156 thoughts on “City Centre re-modelling – let’s open the debate”

1. The only practical solution to congestion is congestion charging (or road pricing).

   Congestion is a manifestation of the demand for road capacity exceeding the supply. But the demand is inflated by road capacity being made available ‘free at the point of use’, unlike public transport. If road capacity were charged for at a market rate, which would vary with demand, there would be no congestion. It really is that simple.

   In reality all this BRT stuff is preparing the ground for congestion charging. The idea is that once an adequate network is in place the public will be willing to accept congestion charging. Personally I don’t buy that, but who knows.

   Anyway, BRT in isolation just doesn’t add up. Patronage levels will not generate sufficient revenue to pay for it, which is another way of saying the benefits will be less than the costs. But with congestion charging pushing people out of cars it might be a different story.

   Financial justification for the BRT investment will be based not only on what people are prepared to pay to use it but also on other notional benefits to other road users, mainly motorists, resulting from lower levels of congestion than would occur if there were no BRT. But it’s all very hypothetical and is little more than a contrivance to secure taxpayer subsidy.

   Claims that BRT will reduce congestion are based on hypothetical projections of congestion into the future where congestion is projected to be vastly worse than at present and where BRT appears to relieve that implausibly high level of congestion. But congestion even with BRT is still envisaged as higher than at present!

   So we’re back to congestion charging as the only answer. Making buses ‘free at the point of use’ would undoubtedly increase bus patronage but would it reduce car use? Not without congestion charging or some other form of restraint. Which raises the question of why we don’t just go for congestion charging now.

   Congestion charging could be introduced progressively over a number of years so people have time to adapt, starting with fairly nominal charges then ratcheting them up so they start to bite. Travel patterns would then start to change to relieve congestion and allow buses to operate more efficiently, so reducing fares. Walking and cycling would also become more popular.

   It’s a straight choice – congestion, or congestion charging. You can pay in time or in money. But paying in time screws up the highway system for everyone, including public transport, and degrades the environment. Paying in money on the other hand raises the sort of funds that could even deliver the kind of tram system that everyone says they want.

2. Jon

   The North Fringe to Hengrove park is estimated at £191 million? How many people per annum do you realistically think will benefit from such an ‘improvement’ over whatever exists already? Plus of course there will the inevitable roadworks and traffic delays to both private and public transport during the construction phase – whatever the timescale for that is?

   I would seriously like to hear what the estimated cost would be to fund the existing public transport (buses) network free of charge at the current usage rate?Can First Bus provide us with a figure that they must easily have to hand?

   I know we have to ‘progress’ on transport but just building more roads to create jobs is not neccassary. Divert just a fraction of that £191 million (which is only for a small sector of the city’s transport requirements) into funding free buses over the entire network for a trial period of one month and see how much congestion reduces by – I’d guess 25 at least initially. Then you would have more room on the highways for more buses moving freely and efficiently as possible.

   After the initial disbelief of free buses I’m sure the idea would snowball with more people making the change to reliable public transport.

   You also have to acknowledge there are a number of people who will always have to use cars because of their type of work for visiting clients etc and those people should not be penalised – tolls etc, if they have no realistic alternative option. If they are penalised those companies will only pass their cost onto us consumers – again.

3. 2015 isn’t that far away and when the reality of the impact of peak oil hits we need a travel system for public transport, cycling and walking that will cope with increased numbers of people. We need to make it more affordable to use public transport and less appealing to drive cars into the centre. If the plans can limit the flow of cars through the centre it will make it a more pleasant place for us all. Congestion is actually decreasing the quality of our lives, I know people will argue that they need their car but for short journeys there are alternatives. If these can be affordable and get us out of our “metal boxes” and actually interacting as humans again I’m all for it!

4. Jon Rogers wrote “(c) The rapid transit routes can quickly deliver bus infrastructure, but do not preclude later fitting rail if funds become available.”

   Jon

   Once you have dedicated busways, the option to lay tracks at a later date would certainly be expensive and difficult.

   The options would be:
   (1) Close the busways and divert the buses along trafficked roads
   OR
   (2) Lay the tracks at night

   Once you have opted for buses, the opportunity for trams will have gone for ever

5. Its good that you open a debate for this particular topic, for the welfare of the majority. I like the aim and the idea for this project. I hope it this will become successful.

6. Its good that you a debate for this particular topic for the welfare of the majority. I like the aim and the idea for this project. I hope it this will become successful.

7. Fair play to Jon, for opening this debate and encouraging contibutors to argue from different perspectives. My comments on weak leadership are about institutional rather than politically leadership.

   I think only an Integrate Transport Authority, which will pool the resources and energies of the 4 councils to develop greatrer expertise and capacity for the region can solve the transport challenges which Bristol faces.

   A long term transport strategy is required, along the lines of what the Mayor of London has just consulted upon. The Bristol city region needs to be clear about the strategic challenges and develop long term solutions including how to fund them. This would ultimately result in a more ambitious set of options including a light rail system, an oyster type card, green routes, enhanced accessibility and better quality of life.

8. QS Builder: Nottingham are partly funding their trams through a workplade parking levy, they have chosen this over congestion charging. Bristol has no ambition to be great – sadly we have weak leadership, all the major parties have ruled out trams. Someone should think more creatively about how they could be funded, surely we can’t afford the current levels of congestion with its related disbenefits. There is a mentality in Bristol which I believe thinks that traffic congestion is a sign of a booming successful place – wrong, its a sign of failure. It could all be so different…………

   • Granted here is a sort of shambly-can’t-really-be-that-arsed-ness about Bristol but in many ways is an attractive feature of the place. Too much thrusting and self-important ambition in a city can be as much of a culture-killer as anything else. For example I know many people who visit/have moved here from London who find it wonderfully relaxing and chilled out. It’s good that a city can mull over ideas and allows things to grow organically, but I agree that more focus on the right elements (re-localisation, culture, sustainability, environment, humanity, etc) would help it flourish into something really special. Bristol has many of the pieces of a great puzzle, it just needs a little bit more vision to put them in the right places, so to speak.

     One point you allude too though which is very true is the completely elastic idea of how anything is costed and what can be afforded or not. As a nation we can make a split-second decision to print billions of pounds to re-capitalise our failed private banking sector, pour millions every day into wars in the Middle East, and yet when the public consistently demand radically better public transport infrastructure decade after decade all we effectively hear is ‘we can’t afford it’….

     • MD – Loved your comments and couldn’t agree more. My comments about the lack of ambition are partly borne out of a frustration that Bristol is not realising its potential to be a great city with a vibrant culture and beautiful urban realm. But also how parochial the city has become, everyone settles for mediocrity, the harbourside developments are so disappointing with the downmarket corporate space and psuedo european appartments. Lets see something more creative and organically Bristolian. We’ve got the spaces, economy and most importantly creative and clever people to make this place the most fun, clean, green, accessible, inclusive and socially integrated city in the UK. Come on Bristol lets drop the can’t-really-be-that-arsed-ness and do something about it!

       • We can all chat about these issues forever and we bloggers may not be representative of public opinion any more than elected representatives or authority officers are. I assume that the reality is that the Council and its partners will make their corporate minds up after what they see as an adequate public consultation period. That is the conventional, if highly limited approach to democratic accountability.

         It is, though, a very narrow approach and I do wonder what Bristolians actually want and how they can register their views collectively on issues that will determine the shape and extent of the city’s transport infrastructure for many years to come. Could there not be a variety of referenda questions on, for example:
         1. Do you want a long term plan that is based on trams or guided buses?
         2. Do you want the Portishead rail link reinstated and integrated into the rail infrastructure?
         3. Do you want serious money spent on supporting cycling in and around the city.
         4. Do you want a (close to) zero carbon transport policy
         etc etc. – add you own question…

         The fear is that the limitations of the agenda have already been framed up and that the LA is really consulting on the detail. i.e. we are getting buses and the consultation is just about small variations.

         If we need a radical far-sighted plan for transprot that looks at needs for the next 50 years, I do not think the existing consultation process and the options presented are anything like good enough. Can we not be more radical in ways we consult with our residents. we might be surprised at their views.

9. It’s nice to have a large public space, but it’s a waste if there’s nothing happening there — European-style cafes in the centre would help give people a reason to be there rather than just pass through!

10. On January 3, 2010 at 11:54, Jon Rogers replied regarding a tram system

    “The problem is that it would cost too much. We don’t have the money. The Government funding only allocates 75% of the funds required for rail based soultions, whereas for bus and road solutions they allocate 90%.”

    (1) Please explain how other cities have managed to afford a rail based sytem?

    (2) Please give us full details of your cost plan and/or feasiblity study which substantiates the above comment about “not having the money”

    (3) I personally am totally against a politically motivated sub-standard solution which wastes taxpayers money and which will probably be outdated even before it’s completed. I would rather wait a year or two and get something worth having than a temporary compromise now

    (4) Are you prepared to abandon this scheme of yours and seriously consider the more ambitious and far sighted vision of a modern, fast. reliable and integrated rapid publice transport system?

    • qsbuilder asks “(1) Please explain how other cities have managed to afford a rail based sytem?”

      These are “off the top of head” comments and reflect my understanding. Happy to be corrected.

      (a) I think previous government funding had been equally supportive of bus, rail and tram schemes. This changed when the huge costs of rail based solutions became apparent.

      (b) Existing city schemes often use existing rail lines – we are similarly looking at Severn Beach Line, Portishead Line and Henbury Loop, as well as the remaining rail infrastructure.

      (c) The rapid transit routes can quickly deliver bus infrastructure, but do not preclude later fitting rail if funds become available.

      • “(c) The rapid transit routes can quickly deliver bus infrastructure, but do not preclude later fitting rail if funds become available.”

        Well, that is true of course, but it also seems rather disingenuous of you to suggest that. I’m slightly disappointed that you are (still) propagating this myth that an upgrade to light rail later is a possibility if the circumstances are right; I think you know full well that this is rather unlikely, even if technically possible: as if it wasn’t hard enough to find funding for new third-class infrastructure like the BRT system. I’m trying hard to imagine what it would take for a cost-benefit study to be able to justify this kind of upgrade…

    • qsbuilder further asks, “Please give us full details of your cost plan and/or feasiblity study which substantiates the above comment about “not having the money””

      A feasibility study was commissioned and is available on WoEP web site http://www.westofengland.org/transport/rapid-transit/technology-review

    • qsbuilder continues, “I personally am totally against a politically motivated sub-standard solution which wastes taxpayers money and which will probably be outdated even before it’s completed. I would rather wait a year or two and get something worth having than a temporary compromise now”

      You are entitled to your view. I believe that we need to deliver some top quality bus and rail links in and around the city, and I am not prepared to throw away this opportunity. Neither are colleagues of all other parties (except the Green Party, who strangely voted against the BRT2 scheme at Full Council. In my opinion we need pragmatism and realism as well as idealism.

    • Finally qsbuilder asks, “Are you prepared to abandon this scheme of yours and seriously consider the more ambitious and far sighted vision of a modern, fast. reliable and integrated rapid publice transport system?”

      It is not “my scheme”. It is a scheme developed over a number of years, with cross-party support, and support between all four local authorities, GOSW and the Government. I want to see public transport improvements in my lifetime, not throw away opportunities in the hope that “something better will come along”.

    • Dear qsbuilder, I have now had some officer responses to try and “explain how other cities have managed to afford a rail-based system?”

      In the 1990s tram systems in other cities in England were generally able to take advantage of a more sympathetic government policy towards funding light rail schemes prevalent at the time, particularly in cities such as Manchester, Sheffield and Birmingham, with higher populations and higher forecast passenger flows than for corridors in the West of England sub-region now being considered for bus-based rapid transit routes.

      Patronage flows following construction were initially disappointing in the latter two systems (although loadings have since improved) and schemes being promoted since then (with the exception of Nottingham and extensions to Manchester Metrolink) experienced substantial cost excalations and subsequent withdrawal of government funding.

      For these two reasons the DfT has since been more sympathetic to bus-based solutions which are seen to provide better value for money on a cost per passenger basis whilst still providing most of the advantages of a tram in terms of reducing car dependency and tackling congestion. This issue is also expected to be increasingly relevant during any possible future limits on government funding for major transport schemes following the economic downturn, and strengthens the need to ensure bids for such schemes are robust, affordable and offer value for money, or face the risk of allocated funding being withdrawn.

      Officers have continued with “full details of your cost plan and/or feasibility study which substantiates the above comment about “not having the money””

      Costs for the North Fringe to Hengrove Package, although still being finalised at this stage, are currently estimated at £191 million (construction cost at future year prices). The schemes making up the Package were assessed through the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study. This was a major land use and transportation study which reported in 2006 and considered a range of transport investment and development scenarios including a bus-based rapid transit network. This study has informed both the Joint Local Transport Plan and the sub-region’s transport major scheme programme including rapid transit routes.

      In addition, in December 2009 a separate Technology Review was undertaken for the North Fringe to Hengrove Package which assessed a range of potential modes and recommended a bus-based mode on the basis of a range of criteria including affordability and deliverability. The Review estimated that the lowest possible cost for a `Light Weight Rail’ alternative would be at least £70 million more expensive than the bus rapid transit alternative and would require a significantly higher funding contribution to be sourced locally.

      The bid submission for the North Fringe to Hengrove Package, will include the final cost estimates in March 2010 and will include a full assessment and final cost for the scheme.

      I hope this is helpful?

      Jon

      • Jon

        Thank you very much for your reply. I did look at the consultation document briefly too, but haven’t had the time to go through it thoroughly.

        It is such a shame that central government is so short sighted. Perhaps local authorities should consider lobbying central government to change their funding policies. On the one hand they are telling all of us to cut emissions, and yet on the other hand they are encouraging the continued use of such polluting vehicles as diesel buses….which regularly can be found parked up but with diesel engines still running.

        If central government would themselves specify a rail gauge (probably same as the rail system) and the trams themselves, then this standardisation might bring down costs.

        I am just very disappointed in this policy from central government. They are depriving Bristol, and other UK cities, from what I still believe to be the very best rapid public transport system and which would be the most attractive to entice people out of their cars.

      • Hello Jon
        I can quite see the problem that we have here regarding costs and congestion in the context of recession and close control of government finances and I do understand that we cannot ignore this. But there does seem to be a will among Bristolians for a plan that will form a visionary, long term and sustainable integrated policy that will set us up to have a transport system we can be proud of for the next 50 years. Is that out of the question in the face of tightening public finances? In the past, recessions have been times when imaginative public works have often germinated.

