1 Greater Bristol: Public Transport Corridor Options Final Report January 2007

1

Greater Bristol: Public Transport Corridor Options

Final Report

January 2007

2

3

Greater Bristol: Public Transport Corridor Options

January 2007

Friday 21 April 2023

Prepared by:Steer Davies Gleave28-32 Upper Ground

London, SE1 9PD+44 (0)20 7919 8500

www.steerdaviesgleave.com

4

5

ContentsI Introduction

■ Background■ Approach to the Study

I Policy Background■ Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study■ Joint Local Transport Plan■ Regional Priorities

I Option Generation■ Corridors■ Bristol City Centre■ Long List of Options

I Option Design■ System Characteristics■ Design Parameters■ Operational Specification

I Option Assessment■ Reference Schemes■ Assessment Criteria■ Assessment Results

I Assessment SummaryI Next Steps

6

7

1. Introduction

Background I The four Councils of Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire have joined forces to

plan and deliver transport improvements through a Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP). The JLTP sets out the transport plans for the next five years (2006 to 2011) and the vision for the next 20 to 30 years.

I During the next 20 to 30 years up to a hundred thousand new homes, and at least as many new jobs, may need to be provided to sustain growth. The area has over £3 billion of potential development sites available. With appropriate investment in public infrastructure, the JLTP area has the capacity and expertise to reduce overheating in the South East without damaging the area’s high quality natural and built environment.

I Transport infrastructure is vital for this continued economic and social success. Yet the Shared Priorities work completed by the four Councils with the Department for Transport (DfT) in 2004 showed that at least £300 million is required just to address the under-investment in transport of the last 20 years. If growth is to be managed and delivered sustainability, additional investment will be required to address existing social, economic and infrastructure imbalances and deficits. It is estimated that time lost due to congestion costs the local economy some £350 million a year .

I Investment is required in a broad range of areas including bus, rail, park and ride, bus rapid transit or trams and also roads. All are critical to support economic development as well as tackling the impacts of large volumes of traffic on particular communities. A package of major schemes is being developed. This has been shaped by the outcomes of the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study. Achieving the Plan’s overall objectives and vision requires a range of major schemes to be delivered.

I The importance of the JLTP area is being recognised through the Government’s new Regional Funding Allocation system for prioritising major transport schemes. As shown in Table 10.1 of the JLTP, eight major schemes in the JLTP area, including three Bus Rapid Transit schemes, are included in the list for funding during 2006 to 2016. A further 10 schemes are recognised as strategically important but requiring further work before they can be approved in this process.

I In February 2006 Steer Davies Gleave was commissioned by the JLTP Team to look at options for the delivery of Second Generation Public Transport Improvements for the Unitary Authorities of Bath and Northeast Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire Councils, referred to in this report as “Greater Bristol”.

8

Approach to the Study I Options for the introduction of Second Generation Public Transport Systems, or Rapid Transit Systems, have already, to varying

degrees, been studied or proposed in Greater Bristol for some years. These options range from previous light rail proposals through to identification of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors in the regional priorities, draft Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS) and the Provisional Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP).

I The JLTP authorities are already implementing significant bus improvements through the Greater Bristol Bus Network (GBBN) bid. The bid contains a comprehensive set of bus network improvements for the area. These improvements aim to deliver significant benefit to bus users. The question for this study was therefore “how could an improvement in public transport, over and above the benefits of the GBBN proposals, be achieved?”

I The task of this study was to take all the work undertaken to date, as well as undertaking an independent analysis of what options there are for delivering BRT in Greater Bristol. To do this a two stage process was undertaken:

■ Stage 1: Generation of a long list of potential corridors; and■ Stage 2: Distillation of the long list in to a prioritised set of options or programme of implementation proposals.

I This process is illustrated in Figure 1.1.I From early on in the study it became apparent that the key focus for BRT in Greater Bristol is to provide a ‘step-change’ in public

transport provision, that is, to provide a new and different offer in the transport market that could provide current car drivers a comparable alternative. This study, as is reflected in this report, has deliberately focussed on options that are most likely to achieve modal shift from car and are considered to be deliverable in the current physical, policy, acceptability and funding environments.

ConsultationI The study has been undertaken in consultation with officers from all four Authorities. This has mainly been through a number of

workshops, firstly to understand the context and background of the proposals and establish the key success factors for the study (this is discussed later); and, secondly to obtain feedback on the progress of options at the long-list stage.

I In addition to this, some external consultation has been undertaken with two key stakeholders: First Group who are the main bus operator in Greater Bristol and Network Rail. Discussions with these organisations have informed the assessment of issues and risks associated with options. First Group has also provided initial views on the operational specification and possible services that may use the BRT infrastructure.

9

Figure 1.1: Study Process

Background

Option Design

Option Generation

Joint LTP

Regional Priorities

Objectives

BRT Potential Lines

Corridors

On Street Sections

Long List Options

Option Assessment(Corridors/Alignments)

System Characteristics

Design Parameters

(Key Success Factors)

Operations Specification

Reference Schemes

Assessment Criteria

Scheme Objectives

NATA

Deliverability / Viability

GBSTS

Stage 1

Stage 2

10

11

2. Policy / Background

Regional Policy

Regional Economic StrategyI The Regional Economic Strategy (RES), Final Draft February 2006, sets objectives, regional priorities and delivery activity for the

period 2006-2015. I It has three strategic objectives :

■ Successful and competitive businesses.■ Strong and inclusive communities.■ An effective confident region.

I Within the these strategic objectives sits a number of regional priorities. Regional Priority 3A is to improve transport networks by ensuring that poor journey times from parts of the region to major markets do not constrain productivity. It aims to reduce journey times to major markets and increase the reliability of public transport infrastructure. The RES recognises that Bristol has a lead role as a city-region of international, national and regional significance to strengthen the region’s economic base. Therefore improving journey times to and from Greater Bristol and the reliability of public transport are seen as key to regional prosperity.

Integrated Regional StrategyI The aims of the Integrated Regional Strategy (IRS), November 2004 are to:

■ harness the benefits of population growth and manage the implications of population change;■ enhance our distinctive environments and the quality and diversity of our cultural life;■ enhance our economic prosperity and quality of employment opportunity; and■ address deprivation and disadvantage to reduce significant intra-regional inequalities.

I This again focuses on the importance of good quality access to employment across the sub-region and a sustainable transport system to support planned growth.

Draft Regional Spatial StrategyI The draft Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) sets a framework for the location and scale of development in the region and the links

between broad issues such as healthcare, education and crime, as well as infrastructure such as transport. It aims to protect the existing qualities of the region whilst making provision for sufficient new homes, jobs and facilities to meet the needs of a growing and increasingly affluent population.

I The draft RSS notes that the population in the South West is forecast to increase by more than 750,000 by 2026; this equates to around 25,000 dwellings a year. It recognises Bath, Bristol and Weston-super-Mare as strategically significant towns and cities where significant growth is planned in order to support their economic and service role and regeneration.

I One of the key priorities for investment to support the RSS is “investment in urban transport systems and demand management with a step change in public transport support, with investment to enable high growth to be accommodated”.

12

I The RSS makes a number of strategy statements. Those of most relevance to Greater Bristol and development of BRT are:■ SR2 – balanced growth for the three urban areas of Bath, Bristol and Weston-super-Mare.■ SR4 – provision on average of about 3,200 dwellings per annum within and adjoining Bristol’s urban area. Provision of around

40,000 dwellings complemented by the provision of urban extensions including 10,500 south west of Bristol, 6,000 south east of Bristol, 8,000 north and north east of Bristol.

■ SR5 – provision of an urban extension for up to 1,500 dwellings to the south/southwest of Bath.■ SR6 – provision of about 600 dwellings per annum within and adjoining Weston-super-Mare’s urban area. Provision of around

9,000 dwellings complemented by the provision of urban extensions to the east of Weston-super-Mare.I SR4, SR5 and SR6 all also state that “investment will be made in infrastructure to enable the achievement of the development

proposed”.

Draft Regional Transport StrategyI The draft Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) updates RPG10 and is being reviewed as part of the draft RSS.I The draft RTS sets regional priorities for the West of England area (Greater Bristol); those of note include:

■ Development of a strategic public transport network to reduce reliance on the car and reduce congestion and pollution and improve safety.

■ Guided/concept bus and bus ‘showcase’ corridors and partnerships.■ Investment to facilitate major development as proposed in the RSS and to address the infrastructure deficit from past levels of

growth.

Regional Funding Allocation ProcessI The Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) prioritisation process established a list of 'regional priorities' recommended to Government as the

preferred schemes for funding in the South West.I The priorities for investment of the Transport RFA funding set out by the Regional Assembly are:

■ Promoting more sustainable patterns of transport.■ Supporting development and economic activity in the strategically significant towns and cities through improved public

transport, demand management, and selectively providing for new roads.■ Improving the reliability and resilience on inter and intra-regional connectivity through a strategic road route into the region

from London, on regionally significant transport corridors and on other transport corridors■ Tacking access to jobs and delivery of services in rural areas.■ Delivering against DfT/Regional shared priorities.

I The importance of Greater Bristol has been recognised with a number of schemes identified in the first round of prioritisation. This includes the four rapid transit corridors identified in the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study as detailed below. The first three of these schemes are included in the current list of regional funding/investment with the first line planned for implementation in 2011.

13

Local Transport Policy

Joint Local Transport PlanI The Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP) was published in March 2006. It set out the West of England Partnership key delivery priorities

as:■ Achieving a transport system that is capable of accommodating the proposed level of growth ■ Reducing dependence on the car and delivering a step-change in public transport provision that is reliable, safe,

affordable and accessible.■ Significant development of the heavy rail network.■ Strategic rapid transit network delivering an attractive alternative to the car■ Selective additional highway capacity■ Selective additional strategic links to motorways and other trunk route developments.■ Potential demand management proposals.

I There is a major role for the JLTP in helping to deliver the Partnership’s key priorities. The JLTP has five main aims to:■ tackle congestion.■ improve road safety.■ improve air quality.■ improve accessibility.■ improve quality of life.

I The JLTP promotes a number of key major schemes to achieve its policies. These include three BRT routes:■ BRT Phase 1 – Hengrove/North Fringe.■ BRT Phase 2 – Bristol International Airport/Ashton Vale/Emerson’s Green.■ BRT Phase 3 – Bath to Cribbs Causeway.

I Other related schemes promoted by the JLTP are:■ Showcase Bus Routes.■ Bath Bus Rapid Transit.■ South Bristol Ring Road.■ New and expanded Park and Ride.■ Callington Road Link.■ North Fringe Transport Package.

14

Greater Bristol Strategic Transport StudyI The Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS) addresses the current and strategic transport needs in Greater Bristol up to

2031. It identified a preferred strategy which focuses on five main areas:■ Measures to encourage alternative modes – smarter choices including travel plans and awareness raising activities.■ Public transport measures – supports bus based schemes both conventional and development of a BRT system.■ Highway measures – development of some additional highway capacity.■ Freight measures – consolidation, focus on freight routes and rail freight.■ Demand management measures – identified a phased approach for demand management.

I The GBSTS is based on projections for spatial development as part of the RSS. This totals 138,000 additional dwellings distributed between brownfield sites (65,000) and greenfield sites (73,000). The majority of this development is at Ashton Vale (15,000 houses/6,500 jobs), Whitchurch (10,000 houses/6,000 jobs), Emerson’s Green/Pucklechurch (10,000 houses/10,000 jobs), Harry Stoke (4,500 houses/ 4,000 jobs), Keynsham (3,000 houses/1,500 jobs) and Cribbs Causeway (2,500 houses/5,400 jobs). Significant growth for Bristol International Airport is also anticipated with 12 million passengers per annum forecast by 2030, up from the current 4 million passengers.

