circus Gyratory and Portwall Lane.

Maybe they've managed to square the circle, in which case great - but I haven't been told that despite all the relevant officers knowing that I have an interest in the area...

Finally let's consider the comment posted by Bristol Dave on 11th April.

I have it on very good authority (and am waiting for proof to publish on my blog) that the designs for BRT over Prince Street bridge, from the very start in 2007, have always been to run the BRT over the existing bridge and these plans have never changed, despite WoEP press releases. There have also been no official plans or designs drawn up for a seperate bridge - despite what they said they were never even toying with the idea.

He hasn't published his "proof" yet but doesn't it ring true, considering all that has now been revealed? Let's remember whose watch all this happened under and note the commendable efforts of Cllr. Jon Rogers to change the culture in favour of openness and honesty.

Prince Street Bridge - More Evasion

At last the Bristol Evening Post has picked up on the story about the proposed closure of Prince Street Bridge to cars as part of the Bus Rapid Transit plans of the West of England Partnership. Despite the obvious evidence of their own published plans the West of England Partnership are still trying to pretend that nothing has been decided with this extraordinary comment from spokesperson Julia Dean-

"The idea is at a very early stage. Just because this idea has been put forward does not mean it will happen. We don't work out all the details before putting a bid in because you would never put in a bid."

So here we are with details published and a bid submitted for Government funding with the prospect of construction within a few years and they actually expect us to believe that it's still just a rough, back-of-the-envelope idea and they haven't even decided on such a key element and major cost item as whether a new bridge will be required at Prince Street.



Fellow blogger Stockwoodpete has also looked into this same issue in his more thorough and painstaking way and highlighted the contradictory position of the Conservatives on this issue. Their leader Richard Eddy has been a prominent opponent of the closure of Prince Street Bridge to cars over many years and confirmed for the Post -

"I would strongly oppose any design solution that would banish private traffic from using Prince Street Bridge."

Yet his Conservative colleague Cllr Barbara Lewis cancelled the Scrutiny Committee of the West of England Partnership which was due to sit yesterday and which could have asked pertinent questions.



The truth of course is that there is absolutely no chance of a new bridge at Prince Street and the BRT bendy-buses will have to use the existing bridge, possibly with some strengthening to take the weight and with the east side footway removed but otherwise unmodified. To allow BRT buses relatively free movement on the approaches to Prince Street Bridge, including stops on the north side and egress from the planned busway behind the new Museum of Bristol, requires that most other traffic is displaced. But of course in true Bristol Fashion that simple truth must be kept from the public for as long as possible, especially in the run up to local elections.



Later edit (12 noon) - Mark Bradshaw has kindly supplied a link to the report to Bristol City Council on 2nd February, item 7, which gives the general background, although on Prince Street Bridge it says little more than "the existing bridge will need to be modified or replaced to provide a crossing for Rapid Transit whilst retaining local access".

However the report on the initial consultation refers to concern expressed over the impact on Prince Street Bridge by English Heritage, Redcliffe Community Forum, Bristol Urban Design Forum, the City Urban Design Team (BCC Planning), the Harbour Master and an assortment of 'Environment Goups'. In addition the Broadmead Board favoured the removal of traffic from along The Cut and Prince Street Bridge.

Prince Street Bridge - More Lies Confirmed

Way back in October of last year I suggested that the traffic restrictions on Prince Street Bridge were really being driven by the need to pave the way for its use by bendy-buses using the proposed BRT route from Ashton Vale To Temple Meads, saying that the BRT promoters, the West of England Partnership (alias Bristol City Council for practical purposes), had "let slip that they intend to remove one of the two footways in order to allow buses to cross".



In November Bristol Cycle Campaign, annoyed at cyclists being set up to take the flak for the bridge traffic restrictions when cyclists were not in fact benefiting, issued a Press Release which duly appeared in the Evening Post saying "The council have sneakily presented this bridge plan as something for cyclists, so that motorists will blame people on bikes for their loss of road space rather than the planned 'bendy-bus' route".

As reported on this blog at the time, The West of England Partnership retaliated with its own Press Release prompting an Evening Post headline "New harbour bridge for Bristol's rapid transit bus route" and a story suggesting that the buses would use a new bridge alongside the existing one. They seemed most anxious to scotch our suggestion that the BRT buses would use Prince Street Bridge. Even as recently as February this year the Evening Post were still reporting, at the behest of WoEP, that a new bridge would be provided for BRT or at least the existing bridge would be widened.



