Member & Public Forum

Transcription

1 Agenda item 4 West of England Joint Scrutiny Committee 30 June 2014 Member & Public Forum Notice has been given for the following representations: Statements ITEM 1: David Redgewell on behalf of South West Transport Network on the Great Western Franchise, rail resilience, train services in the south west, MetroBus and other bus service issues. Pages 1-24 ITEM 2: ITEM 3: Christina Biggs on behalf of Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways and Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance on the Great Western Rail franchise. Martin Garrett on behalf of Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance on MetroBus John Malyckyj Place & Infrastructure Support Officer

2 Item 1 Statement from David Redgewell and accompanying documents I have been asked by the group and unions to forward a list of items which TfGB would like to discuss with you both on 1 July: They are as follows: The Service Requirements in South Bristol, including alternative routes in the Hengrove/Whitchurch area, Interchanges at Parson Street and Bedminster stations, Interchange at Bristol Bus Station, Layouts and designs around Stoke Park, Bus Station layout at UWE (??), Links between Bristol Parkway, Filton, Cribbs Causeway and Henbury, Integration with MetroWest network at Bristol Temple Meads and Parkway, Filton Abbey Wood Interchange, Bus Gate between Lockleaze and Creswicke Village Disabled access to MetroBus and MetroRail. Integrated ticketing. Gloucester Road North bus priorities At the last meeting it was promised that one of the project team dealing with bus routes and bus stops would attend. Hope this helps to focus our discussions and that we can find a way of keeping the MetroBus project moving forward. Best wishes David Redgewell 1

3 North Fringe to Centre MetroBus plans Application No 14/01187/FB Drawing Number NFH-PA NFH-PA NFH-PA and NFH-PA NFH-PA NFH-PA and NFH-PA NFH-PA NFH-PA Comment Cribbs Causeway bus station needs to be made wholly disabled accessible so that passengers can change between MetroBus and other services etc. This needs to tie in with the Henbury Station shuttle service and/or the extension of MetroBus to Henbury. Dropped Kerbs need to be identified and provision made (or shown?) for road crossing. MetroBus stops need to be at the Patchway roundabout (rather than half-way down Highwood Road in order to make connection with bus route 75 Northbound bus stop needs to be by the roundabout to make connection with buses to Thornbury, Dursley etc. and to provide access to the existing road crossing. Why are bus stops staggered on either side of the roundabout, rather than opposite each other to provide easier interchange? It is unclear how passengers can cross the road between these bus stops and whether there is disabled access either to the inbound bus stop from the Supermarket, or from the outbound bus stop to the Leisure Centre. As per NFH-PA and NFH-PA , bus stops are staggered across roundabouts. It is unclear why this should be and how easy it is for disabled access from each bus stop to various points on the other side of the road and/or roundabout. South West Transport Network response 2 Page 1 of 5

4 NFH-PA We question why there should be no MetroBus access to Little Stoke (i.e. no bus stops)? NFH-PA and NFH-PA Disabled access and road crossings are not clear, but need to be clarified as these are busy roads. NFH-PA NFH-PA and NFH-PA NFH-PA NFH-PA NFH-PA NFH-PA NFH-PA It is not clear how this "interchange" is designed to work. This is a major hub and intermodal exchange point which needs a properly designed and thought-through bus-bus, bus-rail and bus/rail-taxi interchange. Various issues: bus stops do not provide easy interchange with Winterbourne and Yate/Chipping Sodbury services. Need to be on the same side of the roundabout and closer to the roundabout itself. These stops need to be fully upgraded and disabled accessible. It appears that the Park and Ride at Emersons Green is not disabled accessible. This needs to be addressed and corrected. Are these stops easily accessible from the Emersons Green shopping centre? There is absolutely no interchange facility with the UWE bus station. This is a critical error and shows no serious public transport planning. This MUST be addressed. This is highly over-engineered (presumably on the basis of the widely disputed and now unlikely to be realised Park and Ride facilities which do not have the mayor's support), and is probably unnecessary. The environmental impact on the approach to Bristol (facing Stoke Park) including the addition of a bus priority lane down Stoke Lane, necessitating significant road widening and tree-felling, needs to be given much greater weight. Surely there is a better option to add bus priority lanes to the existing ring road and at the junction onto and off the M32. This would be the preferred option. An alternative would be to build two simple on-off-ramps between Stoke Lane and the M32. However, there may be other drawbacks to this option, including the purchase of good agricultural land from the Elm Tree Farm Trust, the destruction of South West Transport Network response 3 Page 2 of 5

5 No reference NFH-PA and NFH-PA NFH-PA NFH-PA and NFH-PA the recently planted (i.e. post 80s) noise-break on the Stoke Park side and the question of whether a three-minute benefit in journey-time saving can justify any extra road building. In addition, the overall project needs to be delivered efficiently and effectively, and we need to be cautious about over-specifying individual (and peripheral) aspects of the whole route. There is no reference to any interchange at Eastgate. In terms of connectivity with coach services, Megabus and city bus routes, this seems to be something of a missed opportunity. Furthermore, the plan to base the MetroBus depot at Muller Road would make this an ideal point for driver transfers and vehicle exchange. The bus stops on Bond Street are not close enough to each other. In particular, the out-bound stop needs to be much closer to the St James Barton roundabout (presumably outside the Holiday Inn), giving reasonable access to the new crossings by the roundabout and the underpass and on to the Bus and Coach station. Assuming that there is good reason why the MetroBus cannot use any of the stops on the Haymarket, outside the Beefeater, this is the only stop which gives any reasonable access to the Bus station, which is surely a must for MetroBus. In Fareham, Gosport and Swansea, the MetroBuses all run through the bus stations. The bus stops on Lewins Mead offer little connectivity, and need to be checked for disabled access (drop kerbs etc). The bus stops here are well positioned. We presume that they will be fully upgraded and that there will be clearly marked interchange options with services to Clifton, Avonmouth, Henbury, Westbury-on-Trym, Cribbs Causeway, Nailsea, Westonsuper-Mare, Clevedon and Portishead, Bath, Keynsham and Bristol Airport. Ferry services and taxi stands also need to be identified in the interchange information and properly signposted. The Megabus stop needs to be moved to a better position. Perhaps using the bus stop by car park (with convenient turning circle), or the redundant stop opposite the bus station. South West Transport Network response 4 Page 3 of 5

6 NFH-PA NFH-PA NFH-PA and NFH-PA NFH-PA and NFH-PA NFH-PA NFH-PA , NFH-PA and NFH-PA NFH-PA NFH-PA , The pavements need to be adjusted, to include drop kerbs and access points. Because this is the effective interchange point between the two MetroBus routes, safe, easy road crossing and drop kerbs need to be prioritised here. Otherwise the positioning looks fine. Pavements on both sides of the road need to be made accessible for wheelchair users (including the section in the covered Wills arcade). The route here needs to be altered to use Dalby Avenue on both southbound and northbound services, thereby giving access to MetroWest services at Bedminster station whilst providing a reasonable level of access to East Street shops. The interchange needs to be disabled accessible and must be well signposted with walking routes clearly identified. The northbound stop should be included within the redevelopment of St Catherine's Place, and there is opportunity to develop land on the southbound side adjacent to Bedminster station. The stop on East Street will not be necessary if the service is routed vial Dalby Avenue (see above). Bus stops need to be balanced. There is a "missing" northbound stop on West Street (which if placed near the southbound stop near junction with Sheene Road would provide good access to shopping at the west end of East Street). Another stop should also be considered somewhere on West Street for northbound travel, perhaps using an upgraded existing bus stop near the end of Chessel Street. Both stops need to be adjacent to Parson Street station for interchange with MetroWest rail services to Weston-super-Mare, Taunton, Portishead, Bath and the North. Parson Street station itself needs to be made fully disabled accessible as do the interchange bus stops. South West Transport Network response 5 Page 4 of 5