I Potential BRT LinesI The GBSTS sets out a network of potential BRT lines. These build on the series of improved bus corridors within the Showcase bus

schemes in the Greater Bristol Bus Network bid. An assessment was made of the expected demand levels for each corridor. The best-performing corridors were:

1. Hengrove to North Fringe and Cribbs Causeway. 2. Ashton Vale to Emersons Green.3. Bath – Cribbs Causeway. 4. Whitchurch – Avonmouth/Portishead.

I The GBSTS potential BRT lines are shown in Figure 2.1.I The development of the BRT proposals was based on a system using guided bus with levels of segregation where practical. The

potential lines were tested using the Greater Bristol Model. This assumed all other elements of the GBSTS strategy to be in place, and indicated a high level of demand for rapid transit, with up to 20,000 trips per hour on the system in the morning peak period in 2031. In addition, there was an increase of around 2,000 in trips by park and ride, with passengers taking advantage of the improved services by BRT from Long Ashton, Brislington, Whitchurch, Emerson’s Green, Avonmouth, Hambrook and Bristol Parkway park and ride sites.

I Objectives I The GBSTS states the aim of Second Generation Public Transport Improvements in Greater Bristol as “to provide high quality

alternatives to the private car”. To deliver this, the GBSTS objectives of BRT in Greater Bristol are to:■ extend choice of transport modes for all, in particular for private car drivers to encourage a shift to public transport.■ promote sustainable development by providing high quality public transport links.■ improve access to public transport in areas that currently have poor provision.■ improve integration of the public transport network.■ promote social inclusion by improving access to employment, retail, community, leisure and educational facilities.■ improve safety along the corridor by providing a high quality public transport alternative to the private car.

15

Figure 2.1: GBSTS Identified Potential Bus Rapid Transit Corridors

Rapid transit corridors

Ashton Vale to Emersons Green

Corridor type

Hartcliffe to North Fringe

Bath to Cribbs Causeway

Whitchurch to Portishead

Prioritised route

Busway

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material w ith permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Of fice.© Crow n Copyright. All rights reserved. ODPM licence number: 100018986

Source: Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study, Atkins, November 2005

16

17

3. Option Design

I It is clear from regional and local policy that a ‘step-change’ in the provision of public transport is desired, and required, in Greater Bristol to address the existing issues of congestion and sustaining economic growth but also, importantly, to support the planned growth of the area in a sustainable way.

I The option generation process therefore started by looking at what characteristics a transport system would need to contribute to these policy objectives.

System CharacteristicsI In order for public transport to offer an attractive, competitive choice to car it must be:

■ a choice users can make – it goes between the right origins and destinations and does not have barriers to use.■ a choice users know they can make – it is easy to use and well known for this.■ a choice users want to make again – the time, effort and cost involved does not deter repeat use.

I Using this framework, the characteristics BRT services must therefore be:■ Stops must be in a reasonable walk distance from key origins and destinations.■ The system (vehicles and infrastructure) must be high quality and DDA compliant.■ Services must be reasonably affordable compared with the real costs of other journey options.■ Services must offer fast journey times and journey time reliability when compared with car.■ Services must be frequent and easy to remember - ‘turn up and go’ or clock-face timing.■ The system must offer simple to understand routing, including interchange opportunities. Users should know where to find

information on routes, service frequencies, first/last services and fares.■ The system must have high quality waiting areas.■ The system must be designed to maximise safety and the perception of safety.■ The system must offer high quality information, particularly when things are not running to schedule.

I As important are key local considerations as specified in policy or arising from workshops with officers. These are:■ The system needs to overcome ‘congestion hotspots’ – priority at road junctions and segregated right of way.■ Good penetration of Bristol City Centre is required – direct routes to key destinations e.g. shops, rail stations, hospitals etc.■ Sufficient road network capacity needs to be retained in key areas, particularly on the inner ring road in Bristol City Centre.■ The system needs to serve the major new development areas providing a high-quality, high-speed, public transport link

between these locations and central Bristol.■ New cross-Greater Bristol linkages need to be created to improve accessibility in the area.■ BRT needs to complement and integrate with the network of Showcase bus corridors.

18

Operational Specification

Operational ApproachesI There are broadly two operational approaches to rapid transit systems. These are:

■ Open Access System – any vehicle, provided it meets certain quality criteria, can use the rapid transit infrastructure.■ Closed System – a series of specified vehicles use the system only, similar to a LRT system. Other vehicles do not have

access to the system.I Given the objectives of providing a way for a range of services to overcome congestion hotspots, an open access system has

been assumed in the design and assessment of options.

Service CharacteristicsI Broad service characteristics were developed to understand the infrastructure requirements. Of importance in achieving modal

shift was the need for fast and reliable services with end to end journey times at least as quick as the equivalent car journey. In terms of service reliability an aspiration of services achieving at least 90% of their timetabled service frequency and journey times was established. This is to ensure that the system is not only reliable but is seen to be so by the public.

I The system should be flexible with the ability to adapt service patterns to fit with changes in travel patterns or to serve new areas as they are developed. Services should be able to leave and join the networl at different points.

I To provide a ‘step-change’ in public transport the system must have high frequency services or a ‘turn up and go’ level of service such that passengers do not need to use a timetable. Service frequencies will be refined as the demand for services is assessed. At this stage indicative frequencies are:

■ Peak: minimum 5 minute frequency on core sections, 10 minute frequency on outer sections (average wait times of 2.5 minutes and 5 minutes respectively).

■ Off peak: minimum 15 minute frequency (average wait times of 7.5 minutes).I Ticket prices has been raised as a particular concern in Greater Bristol. It has been assumed that they will be comparable with

other bus fares and that tickets would be able to be used on any BRT service, that is interoperability between services and operators.

ServicesI Under an Open-Access system there will be a mix of services including:

■ New services introduced specifically to make use of the network by running from end to end of the busway.■ Existing services diverted to use the busway for avioding congested roads, this is likely to be particularly the case on the

approaches to Bristol City Centre.■ There is also potential for new services to be introduced as a result of faster journey times and operational efficiency

which could use the busway from some sections of the journey and then leave the busway to penetrate suburban areas.I Potential BRT services and existing bus services which could benefit from busway infrastructure are shown in Figure 3.1

19

Figure 3.1 Example of Potential BRT Services

Insert figure 3.1

20

21

Design ParametersI These system characteristics and operational requirements were then translated in to design parameters to ensure that options

generated met the aspirations of the BRT system. Design parameters for the individual elements are detailed below and examples shown in Figure 3.2

InfrastructureI To achieve fast and reliable journey times significantly better than existing public transport options an objective of 100%

segregation for the busway was established. Although it is recognised that through the development of the BRT system this objective may not be achievable given a trade-off between cost and benefit, it was felt that designing for 100% segregation at this stage was an important aspiration. Similarly priority at all highway junctions for BRT vehicles has also been assumed.

I Retention (including diversion or improvement) of existing pedestrians and cyclists facilities was considered an important design feature to avoid any disincentive to their use and to reduce the risk of opposition to any scheme due to the loss of existing facilities.

I Options were designed to maximise interchange possibilities with other modes including car, bus, rail, cycle and existing pedestrian networks.

VehiclesI Vehicles compliant with all relevant UK / European regulations and standards to ensure there are no problems in achieving the

necessary approvals for vehicle operation on public highways.I Vehicles must have low or zero emissions and the use of alternative, efficient fuels is to be encouraged where appropriate.I High levels of passenger comfort and security.I Level boarding and alighting.I Real time passenger information.I Distinctive branding to clearly distinguish services from other regular bus services as part of an overall system branding.

StopsI Level boarding and alighting (platforms to be provided at all stations). Aids for the mobility and visually impaired at all stations.I Real time passenger information.I Off-board ticketing to minimise stop dwell times.I High quality and convenient interchange with other modes of transport.I Shelters and passenger seating at all stations to ensure waiting passengers are protect from the elements. The size of the shelter

to be determined by the likely peak period accumulation of waiting passengers at each station.I High standard of lighting at all stations to ensure the personal security of waiting passengers.I All stations to be able to accommodate one articulated vehicle, or two standard vehicles with, potentially, multiple boarding and

alighting doors.I Distinctive branding to clearly distinguish from other regular bus stops.I Good access to stops including dedicated crossing facilities to negotiate junctions and convenient and safe pedestrian and cyclist

links.

22

Integrated System Design I As BRT systems consist of different elements including services, vehicles, stops, busway infrastructure, passenger information etc.

co-ordinated design and operation of the different elements is required way to provide a recognisable “system” to passengers.I This systemic concept is important in supporting the overall attractiveness of the system such that a system is identifiable rather

than its individual elements.I It is also vital that the system is integrated in to the urban fabric with good quality links to existing walking and cycling networks

and integrated in to new development where possible. This requires a high standard of branding and effective marketing of the system’s potential to stakeholders such as developers and local businesses.

23

Figure 3.2 Examples of Busway Elements Design

Infrastructure

Segregated On-Street Sections Segregated Corridors

Level boarding and alighting

Vehicles

Stops

‘Tram-style’ interiorsNew, modern vehicles Multi-door passenger boarding

Segregated Corridors – within highway

Shelters and passenger seatingOff-board ticketingHigh quality, safe stops Real time information

24

25

4. Option Generation

I Bus Rapid Transit options have been designed in a “Hub and Spoke” approach, that is, to provide key Bristol City Centre destinations at which some or all of the BRT services could serve and/or provide interchange opportunities. This approach is shown in Figure 4.1

I The benefit of this approach has been to:■ Separate city centre running sections from corridor sections which would have different issues and assessment criteria in

terms of option selection.■ Separate the ‘common sections’ of routes - the aim of this study is to prioritise between route options.■ To separately review the role and function of Bristol City Centre routes and how this works with existing bus services.

I Therefore the assessment has been separated in to Corridors and Bristol City Centre Options:■ City Centre Options:

A: City Centre – Loop Option B: City Centre – Direct Through Route(s) Option C: City Centre – Tram Alignment Option

■ Corridor Options D: Ashton Vale to Bristol City Centre E: Hengrove/Hartcliffe to Bristol City Centre F: Bath to Bristol City Centre G: Whitchurch to Bristol City Centre H: North Fringe to Bristol City Centre I: Cribbs Causeway to Bristol City Centre J: Emerson’s Green to Bristol City Centre K: Avonmouth/Portishead to Bristol City Centre L: Bristol Internal Airport to Bristol City Centre

Corridors I The starting point for the generation of corridor options was the four potential BRT lines identified in the GBSTS. These were

effectively then truncated at the point where they meet the central BRT stops to form eight main corridors. Specific route alignments within these corridors were then generated.

I The corridor options generated are summarised below.

26

Filton

Lockleaze

Cribbs Causeway

Bath

Knowle

Whitchurch

Bedminster

Hartcliffe

Emerson’s Green

Mangotsfield

Wells and Bridgwater / Yeovil

Midsomer Norton and Radstock

Keynsham

BrislingtonWeston-super-MareBristol International

Airport

Weston-super-MareClevedonNailsea

Fishponds

Figure 4.1: Hub and Spoke

Existing Services: Inner Urban Services

Existing Services: Outer Services

BRT-only Services

Bristol City Centre

Weston-super-MarePortisheadAvonmouth

The Downs

Westbury On Trym

Stoke Gifford

Pucklechurch Yate

Kingswood

Frenchay

WinterbourneChipping Sodbury

Thornbury

27

D: Ashton Vale to Bristol City CentreI The route from Ashton Vale to Bristol City Centre could serve the current park and ride site at Long Ashton and the potential new

development at Ashton Vale and provide an important link to Bristol City Centre. Two main options were identified to link these two areas:

I D1: Ashton Vale P&R to Bristol City Centre via Cumberland Road I A fully segregated two-lane busway running from Prince Street at a point to the south of the Bristol Industrial Museum, connecting

with the railway line alignment running along the south side of the Floating Harbour adjacent Cumberland Road, crossing the River Avon on the existing Ashton Avenue Bridge and then connecting through to the Long Ashton Park & Ride site via an alignment through the proposed Ashton Vale development. Use of the railway alignment means that a segregated alignment largely exists. The main issue would be the connection across the freight line to Portishead and the connection in to the new development.

