Transport for Greater Bristol

Transport for Bristol - Campaigns

South Bristol Link (SBL)

(Image courtesy of West of England Partnership)

Please note that the level of BRT provision shown on this map has been reduced due to recent cost cuts – current details below.

Please feel free to distribute our briefing note (PDF).

What is happening?

On 9th Sept 2011, the West of England Partnership ( WoEP -four local councils) is applying for funding to the Department for Transport (DfT) for this £45m scheme along with £50m BRT2 (Long Ashton Park and Ride to Cabot Circus) and £102m BRT3 (Northern fringe to Hengrove). TfGB has produced postcards objecting to SBL which local residents can send to Norman Baker, Under-Secretary for Local Transport (deadline 7th October).
Top

Who will pay?

Local Councils’ contribution to the cost of SBL will be £17m (38% of the total £45m) North Somerset will pay £9m and Bristol £8m. Any cost overrun over £45m will be met by local councils. £4.1m of North Somerset’s contribution will come from Bristol International Airport.
Top

What’s the alternative?

Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance has opposed the SBL as a new road for five years. In Jan 2010, we sent over 1,000 postcards to the WoEP Executive Members asking them to apply for funding for the reopening of the Portishead rail line with new stations at Ashton Gate, Pill and Portishead (cost £43.3m) instead. They declined. We consider that urging the DfT to reject the SBL funding bid is now the best course of action because the current scheme is poor public transport value and environmentally destructive as a road. It could easily overrun in cost. If Bristol has £8m to spare, it could be spent on setting up an Integrated Transport Authority or funding a smartcard system which would have greater benefits for all travellers or a new Ashton Gate station.
Top

The proposed road/BRT is in four sections- with different BRT provision on each stretch

A370 / Long Ashton Park and ride to Brookgate

The new road (7.3 metre carriageway width) starts from a new junction on the Long Ashton bypass on the A370 and runs to Brookgate – a proposed new road link into the South Liberty Lane industrial area. A separate BRT only road (not concrete guided track) will run from the Long Ashton Park and Ride to Brookgate where the BRT joins the road.
Top

Brookgate to the A38

This will be a 7.3m road with nearside bus lanes which the BRT will use.
Top

A38 to Cater Road Business Park

This will be a 7.3 metre road with no bus lanes except on approaches to junctions, where BRT will be given priority. The link road effectively ends at Cater Road by joining the existing road network. The road will be 40mph in the countryside and 30mph in town.
Top

Cater Road to Hengrove

The BRT will use the existing roads and roundabout to reach Hengrove.
Top

What bus will be used?

The pictures used by the West of England Partnership show two vehicles – the Streetcar and the Ftr (used by First in York). Both are bendy buses. No decision has yet been announced. Six operators are involved in discussions. They may want to use other buses.
Top

Why is the Link poor public transport value for money?

The SBL Bus Rapid Transit has largely lost the ‘qualities’ stressed in the promotional literature to ‘sell’ the system –segregation from other traffic leading to fast journey times, comfortable tram like ride, high levels of patronage leading to non-subsidised operation. The current scheme is a low passenger, low frequency service likely to need subsidy which is only segregated and ‘rapid’ in the countryside but not in the urban area, and not at all ‘tram like’ because it is now simply a bus on a road.
Top

BRT Low passenger numbers and low frequency

The South Bristol Link BRT runs over half its length through Greenbelt. In the built up area, it has only four stops before its terminus. The walking distance to these stops rules out their use by most residents of Bishopsworth and Withywood. 79 passengers (Long Ashton to Hengrove) are predicted for the am peak hour in 2016. Consultants have recommended a frequency of every 18 minutes- peak and every 24 minutes off peak with a 30 minute ride from Hengrove Park to the Centre. North Somerset Councillors have been told that ‘during the first years of operation, the service (BRT2 and SBL) may require some financial support’.
Top

BRT Not segregated nor rapid

None of the SBL BRT route uses concrete guided track which ensures ‘a tram like ride’. The only segregated part of SBL route is the short stretch between Long Ashton Park and Ride and Brookgate. To reach the centre, the SBL BRT will continue along the BRT2 route along the Cut and through the Harbour sharing the route with BRT2 bendy buses, airport buses and four North Somerset bus services. Buses on the three BRT routes (up to 60 per peak hr) will converge on Prince St bridge and create congestion on Wapping road/Prince St.

