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?

Bread, circuses.... and bus stops.

Today's long awaited launch of plans to transform the enterprise zone around Temple Meads – branded the 'Temple Quarter' - was heralded on the front page of the Post and on the Enterprise Partnership's pages. Both highlighted the half-promise of an Arena.

The big event was on Plot 3 – except for now it's to be known as 'Creative Common'. (Don't run away with any ideas that this is in any way a common, though. Bristol doesn't do commons). A (only slightly leaky) Big Top provided the venue.

First in were 200 invited businesses, to get a progress report on the Enterprise Zone's development and opportunies. The literature suggests they were subjected to a tidal wave of hype; I can't help wondering whether hard-headed businessmen are really vulnerable to this sort of thing, and if they are, what makes their judgement so much better than the rest of us can manage.

Then it was time for us plebs. We were treated instead to a sparky free display of entertaining skills much better suited to the venue. All credit to them, and the kids especially loved it. I gather that the Big Top is going to stay there through the summer, and maybe come back next season too.

But for us, there was little about what's going to happen in this key part of our city; just a few display boards mostly filled with artists' impressions of THE VISION. Those pictures were indeed visionary in much the same way as a dream is: they don't really hold together in the light of day, and raise many more questions than they answer.

One thing was clear, though. The display pictures, like the media hype beforehand, include NOTHING about the council's or the Enterprise Partnership's promise of a modern transport interchange – in fact the only indication of any 'onward' transport for arriving passengers was a BRT stop in the Friary. Here's one of the pics; make of it what you will.

It was mere chance, but immediately afterwards, a steam train pulled in to Temple Meads – headed by a locomotive that drew the crowds at the 1951 Festival of Britain - extending the general feeling of unreality

Then it was time to get the bus home.

No circuses here. Business as usual for the forseeable future.

FOI FUDGE

I thought it was a simple question. Has the council been exploring the idea of siting a public transport interchange on part of Plot 6 at Temple Meads where all the infrastructure for a quality transport hub is already planned for the 'Digby Wyatt' shed? Or does it, or the landowners, want to nip the idea in the bud?

The other day, the LibDem's one-time transport supremo Dennis Brown certainly tried to undermine (here, 28 mins in) any commitment to any interchange anywhere near Temple Meads. Still, what else would you expect ? At the same meeting, he'd already reflected how much better it would have been to get to Regional Assembly meetings in Exeter in a Car Club vehicle instead of his own.

The two 'transport leads' who've followed Dennis seem reluctant to say anything much about Plot 6 - so I put the question in as a Freedom of Information request. It had to be rephrased of course:

"I wish to make an F.O.I request about the potential use of Plot 6 (the development site currently in use as a car park, immediately north of the station buildings) at Temple Meads as a public transport interchange, including buses.

Can I please have copies of communications (hard copy or electronic) and details of meetings (minuted or not) or transcripts of telephone calls, referring to such use of any part of Plot 6 as a public transport interchange, between officers, members or agents of the council, or between them and the Plot 6 landowners, their agents, and lessees (including First Group) since August 2008.

A week after the deadline for reply, I get a non-response. Maybe no-one read the question. They tell me:

"Officers from the City Council have been involved in discussions and in providing guidance to the landowners of the land known as Plot 6, Network Rail and the South West Regional Development Agency. If you are able to clarify your request and confirm exactly what "information" you require, I will be happy to assist. However I can confirm that it is
unlikely that all information can be disclosed at this stage as the process is at such an early phase.

This is nonsense. First, because it ignores the perfectly clear nature of the FoI request for information about the use of the site as a transport interchange. Second, because plans for Plot 6 and the rest of the Temple Meads area have been worked up in enormous detail (and no doubt at enormous public expense, the main players being Network Rail and SWRDA), with a speculative mix of offices, retail, and flats. They're NOT at such an early phase. And the council have been party to it.

So what's the real excuse for dodging the FoI question?

Watch this space. At least till they build a block of unsaleable 'buy to let' on it.

BRT Questions for WoE Partnership

An item on Chris Hutt's Green Bristol Blog starts me on a hunt for information from the West of England Partnership.