I D2: Ashton Vale P&R to Bristol City Centre via Parson StreetI A fully segregated two-lane busway running from Prince Street across a new bridge over the River Avon connecting to St Johns Road

and Dalby Avenue to join the existing railway south of Bedminster Station. It would continue to run parallel to the railway south of the existing Ashton Vale development before crossing the railway and turning north to run through the proposed new Ashton Vale development area and terminating at Long Ashton Park & Ride. There are a number of feasibility issues with the use of the railway corridor as there is not sufficient room within the alignment for two-way segregation along the entire alignment particularly in the vicinity of Parson Street Rail Station where even single lane operation appears infeasible. A further issue would be the crossing of the operational mainline railway and the connection in to the new development.

I Other options considered at the option generation stage were running via Hotwells Road (northern section of the Inner Ring Road) and Anchor Road, Cumberland Road (southern section of the Inner Ring Road) in to Bedminster Bridge. Both of these were dismissed as, in our view, they offered no significant difference to the more direct route via the railway alignment and both would take road space on the Inner Ring Road.

I Both option D1 and D2 are separate from the proposed Greater Bristol Bus Network Improvements on Corridor 8 (A370) and Corridor 9 (A369) and should therefore be complementary.

I The busway alignment to Ashton Vale could also benefit services to/from Weston-super-Mare, Portishead, Nailsea and Clevedon as well as services to/from Bristol International Airport (options L1 and L2).

28

E: Hengrove/Hartcliffe to Bristol City CentreI The route from Hengrove/Hartcliffe links the existing southern suburbs at Hartcliffe and proposed development at Hengrove Park to

Bristol City Centre. BRT services could also serve the intermediate areas of Bishopsworth, Headley Park, Lower Knowle, Bedminster and Windmill Hill. Bus routes benefiting from the busway infrastructure would be existing services in south Bristol including most services that run on Bedminster Parade. Five options were generated for this corridor:

I E1: Hengrove/Hartcliffe to Bristol City Centre on-street I A partially segregated two-lane busway running along existing roads from Bedminster Bridge down along East Street and Hartcliffe

Way to Hartcliffe and Hengrove. To achieve the necessary level of segregation, major road widening would be required along much of the route. Only on Hartcliffe Way south of the Malago Greenway is there sufficient space for a segregated busway. Over the rest of the route, significant land acquisition and demolition would be required, with a very large impact on commercial and residential property and existing communities. This option replicates the Showcase 76/77 route.

I E2: Hengrove/Hartcliffe to Bristol City Centre via Parson Street and Ashton Vale I A partially segregated two-lane busway following the alignment of D2 to Ashton Vale then along Winterstoke Road and Hartcliffe

Way to Hartcliffe and Hengrove. This option diverges from Option D1 at Ashton Gate to run along Winterstoke Road to Parson Street, then with Option E3 along Hartcliffe Way. Some widening of Winterstoke Road would be required. Much of its length is bounded by open space or wide verges so this could be achieved without major land take. A small amount of property acquisition would be required at various points but this would be mainly parking or landscaping.

I E3: Hengrove/Hartcliffe to Bristol City Centre via Parson St and railway line I A fully segregated two-lane busway running from Prince Street across a new bridge over the River Avon connecting to St Johns Road

and Dalby Avenue to join the existing railway south of Bedminster Station. It would then run parallel to the railway line, join the road network at Parson Street Railway Station and then continue down Hartcliffe Way to Hartcliffe and Hengrove. From Parson Street Railway Station the route uses part of the Hartcliffe Way carriageway with some widening to accommodate the busway. At the northern end this would require some commercial property acquisition which is mainly parking and landscaping at present. South of Bedminster Fire Station, where the Malago runs alongside the road briefly, the alignment runs in open space on the east side of Hartcliffe Way as a segregated busway.

29

I E4: Hengrove/Hartcliffe to Bristol City Centre via Malago Greenway I A fully segregated two-lane busway running from Prince Street across a new bridge over the River Avon connecting to St Johns Road

and Dalby Avenue up to the existing railway and then continuing along the alignment of the Malago Greenway to Hartcliffe and Hengrove, retaining the existing cyclist and pedestrian facilities. The alignment of this option is the same as Option E3 except for the section between Windmill Hill and Bedminster Fire Station, where it follows the course of the Malago Greenway.

I Further options were looked at as part of potentially using the proposed South Bristol Ring Road (SBRR) alignment. This proposed new corridor could provide new radial or part radial route alignments for BRT. These options would be dependant on delivery of the SBBR and adequate space being made available as part of that scheme.

I Two options were considered:

I E5: Whitchurch to Bristol City Centre via Hengrove/Hartcliffe and the Malago Green Way I A fully or partially segregated two-lane busway following the alignment of E4, then following the South Bristol Ring Road (SBRR)

alignment to connect to Whitchurch. This option use the Hengrove to Hicks Gate section to access Whitchurch.

I G3: Hengrove/Hartcliffe via Whitchurch and the Callington Link Road. This options is discussed below.

I The route identified in the GBSTS for Hengrove/Hartcliffe to Bristol City Centre was for services to operate within the existing highway with local priority measures, taking advantage of reduced traffic flows on the A37 associated with the SBRR. Use of the A37 has been considered under options to Whitchurch (Option G2).

30

F: Bath to Bristol City CentreI The route from Bath to Bristol City Centre links the two areas and intermediate locations such as Keynsham. This link can be achieved

in a number of ways by running BRT services:■ between the two areas;■ between Line 1 of the BRT system in Bath and Bristol City Centre through interchange with Line 1 at the Newbridge Park and

Ride site (Bath Package); or■ between Bath Road Park and Ride site and Bristol City Centre.

I The route between the two areas is approximately 17 miles. A heavy rail service of at least two fast trains per hour (with a journey time of 15 minutes) serves both centres with a stopping service also serving Keynsham and Oldfield Park. The A4 is also a proposed Greater Bristol Bus Network Corridor, Corridor 3. This will provide improved bus priority mainly within the existing highway.

I At the option generation stage it was decided that options linking the Bath Road Park and Ride site to Bristol City Centre would be looked at. This was on the basis that the Bath to Bristol corridor would be a long route serving an area already directly served by heavy rail with planned bus priority measures. It was considered that providing a segregated alignment to the Bath Road Park and Ride could provide buses serving Bath segregation where the majority of the congestion exists and bus priority would be used for the remainder of the route. Services such as the Bath Road Park and Ride service, the Bath services X39 and 178 and Keynsham service 349 could benefit from this option.

I In addition to looking at options to the Bath Road Park and Ride, and to ensure consistency with the approach to other corridors, an option using the disused Bath Railway Path was also considered as this would provide a different alignment and journey opportunities to the A4 corridor.

I F1: Bath Road Park & Ride to Bristol City Centre via the A4 I A partially segregated two-lane busway running along existing roads from the Bath Bridge along the A4. To achieve the necessary level

of segregation, major road widening would be required along much of the route. Some priority has already been achieved with bus lanes, but significant land acquisition and demolition would be required, with a large impact on commercial and residential property.

I F2: Bath Road Park & Ride to Bristol City Centre via Callington Link RoadI A partially segregated two-lane busway running from Temple Meads Railway Station through St Philip’s Marsh joining the Callington

Road Link alignment to the A4174 Callington Road then using the A4174 and A4 to the existing Bath Road Park & Ride. This option makes use of the former Whitchurch railway alignment between Bristol City Centre and Callington Road and then diverges to run on Callington Road and Bath Road to the existing park & ride site.

I F3: Bath to Bristol City Centre via Bristol to Bath Railway PathI A fully segregated two-lane busway following the alignment of J2 but continuing along the Bristol to Bath Railway Path to the

Newbridge Park & Ride site outside Bath.

31

G: Whitchurch to Bristol City CentreI The route from Whitchurch to Bristol City Centre would serve a major new residential developments at Whitchurch together with the

proposed park and ride site adjacent to the A37, and existing locations such as Knowle and Brislington. Services which could benefit include the 375/376 to Yeovil/Bridgwater and services to Whitchurch, Stockwood and Rookery Farm. Three options have been identified:

I G1: Whitchurch to Bristol City Centre via A37I A partially segregated two-lane busway running along existing roads from Bedminster Bridge along the A37 to Whitchurch. To

achieve the necessary level of segregation, major road widening would be required along much of the route. North of Callington Road, bus lanes are already provided in one direction where practicable, but to increase the level of priority would again require extensive land acquisition and demolition. Similarly there would be very large impacts on property (mainly residential), on existing communities and on servicing and access. The A37 is also a proposed Greater Bristol Bus Network Corridor, Corridor 6.

I G2: Whitchurch to Bristol City Centre via Callington Link RoadI A fully segregated two-lane Busway following the alignment of F2 directly to the proposed Whitchurch Park & Ride site. Between

Callington Road and West Town Lane, the recent development at Hither Bath Bridge occupies the railway alignment. While a narrow strip has been left between new and existing development, this is not sufficient to accommodate a two lane busway without some acquisition, and the busway would still be very close to gardens. Two alternative routes to avoid this problem have been identified which involve either a deviation to the east, following the stream between the Sports Ground and Knowle Golf Course or a shorter deviation to the west, skirting the Hither Bath Bridge development and rejoining the railway at West Town Lane. Approaching Whitchurch, the busway alignment diverges again from the old railway to the east before curving to cross the A37 Bristol Road.

I G3: Hengrove/Hartcliffe route continuing along the South Bristol Ring RoadI A fully or partially segregated two-lane busway following the alignment of G2 but continuing along the SBRR to connect with

Hengrove and/or Hartcliffe.

32

H: North Fringe to Bristol City CentreI The North Fringe to Bristol City Centre corridor would potentially serve a large area including a potential new park and ride site, the

proposed Harry Stoke development, Bristol Parkway station, the core of the existing major Bradley Stoke development, potential development at Filton Northfield, Aztec West and Cribbs Causeway.There have been eight options identified:

I H1: M32 Southern Park & Ride to Bristol City Centre via river alignmentI A fully segregated two-lane busway running from Broadmead along a new alignment to the rear of the new Broadmead development

and along the River Frome to link with the M32 at the Easton Way junction and continuing along the south side of the M32 to a new park and ride site at Broomhill. This would involve decking of the River Frome (the river is already culverted to the west of Wade Street), declassification of the M32 and new access ramps to/from the M32 to the park and ride site. This option replicates the proposed GBBN, Corridor 1 to the Easton Way junction.

I H2: M32 Southern Park and Ride to Bristol City Centre via Newfoundland RoadI A fully segregated two-lane busway running from Broadmead along Newfoundland Road to link with the M32, continuing along the

south side of the M32 to a new park and ride site at Broomhill. This option is the same as H1 except the section between the new Broadmead development and the Easton Way junction would be on the existing highway. This option replicates part of the proposed GBBN, Corridor 1.

I H3: Bradley Stoke to Bristol City Centre via H1/H2I A partially or fully segregated two-lane busway using either the H1 or H2 alignment, leaving the M32 at a new park and ride site at

Broomhill to continue along Stoke Way to the University of Western England (UWE), Bristol Parkway Railway Station and Bradley Stoke. This option builds on the H1 and H2 options to provide further segregation for services to the North Fringe.

I H4: M32 Northern Park and Ride to Bristol City CentreI A fully segregated two-lane busway using either the H3 alignment up to the A4174 Avon Ring Road but heading east to connect to a

new park and ride site to the north continuing along the M32 to junction 1. This option replicates part of the proposed GBBN, Corridor 1.