42 buses an hour (including SBL buses) will turn from behind M Shed into Wapping Road. BRT2 also has a bus stop in the middle of Prince St, causing further queues. After Prince St bridge, in town SBL BRTs will not be segregated, have no priority measures using normal bus lanes and use main roads so will be no more ‘rapid’ than a normal bus. Only if BRT3 is funded, will BRT priority work in the city centre will be carried out.

Top

Why is the SBL so environmentally destructive?

The Mott McDonald report on the environmental impacts lists valid concerns.
Top

It destroys agricultural land on the edge of the city

It runs across a dozen fields currently used for dairy farming. Three farms will have their land split by the road.
Top

It runs close to and crosses in four places the footpath from Long Ashton to Dundry which is also part of the 23 mile South Bristol Circular Walk

It passes through Colliters Brook and involves the culverting and bridging of various water courses. Runoff will reduce water quality. It runs between Hanging Hill Wood (semi-ancient woodland) to the west and an SNCI to the east and through the Bishopsworth and Malago conservation area. Landtake will have a ‘large adverse’ impact on greater and lesser horseshoe bats (in North Somerset and Mendip Bat SAC) and other European protected species such as otters and great crested newts and on local hedgerows.
Top

It will be a prominent scar on the landscape

The scheme will ‘further fragment the landscape, degrading levels of both audible and visual tranquillity. Views of the scheme will be afforded which would have an adverse impact on key receptors (residents) within local settlements.
Top

It takes land from Highridge Common

The northern edge of the Common will be taken for the road and the quality of the rest of it reduced.
Top

Green space is lost

What is now quiet green space next to the Withywood primary school, sheltered home and housing will become a major traffic thoroughfare.
Top

Severing the Community

The road will sever housing and sheltered accommodation from the primary school, Gatehouse Community Centre and local shops. Residents will need to cross the road to reach both sets of local shops. Four new traffic junctions are proposed. Air quality will reduced and traffic noise be introduced into this residential area. Hartcliffe and Withywood Ventures who run the Gatehouse Centre say ‘We feel strongly that a link along the currently ‘reserved’ route will divide communities and impede peoples’ access to amenities and open spaces. It will create a physical barrier between where children live and where they go to school.
Top

Traffic impact on residential roads

Increased noise and air pollution will result .This effect will be worsened through road congestion. The new road crosses existing roads. This will mean a need for traffic lights, roundabouts and other traffic management measures and a knock- on effect of slower journey times and delays on these existing routes. In other areas the result of this has been an increase of congestion, noise and pollution in residential streets as car and particularly commercial vehicle drivers have sought to avoid bottlenecks.
Top

Opening up the Greenbelt to development

Despite assurances from Bristol City Council that the Greenbelt will not developed around the road and it is’ only a single carriageway’, we expect the triangle of land between the BRT and the road to be proposed for development immediately the road is approved. A map within Bristol City Council shows this. Once this happens, we expect planning proposals to develop all the land on the Bristol side of the road so that the city is expanded across the North Somerset border giving Bristol a new edge.
Top

The New Avon Cut and the Harbour

The level of diesel buses described above would destroy the ambience and air quality of the Harbour and the Cut and the current cycling and walking route from BS3 into town over Prince St bridge and down Wapping Road.
Top

What about the road’s claimed benefits?

