freetoview33
Established Member
They could do something along the lines on metrobus though, which is basically controlling everything in all but name!
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
First West of England (Bristol, Bath & The West)
- Thread starter Ivo
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
I always guard against the Bristol Post rantings of "old red trousers is a nutter" or "Marvin is corrupt" that you see. However, if the metrobus template is seen as the way forward, it doesn't auger that well. Extensive delays from poor project management have undermined the limited faith in BCC and that's before you get to the decision to reroute the m2 away from Prince Street and the fact that the m2 has also been truncated at the P&R.
I fully agree with having to do something to improve the mobility around the city, and we can't merely build more roads to accommodate more cars although that has been enabled by the Harry Stoke bypass and the SBLR (that people always seem to "forget" when quoting the cost of metrobus). Interestingly, Marvin Rees addressed the issue of improving mobility around the city https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-introduce-flat-city-wide-2120432
Don't know where the money is coming from unless they're looking to draw on central government grants to improve bus priority etc? As I've said before, the bus priority that does exist could and should be better. For instance, look at the Wells Road...
- Can bus lanes/priority be created from Gilda Parade through to the Happy Landings in place of roadside parking?
- Can the bus priority near Broadwalk be improved?
- Can the existing bus lanes from the George into town be made 24 hour rather than Mon to Fri 0700 to 1000?
- Can enforcement be improved - enough times you see a car or van parked (hazards on which makes it smaller apparently) in the bus lane!
freetoview33
Established Member
A few things with regards to Metrobus, I was more on about the operation through a quality contract rather than the building works, to be fair to Bristol City Council there were a few things beyond their control. The M2 not serving Prince Street was actually down to central government in the end, refusing to fund the required improvements.
The not serving Bristol Parkway, was poor communication with Network rail, the same with Gypsy Patch now, which causes twice the delay and twice the cost!
To be fair all the stops built on the SBLR are now served by buses, just not going from Long Ashton P&R to Hengrove Park, which must be the most in demand route ever haha!
Admittedly I think that improving what is, is the best way forward, but there is the price element, but it is a hard thing to get right, bus priority vs angering local shop owners.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Think you're being rather kind
- George Ferguson made the decision to reroute in order to make the area more cycling/pedestrian friendly and then had to seek central government approval, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-23518244
- Not serving Bristol Parkway was poor communication with Network Rail - yes, but whose responsibility was this? Arguably, it is Travelwest of which BCC is a constituent "part"
You are right to mention the arguments from shop owners etc and that was prevalent in the RPZs in Clifton - in fact, it was the reason behind the faintly ridiculous 901. Nonetheless, there are many instances where bus lanes already exist but only at certain times and that's before you get the issue of having new ones.
Granted, there will be ones that are more sensitive than others but take Whiteladies Road where from Clifton Down to Blackboy Hill, there is plenty of room to remove parking from one side of the road to create a lane into town. The Danish way was to remove 3% of parking each year and no one noticed it happening!! What was most saddening was the Spike Island bus lane that they then put parking spaces in - well done on that one
Last edited:
They're served by the U2 or Falcon
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Ah right - that makes sense. Thanks for that
ValleyLines142
Established Member
Rumours from another site are saying that 33560 has reversed into 36820 and taken them both out of service. Any news?
freetoview33
Established Member
I don't think that BBC Article is strictly the truth as the original route was planned to run along the Harbourside railway then over Prince Street Bridge.Think you're being rather kind
Now, I confess I'm not fully on the ball here, but are all the stops on the SBLR going to be served; will the A1 serve the stops between the P&R and Lime Kiln? Whilst you can use the other ones around Highridge, they have limited use. You can go the Airport and it almost serves Imperial Park but it doesn't serve Hengrove Park or take you into the city which are arguably the main traffic objectives?
