Great Western Coffee Shop

Meanwhile:

Not a stupid city, but a stupid country. 

Why do we view cars and public transport as antagonistic to each others?  German cities seem to manage to simultaneously make good provision for their cars and for public transport.  Germans love their trains and it isn't because they are priced or bullied out of their cars.

I'd favour putting some effort into properly connecting the new arena to the station perhaps with a new link bridge.  Make it easy to go by train and you might find that people are reluctant to drive.  I also wonder if a dual use car park is worth some consideration.  Daytime it could be used by rail commuters (and therefore be a "pro-rail" car park), in the evening it could be used by concert goers.

 

Something like this?

(http://b247cdn.co.uk/11428/gallery/top/web/imag0682-1438870659.jpg)

(image courtesy of Bristol 24/7 (http://www.bristol247.com/channel/news-comment/daily/news-wire/arena-bridge-ready-for-move))


I'm not sure we do. But use of the private motor car has to be limited if there is to be any quality of life for people who live in cities.


It's next door to a major rail hub. The only way to make it easier for people to get there by rail would be to invest in improving rail services.


I would imagine that most of the time the proposed car park would largely be used by rail passengers - many of whom might otherwise have got to Temple Meads by public transport.

I've always thought one reason many German cities don't have much congestion is that most have on street trams. Which seem to get priority. Once on a tram  Rostock when someone misjudge pulling out in front it. Tram 1 Car 0 not a scratch on the tram but big dent in passenger door..

That spiky bridge will seriously outdo the cheese-grater!  ;) (..yes, okay, I realise that isn't the finished surface)

The new car park will probably be very busy as there are no car parks in that area, other than the temporary car park by Temple Meads that will be built on as part of this project.

Whist I agree that a car park should not be needed by a rail station, in an ideal world, you assume that Bristol Public Transport is fit for purpose. It is not.

If MetroWest Phase 1+2 happen, and if the mothballed stations are bought back in, and if the bus network interfaces with MetroWest, then the car park will not be needed (fingers crossed). However until then, it is needed I am sorry to say.

agreed.  I suspect cost is a factor too.  German intercity prices overlap with UK intercity prices.  But every German city has an integrated local network where the season ticket costs something like a few hundred Euros.  Most of the locals therefore have one of those tickets in their wallet which makes the incremental cost of an extra journey nil, so they jump on a tram, bus, train without thinking. 

Big events are likely to draw in people from a wide area, and for many public transport will not be a viable option. As an example, someone coming in from somewhere like Melksham would probably have to leave before the end of the event if they wanted to get home by public transport. Most people would choose to drive under those circumstances.

So, sadly, a car park is required to prevent Totterdown turning into carmageddon on gig nights.

Probably have to leave before the start  ;D

It's going to be a pretty unusual station (Berney Arms, Dovey Junction) - or in an age to come - where there's no requirement for car parking.   For sure, within a certain catchment people can walk / cycle.  For significant flows to the station you'll have buses ... and of course other rail based solutions, but for some it's gonna be the car.   As the public transport network gets better in the future (?), the call for car parking in city centres decreases - I suspect you see that in London where car parking at London termini is tiny in proportion to passenger numbers, but there's always a case for some (*) - especially where you have situations like the Millennium Stadium at Cardiff where the public transport network simply couldn't cope with getting everyone away after a 10 p.m. finish.

* - Example.  Many moons ago, I lived in north west Kent and used to take "Merrymaker" trips with my Grandmother from Euston - a day trip to Chester, or York, or Morcambe of Carlisle.  But at her age, catching the local train into London, the tube over, early in the morning and reversing that late at night would have just been too much ... so a drive into central London ...

Agreed.

Its a shame that the Avon Council Metro plan was mothballed when the council was broken up in the 1980s. If not we may(!) have had a German quality transport system for Bristol and Avon area.

As an aside, according to Steve Melia's research Germans own more cars than Britons and drive more miles in them.