But WoEP have now quietly published their BRT plans. And guess what - they're going to use the eastern half of Prince Street Bridge for two-way bus traffic, inevitably removing the footway and diverting pedestrians onto the exclusively pedestrian west side, just as we said they would all those months ago (and contrary to their claims that a new bridge would be built). The detailed plan is here. Now the whole thing makes sense - the shuttle signals, the closure of one side to traffic, the bizarre arrangements for cyclists - all to accommodate BRT but paid for out of the Cycling City budget.



As for cyclists it looks as if we may lose out big time. According to the plan we will be confined to sharing the eastern half with the buses and therefore controlled by the traffic signals in both directions. Bus movements are expected to occur on average every 6 minutes in each direction so interruptions to cycle flows could be frequent. There is also the question of the safety of cyclists forced to share with long bendy-buses in the narrow confines of the bridge approaches and the likelihood of cyclists using the pedestrian side to avoid delays and conflict with the bendy-buses.

Thanks to Forest Pines for tipping me off to the published info and whose own comments are worth a read.

Also try here to envisage a bendy-bus on the bridge!

BRT Bendy-bus in the Balance

The people of Manchester have voted overwhelmingly against proposals for the introduction of a Congestion Charge. According to commentators this throws into disarray the Governments hopes of getting Congestion Charging accepted on the back of major investment in public transport, as is also proposed for Bristol.



Bristol's proposals, fronted by the West of England Partnership, revolve around a number of 'BRT' bus routes with bendy-buses made to look like trams. The Council were hoping that the public would accept this 'sham-tram' as symbolic of the substantial improvement in public transport promised as a precursor to the introduction of Congestion Charging.



But Government money was to be provided through Transport Innovation Funding (TIF) which relied on congestion Charging to deliver the 'modal shift' from car to public transport. Without the Congestion Charge the public transport improvements would be largely ineffectual and the economic justification for the investment invalid.

It seems likely that most of the money earmarked for TIF will now be diverted towards road building to try to accommodate some of the excess road traffic. Under normal circumstances this might be expected to generate even more traffic, but during a recession traffic levels may decline anyway so road building might appear for a while to offer some relief.

Barmy BRT

Our old friends the West of England Partnership (Bristol City Council and the three other local councils in what used to be Avon) have launched their proposals for the first of a network of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes in Bristol, running from Ashton Vale to Emerson's Green, only they're leaving a veil over the Temple Meads to Emerson's Green section for the very good reason that they still want to use the route of the popular Bristol & Bath Railway Path, despite the public outcry when this emerged at the beginning of this year.



So the current consultation is for Ashton Vale to Temple Meads, although from Prince Street Bridge onwards to Temple Meads the BRT bendy-buses will run as normal buses already do, using bus lanes and ordinary roads, so it's really the Ashton Vale to Prince Street Bridge section that is new, although for the most part it follows disused or little used railway trackbed, with only the link from Winterstoke road to the Ashton P&R site being a new transport corridor.

To help us visualise how wonderful the brave new world of BRT is going to be the West of England Partnership have produced a computer simulation (below) to show sleek tram-like bendy-buses gliding along pristine tracks and improbably wide streets, all remarkably clear of any other traffic other than a generous sprinkling of cyclists. Of course we're all expected to be duly impressed, especially at how cyclists will benefit from the BRT scheme.



But some cyclists will insist on looking a gift horse in the mouth and one in particular is remarkably vigilant when it comes to the kind of obscure details that most of us scan over. Step forward Terry, who noticed some strange anomalies along the Cumberland Road. Not only do the BRT buses magically switch from the conventional driving on the left to continental style driving on the right (possibly for sound technical reasons), but so too does the adjacent road traffic!

It seems that no one at the West of England Partnership has the attention for detail of our Terry and they've gone and issued a simulation with cars driving on the right through Bristol. This actually sits well with other 'oversights' in the simulation, like the grossly exaggerated widths of cycle paths and roads running alongside the BRT route and the strange 'ghost' station on Winterstoke Road. Once again we have a public consultation being carried out on the basis of misleading and unreliable information.

Thanks to James Barlow for setting up the You-tube video.