WoEP have just put in a funding bid for the Ashton Vale Bus Rapid Transit scheme, and have published the 'outline business case' (OBC) that they've sent to the government. Fair enough - the plan had been approved by the Executive Members form each of the four authorities back in January, and by the Cabinets of the key councils, Bristol and North Somerset, the following month.

It had also got through the scrutiny process without any blips, in fact Jon Rogers (still in political opposition at that time) was moved to describe the 'interchange' at Temple Meads as 'a very exciting, innovative element of the scheme'. He was referring to that exciting, innovative new bus stop 400 metres from the rail station.

But the OBC that the transport planners have sent to Westminster doesn't seem to reflect the plans that our elected reps gave their blessing to a couple of months ago.

Take the Prince Street Bridge crossing of the Floating Harbour. The plans said no more than that the bridge would certainly need a bit of work, to accommodate the width and frequency of the BRT and the rerouted buses at this pinch point. There had been mention of a new bridge, or a new cycle and pedestrian bridge.

What the OBC suggests is nothing of the sort: it's very much the same bridge, but with cyclists in both directions expected to share a carriageway with the shuttling buses and, apparently, with cars and commercial traffic excluded.

I have no problem with that last bit, but I know it's controversial! You might expect the motorists' champions, the Tories, not to mention the Evening Post, to be up in arms about the exclusion of cars. After all, their leader Richard Eddy had led the campaign to prevent it back in 2006, and with some success.

Today, they had their big chance to object using the official 'scrutiny' provisions of the Partnership. But they remained silent. Reason - their very own chair of the scrutiny committee, Barbara Lewis, had cancelled the meeting because it had no business of sufficient importance! And this is the only group that scrutinises the West of England's many functions. Has the partnership done nothing worth looking at this last month?

On Friday, the four West of England Transport Executive members will be meeting at Temple Quay, and they'll be asked to 'note' that the OBC has gone in as they agreed. Except, of course, that it doesn't seem to be what they agreed. Jon Rogers, as an assiduous blog reader and twitterer, should know that by now, if he didn't already.

I've tabled some questions for answer at the same meeting, to try to bring out this and other issues around the weaknesses of the BRT scheme - not least the opportunity loss of a decent Temple Meads interchange. It will be interesting to see what the members think of them.

I'm not holding out much hope of constructive answers though. Today I got an e-mail from the same transport planners after I'd pointed out crucial contradictions (items 8 and 9 below) in the case made out for South Bristol Link Road. It said " I'm not proposing to comment on specific elements of it at this stage".

Well, if they don't tell the Executive members what they're up to, why should they treat me any better?

What bus? and where?

Here I am, shoulder to shoulder with Bristol Labour Party's finest. Mark Bradshaw's put up a petition to keep the 'TravelShop' on Colston Avenue open. His signature is quickly joined by others from the Labour front bench. And by mine.

It's all provoked by the First Bus decision to pull out of its partnership with the council in running the shop. As they provided the staff, that can only mean closure - unless the council brings back some of its own public transport staff to do the job.

I've already tabled questions about the closure for answer by Mark Bradshaw's successor, Jon Rogers, at the full council meeting on Tuesday - most of all to ask how they'll provide an 'over-the-counter' information and advice service to the travelling public if the TravelShop is allowed to close.
..........................
Oddly enough, Mark Bradshaw has his own questions to put to Jon Rogers at the same meeting, but he's using them to perpetuate a myth of his own making, in true Mandelsonian style. He's looking for confirmation "that a transport interchange at Temple Meads remains a key component of the (rapid transit) bid"

Transport interchange, eh? This is the site he has in mind. Of course it will look different by then. The rapid transit bus from Long Ashton P&R will call here at a stop (described as a 'docking station'!) so that Temple Meads passengers can dismount with their luggage, walk on through a new subway under Temple Way, then continue through a new office-retail-residential development, all the way to the railway station. Other buses (at least, those buses that come anywhere near Temple Meads) will continue to use Temple Way. Not a good place to transfer between buses, bus to train, BRT to ferry etc. etc. But that's Mr Bradshaw's idea of an interchange.