I H5: Filton Abbey Wood to Bristol City Centre via railway alignmentI A fully segregated route using the H1/H2 alignment from the City centre to Stapleton Road where the busway would divert to run

parallel to the railway largely on the previously identified Light Rail alignment. Services serving the North Fringe could access the busway at a point near Filton Abbey Wood railway station.

33

I H6: Cribbs Causeway to Bristol City Centre via Filton Abbey Wood and railway alignmentI A fully segregated two-lane busway using the H5 alignment and then continuing on a segregated alignment over a new bridge

through to the proposed development at Filton Northfield and connecting to Cribbs Causeway. New bridges would be needed to cross the main line operational railway.

I H7: Bradley Stoke to Bristol City Centre via railway alignmentI A partially or fully segregated two-lane busway using the H5 alignment and then continuing to Bradley Stoke via Bristol Parkway

Railway Station. A new bridge would be needed to cross the mainline operational railway.

I H8: Cribbs Causeway to Bristol City Centre via H1/H2I A fully segregated two-lane busway using the H1 or H2 alignment and then continuing to Cribbs Causeway connecting UWE, Harry

Stoke, Bristol Parkway railway station, Filton Northfield and Cribbs Causeway.

I Options H1, H2 and H4 replicate the proposed Greater Bristol Bus Network Corridor, Corridor 1. Option H3 and H8 could build on the proposed GBBN, Corridor 4.

I The GBSTS route used partial segregation on highway. This has not been included as an option as it replicates the proposed GBBN, Corridor 2 and there are other segregated options in the corridor.

34

I: Cribbs Causeway to Bristol City CentreI The Cribbs Causeway to Bristol City Centre corridor focuses on options that link Cribbs Causeway with Bristol City Centre via the

A4018, that is approaching Bristol City centre from the northwest. This route would serve intermediate demand through Henbury, Westbury and Clifton.

I The ability to establish a two lane busway along this corridor is severely restricted as the highway is narrow and properties and frontages are close to the highway boundary. Some sections of two lane busway could be achieved through College Green and cross the Downs on Westbury Road but this is limited. For the majority of the corridor bus priority is the only potential solution without significant land take and demolition of property. Two options have been identified:

I I1: Cribbs Causeway to Bristol City Centre via Whiteladies RoadI A partially segregated two-lane busway using the A4018 Whiteladies Road mainly using priority measures on the approaches to

Clifton Down up Whiteladies Road and Blackboy Hill and across the Downs. This option replicates the proposed GBBN, Corridor 2.This route is the same as that identified in the GBSTS.

I I2: Cribbs Causeway to via Gloucester RoadI A partially segregated two-lane busway using the I1 alignment but then joining the K2 alignment at Clifton Downs Railway Station to

access the A38 to continue to Bristol City Centre. At Station Road a structure is required to access the Severn Beach Railway line to provide segregation up to Clifton Down Station, from there the route follows I1 to Cribbs Causeway.

35

J: Emerson’s Green to Bristol City CentreI The Emerson’s Green to Bristol City Centre corridor links new development at Emerson’s Green and existing areas such as

Mangotsfield, Fishponds and Easton to Bristol City Centre. Services that could benefit from the busway in this corridor include services to Yate and Chipping Sodbury as well as urban services to Mangotsfield, Kingswood, Fishponds and Stapleton.

I J1: Emerson’s Green via A432I A partially segregated two-lane busway running along existing roads from the new Broadmead site along the M32 and A432 to

Emerson’s Green. To achieve the necessary level of segregation, major road widening would be required along much of the route which would require significant land and property impacts. This option replicates the proposed GBBN, Corridor 5 and is the route proposed by the GBSTS.

I J2: Emerson’s Green via the Bristol to Bath Railway PathI A fully segregated two-lane busway from Temple Meads Railway Station along the Bristol to Bath Railway Path to Emerson’s Green

South and then continuing along the A4174 Avon Ring Road to the proposed Emerson’s Green development, retaining the existing pedestrian and cyclist facilities. The section between the Kingsland Road Bridge and the Lawrence Road Bridge would require some land take to industrial properties in the Kingsland Trading Estate as well as realignment of the railway sidings. This option could build on the proposed GBBN, Corridor 5.

I J2a: Fishponds via the Bristol to Bath Railway PathI As for Option J2, a fully segregated two-lane busway from Temple Meads Railway Station along the Bristol to Bath Railway Path but

terminating at a new bus interchange at Fishponds. Existing pedestrian and cyclist facilities would be retained.

36

K: Avonmouth/Portishead to Bristol City CentreI The Avonmouth/Portishead to Bristol City Centre corridor would link Avonmouth/Portishead to Bristol City Centre and serve

intermediate areas such as Sea Mills and Shirehampton and the existing Portway Park and Ride. The GBSTS looked at using the rail corridor and replacing the existing rail service with BRT services. There are two options where the railway alignment could be accessed, at the Clifton Downs railway station and near the Montpelier railway station. A third option is to use road space on the A4 Portway.

I K1: Avonmouth/Portishead to Bristol City Centre via Railway Line and Whiteladies RdI A partially segregated two-lane busway running along the A4018 Whiteladies Road to Clifton Down Railway Station where the

busway uses the existing railway alignment to Avonmouth.

I K2: Avonmouth/Portishead to Bristol City Centre via Railway Line and Gloucester RdI A partially segregated two-lane busway running along the A38 Gloucester Road to a point west of the existing Montpelier Railway

Station where the busway uses the existing railway alignment to Avonmouth.

I K3: Avonmouth/Portishead to Bristol City Centre via A4 PortwayI A partially segregated two-lane Busway running along the A4 Portway to the existing Portway Park and Ride sire and continue on to

Avonmouth and/or Portishead.

37

L: Airport to Bristol City CentreI The Airport to Bristol City Centre corridor is an extension of the Ashton Vale to Bristol City Centre Corridor. A two lane segregated

busway would be utilised on sections closer to Bristol City Centre supported by bus lane priority along the A38.

I L1: Airport to Bristol City Centre via A38, South Bristol Ring Road and Ashton ValeI A partially segregated two-lane busway following the alignment of D1.

I L2: Airport to Bristol City Centre via A38 and railway lineI A partially segregated two-lane busway following the alignment of D2.

M: Orbital Routes – A4174 Ring RoadI M1: A4174 Ring Road Orbital RouteI A partially segregated two-lane busway using the H8 alignment to the A4174 the running along the A4174 to Emerson’s Green. This

would replicate, in part the proposed Greater Bristol Bus Network Corridor, Corridor 7. I This option is not within one of the four corridors identified by the GBSTS but was included as a result of consultation with officers

from the four Authorities.

I The options generation exercise resulted in a total of 32 corridor options with varying degrees of segregation potential for taking forward for appraisal. These are shown in Figure 4.2.

38

Figure 4.2: Long list of Options

39

City Centre OptionsI Six potential stops for Bristol City Centre were identified as key locations to serve the majority of this area. These locations are:

■ Broadmead shopping area.■ Haymarket.■ Colston Avenue.■ Broad Quay.■ Castle Park.■ Temple Meads Railway Station.

I Four of these: Broadmead, Haymarket, Broad Quay and Temple Meads Railway Station along with a stop near the Bristol Industrial Museum have been taken as the key points (or “Hubs”) at which each of the corridors (or “spokes”) link from and connect with the city centre services.

I Service patterns through and/or around the city centre will depend on the routing of the corridor options. There are three basic patterns which could operate:

■ A: Loop Option.■ B: Direct Routes Option.■ C: Tram alignment Option.

I These are shown diagrammatically in Figure 4.3. Further detail is provide in Figure 5.2.

40

Figure 4.3: City Centre Options

41

5. Option Assessment

Assessment FrameworkI At outline appraisal has been undertaken to determine the relative costs and benefits of the options in comparison with each

other and their contribution to policy objectives. To do this the following appraisal criteria were used to differentiate the options:■ Scheme Objectives – how well the option assists in the delivery of the scheme objectives.■ NATA - the level of impact the option has in terms negative impacts, such as environment, land take and highways

impact against its positive impacts, such as number of persons using public transport and the associated safety and other such benefits.

■ Deliverability/ Viability – how deliverable the option is in terms of construction and operation and its acceptability to the public, policy makers and funders and how attractive the option is in terms of commercial attractiveness and its requirement for ongoing financial support.

I The long list of options was assessed in a two-stage process:■ Stage 1: All corridor options – A qualitative assessment against the above criteria by scoring the options from 1 to 5, 1

being strongly negative and 5 being strongly positive. The results of this outline assessment was reported in May 2006. Options were summarised as either:

High Impact / High Benefit High Impact / Low Benefit Low Impact / High Benefit Low Impact / Low Benefit

Figure 5.1: Long list of Options

High Benefits

Low Benefits

Low Impact

High Impact

D1J2

G2J2a

H6

H1

H2

E3

L2 D2

H3

H4

E4

E5

H8

G3H7

I1E2

G1

L1 F2

J1F1

I2

E1

F3K1

K2

H5

H7

■ Figure 5.1 demonstrates the results of the Stage 1 assessment.

42

I Stage 2 took the strongest rating alignment within each corridor and identified in further detail a fully segregated alignment and potential service pattern. These are referred to as “Reference Schemes” as shown in Figure 5.2. The Reference Schemes chosen were:

■ D1 – Ashton Vale to Bristol City Centre.■ E4 – Hengrove/Hartcliffe (via Malago Greenway) to Bristol City Centre.■ F2 – Bath Road P&R to Bristol City Centre.■ G2 – Whitchurch (via Callington Link Road alignment) to Bristol City Centre.■ H1 – M32 Southern P&R to Bristol City Centre.■ H4 – M32 Northern P&R to Bristol City Centre.■ H8 – Cribbs Causeway (via North Fringe, UWE and Broomhill P&R) to Bristol City Centre. ■ J2 – Emerson’s Green to Bristol City Centre.

I In addition to this, two other reference schemes were included:■ J2a – a shorter version of J2 to look at the issues of provision of the busway part way along a corridor.■ E5, Whitchurch (via Malago Greenway) and G3 Hengrove/Hartcliffe (via Callington Link Road alignment) - either of these

could provide for a potential loop on the southern section of the BRT system.I Where a qualitative assessment was undertaken corridors were scored as:

■ Strongly Positive ++■ Positive +■ Neutral o■ Negative –■ Strongly Negative --

43

Figure 5.2 Map of Reference Schemes

Insert Figure 5.2

44

45

I Although at this stage the assessment remains largely qualitative, some quantitative assessment has been undertaken in the following areas:

Passenger DemandI Demand modelling of the Reference Schemes has been undertaken by Atkins at a strategic level using the Bristol Area Transport

Study (BATS) model. At this stage there are a number of limitations on the use of this model for assessing BRT. These include:■ The model does not specifically cater for BRT corridors as it only contains three modes: car, rail and bus. ■ To gauge the range of possible demand, services have been modelled as both “Bus” Services and “Rail” Services. In

reality BRT comes somewhere between these two modes and should be reflected with its own mode constant based on the qualities of the proposed BRT scheme.

■ However, the model also assumes Rail Services require bus feeder services for passengers to access the system. This would not be the case for the BRT system. As a result, demand forecasts generated for the “rail mode” would be different than it would be for BRT. For this reason a ‘central case’ between Bus mode and Rail mode has not been able to be established.

■ For the purposes of comparing options, the Bus mode modelling results have been used. These tend to underestimate the benefits of BRT and therefore demand and benefit estimation is a conservative estimation of the BRT business case.

■ BRT services are modelled ‘on top of’ GBBN improvements. As a result, existing bus services effectively compete with BRT services and the journey time difference between bus and BRT is therefore reduced. In reality GBBN and BRT services would not be in competition within corridors and should be complementary.

■ Only the morning peak in 2011 and 2031 has been modelled. The difference in build out rates of new developments and housing within Greater Bristol is not captured until 2031, where it is all included.