7 NFH-PA and NFH-PA and NFH-PA NFH-PA NFH-PA and NFH-PA NFH-PA Stops here need to be made disabled accessible with necessary pavement works. Stops need to be added on Creswicke Road, upgrading existing stops and ensuring disabled accessibility. Stops and pavements to be made disabled accessible. Additional shelters are required at South Bristol Hospital interchange. Also an additional stop should be considered at South Bristol College Skills Centre. Provision needs to be made for integration with the B&NES Rapid Bus Link to Whitchurch, Stockwood and Keynsham, and with local bus services to Hartcliffe, Withywood and Whitchurch Village. Special Note Regarding Cribbs Causeway Interchange Provision needs to be made for a dedicated shuttle connection between Henbury (MetroWest) Rail Station and Cribbs Causeway Bus Station, providing onward connectivity to and from MetroWest services. A further connecting service needs to be written in to the plans, running from Filton Abbey Wood and Filton North stations via the new development at Charlton Hayes to Cribbs Causeway bus station with a loop back to Bristol Parkway station, ensuring that MetroBus provides the best possible network connections. South West Transport Network 30 May 2014 South West Transport Network response 6 Page 5 of 5

8 South West Transport Network Statement for South Gloucestershire Full Council on 4 June South Gloucestershire Transport Forum on 9 June South Gloucestershire Planning and Transport on 11 June Bristol City Council full council on 10 June Bristol Cabinet 1 July West of England Transport Scrutiny on 30 June West of England Transport Board on 4 July Great Western Specification Consultation initial considerations The final plans for Phase One of MetroWest are due to be completed later this year and concurrently to work their way through the Network Rail GRIP stages 1 to 9. As of writing, there remain serious questions about some elements of the plan. In particular, the retrenchment over the siting of Portishead station is very concerning as this will undoubtedly have a serious negative impact on future take-up of rail services. We need to know if pressure has been brought to bear on Network Rail and the ORR to look at a Stop and Proceed arrangement into the station, similar to the Barnstaple branch. The rail authorities need to be made aware of the detrimental effect of applying over-rigid safety protocol. We understand that 7m for a bridge is unaffordable in the current climate, but we equally need to be assured that the economic and social success of the Portishead project is not jeopardized by red tape. In addition to optimum siting, the plan must include bus-rail interchange facilities and become the focus for transport in the town. The station site adjoining the Lidl car park provides easy pedestrian access to the town centre and shopping facilities, as well as the opportunity for convenient and visible bus/rail integration. We have not yet seen evidence of a realistic MetroBus/MetroRail interchange at the proposed Ashton Gate station or integration with the Stadium, though we understand that this is currently out for consultation with the MetroBus plans. Under the duty to co-operate between North South West Transport Network Statement Page 1 of 9 7

9 South West Transport Network Statement for South Gloucestershire Full Council on 4 June South Gloucestershire Transport Forum on 9 June South Gloucestershire Planning and Transport on 11 June Bristol City Council full council on 10 June Bristol Cabinet 1 July West of England Transport Scrutiny on 30 June West of England Transport Board on 4 July Somerset and Bristol City Council, we need clear planning around the Portishead railway line and associated infrastructure. The current proposed service pattern for the Portishead line still does not include stops at Bedminster or Parson Street which for a headway of 17 minutes end-to-end as against 22 minutes does not seem to be especially critical, especially when set against bus timings and rush-hour car journey timings of an hour or more. There is also the question of integration with the Weston and Taunton line which the current service plan ignores. And finally, it should be pointed out that stopping trains in Bedminster and Parson Street provides gateway access from otherwise ill-served areas of South Bristol. In addition this helps towards the City Council s regeneration planning of South Bristol as per their core strategy and BaNES core strategy. With the final adoption of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan, it is essential that a clear and defined provision is made for station sites on the Henbury Loop around Henbury, Filton (at North Platflorm) and Charlton Halt, and protect sites at Hallen and Chittening for future halt/s which are likely to be required in the next phase of the Metro to meet huge future development in housing and employment (Severnside Plan). A bus network solution alone to this access issue will not do and will end up trapped in yet more gridlock. Park-and-Ride and Bus-Rail interchanges must also be built into the plans to ensure the maximum benefit to the local populace and the greatest uptake of services. South West Transport Network Statement Page 2 of 9 8

10 South West Transport Network Statement for South Gloucestershire Full Council on 4 June South Gloucestershire Transport Forum on 9 June South Gloucestershire Planning and Transport on 11 June Bristol City Council full council on 10 June Bristol Cabinet 1 July West of England Transport Scrutiny on 30 June West of England Transport Board on 4 July In the case of Charlton Hayes, it would be highly beneficial to the development of the emergent community if the building of the station and transport interchanges preceded the construction of the area (in very much the opposite way to how Bradley Stoke was allowed to develop without any public services). It is also imperative that work is commissioned with Network Rail for extra holding sidings for freight trains around Hallen/Chittening, and to the north of Bristol Parkway. The signalling on the Henbury line also needs to be upgraded as part of the Thames Valley Signaling Centre when Bristol signal box is transferred to Didcot. We welcome the local electrification study of the Greater Bristol Metro and Filton Bank and the proposed new stations at Ashley Down and Horfield/Lockleaze, but this needs to be broadened to ensure that the study encompasses not only EMUs but tram-train operation for Henbury, the Severn Beach Line and Portishead once the 165 units are cascaded. For future transport strategy, extensions to Taunton, Frome, Westbury, Warminster, Swindon and Gloucester/Cheltenham should be put on the agenda. Under the duty to co-operate and the SHMA which would include BaNES, North Somerset, South Gloucestershire, Bristol, Mendip and western Wiltshire, South West Transport Network Statement Page 3 of 9 9

11 South West Transport Network Statement for South Gloucestershire Full Council on 4 June South Gloucestershire Transport Forum on 9 June South Gloucestershire Planning and Transport on 11 June Bristol City Council full council on 10 June Bristol Cabinet 1 July West of England Transport Scrutiny on 30 June West of England Transport Board on 4 July the various transport boards which cover the Bristol and Bath travel to work area need to work together and dovetail their planning on transport and land use in the way that Newcastle and Gateshead work together or the various authorities in Greater Manchester. Using these examples, the way forward for this area would be a Combined Authority and Transport Board. Within BaNES the emphasis needs to be on ramps and CCTV at Keynsham, a new station at Saltford, CCTV at Oldfield Park and new stations at Bathampton and Corsham with appropriate bus-rail interchanges and onward links to serve the new development areas within the core strategy (for instance from Keynsham to Whitchurch, South Bristol Hospital and the proposed Whitchurch Park-and-Ride). The Somer Valley development which will see a large increase in residential and employment provision within Radstock, Midsomer Norton and Chilcompton, means that there is increasing pressure to provide a rail link to Radstock along the existing trackbed with a station in the town centre linking to a high quality bus/rail interchange within the NRR land. This is subject to Secretary of State call in on the plans, due to inadequate public transport provision. There is a clear duty of co-operation between BaNES, Mendip and Somerset County Council over the planning of this area. The inclusion of stations at Charfield (for Wotton-under-Edge), Stonehouse Bristol Road (Bristol-Gloucester line) and Royal Wootten Bassett need to be built into neighbouring local authority and LEP economic plans. To this end, South West Transport Network Statement Page 4 of 9 10

12 South West Transport Network Statement for South Gloucestershire Full Council on 4 June South Gloucestershire Transport Forum on 9 June South Gloucestershire Planning and Transport on 11 June Bristol City Council full council on 10 June Bristol Cabinet 1 July West of England Transport Scrutiny on 30 June West of England Transport Board on 4 July we would like to see evidence of this joint working in progress under the duty to co-operate. A clear plan for the delivery of new stations and lines needs to be drawn up. With the IEP being constructed through the Bristol area (on a timeplan driven by the DfT and the Welsh Government), timescales for construction or passive provision of local stations and related infrastructure need to be clear and coordinated with the IEP. If this is not done, the local rail project is likely to be marginalized, and therefore difficult and increasingly expensive to achieve. Even with Network Rail s confirmation of four-tracking at Filton Bank and the extra platforms at Bristol Parkway and Temple Meads and East Bristol Junction, the rest of the Metro is not included beyond Phase One. Intermodal interchanges need to be prioritised at Bristol Temple Meads, Bristol Parkway, Filton Abbey Wood, Lawrence Hill, Clifton Down, Westonsuper-Mare, Yatton, Nailsea and Backwell (where a disabled ramp needs to be incorporated), Bath Spa and Oldfield Park. In the case of Temple Meads, Intermodal should include ferry services as well as local and Metro buses. Any new ferry services at Bath or along the Bristol Channel should also be dovetailed into the MetroWest system. Beyond the major projects, the duty to co-operate needs to take account of the specific requirements of several local areas. The rural hinterland to Bristol and Bath and within the counties of Somerset and Gloucestershire has transport networks and requirements which are South West Transport Network Statement Page 5 of 9 11

