Great Western Coffee Shop

The West of England Combined Authority (WECA) has produced a number of studies and reports recently, some of which have led to press speculation about mass transit schemes in the Greater Bristol area. Meanwhile forum members who have attended WECA public meetings have come away disillusioned. I thought it might be worth trying to understand what the various reports actually mean, and whether the future really is as bleak as it appears to some.

The crux of all these activities is the Joint Spatial Plan (JSP). This was submitted to the Secretary of State for examination in April 2018.

In this submission is SD 16B Joint Spatial Plan: Joint Transport Study final report October 2017 (https://www.jointplanningwofe.org.uk/consult.ti/JSPPublication/viewContent?contentid=346611), which on p.43 refers to potential new stations at Constable Road, Ashton Gate, St Annes, Charfield and Saltford, but also states that:


In the context of Mass Transit, the report says:


However, also in the submission is SD 16A Topic Paper 8: Transport (April 2018) (https://www.jointplanningwofe.org.uk/consult.ti/JSPPublication/viewContent?contentid=346611). This refers to rail, for example on p14 it says:


...but the only new stations it refers to are Charfield and, obliquely, Henbury and Portway. I find this document (and its November 2018 revision) hard to contextualise, not least because most of its schemes complete in the 2020's - surprising for a planning period ending in 2036.

According to the WECA Transport Update of 30th November (https://westofengland-ca.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s692/15%20-%20WECA%20Transport%20update%2030.11.18%20final%20draft%2019.11.pdf) the next significant plan will be Version 4 of the Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP4), which will report to WECA on 1st Feb 2019. This will include reports on MetroWest, LRT/Tram Train, Bristol East Jct, MetroBus and Mass Transit options.

All a bit inconclusive really; maybe someone else can pick the bones out of it better than I've managed to.

I note that the WECA meeting of 30th November will be available for viewing at https://www.westofengland-ca.gov.uk/ from 3rd December... Xmas has come early!

Thank you for this update.

I fear that without a significant committed budget, and leadership, our hopes for MetoWest and future transport plans will be not be achieved.

My initial view of WECA was a chance to be provide integrated infrastructure and leadership for this area, but I am sadly disillusioned by progress so far.

£1BN sounds like a lot, but when you realise it is actually £30M/year for 30 years it suddenly sounds a lot less impressive. However if it is possible to factor in things like a Workplace Parking Levy and Road User Charging (both mentioned in SD 16B), the potential for raising more useful sums starts to look possible.

Money, vision and leadership are needed.

All three are sadly lacking!

The webcast of the WECA meeting of 30/11/2018 is now available here:

https://youtu.be/ovSnvorusqE

...further to that, Christina Biggs's FOSBR piece was particularly encouraging (33.49); she mentions the inclusion of the Thornbury line and Henbury loop in JLTP4 and also the news that the Portishead line could pay for itself in one year...

What do you interpret that as : -

A. the line / service will not require revenue support after one year meaning farebox income after 12 months will cover all the lines running costs (operators - wages and fuel, ROSCO's - rolling stock leasing costs which will also fall onto the operator, and NR's access charges which again will also fall on the operator) and break even or even return a surplus ; -

or

B. will be so successful that after one year meaning the farebox income after 12 months will repay the taxpayer all the millions which would be spent on getting the rails to Portishead again ; -

or

C. your interpretation of the phrase 'pay for itself in one year ' which is ? 

I'm not interpreting, I'm simply reporting what Christina Biggs said. I too am interested in the detail.

It isn't in the FOSBR written statement (that, along with others, is here (https://westofengland-ca.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s750/Statements%20submitted%20to%20WoE%20Combined%20Authority%20Committee%20-%2030%20Nov%202018.pdf)) although this statement does mention Thornbury and the Henbury loop:

Hi RS, hope you don't mind just the RS.

Ah, you are of the same mind as me in wishing to see the detail of FOSBRA's financial 'project return on investment', snap.

Did you read the statement 14, a knock at WECA for not setting up (a) local transport forum(s).

Mine was statement 3 as if you needed to guess.

Regards.

Short and sweet but to the point having watched it this afternoon.

It cannot be (B) - even if you look at "just" the extra 48 million, that's £131,000 per day or 13,000 journeys at £10 each.    Say 30 return train trips, 110 passengers (paying £10 single each, remember) every half hour in both directions from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.

At best, I would suggest it might pay its operating costs plus a reasonable interest / return on investment to whoever put the capital in, plus (say) repayment of 1/20th of the capital?   That's "C"

I am aware from this evening's meeting that there are those who believe it *is* "B"

Thank you for that last comment Grahame, you, like me, do not believe in flying pigs either, right.