I In summary, a significant degree of estimation is implicit in the results reported in the option assessment. Therefore the absolute results of the demand modelling should be treated with considerable caution. As the limitations of the current model are consistent across options however, a comparison of the relative performance of the different corridors is possible.

Capital Costs I An estimate of capital costs has been made for each Reference Scheme. The estimates are based on the latest available

information on BRT costs but no detailed engineering has been undertaken. Therefore these estimates should also be treated with caution. A risk premium of ± 30% has been applied to estimates.

46

Corridor Options: Assessment against Scheme Objectives

ObjectivesI The objectives of BRT were identified by the GBSTS as set out in Section 2. In scoring the Reference Schemes against these criteria

the following objectives were taken in to consideration:■ Objective: Extend choice of transport modes for all, in particular for private car drivers to encourage a shift to public

transport – options were scored on the extent of segregation as this was viewed as being an indication of the potential for achieving fast and reliable journey times.

■ Objective: promote sustainable development by providing high quality public transport links – options were scored against whether they directly connected identified growth areas in Greater Bristol.

■ Objective: Improve access to public transport in areas that currently have poor provision – options were scored against whether they provide new access opportunities through either a different service opportunity or different option, i.e. use of a new park and ride site.

■ Objective: Improve integration of the public transport network – options were scored against how well they provided for interchange opportunities including car (park and ride) and rail.

■ Objective: Promote social inclusion by improving access to employment, retail, community, leisure and educational facilities – options were scored on the extent to which they connected housing with significant employment opportunities.

■ Objective: Improve safety along the corridor by providing a high quality public transport alternative to the private car – options were scored for their contribution to safer travel. All were assumed to provide a similar level of safety as all achieve mode shift (although to varying extents) and design of high-quality shelters, waiting areas and access to the system will take in to consideration passenger safety.

Key Success CriteriaI In addition to the set of GBSTS objectives more specific criteria were developed in workshops held in March 2006 attended by

officers of all four Authorities. These workshop focussed on the outcomes that would be required for BRT to be considered a success. Three factors were identified. The key success criteria and the basis upon which Reference Schemes were assessed are:

■ Mode shift - be a step-change in the quality of public transport – options were assessed on their modelled mode shift from car to BRT.

■ Contribute towards economic growth - options were scored on the extent to which they connected with areas with significant number of jobs.

■ Help reduce traffic congestion- options were assessed on the extent to which they would impact on the existing road capacity.

47

Reference Scheme Objectives Key Success Criteria

Level of Segregation

Sustainable Development

Improved Access

Improved Integration

Social Inclusion

Safety Mode ShiftBRT-only services% total passengers

2011 (2031)

Assist Economy

Reduces Congestion

Ashton Vale to Bristol City Centre (D1) ++ ++ o + o + 50% (53%) + ++

Malago Greenway to Hengrove/Hartcliffe (E4)

++ + + + ++ +

70% (74%)

+ +

Bath Road P&R to Bristol City Centre (F2) via Callington Link Road

+ o o + o + 49% (47%) + +

Callington Link Road to Whitchurch (G2) ++ + + ++ + +

40% (39%)

+ ++

Northern Fringe - southern P&R (H1) ++ o + + + +

46% (44%)

+ +

Northern Fringe - northern P&R (H4) ++ o o + + +

64% (60%)

+ +

Bristol City Centre to Emerson’s Green (J2)

++ + + + ++ + +

23% (16%)

+ +

Bristol City Centre to Fishponds (J2a) + o + + + +

28% (14%)

+ ++

Cribbs Causeway to City Centre (H8) – via H1/H2

++ ++ ++ ++ + +

25% (28%)

++ +

Loop to Whitchurch via Malago Greenway (E5)

++ ++ + ++ ++ +

52% (59%)

+ +

Loop to Hengrove/Hartcliffe via Callington Link Road to (G3)

+ + + + + ++ +

25% (21%)

+ +

48

Corridor Options: NATA Assessment - Environment

I Assessment of environmental benefits and effects was undertaken to understand the relative impacts of the options. This was based on walk-over site visits and a review of available mapping.

I The standard NATA environmental categories were used for the assessment. However, it was assumed that all options would achieve some level of modal shift (although the extent of this varies across options as discussed) and therefore result in some benefit in noise, local air quality and physical fitness from all the options. It was also considered that some criteria would not vary significantly between options. These included local air quality, climate change and journey ambience (for example, implementation of a high quality BRT system would have a similar journey ambience benefit for all options). Therefore only environmental criteria that differentiate between options were looked at in detail. These were:

■ Noise – whether the option would introduce a new noise source in to the surrounding area or whether location of the busway infrastructure would be near to existing transport noise. Proximity of the busway infrastructure to populated areas was also taken in to consideration.

■ Landscape – whether there would be significant visual impacts on the landscape as a result of construction and operation of the busway.

■ Townscape – whether there would be significant visual impacts or benefits on the townscape and setting as a result of construction and operation of the busway.

■ Heritage – whether any listed buildings would be affected. A detailed assessment of buildings and property has not been undertaken. The assessment is simply a view as to the risk that there might be buildings or property of significance within the corridor.

■ Biodiversity – whether the option uses green space, fields or currently vegetated land which may have species that would be adversely affected.

■ Water Environment – the extent to which construction or operation of the option may affect the water quality of existing waterways or water catchments.

I As can be expected, options which utilise existing transport corridors are assessed to have the lowest environmental impact. The assessment shows that H1 and H4 M32 options have the lowest impact except for the potential landscape and biodiversity impacts of a new park and ride site. Similarly D1, the Ashton Vale route, mainly using the existing rail corridor, also has minimal impacts.

I Key environmental considerations are:■ Potential new bridges over the River Avon and their visual and water environment impacts.■ Potential landscape and biodiversity for alignments not using brownfield land – links to Cribbs Causeway across fields,

use of the Malago Greenway, use of the disused Bath to Bristol railway line and use of the disused Whitchurch railway line. These areas are mainly within or close by to built-up areas so the likelihood of specific protected species in these areas should be low.

■ Potential noise impacts for options using the Callington Road Link given the proximity of housing to the alignment. A new link via the Malago Greenway would also introduce a new transport corridor but it is more closely aligned to the existing road network and not as close to potential noise receptors.

I Overall, there does not appear to be any environmental ‘showstoppers’ for any of the options. This initial, strategic assessment needs to be supported with more detailed surveys of the existing conditions as there may be issues which are not easily identifiable at this level of assessment. The potential effects identified should be able to be mitigated with considerate design of the busway infrastructure and inclusion of appropriate mitigation measures.

49

Reference Scheme Noise Landscape Townscape Heritage Biodiversity Water Environment

Ashton Vale to Bristol City Centre (D1)

-alignment mainly alongside existing roads.

o/-mostly brownfield land.

o/-mainly use of existing alignment. Connection across freight line could impact depending on solution.

- (+)works to listed bridge (can be mitigated and bridge protected).

o mostly brownfield land

- (o)works to listed bridge (can be mitigated with sensitive construction).


- -new transport link.

-/- -new transport link in green space, fields or currently vegetated land.

- new bridge will have some visual impact.


-/- -new transport link in green space, fields or currently vegetated land

- (o)new bridge (can be mitigated with sensitive construction).

Bath Road P&R to Bristol City Centre (F2) via Callington Link Road

- -new transport link in populated area.

- new transport link but in mainly built-up area.

- new transport link in built-up area.

-/ounlikely to be affects on heritage assets.

-new transport link in mainly built-up area so some risk


Callington Link Road to Whitchurch (G2)


- new transport link but in mainly built-up area.



-new transport link in mainly built-up area so some risk


Northern Fringe - southern P&R (H1)

o alignment on existing roads.-for river alignment as partially new transport corridor.

o/-mostly brownfield land. Potential impact from new P&R site.-for river alignment as partially new transport corridor

o alignment on existing roads.-for river alignment as partially new transport corridor.

o alignment on existing roads.-/ounlikely to be affects on heritage assets.

o/-mostly brownfield land. Potential impact from new P&R site.-new transport link in mainly built-up area so some risk

o alignment on existing roads- (o)culverting river (can be mitigated with sensitive construction and depends on current water quality).

Northern Fringe - northern P&R (H4)

-alignment mainly alongside existing roads.

o/-mostly brownfield land. Potential impact from new P&R site.

o/-mostly brownfield land.


o/-mostly brownfield land. Potential impact from new P&R site.

omostly brownfield land.



- new transport link but mainly located in cutting.

- new transport link in populated area but mainly located in cutting.


- use of disused railway corridor.

oshould be no impact on water bodies.

Bristol City Centre to Fishponds (J2a)


- new transport link but mainly located in cutting.

- new transport link in populated area but mainly located in cutting.


- use of disused railway corridor.

oshould be no impact on water bodies.


-alignment mainly alongside existing roads or new link in unpopulated areas.

- -alignment mainly alongside existing roads but also in green space, fields or currently vegetated land.

- alignment mainly alongside existing roads in populated area.


- -alignment mainly alongside existing roads but also in green space, fields or currently vegetated land.

- (o)depends on M32 section alignment.


- -new transport link.

-/- -new transport link in green space, fields or currently vegetated land. Potential impact from new P&R site.

- new bridge will have some visual impact.


-/- -new transport link in green space, fields or currently vegetated land. Potential impact from new P&R site.




-new transport link but in mainly built-up area. Potential impact from new P&R site.



-new transport link in mainly built-up area so some risk. Potential impact from new P&R site.


50

Corridor Options: NATA Assessment – Safety, Accessibility and Integration

I As for the environmental impacts, this part of the NATA assessment has only considered criteria which will differentiate between options at this stage. Criteria such as security, option values and access to the transport system would not vary significantly as the quality of the facilities provided for all options would be the same. Similarly, an assessment against Other Government Policy has been undertaken through assessment against the scheme objectives established by GBSTS and JLTP objectives. It has been assumed that the Accidents criterion directly relates to modal shift and has therefore also been excluded as this is covered under Key Success Criteria.

I The remaining factors that have been used to asses the options against Safety, Accessibility and Integration categories were:■ Option Values – whether the option introduces a new link in the transport system for the area it serves.■ Severance – whether the option would introduce a new barrier in to the surrounding area or whether location of the

busway infrastructure would be adjacent to an existing transport corridor. Where the busway is at ground level limited severance would be experienced as pedestrians and cyclists could cross the busway as they would a road (with significantly less traffic volumes). This has still been assessed as severance at this stage of the analysis.

■ Transport Interchange – the number of opportunities the option contains to interchange with other modes including car (P&R) and rail.

■ Land Use Policy – whether the option supports the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy and if the land use is already identified for transport.

I The assessment shows that route options using the Malago Greenway (E4 and E5) and H8 to Cribbs Causeway provide benefit in terms of new, more direct options in to Bristol City Centre that are not provided by existing public transport in the same way.

I Transport interchange mainly occurs at the start or end of routes for all options (apart from H8 connecting with Bristol Parkway Station). This emphasises the importance of a comprehensive and integrated bus network serving and using the busway infrastructure.

I As the options originate from the GBSTS, all options are consistent with land use policy, but to varying degrees.

51

Reference Scheme Option Values Severance Transport Interchange Land Use Policy

Ashton Vale to Bristol City Centre (D1)

oJourney can be made on existing public transport.

ominimal

+P&R (other options in corridor also interchange with rail)

++potentially supports RSS and reference scheme alignment identified in policy as transport corridor.


+New, more direct option to Bristol City Centre (new bridge across River Avon).

-some severance but runs adjacent to existing road on southern section

+Rail (Bedminster Station).

+potentially supports emerging RSS.

Bath to Bristol City Centre (F2) via Callington Link Road

+Different option to access Bristol City Centre.

- -New corridor.

+Rail (Bristol Temple Meads Station).

++potentially supports emerging RSS. Land identified in policy as transport corridor.