- George Ferguson made the decision to reroute in order to make the area more cycling/pedestrian friendly and then had to seek central government approval, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-23518244
- Not serving Bristol Parkway was poor communication with Network Rail - yes, but whose responsibility was this? Arguably, it is Travelwest of which BCC is a constituent "part"
You are right to mention the arguments from shop owners etc and that was prevalent in the RPZs in Clifton - in fact, it was the reason behind the faintly ridiculous 901. Nonetheless, there are many instances where bus lanes already exist but only at certain times and that's before you get the issue of having new ones.
Granted, there will be ones that are more sensitive than others but take Whiteladies Road where from Clifton Down to Blackboy Hill, there is plenty of room to remove parking from one side of the road to create a lane into town. The Danish way was to remove 3% of parking each year and no one noticed it happening!! What was most saddening was the Spike Island bus lane that they then put parking spaces in - well done on that one
George changed it to run along Cumberland Road instead but as far as I was aware the plan then was still to use Prince Street Bridge/ an additional bridge.
But then the Government looked into the funding and the route, then decided they would fund the route via Redcliffe Hill instead of Prince Street Bridge, also the original 2008 proposal had The Friary as the Temple Meads terminus and removing the small bus only lane outside the bay horse, so quite a lot changed in the end.
With the Bristol Parkway bit I think it was Travel West (Still Travel+) at the time not telling Network Rail of the plan, but Network Rail were fully aware of it never the less and chose to carry on anyway.
The issue will also be highlighted again with the Metrobus extension, the South Wales mainline at Patchway has had to be closed a lot for electrification works in the Severn Tunnel, many years ago I asked South Gloucestershire Council (Who are leading the extension plans) and Network Rail wouldn't it more sense to coincide electrification works and bridge replacement works to avoid two lengthy closures. Plus it would save money for both.
Network rail maintained(s) that the current bridge was fit for purpose (even though it was around the time it was hit multiple times in a very short period.) South Gloucestershire council moaned saying something along the lines of we haven't decided yet if it will happen, even though it is obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that bridge is not fit for purpose in anyway shape or form!
So the result is millions down the drain.
Also I think the M1 route was poorly planned as it is going to mess up the 73 and a few people in Bradley Stoke are going to be well and truly screwed over.
To be honest the money that was used for the 901 should have been spent building the new station on the Portway, or at least funded it moving forward faster. Although in a previous email from Bristol City Council they insisted that it would be open by December 2008!! (10 years on and still no station)
As said the U2 serves all stops from Long Ashton to Lime Kiln, then the A4 does from Lime Kiln to Imperial. So all stops are now served, but the original plan was to have the M2 Long Ashton P&R - Temple Meads every 20 mins, then the M5 Hengrove Park - Long Ashton P&R - Temple Meads every 20 mins. Although other than about 1 person a day travelling from Long Ashton to Hengrove I'm not sure who would have benefited. As the 52 would be quicker for Highridge and the M1 for Hengrove!
With the parking and going forward, it comes back to the age old problem, people would be more willing to loose parking if there was a guarantee of better/cheaper/more buses in return.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
This other BBC article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-21444841 is quite specific that the funding was based on the route going over the Prince Street bridge and that based on that, when George decided to reroute it away from there and up round Redcliffe Way, the government had to agree (as you can't secure money for one thing and then just change it).
"The city's elected mayor George Ferguson previously said he did not want buses running across Prince Street bridge or through the harbourside. But opponents of his plans said the city risked losing some £140m for transport projects.
The changes were agreed with transport minister Norman Baker following a meeting on Tuesday.
Mr Ferguson said a "number of potential improvements" would give a better connection on the route between Long Ashton and Temple Meads railway station. 'This helps burst the bubble of those who have been claiming that my appetite for changes to the route around the harbour would mean the Department for Transport withdrawing all the money,' Mayor Ferguson said. 'There are huge potential improvements to be gained in terms of route, vehicle and nature of the scheme with better connection to Temple Meads.'"
As regards "With the Bristol Parkway bit I think it was Travel West (Still Travel+) at the time not telling Network Rail of the plan, but Network Rail were fully aware of it never the less and chose to carry on anyway." - well, yes NR may have been aware but that's a world away from TravelWest engaging properly with them to sort access. After all, it's not incumbent for NR to approach authorities to improve bus access - it's the role of the transport authorities/operators who, in the case of Parkway, didn't get their ducks sorted!!
