Whatever isn't happening at Temple Meads?

Charlie Bolton's current petition (please sign it!) calling for direct bus links through Bedminster to Temple Meads, prompts a review of where we've got to on the need for a multimodal transport hub at the city's main station  instead of the tinpot links that we have now.

On Tuesday, Bristol's Cabinet is poised to give the nod to spending £21 million on improving transport access to, and within, the Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone around the station. Well, Tuesday's Mardi Gras, isn't it? Spend it now, and pay back later..... from the expected business rates raised in the Zone. Same formula as the Arena.

This transport spend includes:  

• straightening out Temple Gate/Temple Circus. At £11 million, this takes up the bulk of the cash. As it will leave a smaller road footprint, some development land should be released too.
• A bit more (£6 million) goes toward access to the Arena site, 'to make the site more attractive to potential development', presumably the offices/apartments that are required to offset some of the Arena costs.
• The remaining £4m chunk goes to 'improved cycling and walking infrastructure on key routes in and through the TQEZ, sustainably linking residents with job opportunities'. This appears to include some unexpected but welcome projects like (at last) a cycle route along the Callington Road Link and, odder still, the Conham Riverside bike route.

But it doesn't include a multi-modal transport hub

A Temple Meads public transport hub has surfaced occasionally in the politicians' rhetoric for years. Only the Greens have made it a priority. But now that the high spending, low benefit prestige projects - especially the Arena and the Metrobus - have been pushed through, can't we look at something that really would bring about a step-change in the quality of the city's public transport network?
Despite all the half-promises, NEVER has the Bristol administration come up with a clear proposal, or even an outline brief, for what an interchange should provide.

So let me float one....

The Objective:

Overall, to make travel quicker and easier for all.

In particular, to provide a public transport system that is good enough to tempt significant numbers to choose not to use cars – thus freeing up road space for all travellers

The problem:

Every journey by public transport involves waiting time – and many trips involve transfer time from one mode or route to another. By and large, these things are done under sufferance. They're not a good use of time, and bus stops or station platforms are none too welcoming. There's the weather; often the darkness and insecurity; the doubt about when or whether a bus will turn up; and for many ongoing trips, a walk between the relevant stops and the doubt about which is the best one to use.

Of course these discomforts aren't the only downside of using public transport, but together they're a very big one – and until they're alleviated public transport is going to be second choice to the car for most of those travellers who have the choice.

The Answer:
That's where an interchange comes in, because it tackles all these problems head on. It cuts journey times by much more, and for many more travellers, than any Metrobus route could hope for.   And it does it efficiently, comfortably, and safely.

Here I float my own idea about what the minimum on offer at the TM Hub should be: 

• Public transport (bus, train, or ferry) to all parts of Bristol, daytime and evening.
• A single covered, enclosed, waiting area with seating, within one minute of bus pick-up, three minutes of trains or ferry
• Real time information displays for all servicesTicket sales (all modes) before boarding 
• Good access on foot or by bike, with traffic-free signed access toward Arena, Bedminster, Brunel Mile, Castle Park, Railway path, St Philips cycleway 
• Toilets

Those are absolute minima; highly desirable additions would be:

• Public transport to outlying areas, not just those served by rail, eg Clevedon, Thornbury, Wells/Radstock.
• Retail, refreshments and other amenity on-site
• bike hire and storage
• Left luggage
• Wi-fi
• a dedicated and very frequent service to the Centre and Broadmead

Would it work?

Who knows... the psychological bond between driver and car is very hard to break. But an interchange of this quality would certainly do the job to an order many times better than any other single project.

Is it do-able?

The space is there. Plot 6, alongside the Old Station, is ideally placed (though rail electrification looks like it will need two further tracks, either adjoining or through it). There's also the cleared space around Bristol and Exeter House, and (less viable) around the derelict shell of the Royal Mail building. All of these, individually or in combination, have the potential to provide a real hub. All are that rare thing in a city centre, undeveloped sites. And all are part of the Enterprise Zone, enabling a joined-up development plan that can – if the will is there - provide joined-up transport.

Who's involved?

Principally, the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership (self-appointed business reps and local authority nominees, including our own dear Mayor), along with Network Rail. The HCA own part of the land, too. Note that redevelopment of the station itself will be a Network Rail task; it will be major, involving new public access beneath the station, and a new concourse. Although all these bodies have public responsibilities, the public themselves are not a party to the plans.

Will they do it?

The broad intention is enshrined in the official planning frameworks.
The Central Area Plan (p40) promises:

The development of sites adjacent to Temple Meads Station will be expected to deliver improved public transport interchange facilities and new and enhanced walking / cycle routes as part of the development of Bristol Temple Quarter.