Callington Link Road to Whitchurch (G2)

++Different option to access Bristol City Centre. New P&R opportunity.

- -New corridor.

++Rail (Bristol Temple Meads Station), P&R.


Northern Fringe - southern P&R (H1)

+New public transport option.

ominimal

+P&R.

+situated within existing transport corridor.

Northern Fringe - northern P&R (H4)

+New public transport option.

ominimal

+P&R.

+situated within existing transport corridor.


+Journey can be made on existing public transport. New P&R opportunity.

- -New corridor.

++Rail (Bristol Temple Meads Station), P&R.

++potentially supports emerging RSS and reference scheme alignment identified in policy as transport corridor.

Bristol City Centre to Fishponds (J2a)

oJourney can be made on existing public transport.

- -New corridor.


++potentially supports emerging RSS and reference scheme alignment identified in policy as transport corridor.


++New, more direct option to Bristol City Centre. New P&R opportunity.

- -New corridor.

++Rail (Bristol Parkway Station), P&R.



++New, more direct option to Bristol City Centre (new bridge across River Avon). New P&R opportunity.

- some severance but runs adjacent to existing road on southern section.

++Rail (Bedminster Station)P&R.



+Different option to access Bristol City Centre.

- -New corridor.



52

Corridor Options: NATA Assessment - Economy

I For the economic assessment the standard NATA environmental categories were used. At this stage the assessment was mainly qualitative apart from outline journey time and capital cost assessment. These are:

■ Transport Efficiency.■ Reliability.■ Wider Economic Impacts.

I The economic appraisal has assumed an opening year for appraisal of 2011, all costs are in 2006 prices, and discounted to 2002. A 60 year project life with a discount rate of 3.5% per annum for 30 years from the start of the construction period and 3% thereafter has been used.

Journey Time Benefits BRT/Existing Bus UsersI Journey time benefits have been calculated based on the forecast level of journey time benefits for BRT-only services in 2011 and

2031 and the journey time benefits for existing bus passengers whose route would use the busway to access Bristol City Centre and avoid on-street congestion.

Capital CostsI Capital costs have based on the latest available information on BRT costs. A +30% risk premium has been added. Renewals costs

have been assumed to be the equivalent to the initial capital costs, incurred 30 years after opening.

ReliabilityI Reliability benefits have not been estimated at this stage. An assessment of reliability has been made based on the extent to

which the option is segregated.

Wider Economic ImpactsI An Economic Impact Assessment has not been undertaken at this stage. A assessment has been made based on the extent to

which the option connect with areas of significant numbers of jobs.

I As noted earlier, for the purposes of comparing options the ‘Bus mode’ modelling results have been used but these underestimate the benefits of BRT and a conservative indication of the BRT business case. For example, using the “Rail mode” gives a morning peak demand for J2 of 4,065 in 2031 compared with 3,624 for the “Bus mode” in the same period.

I The assessment shows that, in terms of BRT-only journey time benefits, H8 performs significantly better than other options. J2 is the next highest. Options using the Malago Greenway (E4 and E5) have high existing bus services journey time benefits reflecting the fact that a larger number of services could benefit from the more direct and reliable route. This is similar for H1 and D1 for the same reason.

I D1 has the lowest capital cost, although D1, E4 and F2 are all of a similar size. The highest capital costs are for H8 at £57 million and J2 at £49 million.

53

* There are a number of limitations on the use of the current BATS model for assessing BRT. These are set out earlier in this report. Results in this table should be used for relative comparisons only.

Reference Scheme Capital Cost Estimate£ million

JT BenefitsBus Mode

NPV £ million 2002

JT BenefitsRail Mode

NPV £ million 2002

JT Benefits Existing Bus Services using

the BuswayNPV £ million 2002

Reliability Wider Economic Impacts

Ashton Vale to Bristol City Centre (D1) 23.22 3.22 11.05 11.26 ++ +

Malago Greenway to Hengrove/Hartcliffe (E4) 24.40 1.02 20.60 19.73 ++ +

Bath to Bristol City Centre (F2) via Callington Link Road 25.31 1.68 4.62 4.56 + +

Callington Link Road to Whitchurch (G2) 36.65 2.52 4.58 4.59 ++ +

Northern Fringe - southern P&R (H1) 30.31 3.25 12.49 12.51 ++ +

Northern Fringe - northern P&R (H4) 34.36 1.82 7.59 7.45 ++ +

Bristol City Centre to Emerson’s Green (J2) 49.98 12.54 8.51 8.51 ++ +

Bristol City Centre to Fishponds (J2a) 25.65 3.90 4.56 4.35 ++ +

Cribbs Causeway to City Centre (H8) – via H1/H2 57.42 1.82 4.94 4.70 ++ ++

Loop to Whitchurch via Malago Greenway (E5) 24.40+ 2.29 22.30 21.47 + +

Loop to Hengrove/Hartcliffe via Callington Link Road to (G3) 36.65+ 2.43 4.81 4.84 + +

54

Corridor Options: Deliverability Assessment

I Deliverability relates to the ease with which the options could be implemented. Overall, delivery of a segregated two-lane busway is relatively simple in terms of construction and is generally within the experience, resources and capacity of local authorities who deliver road and bridge schemes. Therefore the assessment of the options in terms of their deliverability focussed on those items considered to add to the risk of delivery. Four factors were considered in the option assessment. These are:

Third Party Land I Options were assessed on the basis of the extent to which the corridor relies on third party land and/or the number of third parties

involved. At this stage no detailed land ownership assessment has been undertaken. The assessment relies on considerations such as the length of the route and obvious land ownership divisions as identified on maps.

Interaction with National Rail InfrastructureI Impacts on, or changes to, rail infrastructure can, and usually do, involve additional processes and negotiations that can lead to

increased delivery risk to the project. Therefore options were assessed on the basis of their relationship to any national rail infrastructure whether that was direct impacts on national rail land, direct impacts on national rail operating infrastructure or indirect impacts from running adjacent or alongside national rail assets.

Public AcceptabilityI It is often difficult to determine exactly what reaction the general public will have to transport schemes and what the key issues will

be. This is potentially the case with BRT in Greater Bristol as to some extent it is an unknown quantity and there may be limited information or understanding of its potential benefits. The options were assessed against this criterion by considering what some of the main public concern issues might be. These included any property or land acquisition, removal or interference with a currently available public facility (such as an existing cycleway) and the likelihood of local interest groups not supporting the scheme.

I The assessment showed that, in terms of risk to delivery, the relatively simpler schemes to deliver would be the H1 and H2 alignments using the M32 to the North Fringe. These alignments are relatively self-contained. In addition to these, there should be relatively few deliverability risks associated with D1, the Ashton Vale alignment apart from the need to ensure it includes a solution to crossing the freight line that would be acceptable to Network Rail. The J2 alignment to Emerson’s Green also has few deliverability issues.

I The other alignments all have specific delivery issues that would need to be managed. In terms of their relative risk to each other, it is a matter of trading off one type of risk with another. H8 to Cribbs Causeway is relatively self contained where it follows H1 or H4 but a more detailed assessment of land ownership issues and the extent of works to cross the operational mainline railway is required. The J2 and J2a options involve slight realignment of non-operational railway tracks on the route as it leaves Temple Meads. Use of the Bristol to Bath railway path, even though it is considered that the cycle path can be retained, could become contentious. Alignments using the Callington Road Link would require property acquisition although this is designated as a planned transport corridor in the Joint Local Transport Plan.

55

Reference Scheme Third Party National Rail Public Acceptability Political Acceptability

Ashton Vale to Bristol City Centre (D1) + relatively low number land holdings affected

- crossing of freight line

+depends on views on use of alignment for rail in future

+use of reference scheme alignment supported in GBSTS

Malago Greenway to Hengrove/Hartcliffe (E4) -relatively larger number of small land holdings

- -new crossing of operational mainline

-current recreational use of part of land required

ouse of reference scheme alignment untested


--Potentially large number of properties involved.


-involves property acquisition

-reference scheme alignment different to GBSTS.

Callington Link Road to Whitchurch (G2) - -Potentially large number of properties involved.

++no interaction



Northern Fringe - southern P&R (H1) + relatively low number land holdings

++no interaction

+no significant impact issues

++use of M32 for public transport supported

Northern Fringe - northern P&R (H4) + relatively low number land holdings affected

++no interaction


+ / ouse of M32 for public transport supported but P&R inconsistent with policy

Bristol City Centre to Emerson’s Green (J2) + relatively low number land holdings affected

- some work to non-operational railway Temple Meads

+/oUse of existing cycle path unlikely to be popular. Will be reliant on retaining existing facilities.


Bristol City Centre to Fishponds (J2a) + relatively low number land holdings affected

- some work to non-operational railway Temple Meads

+/oUse of existing cycle path unlikely to be popular. Will be reliant on retaining existing facilities.


Cribbs Causeway to City Centre (H8) – via H1/H2 +long route but potentially relatively low number land holdings affected



+/ouse of M32 for public transport supported. Remaining reference scheme alignment untested

Loop to Whitchurch via Malago Greenway (E5) - - dependant on alignment made available by SBRR


-- dependant on delivery of SBRR

ouse of reference scheme alignment not tested


- -Potentially large number of properties involved and dependant on alignment made available by SBRR

++no interaction



56

Corridor Options: Viability Assessment

I Viability relates to the ongoing sustainability of the BRT system, that is, whether services are likely to be run on a commercial basis and to what extent they would rely on public subsidy.

I The modelling undertaken to date, as discussed previously, is not sufficiently detailed to determine the commercial business case for the reference schemes. Instead, proxies for viability have been used in the assessment. There are three of these:

DemandI The forecast level of demand for BRT-only services was assessed for both inbound and outbound morning peak demand in 2011

and 2031.

Market Growth PotentialI Options were assessed on the basis of how likely it was that the new infrastructure could result in new bus services being

introduced. This could be as a result of faster journey times allowing for more services or greater penetration of routes into areas once leaving the busway infrastructure.

Operational EfficiencyI Options were assessed on the extent to which use of the infrastructure shortens the end-to-end journey times and therefore

better utilisation of vehicles and drivers to reduce operating costs, increase service levels or improve profits.

I Overall the assessment that the strongest option in terms of morning peak demand in 2011 is H8 for both inbound and outbound trips. This is due to numerous trip attractors along the route as well as the peak flow in to Bristol City Centre. The remaining corridors are relatively tidal in terms of peak hour trips.

I In 2011 the next highest demand corridors are J2 to Emerson’s Green, G3 to Hengrove/Hartcliffe via the Callington Road Link and H1 to the Broomhill P&R on the M32. This pattern alters slightly in 2031 with new development changing the relative importance of the corridors. J2 to Emerson’s Green becomes the highest demand corridor followed by H8 to Cribbs Causeway and then D1 to Ashton Vale. All options apart from H8 remain mainly tidal in the peak morning hour.

I As far as market growth is concerned, routes down to Hengrove/Hartcliffe and potentially Whitchurch show the highest potential for new service development and J2 and J2a rank the highest in terms of potential operational savings as journey times are significantly better than the on-street routes.