I fully agree that it should be replaced - I used to work in Avonmouth and go to the gym in Stoke Gifford and it was a pain to get through so it would massively benefit the area. I guess that NR look at it in terms of "Does the bridge enable the railway to run over it? Does it meet the loading and speed requirements for the line?" In that respect, that is why NR say it's fit for purpose. If it has bridge strikes, then the issue is with a) the LA to make sure that signage is good enough and b) the negligence of the individual driver. In short, NR are more bothered about their rails that go over it than the piece of tarmac below it
I know that the original plans (m2 and m5) and the later plan (m2) were to serve the SBLR - that was my point. Ill conceived in that respect, now covered by the fig leaf of "future proofing for planned development)
Fully agree - it would help some people move and that is hopefully what Marvin is on about. However, the biggest issue with buses everywhere is reliability - will they arrive when you want/need them to and that must involve removing them (as much as possible) from the congestion that blights Bristol and other major towns and cities. I go back to an earlier post about having better bus priority from Gilda Parade to Happy Landings to help buses. I guess the reasons it hasn't been done is the relatively low frequency on that section but you could do that and massively improve the cycling experience with no impact to commercial premises - just a thought!
LeylandLynx
Member
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 182
What's this I've been hearing about a "Birthday bus" on the 2A? Has anybody seen it?
freetoview33
Established Member
I will reply properly later on. But it would be interesting to see if there was anything in the last few GWR franchise agreements about improved bus access at Parkway?This other BBC article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-21444841 is quite specific that the funding was based on the route going over the Prince Street bridge and that based on that, when George decided to reroute it away from there and up round Redcliffe Way, the government had to agree (as you can't secure money for one thing and then just change it).
"The city's elected mayor George Ferguson previously said he did not want buses running across Prince Street bridge or through the harbourside. But opponents of his plans said the city risked losing some £140m for transport projects.
The changes were agreed with transport minister Norman Baker following a meeting on Tuesday.
Mr Ferguson said a "number of potential improvements" would give a better connection on the route between Long Ashton and Temple Meads railway station. 'This helps burst the bubble of those who have been claiming that my appetite for changes to the route around the harbour would mean the Department for Transport withdrawing all the money,' Mayor Ferguson said. 'There are huge potential improvements to be gained in terms of route, vehicle and nature of the scheme with better connection to Temple Meads.'"
As regards "With the Bristol Parkway bit I think it was Travel West (Still Travel+) at the time not telling Network Rail of the plan, but Network Rail were fully aware of it never the less and chose to carry on anyway." - well, yes NR may have been aware but that's a world away from TravelWest engaging properly with them to sort access. After all, it's not incumbent for NR to approach authorities to improve bus access - it's the role of the transport authorities/operators who, in the case of Parkway, didn't get their ducks sorted!!
I fully agree that it should be replaced - I used to work in Avonmouth and go to the gym in Stoke Gifford and it was a pain to get through so it would massively benefit the area. I guess that NR look at it in terms of "Does the bridge enable the railway to run over it? Does it meet the loading and speed requirements for the line?" In that respect, that is why NR say it's fit for purpose. If it has bridge strikes, then the issue is with a) the LA to make sure that signage is good enough and b) the negligence of the individual driver. In short, NR are more bothered about their rails that go over it than the piece of tarmac below it
I know that the original plans (m2 and m5) and the later plan (m2) were to serve the SBLR - that was my point. Ill conceived in that respect, now covered by the fig leaf of "future proofing for planned development)
Fully agree - it would help some people move and that is hopefully what Marvin is on about. However, the biggest issue with buses everywhere is reliability - will they arrive when you want/need them to and that must involve removing them (as much as possible) from the congestion that blights Bristol and other major towns and cities. I go back to an earlier post about having better bus priority from Gilda Parade to Happy Landings to help buses. I guess the reasons it hasn't been done is the relatively low frequency on that section but you could do that and massively improve the cycling experience with no impact to commercial premises - just a thought!
