Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
 today - ACoRP AGM
17/12/2018 - Removal of Severn Bridge Tolls
22/12/2018 - Christmas service changes
04/01/2019 - Look forward - 2019 Severnside
07/01/2019 - JSP consultation closes
10/01/2019 - CHRUG
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail News GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
December 13, 2018, 06:50:00 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[182] Four track for Filton Bank - ongoing discussion
[95] MetroBus
[75] Station alert ... have we missed a closure consultation proces...
[29] 30th Anniversary of Clapham Rail Crash
[27] Station Usage figures from the ORR
[22] Advent quiz 2019
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 54
  Print  
Author Topic: MetroBus  (Read 87551 times)
Red Squirrel
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2414



View Profile
« Reply #720 on: November 20, 2018, 09:53:26 pm »

As if by royal command I have just taken a look at the Bristol Post website on my mobile and there is a repeat of the artists impression of the GPL bridge that I referred to in an earlier post this evening. This does. as my earlier post stated, show a single decker travelling towards the artist but as if to validate the artists impression a double decker has been added in this published version. Looking at the headroom remaining over the top of the single decker I doubt whether the double decker would emerge the other side of the new GPL bridge without conversion to a. err. open topper. Also artists licence has given the artist responsible for this impression the vision to install the overhead catenary over the projected rail overbridge. seemingly, just one Metrobus length apart.

By the way, January 9th is the start date of route m1, brought forward a week to coincide with the start of the University's new term. It was previously announced as commencing on January 16th.

I agree. It's a shame their artist didn't hang around to imagine the subsequent carnage. Let's hope that when they build it, they choose to follow the plans - allowing 5.8m headroom - rather than the Evening Bristol's artistic rendering of them:



Image: Bristol Post
Logged
martyjon
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1305


View Profile
« Reply #721 on: November 20, 2018, 10:02:48 pm »

Lowering the road that much does make me worry about flooding. I'm sure there are drains but even so, drain covers get overwhelmed by exceptionally heavy rain (the type of exceptional that seems to happen every spring), especially if they're bunged up.

Agreed and to add to your concerns, if you didn't know, there is a stream next to Station Road which leads from GPL to Patchway station which is currently culverted under GPL. It then follows the curve of the embankment of the Patchway to Parkway line until the stream reaches a point where excesses can flow into a catchment/overflow reservoir adjacent to Hatchet Lane.  
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3569


View Profile
« Reply #722 on: November 20, 2018, 11:30:57 pm »

Lowering the road that much does make me worry about flooding. I'm sure there are drains but even so, drain covers get overwhelmed by exceptionally heavy rain (the type of exceptional that seems to happen every spring), especially if they're bunged up.

Agreed and to add to your concerns, if you didn't know, there is a stream next to Station Road which leads from GPL to Patchway station which is currently culverted under GPL. It then follows the curve of the embankment of the Patchway to Parkway line until the stream reaches a point where excesses can flow into a catchment/overflow reservoir adjacent to Hatchet Lane.  

You'll be reassured to know there is a drainage strategy among the plans. Mostly that is based on the existing discharges to the nearby watercourses, and perhaps you'd be a bit less reassured that they don't know where the existing discharges are half the time.

Water from the road under the bridge does currently go into that stream next to it, and that outfall will be reused. They identify the roadway lowering as meaning gravity won't suffice to get the water out fast enough, so there will be pumps. There will also be big pipes to carry water to the pumps, oversized to provide storage to buffer peak flows (aka attenuation). The actual sizes vary between documents, but one plan shows a pair of pipes of 1050 mm diameter - now that is really big. There are to be two pumps rated at 9 l/s, each with a backup, in a sump.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2018, 04:10:45 pm by stuving » Logged
Tony (Formerly FT, N!)
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3881


I know nothing. Really.