Well, Germans have cheap prices for cars (but expensive servicing) and it's a bigger country.

But getting back to Bristol, Ferguson is hoping to be re-elected as mayor in a couple of months. He's already annoyed the "motorists' rights" lobby by introducing residents parking zones and 20mph speed limits, so his decision is likely to be based on whether he tries to cement his green image by rejecting the car park or moderate it to appeal to the hardworking family driver. It's most likely that despite Bristol's (mostly self-indulgent) green image, there aren't enough greenies to outweigh the harddriving family workers. At the same time, by being just outside the arena, he can claim he isn't contradicting his previous statements.

I think it is possible that if you put it to the vote, you'd find that most people who live in RPAs now see the benefit and wouldn't want to go back.


Again, I think most people would not want the speed limit in their street put back up..!


According to the Points West this lunchtime, they may close other car parks to keep the total amount of parking much as it is now.

Interesting.

The thing that strikes me most about German trains is that they seem more efficiently run than in the UK.

Staffing levels look lower, most S-Bahns are DOO, many underground station platforms are unmanned (the hoards of "dispatch staff" in their high vis are missing), many trains are longer than in the UK, many stations are unmanned, most tickets are bought from a machine (in fact it costs slightly more to use a ticket counter in many cases) which is fine because fares are simple and almost all stations are not barriered (I don't suggest that the Germans are more honest, but they seem to have got themselves into a virtuous cycle of local tickets being so cheap that the average resident holds a season ticket anyway and the money lost from not collecting fares in not large enough to justify action to reduce it)   

I expect capital costs in Germany are higher than the UK - underused sidings abound and the main stations consume vast acres of city centre real estate with each platform only getting perhaps one train an hour (Munich station managed to find a huge spare disused booking hall and waiting area to use as a migrant reception centre at their Hauptbahnhof.  In the UK that space simply would not be there and if it was it would have been sold off)  but that operating costs are lower.

We need to discover a model whereby instead of the tax payer pouring subsidy continually into a service, the tax payer can pour a one-off chuck of money into a whole network to make it cheaper to run so that the need for ungoing subsidy is reduced. 

I think this is true of RPZs as well. Most people don't want other people speeding along their street and are happy to keep parking for themselves ^ but they still want to drive at 30 through other streets and park in them. The human brain is very good at holding two seemingly contradictory opinions simultaneously; it's what makes us superior to the monkeys!

(Of course the 20mph limit is mostly nominal anyway.)

That's interesting. Presumably the ones they'll close, if they do, will be those nearest the Arena, in order to avoid shifting traffic patterns too much (although of course it's possible they want to do this too), in which case it looks a bit silly building the new car park.

The car park is almost certainly there as a decoy device. Its simply too large for the site, will stuff up traffic, views etc. But the planners will be able to say "we did try".

Arguably a much better idea would be to dig a very large and deep underground car park on the north side of Temple Meads and build a station extension with retail, food, taxi stand, airport buses etc. on top of it. You could probably cut a PPP deal whereby the owner got rental income and so NR/City of Bristol got the amenity for free.

Very large and deep car parks are the sort of thing you see in large French cities, La Rochelle and Annecy spring to mind. In French and Spanish cities, you generally find that most families do have a car (single adults less so), but it sits in the underground car park all week and is used at weekends and holidays for visits to the hypermarket, days out etc.

The thing with public transport is that it is great for certain purposes, generally short-ish journeys of one or two hops with a short walk at either end. But you can't carry much baggage on it, it can be difficult to use if you are infirm or are with multiple children etc.     

Don't you believe it! My next-door neighbour has just been busted for 28mph in a 20 zone!

Where did this happen and when? And were they perhaps doing something else to attract police attention first, eg running a red light?