13 South West Transport Network Statement for South Gloucestershire Full Council on 4 June South Gloucestershire Transport Forum on 9 June South Gloucestershire Planning and Transport on 11 June Bristol City Council full council on 10 June Bristol Cabinet 1 July West of England Transport Scrutiny on 30 June West of England Transport Board on 4 July significantly different from the urban areas, and need to be recognized and protected as such to allow access to jobs and services. Two examples would be maintaining bus services south to Wells, Street and Shepton Mallet and north to Dursely and Gloucester because these supply long-distance commuter and leisure services into and out of the city. Tourism is a major determinant in the economic survival of the West Somerset coast and the Quantocks. The West Somerset Railway is an iconic tourist attraction which is currently owned and underwritten by Somerset County Council. In a cost-cutting measure, the Council is proposing to transfer the ownership ot the infrastructure to a Railway Society. However, in light of the devastation which recent weather conditions have wrought on virtually every line in the South West (from Reading to Cheltenham to Penzance), there must be serious questions about how a private railway company could manage such an economically unpredictable and uninsurable piece of major infrastructure. This is a coastal line in part and has been washed away in the past. Other parts of the route are also liable to landslip, and there are numerous bridges, any of which is liable to bridge strikes or water damage. We believe that, if Somerset wishes not to manage this asset, and given the fact we are almost certainly heading into a period of increasingly extreme and unpredictable weather due to climate change, the permanent way and associated infrastructure would be better protected by transferring the assets to Network Rail (who have both the wherewithal and the experience South West Transport Network Statement Page 6 of 9 12

14 South West Transport Network Statement for South Gloucestershire Full Council on 4 June South Gloucestershire Transport Forum on 9 June South Gloucestershire Planning and Transport on 11 June Bristol City Council full council on 10 June Bristol Cabinet 1 July West of England Transport Scrutiny on 30 June West of England Transport Board on 4 July to deal with contingency and emergency planning) with a long-term lease back to the West Somerset PLC. It should also be pointed out that Somerset County Council have themselves supported a bid through the Heart of the South West Transport Board and LEP to reopen the route to network trains along with the Okehampton line. This would allow for a year-round seven-day a week service to run through from Bristol/Taunton to Minehead, opening up the line to serve other economic drivers beyond pure tourism. Attention is drawn to the importance of maintaining regional services via Weston-super-Mare to Taunton and Exeter (using 165 and bimodal IEPs), to Gloucester, Cheltenham, Worcester and Malvern via Yate, to Frome via Bath and Trowbridge/Westbury and on to Weymouth, stopping services to Swindon, and to Newport and Cardiff via Filton and Patchway. The Bristol to London Waterloo via Bath, Salisbury and Andover route needs increased frequencies and stops at Keynsham and Oldfield Park (part of the South West Trains franchise consultation running concurrently with Great Western). The Bristol to Brighton direct service should be maintained and made more customer-attractive with improved timings. British Transport Police and the Neighbourhood Policing teams need to be kept in place as part of the Transport Security Plan. In addition we would like to see the maintenance of close working relationships between BTP and Avon and Somerset Police. South West Transport Network Statement Page 7 of 9 13

15 South West Transport Network Statement for South Gloucestershire Full Council on 4 June South Gloucestershire Transport Forum on 9 June South Gloucestershire Planning and Transport on 11 June Bristol City Council full council on 10 June Bristol Cabinet 1 July West of England Transport Scrutiny on 30 June West of England Transport Board on 4 July South Bristol has traditionally been the poor relation in local planning and it would benefit the area enormously to create a local enterprise zone centered on Hartcliffe and Filwood hopefully including MetroBus/MetroRail links to Parson Street, Ashton Gate and Keynsham. A future option which would also benefit the area would be a Park and Ride facility at Flax Bourton on the Weston rail line. On the overall strategy we are very concerned that the current plan displays an over-emphasis on aerospace and related industries, which may well not remain as major employers in the Greater Bristol city region. At the same time there appears to be a lack of focus on tourism which is not only one of the largest employers but also likely to see growth in the coming decades. Finally, the lack of a combined transport authority for the city region is a severe hindrance to the delivery of high quality public services and also to giving local projects the clout and authority they need in the face of competition from treasury-driven planning and national strategies. When projects are brought to completion, the lack of an ITA means that maintenance is not necessarily followed through. Bristol Bus Station, Bath Bus Station and Cribbs Causeway are all good examples, where the fracturing of responsibility means that information services, toilets and cafés tend to be discoordinated rather than integral to the running of the facility. In all of the transport planning for our region, the lack of a transport authority with real powers Is probably the greatest barrier to delivery. South West Transport Network Statement Page 8 of 9 14

16 South West Transport Network Statement for South Gloucestershire Full Council on 4 June South Gloucestershire Transport Forum on 9 June South Gloucestershire Planning and Transport on 11 June Bristol City Council full council on 10 June Bristol Cabinet 1 July West of England Transport Scrutiny on 30 June West of England Transport Board on 4 July David Redgewell South West Transport Network Tel South West Transport Network Statement Page 9 of 9 15

17 Response to Great Western Franchise proposals We agree with the five-year contract period specified in the document and the three-year extension on South West Trains. Q1 Q2 Fanchisee to work with future devolved administrations, present county councils and unitary authorities in developing service specification and management of the franchise, including station improvement programmes, Access for All planning an integration with other transport modes (i.e. bus and ferry). (Similar to the railway executive proposals for the North and the West Midlands). We believe that Taunton, Exeter, Newton Abbot and Plymouth should be added into the list of destinations for bimodal IEP services listed in 5.7. We also believe that the electrification programme should be carried on in Control Period 6, towards Exeter and Plymouth. In 5.11 the increased capacity at Temple Meads needs to take account of the Greater Bristol Metro project (trading as MetroWest), both in terms of the provision of platform space and passenger capacity in the short term and looking forward into Control Period 6 and 7. This will include provision for the Portishead line, Henbury Loop and cross city services between Taunton and Gloucester/Cheltenham, and Frome/Westbury/ Bath additional services. We believe that Bristol Temple Meads needs to be designated as a South West Hub station in the same way as the Manchester Hub is designated, including a public transport interchange. An opportunity exists as a small add-on to the Welsh Valleys Electrification to run a stopping (regional) service from Swansea through Cardiff to Bristol Temple Meads, Bath and Swindon. Q3 We would like to see the Oxford to Bedford service referred to in 5.18, start from Bristol and run via Bath, Chippenham and Swindon, to extend the range of destinations available from the Greater Bristol and Bath region, and to simplify connectivity with feeder services. This would also facilitate the opening of Corsham and Wootton Bassett stations with local authority/lep funding. Another missed opportunity here is the provision of a through route between Bristol and Minehead via Weston-super-Mare and Taunton, operating direct services over the Taunton to Bishops Lydeard section. We fully support a resilient railway through the South West including diversionary routes via Yeovil and Castle Cary as well as a reopened line between Exeter and Plymouth via Okehampton and Tavistock. Q4 A number of remapping options are identified in our response to Q3 above. In addition we would like to see a number of direct services between Bristol and Hereford via Severn Tunnel Junction, Cwmbran, Pontypool Road and Abergavenny. This could include putting into service some of 16