7.14 The precise location and type of interchange facilities that will be sought will be explored in more detail in the Spatial Framework being prepared for Bristol Temple Quarter. It is likely however that the development of the sites adjoining the station to the north will be required to accommodate this enhanced interchange function. Facilities will need to be fully accessible. “ 
The Spatial Framework that excerpt refers to is (as customary in such documents) quite flowery in its description (p35):

A 21^st Century transport interchange at the heart of a regenerated mixed use quarter. A destination, where people can meet their travelling needs, move easily and conveniently between transport modes and connect with the city centre and surrounding neighbourhoods.

And in the West of England's 'GVA of Major Transport Schemes' commissioned from Atkins, there's the advice (p35):

“...... given the large numbers of people commuting in future to Temple Quarter, a step change in the capacity of bus provision to the area will be required. This will require new services, with high frequencies and high levels of capacity, to address the access requirements of the area. Failure to deliver major improvements to bus access will substantially constrain the ability to unlock the development potential of the Enterprise Zone. “

The 'Simplified Planning Document' sums it all up (p2):

'At the heart of the zone will be a transformed multi-modal interchange at Temple Meads'

  

You'd think from all this that a major transport interchange at Temple Meads is a done deal.

You'd think it would go into the Enterprise Zone's infrastructure from the start, to be ready for the incoming workers. 

And you'd think that even before employers move in, the demand is there from the city's rail and bus passengers wanting a seamless journey.

So how come it's missing from the Cabinet's agenda on Tuesday?

Cycling City and Stockwood

'CYCLING CITY' chose the Royal Hotel on College Green to launch its programme this evening. I didn't risk using the bike on slippery roads and went by bus instead, so I never found if Marriotts' guests can park their bikes there. A surprising choice for a venue, though, given that the Council House is only a few yards away. I don't know who paid the hotel bill but I have a pretty good idea.

Of the 70% of the budget intended for 'infrastructure projects', to be in use within two or three years, there are three that could make a big difference for cyclists in this corner of the city.

One's the Callington Road Link (aka the Tesco to Sainsburys link), initially just a cycle-and-walk way but later a strategic road, along the trackbed of the railway under the Bath Road. By going under the A4 instead of across it, it's got to be better than the present NCN3 route. Well, for those not heading towards Temple Meads and town via the pedestrian bridge, anyway. It doesn't offer much for them.

North of that, they hope to provide a safe cycling route over the St Philips Causeway across to Lawrence Hill. It's a much more direct route than what we have now, and braver, more reckless, cyclists use it already. For much of its length there's a separate lane and some striking views - but it's prone to wind gusts and at each end the road narrows and you're competing for space with the boy racers and the juggernauts. Anyway, from south-east Bristol it would give better access to the Bristol-Bath path and new links to the northern fringe.

To the south, within Stockwood, a link is proposed from the present railway path to follow the brook valley south west under the Wells Road at Saltwell Viaduct (hmmm.....) and on into Whitchurch. That could be useful if an when the Hengrove developments become a destination. Wouldn't we all prefer to cycle to a hospital appointment?

Chris Hutt has a copy of the map, and a commentary, on his Green Bristol Blog

A Ring Road Rant

Fresh from seeing the display about the 'South Bristol Link' proposals at the Create Centre last week, I've tabled a couple of questions for answer at next week's Bristol City Cabinet meeting. I'm wondering why the only non-road alternative they've suggested is, put simply, a complete non-runner. They'd promised to have be 'a wide range of alternatives' on show for the present consultation.

The publicity is, unquestionably, rigged to get people to express a preference for a ring road. Not that they call it a ring road of course - the official purpose of the link between Hengrove to the A370 by way of the A38 is to give better access TO South Bristol, not THROUGH South Bristol.

The knock on effect will certainly be felt in Stockwood, because more traffic will be drawn from the Bath Road direction to cut through Callington Road and Airport Road, heading west to the M5, the airport, and the coast. And vice versa.

The consultation's only reference to traffic levels is the admission that there MAY be a bit more going down King Georges Road - and their pictures show no lorries, only family cars, cyclists and pedestrians in perfect harmony.

In reality, the increased congestion will make access to Hengrove and Hartcliffe more difficult from the east, so the whole scheme seems counter-productive. But they're not mentioning that.

As for the alternative that they're offering.... it's a 'rapid transit' bendy bus, running between Hengrove and the city centre. Not, as you might expect, directly down Hartcliffe Way or Wells Road. No, this one takes a meandering scenic route of 11 km plus, by way of Long Ashton. The 'rapid' trip to the city will take even longer than the clapped out 'First' single deckers that serve Hengrove now. Just what we need!

At the same Cabinet meeting, other Greens are asking a string of questions about all sorts of Bristol issues, including the traffic, noise, and pollution build up if they go ahead with building their ring road. I'm sure I'll be returning to the topic!

I called this a rant. On reflection, it's rather more rational and objective than the consultation documents that the West of England Partnership have presented us with.