@Noggin: Underground car parks in France, and some other countries, where the car sits underground most of the time, tend to be built under (mostly new) blocks of flats. One of the reasons that doesn't happen here is that most of us, even in big cities, don't live in blocks. As for underground public car parks, building anything underground is incredibly expensive; IIRC estimates I've seen are on average 4x the cost of building on the surface.

And what I came here to post, about RPZs:
http://www.bristol247.com/channel/news-comment/daily/politics/petition-calling-on-mayor-to-cancel-rpzs

From what she told me, she wasn't doing anything other than speeding. I'm not sure how the myth that the police don't enforce 20mph limits got started.


Funny isn't it: London has them, and so does Birmingham. Leeds, Glasgow and Sheffield have them. Bradford and Liverpool have them, and so does Edinburgh. Manchester also has them, as do Cardiff, Coventry and Peterborough. Leicester has them, and Nottingham, Swansea, Portsmouth, Brighton, Aberdeen, Newcastle, Southampton, Northampton, Swindon, Reading and Norwich do too.

What do these people think is so special about Bristol to make it the only largish city in the realm that doesn't need Residents' Parking Areas?

Is it that they dared to put them in Clifton! Or is it that so many commuters got used to using residential streets as an informal free park and ride. 

I think there was a non-committal statement by the Avon & Somerset boys when the limits were first introduced. There may also have been more explicit pronouncements by other forces. 

When we got our 20 zone in Bath last year, the council info leaflet through the door said that it wouldn't be enforced.

Believe it or not, in most of the city there wasn't an issue with parking in residential areas until the council got greedy and hiked city centre parking charges, encouraging people to park and walk.

Also, as they have brought in RPZ's, the number of spaces have been reduced, so creating further problems. 

From the Western Daily Press (http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Thousands-motorists-caught-speeding-Bristol-s/story-27760382-detail/story.html), in an article dated 9 September 2015:


My highlighting. CfN.

Thank you, CfN.

I live on the edge of two RPZs. The first was in operation before I moved in, the second started up a couple of years later, and when it did, it brought about an immediate reduction in the number of commuters parking there and ^ perhaps more importantly ^ driving around in the mornings looking for a space. It's not just about the car when it's parked, but when it's being driven.

As for the number of spaces, well of course they're not defined as per-vehicle spaces so there isn't a number; but the length of kerb designated for parking has probably increased. Lengths which previously had the white 'keep clear' lines now have parking bays, with double yellows being restricted to the very corners. This is one of my complaints about the implementation of the RPZs; it has legitimised parking in dangerous places, obstructing visibility at junctions.

Even in the sixties, when the Bristol City Centre Policy Report was advocating massive investment in road construction, it was recognised that ultimately the only way to control the number of cars coming into the city was to control parking: if you can't park, you won't drive.

Parking charges don't raise much revenue. Managing parking costs money, and it seems fair that the parkers should pay for this. Even if it were true that that council saw parking as a cash cow, what would they do with the fruits of their 'greed'? Squander it on education and social services? Lower the Council Tax? The bounders!

Congestion is the price living in a booming, energetic city. Lots of people want to live, work and move around, and it is this that puts pressure on parking. If you want to blame the council, then blame them for failing to prevent Bristol becoming an economic success!




Edit note: Quote attribution corrected, in the interests of clarity. CfN.

You momentarily confused me there by quoting Noggin's words in my name. You might have confused Noggin too!

I've therefore corrected the quote attribution. CfN.  ;)

Apologies to all concerned. On this occasion I honestly didn't set out to confuse anyone!

Or this, maybe?

(http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/Boyamijealous_7108a707/Arena/20150928_083551_zpsp4gmsggj.jpg)

(Image courtesy of me)

Indeed. There are also plans for another bridge to the east, linking to a pick up/drop off point on Albert Road. I suppose it makes sense that this is on the opposite side of the site to the proposed car park, thus perhaps theoretically keeping the traffic separate:

The grandchildren have gone, so I can think again.