57

Reference Scheme Inbound Peak Hour Demand

Bus Mode2011 (2031)

Outbound Peak Hour Demand

Bus Mode2011 (2031)

Market Growth Operational Efficiency

Ashton Vale to Bristol City Centre (D1) 750 (2192) 334 (397) +likely to be some growth in services but more likely to be driven by development

orelatively small benefit considering length of overall routes

Malago Greenway to Hengrove/Hartcliffe (E4) 331 (579) 202 (261) ++good potential for growth in services

+faster, more direct route than on-street alternative


379 (786) 470 (679) orelatively small benefit considering length of overall routes


Callington Link Road to Whitchurch (G2) 745 (1581) 383 (511) +possibly some growth in services


Northern Fringe - southern P&R (H1) 1000 (1762) 334 (793) -unlikely to result in any new services other than P&R services

orelatively small benefit over GBBN solution

Northern Fringe - northern P&R (H4) 873 (1657) 64 (118) -unlikely to result in any new services other than P&R services

o relatively small benefit over GBBN solution

Bristol City Centre to Emerson’s Green (J2) 1212 (3037) 397 (587) +likely to be some growth in services but areas already well served

++alternative on-street route significantly slower

Bristol City Centre to Fishponds (J2a) 542 (1534) 219 (343) +likely to be some growth in services but areas already well served

++alternative on-street route significantly slower

Cribbs Causeway to City Centre (H8) – via H1/H2 1686 (2810) 1222 (2715) +possibly some growth in services


Loop to Whitchurch via Malago Greenway (E5) 665 (970) 202 (261) ++good potential for growth in services



1044 (1976) 383 (511) +possibly some growth in services


58

Corridor Options: Assessment SummaryOverall the assessment shows that:

Scheme Objectives and Key Success FactorsI All contribute well to scheme objectives as they originate from the GBSTS study. E5 and H8 score best against the scheme objectives

followed by J2. The highest total mode shift is H8 but the highest percentage of movement from car is E4 followed by H4.

EnvironmentI H1 and H4 M32 options have the lowest impact as they would be constructed largely within the existing highway boundary apart from the

new park and ride sites. Of the ‘non-highway’ options D1 has the least impact as it is already mainly a rail alignment and J2/J2a should have the next least environmental impacts.

Safety / Accessibility / Integration I Route options using the Malago Greenway (E4 and E5) and H8 to Cribbs Causeway provide benefit in terms of new, more direct options in

to Bristol City Centre that are not provided by existing public transport in the same way. Transport interchange mainly occurs at the start or end of routes for all options (apart from H8 connecting with Bristol Parkway Station). This emphasises the importance of a comprehensive and integrated bus network serving and using the busway infrastructure. As the options originate from the GBSTS, all options are consistent with land use policy.

Economy I The assessment shows that in terms of BRT-only journey time benefits H8 performs significantly better than other options. J2 is the next

highest. Options using the Malago Greenway (E4 and E5) have high existing bus services journey time benefits reflecting the fact that a larger number of services could benefit from the more direct and reliable route. This is similar for H1 and D1 for the same reason.

I D1 has the lowest capital cost, although D1, E4 and F2 are all of a similar size. The highest capital costs are for H8 at £57 million and J2 at £49 million.

DeliverabilityI The assessment showed that, in terms of risk to delivery, the relatively simplest schemes to deliver would be the H1 and H2 alignments

using the M32 to the North Fringe. These alignments are relatively self-contained. In addition to these, there should be relatively few deliverability risks associated with D1, the Ashton Vale alignment apart from the need to ensure it includes a solution to crossing the freight line that Network Rail would be happy with. Similarly, J2/J2a involve slight realignment of non-operational railway tracks on the route as it leaves Temple Meads. Use of the Sustrans route, even though it is considered that the cycle path can be retained, could become a public affairs issue.

Viability I The best performing option in terms of morning peak demand in 2011 is H8 for both inbound and outbound trips. In 2011 the next highest

demand corridors are J2 to Emerson’s Green, G3 to Hengrove/Hartcliffe via the Callington Road Link and H1 to the southern P&R on the M32. This pattern alters slightly in 2031 with new development changing the relative importance of the corridors. J2 to Emerson’s Green becomes the highest demand corridor followed by H8 to Cribbs Causeway and then D1 to Ashton Vale. As far as market growth is concerned, routes to Hengrove/Hartcliffe and potentially Whitchurch show the highest potential for new service development and J2 and J2a rank the highest in terms of potential operational savings as journey times are significantly better than the on-street routes.

59

Referred Scheme / Un-weighted Ranking 1st 2nd 3rd

Scheme Objectives E5/H8 J2 E4/G3

Mode shift total passengers 2011 (2031) H8 (H8) H1 (D1) H4 (H1)

Mode shift % E4 H4 E5

Environment H1 H4 D1

Safety Similar across all options

Economy – Capital Cost (lowest) D1 E4 F2

Economy – JT benefit BRT-only H8 J2 H1

Economy – JT benefit existing bus services E4/E5 H1 D1

Demand 2011 (2031) D1 H8 J2

Accessibility – options E5 G2/H8/J2

Accessibility – severance H1 H4 D1

Integration – land use D1/F2/G2/J2/J2a

Deliverability H1/H4 D1 J2

Viability – demand 2011 (2031) H8 (J2) J2 (H8) G3 (D1)

Viability – market growth 2011 (2031) E4/E5 J2/J2a

Viability – operational efficiency 2011 (2031) J2/J2a F2/G2/G3 E4/E5

60

Bristol City Centre Options

I The assessment of the three Bristol City Centre options has been based on:■ The case, need, or aspiration for BRT services to serve a set of common stops within Bristol City Centre, i.e. a type of loop

service which would provide orbital connections to key destinations such as Broadmead, Marlborough Street Bus Station, Colston Avenue, Temple Meads etc.

■ The traffic impact of reallocating space on the public highway to provide a completely segregated route.

Loop Service versus Direct Through RoutesI The desirability of a BRT ‘loop service’ has been tested with officers from the four Authorities and with bus operator, First Group.

Discussions suggested that a loop service option should not be imposed on to a service pattern as the dis-benefits of longer journeys to some points of access in Bristol city centre could adversely impact on the system and the perception of the speed and quality of the system. The selection of route corridors and any need to connect options chosen is therefore likely to determine the city centre service pattern.

I The need or case for the city centre routes has not been tested through any demand or operational modelling at this stage. Testing of each corridor, including the city centre section will need to be done at the next stage of scheme development. This includes the demand for cross-city routes.

Traffic ImpactI The other key element of determining city centre options is the impact on car traffic if road space is re-allocated to BRT to achieve a

segregated route(s).I SATURN model runs were commissioned to provide an initial view of the potential traffic impacts in the city centre and the network

wide effects on traffic. I The model shows that the most significant cause of extra delay in the future year SATURN models compared with the 2004 base

year is caused by the growth in traffic. The predicted growth shows that there is over 12% growth in traffic (total trips loaded) between 2004 and 2011 and over 37% by 2031.

I Potential re-allocation of road space to BRT worsens the total travel time by up to 4.7% (2011) and 10.6% (2031). The model suggests that there is limited or no impact on average speed.

I The difference between the 3 options tested is not overly significant, with the difference in overall network statistics being under 3% between the three options. However, Option 2 (the direct route option) has the least impact with only a small decrease in average speeds and only 1% increase in overall journey times. This option takes less road space than the Loop Option and avoids the Rupert Road gyratory. The impact of the LRT alignment option is somewhere between the Direct Route and Loop Option.

61

Option

TRANSIENT QUEUES

OVER-CAPACITY QUEUES

LINK CRUISE

TIME

TOTAL TRAVEL

TIME

TRAVEL DISTANCE

AVERAGE SPEED

TOTAL TRIPS

LOADED

PCU. HRS PCU. HRS PCU. HRS PCU. HRS PCU. KMS KPH PCUS

2004 Base Year 4,984 2,669 20,397 28,050 1,176,313 42 148,285

2011 Do Min 6,567 12,960 24,416 43,942 1,343,593 31 166,568

Option 1 6,667 15,874 24,659 47,200 1,356,054 29 166,500

Option 2 6,678 14,457 24,567 45,701 1,351,285 30 166,568

Option 3 6,587 14,869 24,540 45,996 1,349,751 29 166,500

2031 Do Min 9,434 63,516 34,198 107,147 1,725,122 16 203,955

Option 1 9,594 74,212 34,657 118,463 1,761,475 15 203,914

Option 2 9,480 69,232 34,487 113,198 1,746,882 15 203,95

Option 3 9,477 68,888 34,371 112,736 1,741,522 15 203,914

62

6. Assessment Summary

D: Ashton Vale to Bristol City CentreI The Ashton Vale to Bristol City Centre corridor is likely to have a strong economic case. On the infrastructure side, the corridor is

relatively short and therefore the estimated capital cost is relatively low (£23 million). There are a number of large elements to the scheme such as works to the existing Prince Street bridge, realignment of Cumberland Road and removal of some on-street parking which will have some traffic impact. However, the highest risk item is likely to be the crossing of the freight line to Portishead. Although there are a relatively small number of planned freight paths on this railway line any crossing will need to be approved by Network Rail.

I Re-use of the disused railway line assists in reducing the environmental and traffic impacts of this corridor.I On the demand side, there is good benefit generated from the busway for existing bus services, mainly from North Somerset, as a result

of overcoming congestion. The viability of BRT specific services is more dependant on the proposed development at Ashton Gate. The case for this corridor is therefore closely aligned with the build-out of the proposed development. The development is not yet confirmed in the final Regional Spatial Strategy and therefore there is an element of uncertainty about the final development allocation.

I This corridor would be complementary with GBBN proposals.I The alignment is the same as that identified in GBSTS. An alternative to the GBSTS alignment was considered but presents significant

difficulties as it would run alongside the operational mainline railway to the south west and has considerable property impact including the likely rebuilding of Parson Street Railway Station. Any additional demand served through the Bedminster area is, in our view, unlikely to offset the additional construction costs and longer running time to Ashton Vale. It would also be a less direct route for existing bus services from North Somerset.

E: Hengrove/Hartcliffe to Bristol City CentreI The Hengrove/Hartcliffe to Bristol City Centre corridor provides a new, more direct link in the transport system for south Bristol. The route

is estimated to cost in the order of £24 million. Benefits derived from this corridor rely on the use of the busway by existing bus services, although the faster journey in to Bristol City Centre could, in our view, foster the development of bus services in this area. Further more detailed work is required on this and a review of the BRT-only service pattern and stop locations to optimise the demand on this corridor.

I The deliverability risks associated with this option include the construction of a new bridge over the River Avon, some property acquisition between the River Avon and the Malago Greenway and use of the Malago Greenway itself, which is currently a leisure facility. This facility would need to be retained to minimise objection to the scheme. Provision of the busway will present some intrusion in terms of landscape and potentially on biodiversity but the alignment is, close to the existing road network in most places which means impacts should be limited.

I This corridor is likely to have an economic case particularly once wider economic factors are quantified such as accessibility, particularly to employment opportunities. This also means that this corridor performs well in policy terms as it links existing housing with employment opportunities and assist in supporting further development.

I Although we have only looked at an option to link this route with Whitchurch via a potential South Bristol Ring Road alignment, other opportunities to serve Whitchurch could be considered as linking the corridor to a potential park and ride site, and development at Whitchurch is likely to improve the economic case. This would of course need to be looked at in the context of the improved A37 bus priorities that will be delivered through GBBN, Corridor 6.

I The alignment is different to that identified in GBSTS which discussed an on-street alignment. In our opinion this would provide limited benefit over and above improved bus priority measures without significant impacts and therefore has been dismissed as an option. This would of course not rule out BRT services running on-street in this corridor.

63

F: Bath to Bristol City CentreI The main options considered for linking Bath through to Bristol City Centre with BRT are:I 1. A4 link running to Bath or limited to running to the Bath Road P&R. GBBN, Corridor 3 will already provide improved capacity for

buses where it can be delivered. Provision of a fully segregated alignment along the A4 is, in our view, not achievable without significant construction and ongoing impacts.

I 2. Disused railway corridor between Bath and Bristol (effectively an extension of the Emerson’s Green reference scheme). This option, in our view, provides no significant journey improvement over and above the existing railway service.

I 3. Disused Whitchurch railway path to Callington Road and link to the Bath Road park and ride. This option could provide a fully segregated busway for BRT services and other bus services serving the inner urban area and the outer areas such as Keynsham as well as services to/from Bath. Demand modelling results suggest that this could have a good economic case.

