Policies >

December 2005 The Draft Joint Local Transport Plan

Greens challenge the conventions

This response has been submitted as part of the final consultation stage on the Local Transport Plan

December 2005

Bristol Green Party wishes to comment on the issues and priorities raised at this final stage of consultation as outlined below. The response is not as comprehensive as we would have wished, but we hope this shortened version will make up for not quite meeting the consultation deadline.

GENERAL:

We are alarmed to see that this final pre-bid stage of developing the Joint Local Transport Strategy is to reflect the "emerging findings of the Greater Bristol Transport Strategy" prepared by consultants Atkins on behalf of GOSW.

What has so far been published about those findings suggests an unimaginative and old-fashioned approach to 'predict and provide' transport management, with an unquestioning trust in new roads to reduce traffic, and no mention of the potential role of the suburban railway network (in fact, it suggests tearing up the Severn Beach track which has just this year proved to have a useful strategic 'relief' role even apart from its passenger potential).

What's just as bad, there has been no consultation worthy of the name to test public views of the GBSTS 'emerging findings' - only a questionnaire, with no apparent closing date for responses. Equally, of course, this current JLTP consultation offers no opportunity to comment on the same issues, because we don't know quite what they're going to suggest to you.

Therefore, we challenge the validity of any LTP bid based on GBSTS findings that have not been subjected to a proper consultation process.

PART 1: ACCESSIBILITY STRATEGY

We welcome the statement that you place "Accessibility" at the heart of all transport provision; it might seem obvious, but all to often policy makers seem to put "choice" in that position. What's important is that there should be transport available at the right times and the right cost to enough destinations so that everyone can use them, whether car owners or not, and car traffic can be reduced.

You ask: "Are there any problems and needs we've missed?"

There's a case for saying that the best way to ensure good access to health facilities (and all other public services) is to keep them local; this is more helpful than any travel plan.

We strongly agree that public transport information is a vital part of making travel 'accessible' and there is certainly plenty of work to be done in this field. We hope it remains as a core part of the bid.

So too would be more flexible ticketing so that passengers can vary their journeys according to changing circumstances, using all the providers. You will know through your membership of ITSO that Chester is already looking at such a system using smart cards. Can Bristol be far behind? It would be good to see something of the kind in the bid to move forward with such a scheme.

Perhaps that could replace the preoccupation with getting people to the airport? After all, common sense tells us that growth in air travel is to be discouraged; and in any case, the Flyer service already provides an excellent shuttle service to Lulsgate, with an average passenger load of under six per trip.

You ask: "Do you agree with our objectives and priorities? Have we missed any?"

We think Objective One could be rephrased to put a greater emphasis on reducing the traffic. This would open the door to a whole range of options, both sticks and carrots, which would improve opportunity to travel by other means than the car. Your own choice of words - "reducing congestion" may do little to reduce total emissions or road accidents (it could increase both). Reducing traffic, on the other hand, scores in every respect, including the knock-on effect of reducing congestion.

You ask : Do you agree with the list of Action Plans?

The Action Plans list several destinations that clearly need good access by public transport, and we certainly have no argument with that - except perhaps Lulsgate, as noted above. What's missing is the integration and especially the interchange to make it possible, for some reason that is relegated to a 'Future Action Plan Idea', along with "Cross City Bus routes"

Idle land at Temple Meads, accessible to rail, road, ferry, and major employment sites - but there's still no bid to provide an interchange

Given that Temple Meads is really the only possible site for an interchange worthy of the name, and that most 'cross-town' bus routes prefer to take in the Centre and Broadmead, we suggest that there would be no great loss (and perhaps some operational gain) if cross-town buses were dropped in favour of those terminating in the city centre and serving all three of the key destinations - the Centre, the shops, and the railway station. That would provide a 'one easy change' facility for travellers that isn't on offer by any other means.

PART 2: MAJOR SCHEME BIDS

As outlined above, we find it incomprehensible that there is no place for suburban rail projects in your programme. With the unquestionable potential of reopening the Portishead line, and the threat in the emerging GBSTS to rip up the track on the Severn Beach Branch, we're in no doubt that development of these two lines should be high on the major bids list.

They could well replace new road schemes such as the Hicks Gate to Hengrove 'South Bristol Ring Road' and the second Avonmouth Crossing, both of which would inflict damage far beyond any claimed benefits - in terms of generating more traffic, with the several varieties of pollution that go with it; in pushing out the urban edge of SE Bristol further into Stockwood Vale.

Stockwood vale as seen from the urban edge of Bristol

We do not believe that the arguments put forward for these roads have any solid foundation, and would be glad to expand on that if you wish.

USEFUL LINKS:

JLTP Home page
www.greaterbristoltransportplan.org/

GBSTS Home page
www.gbsts.com/

Contact: Peter Goodwin, email press (at) bristolgreenparty.org.uk