If the decision not to have car parking beyond 250 disabled places was wrong, the decision to have a 480-space car park will be criticised at being too small. Increases in the size, and therefore number of spaces, would be similarly criticised until it is criticised for being too big. The absence of a planned car park could have had as much to do with the site (Kwik Fit currently) not being available at the time the Arenal was planned. This may not be so much of a u-turn as seems to be assumed by some. As has also been pointed out, the council are in the process of buying the Temple Gate centre with a view to rental income and development. That could include the car park there.

I would not use an arena car park for a major event, and have form for doing as I say. At events at Old Trafford, Wembley, and several in Cardiff, I have used public transport, usually rail, or once an out-of-town park and ride. I have been vindicated every time, getting home before people who drove. A multi-storey car park fills and empties over a whole day, but at an arena all 12,000 people want to go home at the same time. I would not like to be one of 480 cars all trying to get out onto Bath Road or Cattle Market Road. The bridge to Albert Road for coach passengers etc is a very good idea, and might even lead to use of places like the Fruit Bat Market on event days.

So I don't think a car park is any more necessary here than in London. The answer lies in public transport, either for the whole journey, or the last leg. There are three park and ride sites, one of which will one day have a railway platform - it isn't dead yet. They will be open late on event days. Why not offer a deal for a rail or bus ticket with event tickets? Or use the thousands of car park spaces within a 10 minute walk of the Arenal?

Totterdown is too far away and unknown for out-of-towners to use for parking, but the will be offered a RPZ as a solution to any problem. The RPZs by the way have indeed cut parking in Redland, Clifton, Kingsdown etc. If you wondered where it all went, go to Easton in the morning. A RPZ might not help matters where I live, which is away from the commuter parking belt, but a RPG might come in handy occasionally. As Red Squirrel says, though, they are greeted with suspicion but quickly become popular where they are introduced.

I've got used to using buses and trains in the past couple of months. Bristol buses are not as bad as their reputation, although they are not for the urgent. From Arnos Vale, close to my home, it is a 5 minute ride to Temple Meads costing ^1.00, or a 30 minute walk. Why would I take a car there? But I still wouldn't wherever I lived in Bristol.

:o :D

From the Bristol Post (http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Lack-coach-park-Bristol-affect-tourism-cause-loss/story-28992024-detail/story.html?utm_source=Glos%20Media&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5393136_Bristol%20Post%20RSS%20Newsletter&ito=email%2526source%3DGlos%20Media%2526campaign%3D5393136_Bristol%20Post%20RSS%20Newsletter):

This one is stupid. The coach park in Cumberland Road was used for as many years as I have been in Bristol. It wasn't used to its fullest extent all the time, but was certainly heavily used in summer, in the pantomime season, and whenever there was a big production in town. This is not where passengers alight, but where the drivers park until it is time to return to pick their passengers up after the event.

It has been closed to allow works for MetroBust, and will not be reopened when said white heffalump has been constructed. MetroBust has been in what passes for planning for 5 years (or 11 years, depending on where you start). It is absurd that this issue was not addressed before the coach park was closed.

So where are the coaches parking now? Has another place been provided for them? Where will they go when (if?!) Metro Stub finally opens?

Many coaches park up on Parrys Lane, Durdham Downs these days. Including National Express and Megabucks.

First Bristol might be missing out on a few extra pounds there.  They could have charged a nominal fee for coaches parking between set downs and pick ups at their old Muller Road depot.

According to various (http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-arena-could-move-away-748493) articles (https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/new-location-possible-for-bristol-arena/) in the local media, it looks like Mayor Marvin is looking at alternative locations for the Bristol Arena. Given how quiet things have been for the last year, I can't say I'm surprised: the central location by Temple Meads is well-aligned with George Ferguson's architect's idea of what a modern city should be, but less so with Marvin Rees' bottom-of-the-internet populism.