18 the empty coach stock workings (both conventional and IEP bimodal fleet) in both directions between Bristol and Hereford. Q5 Q6 Q7 In 5.21 the new stations at Pill, Portishead and Ashton Gate (possibly Control Period 6) need to be added. In addition, the MetroWest project (Greater Bristol Metro) involves a number of new stations over the next ten years: Ashley Hill, Horfield/Lockleaze, North Filton, Henbury, Saltford Parkway, Bathampton, Corsham, Charfield and Stonehouse Bristol Road. Economic growth in the Greater Bristol area is being concentrated around new and future rail corridors: North Bristol Fringe (Henbury Loop) 9000 houses and jobs, Portishead, Ashton Gate/Long Ashton (Portishead line), Keynsham, Bath and Weston-super-Mare and at Quedgeley (south of Gloucester). We fully support the inclusion of the Devon Metro routes (referred to in 3.11) in the franchise and the new stations at Marsh Barton, Newcourt and Edginswell. The two Metro Projects and their associated new stations and services represent value for money in terms of economic growth within the South West region. Please note that the franchise should include reference to the LEP economic plans for the region: the West of England, Heart of the West, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire as well as the previous consultation on rail decentralisation. A half-hourly stopping service on the Bristol to Taunton corridor (including stops at Bedminster, Parson Street, Weston Milton, Highbridge and Bridgwater) would reflect and encourage the economic development and regeneration which the area is experiencing. All-station stopping services on a half-hourly pattern between Bristol and Avonmouth with hourly extension to Severn Beach. An hourly service between Bristol and Weymouth (via Westbury and Yeovil), with commuter journeys into Yeovil, Dorchester and Weymouth. This subject was covered by a study by the Heart of Wessex CRP. Evening services between Weymouth and Westbury need to be developed. The two services listed in 3.12 (Swindon/Melksham/Westbury and Newton Abbot /Paignton) should be retained as part of the SLC. Exeter to Okehampton, currently running as a Sunday service with local authority funding needs to be extended to an hourly seven-day a week operation jointly with DfT funding and incorporated as part of the SLC. Hourly service between Cheltenham, Gloucester, Yate and Bristol calling at all stations, with a better evening and Sunday coverage to allow for leisure use and the development of the night-time economy. Extend St Erth/St Ives service to start from Penzance giving useful local public transport link. Additional stopping patterns between Bristol and Cardiff, providing a more consistent direct service from Lawrence Hill/Stapleton Road, with better connections at Filton Abbey Wood, additional stops at Patchway and 17

19 Severn Tunnel Junction. Pilning needs a commuter service and shopping services, rather than the current once-a-week call. Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 We would like to see at least a retention of the 2014 timetable service levels. In addition we do not want to see any reduction of stopping services or removal of intermediate stops, unless this is compensated for by additional/alternative services, along the lines of semi-fast and stopping trains alternating on a route. In particular the Portsmouth to Cardiff line needs additional capacity as it suffers from severe overcrowding. Extra rolling stock is urgently required to provide extra capacity for this route and the corresponding Taunton to Cardiff services. The Devon and Cornwall branchline services should remain at or above their present level of service in order to connect with the London - West of England Mainline (Anglo Cornish services). The London to Weston-super-Mare and Taunton services are currently specified to run via Bath Spa. Under the IEP service pattern proposals (fig 7.1 and text) they are diverted via Bristol Parkway. The Parkway to Taunton route already has numerous Cross Country services as well as a regular local GW services. The connection between Chippenham, Bath and the South West needs to be retained. The current London/Taunton Intercity service makes specified calls at Highbridge and Burnham and Bridgwater. This is not reflected in the franchise document, and needs to be included. A limited number of bimodal trains should operate between London and Exeter via Westbury, Frome, Castle Cary, Taunton, and Tiverton, with extensions to Plymouth or Paignton. A fast service between London and Exeter/Plymouth/Torbay needs to be maintained to keep the region accessible within reasonable journey times. High frequency metro-type service is required on the Thames Valley lines. Bedwyn service should run between Reading and Castle Cary as a stopping service to provide connectivity into and out of Intercity services along the London - Taunton and Exeter corridor with Westbury as a hub for connections to Cardiff, Bristol, Salisbury, Southampton, Portsmouth and Weymouth. They could do more to promote and facilitate integration with other services (as per the French and Swiss rural examples). Barnstaple to Ilfracombe, Westward Ho, Appledore and Bideford are good examples of where advertising and through-ticketing could make a big difference. The Falmouth ferries and Weymouth/Channel Island services are further examples of where marketing and ticketing should be better thoughtout. Station catering and summer ticket offices could also be used to generate income and increase passenger satisfaction. 18

20 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Stops on rural and community services should not be cut. Reducing stopping patterns will result in a less flexible service for the community and will serve to damage the reputation and public perception of the lines in question. The example of cutting occasional stops at Sea Mills and Lawrence Hill on the Bristol/Severn Beach route means that what was supposed to become a turn-up-and-go service has become effectively unpredictable and unreliable unless you happen to know the timetable. The Barnstaple line is also severely affected by this unhelpful and passenger-unfriendly irregular stopping pattern. This should not be a matter for decision by the train operator, but belongs to the local authorities and the devolved body (local transport boards). A full action plan needs to be put into place by the TOCs (FGW, SWT, Arriva and Cross Country) to operate diversionary routes and coordinate bus and rail services. Well organised good quality rail replacement bus services need to be in place with low floor vehicles, extra luggage faciities, good information in print and electronic media, good customer care and refreshments. Where there is not a direct replacement service, integration and information on local services needs to be available and through rail tickets need to be accepted. During the IEP construction phase, the reinstatement of the Bradford Curve would allow a diversionary route to be established between Bath and Swindon via Melksham. This could also lead to future service options. The DfT needs to boost the GW fleet as soon as extra (cascaded) rolling stock becomes available, especially the 165 Thames Turbo fleet, and any 319 units which become available from Thameslink. Also to continue to inter-hire between GW and SWT. Improved reliability and punctuality is essential at Bristol Temple Meads and Exeter St Davids where local track layout (Bristol East Junction and Cowley Bridge in particular) provide severe bottlenecks. Westbury requires an extra platform to ease congestion and improve through reliability. Create an alliance between GW and Network Rail (similar to the SWT example) to bring together track and train in one management structure. Arriva has a similar, highly successful, arrangement in Wales). Devolve the powers of the Greater Bristol Metro to a City Region Authority covering 50 miles around Bristol, similar to Merseyrail, the Northern Railway Executive, Centro (WMRE) and TfL. Decentralisation of public transport to the City Regions WILL save money, will provide better specification, provide more ticket sales points and better revenue protection. Two travel shops which could be developed locally are Clifton Down and Highbridge. 19

21 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Nailsea and Backwell station, Parson Street, Lawrence Hill, Stapleton Road, Patchway, Pilning, Severn Tunnel Junction, Bridgwater, Dorchester West, Bruton, Cheltenham Spa, Weston-super-Mare, Yeovil Junction and just some of the stations in the West which require to be made accessible. It should not be a matter of random decision which stations are made accessible. Access for All should be made available on a rolling funding programme subject to full consultation and participation by local authorities and stakeholders. This funding should not be subject to withdrawal (as has recently been the case at Nailsea). And the final signoff should not be in the hands of the contractor (TOC). More stations need CCTV (such as Keynsham, Oldfield Park, Bedminster and the northern end of the Severn Beach line). There need to be more neighbourhood policing teams with BTP, more PCSOs, the transfer of Group 4 policing to PCSOs to be managed jointly with the TOC. Bridgwater, Weston, Swindon, Gloucester and Cheltenham. Closer working with the Police and Crime Commissioners. Information on stations, and in particular extra staffing at affected stations, real-time information which works, local radio and social media (for advance information mainly). There is room for improvement over shared facilities between GW and the Welsh TOC. Better liaison needs to happen between the DfT and the Welsh Government over how this is managed. Train cleanliness, station cleanliness, the state of air conditioning systems, toilets, the provision of catering services (on train and in station) and revenue protection all need to be more closely monitored, including ontrain revenue protection. The Railway Executive needs to take more responsibility for integrated transport by requiring the TOC to work closely with bus operators on timetabling, through ticketing, real time information at stations (Taunton/Minehead, Exeter/Bude and Temple Meads/Bristol Airport) are all good examples of how this can be made to work with timetable information and promotion on the trains, at stations and at bus terminals.) The franchise needs to take account of ferry connections at Portsmouth (for IoW, France and Spain), Fishguard (for Rosslare), Pembroke Dock (for Rosslare), Southampton (for IoW), Weymouth (for Channel Islands and France), Plymouth (for France and Spain) 20