        Putting the trams vs buses debate aside for a moment, why havent we done a lot more already with our existing rail infrastructure anyway – Portishead, Severn Beach, existing and new local stations, some tram-train ideas for the airport, city centre link. Does all that have to be prohibitively expensive as well?

        I keep coming back to the need for a Vision that we cann all sign up to that inspires us and can be a lever for private investment to complement the public purse.

        Howard

11. Well done, but be bolder! The City Centre is already becoming an attractive oasis for citizens and visitors alike. With the recent residential developments around the central area that demand will grow. Queen’s Square is a useful predecessor with, originally, similar problems to the Centre and, now, widely welcomed solutions that can be copied. Essentially, you have to move the balance of priority from motorised traffic to foot traffic; to grow benefits for us as pedestrians and get us to accept the disbenefits for us as private delivery drivers, motorists and motorcyclists. I believe that you should extend any fully pedestrianised areas as far as you can and physically restrict or control times of access for motorised traffic where you can’t. Go for it!

12. Roger wrote: “Can someone please explain why trams are better than buses in a bus lane?”

    Here are the reasons as given on the “Trams for Bath” website. please refer to http://www.bathtram.org/tfb/tP000.htm

    There is lots of useful information on their site

    1. Environmentally friendly

    Trams emit no fumes whatever, they use electricity from remote power stations. The emissions from electrical power stations are more easily, cheaply and effectively controlled because the extra equipment does not need to be carried on a vehicle.
    Modern trams are virtually silent when standing still and so quiet when moving that they need to sound a gong to warn pedestrians.
    In a hilly district like Bath, substantial power savings can be made by Œregenerative braking’, using the motors as brakes and feeding the electricity they generate back into the overhead line so as to power other trams.
    The steel wheels on steel rails have one-fifth the rolling resistance of a pneumatic tyre, so less power is needed to drive a tram. When finally worn-out, the steel is melted down and re-used. There are no scrap rubber tyres to dispose of.

    2. Convenient

    The public perception of a tram is very different from that of a bus. A properly planned tram service is speedy, cheap, reliable and not disrupted by congestion. It does not carry a ‘second-class’ stigma, If the aim of a public transport system is to attract people away from car use, trams have been shown to succeed where buses fail. Tram routes are easily found by intending passengers and the presence of rails gives confidence that a tram will soon arrive.
    The track ensures that the tram always pulls up close to the pavement leaving no significant gap. A short section of ramped pavement is all that is needed to give level access for push-chairs, wheel-chairs and disabled passengers.

    3. Fast, safe and effective

    Because tram routes must be planned to be free of obstructions, a faster and more attractive service results. A tram can collect passengers from residential areas with the same facility as a bus and can operate safely in pedestrian areas because it never deviates from the marked-out route. Elsewhere, high speeds can be attained, with no danger to other traffic, by segregating the express routes. One tram can do much more work than a similar sized bus. The proposed Bath trams would each carry the equivalent of sixty cars or a quarter of a mile of traffic jam.

    4. Cheap to run

    Although tramways were expensive to construct, prices of vehicles and track have recently fallen rapidly with the application of modern technology. Once constructed, a tramway is the cheapest public transport system to operate and it has a life expectancy of at least fifty years,

    5. Occupy little space

    Segregated or ‘reserved’ tracks need be only slightly wider than the tram body – for the proposed Bath trams about 8ft wide should suffice. They can run along disused railway lines, open sites, specially designated streets or the centres of dual-carriageways. They can by-pass traffic bottle-necks and be grassed-over to improve appearance and reduce the likelihood of unauthorised use by motorists.

    6. Adaptable to future needs

    External power gives a tram more range and higher speed than if it carried batteries. If batteries significantly improve in the future, it will then be relatively easy to fit them into existing trams. similarly, improvements in power generation such as the use of renewable energy from wind or wave power, can be utilised by a tram but not by combustion engined vehicles.
    A large growth in public transport use would cause severe operational and environmental problems with a bus service, whereas trams would become more economical.

    • I agree with all these very interesting comments about the desirability of having a new tram system and how good trams are for a city. There are lots of economic and environmental arguments why we should go for proper trams in Bristol but there are others. I spend a lot of time in Nottingham for work and there is no doubt that the NET trams there create the atmosphere of a vibrant and go-ahead city in a way that buses chugging asthmatically and pollutedly up the hills could never do.

      Bristolians seem to have no confidence in themselves or their future. It is great to have the harbour and all its history but we need to be go ahead too. Building a new tram network is not a quick fix. It takes years, requires a strategic vision that we do not presently seem to have but it’s an infrastructure that will last (assuming the Luftwaffe don’t come over and bomb the power plant like they did last time!) .

      It has to go hand-in-hand with a substantial improvement in cycling provision and pedestrianisation if we are to create the city we want. If you go to Barcelona as I just have, they have a wonderful cycle network and public bike stations around the city, a new and developing tram system, a growing metro and it is a city that is substantially less dominated by cars and lorries than Bristol is.

      Trams are not a solution by themselves but they have to be part of it.

13. Can someone please explain why trams are better than buses in a bus lane? Trams need dedicated routes as do buses but without the cost of putting other infrastructure in place at high cost & disruption. To operate trams you have to dig up all the services, plus the inconvenince of tram / railway tracks (this is alleged to be a cycling city…) to cyclists is quite considerable. I have not been to Manchester etc to see how trams can improve public transport but unless I’m mistaken they also still require unsightly overhead cables? If that is the case perhaps we could have a few of these cables & associated street furniture in the lovely views drawn by the architects as well as those nice green trees?
    As Gareth Pearce states, we need to have a major step forward not just a pretty job creation revamp.

    ‘One big bill for the ratepayer, a giant step for public transport’ Lets get it right.

14. It is understandable an understandable response to re-dress the look of the City Centre because it then looks like something happenned. But in reality its like re-dressing a corpse in a cofin so it looks better. For the fantastic cost it achieves little.

    Several people have suggested Bristol needs a transit system some suggesting trams. This is the best suggestion I heard yet. The problem with trams is the same now as caused them to be taken out of cities many years ago. The business case doesn’t stack up. Its so expensive to put in ground tracks, reorganising all the subground services etc that the cost can never be amortized from the income generated out of the fares. At least the dent in the cost of amortization is not sufficient from income to reduce the required subsidy to what is affordable by Governments. And ultimately trams are very slow, they have to mix with other forms of ground traffic that causes bottlnecks and their capacity over routes is limited to between 3 and 7 thousand passengers.

    On Friday 29th January in London there is a Colloquium of Engineer Experts, the best that can be found in the United Kingdom, working together on a new transit railway scheme that has been proven to work very well since the first one was built in Germany in 1897 but using modern construction with simpler structure.

    The scheme costs for a two way track including a station every 750m have been carefully calculated to around 60% of the cost of a tramway on a per km basis but the capacity is mass transit numbers.

    The scheme has undergone rigourous investigation by Japanese and German independent engineer experts but funnily enough has never been examined in the United Kingdom. It uses off the shelf standard technology, nothing fancy but is never considered because of lack of investigative capability by authorities here.

    The scheme is MonoMetro, because it runs on what the French call a “monobloc” beam, not mono for monorail. The system is a railway in every sense of the word and is now being developed by railway engineers. Correctly described it is a suspended vector bifurcation railway that is simply a pair of rails rolled into a steel section beam with counter inclined bogies and wheels powered by a pair of electrical power rails mounted beneath the track beam.

    The trains are lightweight, able to move rapidly without obstruction to ground traffic and able get people from A to B without fuss or bother. The point switching system gives avery availible type of switch you find on a railway.

    Its a design Icon and looks the part for the 21st century. If people have the chance to vote for such a project to be built in Bristol there could be several lines up and running in 10 years.

    So look at http://www.monometro.com and see the mass transit solution to Bristols traffic problems before your very eyes.
    Video on Youtube

15. My browser will not download the pdf so I am unable to look at it in detail. But please don’t tell me that access by car to the Children’s Hospital will be cut off! I wonder how many of the architects of this plan have ever had to get a baby or toddler to the hospital… you can’t do it by bus (especially if you have a double buggy) unless your child is well enough to wait at a bus stop, you can’t do it by taxi unless you bring along safety seats for each of your babies/toddlers accompanying you, which you then have to lug into the hospital, and if it is urgent what you want is to get into a car and drive to the hospital, park as near as you can to it, and go in. Or you call an ambulance! Hope this will not be overlooked as it is important not to make the most stressful events in people’s lives even more stressful. Hospital visitors are not commuters.

    • Mother writes, “please don’t tell me that access by car to the Children’s Hospital will be cut off!”

      No. These proposals are for the area by St Augustines Parade. There will still be access to the Children’s Hospital and the BRI.

      As mentioned above, work is under way to better understand what impact this could have on existing traffic patterns and existing public transport services and whether it is feasible.

16. One comment above states “One other way to reduce the use of private cars in the city centre is not to introduce trams (another rose tinted spectacle idea of years gone by) but gradually in areas of great car ownership of the city make the public transport free!”

    If trams are an idea of “years gone by” then this person must be stuck still in the 1960′s. Trams are the future…diesel buses both pollute and are destined for the scrap heap when fossil fuels run out. If Bristol City is truly visionary, then they would be planning a tram system for the future which would ensure the continued wealth and prosperity of the city. Trams indeed provide a fast and regular public service which people want to use. Perhaps Council representatives should study the experiences of Croydon, Sheffield, Manchester and now Edinburgh.

    Bristol’s traffic problems are probably one of the worst I’ve ever encountered and drastic measures are required. Of course there will be some people who will be inconvenienced, but that will always occur with any change. It is essential to reduce and eventually prohibit through traffic and car commuting, which can be resolved by large, strategically placed and free “park and ride” car parks on the edge of the city where retail developments can be encouraged to help pay for these facilities, and a frequent (every 10 minutes) tram service (or even electric trolley buses if they can be proved reliable) into the city. The park and ride areas might if suitable have wind turbines to contribute to the power requirements of the system. The trams would have regenerative braking systems and would always have priority at traffic light junctions etc.

    Fares would have to be fixed at a reasonable cost and a flat single fare of say £2 at today’s value would be attractive for pre-paid tickets available from machines. No tickets could be purchased on board, which would ensure a fast service.

    Of course, access by private motor cars would be seriously affected, but that is desirable. Once public transport is made both cheaper and faster than car travel, then people will willingly switch. Goods deliveries would have to be restricted to night time or late evening, early morning.

    So come on Bristol, have vision, not just a for a few years into the future but decades. Begin to seriously provide the public transport infrastructure of the future, right now.

    • I have lived in Wolverhampton and Nottingham and, having just moved to Bristol, cannot believe that the City is contemplating a BUS solution! It is like going back in time 40 years. It really is archaic.

      That this plan exists at all tells me that there is a severe lack of vision here. I would have thought that having been able to look at Metro and other light rail systems all over Europe and further afield, it would have been obvious that there are many cleaner, more innovate ways to move people rapidly that this tired and sad plan. In the city that has Brunel’s innovative spirit everywhere you look, it shows not only a lack of vision but also a lack of self belief.

      There is a uniqeness about Bristol, the place of my birth, that engenders great pride but when we cant even come up with a rail plan that pulls together the Portishead branch reopening with a decent tram or train-tram plan that would represent an exciting and iconic gateway experience for the increasing number of visitors coming into the City from abroad via the airport, I feel close to despair.

      Have our planners been no-where, to see how obsolete this is before it has even been conceived? I would whole heartedly campaign against this bus lane nonsense, if people would get in touch but Im new to living here and dont have the contacts yet.

17. Comment submitted by email:
    I’m really excited by these proposals. At last I hear official recognition
    that through danger and pollution cars have gone far beyond their
    usefulness. Too many of us recoil in horror at the thought of living without
    them, and can’t see that individual convenience removes everyone’s access to
    calm and peace. The nicest European cities are invariably the ones that have
    taken bold steps to ban city centre traffic altogether, provide good
    affordable public transport, and made walking and cycling attractive. Come
    on Bristol. You can do the same. Once people are out of their cars, they’ll
    wonder why they didn’t do it years ago.

18. I went to Cardiff on the weekend, my first visit in years. I was really impressed with the public realm improvements. Lots of car free areas and high quality public spaces. Bristol is really starting to fall behind and schemes like this will require more imagination.

19. public transport planners always miss the point. Instead of providing a positive solution: i.e. to make public transport more effective and cheaper than the car they go for the negative: – exclude cars or nice n pretty “clean green spaces” for bus terminuses.

    What most of us want is to be able to hop on a bus for a reasonable price and get to the place your going, not have to wait 40 minutes for a grumpy driver to charge you more than it would cost in petrol and have”no change for a fiver”

    Its all about moving people effectively and efficiently
    So planners and decision makers you need to get serious – be positive:make public transport cheaper and more effective than cars and we’ll use them

20. I live in Buchannans Wharf BS1(just off Redcliffe Street) and work in an office at the top of Whiteladies Rd.
    I have private parking both at my flat and at my office, so I drive daily to work, as my experience of using First Bus is worse than acceptable, I often need to use the car to drive to meet clients during normal office hours, and public transport works out more expensive than using my car.

    To get to work, I drive along Redcliffe Street, onto Victoria Street, over Bristol Bridge, down Baldwin Street, around Broad Quay, St Augustines Parade, up Park Street, around the Triangle, and up to the top of Whiteladies Road.
    Ajourney which takes me approx 15 to 20 minutes, compared to using public transport which takes around 45 minutes.

    If Draft A comes into force, please tell me, and others like me, who need to cross the centre of town and get to Clifton, how we do so in a cost efficient and timely manner

    • Afternoon Jim

      You are living in Buchannans Wharf BS1 (just off Redcliffe Street) so you ought to be an ideal candidate to consider a move from your use of a car to walking and bus travel to work.

      You live within 200m of buses on Victoria Street, and St Augustines Parade is not much further – a nice walk across Queens Square!

      Looking at the nextbusbristol.co.uk web site, I see you have buses up Whiteladies Road (to Cribbs Causeway) in 4 minutes, 6 minutes and 12 minutes from Victoria Street (many more are also available from the Hippodrome, including the excellent and cheap 8/9 service ).

      The route is also soon to become a Showcase route, with improved bus priority.

      There are currently 5 City Car Club cars available right now for you to borrow within a short walk of your home. http://www.citycarclub.co.uk/locations/south_england/#bristol

      You may be dissuaded from this by the cost of fares (some are coming down on 9th February), access to easy parking at home and at work, and having paid up front for a car insurance, depreciation, road fund, servicing etc.

      All these make it seem expensive to go by walking and bus, but the benefits to health, environment and our local economy are huge.