One of the more interesting suggestions (https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/call-bristol-arena-relocated-citys-outskirts/) comes from Cllr Peter Abrahams: re-using the Brab Hangar at Filton. This idea, it seems to me, is not entirely without merit: it provides a new use for a historic building which would otherwise presumably have to come down, the site is on the Henbury branch, and it's also very accessible for those who insist on clinging on to the Mobile Death Greenhouse as a form of transport. And, surprisingly, it is inside the Bristol boundary - just!

However Cllr Abrahams did use that word 're-imagine' in this context. I do rather worry that Mayor Marvin is intent on re-imagining a world that doesn't have a Bristol Arena in it.

Well, thinking about this one. A big building that no-one really knows what to do with, with no immediate neighbours to annoy, a mile or so away from a major public transport hub, right next to motorway and major roads, with loads of space for parking/shuttle buses etc. Versus a cramped city centre site, right against a residential area, on the 'wrong' side of the city centre for much of the population, next to a cramped railway station with little room to expand, with little to no parking, which is going to be incredibly expensive to build and is on a valuable site. You might not like the idea of out of town development, but there simply isn't a reasonable place to put it in Bristol City Centre without causing a huge .

If I was Marvin I would be very actively soliciting a deal with the University to take the arena site, on the proviso that they build some kind of multipurpose venue on the current arena site as part of the deal. Something like the Octagon centre in Sheffield where you could have bands, exhibitions, conferences, small sporting events etc would be ideal. At the same time, do a deal for a big stonking arena in the Brabazon hanger. He can then turn around to the electorate and say that this is going to result in a much nicer city, it's going to cost far less money, won't inconvenience the locals, turn the roads to gridlock etc. Everyone will be delighted with him, the issue will go away and he can focus on the issues that really matt.... ah yes, the arena is rather good for distracting attention isn't it? As you were everyone.     

And with the savings, get the Henbury Spur upgraded to the Henbury Loop!

Well it will, but... tee hee... that'll be South Glos's problem!

The roads in South Gloucestershire have been gridlocked for the past 10 years, adding an Arena to the mix will not make it worse.

If SGC are serious, they will campaign for Henbury Loop, extra rail stations, park and ride stops by stations with frequent services, integrated bus and rail services and ticketing.

Also, if they want to do something radical, run a FREE bus from BTM-CENTRE-UWE-BPW-AZTECH WEST-CRIBBS. It will cost a lot, but a free regular service adding all these busy areas will encourage people not to drive 

WHAT !!!! I've been retired 24 years and they were gridlocked then and for most of the 27 years I worked at Patchway.

As a resident of elsewhere who occasionally has to fight his way in and out of some of these places, I would really find my life easier if ...
1. Trains from BRI called at AZW twice an hour or more
2. Local trains from BRI were run to Filton Abbey Wood, left turn onto the Henbury line, then right onto about a mile of new track across the old runway to terminate at Cribb's. Twice an hour would be good; maybe a quick reverse of Bristol Parkway terminators across to Cribbs if there remain capacity issues?
3. That free shuttle bus Parkway - UWE - station entrance at Filton Abbey Wood.

I guess my desires / needs are very occasional, very specialist, and no business case to be made?

I'm not sure trains to Cribbs would be compatible with the ethos of the place!

Probably not, although there is plenty of room in those car parks to make the switch. Cribbs is for me and many others a symbol of division between Bristol and South Gloucestershire councils, and a totem to the loss of the tram network we so badly needed. It is now likely to become also an icon on the altar to be constructed in memory of the Arenal.

We needed a shot in the arm. We got a shot in the foot, and the threat of a shot in the head. That's not just me having a shot in the dark.

If you live in SGC, and 300K people do, Cribbs Causeway is essential.

Thirty years ago Bristol failed to address traffic, parking and shopping issues that severely impacted the new and established areas of SGC. This failure created the Mall@Cribbs and further complicated the traffic issues in the Northern Fringe.

If Bristol CC had encouraged and help fund the Avon Metro envisaged, then it is unlikely Cribbs Causeway would exist as a retail hotspot as now.