Job creation

Job predictions connected with the SBL bid need to be subjected to a reality check. A report by Mott McDonald claims that the SBL will assist in the creation of 5,600 new jobs. The evidence is a list of vacant sites, 11 in Hengrove park, 3 sites in Novers Hill, South Liberty lane and elsewhere in Bedminster. Each of 14 sites is assessed according to a set formula for the total number of office and manufacturing jobs that could be accommodated on each site and the total is 5,600. Wishful thinking does not add up to job creation. The airport is said to ‘be short of land’ and due to create another 2000+ jobs when employment at BIA has fallen by 188 FTE jobs between 2008 and 2010 and the number of companies by 2 to 43. Self check in and the continued recession is expected to reduce existing jobs still further.
Top

What about congestion?

Overall traffic will not be reduced. The proposal envisages ‘a small increase in the total distance travelled’. Anticipated reductions in traffic on the B3103 Barrow Gurney, A3029 Winterstoke Road, A38 through Bedminster and on local roads to the north will be balanced by increased traffic on the A370. No major reduction in road capacity is proposed in any of the locations to permanently capture any benefits from traffic reduction so they are likely to be short term.

Delays are estimated to be cut by 2% resulting in a reduction in journey time of 0.6% in the morning peak and 1% in the PM peak by 2031. The ‘economic’ benefits of the scheme which result in a high BCR (Benefit cost ratio) of over 5:1 (at least 2:1 normally required) are miniscule time savings for lots of motorists over a 60 year period. The highway benefits are £358m and the public transport benefits £19.3m. The carbon reducing benefits are £0.5m. Noise, air quality and environmental degradation are not costed at all.

Top

What about improving access to the City Centre and strategic transport networks?

Improving car access to the city centre using a new road defeats a range of Bristol City Council current policies to make the city centre more traffic free, to encourage public transport use to it by restricting parking and to stop commuter parking in residential areas. To fund the BRT the Council is considering a workplace parking charge which is aimed at reducing traffic. A new road also undermines the attractiveness of public transport and particularly the Council’s own BRT proposals. It is not joined up transport thinking.

Who wants more commuter traffic on the strategic transport network which is already overloaded? More car access to the strategic network assists the continuation and creation of commuter dormitories which at a time of increasing fuel prices is not good transport planning. Circular 0207 states that "It is Government transport policy, wherever possible, to look for alternatives to building new roads, by reducing the impact of road users on each other and the environment, improving road performance through better network management and making smarter journey choices (non-car journeys) easier."

Top

Bus Rapid Transit 2

Do you oppose the Bus Rapid Transit 2? Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance (TfGB) www.tfgb.org.uk is opposing the BRT2 guided busway in support of environmentally sustainable and more effective alternatives.

TfGB is co-ordinating local opposition to the BRT by opposing the application for a Transport and Works Act Order to "construct and operate works and to compulsorily acquire land for a guided busway system" by Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council for the first part of the route from Ashton Vale up to Prince St and including works to the Bristol Harbour Railway. We understand that in order to get a public Inquiry, it is necessary for 50-100 local residents to put in written objections (postal or email).

Applications for Listed Building or Conservation Area Consent

Those wishing to object in connection with the above applications may wish to refer to the sample letter below, which has been provided to TfGB. It is best to include your own personal opinions, rather than simply cutting and pasting. Thanks!
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
C/o Development Management Services,
Bristol City Council
City Development
Brunel House
St Georges Road
Bristol BS1 5UY

  July 2011

Dear Sir/Madam

Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990
Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Regulations 1990

Ashton Vale to Bristol Temple Meads and Central Area Bus Rapid Transit Scheme – Six applications for Listed Building or Conservation Area Consent.

My objections to this fresh set of applications are as follows:

11/029491/LA. Works to Prince Street Bridge
The guidance plates for the bridge carriageway surface will be 200mm high and of similar width. These, together with strengthening beams fitted below, will have a detrimental visual impact on the historic bridge and may well impede its ability to swing, owing to extra significant weight. It is noted that English Heritage only supports these changes on the basis that the special qualities of the bridge are not jeopardised. I feel sure further work will show that the bridge is compromised. Objection is raised.