I The main difficulty at this stage with the use of the Whitchurch railway path (Callington Road Link) is that, in our view, it is difficult to deliver in the short term. It could have significant impacts to land and property and this alignment is currently identified in the JLTP as a road link.

I This option would be complementary to the GBBN Corridor 3.I The disused Whitchurch railway path is a different alignment to that discussed in GBSTS which envisaged use of the A4. In our

opinion this would provide limited benefit over and above the Corridor3 improvements without significant impacts and therefore has been dismissed as an option. This would of course not rule out BRT services running on-street in this corridor.

G: Whitchurch to Bristol City CentreI The main options considered for linking Whitchurch through to Bristol City Centre with BRT are:I 1. A37. GBBN, Corridor 6 will already provide improved capacity for buses where it can be delivered. Provision of a fully segregated

alignment along the A4 is, in our view, not achievable without significant construction and ongoing impacts.I 2. Disused Whitchurch railway path past the Callington Road through to Whitchurch. The issues with delivering with this corridor

option are as discussed above.I This option would be complementary to the GBBN Corridor 6.I The disused Whitchurch railway path is a different alignment to that discussed in GBSTS which envisaged use of the A37. In our

opinion this would provide limited benefit over and above the Corridor 6 improvements without significant impacts and therefore has been dismissed as an option. This would of course not rule out BRT services running on-street in this corridor.

64

H: North Fringe to Bristol City CentreI A number of options that link north Bristol, as far as Cribbs Causeway, to Bristol City Centre have been looked at. This corridor has a

high number of trip attractors such as Cribbs Causeway, Aztec West, Bristol Parkway rail station, UWE and a number of large employers. This means that a corridor serving these origins/destinations has high demand both towards and away from Bristol City Centre. This makes for a very strong economic case.

I The construction of a fully segregated alignment for such a long route brings with it higher costs and risks (estimated at £57 million). Key construction issues to consider are the alignment from the city centre to the M32 (and use of this road space on a highly utilised part of the network) and the crossing of the operational railway to reach Filton Northfield and then Cribbs Causeway). The latter introduces some additional cost and risk. Further detailed work on how far north to take the fully segregated route and the relative benefits it brings could be undertaken to help understand how best to implement this corridor. The extent of the segregation also needs to be looked at in terms of preserved corridors in the North Fringe area.

I Another key issue is the interaction with the M32 and proposed GBBN, Corridor 1 improvements, which Reference Schemes H1, H4 and H8 effectively replicate. Work going forward on this alignment will need to be integrated with the GBBN proposals to ensure they are complementary.

I The main alternative alignment where a segregated route could be achieved is alongside the operational railway corridor from Bristol Temple Meads to Filton Abbey Wood or Bristol Parkway. This would introduce further risk to the scheme and is likely to be strongly objected to by Network Rail. This introduces a deliverability risk that, in our view, is not necessary when an alternative alignment is achievable. Additionally, the railway alignment would need regular access points where buses could join or leave the busway if it were to access the existing housing in this area and provide any additional journey opportunities over and above those provided by rail services. The topography of the rail alignment would make this very difficult.

I: Cribbs Causeway to Bristol City Centre I GBSTS identified the route to Cribbs Causeway as the A4108 Whiteladies Road. I A review of this option has identified that, in our opinion, a fully segregated alignment is not feasible and there are very limited

other alignment opportunities given the geography and land availability to the north east side of the Greater Bristol urban area.I In our view there is opportunity for implementing significantly improved bus priority which could be delivered as part of GBBN

Corridor 2.

65

J: Emerson’s Green to Bristol City Centre I Use of the disused railway alignment to link Emerson’s Green with the Bristol City Centre corridor is likely to have a strong

economic case. The alternative road alignment, the A432, is considerably slower for existing services so there are good journey time benefits. The corridor also links with considerable development at Emerson’s Green and a potential new park and ride site. There is a good balance between the benefits from the BRT-only services and from existing bus services using the busway. The BRT-only benefits are dependant on development at Emerson’s Green but development is further forward in the planning process than other proposed sites in the sub-region.

I The capital cost is relatively high (estimated at £49 million). This is largely due to the length of the route and, the assumption at this stage, that provision for some works to embankments and crossings etc. to retain the existing cycle route these works will be required.

I In terms of deliverability the alignment is relatively self-contained. Impacts on the road network will be limited to junctions with the highway. Retaining the existing cyclist and leisure facility, in the cycle route, will be important to overcome objection to using the corridor.

I There is likely to be some biodiversity impacts with the use of a disused railway corridor. These should be able to be mitigated with careful design. There will also be some land and property impact where development has impinged on the corridor. Our view, at this stage, is that this is relatively limited.

I This corridor would be complementary with the GBBN proposals, Corridor 5.I This alignment is different to that identified in GBSTS. The GBSTS proposed the A432 corridor on the basis that the disused railway

path is too far south from the proposed Emerson’s Green development. In our view the journey time savings for passengers from the proposed Emerson’s Green development would be considerable even though the route is further south than the A432. Bus services serving areas to the north of the disused railway path could leave the busway at points along route, particularly at Fishponds, therefore benefiting from the segregation in to Bristol City Centre.

K: Avonmouth/Portishead to Bristol City Centre I GBSTS identified the route to Avonmouth/Portishead as either via the operational railway line or the via A4 Portway. In our view,

there are significant deliverability issues with both of these.I Although the service is not heavily patronised, the railway alignment does provide for a diversionary route when there are works on

other lines in to Bristol. Although the extent of these has not been reviewed, discussion with Network Rail suggest that they would strongly oppose any use of this corridor for a non-rail option. This does not necessarily rule out use of the corridor but it does suggest that it would be more difficult to deliver than some of the other corridor options with stronger economic cases at this stage.

I As with other on-street alignment options, a fully segregated alignment along A4 Portway is, in our view, not feasible at this stage. I Options for providing BRT services to Avonmouth/Portishead should be kept under review as options for possible traffic

management techniques on the motorway network are considered. Potential use of road space on the motorway network could be pursued as part of any possible traffic management techniques which provide additional road capacity.

66

L: Bristol International Airport to Bristol City Centre I Significant growth for Bristol International Airport is forecast with 12 million passengers per annum predicted by 2030, up from the

current 4 million passengers. This growth will need to be planned for and managed in a sustainable way to ensure it supports the economy of the sub-region. BRT could provide for this growth in a sustainable way.

I Options for providing a BRT alignment to the airport have been looked at in conjunction with an alignment to Ashton Vale. Both routes would take advantage of a common section to avoid on-street traffic congestion.

I In our view a potential route to the airport is a question of the extent to which a fully segregated alignment is provided, that is, provision of full segregation to the point where journey time savings support the introduction of a segregated alignment.

I In our view this link could be provided initially as part of the link to Ashton Vale and the provision of further segregation kept under review as the airport expansion occurs.

M: Orbital Options – A4174 Ring Road I Orbital BRT alignments or corridors were not identified in GBSTS, however, consultation with officers suggested that this should be

considered. At this stage we have only take a preliminary look at these options.I In terms of deliverability, in our view, further work would be required to identify orbital links as part of transport policy before

specific schemes could come forward. For example, this option may be considered for further stages of planned bus priority improvements. However, with the planned growth patterns associated growth in orbital movements seems likely and therefore should be kept under review.

67

6. Report Conclusions and Next Steps

I The feasibility assessment undertaken concludes that:■ Forecast traffic congestion along with the provision of some 92,500 houses with implementation of the draft Regional

Spatial Strategy will put significant pressure on the efficient and effective functioning of the Greater Bristol sub-region.■ GBSTS concluded that the current public transport offer alone is unlikely to be able to cater for this growth. We support this

view.■ The importance of public transport improvements in Greater Bristol is reflected in the prioritisation of three of the four

GBSTS corridors in the current regional funding/investment programme. This study supports the selection of those corridors.

■ Initial demand modelling shows that likely patronage levels support the choice of BRT as the most appropriate mode for supporting this growth.

■ There appears to be a number of opportunities to provide fully or almost fully segregated BRT corridors in Greater Bristol. These have some land/property and environmental impacts but for a network of this size and area as large and significant as Greater Bristol, these impacts appear to be relatively small.

■ BRT alignments in Bristol City Centre will link the BRT corridors and therefore routes within Bristol City Centre will be, to some extent, a function of the corridors chosen.

■ Initial traffic modelling results suggest that provision of fully segregated routes through Bristol City Centre will not have a significant impact on traffic levels in the context of the large traffic growth already expected. It is suggested that routes in the city centre need to be taken forward as part of an integrated approach to managing road space in Bristol City Centre.

■ The capital costs used in this assessment are higher than those indicated for the current regional funding/investment programme. The GBSTS study assumed a lower level of segregation and therefore lower capital costs (achieving the last % of full segregation being the more difficult and costly). Further work on capital costs and justification through business case assessment will need to be undertaken at the next stage of scheme development. The capital costs do not include the common sections between the corridors, that is, the sections in Bristol City Centre because the focus in this report has been on a relative assessment of corridors.

■ Our assessment summarises shows that there are three or four corridors that are strong contenders for BRT (as summarised on page 59). These meet the aim and objectives for BRT and score the highest in terms of deliverability. These corridors are (in no particular order):

D1 – Ashton Vale. E4 – Hengrove/Hartcliffe. H4/H8 – North Fringe/Cribbs Causeway. J2 – Emerson’s Green.

■ These options are also likely to have the strongest economic cases with benefits resulting from both BRT-only services as well as journey time savings for existing services utilising the BRT infrastructure.

■ These options could be delivered either separately or together to form east-west or north-south corridors.

68

6. Report Conclusions and Next Steps (continued)

I All four options are within the corridors identified in the regional funding/investment programme. Selection of a preferred option or options to form “Line 2” of a potential BRT network, i.e. the first regional priority, is the next step. Other route options can then also be developed as the next priorities in line with the RFA programme for “Line 3” and “Line 4”.

I In our view there is significant opportunity to deliver a BRT network in Greater Bristol and these corridors are deliverable within the regional funding/investment programme timescales.

I There are also a number of wider issues to consider. These include:■ The Bath Package Bid, which has been submitted to DfT, includes a BRT route linking Bath City Centre with the

Newbridge and Lambridge park and ride sites. This BRT route will be “Line 1” of the BRT network in Greater Bristol. It is important that further work on other routes is integrated with “Line 1” to ensure consistency and a systemic approach.

■ The JLTP authorities have a programme of schemes to implement to support sustainable growth in Greater Bristol. It is important that BRT is progressed in the context of this wider programme to again ensure an integrated approach to the transport system in Greater Bristol.

Next StepsI Figure 6.1 shows the current programme for BRT. The next major milestone is preparation and submission of a major scheme bid to

DfT in Summer 2008. I In order for this milestone to be met, a preferred route option needs to be selected by Summer 2007. In our view, to support the

selection of a preferred option further work is required on items such as:■ Demand modelling – the BATS model is currently being updated to include BRT as a specific mode. Work will be

undertaken to ensure an appropriate BRT mode constant is identified for Greater Bristol. ■ Capital costs – more detailed engineering costings will be required to provide a greater level of certainty.■ Operational specification – an initial timetable for services is needed for modelling and assessment.■ Route refinement – identification of measures to mitigate impacts including more detailed alignment plans and options.

I We would also advise that other supporting technical work should be undertaken by Summer 2007. This would include:■ Technology selection – analysis and selection of the preferred BRT technology, that is, whether the system is guided and

if so what form that guidance might take.■ Procurement options and implications – identification of the preferred procurement strategy for infrastructure and

services.I In addition, before submission of a major scheme bid to DfT, some consultation will need to be undertaken. This consultation will

need to provide information on the overall BRT concept as well as the option assessment and selection process.

69

Figure 6.1: Programme

Documents

1 Greater Bristol: Public Transport Corridor Options Final Report January 2007