I've finally found JLTP4, for those who are interested in this kind of thing: https://westofengland-ca.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s702/13b%20-%20Draft%20West%20of%20England%20Joint%20Local%20Transport%20Plan%20Nov%202018.pdf

Some juicy bits:

Not sure if this is the right place


from the Weston Worle and Somerset Mercury (https://www.thewestonmercury.co.uk/news/have-your-say-on-joint-local-transport-plan-1-5890699)

I didn't know there was a plan for a new motorway junction near Weston. I did know there are plans for one between Bristol and Yate on the M4 and one on the M49 between Avonmouth and the Severn Bridge. Which all leads me to a general comment (not specific to WECA at all, sorry): how many new junctions can be added, particularly in areas where there already are several, before the proximity of one junction to another interferes with the motorway's (supposed at least) primary function as a long-distance artery?

Not quite answering your question, but according to section 4.36 of the DMRB (http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol6/section2/td2206.pdf) junctions should be at least 2km apart. The proposed Jct 18a of the M4 is just outside this distance from Jct 19 (M32).

It's possible to put junctions closer than that, with overlapping slip roads, and by designing the whole thing together. For an example, see the collective junction 12 of the M27 at the north end of the M275. Usually this involves more grade separation (to avoid those "weaving lengths"), and omitting some inner slip roads in favour of traffic going to the other junction to join the through motorway further along.

Whether this detracts from the utility of the road for through traffic I guess depends on how many lanes are left clear for it.

It's not just the effect of joining and leaving traffic on the main carriageways, which can probably be minimised by slip-road design, it's also that placing junctions close together attracts local traffic using the motorway in preference to A or B roads.

It's a fair point, but then the M4 (J19 - J20) and M5 (J15 - J18)  do act rather like an outer ring road for Bristol (sorry, 'the west of England') anyway...

That's true, which is why it was a more general point, not just WECA. (And plenty of other examples in other places: M42, M25 explicitly so, etc).

I am told that Highways England tend to quite rigidly enforce the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB).  So I would not expect any relaxation of such standards. 

Source: Bristol Post (https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/plans-build-105000-homes-must-3165269?__twitter_impression=true&int_source=taboola&int_medium=display&int_campaign=organic)

The JLTP serves the JSP, so logically you'd have to assume that the JLTP will need to be rewritten too... from a public transport viewpoint this could be good news, as the planned 'garden villages' at Banwell, Churchill and Buckover were particularly contentious because among other things they relied on the private motor car as the main means of transport. In the context of WECA's declaration of a climate emergency, one might hope for a change of emphasis when the plan is rewritten!

Watch this space! This news item was a month old when I posted this, but thus far there's no reference to it on the WECA website.

Rivett and Lee's letter is here (http://www.hwa.uk.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Post-Hearings-Letter-Final-1.pdf). Deary me.

This is interesting, and demonstrates that adding another level of local government does not do anything to solve the problems facing planning policy formulation. It looks like another example of planning authorities hoping to avoid the NIMBY problem by concentrating new housing in new settlements. That might be appropriate in Cambridgeshire, where there are wide open spaces around a tightly drawn green belt around Cambridge with very little infrastructure and a huge demand for new housing, but the Planning Inspectorate has pushed back at this approach elsewhere applying the National Planning Policy Framework even where they have been proposed in locations with reasonable public transport links where the inspectors feel that there has not been a full and proper assessment of the sustainability of the locations has been undertaken.

If RS is right, and some of these WECA candidate Ecotowns/Garden Villages are dependent upon private car transport, then WECA has done a poor job in selecting them as major strategic housing allocation sites.

The Banwell and Mendip Spring Garden Village plans revolve around a new Banwell Bypass to the north of the A371, and a new junction 21A where the M5 crosses the A371.

Buckover is on the A38 just north of Thornbury.

These are deliberately low-density developments.

In each case the concept diagrams refer to access by road and, peripherally, cycle paths. Buckover, it is said, " will also assist make the case for a step change in public transport in the locality, by extending Metrobus routes from the major employment centres of North Bristol, providing for additional bus services and supporting the case to reopen Charfield railway station."

It may be noted that Charfield is about 8km from Buckover by the most direct route.

On the face of it you can see why some might think that these proposals did not spring from the planning process, but drove it.

I wish they'd get around to fixing that patch of melted tarmac at the top of the hill opposite the pub. But other patches are far worse.

Some interesting stuff in the results of WECA's JLTP4 consultation, according to the Bristol Post (https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/three-four-say-regions-buses-3752409):

* People's highest priority? New and improved railway stations and services.

* Strong support - mainly in Bristol - for congestion charges or a new levy on workplace parking to bring in extra funding.

* People also wanted to see a comprehensive and safe network built for walking and cycling, and more road space used for public transport, walking and cycling.

* Three in five people found buses unreliable and poor value for money, and said it was not easy to plan journeys.

If you read the article, you may notice that the Bristol Post listed these in a different order...

Meanwhile, WECA plan to spend £100s of millions on roads for cars...

Which makes one speculate what the public consultations are really for.

The full Draft Joint Local Transport Plan 4 Consultation Report (https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/travelwest/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/JLTP4-consultation-report.pdf) is on Travelwest's JLTP page (https://travelwest.info/projects/joint-local-transport-plan).