11/02492/LA. Works to Vauxhall Bridge increasing span height by 350mm
This seemingly modest increase in height of just over one foot above the existing railway track will have a marked effect on the symmetry and balance of this established landmark footbridge. It will take on a rising gradient from south, upwards to north. It will require two extra stone steps off the north bank of the Avon Cut. Worst of all, it requires crude and obvious packing to the top of the north river pier. It is not only the expensive physical change to the bridge that is opposed. The work is identified solely for the expedient of allowing the passage of many double-decker diesel buses beneath it. This would transform the character both of the bridge and its setting in this relatively tranquil and harmonious part of the inner city. Objection is raised.

11/02493/LC. Removal of the existing 875 metre length of railings
On the understanding that this neglected stretch of railings would be replaced with properly designed replica railings, it would be churlish to object, but such work could be done from a conservation budget and not just be a spin off from an unwanted bus rapid transit scheme.

11/02494/LA. Ashton Avenue Bridge – extensive works that include the bolting on of a cantilevered strip to the east side as a pedestrian and cycle route
Restoration of this bridge is long overdue, but not in the way depicted in the present application, which should be roundly refused. The bridge has a fascinating history as both a railway and road two-deck swing bridge crossing of the New Cut. Thankfully the road part was removed many years ago and the bridge links very well to the attractive Greville Smyth Park to the south. Though badly neglected the bridge continued to carry the single track Harbour Heritage railway on occasions and, alongside, the essential permanent-crossing route for cycles and pedestrians. The current proposal involves the relegation of these pedestrians and cyclists, who at present are accommodated safely within the envelope of the bridge, to an external catwalk bolted on to the east side. This is unacceptable both in principle and in visual terms. The principle now is that diesel buses, some double-decker, will become the sole occupants of the main bridge envelope. We are told by the applicant that the frequency of these will be initially six minutes per direction increasing to an undefined level as further outlying bus services occupy the busway! In visual terms therefore, noisy buses will dominate this structure. The perception of pedestrians and cyclists will be to feel marginalised and vulnerable – especially those sensitive to heights. A strange way for a City that purports to be green, to behave. Objection is raised.

11/02495/LC. Demolition of Green Metal Shed east of A Bond
Two issues arise here. Though not a building of beauty, the shed houses equipment for Bristol No3 Diving Club. As landlord, the City has a duty to encourage healthy recreation pursuits, not evict and remove them. This demolition is only needed because the present applicants and agents have gratuitously decided that this site should become the replacement terminus for the Bristol Harbour Railway. The railway currently runs on westwards for about 50 metres around the curve that aligned the railway with Ashton Avenue Bridge and terminates conveniently at a halt erected near B Bond, containing the Create Centre and Bristol Records Office. The unnecessary relocation is to enable a two-way bus track to be laid around this curve in place of the railway. This would be intrusive and detract from the character of the Avon Crescent and New Cut area. “A Bond” Warehouse is not in public use and presents a gloomy and unwelcoming countenance at ground floor level. Users of the heritage railway would have a longer and unpleasant walk to B Bond. Objection is raised.

11/02496/LC. Demolition of Jubilee House, Wapping Road
The applicant and agent have not bothered to summarise the age or history of this building. It is a somewhat quirky, but rather attractive three-storey office block (well looked-after and in use as a taxi office). It fits in well on the south side of the former Industrial Museum (now renamed M Shed).
It is brick-built and the architect took care to provide a convex end that faces Wapping Road. Its porchway on this elevation has art-deco features. Fenestration is not original but fits in appropriately.
The building has been under threat, on and off, over many years owing to a mistaken belief that the Harbourside route is high priority for a rapid transit system in some form. It is not, and this perfectly adequate building should be kept. Objection is raised.

