Great Western Coffee Shop

COULD A TRAM NETWORK BE ON THE CARDS FOR BRISTOL?
By ELLIE PIPE, Thursday Feb 18, 2021

The network of trams that once linked neighbourhoods across Bristol has long been consigned to the history books.

But it is a system that could be re-introduced as part of a new future vision for transport in the city currently being considered by the West of England Combined Authority (WECA).

Bath and Bristol Area Trams Association (BBATA) has spearheaded a campaign to introduce a tram or light rail system in the two cities and says its calls are now being “taken seriously” by the regional authority.

WECA has invested £1.5m to identify options for a mass transit system, which could be made up of several different types of transport.

One possible proposal on the table is to build a regional system (that could be tram, light rail or underground) with four main lines:

Line one: Along the route of the A4 from Temple Meads to Bath.
Line two: To North Bristol and South Gloucestershire.
Line three: Between Bristol Airport and Temple Meads.
Line four: Into east Bristol.
WECA’s Joint Local Transport Plan states: “Transformational infrastructure in the form of mass transit (e.g. light rail, tram, tram-train or underground) is identified for these corridors.

“This is necessary to provide a step change in the capacity and quality of public transport on the busiest corridors, that can respond to the significant forecast increase in trips across the region. It will also provide a more attractive alternative to trips by car. “

Feasibility work is underway to investigate how potential “mass transit corridors” could work, with the document acknowledging it will be “very challenging” to implement an ‘on-street’ system through certain areas.

The estimated cost of delivering WECA’s “transformational major schemes package” is £3bn-£5bn.

Welcoming the latest work, BBATA chair David Andrews said: “We have conclusively demonstrated that only a tram or light-rail system can deliver a low carbon, low pollution economic regeneration of our towns and cities.

“This has already been found to be the case in eight other UK cities, with trams or light-rail at the heart of the systems integrated with feeder buses for rural areas and lightly trafficked routes.”

Bristol’s transport woes and congestion levels have long been a source of frustration in the city, compounded by decades of inaction and underinvestment.

In 2017, mayor Marvin Rees first unveiled plans for an underground or mass transport system, saying such a network could be the answer to the city’s problems.

Four years on and plans for a mass transit system are now being firmed up by WECA as part of the regional transport plan.

It comes as pressure builds to provide a sustainable, cost-effective and reliable alternative to driving, with the clean air zone set to come into play at the end of October, from which time non-compliant private vehicles will be charged £9 a day to enter the city centre.

David and his fellow campaigners argue that while trams have a higher initial cost than buses, this is “more than repaid over their lifespan through much lower running costs, less pollution and “generally higher standards of service”.

BBATA representatives say they fully support the new vision from WECA and Bristol’s mayor and look forward to working with them to achieve the “long overdue initiative, at speed”.

WECA has said a variety of transport options are currently being assessed to understand which technologies might work best for the region.

Over the next few months, route options will be developed across Bristol, Bath & North East Somerset, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire that have the potential to connect the highest volumes of people, city and town centres and employment hubs.

Following this early work, a public consultation will be held later in 2021.

Regional mayor Tim Bowles said: “I’m putting an end to decades of under-investment in our transport network to get our region moving. From our regional mass transit system, to our transformational MetroWest rail network and continued support for metrobus, we are providing the sort of sustainable transport network that a region like ours needs.

“All of this work, especially the mass transit system, is being based on the evidence of what is the most appropriate technologies for the West of England and my officers and I have been researching a variety of potential options for a number of years.”

No decisions on possible modes of transport have been made yet and WECA warns it is still too early to understand what a mass transit system might like.

Air Traffic Control is going to get concerned about all these pigs flying around over Bristol

They'll have to start shooting them down to make room for the flying taxis...

 ;)

Out of interest, why does Bristol get an '(again)' whilst Bath doesn't?

Bristol Supertram was a proposed light rail system for the Bristol and South Gloucestershire regions of England. In 2001, the project was given backing from the government to build a line that would link the city centre with the North Bristol region, but the project was cancelled in 2004.

Perhaps because they were under consideration for Bristol on a previous occasion within living memory - from Wikipedai (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Supertram)


but there was no consideration that I'm aware of for a Bath system at that time.

Further routes will aim to serve south Bristol and the area which have recently been incorporated, with parliamentary approval, in the new urban development corporation for Bristol. Advanced Transport for Avon, promoter of this and subsequent Bills, has also expressed its desire to serve the Avonmouth area and the city of Bath, whose particular traffic problems have now exceeded manageable levels.

Out of interest, why does Bristol get an '(again)' whilst Bath doesn't? Bath had a tram system which it disbanded in 1939, beating Bristol by two years. For a brief period both systems were run by the Bristol Tramways and Carriage Company, and there was even talk of connecting them... which is, one might say, a thought!

Bristol and Bath Area Tram Association (https://bathtrams.uk/press-release-weca-bristol-bbata-bath-and-bristol-area-trams-association-working-together-to-deliver-trams-for-residents/) has a website that looks a bit more professional than others I have seen over the years, although it is rather focussed on Bath.

A heavy rail service would at best serve four intermediate stations between Bristol and Bath, and even that would be challenging to timetable. A tram service broadly following the A4 could serve maybe 15 stops, and they'd be better located to serve local destinations.

A heavy rail service would at best serve four intermediate stations between Bristol and Bath, and even that would be challenging to timetable. A tram service broadly following the A4 could serve maybe 15 stops, and they'd be better located to serve local destinations.

You are so cynical! So negative! And so right... :)

Yes well...

The first time I heard about a proposed tram system for Bristol (or was it an underground metro system – can’t remember for certain now) in 1968 or 1969. Since then we have had umpteen schemes, some more hare-brained than others, for metro systems, tram systems, express bus systems (and look what happened to that), on a regular basis.

They often come along just before the City Council elections are due...

Now, leaving all this hyperbole to one side, what have we actually seen come to fruition since 1969?

Bristol Parkway station
Filton Junction closed and replaced with Abbey Wood
Reopening of Yate
Opening a new station at Cam and Dursley which almost, but not quite, is in place of Coaley Junction.

And also a lot of talk...

I’m sorry – I’ve heard it all before. I shall believe it when Marvin or one of his distant successors gets out there with his silver spade and cuts the first sod. Until then I will remain a cynic and poke fun from time to time.

And I do honestly hope that that statement comes back to bit me on the bum in years to come. The trouble is, it will probably be down to my great great great grandchildren to employ a medium to tell me  ;)

It is the Bath & Bristol Area Trams Association, not Bristol & Bath, because it was set up and is run by one activist in Bath, hence being Bath-focused, and until recently was just the Bath Area Trams Group. There has been a lively, public debate about their proposals for Bath over the last couple of years, and they seem to have recently expanded their territory to cover Bristol, no doubt because WECA hold the purse strings.

Indeed.  There are other heavy rail corridors duplicated by trams so there is a precedent.
- Birmingham to Wolverhampton
- Nottingham to Hucknall
- Manchester to Rochdale
Each a different case, of course ...

Yes well...

The first time I heard about a proposed tram system for Bristol (or was it an underground metro system – can’t remember for certain now) in 1968 or 1969. Since then we have had umpteen schemes, some more hare-brained than others, for metro systems, tram systems, express bus systems (and look what happened to that), on a regular basis.

They often come along just before the City Council elections are due...

And I do honestly hope that that statement comes back to bit me on the bum in years to come. The trouble is, it will probably be down to my great great great grandchildren to employ a medium to tell me  ;)

Indeed.  There are other heavy rail corridors duplicated by trams so there is a precedent.
- Birmingham to Wolverhampton
- Nottingham to Hucknall
- Manchester to Rochdale
Each a different case, of course ...

...Trams, and any other fanciful schemes, have long since ceased to be a vote-winner...

Is that true?

It's all a bit complicated because different levels of government have their irons in the fire for different reasons. As we've seen recently with pop-up bike lanes, Central Government can be seen to be doing the right thing by telling local authorities to implement schemes for which, if they work out well, they can take the credit. Obviously if they turn out badly then that's the fault of the local authorities...

Here in Bristol the local and regional authorities all seem to agree that there's political capital to be made from talk of rapid transit. So presumably they still think these schemes are vote-winners, as does Central Government who have generously agreed to give them back some of their tax revenue to pay for it.

All these flying pigs about the idea of trams in Bristol. So many flying pigs, in fact, that you could provide 3 bacon sarnies (for those of us who eat them) for each member of this forum.

There are, on the other hand, rather less flying pigs in the West Midlands where they are simply getting on with it. Trams in Bristol? Yeah right: I will believe it if (rather than when) it happens. I reckon the M2 metrobus should have been trams not buses for starters.

Dave

The West Midlands and all the others wanted an improved public transport system, so their politicians got on with it and did it.

Down here the view appears to be that it is a bloody sight cheaper to simply talk about these things than actually get off collective backsides and do anythig about it.

You are quite correct in that there are less flying pigs in the West Midlands (and Manchester and Nottingham and Sheffield and Croydon to name but a few than there are in the West Country.

So why have we got so many? After all it was only 3 or 4 years ago that plans were hatching to build an undeground metro system for Bristol. Are we going to get that as well as the trams and the flying taxis, or has that idea been quietly swept iunder the carpet?

I think I mght have the answer to this conumdrum. The West Midlands and all the others wanted an improved public transport system, so their politicians got on with it and did it.

Down here the view appears to be that it is a bloody sight cheaper to simply talk about these things than actually get off collective backsides and do anythig about it.

By the way, what do you think my chances are of getting a train to Portishead on the day that lockdoen ends? After all, a thread was started on this forum about that reopening on 10th April 2007 - it must have been open for years now, surely...

Our 2016 Option 24/7 (http://option247.uk/O247proposal.pdf) proposals for bus franchising in Wiltshire included a proposal that bus services would be specified by a committee that brought together passengers, local authorities and bus companies. Unfortunately, Wiltshire Council were not ready at the time to accept what they considered to be a radical plan, and the proposal did not go ahead.

One of the reasons I moved to France in September 2017 was the opportunity to help shape the future of public transport in Brittany, as the specification of the local bus network transferred to the regional level and was placed under a unified structure with the local rail network which had been already specified by the region for several years. This unified structure came into being in September 2018 under the Breizhgo (https://www.breizhgo.bzh/) brand.

I am pleased to say that since then, bus and rail services in Brittany have been specified in a very similar way to that envisaged by us in Option 24/7. There are 7 Comités De Lignes each corresponding to a particular area of Brittany, bringing together passengers, regional and local authorities, SNCF and bus companies to specify their local bus and rail services.

My local Comité De Lignes covers the Saint Brieuc-Lannion, Saint Brieuc-Morlaix, Guingamp-Carhaix and Guingamp-Paimpol local rail services, and all the local bus services in the area shown in the map below:

(https://images.typeform.com/images/zAxiUnM4Rv99/image/default)

Each Comité De Lignes has an annual "listening exercise", where the views and ideas of the public on a wide range of issues are sought, and we are currently in the middle of ours, which runs from 1 February-14 February 2021. Normally we would accompany this with public meetings in various towns and villages, but this year due to coronavirus it is being conducted online and by post.

This doesnt mean though that the public only have a 14-day window each year to send in their ideas and suggestions. Far from it - These are welcomed by the committee all year round, and all are considered for the next upcoming timetable change. These happen 3 times a year in July, September and December, with bus and rail services changing together on those same dates. This aims to balance both the flexibility and the stability of the timetables, whilst allowing for their integration. However, just as we envisaged with Option 24/7, there is a mechanism that allows urgent or particularly no-brainer changes to be made at short notice if required.