22 South West Transport Network Statement for West of England Partnership Planning Housing & Communities Board on 4 April at City Hall The South West Rail Plan an Opportunity for the West In view of the continuing dislocation of the mail rail artery to the South West of England, we need to know if the WEP and the Bristol Mayor are directly involved in pushing the Secretary of State and the Department for Transport along with the Prime Minister for the speedy reopening of the railway between Bridgwater and Penzance, without long-term line speed restrictions or other kinds of austerity planning. Are WEP working with the South West Councils, Cornwall LEP, Dorset and Somerset LEP, the Heart of the West LEP, Network Rail and the train operating companies as part of the South West Peninsula Rail Task Force? We would also like to know how active the WEP have been in promoting the current and future infrastructure requirements of the local rail network as part of the plans for resilience and redesigning of the route with the South West Peninsula Rail Task Force. We need to ensure that suitable turnbacks, signalling options, track and station layout are included to ensure the speedy and straightforward implementation of the MetroWest plans. Whilst, on the face of it, the majority of the Task Force s brief lies outside the WEP boundaries, the rebuilding of this line is nonetheless of vital and pressing concern to the economy of the local area, both in terms of the South West Transport Network Statement Page 1 of 4 21

23 South West Transport Network Statement for West of England Partnership Planning Housing & Communities Board on 4 April at City Hall mainline access and the tourism which this generates, and of local rail services across the Bristol conurbation which provides aces to employment and social mobility. There are significant issues about planning the MetroWest project into the redesign of the South West Mainline as track layout and signalling systems cannot be easily adapted once the plans are approved by the Secretary of State. This may well be the best opportunity the WEP and the Mayor will get to see electrification extended to Weston, Taunton, Exeter and Plymouth, with the obvious implications for local services in the future, such as an electrified operation between Taunton and Swindon or Weston-super- Mare to Bristol Parkway. Indeed, electrification of the route between Parkway and Gloucester/Cheltenham is already built into the Network Rail Control Period. To date, there has not been the same kind of impetus to electrify the local rail network in the Bristol travel-to-work area as we have seen in the South Wales Valley Lines. This is an example of how the West and the South West Region are not being taken seriously in terms of major infrastructure development and in building a coherent local transport network. Ironically the current crisis may provide a little leverage to help redress this apparently endemic imbalance. South West Transport Network Statement Page 2 of 4 22

24 South West Transport Network Statement for West of England Partnership Planning Housing & Communities Board on 4 April at City Hall Electrification of local services between Portishead, Taunton, Westonsuper-Mare, Severn Beach, Henbury, Gloucester/Cheltenham, Yate, Bath, Westbury, Frome, Warminster and Bristol, along with the rest of the MetroWest project would bring enormous economic benefit to the Greater Bristol area. The infrastructure project itself would create a significant employment boost, and the provision of a fast, efficient local rail network would not only improve journey to work times and the journey to work experience, but would of course attract new investment by employers to whom the quality and scope of local commuter access is often a deciding factor. If the DfT and the Secretary of State are making a decision about the potential electrification of the South West Mainline as a core element in the upgrade, this will mean that the issue of electrified rolling stock for local services will certainly need to be addressed and it is very important that WEP and the Mayor are prepared for this eventuality. The local services on the Swindon Bath Bristol Newport Cardiff route are already being proposed for electrified operation using cascaded 319 units from ThamesLink. This will have implications for Chippenham, Corsham, Bathampton, Bath, Oldfield Park, Saltford, Keynsham, Bristol Temple Meads, Lawrence Hill, Stapleton Road, Ashley Hill, Horfield, Filton Abbey Wood, Patchway and Pilning stations in terms of remodelling the platforms and other facilities to meet the requirements of electrified stock. As a final caveat, WEP and the Mayor need to be very clear that funding for restoration and remodelling of rail services to the South West must not South West Transport Network Statement Page 3 of 4 23

25 South West Transport Network Statement for West of England Partnership Planning Housing & Communities Board on 4 April at City Hall be done at the expense of the existing plans for MetroWest and other aspects of the Greater Bristol rail network. We need to be very vigilant that funding for these measures involves new money and not diverted capital from currently programmed projects within the region. David Redgewell South West Transport Network Tel South West Transport Network Statement Page 4 of 4 24

26 Item 2 FOSBR/TfGB Statement on GW Franchise consultation. We would ask WEP Scrutiny and WEP JETC to consider the attached joint submission made by FOSBR and TfGB and submitted to DfT yesterday. We understand from the MetroWest Update that DfT will accept late changes endorsed at the WEP JTEC and LBB meetings on Friday 4 July and would ask that the officers and elected members consider including elements of our FOSBR/TfGB submission into the WEP submission. We have sent WEP officers early drafts of our document and note with gratitude the elements common to our aspirations(in particular, Severn Beach Station service and services to Bedminster and Parson St) that have been incorporated in the WEP response, but regret that there has not been any extended discussion with elected members on this key issue of the GW Franchise. We will be attending WEP Scrutiny and WEP JTEC and will be submitting specific questions to WEP JTEC by the presumed deadline of Monday 30 June at 5pm as we note we have missed the question deadline for WEP Scrutiny (due to meeting the DfT deadline yesterday!). We hope that in this way campaigners and politicians will be able to speak with a united voice to DfT and meet the needs and aspirations of both the travelling public and the elected politicians of the region. A late comment by a campaigner has noted the paucity of our response as regards train service to the wider area, notably Yate, and would ask that this too be considered in the list of options. Yours sincerely, Christina Biggs 25

27 Response to Great Western Franchise Consultation 26 June 2014 Submitted by West of England region campaigners from Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways (FOSBR) and Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance (TfGB) (of which FOSBR is a member) Our response to improvements achieved in recent years We are delighted that several of the requests in our submission to the last Great Western Franchise consultation have been granted, notably the introduction of a new evening service on the Severn Beach line in Sept 2012 and improvements to the service to Parson Street and Bedminster in May These have come about through local authorities, DfT and the train operator working together, of which we would like to see more. We are pleased to note that other improvements are in the pipeline, notably the four-tracking of Filton Bank and the GRIP studies to enable the reopening of the Portishead line and Henbury Loop services, as well as electrification of the Great Western line. However, there is still much to be done. We would ask that such improvements continue to be delivered in the new franchise. There needs to be a steady continual move toward a minimum of half-hourly services to all local stations, as promised in the WEP Joint Local Transport Plan We are glad that the Severn Beach line enhanced service pumppriming by Bristol City Council in May 2008 (at an introductory subsidy of 420,000 per annum, later renegotiated to 200,000) has now been taken into the DfT franchise as of October 2013, but are alarmed at the recent removal of stops from the service and train cancellations; we would like to see action to ensure that the Severn Beach line service does not deteriorate as a result of this coming of age. FOSBR's (not TfGB's) position on the award of the franchise or concession Unlike TfGB and many of the organisations affiliated to it, FOSBR has a position on the franchising system. The following opinion relates to FOSBR only and not to TfGB. At FOSBR's AGM in January 2014, members passed a resolution calling on the government to bring the Great Western Franchise back into public ownership when it runs out in two years time with decisions made more locally as occurs in the other major English cities. FOSBR is concerned at the inefficiency and fragmentation of the franchising system, the loss of revenue to the railway in profit and the lack of any dynamism or risk taking despite the profit motive. While FOSBR wish to see a publicly owned railway, the nature of the services passengers wish to running on our local network remains the same regardless of the way the system is organised. What TfGB, FOSBR and other affiliated groups wish to see is detailed below. 26