-Colly405-
Member
Bus access to/from the east at Parkway is, to me, easy to solve.
Arrivig from the east, buses would come in from Hunts Ground Rd (as rail replacement buses currently do when arriving from the east), through to the open air west car park (as rail replacement buses currently do) and then turn left onto the approach ramp (as rail replacement buses currently do when leaving towards the east), which woild then allow them to access the station bus stops in the same way as current buses.
Exiting to the east would be the reverse.
All it would need is some white paint and perhaps a few more dropped kerbs between the west car park and the main approach road.
Any parking spaces lost in the west car park are more than made up for with the empty parking spaces on the top floor of the south multistorey (usually no more than half full) and the top floor of the north multistory (often empty/closed).
The main issue is that the road linking Hunts Ground Rd to the station has signs up saying "no buses", but presumably that isn't enforced now, as the plethora of rail replacement buses using it shows!
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
I fear probably not!
Fair assessment though probably doesn't even need to affect that much of the car parking. I really struggle to see why it hasn't been sorted when you can evidently build a huge multi storey car park!
I suspect it's down to who pays. NR wont want to. Also is it actually that vital that Parkway gets any more buses?
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
You're probably right though really NR should look to provide half decent facilities there. If they can spend £x for car drivers, then bus passengers should benefit from a little investment? I shall go away and reflect on my naïve aspirations
freetoview33
Established Member
Haha guess what I have way out mad plans for Parkway too, given a chance!You're probably right though really NR should look to provide half decent facilities there. If they can spend £x for car drivers, then bus passengers should benefit from a little investment? I shall go away and reflect on my naïve aspirations
Whiteway215
Established Member
10036 and 10037 live on. Both on U1 late afternoon.
Tommy Walters
Member
If only 10035 still existed - they could have done with it. Beckons the question - why was that one withdrawn early when the other two weren't??
Whiteway215
Established Member
I believe someone said at the time that it needed a new engine. Steve White might know?
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Think you’re right. Seem to recall there was some major unit failure making it BER!
DaveHarries
Established Member
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Yes - see post #20940 that links to the BP article
Tbh, this is much more deliverable than a Bristol tube network! Steve Melia is both right and wrong. Yes tempting more into buses frees up road space that gets filled by other cars but that may still be a laudable achievement and getting buses moving by limiting car use and providing a decent alternative is the only way to realise proper change.
DaveHarries
Established Member
Thanks: I hadn't seen the original post.
Trying to get people to use buses is indeed no bad thing but it has to be realised that, for some people, the car is still an essential for people who live in rural areas where any bus service provided may not attract enough usage to keep it going. Therefore the road network which gives access to central Bristol should be kept open rather than be constantly obstructed and made difficult to use. Also I work near Temple Meads but on flexible hours meaning that I don't always arrive back at base and park up in time to get the last bus / train home. Taxis are too expensive (£10) and I may be too tired to cycle. The car therefore is an essential part of my commute on most days.
Dave
goldisgood
Member
- Joined
- 5 Mar 2018
- Messages
- 413
More people using the bus can eventually lead to more early and late services, and people driving from rural areas can on the whole use park and ride?
Quite agree. I live in Yeovil and since the 2012 cuts I drive to Street and catch a 376 to get to Bristol.
DaveHarries
Established Member
Indeed, but I think a lot of people will always take the more convenient option especially if they have a lot of shopping to be doing.
Dave
Tommy Walters
Member
Apparently 33943-50 are having overheating problems which cause an engine cut out when using Bathwick Hill. Therefore they're only being used sporadically on the U1 & mainly on U2!!
Hmm.. So singles on the A2 Air Connect are £4.50 compared with £7 on the Airport Flyer. On top of that, West of England tickets are vaild on the A2. I predict the A2 being severely overcrowded and a rethink of the fare structure by Christmas!