If the Arena is relocated to the Brabazon hangar would it be possible to lay some tram track from it to somewhere close on the national network and utilise the tram-train principle to move people to/from it to the city centre. Or is this not a practical idea?

I find myself surprised that there are as many as 300,000 people (well, 277,600 but let's not quibble) in South Glos, but that's me showing my ignorance. Of course the best part of 100,000 of them are in contiguous suburbs of Bristol, and at least another 50,000 are in purpose-built satellite towns of Bristol.

Whether Cribbs is essential or not is a moot point. It is certainly profitable, which for some is the only measure that matters, and it presumably raises a decent amount in rates for South Glos. I'm not sure what Bristol had to do with this though. The squabble over the routing of the Avon Metro came after Cribbs was built, because Bristol was concerned that Broadmead would be killed off if it was easier to get to Cribbs.

What would you have had Bristol, then a district within Avon, do about all this 30 years ago? And what has this got to do with the Rees/Abraham BrabArena?

Ah, when I moved to Bradley Stoke, in 1989, land was set aside for a large district centre, the Avon Metro and a metro station located at the top of Bradley Stoke Way, adjacent to Aztech West roundabout.

At this point the Cribbs Causeway was just a motorway junction on the M5 with a Carrefour store.

The Avon Metro scheme folded a few years later, and the Cribbs Causeway Retail project was initiated at the same time, to open in 1998.

To me the failure of the Avon Metro, possibly related to Avon Councils demise and Bristol City Council being opposed to the funding model, lead to the inevitable development of a major local centre.

I don't think the Bristol v South Glos split can be blamed or thanked for the existence of Cribbs Causeway. Every city and large town has an out of town shopping destination nowadays. And even some not so large ones, like Street. They don't appeal to me but they clearly do to a lot of people.

The Brabazon shed is very close to the Henbury Loop, right next to it practically. You would only need a station to be built there once/if passenger services return.

That's a very big 'only'... the Porkway Part and Ride was built right next to the Severn Riviera line in 2002, but Parkway Punkway station is still in the grip of GRIP fifteen years later.

All this is just a bad joke. George Ferguson's reign was short and sweet, but an aberration. Marv wants to kill off the Arena because it was George's idea, and he'll probably succeed. If he can use a willing Tory tool to help in this process, he'll be happy to do so.  Bristol and Greater Bristol politics are back on their usual path of petty rivalries and mutual self-destruction; new Avon mayor Peter Bowles is so far showing little inclination to do anything other than continue turning South Glos into a vision of Los Angeles in the 1950s... Pah!

It is obvious than an Arena should be in the centre of Bristol, but Bristol desire to save money will probably see

• small concert and performance art centre near Temple Meads
• Bristol arena to be built in Filton
• transport upgrading of Henbury Loop and not Henbury Spur, plus new stations

and this will be a lot less than £125M.

Except that:

1. Who or what is this 'Bristol' that wishes to save money? Maybe we should put the whole Arena topic to a referendum? Actually maybe not; we'd end up having to to call it Arena-y Mc Arenaface, and being tied to having it staffed by 7 space faeries, all called David.
2. We may, just possibly, get a small concert and performance art centre near Temple Meads. And if so, there's a good chance it may be called the Cattle Market Tavern.
3. The BrabArena won't happen. Bristol would never fund something that would largely benefit those utter non-Bristolians who live in Patchway and Bradley Stoke.
4. I reckon I have another 20 or 30 years if I'm lucky. I doubt I'll live to see the Henbury Loop.

Good god we aren't going to have to put up with you for that long are we ?  ;D.

Hey, McArenal!
https://youtu.be/anzzNp8HlVQ

Red Squirrel is right, it takes decades to do anything in terms of rail infrastructure improvement in our useless country.

How many years ago did we first hear of rails to Tavistock, Portishead etc etc?

