|
2210
|
Journey by Journey / Bristol (WECA) Commuters / Re: Metrowest Status
|
on: April 02, 2019, 22:20:10
|
Bristol once had five churches dedicated to St Andrew, and they tend not to have fared well. - St Andrew in Avonmouth, after which St Andrews Road (SAR) is named, was bombed and rebuilt in 1955.
- St Andrew, Clifton, was destroyed by bombing in 1940.
- St Andrew, Hartcliffe escaped the bombs by the cunning expedient of being built after the war, in 1956.
- St Andrew, Montpelier (for yes! the Parish of St Andrew and the district of Montpelier are one and the same - officially) fell into disuse and was demolished in 1969.
- Last but not least, St-Andrew-the-Less in Hotwells was rather badly singed in the blitz, was repaired, but was finally demolished to be replaced by some frankly rather uninspiring grey concrete flats in the 1960s.
|
|
|
|
|
2211
|
Journey by Journey / Bristol (WECA) Commuters / Re: Metrowest Status
|
on: April 02, 2019, 15:58:22
|
...Stapelton Road
Stapleton Road is the road to Stapleton, but Stapleton Road Station (SRD) is on Stapleton Road - right on it, not 'as near as we'll get to'! The road is more of a destination than the erstwhile village it leads to. But, really, what else would you call the new park and ride station on the parkway?
Portway Parkway, as proposed, is on the Portway, not the Parkway (which is the M32, for us with long memories); in a way you've made my point that it's a confusing name. I can see that whoever is responsible for naming railway stations sees 'Parkway' as a sort of brand name - but applied unthinkingly, this can lead to the kind of absurdity whereby the venerable Grand Hotel in Bristol was taken over by Thistle Hotels and became the Bristol Thistle (and if you don't see the problem with that, try saying it with a mouthful of spongecake). I'd call the new station Portway Park and Ride, which is the well-established name for the place it serves. |
|
|
|
|
2213
|
Journey by Journey / Bristol (WECA) Commuters / Re: Metrowest Status
|
on: April 02, 2019, 14:09:26
|
|
Hmm... quite a few of the stations on Lee's list don't meet my definition of a 'Parkway'; I've obviously fallen into the trap of trying to prescribe (rather than describe) a usage..!
Still think Portway Parkway is a silly name though.
|
|
|
|
|
2214
|
Journey by Journey / Bristol (WECA) Commuters / Re: Sewweb - South East Wales and West of England Business link
|
on: April 02, 2019, 12:58:21
|
|
Seeing the tarpaulin over one of the cars in grahame's photo reminds me of a tale told me by an old friend whose family used the service on more than one occasion:
It goes without saying that cars on open trucks steam-hauled through the Severn Tunnel came out a different colour than when they went in; worse, they were covered in clinker. For a nominal fee (maybe 6d) you could have your car 'protected' by an old tarpaulin, which most likely was covered inside and out (not that they took care to work out which was which) with grit. The upshot of this is that paying the extra was a really bad idea, and seasoned travellers relied on the wind blowing the clinker off when they got back on the open road...
|
|
|
|
|
2215
|
Journey by Journey / Bristol (WECA) Commuters / Re: Metrowest Status
|
on: April 02, 2019, 12:37:56
|
According to the 'Transport Development Management' document (in the planning submission Lee links to): Any local residents, commuters etc. wishing to access and use the new platform and bus services will be able to access Portway Park and Ride via the existing entrances as they will remain unchanged as part of this proposal.
Although there are new facilities being provided for the platform, the existing cycle parking, electric vehicle charge points, disabled parking and public car parking will be available for rail passengers.
The 'Transport Statement' says: The Objectives of the Project
3.6 As part of the funding bid to the DfT» the project has outlined a number of objectives which
the scheme should deliver;
xTo provide an alternative mode of transport for car users entering the centre of Bristol;
xTo improve connectivity to other stations in north and inner Bristol;
xTo provide direct connections to the wider rail network via Bristol Temple Meads;
xTo improve connectivity to the Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone and the planned new
Bristol Arena at Bristol Temple Meads, as well as the Avonmouth Severnside
Enterprise Area;
xTo enhance the carrying capacity of the local rail network;
xTo complement the existing bus based Park & Ride service which primarily serves the
city centre;
xTo reduce road congestion, airborne pollution and car parking demand in inner Bristol,
particularly at peak times;
xTo make a positive contribution to social well-being, life opportunities and improving
quality of life (along the affected corridors in particular);
xTo reduce the adverse environmental impacts of the local transport network as a
whole;
xTo deliver a new single platform, located adjacent to the existing local authority
operated Portway Park & Ride facility;
xSufficient passenger capacity should meet the forecast usage demands of the P&R▸
facility;
xAccess from the P&R facility to the Station which ensures access for all users; and
xA new station which provides broadly a 40 minute passenger service frequency until
MetroWest Phase 1 is delivered and then a half hourly service frequency.
...and Pedestrian/ Cycle Access
3.14 This will remain as the existing existing car park access points to the pavement and public roads from the side of the Portway which is adjacent to the entrance point for the park and ride buses. Access through the car park will use existing paths/ ramp and steps. The only minor construction works required are infill around two of the existing tree pits to be capped with permeable resin bound gravel to essentially increase the width of walkway around two trees (which in itself would not require planning permission) to improve the width of the pavement for wheelchair/ pram users without having to remove the two affected trees.
So in essence the train service is simply an addition to the existing bus-based Park and Ride; this is not meant to be a bus/rail interchange. Given that the endpoints of the bus service are similar to those of the proposed train service, it is hard to imagine many people wishing to go from one to the other. To my mind there are two very good reasons that this station should be called 'Portway Park and Ride' rather than 'Portway Parkway' 1. It is a commuter station which will be largely used by people travelling relatively short distances into Bristol and, perhaps, Bath, and the site is already known as Portway Park and Ride. 'Parkway' suggests a travel hub with long-distance (say inter-city) options, to my mind. 2. Portway Parkway is a very, very silly name. |
|
|
|
|
2216
|
All across the Great Western territory / The Wider Picture in the United Kingdom / Re: Toilet charges scrapped at busiest train stations
|
on: April 01, 2019, 10:05:05
|
I'll take this one! Linguists tend to fall into two camps: proscribers, who attempt to use logic and precedent to determine what is correct, and describers who merely observe and are fascinated by the way language evolves. Both sides have a point, but proscribers are always fighting a losing battle because language is a living thing and no-one owns it. On the subject of 'train station', Michael Quinion - a highly respected linguist and, as if that wasn't enough, a railway preservationist, has written a comprehensive article on this and related topics which you can read here: http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/trains.htmHe concludes: Until recently, as I said, the almost total separation of terms between British and American English would have applied also to train station. But it appears that the term is relatively new even in the USA, where railroad station was once the norm. But train station is old enough there for us to be sure of the direction in which it has travelled, and vigorous enough to oust the older term. Perhaps its introduction followed the logic of one of my younger staff. When I pointed out some years ago that she used train station, she replied that of course that was the right term: she caught a bus at a bus station, and so she would expect to board a train at a train station. Obvious really. Why didn’t we all think of that before?
|
|
|
|
|
2218
|
All across the Great Western territory / Buses and other ways to travel / Re: Trams for Bath
|
on: March 30, 2019, 17:28:42
|
...about 50% of the particulates from cars come from the tyres and brakes.
I have searched for the facts behind this claim and struggled rather because it's not just particulates, but their sizes that matter. We can dismiss the argument about brakes, because although EV's are heavier than their ICE equivalents, extensive use of regenerative braking means they produce fewer brake dust particulates. It must be the case that EVs produce more tyre particulates though - but are these the ones we worry about? Isn't it the smaller soot particles that we're concerned about? |
|
|
|
|
2219
|
All across the Great Western territory / Buses and other ways to travel / Re: Trams for Bath
|
on: March 30, 2019, 16:24:30
|
I wouldn't hold your breath about that... Line capacity is not there; the signalling installation couldn't cope; the train with its circuitous route actually tales longer than the bus currently does to get to BTM▸ ...
According to travelwest.info, it's 25 minutes from Portway P&R▸ to Temple Meads on the 902 plus a 7-minute walk from the bus stop at the end into Temple Meads station, whilst the train does it in 28 to 34 minutes - so broadly comparable. Others will be able to confirm whether the bus is ever delayed by traffic. The train is, as you say, circuitous - but if you want to get to Clifton, or the Gloucester Road area, or Stapleton Road or Lawrence Hill, you might think that was a good thing. Any thoughts of reintroducing trams to Bath would involve a lot more than digging the odd road up and laying rails; it would mean a complete transformation of the city centre's road network, including that bypass that was rejected in the 60s on grounds of cost (as much of it would have to be in tunnel).
I must be misreading this because it almost seems like you are advocating the resurrection of the Buchanon Tunnel! Cost may have been a factor in the abandonment of this scheme, but public protest would have killed it even had the money been forthcoming. I do however think it quite likely that within a few years Bath's central road layout will be radically transformed - by the simple expedient of banning all private motor traffic except essential users. Such a move would allow for street running of trams in that area; arguably the two things could go hand in glove. |
|
|
|
|
2220
|
All across the Great Western territory / Buses and other ways to travel / Re: Trams for Bath
|
on: March 30, 2019, 10:56:32
|
I do understand that a lot of people still feel they're somehow "lowering themselves" if they use a bus rather than a private car - that's the "prestige" argument ...
I once heard someone who felt the need to explain to a bus driver that he wouldn't normally catch a bus, and that was only using one today because his car was being serviced. I don't know what he expected the driver to do; maybe he hoped he'd doff his cap and say what a pleasure it was to have someone with 'class' on board for a change, or perhaps he hoped he might offer to let him drive... I never understand why public transport is always aimed at people from outside of the town or city. Park and Ride is banded about like it's the solution to everything, when it is only a small part of a solution, and probably something that shouldn't be the first priority.
Public transport has to cater with a variety of different needs. Many people coming into a city from its outlying areas already use informal park-and-ride arrangements such as meeting and parking in the suburbs and then sharing a car into town, or parking near a station or bus route. I don't have the exact figures to hand, but here in Bristol a significant amount of private motor traffic is out-of-town commuters (and I suspect Bath is the same); if they can be enticed into using formal park-and-rides sites then everyone benefits through reduced congestion, parking and pollution. Park and ride schemes tend to be sited on arterial routes with existing or improvable bus priorities, so they can be set up relatively quickly and easily (if anything in the world of public transport could be described as 'quick' or 'easy'). For the complex web of intra-urban services it is much harder to balance the requirement to prioritise buses with the needs of other users who may wish to walk, cycle, drive or park on the roads they pass through. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