Comments on the applicant’s justification statements for these applications
The Halcrow Group, acting for the City Council and the West of England Partnership, claim that all the applications accord with government guidance PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment) and policy B13 of the Bristol Local Plan. For the reasons given above, I do not agree with this.
Furthermore it is claimed that these applications are in harmony with the “Movement” Chapter (in particular policy M13) of the adopted Bristol Local Plan. This is incorrect. Bristol’s first draft Local Plan dates from 1992 and the process of adoption continued until 1995. Admittedly the council was obliged to use the term “Rapid Transit” simply because the Department for Transport advised it. Ever edgy (as we seem to be in the UK) about committing ourselves to proper trams (or “Light Rail” the correct term) Bristol was told that it had to keep open an option for electric guided vehicles using rubber tyres on tarmac. Such vehicles have not evolved much in the fifteen to twenty years since. The best Britain can show is a diesel powered Wright Steetcar, a demonstrable failure so far. It is far less sophisticated than, for instance, the electric “trams on tyres” introduced to the cities of Caen and Clermont-Ferrand, respectively, in France.
In any case, the present applicant freely admits that ordinary diesel buses, both single and double-deck, would be able to use BRT2. It is therefore misleading and a travesty to say that their proposals accord with policy M13.

Comments on the current consultation procedure
There is a conflict of authority here. Whereas the Secretary of State’s office will be the final arbiter of a hurried and poorly conceived infrastructure proposal, the local authority bears complete responsibility for devising and imposing it. Established procedure is for the local promoter to be the recipient of all representations and being aware of what they contain. These are then forwarded for final determination by the Secretary of State following due process. At this stage of a potentially long process, the Secretary of State is unaware of important detailed and site-specific issues that would be adduced and revealed at a proper local inquiry. An appointed inspector eventually reports to the Secretary of State on findings of fact.

Yours sincerely

Route

This is the Ashton Vale to city centre route which will run from the Long Ashton Park and Ride site, alongside the proposed stadium, crossing the Portishead rail line and then running alongside it, via the back of the old Megabowl site, over the Ashton Avenue (Create centre) bridge, along the Cut and then under the Cumberland Road bridge past the new Industrial Museum and then over Prince St bridge and onto the Centre.

To object, you need to do the following:
  1. Send your objection (by post or email) to be received by the Secretary of State on or before Thursday 22nd July.
  2. State the grounds of your objection or representation.
  3. Indicate who is making the objection (your full name).
  4. Give the address to which correspondence relating to the objection may be sent. If you have emailed you still need to give a full postal address.
Emails to: transportandworksact@dft.gsi.gov.uk Please head your email "The Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and Bristol City Centre Rapid Transit order"

Letters to: the Secretary of State for Transport, Dept for Transport, c/o TWA Orders Unit, Zone 1/31, Great Minster House, 76 Marsham St, London SW1P 4DR.

In addition please send a copy of your email to TfGB at info@tfgb.org.uk. Any ground for an objection is valid. You will not be obliged to attend the public inquiry and TfGB will not contact you further unless you indicate you want to be kept informed.

Reasons to object

  1. Damage to New Cut in an area of limited open space. The intrusion into the environment of the harbour and the New Cut of double decker buses and bendy buses, rebuilding of local historic bridges, loss of bio-diversity and air pollution from existing and proposed BRT (diesel) vehicles
  2. Incredibly low value for money. Using the same total cost of £47m, the West of England Partnership could introduce a new smartcard system for the whole of West of England, set up an Integrated Transport authority and still have money left over to carry out a 5-10 year cycling programme. An ultra light tram along the same route would also be cheaper, greener, more appropriate and more popular vehicle on this rail route with far less environmental impact.
  3. Duplicates service already in existence - Long Ashton Park and Ride service into town and bus priorities on Hotwells Road. The complete reorganisation of the bus network to accommodate the BRT will involve the loss of bus services to Hotwells Road and loss of coach parking on Cumberland Road.
  4. BRT has no positive impact on urban regeneration.
  5. High risk of ongoing financial liability to local people resulting from escalating costs due to current low estimate of only £2 million cost for work to adaptation to four existing historic bridges and the building of an additional bridge and unforeseen engineering complications and costs arising from the rebuilding alongside the New Cut and the harbour.
  6. The proposed continuing route to Cabot Circus fails to achieve public transport connectivity, as it does not connect with Temple Meads Station; the nearest point to the route is over 400 metres from the T M ticket office