28 The following is intended to relate to the consultation as a whole. Further specific information is given (below) in relation to particular consultation questions. 1 Train services 1.1 MetroWest priced options and governance We are pleased to note that Henbury Loop, Portishead and other elements of MetroWest Phase 1 and 2, and the possibility of local electrification, are listed as priced options. We expect WEP (or any replacement local body) to work with Network Rail, DfT and the franchisee to ensure these services are commissioned and run. We would like to see a duty to co-operate written into the franchise, and in agreements between DfT/ central government and WEP (or any replacement local body) and Network Rail. It is important that the new franchise is financed in such a way as to facilitate the introduction of new services during the franchise, avoiding the problems under previous cap-and-collar arrangements (where new services had to generate four or five times their costs to be viable). We value good local governance and support devolution of commissioning and control, looking at the model of Merseyrail as an example of what we would like to see in the West of England. 1.2 Bedminster and Parson Street Retention of improvements in May 2014 timetable We would like to record our thanks to Bristol City Council and First Great Western for the improvements to the service to Bedminster and Parson Street in the May 2014 timetable. As an absolute minimum we request these should be retained in the new franchise extension: the 05:12 ex-taunton early bird train now stopping at 06:13 at Parson St and at 06:16 at Bedminster; and the northbound evening gap train (19:10 ex-weston-super-mare now stopping at 19:34 at Parson St and at 19:37 at Bedminster); together with: 2 27

29 1.2.2 Further improvements to services to Bedminster and Parson Street As well as the retention of the above services, we wish to see the following two further semi-fast trains which should also stop at Bedminster and Parson Street. WEP has already asked for these to be provided and we believe that these stops could be added with no further disruption to the service pattern: the 09:45 from Weston-super-Mare; and the 16:07 from Taunton. Ultimately the goal in the Joint Local Transport Plan 2006 of a half-hour service should be attained for these stations during the five year course of the franchise. The following additional services would be necessary (in both directions) to provide an adequate service at evenings and weekends: 7 more on Monday to Friday evenings, 8 more on Saturday evenings, and 2 more on Sunday evenings. In theory, these changes should not cost any extra money, as the additional services to Bedminster and Parson Street could be provided by stopping existing trains which currently run through those stations non-stop. If, however, additional trains were required, it is believed that the extra cost would be in the region 21,500 p.a. (based on the recent Severn Beach Line subsidy per service). There needs to be a balancing of northbound and southbound stopping trains. More direct trains run from south to north Bristol than in the opposite direction, where changes at Temple Meads are often required. The timing of connections is currently poor, meaning that passengers who wish to travel from south to north Bristol to stations on the Severn Beach line have impossibly short connection times or (more often) face a long wait. For example, the 19:37 from Bedminster arrives at Bristol Temple Meads seven minutes after the Severn Beach line train leaves, so passengers must wait until 20:34. Although we recognise this situation will improve with the proposed cross-bristol trains as part of the MetroWest project, we would like to see better connection times and more trains linking the south and north of Bristol before We would also request that the current through service from London Paddington to Taunton should be retained and that this should continue to stop at the local stations between Bristol Temple Meads and Taunton, namely Nailsea and Backwell, Yatton, Worle and Weston-super-Mare. This could either be achieved by electrification through to Taunton or the provision of bimodal trains. 3 28

30 1.3 Severn Beach line services We would like to see a series of changes to improve the service frequency over the next five years The restoration of services to St Andrew s Road and Sea Mills cut in May 2014 timetable in the next timetable (assumed to be May 2015) We note that from Monday 19 May 2014, the trains arriving at Severn Beach at 11:52, 15:52 and 22:51 and departing Severn Beach at 09:56 and 13:56 no longer stop at St Andrews Road on request. Moreover, the 07:03 from Bristol Temple Meads no longer stops at Sea Mills. We are unhappy that these stops have been withdrawn without consultation with passengers, particularly since there are increasing numbers of passengers using the train to access work along Severnside on a limited number of trains (since most do not go further than Avonmouth). Since this area is earmarked for considerable industrial development and some employers are already attempting to encourage travel to work by train, we ask that the request stops to St Andrews Road which have been withdrawn in these five weekday trains should be restored in the new timetable and that the service to Sea Mills should also be restored. As the reliability of the Severn Beach line (97.5%) is already above the national average (92 96%) we do not see the necessity for cutting any services on this highly successful line, which has achieved a tripling of passenger numbers since the 2008 introduction of a second train subsidised by Bristol City Council and now taken into the franchise as of October We find the operators' simultaneous claims that few passengers use these request stops whilst stating they will save time is disingenuous as if indeed the request stops are not being used there would be no time penalty The extension of some services from Avonmouth to Severn Beach to provide a peak commuter service to Severn Beach station hourly (instead of every two hours) Trains should also be extended to Severn Beach, particularly in the evenings, to serve the expanding warehouses around St Andrews Road and demand at shift change times. We request that the from Temple Meads and either the or from Temple Meads run through to Severn Beach instead of turning back at Avonmouth. This would give an hourly peak service to Severn Beach as an interim to providing a half-hour service as envisaged in the Joint Local Transport Plan We note that there have been numerous occasions when trains scheduled to run through to Severn Beach have been turned back because of signalling problems. We would request that the timetabling be adjusted to build in more contingency time (and avoid a just-in-time approach), without reduction in the service frequency. 4 29

31 1.3.3 Plugging the final large gaps in the evening timetable There remains a significant gap in the evening timetable: 93 minutes (109 on Saturday) between the arrivals at Bristol Temple Meads at 20:34 (from Avonmouth) (20:26 from Severn Beach on Saturday) and 22:07 (22:09 on Saturday) (from Severn Beach). The previous gap in evening services from Bristol Temple Meads to Avonmouth or Severn Beach was filled to create an approximately hourly service, but the timetable in the opposite direction remains irregular. Passengers report this causes them significant problems due to the inability to make journeys at convenient times. One passenger recently reported having to extend (and pay for) extra childcare; others have reported having to use taxis. A later last train from Temple Meads to Severn Beach (currently, the last train leaves at 22:16) would enable people to use the train to return home after an evening out in the city Half-hourly services on the Severn Beach line In 2012, a half-hourly service between Bristol Temple Meads and Avonmouth between 06:00 and midnight was costed for Bristol City Council by officers at 90,000 p.a. Taking into account the effect of previous service improvements on passenger numbers, we do not believe that such additional costs should be met by the local authorities, since the operator should be able to cover most of their costs through additional revenue, particularly if the line is promoted more effectively. Although such a half-hourly service is intended to be provided by MetroWest, this is not until Phase 1 is delivered in We believe this could and should be provided with immediate effect, subject to timetabling issues, and should therefore be authorised by DfT. Passengers and campaigners believe that a regular clockface half-hourly service would enable more people to use the train and create a further modal shift from road transport, as has been seen since the service was increased in The Severn Beach line's service is less than many lines that have smaller numbers of users Direct services from Bristol Parkway (via Filton Abbey Wood) to Bath Spa The daily direct services from Bristol Parkway to Bath Spa that avoid Bristol Temple Meads should stop at Stapleton Road and Lawrence Hill, providing stops at these interchange stations in central Bristol. 1.4 A review of the timetable in order to achieve these improvements, and to enable better connections to other suburban Bristol stations Passengers would like to see an obligation for the franchisee to work with Network Rail to review the local timetable in order to achieve these improvements to services and better connections. 5 30

32 1.5 Regional services Additional services The franchisee should consider the following additional services: Bristol to Oxford. Additional services on busiest parts of Cardiff to Portsmouth route (without splitting it at Bristol, as previously suggested). More direct services from South Wales to Bristol. We would support SEWTA's proposal for an Ebbw Vale to Bristol Parkway service, via Newport Heart of Wessex Line We support the Heart of Wessex Rail Partnership's proposals for hourly services from Bristol to Weymouth TransWilts line We support retention of the current enhanced service. 1.6 Intercity services We welcome the additional trains proposed between Bristol Temple Meads and London Paddington, and the increased number of trains that will connect Bristol Temple Meads and Bristol Parkway. These will enable better connections between intercity, regional and local services, faster services to London and more journey options. We are concerned at the potential impact of the loss of one service per hour between Bristol Parkway and South Wales in the proposed intercity services. While passengers will be able to travel to South Wales by changing at Filton Abbey Wood or Bristol Temple Meads the service from here is already busy and is slower. Consideration needs to be given to ensuring that there are adequate services to make these journeys and that connection times are not problematic when changing trains at these stations. We note that some local stations are served by intercity services in order to increase the number of trains stopping there at peak times when local services are insufficient due to lack of rolling stock. We would urge the franchisee to continue these valuable services as they provide good connectivity to the local residents to London and beyond. The franchisee must ensure that electrification does not lead to a reduction in the number of direct trains between London Paddington and Weston-super-Mare and Taunton, as previously proposed. We support the current proposal of an hourly service on this route. We note that bi-mode or electric IEP trains could be used to stop at local stations off-peak or to form additional services onto local stations. For example, a late evening London- Cheltenham train could form an additional late stopping service from Cheltenham to Bristol after it reaches its destination before it returns to the new depot at Stoke Gifford. Such services would maximise resources and provide extra local services, potentially adding extra earlier or later services. 6 31

33 2 Ticketing, fare collection and revenue protection A comparison of passenger footfall and ticket sales in late 2012 showed that approximately 4,000 per day is being lost in the Bristol city region through inadequate revenue protection. We do not wish the reduced ticket revenue to be interpreted as lower use. Together with CCTV, there should be a rolling programme to provide ticket machines at all local stations, and the franchisee must provide revenue protection staff who conduct regular inspections on stations. The priorities are the busiest stations: Redland, Montpelier, Oldfield Park, Stapleton Road and, in particular, Clifton Down. The latter needs redevelopment of facilities including a staffed ticket office. It is important to note that Clifton Down has more passengers than Keynsham, many of whom travel longer distances on the rail network. We also want the franchisee to be obliged to maintain ticket offices at Weston-super-Mare and Bradford-on-Avon, and at peak times at Filton Abbey Wood. We would like the franchisee to provide new portable ticket machines for the guards on the trains, as the machines currently used are often not functioning. Ticket purchasing and fare collection should be made easier by establishing carnets, smart cards and season tickets (including for part-time workers) and enabling payment by direct debit and printing tickets at home. The present implementation of smart-card ticketing in Bristol buses should be integrated with local rail. We would like the franchisee to be obliged to explore different forms of ticketing. This should mean that fares can stay the same or be lowered in cases of inflated ticket pricing. We would like fares to be reduced to promote sustainable travel and encourage modal shift from the private car. 3 Rolling stock and overcrowding Great Western services suffer high levels of overcrowding in comparison to services elsewhere. The franchisee must reduce and move to eliminate overcrowding and must have the freedom to provide more carriages without having to gain DfT permission. The maximum load per train should be specified, including maximum times for which passengers should be expected to stand. 3.1 Appropriate rolling stock There must be adequate rolling stock, of appropriate quality. There should be a move towards lighter and more fuel-efficient rolling stock during the course of the franchise, enabling faster acceleration between stations, more efficient running, and reduced energy consumption. We would like to see rolling stock cascaded to Bristol from the electrification of Thames valley services. In general, rolling stock changes should maximise the ability to carry conventional cycles as well as folding cycles to make mixed-mode travel an effective commuting option. 7 32

34 3.2 Electrification We welcome the listing of local electrification as a priced option, but would like to see this funded by DfT as part of a rolling programme of electrification of local and regional services. We would like to see local electrification at the earliest opportunity, with work commencing at least within the life of the franchise. If this is done together with the current electrification programme it would be a third cheaper. As well as Filton Bank, we would like to see electrification from Bristol Temple Meads to Yate, Weston-super-Mare and Taunton, on the Severn Beach line and Henbury Loop. As well as facilitating fast, reliable and efficient services, local electrification could also enable cost reductions and electric freight services. Passenger services could benefit from the cascade of current rolling stock when those on Thameslink services are replaced. The West of England Partnership have had indications from DfT that Network Rail's Route Asset Management Plan fund (RAMP) may be available to extend electrification. We would support this. 4 Station improvements As a minimum, the franchisee should be obliged to provide adequate, safe and welcoming station facilities with good signage. Action must be taken to improved accessibility and the ability to interchange with other modes of transport. We would ask for a good level of policing on services late at night and in remote or inner-city areas. To achieve this, partnership working is required with Severnside Community Rail Partnership, TravelWest, Network Rail, and First Great Western, as well as local stakeholders. As noted above, there should be a duty to cooperate. 4.1 Provision of adequate station facilities Provision of waiting areas in many stations currently reflects passenger numbers in the mid-1990s and is wholly inadequate. Passenger numbers have more than doubled on all local routes and stations since then, and tripled on the Severn Beach line. The waiting area should be able to accommodate at least 75% of passengers of passengers joining the heaviest loaded train of the day. This is needed at most local stations but is a particular problem at Yate, Clifton Down, Montpelier, Stapleton Road, Worle, Nailsea, and Oldfield Park. Cycle provision should be increased at all stations, starting at those with greatest passenger numbers, such Redland, Montpelier, Oldfield Park, Stapleton Road, Clifton Down, Filton Abbey Wood and Temple Meads. Cycle lockers should be provided at more isolated stations such as Filton Abbey Wood and Stapleton Road. 8 33

35 4.2 Improvements to station environments We note that participants in the recent Severnside Community Rail Partnership study talked of hidden stations. Access to some local stations is unwelcoming. At Shirehampton, access is along a narrow, twisting alley between tall hedges and corrugated iron walls, which prevents users from seeing any dangers in front and behind (described by one local resident as a mugger's paradise ); at Redland passengers have to walk through the former station yard which is labelled private. Station entrances need to be attractive and well presented, encouraging use and not making users feel isolated or at risk of danger. Community Rail Partnerships should be given more powers and additional funding to make stations more visible and to deal with such issues. The franchisee should be obliged to work with the Severnside and other Partnerships to ensure that access is taken to resolve poor station environments and facilities such as those noted above during the course of the franchise. Many of the actions needed are relatively cheap and straightforward. 4.3 CCTV We welcome the introduction of CCTV at many stations and would like to see this continue to be rolled out to Bedminster, Parson Street, Patchway, Yate, Weston Milton, Oldfield Park and Keynsham and to the remaining stations on the Severn Beach Line. We see this as important since it would enable further improvements to stations, particularly the installation of ticket machines. 4.4 Ticket offices Severnside Community Rail Partnership's study found that many potential passengers are uncertain about how to buy a ticket. Many local stations could benefit from having retail units. We see the Merseyrail Mtogo shops that also serve as ticket sellers as a good model. The presence of retail outlets would also provide a sense of security to passengers. We would urge that the ticket offices at Weston-super-Mare and Bradford-on-Avon be safeguarded for their invaluable service to the local community and reassurance to travellers. We would also ask that the franchisee should consider opening a ticket office modelled on Mtogo shops at Clifton Down, in particular, as the footfall here is so high. In other locations we would like to see ticket machines to enable passengers to buy their tickets before travelling, which would reduce non-collection of fares. The franchisee should be obliged to consult Community Rail Partnerships and other stakeholders on this issue. 4.5 Accessibility Many stations suffer from poor accessibility for people with limited mobility and for children in buggies, notably Parson Street, Lawrence Hill, Stapleton Road (once four-tracking of Filton Bank is in place), Patchway, Nailsea and Backwell, Keynsham and Pilning. As a minimum, the franchisee (and Community Rail Partnerships where they exist) should be required to conduct an accessibility audit of all local stations and produce an action 9 34

