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.
*** Make campaign for the widest possible support and acceptance - [here]
 25/09/2019 - WWRUG / Transport Focus
03/10/2019 - ACoRP Community Rail Awards
05/10/2019 - WSR shuttle last for 2019
10/10/2019 - IET Signalling Talk - Reading
16/10/2019 - MRUG meeting
16/10/2019 - ACoRP board nominations close
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
September 22, 2019, 03:39:43 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
[56] IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent pe...
[38] Templecombe
[38] St.Erth Park and Ride
[34] No steam to Ryde (for a number of years)
[30] 21st September 2019 - RailFuture National Conference, in Brist...
[28] Out of Office quiz - September 2019
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Western Harbour (Cumberland Basin)  (Read 1786 times)
Red Squirrel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3150


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« on: August 19, 2019, 11:18:29 am »

Bristol City Council are considering options to replace the ageing complex of bridges and junctions at Cumberland Basin, the junction of the A4 Portway with the A370. Three options are up for consultation, all of which involve one or more new bridges; a tunnel was considered but has been ruled out.

The consultation, together with descriptions of the options, is here: https://bristol.citizenspace.com/growth-regeneration/western-harbour/
Logged
martyjon
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1805


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2019, 08:45:23 pm »

Bristol City Council are considering options to replace the ageing complex of bridges and junctions at Cumberland Basin, the junction of the A4 Portway with the A370. Three options are up for consultation, all of which involve one or more new bridges; a tunnel was considered but has been ruled out.

The consultation, together with descriptions of the options, is here: https://bristol.citizenspace.com/growth-regeneration/western-harbour/

One point to be made strongly in the consultation is the need for ALL new bridges over the navigational channel to the Bristol Docks be at such a height as to still allow Tall Ships, The M.V. Balmoral, luxury yachts such as the MOGAMBO and that yacht owned by the American billionaire that have visited the city in recent years plus the Royal Naval Reserve vessels that are regular visitors to the docks crewed by the Universitys Naval Reserve detachment. I would imagine to obtain the necessary headroom the ramps to the bridge decks would need to start at the Jacobs Wells Road / Anchor Road / Deanery Road / Hotwells Road roundabout at the city end and a flying Y junction in the vicinity of Greville Smythe Ashton Park would need ramps to start at the end of the Long Ashton By-Pass and the South Liberty Lane / Winterstoke Road roundabout. Take the case of the Avonmouth side ramp up to the M5 Avon Bridge as an example.

Has Mayor Marvin opened his mouth first again before engaging his brain and fully thought through this proposal.

My old art master at Cotham Grammar School, Gerry Hicks and his wife were leading lights in a movement to oppose the city council in the councils plans to fill in the docks when it finished a stage in its life as a working port and drive a motorway through the city. Look at the millions that todays Harbour brings into the city annually as the docks continues to enjoy a life providing leisure for city residents and the many many visitors in its retirement.

Marvin would be better employed if he put more effort into getting the L A P&R opened on Sundays and later than current lock-up times Mondays to Saturdays.

Time to make the Plimsol Bridge a listed structure me thinks.
Logged
eXPassenger
Transport Scholar
Sr. Member
******
Posts: 211


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2019, 10:04:24 pm »

The consultation document for the Western option and the hybrid option specifically includes the disadvantages of needing to perform a bridge swing when a ship movement coincides with rush hour so their are no apparent plans to close the harbour.
Logged
martyjon
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1805


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2019, 06:44:02 am »

The consultation document for the Western option and the hybrid option specifically includes the disadvantages of needing to perform a bridge swing when a ship movement coincides with rush hour so their are no apparent plans to close the harbour.

My post did not suggest the closing of the harbour. Tough if a bridge swing happens to coincide with the rush hour, thats life.
Logged
Red Squirrel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3150


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2019, 09:46:54 pm »

The Bristol Civic Society has published its response to this consultatiion - you can read it in full here.

The Society is critical of the council for keeping the Arup report secret and only publishing selected options. Of the option to build a new bridge in front of the Clifton Suspension Bridge, it says:

Quote
We can foresee national opposition to the impairment of this internationally recognised view by well-funded, knowledgeable and articulate opponents.

...and:

Quote
The Society considers it unwise to propose options for the Western Harbour that would cater for strategic traffic flows that an M5 to A370 link would take further south.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 09:55:18 pm by Red Squirrel » Logged
johnneyw
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1081


Still want to work on the railways when I grow up.


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2019, 11:41:03 am »

Interesting read, especially the the bit regarding the possibly omitted "option 4". I can understand BCC/Marv wanting some control over a paper that they, after all, commissioned (although with council taxpayer's money) but surely it would make sense to make more of it available for consideration and thus avoid understandable/justified suggestions on cynical manipulation.
Logged

Railway rock n' roll rebel. I once bought a return ticket and didn't go back!
Red Squirrel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3150


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2019, 01:51:51 pm »

It does seem eccentric that some apparently obvious options have been ignored, or at least not published. Looking at this map:


Image from OpenStreetMap

...you can see extensive sliproads leading to Spike Island - McAdam Way, Ashmead Way and Brunel Lock Road. These were built to connect a long-cancelled urban motorway which was planned to run eastwards from Cumberland Basin, and could be demolished or re-engineered to release a significant amount of land for redevelopment without losing the current swingbridge. Access to Spike Island could be provided via Merchants Road bridge, or even by restoring Ashton Avenue over the top of the Ashton Avenue Bridge.