View Profile Email
« Reply #723 on: November 21, 2018, 02:21:17 pm »

Meantime,  word  reaches me that  two of the  MetroBust M2 buses  were  vandalised last night, and that the  replacement vehicles  can't use the misguided busway. Pasengers wanting to board at Cumberland Basin, Ashton Gate or Ashton Vale are advised  to schlep over to either the Long Ashton Park and Ride or SS Gert Britain. It raises a few  questions:
How many adapted buses are there?
If they cost best part of  400K apiece, where are  they kept   overnight?
Does Tony (Formerly Four Track, Now!) have an aliibi?
(The answer to the last one is "Yes", and my EasyJet account will confirm it.)
Logged

Now, please!
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1665


View Profile
« Reply #724 on: November 21, 2018, 02:46:38 pm »

Lowering the road that much does make me worry about flooding. I'm sure there are drains but even so, drain covers get overwhelmed by exceptionally heavy rain (the type of exceptional that seems to happen every spring), especially if they're bunged up.

Agreed and to add to your concerns, if you didn't know, there is a stream next to Station Road which leads from GPL to Patchway station which is currently culverted under GPL. It then follows the curve of the embankment of the Patchway to Parkway line until the stream reaches a point where excesses can flow into a catchment/overflow reservoir adjacent to Hatchet Lane.  

You'll be reassured to know there is a drainage strategy among the plans. Mostly that is based on the existing discharges to the nearby watercourses, and perhaps you'd be a bit less reassured that they don't know where the existing discharges are half the time.

Water from the road under the bridge does currently go into that stream next to it, and that outfall will be reused. They identify the roadway lowering as meaning gravity won't suffice to get the water out fast enough, so there will be pumps. There will also be big pipes to carry water to the pumps, oversized to provide storage to buffer peak flows (aka attenuation). The actual sizes vary between documents, but one plan shows a pair of pipes of 1050 mm diameter - not that is really big. There are to be two pumps rated at 9 l/s, each with a backup, in a sump.
Those sound like mighty pumps. Glad they're there! Would be even better if they weren't needed, but I guess the only other way to achieve clearance under the bridge would be to raise the bridge itself, which would surely involve more disruption especially to the railway.
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
WelshBluebird
Transport Scholar
Sr. Member
******
Posts: 134


View Profile Email
« Reply #725 on: November 21, 2018, 03:06:14 pm »

Meantime,  word  reaches me that  two of the  MetroBust M2 buses  were  vandalised last night, and that the  replacement vehicles  can't use the misguided busway. Pasengers wanting to board at Cumberland Basin, Ashton Gate or Ashton Vale are advised  to schlep over to either the Long Ashton Park and Ride or SS Gert Britain. It raises a few  questions:
How many adapted buses are there?
If they cost best part of  400K apiece, where are  they kept   overnight?
Does Tony (Formerly Four Track, Now!) have an aliibi?
(The answer to the last one is "Yes", and my EasyJet account will confirm it.)

Based on some comments on Twitter it sounds like at least one of the buses was targeted whilst in service?
According to local media there have been recent attacks on buses in service, so would add up.
Logged
Tony (Formerly FT, N!)
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3881


I know nothing. Really.


View Profile Email
« Reply #726 on: November 21, 2018, 05:39:24 pm »

Sadly,  for some inexplicable reason I am banned from MetroBust's Twitter feed, despite all the nice things I have  said about it over the years.


I agree. It's a shame their artist didn't hang around to imagine the subsequent carnage. Let's hope that when they build it, they choose to follow the plans - allowing 5.8m headroom - rather than the Evening Bristol's artistic rendering of them:



Image: Bristol Post

I  may be missing something, but that looks a lot less of a public transport scheme than it resembles a road-widening plan.  I have no objection to  GPL having a bridge wide enough  and high enough to let modern traffic through. What I do not like is schemes such as this being loosely disguised as  MetroBust. There are funds for building roads, and funds for public transport, and using the latter as a Trojan horse  to pay for the former is dishonest, and means that public transport will not prosper.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2018, 06:34:28 pm by Tony (Formerly Four Track, Now!) » Logged

Now, please!
martyjon
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1305


View Profile
« Reply #727 on: November 21, 2018, 07:59:50 pm »


The element of cynicism in my brain suggests the developers of the former Rolls-Royce site beyond the bridge to the left planning section 106 contribution screwed out of the developer by South Glos Council will form a large proportion of the cost of this project.
Logged
Red Squirrel
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2414



View Profile
« Reply #728 on: November 21, 2018, 08:32:24 pm »

I  may be missing something, but that looks a lot less of a public transport scheme than it resembles a road-widening plan.  I have no objection to  GPL having a bridge wide enough  and high enough to let modern traffic through. What I do not like is schemes such as this being loosely disguised as MetroBust. There are funds for building roads, and funds for public transport, and using the latter as a Trojan horse  to pay for the former is dishonest, and means that public transport will not prosper.