Governments aren't interested, all they want is cars and more cars - oh and buses.

To me, that sounds a little simplistic as a history, although on the right path. But 30 years ago, we still had Avon in charge of transport amongst other things, not the individual squabbling councils. In any case, I doubt that improved transport to Broadmead from Yate, Thornbury, Kingswood and the like would have prevented the Mall from being built. The Mall at Cribbs was not built primarily because of traffic problems, but because of consumer demand, and opened long before tram plans were finally abandoned. The first major development there was the Carrefour superstore on the site now occupied by Asda. That was served by a free bus service from outside the Colston Hall in Bristol, and I used that as free transport to the M5 a few times around 1978 when hitch-hiking back to Lancashire.

According to Bob Fowler, former Project Manager for Bristol City Council Rapid Transit (http://Bob Fowler, former Project Manager for Bristol City Council Rapid Transit) the initial ATA project failed through lack of political support (I think he means Dawn Primarolo) leading to loss of funding. The finance model of covering the costs of building from the increased values of properties along the route didn't include a valid mechanism for extracting that money, so was a bit suspect anyway. The second incarnation of the idea in the 1990s died with Avon County Council in 1996. The joint Bristol / South Glos submission of outline business case in 1998 was received by a government that suddenly turned pro-bus, even though 60% of the funding would have come from the private sector.

Although private interest evaporated with the 2½ year hiatus that followed, the plan was not dead, and money was made available in early 2001. According to Mr Fowler (who admittedly could be biased):


Faced with such division, Government lost patience and pulled the funds, telling the councils in 2005 to come back with proposals of a more rubbish nature, based on buses. Hence we not only end up with MetroBust, but almost saw the Severn Beach line turned into a guided busway.

Rightly or wrongly, I see South Glos as being far more behind this atrocity than either Bristol City Council or north somerset parish council. As evidence, I cite an article in one of their propaganda sheets earlier this year (or late last year - I'll have to look it up again) in which the author refers to the "already successful MetroBust project". I sent an email asking how they had measured that success - passengers carried, operators engaged, budgets kept to, schedules met, or jobs created at South Gloucestershire - but I am still waiting for a reply. I may have stood more chance of getting one had I not started the message "Dear Comical Ali, I wondered what had happened to you after the end of the Iraq war".

We certainly, collectively, missed more than one golden opportunity to connect the different parts of the geographical area formerly know as the County of Avon. Politics is the problem at both local and national level, and no one district or party is to blame entirely. Much money was spent on the various schemes, almost all wasted, and what we are finally getting has caused many more problems than it will ever solve. But suggest an Independent Transport Authority, and all bar Bristol scream "Remember Avon!"

And the irony of an Integrated Transport Authority is that it helps South Gloucestershire, North Somerset and BaNES as much as Bristol.

Better rail, light and full, would help all areas and mitigate severe  traffic jams.

It is time that the government created one with the ability to collect a property tax (like police and fire) for Infrastructural Rail and Road investment.

Would road charges for vehicles entering Bristol, or central Bristol, with monies raised being ring-fenced for public transport be a solution to changing Bristol's status as a car dominated place? Or automotive hell, choose your option. I suspect this sort of idea would be seen a form of political suicide in the short term, but in the end it might be something that simply has to happen.

A Bristol congestion charge? I don't know how much that would help but I can vaguely see it happening sometime. My feeling is it might not reduce traffic entering the city centre much of itself, but that its existence could be used as a justification for other measures that would (such improved public transport of various natures, strategic road closures, removal of parking, etc).