Finally, in normal times, several public meetings all year round in towns and villages are organised, along with sessions in rail and bus stations that are very similar to the way "Meet the Manager" works in the UK. There is also a regular newsletter published by each Comité De Lignes, detailing the latest news, project updates, and including passenger numbers and performance figures for each rail and bus route in the area.

Paul Johnson. (1) Integrating rail and bus information on CIS screens is important where rail replacement buses are running.  This has always been put in "too difficult" box by the rail industry when requested, but it's not/no longer just a local issue we have raised here and should be addressed.

Although we are often on opposite sides of the optimist/pessimist coin, I am definitely with Robin on this one.

I would like to think that what people like grahame, Phil, Reginald25, myself and many others - with it has to be said the genuine help and hard work of several politicians - did with securing an appropriate TransWilts rail service was the exception that proves the rule. However, it took 8 long years ...

Also, as grahame's post today (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=24691.msg302257#msg302257) once again illustrated, it could be argued that because it took so long to get what was in 2005 an appropriate level of service put in place, it was already inappropriate by the time it was introduced! ...

The cynic in me also worries that framing the debate in that direction hands the perfect excuse for inaction to those who have an agenda to keep the Melksham line as the "lightly-used passenger backwater" they always believed it should have remained - "Sorry folks, it will be a long time before funding is available  for that kind of enhancement, so you will have to make do with what you've got".

[Brittany example and contrast]

So why can you make this work in Brittany but not Wiltshire, when the legislative hurdles that used to preclude it have now largely been removed? I'm afraid the answer lies in a culture that is still firmly wedded to "the way things have always been done", and an instinctive opposition to the perceived hassle and upheaval that change might bring, no matter how hard you try to allay such fears, and as you can see from this link (http://option247.uk/faq.html), we tried exceedingly hard.

Finally, I noted this quote from the recent Travelwatch Southwest online event:

[snip - trackers on rail replacement buses]

It was at that point everything went rather quiet, with the conclusion being drawn very similar to Robin's overall point, that some organisations prefer the kudos of talking a good game, rather than the risky business of having to actually implement the solution.

Is that true?

It's all a bit complicated because different levels of government have their irons in the fire for different reasons. As we've seen recently with pop-up bike lanes, Central Government can be seen to be doing the right thing by telling local authorities to implement schemes for which, if they work out well, they can take the credit. Obviously if they turn out badly then that's the fault of the local authorities...

Here in Bristol the local and regional authorities all seem to agree that there's political capital to be made from talk of rapid transit. So presumably they still think these schemes are vote-winners, as does Central Government who have generously agreed to give them back some of their tax revenue to pay for it.

I think I mght have the answer to this conumdrum. The West Midlands and all the others wanted an improved public transport system, so their politicians got on with it and did it.

Down here the view appears to be that it is a bloody sight cheaper to simply talk about these things than actually get off collective backsides and do anythig about it.

By the way, what do you think my chances are of getting a train to Portishead on the day that lockdoen ends? After all, a thread was started on this forum about that reopening on 10th April 2007 - it must have been open for years now, surely...

I think, and hope, that trains to Portishead will happen before we see so much as a single rail of a tram scheme in Bristol. This CAZ in Bristol which will see a ban on diesel cars in the city centre is all very well but BCC are failing to provide any serious alternative to cars and that is why people (myself included) continue to use them. I currently have a diesel so will change but not sure whether to get a hybrid or petrol: I have my eyes on a hybrid which you can also change to drive purely in electric.

Anyway back to trams. Talk is always cheap but the West Midlands continue to make progress. I recently read that the new Wednesbury to Brierley Hill, via. Dudley, route on the Midland Metro is costing £450m but I am not sure if that cost includes the brand-new transport interchange in Dudley (which will include a metro stop) which has just been given the green light and will cost £24m. If BCC and / or WECA are serious about trams then they should look to the WMCA / Midland Metro for an example of how to go about it.

Dave

It's easy to be cynical about Greater Bristol's historic inability to get its act together and build a tram system, but it's also unhelpful. The fact that we've thrown 'tails' several times in a row has no bearing on which way the coin will land next time - unless we just give up, in which case it definitely won't happen!

However, the cynic in me also worries that framing the debate in that direction hands the perfect excuse for inaction to those who have an agenda to keep the Melksham line as the "lightly-used passenger backwater" they always believed it should have remained - "Sorry folks, it will be a long time before funding is available  for that kind of enhancement, so you will have to make do with what you've got".

And



I’ve been wondering for a couple of days how to respond to Lee’s post on Sunday, and further posts on the topic have helped clarify my thoughts.

“Those who have an agenda” works both ways. Some might say that those who push for these schemes themselves have an agenda to push through anything that runs on rails to the exclusion of all other options.

Would a WECA tram system work? The simple, truthful answer is no-one knows for sure; it would depend on how it was implemented. But many other European cities of similar size (and smaller) have decided that it makes sense to use light rail, and have found ways of funding it. I agree that we shouldn't make assumptions that one mode (be it tram, light rail, bus or some other solution) is the right way forward, though there is a lot to be said for specifying tried and tested off-the-shelf technology. Trams work.

I am not aware of anyone advocating running trams along a current or former heavy rail route between Bristol and Bath - as discussed upthread, there might not be much point in that. JLTP4 talks of four mass transit routes, one of which is Bristol to Bath along the A4 corridor.

Once again I see the claim that 'the good residents of Bath, for example, already have form in objecting to OHLE in their neck of the woods'. Do they? They will quite rightly insist that any wires are put up in a way that doesn't spoil a Unesco World Heritage city. The only person I can find on record objecting to wiring in Bath in principle was...Chris Grayling (who, as I understand it, lives in Surrey).

And my response to that would be that whoever the "Some might say" are that Robin is referring to, they really dont know campaigners like grahame and myself at all, and certainly havent studied our ethos or how weve conducted ourselves over the past couple of decades.

I had in mind a sentence in Lee’s post that I quoted that ran: “those who have an agenda to keep the Melksham line as the "lightly-used passenger backwater" and that is why I quoted it. This seems to be one person’s interpretation on the matter and it might not be the intention that the holder of these views actually had in mind (or it could be of course – I wasn’t at the meetings so all I have is this statement to go on).

Who, I wondered, would have the desire or more importantly the motivation to keep a low-frequency service if a more frequent service would not only be beneficial to the local residents but could also turn a profit for the TOC concerned? It is not as though any expensive infrastructure work was needed; only some extra trains and the crews to man them and provided they were available there seems to be no reason why the idea could not be tried. If it didn’t work the trains could have been taken off again

Part of the fight campaigners such as myself fought against the Closure Guidance changes of the mid-2000s was the associated neutering of the TUCC system. I wasn't hugely enamoured with TravelWatch SouthWest either during that period which also encompassed the battles against the December 2006 Draft FGW Timetable - They were pumping out some very heavily pro-FGW material, which was hardly surprising given the prominence of their bus and rail company sponsorship.

As those who know me will be aware, I do extensive research before I come to a definitive view on something, which means it generally takes an awful lot to convince me to change that view once I've formed it. However, I can honestly say that TravelWatch SouthWest is one of those rare examples of where my view has been changed.

When the TransWilts rail service was reduced to near-extinction in 2006, I uncovered significant evidence in Network Rail plans that part of the reason that TransWilts got nothing at all while others got at least some concessions was that the paths needed to be kept clear for a projected big increase in freight traffic. I detailed all this in my "The Freight Angle" series of articles at the time, but was generally dismissed as a conspiracy theorist by those higher up. However, at pretty much all of the public meetings I attended at the time, one such "higher-up" would always back me to the hilt when I raised the freight issue. His name was Chris Irwin, and he was the head of TravelWatch SouthWest during this period. He had taken the time to read all my articles, assessed them in depth, and was convinced that I was right.

His backing made a big difference to the credibility of how my case was viewed officially, and I'm sure helped to lead to Network Rail admitting their intentions in 2008. (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=2356.0) Since then there has been a far better level of open engagement between all the relevant parties, and policy to accommodate projected future passenger and freight growth is now increasingly focussed on the kind of necessary infrastructure enhancements that grahame and others have always advocated.

TravelWatch SouthWest as an organisation, and in terms of its output has definitely become more balanced over the years since as well, and that I'm sure is partly due to the inclusion of people like grahame on the board who you certainly cant consider to be bus/rail company yes-people.

I can also confirm that, whether as an individual or as a representative of an organisation such as TransWilts, CoffeeShop etc, I have always been granted an invitation to TravelWatch SouthWest events when I've requested one, and always been made to feel welcome at such events.

So ... how did they do?  "Pretty Well".

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/mkm_rtt_20210220_1.jpg)
(http://www.wellho.net/pix/mkm_rtt_20210220_2.jpg)

How it was run

Hourly train from Westbury at about xx:12 into Swindon at xx:54, and from Swindon at xx:24 arriving at Westbury at xx+1:02. Times varied by a few minutes (but only a few minutes) in any hour; 38 minute running time achieved in the example quoted includes stops at Chippenham, Melksham and Trowbridge. Without other trains getting in the way (key comment!) the service daily could be run clockface, hourly, using 2 x 90 m.p.h. Turbos, hourly, to these timings, on current infrastructure.

Time for passengers, Freight Paths, etc

4 minutes slower in my example Westbury to Swindon; 1 minute perhaps accounted for needed by slow approach to Platform 2 at Swindon. The two trains pass each other at or very close to Chippenham station, and an extra 5 minutes in the "cycle" from there to Swindon and back, and from there to Westbury and back (leaving turn arounds of 21 minutes and 5 minutes) would work. That five minutes allows for pathing, and for extended passenger operations at stations that will happen from time to time. The closeness of the two trains at Thingley - short gap as the up train comes off the single line before the down train takes it - leaves a path open for a freight or other working each hour. You can see this used at Melksham with none-passenger services passing at 12:08, 13:14, 16:00 and 16:14 (managed to get 2 in that hour!!)

Robustness

Service robustness of passenger trains generally good yesterday. The 17:28 call (at Melksham, northbound) was 13 minutes late, due to a delay (don't know why) to the train south of Salisbury, and that meant that the pass at 17:47 of the southbound train was 8 minutes late as it had to wait at Thingley. At first glance, it looked like an early running freight got in the way of the 17:28 as it swept through Melksham at that time, but in practise good signalling control took advantage of the gap and sent it through ahead of time.

Infrastucture improvement

We talk / look / see the need for the ability for trains to pass each other between Melksham and Thingley Junction and indeed for robustness in a fully running timetable this makes huge sense; for passengers trains, redistributing the short turn around at Westbury and the longer turn around at Swindon to be more even, and allowing a pair of freight services to similarly pass in the hour with a degree of robustness in there too.  In my view, the loop would need to be fast running and long ("dynamic") to avoid slowing / stopping trains in one or both directions to the substantial loss of positive effect from the loop by prolonging journey times.I also note the run (round trip time) of several minutes from Thigley Junction to Thingley East junction, where the single line traffic on "the Melksham Line" is sharing the main down London to Bristol via Bath line.  Prior to the singling of the Melksham line, a double junction at Thingley meant this pinch point did not exist; I understand that restoration of that, or a crossover at the junction, is complex/impractical/impossible due to the cant on the main line tracks to allow fast running.

Calling additional (new) stations?

Timings seen yesterday would appear to allow passenger calls in both directions at Royal Wootton Bassett. More difficult (and it's where the dynamic loop becomes needed) to call at Staverton and/or Ashton Park as in the Systra / SWLEP report of 2019 (mirror ((here)) (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/mirror/swlep-rail-strategy-final-09-05-2019.pdf)).

P.S.  and bit off the immediate topic. Passengers for South Wales yesterday from Trowbridge and south thereof were encouraged to change at Swindon.  Must have been frustrating (though not many long distance passengers in lockdown) with a 40 minute wait at Swindon towards Wales, and the trains at almost exactly the same time in the other direction - so a 0 or 60 minute wait.  I noted one or two where people probably made it, one or two where the train from Swansea was a few minutes late and the Portsmouth train left before it arrived, and one or two which might have repeated my memory of a couple of years ago of doors on the IET only opening after doors on the Westbury train had been closed!

Ive always believed that you could manage 2 passenger paths and 1 freight path on the existing Melksham line infrastructure per hour, but I also accept that providing a dynamic loop or similar would make it that much more robust. However, the cynic in me also worries that framing the debate in that direction hands the perfect excuse for inaction to those who have an agenda to keep the Melksham line as the "lightly-used passenger backwater" they always believed it should have remained - "Sorry folks, it will be a long time before funding is available  for that kind of enhancement, so you will have to make do with what you've got".

Going back to the original post, the optimist in me wonders if the grown-ups have re-entered the room now that Marvin and his delusional crayonings of metro lines will shortly be consigned to history.

[...]

The routes seem sensible - experience suggests however that the first line is always horribly expensive as there's a steep learning curve for all concerned. I wonder if the first should actually be an airport line to Temple Meads via Bedminster route - generally fairly self-contained, the airport would likely chip into the capital cost and would probably be a fairly good earner.

Aren't Marvin's 'delusional crayonings' the same routes you go on to describe as 'sensible'? The four mass transit corridors listed are the same ones that featured in JLTP4, and the Bristol Transport Strategy before it.

Major Marv gave new details in a press announcement today according to the Bristol Live site and it seems the proposals for the underground still persist.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/plans-4bn-bristol-underground-system-5136801

Is it me or is today's announcement difficult to differentiate from previous ones?

I very much like the fact that Montpelier is shown as a rail/mass transit interchange. Nice.

DETAILS REVEALED FOR RAPID BUS NETWORK IN BRISTOL
By ADAM POSTANS, Monday Mar 15, 2021

Transport chiefs have revealed how a rapid bus network would work in Bristol, complete with  bendy buses and high frequency services on a segregated city centre loop.

The system will be based on a central network of interchanges where passengers hop on and off, while mini-orbital buses serve outer suburbs taking people to mobility hubs for onward travel by various means.

It is the first phase of the city region’s multi-billion-pound mass transit system, which mayor Marvin Rees released more details about at a press conference last week.

After the briefing, Bristol City Council strategic city transport service manager Adam Crowther told a scrutiny committee that the bigger plans were ten to 15 years away but that they didn’t want to wait that long, so the rapid bus network would come first to underpin mass transit.

He said the medium-term vision was for passenger waits of less than five minutes on an anticlockwise circular stopping at Broadmead, city centre, Bristol Bridge, Redcliffe, Temple Meads, Old Market and Cabot Circus.

Crowther told the growth and regeneration scrutiny commission: “The idea of the scheme is that we will have high-quality, fast, reliable services that are almost fully segregated from general traffic, always in bus lanes apart from very small stretches where we wouldn’t expect any congestion.

“That is really critical to giving us that reliability and frequency, so this feels very much like a mass transit system – you go to the stop, there will be a bus within five minutes and it will be reliable.”

(https://www.bristol247.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Map-of-the-proposed-Bristol-rapid-bus-network-Image-Bristol-City-Council.jpg)
Map of the proposed Bristol rapid bus network. Image: Bristol City Council

Crowther showed members a map with proposed coloured routes, including red from Long Ashton park and ride through to the M32, blue from the Portway via Bristol Bridge down to Hicks Gate or even further to Keynsham and Bath, and the yellow central orbital.

“The idea being if you come in from the Portway and you want to get to Cabot Circus, you would be quite happy going to Bristol Bridge knowing that within a few minutes the red route is going to come along and take you to Cabot Circus,” Crowther said.

“If you were coming down the A38 on a bus, you might come along the outside of the loop and get off at the centre and take the blue loop to Temple Meads.

“It’s that reliability and frequency which is going to change the way people think about interchange in terms of the bus and public transport network. Interchange has historically not been very well supported in the area.

“If you don’t have a reliable network or one that doesn’t turn up very frequently, you’re not going to get good interchange, so it’s really important we have that level of segregation and frequency to make interchange an acceptable and desirable approach.

“There are a couple of gaps – one around the Bearpit and one around Redcliffe roundabout which we need to resolve over the next few years to tie together these hubs.”

(https://www.bristol247.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Map-of-the-proposed-Bristol-rapid-bus-network-in-the-city-centre-Image-Bristol-City-Council.jpg)
The proposed city centre network. Image: Bristol City Council

Crowther told the remote meeting on Thursday, March 11, that a rethink of the vehicle fleet was also needed.

“If we are going to convince people to make a wholesale change to mass transit, we need to make it more attractive,” he said.

“Double deckers are great but there are vehicles like the Belfast Glider (bendy bus) where you don’t have to go upstairs for seats. We need to build that high-quality vehicle into the scheme as early as possible.”

Only two days later, and it's been value-engineered down to a few extra bus routes already. With bendy buses. Bristol 24/7 reports: (https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/details-revealed-for-rapid-bus-network-in-bristol/)

He said the eventual mass transit system would be overlaid on the rapid bus network.

No, TonyK.

The plans as outlined in recent meetings make it clear that a mass transit system, which may be rail-based and may be underground, will take 10 to 15 years to deliver. The rapid transit system (essentially more MetroBus) can be rolled out more quickly. The article you've quoted is talking about the latter, which you will note it refers to as the first phase.

Adam Crowther doesn't help when he refers to this phase as 'mass transit', though; but everyone else finds WECA's terminology confusing so why shouldn't he?

Note Crowther's parting shot:

Guiding principle 2 - Providing better routes for sustainable travel

Prioritising sustainable modes of transport is a key principle.

One option is to create an active travel route via Mead Street, providing a segregated pedestrian and cycle way along its length. This would provide links from Mead Street to Bath Road to enable a convenient link to the proposed new southern access to Temple Meads Station (Southern Gateway) and connect through to an active travel route being considered at Whitehouse Street.

A Mass Transit Network is being considered for Bristol which would provide regular electric, or hydrogen powered bus services via dedicated routes, offering a convenient and sustainable mode of transport across the city.  The network of mass transit routes is not yet determined, but there is a desire that the network serves the proposed Southern Gateway to Temple Meads Station. Given Mead Street’s proximity to the proposed Southern Gateway, this could be a possible route. Before any decisions are made in relation to the Mass Transit proposals community engagement will take place.[/b]

A case in point was in Stapleton, where some local services were withdrawn when the M3 to Keith Emersons Green was introduced.

We are getting Son of MetroBust, folks...

Drifting off-topic, but looking at the consultation on Bristol's no 2. bus, it seems (as with MetroBus) largely an excuse to use public transport money for pet highway projects and making car use as difficult as possible. the irony is of course that when people do use cars, they will have to travel three times as far because of all the one-way systems. Hey ho!     

The original MetroBus was at least in part a road-building scheme paid for with public transport money. Rather than making car user 'as difficult as possible', it actually made it rather easier. Kudos to the clever blighter who thought up removing the word 'Road' from the South Bristol Link though!

Before any decisions are made in relation to the Mass Transit proposals community engagement will take place.