Of course it may be that there are very good reasons why these options were dismissed, if they were ever considered... but it would be nice to know what they are!
Logged
johnneyw
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1081


Still want to work on the railways when I grow up.


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2019, 04:34:44 pm »

It would be depressing if the earlier options were being dismissed just for the sake of being different. It would be very annoying if they were being dismissed just because they were originally drawn up by a local authority of a different political hue.
Logged

Railway rock n' roll rebel. I once bought a return ticket and didn't go back!
Red Squirrel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3150


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 06, 2019, 04:38:00 pm »

There is a petition to request that the council release the full report:

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/publish-full-feasibility-report-on-cumberland-basin-road-options
Logged
Noggin
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 339


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 06, 2019, 09:27:14 pm »

There is a petition to request that the council release the full report:

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/publish-full-feasibility-report-on-cumberland-basin-road-options

As I understand it there are a number of suggestions that the council are not being particularly honest. Here are a couple that I can recall.

1) That Highways England want a relief road in case of M5 closure, particularly the bridge over the Avon, though of course that could be dealt with in a number of other ways, perhaps a Pill to Avonmouth tunnel.

2) That various bodies want to see the route between the M5 and Bristol Airport upgraded, and this is part of it.

3) That the refurb cost for the Plimsol bridge is indeed relatively low, but it doesn't free all the nice waterfront land that Marvin needs to splash around.

In this case, let's hope that Historic England, the environmentallists and the reactionaries of Bristol that have blocked so many things in the past make themselves useful ;-) 
 
Logged
Red Squirrel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3150


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 07, 2019, 12:07:23 am »

It's interesting that Bristol Civic Society refer to traffic using an M5 to A370 link. This would be the road that was once fleetingly referred to as the M35, running from the point where the M5 crosses Tickenham Road near Clevedon (you can see passive provision for this here) to the end of the Long Ashton Bypass (here). From here, it's a bit of a long way round for diverted traffic heading north - but you can see how Colliters Way (paid for by MetroBus!) and the mooted South Bristol Link Road provide a route.

Edit: Colliters Way is the South Bristol Link.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2019, 10:38:33 am by Red Squirrel » Logged
johnneyw
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1081


Still want to work on the railways when I grow up.


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 07, 2019, 12:40:01 am »

It's interesting that Bristol Civic Society refer to traffic using an M5 to A370 link. This would be the road that was once fleetingly referred to as the M35, running from the point where the M5 crosses Tickenham Road near Clevedon (you can see passive provision for this here) to the end of the Long Ashton Bypass (here). From here, it's a bit of a long way round for diverted traffic heading north - but you can see how Colliters Way (paid for by MetroBus!) and the mooted South Bristol Link Road provide a route.

The perceived traffic flows are key here. I'm still trying to work out how a convergence between the two routes serves a purpose worthy of some of the suggested alterations in the proposed plans. Then again, my traffic planning credentials are as good as my astrophysics qualifications which stopped at the 1960s Thunderbird 3 plastic toy on my sideboard.
Logged

Railway rock n' roll rebel. I once bought a return ticket and didn't go back!
bignosemac
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 16989


Coffee Shop Forum Roving Reporter


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2019, 01:18:49 am »

It's interesting that Bristol Civic Society refer to traffic using an M5 to A370 link. This would be the road that was once fleetingly referred to as the M35, running from the point where the M5 crosses Tickenham Road near Clevedon (you can see passive provision for this here) to the end of the Long Ashton Bypass (here). From here, it's a bit of a long way round for diverted traffic heading north - but you can see how Colliters Way (paid for by MetroBus!) and the mooted South Bristol Link Road provide a route.

Wasn't the proposed M35 spur to south Bristol planned to leave the M5 at J20? That junction seems to be an unnecessarily large roundabout for one B road into Clevedon. Said roundabout is also oddly aligned, with both the bridges over the M5 carriageway on curves. Why design it like that for a single B road interchange? This roundabout appears to have been designed for something grander and the alignment suggest's its to accept another major road on its eastern side. If J20 had only every been meant to serve Clevedon then a much simpler trumpet junction with one two way bridge over the M5 would have sufficed. I'm pretty sure this is where the passive provision for the M35 was designed in, not further north at Tickenham Road.

Also of note is the wide central reservation from J20 to J21. Further passive provision I believe. This time to allow for later widening to four lanes between the south of Bristol spur and what could have been another motorway spur into Weston-super-Mare, potentially the A370(M).
Logged

rogerw
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 735



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 07, 2019, 06:54:04 am »

The south Bristol spur was indeed to come off J20.  It was still a protected route in the early 1990s as I had to evidence to that effect to the public inquiry into the (then) Clevedon, Nailsea & Portishead Local Plan where Woodspring council wanted to block the route with an industrial estate off J20.
Logged

I like to travel.  It lets me feel I'm getting somewhere.
Red Squirrel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3150


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 07, 2019, 10:42:01 am »

Wasn't the proposed M35 spur to south Bristol planned to leave the M5 at J20?

The south Bristol spur was indeed to come off J20. 

Thanks for putting me right - yes clearly Jct 20 rather than where I said.
Logged
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] 2
  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

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page