The proposal for a REAL interchange is quite different. It would have buses from all over the city converging on a hub immediately outside the 'Digby Wyatt Shed' at Temple Meads - click the picture and you can see it as the brick building in the distance. Network Rail and First want to turn the Digby Wyatt shed into a state-of-the-art concourse for Temple Meads passengers; all mod cons like real-time information, ticketting and advice, seating, light, safety, refreshments, retail. And there's stacks of room to cater for bus, ferry, and rapid transit passengers in just the same way - instead of leaving them at the scatter of exposed shelters somewhere near the station.

My own petition for this has drawn some very positive public response, but for some reason none of the Labour, Tory, or LibDem councillors has yet signed up to it. Nor has Kerry McCarthy MP, who's playing for time by trotting out the Bradshaw docking station/ interchange myth. That's especially surprising, given that few of her Bristol East constituents can get to Temple Meads in a single bus journey.

You can't help wondering if they've all been nobbled by the site owners or developers, who want to cover the lot with more offices, flats, and shops. Such things do happen!

Temple Meads meets Parish Pump Politics

A couple of days ago (and not for the first time) I heard the West of England's unitary councils described as the 'biggest parish councils in the country'.

That's probably an insult to parish councils, most of which get by very well without the worst of the party politics that seem to dominate our local council chambers - as anyone who's watched the petty point scoring and the party grandstanding at a full council meeting will know.

This has been all the more striking while I've been promoting the idea that Plot 6 at Temple Meads would be perfect for the transport interchange that Bristol clearly needs.

The suggestion's been very well received all round. Except that there's a deafening silence from the people who hold the key to making it happen - the big party groups on Bristol City council.

Faced with questions about it, Mark Bradshaw gave a seriously non-committal reply. The (non-executive) Sustainable Travel Select Committee has done a little better, agreeing to put it down for discussion later. Otherwise, no councillors' names on the petition, no comments on the blogs, no statements or questions in the council chamber.

No response either, after three weeks, from my MP, Kerry McCarthy, most of whose constituents can't get a bus to Bristol's main rail station.

Charlie Bolton (who, according to the other Members, doesn't count as a party) supports it, as does the rest of the Green Party.

Could it be that Green Party support makes the other parties' politicians deeply reluctant to come out in favour ? Is there a knee-jerk fear that it's not about Temple Meads, it's not about improving Bristol's dreadful public transport, it might really be all about party advantage?

I sincerely hope that I'm wrong.

Influencing Transport in Bristol - 1

The petition for a major transport hub at Temple Meads - instead of building more flats there and remaining stuck with the fragmented public transport system we suffer now - is now up on the council website at http://epetitions.bristol.gov.uk/view/templemeadshub

Please sign it. Even if you never go near a bus or train, it's in your interests that public transport in this city should work better and tempt some car drivers to actually use it!

A Temple Meads Hub

[Added 5th November: the petition is now up on the council website at http://epetitions.bristol.gov.uk/view/templemeadshub]

Good to see the Evening Post reporting the case made by the Greens for a proper transport hub at Temple Meads. Not only would it give far more of the city a direct link to the main railway station, it would give everyone crossing the city the 'seamless interchange' to continue their journeys - undercover, in safety, well informed, and well lit.


Contrast that with what bus users face now - say, on an evening journey from here in Stockwood to Horfield. A change, a longish walk, a wait at one of the city centre bus stops, and a seriously unpredictable arrival time. Then the same on the way back.


Temple Meads is ideal as a hub, and it's already well on the way to providing what's needed. The 'Digby Wyatt Shed' - the covered car park that formed part of the old station - is to become the new ticket office and waiting area, with shops, cafes and so on. The all important 'real time information' is taking shape (as pictured) All it needs is the bus and coach services themselves. Plot 6 is perfectly placed to provide for them.


But there's something very strange going on. Usually, the city planners say how land should be used, and it's open to full public debate. Not around Temple Meads though. The land use planning - the 'Local Development Framework' - has been left to one of the landowners, SWRDA, and they're pushing ahead with commissioning development that would put a couple of blocks of flats just where the buses could go. They've not consulted, in fact the plans still aren't even public. It was only thanks to some hard digging that the Greens found out what's being done.


There should be an e-petition for a Temple Meads hub on the council website very soon. I'll post the address here (and everywhere else I can think of!)