That's the beauty of MetroBus - it's just a bus, and buses are public transport, and they go on roads, and the money's being spent improving roads so that buses can use them more easily... it's hard to argue that this does not constitute a proper use of the money.

For it to be improper, you'd have to spend public transport money to build a stretch of road that had failed to get funding for decades as a pure road scheme, in the full knowledge that no operator was ever going to run a bus down it. But surely that would never happen.

The element of cynicism in my brain suggests the developers of the former Rolls-Royce site beyond the bridge to the left planning section 106 contribution screwed out of the developer by South Glos Council will form a large proportion of the cost of this project.

Isn't it right that the developer of the adjacent site should make an S106 contribution to this? Presumably it'll improve the value of their site.
Logged
simonw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 557


View Profile Email
« Reply #729 on: November 22, 2018, 08:46:54 am »

The widening of this road will probably add very little to the East Site development. That development will be finished long before this bridge is replaced.

One thing it will do is remove one of the main causes of some of the terrible traffic jams in the area.
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1665


View Profile
« Reply #730 on: November 22, 2018, 09:10:17 am »

Removing traffic jams on your doorstep is going to add to property value, I'd have thought, though by what amount is arguable.
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
simonw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 557


View Profile Email
« Reply #731 on: November 22, 2018, 09:18:05 am »

To be honest, I think the traffic jams will remain, just be moved to the traffic lights at GPL on the A38.

The only way to eliminate the traffic jams is to persuade people not to drive, and for that we need the carrot of good, reliable and affordable public transport, and the stick of congestion and pollution charges. This is now the job of WECA, I believe!
« Last Edit: November 22, 2018, 11:42:26 am by simonw » Logged
Red Squirrel
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2414



View Profile
« Reply #732 on: November 22, 2018, 09:59:27 am »

To be honest, I think the traffic jams will remain, just be moved to the traffic lights at GPL on the A38.

The only way to eliminate the traffic jams is to persuade people not to drive, and for that we need the carrout of good, reliable and affordable public transport, and the stick of congestion and pollution charges. This is now the job of WECA, I believe!


For road journeys originating to the west of the SWML, the quickest way to the motorway network will most likely be be via the A38 and Almondsbury; this traffic, as you point out, will still have to negotiate the Gipsy Patch - A38 junction. That suggests that the biggest benefit of the new bridge is that it will be possible to fit a 'decker under it; the current bridge is limited to 4m which is too low. So (for fear of banging on!) this is to a large extent a public transport improvement, with the additional benefits that it will make things safer for cyclists and pedestrians too.

There are many ways to reduce traffic jams, the best of which is to use the planning system to reduce car dependency. This takes decades to have an effect though, and for the moment much of what is happening in South Glos seems to be heading in the wrong direction, with low-density dormitory suburbs connected by big roads still being built. As to carrots and sticks: sticks are cheap, and carrots are expensive - so expect more of the former, and precious few of the latter!
Logged
WelshBluebird
Transport Scholar
Sr. Member
******
Posts: 134


View Profile Email
« Reply #733 on: November 22, 2018, 11:18:10 am »

A couple of articles on the Bristol Post site that seem to concur with the vandalism of the Metrobus buses happening in service with rocks being thrown at buses. A few photos showing the damage, including broken windows too. Looks like the yobs who have been attacking the 75/76 buses and the A4 Bath - Bristol Airport buses have found new targets.
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1665


View Profile
« Reply #734 on: November 22, 2018, 01:07:25 pm »

A couple of articles on the Bristol Post site that seem to concur with the vandalism of the Metrobus buses happening in service with rocks being thrown at buses. A few photos showing the damage, including broken windows too. Looks like the yobs who have been attacking the 75/76 buses and the A4 Bath - Bristol Airport buses have found new targets.
Worrying.

There are many ways to reduce traffic jams, the best of which is to use the planning system to reduce car dependency. This takes decades to have an effect though, <snip>
Though local effects can be felt immediately on completion. That was the case with Gorgeous George's RPZs, for instance, and it might be the case with this bridge too, at the bridge itself.
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 54
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants