What’s occurring: I’m definitely buying one of those ’Cyclists say no to BRT2′ mugs…

Meanwhile, the Post is printing more PR puff about how the SBL & Metrobust will help to rectify “the inequalities blighting our growth and prosperity over recent decades”. Coming next week, how badly-planned bus lanes will bring about World Peace… There was some more ground survey work going on today, under the flyover (i.e. near the Pump Track). The river was also in full spate, and running high on the banks of the New Cut – all of which bodes well for the costly engineering that will no doubt be required for the Metrobust AVTM route. 🙄

I understand from my involvement with building the pump track under the flyover that it’s technically a flood zone. Hopefully they’ll be running those super-reliable amphibious buses: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/29/duck-boat-passengers-rescued-fire-thames

As an aside, one of the blokes I went riding with recently has set up an action group for Hotwells residents who want to sort out the grim traffic situation round Cumberland Crescent – the “narrow gate of death crossing” between the Chocolate Path and the welcoming arms of the Nova. I reckon it’s worth a click: https://www.facebook.com/harbourheads

those super-reliable amphibious buses

A FirstGroup amphibious bus… I don’t even want to contemplate it.* 😯

But they’ll need something, cos the area is very wet right now.

(*to be fair to First, the recent reduction in fares means that a trip into town from my house is now pretty good value… if I’m not cycling, of course).

The planning application has now been submitted for the Cumberland Road route – if you so wish, you can comment and object. Quite aside from the fact that it’s an utterly dumb idea (and one that is actually dismissed in the original BRT2 plans), Metrobust have been strangely silent on why they want to build their nonsense buslane upon what is very obviously an active floodplain. That said, where cheaper & simpler solutions are available (i.e. spending the money on upgrading the Hotwell Road P&R route) their consultants do have form for suggesting expensive & over-engineered schemes. Why would that be, I wonder? ❓

The Chocolate Path a couple of days ago – hope the Metrobust route is future-proofed… 😈

For any of y’all following this….after the recent flooding, Metrobust have gone on a PR drive to explain how their woeful scheme will protect the Avon Crescent/Cumberland Road junction from future tsunamis, earthquakes, attacks from outer space, etc. All of which merely demonstrates that the Cumberland Road option (as per the Mayoral Review) was always going to be more complicated & expensive than the Hotwell Road route. But Metrobust, having its own demented logic & momentum, rolls on.

Even the Post is getting angry about it – there’s a great editorial in today’s paper: Metro Bus will not end congestion.

Metrobust have published their guide to the AVTM route… complete with all that extra (and expensive) over-engineering. I’m still not clear on why P&R users will benefit from being diverted down Cumberland Road (i.e. away from the centre, as currently served by Hotwell Road).

Meanwhile, the Avon Crescent junction looks like it will be a bit of a mess… 😕

If you have any objections/comments regarding the planning application for Cumberland Road, you have until 14th Feb to submit ’em.

The consultants’ own studies show that metrobus will not make any worthwhile reduction in traffic, even under their most optimistic scenarios. And I note that the planning application has not a single letter in support.

metrobus will not make any worthwhile reduction in traffic

Indeed, ransos. And yet it is forced upon Brizzle regardless – the ugly outcome of transport policy being dictated by a funding bid.

God that’s going to be an even more exciting place to cross!

Can we stop calling them ‘metrobust‘? We know they’re crap, we know it’s a crap idea but calling them names just demeans the valid arguments against.

Whereas the valid arguments are ignored, unchallenged, and remain unknown to the vast majority of people living in Bristol. I agree that name-calling isn’t particularly worthwhile but … better ideas?

calling them names just demeans the valid arguments

Given how BCC & the WEP have ignored the numerous public objections to this scheme, I don’t think that calling them names on a mountain bike forum is going to matter that much.

Besides which, I started the thread… I’ll call ’em what I want. 😉

Ho ho ho, noteeth you little scamp *ruffles his hair in a condescending way*, that was BRT2 that people objected to, MetroBus is completely different and not related at all. Why it even has a completely different name! Just like how Windscale and Sellafield are two completely different names …..

ruffles his hair in a condescending way

Male pattern baldness here… 🙁

Just like how Windscale and Sellafield are two completely different names

😀

It’s two weeks until the deadline for comments on the Cumberland Road planning application. Disillusioned as we all are, I would urge anybody who has concerns to submit an objection online. I’m not pretending that the damn thing can be stopped/re-routed, but sufficient weight of numbers might throw a small spanner into the planning process works. And when it all gets underway & Avon Crescent looks like a motorway junction, at least there will be a paper trail documenting the reasons for public opposition. I suspect the BRT consultants and WEP minions are going to make a fool of Ferguson – who is now lumbered with explaining why Cumberland Road is a better option than simply improving Hotwell Road….

Planning application site is here: http://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=MXL72EDN00J00

And StopBRT2 note the following (sorry for gurt cut n’ paste):

This might help if you are writing a response.

The City Council website says:’All comments we receive about a planning application will be considered, but only planning issues can be taken into account. These include: Loss of light or privacy; Overshadowing on your home; Highway safety; Traffic and parking issues; Noise; Amenity; Wildlife; Historic buildings; Conservation; Design; Appearance of the development.’

From an initial look at the plans, detailed issues include:

•A 4m wide trench will be dug along Cumberland Road as part of the works to build a 1.5m wall between Cumberland Road and the railway line. Several thousand tonnes of concrete to be used. This wall will block views towards the Avon New Cut. Bristol should have its own flood defence plan and not be dependent on BRT2’s vehicle restraint wall, which is being built to prevent buses toppling onto the railway
•The western end of Cumberland Road will start to resemble a series of motorway slip roads-in total four separate roads running in parallel-overall width 35-40m!
•The Cumberland Road crossing at Gaol Ferry Bridge will now be offset from the bridge, adding to pedestrian and cycling congestion in this area
•Trees likely to be lost on Commercial Road
•Green areas converted to tarmac
•A ‘bus gate’ will be installed on Cumberland Road. Where these exist on other Bristol roads, they seem to be so unsuccessful that bus drivers are seen driving into the main traffic flow!
•The coach parking is to be removed. The planning applications plans simply says that an alternative location will be found by the council, which is another hidden cost of the scheme
•At Bathurst Basin bridge, pedestrians will now have two roads to cross-no zebras are being proposed
The Council have published a colour brochure with visualisations showing the full ugliness of some of the BRT2 ‘features’ here http://travelwest.info/sites/default/files/documents/BD5054%20-%20AVTM%2…. There are copies in Bedminster library. The brochure fails to note the points set out in the above and says nothing about Butterfly Junction. It also claims that BRT2 will stem projected traffic growth of 15% on Cumberland Road (doubtful!)*, although the Planning Inspector said that the project is unlikely to have a significant effect on congestion.

(*StopBRT2 address the Metrobus claims about traffic here)

Meanwhile, a rolling news site which sort of looks like the Bristol Post has covered the new transit system in depth: ”We estimate that the scheme will carry up to 5 kittens per hour, being towed on a colourful nylon leash.”

😉

Tanks fer readin.

Quick bump – one week left to submit objections to this ludicrous scheme. Thanks to those who have already done so – there’s some great comments on there (and very little public support… not least from 903 P&R users who realise that they are now going to be diverted away from the city centre – i.e. along Cumberland Road, and not the existing Hotwell Road route. Some of ’em are threatening to get back into their cars!).

As an aside, it seems that 100-200 homes are proposed for the Ashton Station site (hope the JCBs don’t squash the Pump Track… 😯 ). It’s pretty obvious that the BRT2/Metrobus planners have long-envisaged such a development. Funny that.

Drawings are on display in the Create Centre, if anybody wants to take a look.

5-days-till-stage-call-type-bump.

Objections coming thru pretty regularly now – Brizzle folk are clearly baffled by this nonsense. 😈

Done, thanks for keeping this issue on the radar.

Done

Thanks, thebunk. If nothing else, the number of submitted planning objections means that Metrobus can’t claim public support for this damn fool scheme. And – unlike Ashton Vale – there’s no flood risk on the moral high ground. 😉

Three days left… objections are racking up pretty steadily, not least from angry P&R bus users – the very people this dross scheme is designed to serve.

BTW, a warning for anybody who cuts n’ pastes (i.e. from a Word doc) into the BCC Planning portal comment box – the site occasionally seems to play havoc with yer punctuation (random hyphens & apostrophes go MIA). A STW-style rant can end up looking like the author is slightly inebriated. 😳

Deadline for comments on the Cumberland Road Metrobus planning application inna Agency_Scum Mud Dock jumble-sale stylee…

IT’S TOMORROW!

Anybody with concerns, make them known here:

http://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=MXL72EDN00J00

In a measure of just how surreal and disjointed this scheme is, Metrobus have justified the diversion of the popular 903 P&R service away from Hotwell Road (and the two most heavily-used stops – Anchor Road & the Centre) on the grounds that projected congestion on this route is likely to worsen…. all added to, of course, by expected traffic on the new South Bristol Link road – which Metrobus themselves are promoting. Needless to say, they are getting battered by 903 users in the submitted comments. 😈

As an aside, the Post report on projected tidal surge/flooding risks again demonstrates the idiocy of building a new bus lane from Ashton Vale, thru Colliters Brook and along Cumberland Road. Even if they build a flood barrier/bus retention wall, it doesn’t mitigate against the risks elsewhere on the Ashton Vale floodplain. Perhaps we’ll have to jack up Ashton Avenue bridge on bricks… One of the submitted comments also brought up something I’d not really considered: a high wall along the Choc Path has the potential to make it feel a good deal less safe in terms of visibility & mugging potential. 😕

Thanks for reading.

Just returned from the cinema (ace ’72 flick The Getaway with the lovely Ali MacGraw… swoon) & had a quick scan of the submitted comments…. and – blimey – Metrobus are getting hammered. 😯

It looks like access/parking on the Cumberland Road is going to be just as big an issue as rebellious 903 P&R users. The Rowing Club, in particular, are pretty miffed about it. Thanks rowers, whoever you are. 😉

Bump: deadline for comments is today – Feb 14th for a hot date with a transport white elephant.

Public planning comments are in. It’s clear that the proposed route has no popular support, and that Metrobus have conspicuously ignored the implications for P&R bus-users, other commuters, local residents and businesses alike. Key points seem to be: nobody accepts their rationale for diverting bus-services off the Hotwell Road, the displacement of parking and altered traffic flow along Cumberland Road is going to be a major issue, the flood defence measures might actually be counter-productive for upstream locations, and the added complexity at the Avon Crescent junction is causing a battle all of its own.

All this compounds the issues elsewhere (the Festival Way, Ashton Avenue Bridge, Choc Path intersection, etc etc). I don’t know what, if any, influence the comments will have upon the Council Planning decision – but, frankly speaking, it’s good to see the Metrobus scheme being ripped apart. Hopefully it’s giving them & their gravy-train consultants a big fugging headache. 😈

On that note, thanks to all those who submitted objections and spread the word. Cheers all.

Good work keeping people posted toothless one. I’m still cynical as to the powers-that-be listening to objections or looking at evidence, coherent as the arguments have been there’s more chance that the number of bus users stating that they’ll start driving again will swing it, if anything.

Noteeth, may I ask you an only vaguely related question? Or if anyone else knows…

I notice that the planning page linked to above makes public the name and address of everyone who has posted an objection. Surely there’s issue here with data privacy, or am I being overly paranoid?

bus users stating that they’ll start driving again

Metrobus are rather feebly trying to claim that the scheme was widely advertised & consulted upon. Strange – because none of the P&R bus-users seem to know anything about it! 903 commuters threatening to get back into their cars really does sum up why BRT2 is so very stupid.

re: data privacy – I wondered about that, too. I guess formal planning objections are published as such, although I can’t say I’m wildly enthusiastic about addresses being displayed on the internet…

Quick info-type bump.

The BCC Planning Committee Report is now online, in advance of the meeting on the 19th March. As usual, there’s some Council gubbins about how these are just recommendations – but it’s pretty obvious that the damn thing is being bulldozered through, whatever the public actually thinks (or wants).

Reading between the lines, it’s clear that the vaguely-imagined riches of the proposed Temple Meads “Enterprise Zone” are being used to justify the AVTM route. Get ready for lots of platitudes about “connectivity”, served up with lashings of greenwash…. 🙄

According to the report, 92% of responses were to object to it, yet opinion is described as “split”. Also no mention of the consultants own research which showed that a trivial number of people are predicted to actually use the thing…

According to the report, 92% of responses were to object to it, yet opinion is described as “split”.

I know – it’s pretty much beyond satire.

The BCC Planning Committee meeting at which all this is to be discussed steamrollered through is on Weds 19th March.

StopBRT2 will be boycotting the meeting, in protest at the ”transport decision making process which has led to Bristol being saddled with this enormous white elephant” (see also their point-by-point response to the Committee Report, on the same page). Can’t say I blame ’em… this godawful scheme is about to be forced upon us – despite having no popular support, and despite the complete lack of a convincing business/transport case.

Much as I love Bristol, it is ruled by clowns. 👿

Committee meeting is tonight.

I don’t think it’s going to be a very good outcome.

I still really struggle to see why old red trousers isn’t against this – it seems to fly in the face of what he usually supports. I’m wondering if somehow there’s some pragmatic politics being played here that allowing this steaming turd through means that something else good or at least less terrible happens.

I still really struggle to see why old red trousers isn’t against this

It’s the cash – BCC need to slap down something that qualifies for the DfT funding. Hence why the BRT2 consultants/the LEP are pushing the Cumberland Road option, with its suspiciously-skewed BCR – and they have his ear. I’ve heard some cynical mutterings about how all this might be tied-in with the Arena decision, but who knows?

Binning the scheme would cost Bristol in financial penalties – but it would still be better than the almighty cluster-fug that’s coming our way. One thing’s for sure: the AVTM Metrobus route is certainly not worth £50 million + of public money. 👿

Predictably, it’s not good news: Plans for Metrobus between Ashton Vale and Bristol Temple Meads gain momentum.

Oh well, at least we tried – thanks all.

And a pox upon this council and their idiotic planning decisions. 👿

I’ve heard some cynical mutterings about how all this might be tied-in with the Arena decision, but who knows?

That’s the sort of thing I’m wondering – it seems so much against what he has typically supported that there must be more to it.

What tyres for sitting in front of diggers? [/arthurdent (not as played by M Freeman)]

What tyres

To repeat an earlier post: if all else fails, I think we should deny the Ashton Avenue Bridge to the enemy. 😈

Quick update on the coming Festival Way bus-apocalypse… there’s an excellent letter in a recent edition of the Post – Metrobus scheme is an insult to Bristol. Brizz_Tony’s comment beneath is worth quoting in full, as it nails the financial lunacy that is being foisted upon us… apologies for the gurt cut n’ paste:

It is first and foremost a road-building scheme, with a token bus service to justify it. It will not bring money into Bristol City Council, except for the Department for Transport’s contribution towards this crackpot scheme. The cost of the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route (AVTM) has risen by £2.4 million, and the engineering costs of the South Bristol Link (SBL) have been written up by £10 million before anyone with sense has wielded a shovel. Government funding for AVTM is £34.5 million, leaving £14.5 million for the councils to find. Under a bizarre deal struck by a former BCC, 80% of any over-runs falls to BCC, a formula which has already cost us £1.6 million. The engineering over-run, although dressed up as an accounting device, exposes us to an £8m hit before the Lord Mayor has cut the first sod, under a volley of ripe tomatoes. So there is no bonus for BCC, merely a (so far) bill of around £15m, just for the AVTM route, which will actually slow the journeys of 80% of the people who currently use the 903 to get to work, and which will mainly use public roads. This could actually add to congestion as drivers choose against the Long Ashton Park and Ride. The model for Bust Rabid Transit has been held up as the Cambridge BRT. That followed the closed St Ives to Cambridge railway, around 14 miles. To reopen the line would have cost around £42m. To build the Bust Rabid Transit was originally slated at around £60m, but was finally agreed between Cambridge CC and BAM Nutall as £83.9m. The final tab, after an acrimonious relationship between CCC and the contractors BAM Nutall, was £188m. That led to legal action, finally settled by the two parties with CCC paying BAM Nutall £84.7m on the steps of the court. But other matters pushed the cost of this scheme up to £152m. Legal costs etc meant that CCC have to dip their hands to their pockets to find £36 million, over and above their original profile. How much their council tax will have to rise to meet the interest payments may only become clear after the next election. In the meantime, the auguries are not good for libraries and swimming pools in Cambridgeshire, nor for Bust Rabid Transit. The Cambridge BRT is 14 miles of expensive concrete, using guided busways for safety along the the whole length, with breaks for crossing roads. I have found word of at least 5 serious accidents. The AVTM route will be the shortest, most pointless, and probably the most expensive guided busway. Either bus operators will need to be sure that fitting the special guiding kit to their buses is worthwhile, and that the new slower route is worthwhile, or BCC will have to subsidise the whole business, as well as pay interest on the loans we have to take to cover the inevitable cost over-runs, made essential by South Glos laying on new workers from Filton Airfield Residential Estate to work at the Enterprise Zone – 100% of the council tax receipts of a few £m yearly, some s106 agreements to pay for woefully inadequate provision for schools, later to be taken up by central government if they don’t decide to abandon the area, but only 10% of the risk of this cr@p scheme which will only get their taxpayers as far as the BCC border before the bus hits the M32 queue into town. Death to Bust Rabid Transit will save us all but the fee for Atkins, who in 2005 advocated conversion of the Severn Beach line to a Bust Rabid Transit. The million passengers who will ride on it this year show the stupidity of that idea, as well as the value of railways when given then the chance. Get ready for a huge bill.

Additionally, there is growing anger over the impact of the BRT3 (North Fringe to Hengrove) Metrobus route upon the environment of Stoke Park. Unsurprisingly, many of the concerns echo those raised during the BRT2 planning applications… plus, there’s a hefty war-of-words being fought over the rat-run-versus-shared-space issue on Avon Crescent.

Of course, if BCC are stupid enough to go ahead with this wretched scheme, then they deserve all the planning headaches that will be coming their way. It’s just a shame that we will be paying for it. 👿

Anybody interested in the likely impact of the BRT3 Metrobus scheme upon Stoke Park and the Stapleton Alloments can keep up-to-date via the bluefingeralliance homepage. Objections to the proposed development can be submitted online via the Council Planning portal.

Needless to say, it all makes an utter nonsense of the Green Capital rhetoric – and there are also suggestions of land speculation in advance of the scheme…. yet another delightful aspect of this godawful transport “plan”.