      Jon

      • Thanks for your response Jon, but I think you’re perhaps missing my point.

        The bus option does’nt work for me, as I need to use my car to drive from my office to see customers most days at some point.

        Using the City Car Club cars does’nt work, as I still need to get arcoss the town centre from Redcliffe Street, to Whiteladies Road, and in any case I dont think their insurance would cover me for business use?
        In any case, my company would’nt cover the cost of my membership to the Car Club, bearing in mind they are supplying me with a company car.

        I’d therefore appreciate your response to my initial concerns over access across town if the centre was closed to cars crossing over St Augustines Parade?

        Thanks,
        Jim

21. I fully support any ideas to make the city centre more liveable and reduce traffic congestion, but I hope the council also take into consideration the residents and owners of small businesses who would still need access and some form of parking. I live and work on the Christmas Steps, and if Colston St was completely closed off to traffic, it would be extremely difficult to run a business here.

    I do have a residents parking permit and am happy to walk a few streets to collect my car, and I mostly only use my car to go out of town for my job, but I still need some sort of access to load and unload heavy equipment which I use for work. Most shops and businesses in this area are small businesses which give the area it’s character, so please don’t make life too difficult for us!

22. I remember there used to be plenty of public toilets in the middle of the open space; being at ground level they were easier to access than the present ones. I’d like to see them back.
    It would be good to have the river reopened as far as the mature trees on the Centre and used for water transport, as frequent and rapid as possible, perhaps extending right down to Portishead when tides permit. The craft chosen should be low enough to avoid swinging the main Cumberland Basin bridge (normal hydrofoils and hovercraft are too noisy for regular use though).
    I hope the present proposals will deter car use rather than just make people drive further.

23. Hi I am la Bristolian born and bred in South Bristol and guess what these new plans are another way of making it incredibly difficult for us to access the Centre or other priorities such as the Childrens hospital, bus station, BRI Dental hospital and loads more. The closing of Queen Square, far from being the wonderful ‘thing’ has meant that many businesses have moved to more accessible areas, Princess street bridge is now only one way and islikely to close in the near future. The lights on Baldwin street are a joke only allowing 2 cars through at a time and having this new system will make it even worse.

    This is our city, we have to pay to be part of it and would not be excluded.

    very against

24. Great to hear about these plans. Just a month or so ago I was jokingly marking the centre as a possible ‘quiet area’ on your noise map, maybe my dream will come true!

    I think the centre would really benefit from some serious depaving and creation of green spaces wherever possible. There is far too much concrete on the draft proposals.

    Applying the shared space principle would be great. Narrow the space available to cars down as much as possible.

    Looking at adjoining streets I would go much bolder. Why not close all of Colston Street, all the way to the top plus Trenchard Street, Lodge Street and Lodge Place, Unity and Orchard Street and the rest of these little winding cul de sacs around the Academy and behind the Hippodrome!?
    The same on the other side of the Centre. Close off Corn Street and its ‘arms’, St.Stephens Street, Small Street, Leonard Lane and Broad Street. Someone mentioned in a comment that people might start using these streets to cut through from Baldwin Street to Rupert Street. Just don’t let them. Pedestrianising this bit is allready possible, the bollards are there. In fact I’d say, pedestrianise it now, so that people can get used to it!

    And what happened to the plans to pedestrianise Park Street? I really liked that idea. Go for the lot! Why not!?

    On a general note I think it might help to take away on street car parking on main routes, as this attracts cars and takes up roadspace. Park Street and Park Row could really do with no carparking bays and some extra space for bicycles, loading, etc…

    Give the road space back to the people, cars have had it for far too long !!!

25. The prospect of a rethink for the Centre is most welcome, and BCC should take this opportunity to be bold. The previous redevelopment resulted in a traffic circulation system that is confusing and dangerous for pedestrians, drivers anad cyclists alike. Too much traffic uses the Centre, including too many heavy vehicles, and the air quality suffers as a result.

    The present green(ish) space in the middle pens pedestrians between traffic on both sides, and is not the kind of place you would want to spend much time in. Unfortunately, the new plan doesn’t make this much better. OK – the volume of traffic would be reduced, but the green space would still be surrounded by multi-lane carriageways. Is there any way of redesigning the road so that traffic passes only on one side of the Centre?

    Another feature of the new plans is that there still seems to be clear demarcation between wheeled traffic space and pedestrain areas. Redevelopment would be the ideal time to introduce shared space, which I have seen working extremely well in many cities in Europe. After High St Kensington was changed to shared space a year or two back, there was a substantial reduction in pedestrian injuries. Shared space means that no individual or vehicle has priority, so all have to use the space considerately. Cyclists travel at a speed at which they can easily stop (safer for them, safer for pedestrians), andn they are not confined to dangerous narrow cycling lanes with motor traffic brushing past them. The need for traffic lights and road signage is also markedly reduced – another environmental benefit. And the absence of raised kerbs means less chance of pedestrians tripping. When you see shared space in use, the most striking thing is how relaxed and happy people look.

    The bus service has improved in frequency over the last year – on the routes that I use anyway – so I don’t have any gripes about that. Also the fare on my routes has recently been reduced – however in comparison with many cities in the UK, Europe and elsewhere, it is still expensive. Cheaper fares do seem to encourage more people to use public transport in a city centre. First need to try harder to cut fares.

    Widening the pavement outside Colston Hall to make a pedestrianised area is a good idea, and should make a pleasant area for people to meet friends before a performance.

    I see that there is no plan to remove the hideous shallow fountains in the middle of the Centre. They completely fail to relate to the historic and architectural context of the Centre and the Floating Harbour. The Centre deserves a bolder plan. The decision some years back to reject the deep water option and restore the filled-in part of the docks under the Centre was regrettable. Bristol should conserve and enhance its historic features – there’s plenty of assertive 20th-21st century archtitecture around, but a dwindling amount of older features that give depth of character to a town.

    So, a good start, Jon, with a lot of support on this site for the principle of redesigning the Centre, and many good points made by your respondents. What gets done will have to last for a long time, so let’s be ambitious (I would say aspirational, but that’s just been hi-jacked by the politicians) and make a Centre we can be proud of. Work in progress…

26. Overall I like the current proposals as they appear to increase the space available to pedestrians and cyclists, nicely unifying the city centre and yet allowing essential vehicular and public transport access.

    I would like to see St Augustines Parade narrowed to two lanes as this would make crossing by foot much easier. This was achieved on Arundel Gate in Sheffield where a dual carriageway has been reduced to two lanes.

    The Piazza space in front of the Colston Hall will help make the venue feel part of a unified city centre as well as reducing traffic on the rest of Colston Street – a useful cycle route to the BRI, Clifton, Cotham, Kingsdown, Redland, etc.

    I would like to see the cyclist desire lines across the Centre clearly indicated and designed in such a way that mixing with pedestrians is minimised. One or two cyclists in the shared space here is not too much of a problem, but at busy times it can get tricky for both cyclists and pedestrians.

    The plan shows the existing pinch point by Broad Quay House. I think this is unnecessary and should be widened to two lanes.

    Where pedestrian crossings are required they should be made zebra crossings and traffic speeds kept low.

    Finally none of this will work without consistent enforcement. Too often the existing restrictions are abused – especially by private vehicles entering bus-only areas.

27. OK, now I’ve had a look at the plans, it seems the scheme is going towards shared surfaces. Now everytime this is raised, I notice people get all irrational. The fact is these schemes work elsewhere, so let’s be guided by facts rather than fear please. By all means listen to people with valid concerns, but I’d hate for a good scheme to be sent astray by knee jerk reactions. And by work I mean REDUCE accidents, not increase them. That said, the council will need to reassure equalities groups such as blind and visually impaired. Perhaps we could have an exchange from a country such as Germany where this has been successfully introduced and the council arranges for a blind or visually impaired speaker to come and talk to local groups? (That’s assuming they are happy with their schemes over there!)

28. This is only draft A and we have a very long way to go yet, but at least it opens the debate – thanks for that.
    What I can see of the proposal is like the present scheme it is not bold enough so it ends up being compromised and ultimatally failing to meet its objectives.
    This city is all about water, it divides the traffic as well as creating North – South divides in everything from sport to healthcare amenities. By all means stop all private traffic around the Centre but – and it will be expensive, create a new river crossing – not sure where but possibly coming off Princes St bridge to the new Canons Way and then of course up Jacobs Wells Rd or out to Hotwells. It could be unsightly against the harbour backdrop but it relieve a lot of traffic away from the Centre?

    One other way to reduce the use of private cars in the city centre is not to intoroduce trams (another rose tinted spectacle idea of years gone by) but gradually in areas of great car ownership of the city make the public transport free! It may sound costly but how many times do we hear about teh cost to business of congestion, let alone what it is doing to our health?
    As with all things free it will get abused, so to limit this I suggest pasengers will need to ‘swipe’ and ID card to get on & off the bus so if there are any issues with respect to damage or abuse we will know who was on the bus at that time. Intoducing this idea will not require endless planning applications, enquiries or huge roadwork schemes. The only people who use public transport now are those who have to i.e. commuters with no car parking at their place of work, people who cannot drive, older or disabled people and youngsters who do not mix too well with older people etc.
    By making public transport free, ‘ordinary’ people will realise in the economically difficult times it pays to use public transport and we will gradually be able to de-choke the city of cars and increase free flowing clean and efficient public transport. Once the roads are freed up it will be a natural progression for people to use cycles or walk in a much improved environment.
    Just for the record, I am a car user driving 8 miles to work but would prefer to use my bike if I were a bit younger and the hills less steep ( I have used an electric bike – excellent option I may well buy sometime).

29. I strongly agree with proposals to improve the city centre by limiting access and parking for private cars. This would benefit everyone who uses it as a pedestrian, regardless of how they arrive.

    I access the centre by bus, bike and car in that order of preference. Driving down there is already a nightmare and I don’t know why people prefer to do so. Getting there from by bus is complicated by the fact that many services now stop short of the centre – a response to delays forced by the volume of car traffic passing through!

    However people get there, they have to get out and walk when they arrive, and I can’t imagine the most committed of car drivers enjoys the experience of the centre as a pedestrian. The traffic lights take a very long time to change and bottlenecks build up at busy times. Plus pedestrianised areas would be far more in keeping with the aesthetic design of the centre.

    Personally I’d like to see much more of Broadmead pedestrianised or traffic restricted through congestion charges. Its been done in Oxford, London, Leeds, and many more places I’m sure. Why in Bristol are we so beholden to the private car?

30. 1. More reasonably priced park and ride schemes for Bristol.

    2. Cheaper car parking.

    3. One way regular traffic going East [plus two way buses] along Broad Quay.

    4. Continue ring road [A4174] around city, including adding those extra park and ride facilities.

    5. Congestion charges for some parts of central Bristol.

    6. Proper bicycle lanes in centre.

    7. ?Copy the popular Manchester tramway?

31. Once again Jon, thank you for all the time and effort you have put into answering the numerous questions – even those not directly relevant; though so many felt so strongly that they felt they had to comment under those circumstances should make your political antennia twich somewhat.

    Next, I note Citizen Sanches comments regarding an Office of Fair Trading investigation into bus service ‘monoplies’: do First Bus and Stagecoach compete against each in any city in th U.K.?

    As to specifics, I suffer from mobility imparments and find the simulated, and the real granite/basalt, oable stones quite uncomfortable and destablelizing. The illustrations appear to show Blue Lias paving slabs so that’s a step in the right direction. However, from what I’ve read and seen of the proposal there appears to be no other consideration given to the needs of the disabled.

    Perhaps this will be added as the details are worked through. My wife an I regularly use the Central Library, Coperative Bank off Clare Street and Cafe Red, which is just off of the centre. So parking for the disabled, bus routes, cycleways and fares are important issues.

    The visual environment is equally important to me. An open space in front of the new extention to the Colston Hall should be an improvement. As for additional tree planting, aside from their contribution to removing CO2, they can block, or form, vistas and obsture views of historic buildings. That is to state their siting needs carfeul consideration. Something more than we had 12 last but will have thirty-six this year, etcetera, etc. Therefore, I hope as details are considered we will be given further oportunities to comment on them. Such an approach should also remove the rationale for discussions about strategy. It seems the current debate does not deal with strategy while also not having suffecient detail to warrant a discussion of specifics. As others have noted the use of artists’ illustrations is totally suitable for this non to specific outline proposal, but good for little else. Having been a building surveyor for many years I know trees and such like are good places for hiding areas of architectural ambiguity!

32. Jon,

    I am pleased that BCC are revisiting the layout of the Centre, what was done previously did not quite achieve its aim and it still feels like a large traffic island. I hope lessons have been learnt from mistakes of the past.

    Looking at the scheme proposals I wonder why additional bus stops outside St Mary on the Quay are required. Surely the Bus link from Colston Street to the centre could be shifted to the west so that buses travelling down Colston Street could pass across the centre to the bus only south side of the centre. Buses that travel from Colston Street to Lewins Mead could then route via the centre, Nelson Street and then Christmas Street where they can turn right onto Lewins Road. This would avoid the confusion of having bus stops in two areas of the centre. This would also allow the removal of the eastbound bus lane on the north side of the centre, where the space could be used for additional pedestrian areas or a second eastbound traffic lane.

    The depiction of traditional (narrow) strips of pedestrian crossing is disappointing, particularly at the junction of Broad Quay with Baldwin Street. Will these be signalised? There should certainly be a wide crossing along the axis of Claire Street/corn Street to the centre as this is a key desire line. The scheme shown is no better than the existing situation albeit with less traffic.

    I also believe that the crossing between the two halves of the centre (east and west) should be far wider and dominate the bus link rather than the other way round.

    How will the Council prevent large amounts of traffic using Corn Street, Small Street, Nelson Street and Silver Street to travel between Baldwin Street and Lower Maudlin Street? Seems like an obvious northbound rat run which would damage the environment around Corn Street in particular.

    Finally and rather worryingly there appears to be a dashed link shown over the pedestrian area to the east of the centre, it appear to connect an eastbound bus lane with a west bound bus lane on Rupert Street, would buses not collide!

33. Jon

    Ben Baillie Hamilton has some good ideas, particularly around making more liveable attractive places. Good to hear that you want to engage on accessibility and mobility issues.

    With regards one of our favourite topics – the regulation of bus services, the Office of Fair Trading have referred bus services to the competition commission as they fear a lack of competition has pushed up prices and driven down quality.

    Heather Clayton, a senior director at the OFT, said: “One of the concerns that we think the Competition Commission should take a look at is the tendency for local areas to become dominated by a single operator.”

    Perhaps this will urge local authorities to be more interventionist and less compliant with the local bus operators? Some things can’t be left to the market – not if you want to make things better.

34. It is noticed , reading through the draft proposal, that there is no consideration being given to accomodate the needs of wheelchair users who often do not have a choice of using anything other than a car. They need parking facilities and surfaces that are conducive to comfortable travel and certainly not the ‘false cobbles’ which which cause such discomfort.
    It is noticed that some buses advertise that they can accomodate motorised adult wheelchairs on some routes. This is only possible if ramps are provided at all bus stops which at present they are not.

35. In respone to many of the comments here, it seems clear that focusing on the city centre actually highlights the almost symbiotic relationship between bristol’s districts, residents and the transport infrastructure. Overall, a baoanced viewpoint needs to be taken about the city’s infrastructure and the users it is designed to serve. Importantly, the insfrastructure needs to be resilient enough to cope with change; look at today’s issues. Cars are not on the road, there are few cyclists, many people are falling over on the pavements and buses aren’t running. The danger is clear, without broader consideration on individuals needs such as working parents, the disabled, individuals who would love to cycle but have nowhere safe to leave their cycle or get changed when they get to work, public transport users and companies, pedestrians, people who need to use a car for work sales reps, doctors etc we will end up with a solution which may be pretty, but one that will not work. In answer to Jon’s view I beleive the issue should be opened up, we need to design and implement a comprehensive transport infrastructure that is resilient to change and is capable of being adapted/expanded as the city requires it to. I also believe that we need to move away from single solution workarounds e.g encouraging people to cycle, closing a lane or two on the centre or putting new traffic lights in Portishead (and them removing them!)
    What does everybody think?

36. I am very much in favour of a rebalancing in Bristol in favour of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. There has to be a radical change in thinking about private car use, whether we like it or not. The centre will be a much better place, and more like a proper city centre, if it does not look quite so much like a giant roundabout. I also like the idea of turning it into a greener space.

    As a non car-user, I sometimes find that people who mainly get about by car have unduly negative beliefs about other modes of transport. Whilst it is necessary to make those other methods as safe, accessible and cheap as possible (First Bus take notice), a change in mindset is also necessary, and that will come about partly through courageous leadership on the part of Bristol Ciity Council: making private car use, for those who are able to use other means, more difficult. (With concessions for people with disabilities.)

    We have to work collectively to deal with the climate crisis. We can’t just respond to necessary changes as if personal freedoms are being attacked! Our current dependence on the petrol engine, and fossil fuels, is unsustainable. We know this.

    As traffic reduces, noise and air pollution reduce, and so walking becomes more enjoyable and buses can move more quickly. Walking and cycling improve health. Those with no other choice but to use their cars will also benefit. A virtuous circle. There is so much to gain from reclaiming the streets of Bristol from traffic jams.

37. My vested interest is that I live very close to the City Centre – Cumberland Road. We chose to live where we could do most of our journeys on foot or by bus. Our car mileage is very low as a result.

    When I hear people say how car owners are persecuted I feel sad that there are still too many drivers wanting too much road freedom. Things are changing and so should we.

    I get upset by cyclists on pavements; when I challenge, if they are not abusive, they say that the roads are too dangerous. But now it is the pedestrian who is at risk – I have been struck by a cyclist passing me fast and close and it was very painful for a week – of course he did not stop.

    Reducing road traffic will help to insist that all wheels belong on the road. And, to be fair, safer for the cyclist who will also get about more easily.

    This scheme should also make it easier to navigate the City by bus – unless your really know the routes, finding which bus to take and where it stops is a real challenge.

    Re your comment, Jon, about format – I agree that three or four blogs on specific areas would make it much easier for those with particular interest to engage understanding what is being said and responding sensibly to matters of interest.

    It may be claear that my interest would be how it affects City Centre residents as pedestrians and their enjoyment of the city with improved, accessible and more pleasant bus transport; I am sure you will have the best ideas how to divide topic.

    Finally, this is an excellent initiative – consultaion that I hope we can all try to participate in rationally, constructively – and not too emotionally? Well done.

38. Tina,

    Vehicles produce costs to other road users in the form, of taking up valuable space, pollution, noise and safety. If everyone had absolute freedom to drive, we would have to create more cities like Los Angeles, and tear down large areas of the city to create larger roads. This would create more pollution, a more dangerous environment and ultilately less freedom of movement. Your response is disproportionate, Bristol is a very car dominated city and we have to encourage more people to switch to more sustainable modes of transport, of course some people have to make complex journeys for which public transport is not a convenient choice, but there are a lot of people currently driving around Bristol who could switch to public transport or walk or cycle. These proposals are rather timid, but we should support moves to create more high quality public spaces and reclaim the public realm for all users and not just cars, change can be painful, but it is absolutely neccessary if we are to create a better future. What sort of future do you want for your children, surely somewhere where they can grow up healthy and free?

39. I am a long-time Bristol resident, cyclist and car driver. I fully support the proposals to make the city centre less car-dominated, but would like to see them go further. Compromises won’t do – the weaker (pedestrians and cyclists) would lose out to the stronger (cars).
    So many of us want to see the City Council act with courage, boldness and vision. Now’s your chance.

40. Why are people so against drivers. Power to those that are able to use other means to get from a to b but this is not possible for everyone. For example, I have to get my child to school, continue to work and do this in reverse at the end of the day. If I had to rely on walking or buses I would not be able to work as there would not be enough time in the day to be able to fit in my 7.30 hours at work. I do wonder if some of the problems arise from traffic lights being installed and stopping the natural flow of traffic, some 24 hrs bus lanes that are not largely populated (especially at rush hour). Cycle lanes are fine if they are used. I find that if cyclists have a red light they either go through or jump up onto the pavement (obviously this doesn’t apply to everyone). Car drivers pay their taxes surely we are entitled to have the freedom of being able to move around the country as we please the same as everyone else without be penalised or punished at every turn. We have created the use of cars for jobs or pleasure surely as citizens of this earth, in some circumstances, surely we should have the freedom of choice to do as we please and make decisions for ourselves rather than having them forced on us. It we had the infra structure to enable car drivers to stay off the road great, but we don’t so please don’t punish us for doing what we have to do because we have no other choice.

    • People aren’t against car drivers, because the majority of the population are drivers and pedestrians. The issue is one of car dominance over all other modes and its subsequent effects on the quality of public space. How many people do you ever see near the Cenotaph monument? Is actually a large public space!

      I completely understand the issue of getting children to school and would suggest that this is probably one of the more legitimate reasons to drive, especially if alternative transport to school or the childs age prevents the use of alternatives, such as walking orschool buses, were they exist.

      Even with this proposal you will still be able to drive to work, you will just be require to use an alternative route. The fact that car drivers pay tax doesn’t provide extra privilages. Lots of people pay tax and some pedestrians might argue that paying tax should entitle them to the freedom of public spaces uneffected by other transport users, but equally it dosen’t. We all have to share space and all this proposal represents is a new distribution of that space.

      I agree that we need to work towards having the infrastructure to enable car drivers to stay off the road, but this is not a quick fix, it has to happen incrementally and this proposal is part of that process. More public transport infrastructure, oyster card, regulated fares etc are all a step in the right direct.

    • As a parent who cycles my son to school, I find that often it is other parents who are the primary hazard on that journey; people on the schoolrun running late who view the “school keep clear” as their parking area. So no, I don’t feel that driving kids to school is a necessity, more something that endangers everyone else and sets the kids up for a life of in-car commuting.

      Bus lanes are one of the safest places to cycle in; cars give you far more clearance than in bike lanes. The hazards there are not so much buses as vehicles that park in the lanes and block it for everyone. Here bikes come out better than buses.

      What would be good for non-driving infrastructure in this city would be free kids bus and train travel, just as london offers on the bus and tube to under 16s. It would be too expensive for me to use the bus or train to get the child to school and back every day. We do it by train once a term as a treat.

41. This is a great idea as a first step in humanising the city centre. I’d like to see it go further with Park Street closed off to traffic at a minimum.

    Please could the scheme incorporate as much greenery as possible with a variety of spaces rather than the usual big concrete space.

    Some well designed pavements and cycle lanes would also be much appreciated. If not a complete ban on cars then at least a design that places cars as the guests of pedestrians and cyclists rather than the current design that feels the reverse.

    Just one more crazy, way out, wacky idea. Why not run a free circular bus route? Something as simple as up Park Street, round the triangle to the foot of Whiteladies, past the hospital, to the bottom of Stokes Croft, then round to Cabot Circus/Broadmead and back again. Perhaps even to Temple Meads, providing that all important transport link.

    In any case a quick route that runs both ways, making it practical to get from one place to another quickly and at no cost at the point of use. I’m sure there are many reasons why not, but it may just help people get around and choose public transport to get into the centre if they know they can move around with ease.

    • We are also looking at Park Street, increasing greenery (including an aspiration that Bristol should have 30% tree cover – currently it has 11%), and as for the free circular bus route around the centre, that is another idea worth pursuing. We are undergoing a major route review of bus routes in Bristol and this is definitely on the agenda.

      • I agree that Park Street is due some attention. It has long been an integral part of the Bristol tourist trail and should not be allowed to degenerate.
        Although primarily a walker now but also a car owner, I endorse the traffic calming/reduction initiatives proposed by many others and indeed, artistic impressions of new-looks can often appear inviting. However, I fear the East Street (Bedminster) effect resurfacing – a place where I once worked and remember fondly. Contrast recent fortunes of “pedestrian-friendly” East Street with those of the far end of North Street where the theatre, restaurants and bars, flourishing alongside established and traditional retailers have, perhaps unwittingly, rejuvenated the area whilst retaining a local familiarity. Hopefully, this observation will be considered in future planning throughout Bristol.

    • There is actually a secret free bus from templemeads to the BRI and Bristol university, search for it on the web “bristol hospital free bus”. Open to patients, staff and students.

42. The idea in practice is very good, provided you are a cyclist are a pedestrian or use public transport. However, there is a large group of Council Tax payers who do not appear to have been taken into consideration. The disabled amongst us, me being one. Please do not denigrate the needs of some people to have to “choke” your precious space. We are all part of a community of space users.

    I need my car, not for pleasure, not for occupational work purposes but to actually get from a to b. Buses on the whole are not accessible by the disabled for a large number of reason but this is not the forum to discuss this. Cycling is a definite no no and I would not be able to walk the distances from a car park to say the Colston Hall.

    In addition to this groups needs the sight of cyclists doing battle with pedestrians for a shared space beggars belief as (and I appreiciate not ALL cyclists) many cyclists do not appear to be aware that they need to be pedestrian savvy.

    This is only a first draft of the plan, there is a long way to go and obviously the requirements of all cannot be met, but we are a very large sector of the community.

    • Thank you for raising this very important issue. It is one where as you say we need to give a lot more thought.

      All road users are important and I would suggest that disabled users are the most important of all. I speak as a GP as well as in my transport executive role.

      If the approach taken to our travel and transport plans means that disabled people can get about our city safely and easily, then it follows, I suggest, that everyone else will also be able to get around safely and easily.

      Historically the the car was given top priority on our streets over buses, cyclists and pedestrians. Disabled people were often given less priority, even than pedestrians. That is changing albeit slowly.

      The key for me is that all modes of transport need to cross each other at times. Formal “crossings” are not always used or observed, and in areas like the city centre we see all forms of transport mixing, sometimes with fatal results (usually to pedestrians or cyclists).

      I would like to see a continuing reversal of priority, so that disabled people have top priority then pedestrians, then cyclists, then buses and trains, then taxis, car clubs and cars and lorries.

      Note this is about PRIORITY not about rights to use that form of transport. Like you, I recognise that cars and lorries are still absolutely essential to the running of our city.

      I am coincidentally meeting (weather permitting) a chap called Ben Hamilton-Baillie today to discuss some of these issues. I would be very grateful to be in touch directly with disabled people to discuss aspirations for travel in our city. I have spoken to members of the Disability Equality Forum in the past, but as you say, much more thought is needed here.

      Thank you again for raising it.

      Jon

    • My wife is a wheelchair user and I am a trustee of a disabled group – public transport MUST be made available to disabled people. We are not another class of the human race. Remember, age can be disabling without a wheelchair. It is noted that no facilities to address disabled parking are allowed in the plan.

    • OK, I clicked the thumbs down icon and re-read and maybe my first reaction was a little harsh, so sorry. But “Please do not denigrate the needs of some people to have to “choke” your precious space. We are all part of a community of space users.” – No one – NO ONE – is denigrating the needs of those who really need their cars!. !!!. Honestly, cyclists (except the idiot law breaking minority) pedestrians, wheelchair users and others with impaired mobility, and push chair users (they’re in no order – no 1 would be wheelchair users) should be allies. Why? The fewer short, unnecessary journeys which don’t need to be done by car that are changed to walking, bus or cycling, the better for all of us! And believe me, the figures show there are still a lot of journeys done by car that don’t need to be. One of my chief motivations in campaigning to reduce car dominance is for those who have no choice but to use their cars, including some of my friends, who I know would love to be freed of congestion and pollution.

43. The main drawback of this proposal is that it will make it almost impossible to get across the city centre by car. This will force people to take the bus. This would be OK if the bus fares were affordable for working people. At present it costs £1.85 to travel just 1.5miles from one side of the Downs to the Triangle. Cycling is not a safe alternative. At present there are no safe cycle routes from the top of Blackboy Hill to the city centre.

    • Agreed bus fares are too expensive. However:
      If you think bus fares are expensive for working people, try affording them if you can’t work! And cycling is not a safe alternative? Oh yes it is. For every slim chance of an injury or death, you have a near certainty of reducing a massive range of illnesses, and figures prove people who cycle regularly take fewer days off sick and live longer.
      Agree with you about lack of safe cycle routes on the route you give though! )

44. I really support this idea and its is clearly a obvious requirement to support BRT/bus routes navigate the centre. Some interesting comments about improvements to transport in general but i’m gonna try to keep my comments specific to the proposal.

    1) I don’t see why the bus only route down Colston Street needs to go north up Colston Avenue. Surely if the bus only junction across the centre was slightly further north, buses could go straight into the new centre (North) interchange. It duplicates infrastructure. Removing this and the associated bus stops would free up space for wider pavements, some on street parking maybe and sufficient taxi ranks, as well as allowing better bus/BRT interchange.

    2) The proposal does not improve the pedestrian crossing facilities at the bottom of Clare/Corn Street. This is a major pedestrian desire line. Again move the bus only junction north and add a crossing direct from Corn street onto the centre, this would be simpler and safer than the current two crossing arrangement oven Baldwin street and the bus lane on Broadquay.

    3) A better pedestrian connection could be provided from Christmas steps to Nelson Street. Currently this is not very simple for pedestrians. Removing the proposed bus right turn into Christmas street would allow for a simpler junction and potentially a more direct pedestrian crossing to be incorporated into the scheme.

    The main downside for this scheme is the remove of options for journeys from/to the North West (Whiteladies) from the South East (Bath Road). It would be encouraging to see a proposal for a further BRT route to address this shortcoming. Prehaps via Whiteladies, Park Street, Baldwin Street, Victoria Street and Bath Road, or potentially out the back of Temple Meads to the St Philips flyover and proposed Callington Road Link Road.

    Has there been any consideration of this?

    • Many thanks for these specific and considered points. When this current consultation closes, officers will capture and summarise the issues raised, and we will publish a formal response.

45. The public ownership of bus services/nationallisation issue is sterile, lets move on to the real issue, which is regulation V deregulation, no one in the current climate is expecting First,Stagecoach, National Express to be taken into public ownership. However, we should expect that local transport authorities should determine the transport needs of a city like Bristol. The large bus groups could tender to operate parts of the Greater Bristol Bus Network, which could be branded as Greater Bristol Metro – or something like that, passengers need a well publicised, planned and convenient system, the operator of the vehicle shouldn’t matter to the public. In London TfL does exactly this, most passengers do not notice if First or Nat Ex are running the bus, they pay the fare using Oyster and enjoy a ‘turn up an go’ service. Bristol deserves the same !

46. John,
    Thank you for taking the time to repond to forum members’ comments on this matter; which is as you rightly state off topic, but getting the strategy aggreed upon and right is crucial!

    As to having to accept the ‘given’ (i.e. nationalisation is not on the agenda) I thought you stated earlier that you were about persuading people. Perhaps you don’t want to persuade them this matter (or even have it discussed)

    Also, two further points it does not have to involve nationalisation as more effective regulation, which you state all parties are working on, is an alternative. Of course it needs to be robust as the private transport operator will have different motives, and a regulatory requirement to maximise share holders’ return (it’s their duty: due dilligence on all that, to do this), but it can be done; though there is precious little evidence of it have been achieved in Bristol – as nearly all forum posters repeatedly write to remind you when commenting on our privately operated bus service. Next, as to publically run services (nationalisation is hardly a relevant term to apply to the provision of a regional integrated transport system) politicians need to grasp the fact the general public is beginning to develop a more nuanced opinion than public bad, private good or public always good and private always bad.

    Perhaps you could open up the debate on this forum as to the merits and disadvantges of a privately run bus transport system, as oppossed to a public one – that is attempt to get the basic principles agreed upon/right before proceeding into the details. Just a thought.

47. I am meeting with the officers behind this new AskBristol site today. It does seem to be a good format. I will be interested to hear their thoughts on the first few days live.

    Issues arise in the comments that are important and we want to hear, but often are perhaps a bit off topic, like fares, route reviews, smart cards, cycling on pavements, re-nationalisation of buses, etc, etc. Should we add new topics, then refer people back to those article and comment streams when they crop up again? Should we move “off topic” comments, or delete them, or leave them unchanged?

    If you have any comments on how we can make this format sustainable, interesting and useful, please let us know.

48. First Bus do not have a monopoly in Bristol, but they are the dominant company. They recognise and are responding to the request for lower fares to attract more passengers. National Express are doing the same in the city. Abus have always had low fares but limited routes. Wessex Connect seem to be in between.

    We are working on a full route review – the current routes were mostly designed in the 1930s! As you say, fast direct linking services make sense. The radial GBBN Greater Bristol Bus Network routes offer such speed and reliability, as of course will the BRT.

    Smart cards are long overdue. Just before Christmas, the Government allocated Bristol £1.1m for 2009/10 and £1.1m for 2010/11 “to help you meet the start up costs or initial running costs of a smart ticketing scheme.” We have a deadline of 29th January 2010 to submit.

    There is a lot going on. I truly believe that we can at last start to get the transport system we deserve. I readily acknowledge the cross-party, cross unitary authority drive here. Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats politicians are working together from all four local authorities. We have a bigger prize here than the short term party political bickering (although it is not always easy to break old habits!)

    • Jon (correct spelling this time)
      So you do not think First have a monopoly, but rather are only the dominant company. So what percentage of bus journeys are run each day in the greater Bristol area by First as a percentage of total journeys? A guess it’s about 91%. Monopoly status is not about being the only service provider; rather it is all about being able to control the market. That is set prices at a level it chooses (derive profits above the minimum necessary to attract investers) . Presumably that is why the government has given the local authority powers to look into the fares they charge. It is also why there is a regulator to check service levels. You can not have it both ways. Either there is a properly functioning market and so no need for regulatory interference or it is not a properly functioning market, which is presumably why the local authority has beeb given the regulatory powers you were so keen to remind us about in a posting you made yesterday.

      All the companies you mentioned in your previous posting, accept National Express and they are not in the business of running local bus services, are unable to compete with First Bus because they can not raise the capital to fund a city wide bus service. It’s probably the same for having the necessary expertise, staff, training, purchasing maintenance facitlities, etc. That is to state easy entry into the market does not exist as start up costs are prohibitively high. In addition if First Bus’s actions in other cities round the UK are anything to go by if competition did become an issue they would simply drop their prices to below operating costs and fund the short fall from the abnormal profits they make in other cities, whose local authority has an understanding of economics equal to that of Bristol City Council

      To be very straight I’ve long had my doubts about the nature of Bristol Corporation’s partnership with First Bus. This gets to appear ever more like the partnership Bristol Planning department had with the company (Crest Nicholson) who developed Bristol City Docks. That turned to be an unmitigated disaster – currently the development with highest proportion of un let space in England, don’t ask about the aesthetics. I don’t suppose First are offering to fund the saleries of Bristol Corporation Transport Planning staff?

      Finally, as to your comments about the BRT scheme being open to tender; I’ll give you 10:1 on First Bus winning the open tender. Will on this forum be prepared to give better odds:-). Look at wwhat they have a got in their favour local market/geographic knowledge, an existing supply of trained drivers, an easy working relationship with the local authority (all political parties), an exclusive deal to purchase and run BRT buses and the capital required to fund the scheme. Of course how you’ll be able to resolve any problems with regard to service levels and prices once they are comfortably embedded into nearly all the city’s transport network remains to be resolved. However, if the last 13 or so years are anything to go by they will not be resolved, but rather hidden under a heap of praises from the cross-party political supporters.

49. yes yes yes
    a small positive tiny step in the right direction
    it doesn’t go far enough for me
    I would like to see it completely car free
    I like the http://www.darkhousemultimedia.co.uk/files-bristol/index.html scheme

    Baldwin Street and Colston Street car free yes please this year if possible thank you,

    at last some thinking that is future orientated and not locked in the dark ages of the motor vehicle !!!

    With fewer cars, we can breathe again and Bristol can be a city fit for humans rather than a giant car park.
    Let’s turn parking lots into paradise
    depave the centre and turn it green !!!

    Am concerned about shared spaces between pedestrians and cyclists though, it’s tricky on the centre already and sharing bus lanes not my idea of fun.

    And First Bus really has to go, if we are to retgain any pride in our city !!!

    Could we have the Corn Street area car free on a Sunday for the sober people to enjoy and not just for the drunks at the w/e ?

50. John, it is not just about Fares, it is also about the quality of the bus services, an integrated off bus ticketing system should do wonders to improve boarding times. But First insist on using single entrance/exist vehicles which increases dwell times. Also routes are often to ‘circuitous’ look at recent changes to route 76 in the north, the tour de Southmead now adds another 8 mins – journeys need to be faster and more direct. Faster journey times, more frequent and reliable services are a prerequiste of a decent public transport system and the current free market approach is not providing it – there are more reductions to frequencies planned for February. First are not going to tempt drivers out of their cars with this approach. The private bus monopoly of the past 23 years has resulted in the slow death of of bus travel and will continue unless bus services are under democratic control.

51. I’m delighted that this idea is being considered and want to like the proposal, but feel I can’t without more information.

    I don’t drive – but even I am concerned about how motor traffic would go North-South (between say the Clifton Triangle and Temple Meads). It’s very unclear what is proposed. Park Row-Bond St-Temple Way seems to be the only realistic option – is that what is intended? We need this information to consider the proposal properly.

    I’d like to see much more emphasis on the bus interchange aspects of the scheme as a positive benefit.

    It seems to open up the possibility of closing Park Street to cars, van and lorries. I see that as a major plus.

    Finally, I’d like much more greenery in the centre – and some more impressive fountains.

52. I agree with those who say the scheme doesn’t go far enough.

    SOmething which completely removes traffic from at least one side of the centre,please.

53. Many commenters here seem to have overly high expectations of improvements for pedestrians and cyclists as result of this scheme, IMHO.

    While I’m somewhat in favour of the proposal, I think the general benefits (not related to the traffic interchange) for pedestrians and cyclist will be rather small.

    If the scheme gets implemented, there will still be a lot of traffic, a lot of pollution, and a lot of noise, and the actual centre – the traffic islands in the middle – will still be a place to pass through as quickly as possible. There will still be 2×4 lanes of traffic to navigate, only that most of the traffic is now busses, BRT vehicles and taxis. I’m sure it will end up being a great traffic interchange, but it will still be a highly unpleasant and pedestrian-unfriendly space.

    I believe that bus stop ‘lanes’ on the side of roads are very pedestrian unfriendly, for example. I think people can generally deal with at most two lanes of traffic: either moving in both directions, or moving in the same direction. But if you have additional lanes where vehicles stop and reduce visibility or may pull out of or into in addition to just passing through, that’s where it gets too complex. (Sure, people are expected/supposed to only cross at traffic lights, but that’s not what they do, esp. not in a place like the city centre where there are not enough traffic lights at strategic places, and no zebra crossings and it often takes too long to get a green light for pedestrians. And in any case this doesn’t change the perceived ‘friendliness’ of the environment.)

    Case in point, for comparison: the Rathausmarkt in Hamburg, Germany. If you look at it on google maps, the Reesendamm and all eastern access roads are bus-only and the road is all cobble stone (most other roads in the area are now pedestrian only and/or bus only as well, which is not visible on the satellite picture since it’s a bit old). Rathausmarkt is one of the city centre bus exchanges. Almost all “Metro Bus” lines go through there (fast and high frequency radial bus routes), it’s in very short walking distance to all major underground/tube lines, and it’s the primary night bus hub. The structures on the east side of the square are roof constructions with kiosks and waiting areas underneath. There are basically three lanes: two bus stop lanes and a middle lane for busses to go past. This bus-only low-speed three-lane road is already not a very pleasant area to navigate as a pedestrians (although not so unpleasant that one would need traffic lights to cross, since the shared middle lane ensures there’s only one bus moving in one direction at any time). Now if I compare that to the proposed scheme in Bristol it seems pretty clear to me that the city centre in Bristol will still be a pretty horrible public space for pedestrians and cyclists afterwards.

    Sadly I can’t really think of a better solution for any of this other than digging the BRT stops into the ground or moving the BRT stop elsewhere (such as the southern end of Broad Quay, or Prince Street), but that would somewhat defeat the ‘public transport interchange’ aspect a bit I guess, since it means people would have further to walk when connecting BusBRT.

    Maybe it would be possible to sprinkle at least some narrow traffic islands between the lanes?

    (PS: in the PDF on page 5 there’s not a single bus or BRT vehicle in the mock-up!)

54. i support this scheme and request that safe cycle routes be a strong component of the plans.

55. It seems this is just another council scheme to try and force people out of their cars by creating artificial congestion that previously wasn’t there.

    The council’s main priority should be creating more choice for how people travel, not restricting certain modes it deems unsuitable.

    Once Bristol’s public transport is up to scratch by means of a convenient, reliable and cheap service, then punish anyone who doesn’t use it and punish them hard.

    Less stick, more carrot please!

56. Bristol city centre has always suffered with noise & pollution giving this area & others like it a poor quality of life. The centre of a city should especially promote good life quality that can be enjoyed by all at a simple level. The starting point is SIMPLE good design -

    * more .. space
    * more .. greenery
    * more .. water
    * less .. noise
    * less .. pollution

    Good design gives people that quality. It has worked in other small areas of Bristol. This proposal is another small piece that would add to that quality of life – so much more is needed

57. This is all very nice- it looks fine although I think we all know it will just push the traffic elsewhere. Buses will scoot past the Hippodrome, only to get snarled up in traffic on the Triangle, Marsh Road and St James’ Barton.

    I’d like to echo comments above that point out that making it easier for buses to run through town is pointless if the bus service isn’t up to scratch. Currently the buses are hideously overpriced, unreliable and often slower than walking. I’m sure the cost of these improvements will also lead to an increase is bus prices.

    Before we sort out roads and traffic flows take a look at the service First provide and make them accountable for the ‘service’ they run.

58. Tweaking the centre in front of the hippodrome avoids the two biggest factors.
    1. Getting buses to Temple Meads, and
    2. Connecting with the Bus Station (National Routes and the Airport).
    So Bristol stays not joined up.

59. I don’t think you are seriously considering people’s criticism of this scheme.

    This project should not be a transport priority. Simple as.

    Why are you not looking at reducing our ludicrously high bus fares? Or re-opening some suburban railway stations? That kind of thing would encourage people to get out of their cars and onto public transport or onto bikes.

    Please don’t repeat in the response that ‘we all agree with improving transport’ because everytime you’ve used it above you’ve evaded answering why this project is your priority over things like bus fare reductions.

    • Speedy, the City Council do not have the means to lower bus fares (they don’t run the buses) or to open railway stations (they don’t run the railways). There’s absolutely no point in expecting them to do things that are completely outside their remit.

      • Chris Hutt,
        wrote ‘. . . the City Council do not have the means to lower bus fares (they don’t run the buses) or to open railway stations (they don’t run the railways). There’s absolutely no point in expecting them to do things that are completely outside their remit.’ Thank you, Chris, for so clearly definning why these discussions about schemes that merely aim at getting the details ‘right’are near pointlessness; when the overall strategy is both not thought through and for ideological reasons will not even consider what most Bristolains consider to be the only solution that will meet the city’s transport needs: an intergrated, affordable transport system whose primary aim is the environment and not the maximisation of share holders’ return. Of course as you have stated that option is not within their remit.

        No wonder democracy (votes per head of populatation) is falling nearly as fast people’s belief in the ability of poliliticians to resolve their problems; governments have given all their powers to solve problems over to private companies or diluted them down through so called public/private partnerships.

        What this apears to represent in Bristol is as follows:
        Bristol Council use their regulatury powers to force car drivers on to buses;
        First Bus, who have an almost total monopoly over local transport, repsond to the ncreased demand by increasing their profit through higher prices and less expenditure on service quality;
        Many car drivings either through experiencing the poor state of public transport or from talking to others choose to sit in ever increasing traffic quese that poor ever more polution into our environment. So the public loose on all counts while First Bus reep ever greater returns per share; no wonder the price of their shares are so high!

        Consequently, the realization of this deficient strategy has placed unrealistic expectations as to what the humble bicycle can achieve in solving the region’s transport and environmental problems.

        Was it Nero who fiddled while Rome burnt?

        • This is another somewhat “off topic” discussion.

          Reducing bus fares remains a priority, but so does getting some decent and long overdue investment into Bristol’s public transport infrastructure.

          As politicians we do have the ability to change these services. I want to see Bristol and our neighbours using the powers of the 2008 Transport Act to introduce quality contracts or partnerships, setting expected levels of service, price, frequency on our bus companies. I am working with colleagues of all parties to make it happen.

          We are also pushing “oyster” style cards, bus lane enforcement, timetable improvements, integrated ticketing, etc, etc.

          I agree totally with the first part of your statement that we need “an intergrated, affordable transport system whose primary aim is the environment”

          My problem is your second bit, “ and not the maximisation of share holders’ return ” – you will notice that none of the major parties are advocating nationalising the buses. Politics for me is the art and science of the possible. I am a pragmatist first, and an idealist second.

          Finally, some of the bus network is “affordable” already. For example, the No 8 and 9 are just £1.50 return Temple Meads to the Centre and £2.50 return Temple Meads to Clifton and Redland. First are cutting some fares by about 10% in February.

          • I’m not so sure that discussing the current bus situation is off-topic- if the council is about to spend money on a flagship programme to improve bus travel, then the quality of the buses running in and out of that area is surely very important? I think the (edited) saying is “You can’t polish a cow-pat”- it doesn’t matter how great we make the terminus if the rest of the network is so poorly run that there is no-one on the buses to get there.

            As for ‘some’ of the network being “affordable”- this is another example of how ludicrous the current set-up is. I’m glad that it is only £1.50 return from Temple Meads to the centre, given that it is a short distance that takes little over 5 mins to walk, that’s the way it should be. Similarly, it is great that the bus fares to and from Clifton are cheap as we’re all aware that Clifton is in the top 5% most deprived wards in the country and the residents there need all the help they can get. But if it takes the best part of £10 each day for a couple to get to and from work on the bus from southmead/westbury, this doesn’t entice you away from your car. Why has some of the network been made affordable and other bits have not? Why is the pricing system not clear and transparent? Why can you not buy a return ticket before 9am on some routes?

            This isn’t meant to be such a rant but dislike of using the buses in Bristol is not based on people’s experiences of getting off the bus on Broad Quay- it is based on a widespread dislike of a terrible service from First.

60. It really is time that the centre was properly opened up to pedestrians, to ensure more reliable bus journeys and to ensure a more pleasant cycling environment. There really is no need for most people to drive through the centre. Once I made the mistake of driving to Prince Street from St Michael’s Hill in the morning, which regularly took 20 minutes – as long as it took to walk, so completely pointless.

    Most of the cities in Europe did this kind of thing decades ago, and they benefited from the pedestrianisation as greater footfall encouraged greater trade.

    We have to go forward now with an imaginative scheme that avoids soulless anytown municipal street furniture – the kind of meaningless stuff put in a decade ago – and that creates a distinctive place – there are lots of people out there who could really create a special place in the Centre – why not run a competition?

    It is obvious also that what is needed is a more coherent point to find bus services, which are scattered all over the place at the moment.

    Overall, a bit uninspired at what is shown in the drawings, but nonetheless a bold and long overdue plan.

61. To address concerns about the flow of North-South traffic, which seem justified and need addressing, what chance of spending the money to be spent on extensive re-pavementing and the like and instead spending that on an additional bridge connecting the A370 to the A4 west of the city centre, between the Merchants Road and Prince Street bridges, as any cursory glance at a map suggests would be a good idea?

    Whether or not the land could be made available to make this plausible I don’t know – could it?

    If it could, softer, cheaper options such as Paul Smith suggests could be used to reduce traffic flow around the city centre whilst the outlet for necessary traffic going through Bristol that the bridge creates does the same, giving public transport the room in which to run quickly, smoothly and more efficiently, maybe evening cutting costs. Who knows? Could this work?

62. I like the proposals and wonder why people think it tolerable to have so much traffic moving through the centre of the city – especially around St Augustine’s parade. I also like the mention of the cenotaph being given the quiet reverential space it deserves.

    I believe in Copenhagen before pedestrianising the centre of the city, people were told that if they did not like the result they would open roads to cars once more. We could make that offer here.

    Bristol is a beautiful city, ruined by cars! This is a positive step in the right direction – let’s have more please!

63. As far as the Centre goes, I agree with these proposals, although I am inclined to agree with those proposing a traffic free Centre.
    Public transport needs planning properly, we need a transport authority, cheaper fares and it needs to be regular and reliable. However why are we still planning for the use of diesel buses as our only form of public transport in Bristol? We need to look to the future and use energy efficient forms of transport or else Bristol will be left behind yet again and other cities with better public transport will attract business and industry.

64. I am all in favour of all real improvements for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. I just doubt whether the proposals go far enough.
    One thing needed is to show clearly which areas are for which users – at present the shared ped/cycle areas are not indicated clearly.
    Another fault is the withdrawal of bus services- eg the 48 and 49 buses no longer go to the centre. They used to extend to Prince Street, and earlier go right through to Inns Court!
    One big & rercent improvement is the extension of the 462 bus from the centre to Temple Meads. More of this type of improvement is needed. The improvements to the road layout must also include the bus improvements.

65. I’m generally in favour of this proposal, well done Jon Rogers. It’s good to see some evidence of more proactive and enlightened transport planning from the council at last. My concern over the scheme as it stands is that it’s not really very ambitious. How about closing St. Augustine’s Parade and/or Park Street to cars as well? That really would make the city centre a pleasanter, quieter, safer place.

66. It’s never made sense that the through traffic is routed through the Centre. There isn’t anywhere to stop/park, so why does so much traffic pass through? I broadly welcome this scheme, and think it’s a positive start. I don’t think party political sniping is helpful, all parties have screwed up transport one way or another at local and/or national levels.
    I think shared space is an accident waiting to happen. If you mix cyclists with pedestrians, cyclists will be demonised and labelled hooligans etc.
    Cyclists and pedestrians need to be put at the forefront of this plan, to avoid the usual add on fudge of shared spaces, cycle lanes to nowhere and dangerous confusion for pedestrians.
    The scheme should be more ambitious, and include a proper rerouting of all through traffic via Upper Maudlin Street, Park Row and down jacobs Wells Rd, extending the traffic free area to cover the main places of interest to shoppers, sightseers and others who want to be out of their cars. An end to the Russian roulette that is getting from one side of the Centre to the other on foot or bike would be revolutionary!

    • Wouldn’t cyclists only be demonised if they were riding in a way which was inconsiderate to pedestrians. If we followed your suggestions about rerouting the chaos in the centre would be replicated at the clifton triangle and also further congest a known bottleneck at the BRI potentially blocking emergency vehicle access

67. Having looked at the pros and cons of bendy buses I fear that we have got off on the wrong foot already. In London they were called ‘chariots of fire’ because they often caught fire, they injured many more pedestrians and cyclists than other normal buses (imagine the chaos) and due to their weight and suspension damaged the roads, meaning more repairs and subsequent delays for road users.

    Have a look at the links below:

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23399737-bendy-buses—the-fatal-facts.do

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bendy_bus

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/johnson-ditches-londons-bendy-buses-1054433.html

    In light of my earlier comment on 01/01/2010 11.12 shouldn’t we be learning from other cities mistakes?

    • Robert points out the “pros and cons of bendy buses”

      This is another slightly off-topic issue that might benefit from separate debate.

      The term “bendy buses” has been used as a short hand to differentiate the current buses from the “something special” planned for the BRT schemes.

      Colleagues have suggested a better term might be “street car” to emphasise the difference. Before my time there was a top quality “bendy bus” that came to Bristol on route to Las Vegas, and since then the short hand has been “bendy bus”!

      Suffice to say, no decision has been made, and the antipathy of some to “bendy buses” has been noted.

      • John thank you for your response. I do believe that all of the issues are inter-related but do take on board your point about this being a topic which may be a different debate.

        The point raises another issue however. Most people (me included) have little understanding of Bus Rapid Transport schemes and their benefits in relation to other options. If you are talking about the Wright BRT Streetcar it is positioned (on the manufacturers website) as the solution for cities that need light rail but can’t afford it.

        In my view it would certainly help if the key benefits of the proposed solutions would be better communicated. If I read ‘bendy buses’ naturally I would research the pros and cons. If I had read Wright BRT sreetcar at least I could check out their website and press releases )and see that London have chosen them recently)

      • Jon,

        I wouldn’t call them ‘street cars’ if I were you.

        The reason being is that the ‘bendy bus’ that visited the city before your time was a Wright StreetCar manufactured by Wright of Belfast. These vehicles are run in the UK exclusively by First Group – in Swansea, York and Leeds. First brand them ‘ftr’.

        Calling these vehicles ‘street cars’ would infer that First have already sewn up the BRT contract.

        That couldn’t possibly be true……could it?

        I’m sure that there will be an open and honest tendering process for the BRT operator……..hopefully.

        • Thanks Steve, always interesting to hear the background to some of these ideas.

          Just to confirm, there will be open procurement to decide on who runs our BRT services.

68. As a start, I think the scheme is good but there is a desperate need for more affordable bus travel in Bristol. Visitors from other British cities that I’ve met are appalled by the bus fares in comparison with those in other cities. I have many friends and colleagues who would travel much more by bus if it was affordable.

    • I find it impossible to comment on a sheme like this, in isolation from any coherent proposals about public transport in Bristol. Surely we need reliable, affordable public transport before spending more of our money on complicated schemes that will only make the whole transport situation in Bristol worse… until there is reliable, affordable public transport.
      I would much prefer my elected “representatives” to represent the needs of local people by putting their energy into sorting out the woeful contracts (and contract management) for existing services. Once they have achieved that, I’ll be delighted to consider more radical proposals for transport in our great city. But please, can they learn to walk before they start trying to run. (Or get us all onto bikes…. That’s actually not a solution for everyone in Bristol, and real solutions need to take account of wider needs than those of cyclists.)

      • Loz reflects the views of many that she would “prefer my elected “representatives” to represent the needs of local people by putting their energy into sorting out the woeful contracts (and contract management) for existing services.”

        I don’t see these issues as being contradictory. We need to seize national investment opportunities as well as looking at fares, smart “oyster cards”, reliability, timetabling, routes, internet information, cleanliness, etc, etc.

        Again, this is a little off-topic and perhaps we should have a separate debate on the efforts being made (cross-party, cross-council) to beef up the West of England Partnership or introduce an Integrated Transport Authority ITA in our City region.

69. I think it is great that a scheme like this is being considered!. Bristol is a vibrant city but also a very busy one. The biggest issue is with transport and getting about. The car is the most natural choice (at the moment) for many coming into the city but why push the majority of traffic through the city centre plaza (for want of a better word)? The Harbourside/Colston hall area is dominated by traffic going through the area, going somewhere else. The traffic dissects the city, you walk from one area into another then another…you make choices as you walk. At the present time the actual city centre is rather a dead space, contributing little and leaving the city without a heart. Reducing traffic will maybe put stresses on other areas of roadway for motorized transport but motorized transport has to be held in check if the lives of city dwellers, city users and visitors are to be enhanced and everyday human contacts are to be encouraged.
    The plans as shown would certainly link up social spaces, I can envisage family and visitors spending all day walking or cycling within a few square miles traffic free, away from the danger, noise, pollution and other non quantifiable stresses that interaction with motor vehicles can bring. The more we can redress the balance of modern transport the better it will be for everyone. The city with its cycle city projects are developing great links into Bristol, a scheme like this would encourage folk to come out on bicycles, on foot, wheelchair users too, to enjoy what our city centre and the people within it have to offer.
    I suspect too that providing an area with less access to the motor vehicle and enhanced facilities to other forms of transport, bicycles, pedestrians and vehicles for the less able, that there would be a resultant upturn in commerce. If it could be proved that reducing traffic in a city centre actually increased turnover for local businesses, that would make a powerful point. Other benefits are less tangible, humans (and cities) are complicated things, I think that reduced motorized traffic in our city centre makes sense from a human point of view, will be great for a more vibrant city centre and that in turn i would suspect, would lead to an increase in income and status for the city of Bristol as a whole.
    Rob

    • In addition to my earlier comments, My own personal preference for transport into the city is via a monorail type rail/tram network integrated with bus and cycle routes. Start from scratch. go over head, aim High.
      For me to go into town, i have to use a car, this should not be so…and is not covered by this proposal. As it is stands this idea is a good one for the city centre and the folk that use it.

70. Political and Professional Vanity drives City Centre scheme
    The recently published proposals to remodel the city centre is not about the needs of the City and its people. It is driven by the desire for headlines by Jon Rogers, the Executive Member who hopes to be leader of the Council and senior officers who want grandiose multimillion pound schemes on their CVs rather than sorting out local needs.
    Bristol needs a fully integrated system of road and rail public transport, we need proper segregation of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists on the main routes into and across the City. We need affordable public transport with trains and buses linking well together to move people inter and around Bristol. We want safe routes for taking our children to school, parks and shops. We want to be able to cycle safely through the city with a coherent network of routes. This scheme of tinkering with a few pavements around the Hippodrome is the latest announcement from Cllr Rogers that fails to provide any real strategic sense about road closures that then disappear like the winter snow after a few days. Last year he was closing Park Street and the Portway.
    We all know that senior officers like big road related schemes, expensively moving pavements and roads around a little, producing cycle lanes that only run for a few hundred metres. The announcements in the media and on-line make no statement about the cost of such a scheme, but no doubt it will run into the millions and will be changed again in a few years time when a new set of senior staff want to stamp their mark on the City.
    Cllr Rogers has clearly gone native seduced by some coloured maps and the enthusiasm for pointless road projects by his officers.
    Alderman Paul Smith

    • Paul, it’s very disappointing to see you coming out against this. You profess to be in favour of radical improvements for walking, cycling and public transport yet when the Council put forward a practical proposal to that end you criticise it for reasons that seem to be based on little more than political expediency.