I would say not. Bristol's geography is a little tricky, with rivers but few bridges. For many journeys undertaken between one part of the city and another, the alternative to cutting through the Centre is a long detour through residential areas. It would not stop congestion, merely shift it. There is also the question of what constitutes the city centre. Do we mean the historic tramway centre, also known as the A38, or Cabot Circus / Broadmead shopping areas, or what is becoming the commercial centre around Temple Meads? Nothing is as clearly defined as the congestion charge zone in London. Central Bristol isn't really that big, and now the road works are beginning to disappear, it isn't really congested enough to merit a charge. The residents' parking zones were forecast by most two-car families to be political suicide, but turned out to be largely popular, except with the aforesaid multi-car households and residents in the non-RPZ streets where the commuters now park. A congestion charge would please nobody but cyclists and pedestrians, most of whom are also drivers. It might not even please them if the decongested roads mean the cars move more quickly.

In any case, the suspicion would be that the council would not make any money out of it because of circumvention by the locals and council ineptitude - both have history. And even if it did make money, they would spend it, not on improvements to public transport, but on MetroBust.

And other provincial cities have managed to build tram systems without charging motorists for the privilege.

Well I just wonder how other places have managed to obtain their tram systems. Is it down to having friends in high places or is there a magic formula out there somewhere? Incidentally there is a move to introduce trams to Bath. This is a notion that surfaces every decade or so but I really can't see it ever happening.

Many were started before the financial crisis a decade back. That said, systems like Nottingham's have expanded or are expanding (Midlands again) since then. The game changer now just might be the continuing development of ultra light rail technology which promises to significantly reduce start up and running costs. For some areas Tram/Train technology may be more expensive but it's ability to run on tram and NR rail lines gives it added value through flexibility which increases it's affordability.

There was a time (I think it was around 2002) when the Government announced that it would fund 25 new tram networks by 2020. I don't think there has been a new successful bid since then, and all current works are extensions of existing routes, or completion of systems already under construction. But for the tram networks now available to ride on, where did the cash come from?

Nottingham's was paid for in part by the DafT. It was a Private Finance Initiative, meaning that other parties funded the rest of the costs in return for a 30-year build, maintain, and operate franchise. Arrow Light Rail Ltd was a consortium of Adtranz, now part of Bombardier, who brought the trams to the party, Carillion, who did most of the infrastructure, and Transdev and Nottingham City Transport, who operate it. The cost of the first line, which was just under 9 miles long with 23 stops, was comparable to what MetroBust is costing in the Bristol area, although the latter cost does not include vehicles, depots etc. It was packed on Day 1, and continued to grow, exceeding expectations and bolstering the business case for the extension.

Manchester Metrolink had the advantage of being promoted by a proper Passenger Transport Executive working on behalf of, yet separate from, the many different local authorities  Phase 1 was funded in part by that authority borrowing from banks, with DafT and the European Regional Development Fund adding generous amounts. Funding for later phases drew on the Phase 1 fare box as well as grants from various government and EU piggy banks. Services began busy, and have risen year on year, with the network extending to cope.

The refurbishment of Blackpool's tramway was funded by DafT in the main, with a little over a quarter of the £86 million cost being shared between Blackpool and Lancashire County Councils. The result has been to transform Britain's last "first generation" tramway from a rickety system on its last legs to a modern light railway built to tram-train standards, and running modern trams with a reliability of over 99%.

The most famous / infamous was the Edinburgh tram system. That was funded by the Scottish Parliament and Edinburgh City Council almost in total. No transport scheme anywhere was surely as badly affected by politics: the SNP in opposition fought tooth and nail against it, but had to champion the scheme when elected to power, as it had gone too far to cancel. Project management was a farce, but eventually it got built, and has since exceeded all expectations. I think that Nicola Sturgeon is secretly very proud of it, but daren't brag. It is now running at an operational profit, although it will be a while before it paints the front door of the headquarters red.

In Bristol, we're getting MetroBust as a punishment for squabbling with the neighbours. It is being funded by a fixed sum from DafT and an ever increasing bill being met by local councils holding car boot sales. Oh, and £2 million from Bristol Airport, the only one of the businesses who pledged cash to follow up with a cheque.

I think the most-recent extensions to Nottingham's tram system were (at least in part) funded through the introduction of a workplace parking levy.