ITA Campaign

million

click the image above to download a copy of our leaflet
Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance (TfGB) is calling on each of the Transport Executive members representing the four councils, Bath & N. E. Somerset, Bristol, N. Somerset and S. Gloucestershire and which comprise the West of England Partnership (WEP ), to support our proposals to improve public transport by setting up an Integrated Transport Authority (ITA) with a Quality Contract to take control of bus fares, routes and timetables and exercise rail powers

1) Support a review under the Local Transport Act 2008 which would assess the benefits of becoming an ITA and taking powers over bus and rail services

2) Bring forward the Portishead rail line reopening project and new stations at Ashton Gate, Portishead and Pill for programme entry for Government funding in April 2010 instead of the Combined South Bristol Link Road and Bus Rapid Transit

What can you do?

Supporters at Prince St bridge 8th October 2008

Tram For Bristol Banner
Photo by Jo Halladey

Oppose Bus Rapid Transit/Support an ultra light rail tram

You can hear our case for the tram in our video on the Evening Post website. The deadline for the Rapid Transit consultation is 1st Dec. If you wish to respond to the consultation go to www.westofengland.org/transport or write to West of England, Rapid Transit, Freepost BS6529, Bristol BS1 5BR.

Our criticisms and comments on points raised in the consultation leaflet are in this document. We continue to assert that an ultra light rail tram could be constructed for the current Rapid Transit budget of 35 million pounds and it would be more popular with the public. We consider that the estimate given by the consultants of 20 million pounds for the Bus system is too low bearing in mind how much bridge and other work accompanies the two way running of the bus. For further details contact Pip Sheard on pip_sheard@hotmail.co.uk

We will continue to lobby for a tram rather than a bus based Rapid Transit. To view a Powerpoint presentation of the current ULR proposal click here (2.5MB).

On 28th Sept, the West of England Partnership announced that their consultants had recommended that the first section of the Rapid Transit system for Bristol should be bus based - it will be an 18 metre bendy bus which will run two ways through the centre to Cabot Circus and Temple meads but also along the Cut leaving the cyclepath alone but cutting into Cumberland road, continuing over the Ashton bridge near the Create Centre and running to the Ashton Vale Park and Ride site. A future route will run North Bristol to Hengrove. This is a high capacity system which will serve and therefore bring forward planning permission for the urban extension of 9,500 homes between Dundry and Long Ashton to which we are opposed. On Monday 20th October, the West of England partnership's Joint Transport Committee supported the consultants' recommendation and agreed to take the Bus Rapid Transit forward as the only option to public consultation in the city in November.

On 3rd October, the public consultation on the construction of the South Bristol Ring Road was announced in the EP. If built it will cut the communities of Hartcliffe, Highridge and Bishopsworth in half and introduce traffic pollution and congestion to thousands of homes that don't have it now. The current Ring Road is full and all that traffic is waiting to make its way through South Bristol. It will also enable WEP to say that they have 'planned transport' for the all the urban extensions to South Bristol in North Somerset and Banes. We have been told that the Road could be Bus Rapid Transit instead but we believe that the public might like a tram system instead.

Our group has proposed that the money allocated for the first phase of RT and the Road should be spent on an ultra light rail tram system instead and we brought a consortium of engineers prepared to build the first phase to Bristol to meet politicians and officers. The project was reviewed by private consultants and rejected on 28th on grounds of cost and deliverability, both of which we dispute.