      How do you suppose improvements to walking, cycling and public transport are to be brought about other than through schemes of this sort? Do you perhaps have a magic wand that can create some utopian new order overnight? Change only comes about through small increments of the sort that the Council are now proposing for the Centre.

    • You say “The recently published proposals to remodel the city centre is not about the needs of the City and its people.”

      You make allegations about the motives of myself and council officers in publishing this section of the proposed Bus Rapid Transit scheme. We have also published about other challenging areas, such as the M32 Park and Ride, the arrangements around Prince Street Bridge, the challenges in delivering a good scheme in South Bristol, including links with rail and shopping centres.

      You also try and rewrite history, “Last year he was closing Park Street and the Portway.”

      (1) The council is looking at how we can improve Park Street. We have allocated money in our Capital budget for such improvements, which can link in with the planned Greater Bristol Bus Network (GBBN) route down Whiteladies Road to the Centre. A suggestion was to close Park Street to through car and lorry traffic. We have done this in Penn Street and the Horsefair using an experimental Traffic Regulation Order TRO. I think this should be debated.

      (2) I did suggest closing Portway on more Sundays during the year. It is already closed on 4 or 5 Sundays, for half marathon, biggest bike ride and rock maintenance, etc. We haven’t pursued that idea as the feedback was mostly negative, with people wanting to keep this main route open.

      Finally, I have had many discussions about Transport with colleagues in the other parties, particularly Cllr Mark Bradshaw (Bristol Labour), Cllr Peter Abraham (Bristol Conservative), Cllr Barbara Lewis (Bristol Conservative), Cllr Charlie Bolton (Bristol Green), Cllr Brian Allinson (S Glos Conservative), Cllr Elfan Ap Rees (N Somerset Conservative) and Charles Gerrish (Bath and NE Somerset Conservative).

      We are all agreed on a need to improve our transport. We are all agreed on seeking government funding. We are all agreed that we should look carefully at all the options. Exciting times! Together I beleive we can make it happen.

71. There have been some interesting and thoughtful comments, lets hope that Cllr Rogers takes these points on board. Further Cllr Rogers, what is your ‘Strategy’ ? What are you trying to acheive? Do you support more local democratic control over bus services? Be brave, be bold and most Bristolians will back you ! We have had enough of chocking in our cars, give us the alternatives, if they were good enough, people would use them.

    • As you say Julian, so many excellent and considered comments. Even seen some additional map suggestions (thanks MD and Chris Hutt).

      Like all of us, I want to see real improvements in the sustainable transport arrangements in and around our city. “Change” is difficult. For me, it is as much about hearts and minds as about seeking transport investment and designing new schemes.

      There are all sorts of approaches to improve our local transport in a sustainable way. Relevant to this suggestion for the City Centre is…

      (1) Sharing ideas publicly early, when we don’t have all the answers.

      (2) Encouraging open debate on pros and cons and alternatives.

      (3) Encouraging officers (and politicians) to be more ambitious.

      (4) Talking openly about shifting the balance in the walking, cycling, bus/rail, taxi and car hierarchy.

      (5) Considering impact on everyone, including businesses, disabled people, safety, people with low incomes, commuters, young people, families, local culture, design and appearance, etc.

      Encouraging the shift from cars to more sustainable forms of transport, when appropriate is our biggest challenge and producing top quality services for our bus rapid transit network can play an important part.

      • Hi Jon

        RE the map, no problem, and thanks for looking at it. Obviously traffic pressure in the side streets for any scheme needs to be modelled and assessed, but I spent a bit of time thinking about it and it works in principle. I’ve thought about the ideal of a traffic-free centre frequently. So regarding your point 3) – what are your thoughts about a more ambitious proposal? Are you encouraged? Is there any real scope for developing this idea you’ve put forward as a result of this debate?

        I appreciate change has to be incremental to a point, but if you make an expensive change here that aims to please everyone you will likely please no-one, principally because:

        · More tortuous traffic is worse for motorists than no traffic
        · Safe-feeling-but-not-really-safe pedestrian areas are often worse than obviously unsafe areas
        · Any degree of not-quite-linked up, not-really-free-flowing public transport is equally frustrating.

        As someone else here said, be bold and most people will back you. There is a great deal of desire to make some real changes in our society instead of endless discussion and tinkering and concluding that we can’t really do much because we need to maintain the status quo. The status quo is clearly not working on many levels. We have to take a lead and brave the pain of transition to get to where we want to be. Otherwise it’s Copenhagen syndrome all the way down…

72. You do need to look closer at the demarcation of pedestrian / cycling / PSV areas because there will always be those (in all categories) who stumble into the wrong place or occupy a space they need not (think crossing Princes Street Bridge on the cycle/pedestrian side on a busy summers day… Don’t forget the much touted ‘shared spaces’ idyll has fallen from grace in the Netherlands as it really didn’t offer the improvements perceived in the long term. Additionally – does this meet Government/CTC/Sustrans guidance on street layout?

    Having witnessed a partially sighted person try and navigate the existing arrangements I’m certain that more care should be taken to ensure the safety of the blind – how will they know where a designated cycle lane begins? I’m not saying there should be a change of level, but perhaps a couple of rows of tactile paving along the edges would suffice (which should keep rogue cyclists in check!)

    The elephant in the room is that public transport is seen as expensive and inconvenient (which it certainly is in Bristol) so there will be issues with traffic volumes in surrounding streets, because people can’t or won’t switch to the bus. Overcoming this will be hard – a public transport authority might be the only way to achieve this; equally (though I suspect unlikely) First could be compelled to reduce prices to a sensible level and retire their older buses in favour of more accessible, environmentally friendly ones.

    Of course those who need to drive from South to North will face some very long diversions and doubtless, will be unhappy as a result.

    On the whole this is a great scheme, but as others have pointed out there are ancillary issues to resolve if the proposed infrastructure works are to succeed.

73. I presume the approach is to make the centre’s public roads so congested that people stay away. If no thought is given to how car users cross the city without massive and unnecessary detours on the ‘inner circuit road’ we will not solve anything and Bristol will retain the slowest road speed tag.

    I am not a massive car driver but I do recognise that most Bristolians do drive on a fairly regular basis. I fully welcome anything that will improve our public transport system including a west of england transport authority (with or without north somerset). We can’t expect people to use public transport using just a stick approach. Its nice to have clean interchanges with live information boards etc but we still lack a single ticketing system, the fares are way too high and we haven’t developed suburban rail across the west of england in partnership with the other 3 authorities These are the things that will reduce car useage and increase people’s faith in public transport. Visit Glasgow if you want to see how its done. They have effective local interchanges, straightforward, integrated ticketing, a regional transport authority for the urban area and an underground.

    This proposal has some good points such as the bus bays cutting north-south across the centre – like the old tramway centre – but the city centre doesn’t operate in isolation. We need to change people’s choice of transport before they leave their homes which means more investment into the places where people start their journeys or enter the city. This means more park and rides including at the M32 and a proper inner and outer radial bus network with local interchanges

74. The proposal would be a welcome step towards a city centre more oriented to the people visiting or working there than those who use it as a through route.

    With better public transport and easier cycling, more people will find they prefer not to use the car for visiting the city. In turn, the street environment will be a little quieter and more pleasant. It is just a sketch proposal and more thought will be needed on integrating cycle traffic with both pedestrian and bus traffic (not just in the Centre but in all the bus rapid transit system), and to cycling between Park Street and Baldwin Street / Prince Street. The car-free areas of Baldwin Street and Colston Street look particularly attractive – suited to these places, which are predominantly for people enjoying the surrounding facilities on foot, not in cars.

    In this scheme through-traffic would still stream past the Hippodrome in both directions (strangely quiet in the artist’s impression!). A still more visionary approach would take away from the Centre altogether those cars passing through – making the Centre a place one might still drive to, but not through.

75. I’m all for an initiative which reduces the impact of private motor transport on the city.

    An additional taxi rank would be good nearer to the Watershed end of Broad Quay for the very elderly as the one shown is quite a step along Broad Quay for those with mobility impairment.

    Additional cycle routes, access and facilities need to be specifically developed and marked. Colston Street is a very popular and direct route from the north of town to the centre for cyclists – they come along Jamaica Street, Upper Maudlin Street and down Colston Street. I would strongly oppose this route being closed to cyclists so there would need to be a shared route with the buses somehow.

    For people to feel welcome to the centre, the street scene along the long row of bus stops on the unnamed road parallel and south of Rupert Street would need to be less dark, dreary, unsurveilled and generally intimidating and windswept.

76. I love the idea of turning the centre into a zone shared by pedestrians and cyclists. However, unless this scheme dramatically reduces demand for travel between north and south Bristol, it looks like it will make it more difficult – e.g. Temple Meads to Blackboy Hill, or Totterdown to the Maternity Hospital. So, we need to understand the bigger picture – how will Bristol cope during summer weekends when people driving from London to Weston-super-mere take their short-cuts through Bristol?

    To be clear, my point is that these changes will reduce the road capacity between north and south. I don’t believe the demand for movement will go away. and so those journeys will become longer and less pleasant, and the traffic that would have gone across the centre will go somewhere else increasing congestion there.

    • Roger, you’re quite right to raise the issue of where displaced traffic will go, something I’m exploring on my blog, but some traffic will in fact ‘disappear’ in that there will be changes in behaviour as a consequence of the changes in ‘opportunities’.

      If walking, cycling and public transport all become more attractive options as a result of these, and other, changes then there will be some ‘modal shift’ from cars to those modes. How great that shift will be remains to be seen, but there will undoubtedly be some.

      In the longer term people will change their expectations in response to such changes. In many continental cities it would be regarded as rather absurd to expect to be able to drive into and through a city centre. City centres are above all for people and that means displacing cars.

      • Here is a link to Chris’s blog article:

        http://greenbristolblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/centre-alternative-routes.html

77. Robert Bull, perhaps local Association of British Drivers letter-writer, talks about “a large traffic light controlled roundabout with attractive central area for pedestrians”, reachable by “attractive walkways”. There are no attractive pedestrian areas in any of Bristol’s roundabouts, the Bearpit and Lawrence Hill being key examples. There is nothing attractive about huddling on a couple of benches while four lanes of traffic hurtle by. Just because Bristol Parks looks after the Lawrence Hill and Bearpit roundabouts doesn’t mean they constitute family picnic destinations.

    The last Centre improvements were better for walking, though the whole cycling chaos leaves it a bit of a mess. Where do the cafes end and the bike lanes begin? Nobody is happy, cyclist or pedestrian. If you are cycling over the centre, once you’ve dodged the cafes, you are left with the bus section, which FirstBus drivers do not willingly share with anyone else. If we are to have a bus+bike only section, someone needs to brief the bus drivers that the bikes are allowed.

    Will this new change be an improvement? I don’t know. I think BRT could be good, but we’d need somebody controlling prices and giving us something like an oystercard. what I do know is that trying to back to the 1995 layout -a big roundabout- won’t work, any more than re-opening the queen’s road dual carriageway. You may have all forgotten, but I remember the traffic jams then too. And that was before there were so many cars.

78. I do not agree with any of this.

    I did not vote for you, nor for the bankrupt central governmant.You have no mandate to use my taxes to pay for this.

    I am fed up with 10 tonne chauffeur-driven limos with 3 passengers hogging the roads during rush hours,belching out diesel fumes. Get smaller, more-frequent (electric?) buses and get people back on their feet walking, like they did 100 years ago!

    • Mike says, “I did not vote for you, nor for the bankrupt central governmant.You have no mandate to use my taxes to pay for this.”

      As I have mentioned in another reply, improvements to sustainable travel in and around our city has cross party support. I could point out that with our unfair voting system, it is a rare councillor that was voted onto the council with more than half the votes in his or her ward, but that would be going off topic!

79. I thoroughly support this idea. It’s exactly what we need more of in Bristol.

    This plan is a step in the right direction. I’d welcome many more changes of this kind to make Bristol a less hostile place to be in for business, leisure and everyday living.

80. Bristolians are very conservative and if we try and make improvements incrementally, they will not happen. A more radical approach is required, my response would be Step 1, establish an Integrated Transport Authority (without north somerset), develop public transport corridors using either light rail or bus rapid transit or both, then introduce road pricing to reduce demand and then redevelop public spaces and roads towards shared use schemes which are not car dominated. Bristol could be a great and green city – but only if we have vision and ambitiion

81. Apart from the obvious fixed photos – take the dullest greyest photos you can for the old, and then replace them with beautiful mockups for the new…

    Isn’t it time Bristol got rid of smell old buses and stuck trams in?

    • Andy asks, “Isn’t it time Bristol got rid of smell old buses and stuck trams in?”

      The problem is that it would cost too much. We don’t have the money. The Government funding only allocates 75% of the funds required for rail based soultions, whereas for bus and road solutions they allocate 90%.

      This draft City Centre scheme is part of the proposed Bus Rapid Transit BRT link between Hengrove and the Northern Fringe (Bradley Stoke, Parkway Station area)

      There are more details of the full scheme at

      http://www.westofengland.org/transport

      This full scheme was “allocated £168 million towards its cost. As part of the agreement the local authorities are required to provide at least 10% match funding. This makes the total cost of the Package at least £180 million”

      I guess that politicians of all parties would like trams, but as trams are not currently on offer then we welcome a state of the art, 21st century, rapid bus network.

      Finally, buses are improving. Journey times are coming down, reliability is improving, more Bristol buses are operating “oyster” type cards, dedicated bus lanes are offering priority to buses (and bikes), GBBN Greater Bristol Bus Network is improving many routes, we have improved real time information, journey planners and on Friday First Bus announced fare cuts from February. http://bit.ly/8WUyqF

82. I completely agree with those above who say that the first priority is to sort out public transport. At the moment it is TOO EXPENSIVE to use. It is cheaper to drive than to take the bus, and as long as this is the case, we will never reduce car use and we will always have congestion and high carbon emissions. We desperately need an oyster card system, £1 a journey, as in London.
    And a more extensive light rail service would be a dream come true.

    Please don’t expect cyclists and pedestrians to share their space; cyclists travel at speed, they need a safe space to do so.

    I also agree with the people above who say that the proposed scheme is lacking in ambition and imagination. If you are planning to put big money, effort and time behind this, make it special and revolutionary.

    But sort out the systems first!

83. Any changes should be made after we have sorted out the public transport system. We have some great local railway stations including ones that run parallel to the portway! which are not used. We used to have a great tram network was ripped out. We have three councils that are incapable of any joined up thinking in relation to transport strategy and a transport company which often uses old, slow, late or non arriving buses having a stranglehold on the city. Due to all of the above we also have a school run which chokes routes at key commuting times as there is no alternative available to working parents. Imagine a city with a cost effective light rail system, reopened former railway stations, a tram system, a bus SERVICE that is run by the council. (such as Edinburgh) an oystercard system which allows passengers to get on and off quickly and not worry about having the right change. If we had even some of these things there would be more choice for the pulic which would mean…. FEWER CARS. I have to say that Bristol seems to use the stick rather than the carrot approach. Encourage people to use public transport by PROVIDING IT. The construction, running, maintenance, driving etc will all create local jobs, if the council gets it right , they will provide a great service and make a profit. Edinburgh certainly does, and they have just as many issues and hills!

84. As many of the above comments indicate this is not a practical solution. Cars need access east/west also from the south ie Baldwin street, perhaps a large traffic light controlled roundabout with atractive central area for pedestrians, wait a minute thats how it used to be!
    Revert to a roundabout with some attractive high level walkways for pedestrians, job done.

85. On the issue of cycles and pedestrians, I think it will be OK. College Green seems to accommodate both. I don’t think we see many cyclists riding over the grass – it just works fine to cycle around the edges – it is designed for it and it works.
    Even in the centre as it currently is, my observation is that, generally, cyclists and pedestrians co-exist well there, as it is clearly a shared space and people tend to respond responsibly.

86. An excellent first step. I still prefer congestion charging because we then have less cars but essential car journey’s can still be made easily (and even more quickly than before). I appreciate this is a draft but one of the key problems with the current centre is the complete lack of greenery (apart from some great trees). We need to soften this urban environment with planting to make it a more pleasant place to be.

87. I think this is a basically sound proposal that strikes the right sort of balance between the need to reclaim more of the public realm from the car and the need to accommodate a reasonable level of vehicular access.

    Of course there is much more that can and should be done but in reality these things need to be carried through incrementally so that they can bed in and we can all adjust. Too much change in one go will provoke a backlash and undermine the longer term objectives.

    The closure of Colston Street in front of the Colston Hall will allow for the creation of a kind of Piazza and build on the work to upgrade the Colston Hall itself. The current disconnection between the Centre and Colston Hall will be mitigated.

    Closure of the end of Baldwin St will remove much of the existing traffic in Baldwin St and even in Park St since Park Row will generally provide the most direct route towards the south and east of the city. Pedestrian movements from the Centre towards the Old City (Corn St) and Broadmead will be much less interrupted by traffic flows into Baldwin St.

    The Closure of other streets that currently connect to the Centre, like Denmark St and St Stephen’s St will improve pedestrian permeability and safety and bring those streets visually into the Centre ambience and improve trade for businesses located in those streets.

    Restricting the main north-south St Augustine’s Parade traffic to two lanes will allow for reasonable access but discourage through traffic and so minimise the impact of the remaining traffic. All traffic routes should be subject to 20 mph limits to reduce potential conflict with pedestrians.

    There is clearly much detailed work to be done to refine the proposals, particularly in terms of accommodating cycle movements and providing priority crossings for pedestrians but in broad brush terms I think the outline plan is sound.

88. Sorry but this is a ludicrous idea, no matter how aesthetically pleasing it may look. You can’t solve car useage without putting effective alternatives in place. You need to commit to cheaper, faster bus routes into the centre so that people don’t have to stand squashed into a bus for their journey to work. Not everyone can cycle. not every office has the changing facilities that people need. you can’t expect people to cycle, walk to work and then change in the toilet – itsnot acceptable! You need to stop First Buses monopolising public transport and then you can look at making areas in Bristol Buses only. to try to have an egg before the chicken is just foolish

89. The centre will always be a disappointment while it is a racetrack and until it is reclaimed as a decent useful space for people. Be bolder! Consider something like this:

    http://www.darkhousemultimedia.co.uk/files-bristol/index.html

    • @MD:

      I’d favour an even more radical scheme, such as banning all motor vehicles (except emergency vehicles and public transport) from the area within the Inner Circuit Road. Motor vehicles dominate Bristol; they should not and the council’s proposals for the centre as outlined above are far too tame to achieve the amount of change that’s required

      • You have to ask yourself what’s the point in driving a car to/through the centre? There’s very little point – you can’t stop or park anywhere, there’s no passing trade issue from motorists. You just sit in a queue waiting to get through there to somewhere else. So if we’re gonna do it, then lets do it convincingly. Make better routes around the outside, rather than even more tedious jams in a place where there’s not point in cars being anyway. Free it up properly and make it good for people and culture rather than equally tedious for everyone. Other cities have done it and got the message out clearly that the centre is no longer a place for cars, it’s a place for people. Bristol could do it too.

        I’m not hardline anti-motorist – I have to drive on occasion too – and in a scheme such as the one I sketched you could actually have better facilities for cars that need to drop off or collect people or perhaps have very short stay on meters. The message changes and says this is a destination for people, not a through route for traffic..

        http://www.darkhousemultimedia.co.uk/files-bristol/index.html

        The quaysides are some of the best bits of Bristol centre and could be a jewel in the crown of the town if only we’d make a clear decision about it…

    • Thoroughly agree with MD and Woodsy. Get all cars out via Park St and Park Row on the one side and Victoria St on the other.

90. I think this is totally disappointing and lacking in imagination, even if some of the principals are correct. First the public transport interchange needs to be a key feature, not various bus stands scattered around. The interchange should seek to enhance safety by encouraging visual surveillance and include a range of activities including newsagents and ticket office etc. There is an opportunity here to enhance this whole area to become a better civic space for bristol. Bristol city centre should be developed into a place for all bristolians and visitors, instead the council are very focussed on traffic management as usual, we need new fresh thinking for the coming decade if Bristol is not to decline further and come to a complete standstill because local politicians wont argue for a proper tram based public transport scheme.

91. It looks as if the main changes to the centre are to make half of Colston Street past the Colston Hall bus only and then make a new bus lane across the pedestrian/cyclist area more or less opposite the bottom of Colston Street (where the woman in red is rather rashly standing in the visualization). Not really clear how this produces a safer space for pedestrians/cyclists since we appear to be losing dedicated space across the centre to the buses and gaining a small triangle by the Colston Hall.

    Also, whilst limiting unnecessary car journeys is vital, I don’t see why this means that people living in North Bristol can continue to drive easily to the centre (and local amenities such as the main hopsital…) whilst the routes become increasingly tortuous for South Bristol residents which is what the current plans seem to entail.

    • Clare, the new bus road that you refer to replaces the complicated road intersection slightly to the north (near Edward Colston statue) so represents far less of an obstacle to pedetrians and cyclists. Car access from south Bristol is no more affected than say from Clifton and in any case the changes will add perhaps 3 minutes at most to car journeys. Against that we have the potential for real gains for walking, cycling and public transport.

      • Chris, I don’t quite share your assertion that “car access from south Bristol is no more affected than say from Clifton”. By the time the new layout will come into effect Prince Bridge will already be closed. At that point there are three routes left from the south into the centre: (a) via Brunel Way and Hotwells Road (this won’t change), (b) Bedminster roundabout, past St. Mary Redcliffe Church, then Victoria St and either down Baldwin Street or Union Street (Baldwin Street is the currently a major route into the centre and I can’t imagine all that traffic being diverted down Union Street), and (c) Temple Meads, Temple Way, Bond Street (this won’t change either).

        So once these changes come into effect there is no direct (ish) route into the city from Bedminster/Southville (A38 area) and you either have to go all the way west (via Winterstoke road or North Street – yay) or east to Temple Meads, with all of the main routes into that direction already pretty jammed up.

        I’m not saying that this is a reason not to do any of the proposed changes (or that they aren’t worthwhile per se), I just find it preposterous to claim that car access from the south won’t be any more affected than from the north.

        • Tim, of the options you list only the Baldwin St route is lost as a through route. That loss equally effects someone coming in from say Clifton which was my point. Of course displaced traffic will tend to congest the remaining routes but that too will affect all areas and not just south Bristol, which will at least have the benefit of the BRT routes in compensation for reduced options by car which Clifton won’t.

92. It is a shame that the plans do not show what is proposed beyond the limited area of the Centre. Is this the most approporiate interchange now that Cabot Circus has been developed? Could Old Market actually provide a better link with tie in to the National Rail Network as well as local buses. Maybe the abandoned Arena Site -or even the derelict sorting office – has potential as a Bendy Bus Depot!

    This looks like more money being spent for relatively little effect. I used to change buses in the Centre regularly on route from Clifton to St. George but found the Centre very intimidating with poor lighting and no obvious contacts in an emergency. I also had to pay twice as I needed to change buses! I would like to see the interchange, wherever it is, provide a safe area, preferably with public toilets and a kiosk for newspapers and coffee. Through ticketing would also help to make bus travel more affordable for those who are not travelling on a direct route.

    The needs of students travelling to or through the City Centre for Secondary School, College or University should be prioritised to ensure that routes are safe, efficient and affordable for teenagers. A conductor on each bendy bus would avoid delays from pay on boarding, improve security and help travellers identify the most appropriate stop.

    Most of the changes that are required are to do with staffing, timetabling and soft landscaping. Significant highway works should be avoided – unless you have the courage to reinstate the open Dock this time!

93. The idea of freeing the centre from the tyranny of traffic is sound, and better late than never. But how do you stop the side roads from taking the brunt of all that displaced traffic? Motorists will still try to find their way round the closures and won’t mind how far they drive out of their way exploring. For anyone living or working near the shut main routes, this could be hell.

94. Looks like you just went out and took the pictures on a grim wet day in Bristol. The proposal seens to suggest the removal of all the existing trees and replacing with new. As to the safety issues in a area which is best described as a public danger zone for any body foolish enough to walk through it. I would agree with the closure of the centre to trafiic but were is it going to go. And finally no comment about the actual cost of using public transport. I never drive to the centre only through it. so you are only going to add more miles to my journey.

95. Give the centre back to the pedestrians and cyclists. It is time the council took the decision to close the centre to general vehicles as most forward thinking cities have done in central areas. If necessary have one small access road for buses, taxis and public service vehicles. All other traffic should be made to take other routes and not be allowed access into the centre. It is a shame this was not done in 2000 but please do not let this opportunity go without making the right decision for the future of the city.

    • As others have mentioned pedistrians and cyclists are not a safe and efficent mix (indeed, cyclists and any other form of movement are not a good mix). Cyclists need to undertake some form of regulated training and method of accountability (e.g. number plates) in order for them to mix with others in their vicinity. I’d suggest separate lanes for cyclists, but how could pedistrians cross these lanes? Traffic light signals might be adhered to by pedestrians but not by most cyclists. So yes remove cars, motorbikes and cyclists from the centre as part of a policy to create a people friendly space.

      I suppose cyclists could be taken over the heads of pedistrians on raised cycle ways or under their feet via subways. However, this was tried unsuccessfully to protect pedistrians from cars and it did not prove popular. Of course I do believe cycling does have the potential to greatly improve the environment and the health of cyclists. However, for this to become a reality the behaviour of most cyclists needs to be more considerate of other road/pavment users.

      Public transport seems the best answer to the city’s transport problems; if ‘public’ run solutions were not so out of fashion. So this appears to be another obscure, inefficent and ineffective attempt to fix a problem whose main solution has been ruled out for ideological reasons. The policies of these ideologs might of cost us 800 billion or so pounds through the banking crisis they brought about, but their environmental consequencies could literally cost us the earth.

96. In principle I think the idea is good but as already mentioned there would have to be clear indications as to where the bus and cyclists get around the cetnre as opposed to the pedestrian.

    As far as driving around the centre is concerned, there is already considerable conjestion coming down Park Row which I would imagine would be even more horrendous if the plans were to go ahead, so there needs to be a lot of thought put into easy access on by car on the roads around the centre.

97. More greenery and less cars in that part of the city centre would be an improvement. Unless I’m missing something it’s not clear how a car journey from say, the bottom of Park Street to Bristol Bridge, would be affected. I mean, if you remove the road link from the Hippodrome to Baldwin Street what is the alternative? Would you be expected to drive to St James’ Barton and then …

    Basically, a bit more thinking and some details please Bristol City Council.

98. As most of the traffic on the south side of the centre is already buses i do not think this will make it much calmer or nicer.
    Having cyclists on the pavement is known to make it much less calm for pedestrians and we are all pedestrians at some time. This is a bad idea!

    Having buses crossing areas that appear to be pavements is just silly especially as the paved surfaces will not offer good traction to buses if they need to brake to avoid pedestrians. “Skidding bus kills granny” headlines are coming! This is a REALLY BAD idea!

99. I think this is a good idea. I think there should be more pedestrian areas in the city. The area outside colston hall would be great for street entertainers in the summer. Montpelier or stokes croft would particularly benefit from more pedestrain areas.

    There does need to be a clear distinction between where pedestrians go and where the buses go, otherwise it’s dangerous.

    The same with cyclists. Is it a cycle path or shared space? Both pedestrians and cyclists are not really used to shared space, they would need to moderate their behaviour so cyclists are not plowing along thinking they have right of way, and the same with pedestrians not blindly stepping out in front of cyclists.

    • Kirsten Gillan asks a question that is echoed in many of the comments …. “Is it a cycle path or shared space? Both pedestrians and cyclists are not really used to shared space, they would need to moderate their behaviour”

      I think this is a topic for a separate debate. There is quite a lot of shared space for cycling and walking in the city. This can work well if people are responsible and think of others.

      The DfT Department for Transport guidance on cycling on pavements recognises this. There is a really useful summary on the issue at…

      http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php

      For example…

      Paul Boetang Home Office Minister issued a letter stating, ““The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so.”

      and in separate Home Office advice, “I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so.” (My bold)

      “Consideration” includes recognising in action that the pedestrian may be blind or deaf or have mobility problems.

100. I am all in favour of improving conditions in the centre for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users. These plans look very exciting and will create a calmer environment for people to meet, chat and enjoy a coffee or a drink. It will also create a much better setting for Colston Hall. I believe the council should also take a look at the crossings on Broad Plain – as the one by Baldwin Street is very confusing for people.

     Cars will remain a very important way of getting around the city. The thing which needs to be considered is the impact of this on residents south of the river, especially the cumulative impact with the Prince Street Bridge proposed closure to cars. South Bristol residents need to get around as well.

     • I agree that if there is not a clear distinction between where the bus goes and where the pedestrians are this could be dangerous. Particularly as there’s a history of accidents in this area, and that some people get confused by the existing road surface being cobble stoned in areas around the city centre. It may be particularly confusing for elderly people. It is an area where lots of people wander around at night after having too much to drink as well so this needs to be considered in safety features.

Comments are closed.