Dr Steve Melia of UWE has written a thought-provoking piece on JLTP4 for the Bristol Cable. He reiterates his view that it's not enough to provide better public transport; we need to reduce road capacity too:

https://thebristolcable.org/2020/01/plans-for-new-road-threaten-bristols-countryside-and-undo-action-on-the-climate-crisis/

I think he was given a quick interview on local TV news a day or two back saying that the plan falls between two outdated stools and that they need to go back to the drawing board to come up with something that addresses the challenge more realistically.

Edit. Minor punctuation.

From that article (https://thebristolcable.org/2020/01/plans-for-new-road-threaten-bristols-countryside-and-undo-action-on-the-climate-crisis/) - worth selectively quoting here.




But what about other ways of getting around than cars - trains, cycling - and buses on all those new roads?


Sadly, his figures on doubling bus use causing a reduction of road traffic by just 1% align with other data.  I've worked with a figure of doubling train use along a corridor accounting for less than a 2% reduction in road traffic - and with towns expanding as they have been [in Wiltshire in my example], a single step down of 2% is small beer compared to an annual increase of even 1% each year for new housing catered for in the same way we've catered for housing in recent years.   For sure,  2% of those new 1% may use the better / doubled bus.   In a decade:
* "Same old" - 10% more traffic
* "Same old" plus doubling of bus use, including newcomers - 7.8% more traffic
* Target - 40% less traffic (or cleaned up to be carbon free)

Commenting on one other element:


I personally got into the whole business of campaigning for appropriate public transport for my town in 2005.  And one of the first things I was told is "You are too late. You have just missed the consultation. It closed a month ago and you should have responded then".  When the report came out "There were only seven inputs concerning services [on the TransWilts] and they were not unanimous in asking for more services".

Turned out the proposed reduction from 5 to 2 trains each way per day was two bullet points on page 70 of a 240 page document covering Paddington to Worcester, tp Weymouth, to Penzance and to Pembroke and all places between. And the suggestion that inputs were not unanimous was because someone who lives in a different part of the territory had suggesting pulling off all of our trains and using the rolling stock freed up to give his town a better service.

Cutting a very long story short, it was too late to stop that step back from happening.  But in that it helped strengthen our resolve and understanding, and begin a long, slow and at times frustrating process of building up more sustainable and healthier transport.   The five went down to 2.  We have struggled back to 8 and 9, but recently been reduced again to 8 (because of the timetable recast to get more and faster London trains!) and we still have a long way to go - 8 is minimalist, with a gap (for example) from 07:52 to 10:01 on the popular 10 minute journey into Chippenham, and the 25 minute ride to Swindon.  Passenger numbers are up from 3,000 to 75,000 journeys per annum but that's far from the limit and we need next to be up to around 13 services per day - plugging specific gaps and it can be done on line capacity.

Back to(wards) topic.  We learned last week that First bus are pulling out of their contract with Wiltshire Council  to run evening and Sunday buses from Bath to Melksham and Devizes as from 5th April.  That contract crosses the border from BaNES into Wiltshire.  The competing, victorious daytime operator on a similar route currently provides a service with a last bus at 17:40 - First run 5 later services, some of which are supported, and another is an depot run which takes passengers and has been routed to be useful.  At least one more gets a vehicle into place ready for the start of the evening's supports runs so is subsidy dependent.

Public Transport support passes from BaNES to WECA on 1st April as I understand it, though rather curiously the support for this cross-border service comes purely from Wiltshire (journeys, I estimate, are 50% cross border, 35% purely in BaNES and 15% purely in Wiltshire).  Too late, I suggest, and too much going on to attempt to redress the balance for 5th April;  to note at this stage, and also note that the next spoke of the wheel out from Bath - to Frome in Somerset, does have its evenings subsidised by BaNES rather than Somerset.

We are - just about - in time to have a replacement public transport service into Bath evenings and Sundays - if anyone bids at an affordable price to run it, and if Wiltshire Council goes ahead and places a contact to take up the bid.  There is no guarantee; we are mindful of 2014, when a parallel situation (and the same bus companies were involved) meant that the last bus from Chippenham to Melksham at 22:16 and several others were lost - the last bus is now around 17:35.

But Steve Melia is so utterly right - the community needs to get in early and make their "asks" - by the time plans become general knowledge they're very much someone's baby and it's very late - perhaps too late - to have a level playing field to fight them.  And, yes, I have some sympathy for the knoweledgable people who plan our towns and cities and getting around them who have to handle substantially more public input if the plan are shouted out clearly and early.  However, that gives those experts a chance to explain and test their suggestions far more fully, and to come up with a more robust and better supported way forward.

Gotta keep all your constituents happy! (In fact it's something of an achievement that the first group gets noticed, that's a relatively new thing.)

Gotta keep your voters voting.

Aye, there's the rub.