36 plan to resolve issues. There should be an expectation that all these stations should be accessible by the end of the five-year franchise. The franchisee should be obliged to work with stakeholders and Community Rail Partnerships (where they exist) on this and other issues. The CRPs and the franchisee could be jointly responsible for ensuring accessibility of stations. CRPs should be better funded by the franchisee, central government and others to carry out this and other work in an expanded role. Funding for improved accessibility should come from central government (Access for All and other funding streams), the franchisee, Network Rail and local authorities, and be specifically allocated for this purpose. Funding should not be removed by central government or others without the consent of local stakeholders. This should prevent the cancellation of work, as has happened recently at Nailsea and Backwell, where emergency work by Network Rail caused delays so that funding was unexpectedly withdrawn. 4.6 Signs and provision of information to facilitate journeys, modal integration and access at all local stations throughout the region: There should be a programme of replacing defaced and damaged signs. The franchisee should be obliged to work with bus operators and the community to ensure each station is well signed from major and adjacent roads to all points of access. We note that many Passenger Transport Executives have installed large signs outside stations on adjacent roads. We see this as an important way to publicise the presence of stations. The franchisee could work with local authorities to promote and sign-post bus-rail interchanges and new opportunities for travel. Signs at stations should clearly guide passengers to nearby bus services and amenities. Signs at bus stops or train stations should say where passengers might travel to: for example, at Stapleton Road station, alight here for buses to Fishponds and Staple Hill. Train timetables should also be placed at the entrance to stations or on nearby roads to encourage passing trade. For example, timetables on the pavement on Lawrence Hill road bridge would be next to bus stops and would mean potential passengers would avoid walking down steps to read the timetable which is currently posted only on the station platform. Elsewhere, timetables could also be placed on the junction of Station Road and Gloucester Road, and at Cromwell Road, for Montpelier station; and on Whiteladies Road for Clifton Down station. Station signage should be the joint responsibility of the franchisee together with strengthened Community Rail Partnerships, working with the local authority and (where appropriate) bus companies

37 4.7 Bus rail interchange It is worth noting that links between west and east Bristol are poor, particularly between the north west and north east (including South Gloucestershire). We therefore ask for the rail and bus timetables to be synchronised across the MetroWest area and that the timetables of bus and rail are adequately advertised at the following stations: Filton Abbey Wood Henbury Loop trains could link with buses to east Bristol, particularly UWE and Emersons Green Science Park. We also ask that the buses currently passing close to Filton Abbey Wood station should call in to the station itself for easy access. The franchisee should proactively work with the local authorities and bus companies to link the station with nearby Filton Avenue Lawrence Hill This station should be promoted as a link with Kingswood and east Bristol. We ask that the bus and rail timetables should be displayed at street level as well as on the station platform Stapleton Road This station should be promoted as a link with Fishponds and north-east Bristol. Bus stops should be repositioned to be closer to the station, where rail replacement services currently stop Bristol Parkway This station should be developed further as a bus-rail interchange, in view of the planned fourth platform Bristol Temple Meads As part of the redevelopment of Temple Meads Enterprise Zone we would like to see buses (including BRT and local and country services through South Bristol) re-routed via Friary and Temple Back East. We would like to see an obligation on the franchisee, Network Rail and the local authority to work together on this and are concerned that there seems to be little co-ordination and a lack of integrated transport planning on this issue Bedminster and Parson Street: Interchange with local bus services at these stations should be developed, especially in view of the recent improvements to the timetable. This should include remodelling of the Parson Street road junction to facilitate access as well as the provision of disabled access to Parson Street station (see below) Keynsham Bus rail interchange should be promoted, in view of the new BANES offices here and its strategic position between Bath and Bristol

38 4.7.8 North Filton The proposed station on the Henbury Loop has considerable potential for park and ride. The site is situated next to new developments at Filton Airfield and Cribbs Causeway, existing local industry and the Stroud and South Gloucestershire (SGS) Filton College campus. There are numerous existing local and regional buses that run along the neighbouring A38, and new local bus services are proposed to serve the new development. Concerns have been expressed about the space taken by a park and ride facility, but space may be saved by building upwards, as at Bristol Parkway Cam and Dursley; Yate; Highbridge and Burnham; Bridgwater; Yatton These stations should also be promoted as bus-rail interchange stations and should be marked on bus route maps Other Park and Ride Schemes There must be a requirement for the concession holder to work with local authorities on the development of the plans for a rail Park and Ride station at Portway on the Severn Beach line and any subsequently developed sites, and an obligation to stop trains there. The franchisee should work with local authorities to carry out development work for a site at Bathampton, where current regional trains could pull into the existing siding, and study the potential for further sites at Flax Bourton (Long Ashton) and in North Bristol at Yate or Winterbourne. 4.8 New stations In view of the numerous developments identified in the answer to question two, we would like to see the reopening of stations. This process should begin during the course of the franchise. New stations should include but not be limited to: Horfield & Lockleaze and Ashley Hill stations on Filton Bank Henbury and North Filton stations on the Henbury Loop Portishead, Pill and Ashton Gate stations on the Portishead Iine Park and Ride stations: Portbury on the Severn Beach line, Winterbourne and Flax Bourton for Bristol Airport St Anne s Park station on the line to Bath Corsham, Chipping Sodbury, Charfield and Saltford in the Bristol Travel to Work Area We would also request that the reopening of Chittening, Hallen and Charlton Halt be considered in view of the considerable developments planned at Filton Airfield and Cribbs Causeway. There must be an obligation to run trains on any new passenger lines and stop at any new stations completed during the term of the franchise

39 5 Infrastructure We support the reopening of the Henbury line as a loop not a spur, and the necessary infrastructure at Avonmouth to enable the smooth running of passenger and freight services. We request that as part of the Henbury Loop plans that the single track sections of the Severn Beach line be redoubled as concerns about reliability and punctuality have resulted in the cutting of services to St Andrews Road and Sea Mills and would have a detrimental effect on the viability of the Henbury Loop service. We would like to see a review of the resilience of existing infrastructure and the needs of the railway in view of climate change, electrification, the seven-day railway, expansion of ports and increasing passenger numbers. This should include diversionary routes, such as the Henbury Loop, which is also a significant freight line, and options for new routes to Devon and Cornwall to plan for further closures at Dawlish. We believe that central government should be funding the reopening of the Henbury Loop to passengers, in view of its importance as a freight line and diversionary route as an alternative to Filton Bank during engineering works. This should occur sooner than the delivery date for MetroWest Phase 2 of 2021 onwards, which local authorities are planning. 6 Governance We ask for a democratically controlled local transport body, modelled on Merseytravel. 7 Tram trains future proofing If the DfT's electrification study of local services is approved, we would like to see tram trains serve local routes, providing improved reliability and performance. It is vital to ensure that provision is made to enable connections with any future street tram running at Bristol Temple Meads and Bedminster stations. Please also consider the following responses to the consultation questions, in addition to the comments above: 13 38

40 Specific responses to DfT consultation questions 1. Respondents are encouraged to consider whether any additional objectives should be reflected in the franchise specification for the 5 year period from September 2015 We give qualified support to the objectives proposed by DfT for this franchise extension. We are pleased with the emphasis on improving the passenger experience and reliability, increasing capacity and the links between provision of rail services and economic growth. We particularly welcome the emphasis on working with Community Rail Partnerships and local stakeholders, and the recognition that capacity is the main challenge to be addressed for local services. We see the need to cater for local demand (both latent and existing) and to encourage modal shift to rail as further key objectives, which are implied in the consultation document. Although we welcome the inclusion of the Henbury Loop, Portishead and other elements of MetroWest Phase 1 and 2, and the possibility of local electrification as priced options, we are concerned at the lack of any specific service objectives, particularly specific service improvements. As noted above, objectives for the Greater Bristol Travel to Work Area should include an (at least) 30-minute frequency of specifically marketed MetroWest services within the city region, extending at least to Severn Tunnel Junction, Yate, Chippenham, Frome, Westbury, Weston-super-Mare, and Avonmouth. The service should be half-hourly from 0600 to 2400, Monday to Saturday. Services should be at least hourly on Sundays and preferably half-hourly. Associated with this, there should be new stations and adequate rolling stock, as identified above. Nothing in the franchise should obstruct these objectives, and everything should facilitate it. 2. Respondents are encouraged to consider and identify any specific local factors that they believe might influence the future level of passenger demand, which should be reflected in the specification for the new franchise. Suppressed Demand released by Greater Bristol Metro services: Network Rail predicted that passenger numbers in the Greater Bristol area would rise by 41% in the ten years from Despite the recession, it appears that this figure has already been exceeded even on the existing inadequate services. Travel Watch South West estimates that there will be a capacity gap of approximately one third based on Network Rail's current predictions. New rail services are required to meet existing and suppressed demand. If new services run, the demand is there and they will be used. Bristol City Council's investment in the Severn Beach line has produced the second highest growth of any branch line in the country an increase of 90% between 2007/8 and 2010/11. Passenger numbers on the Severn Beach line have now reached more than one million per annum, three times the ridership at the introduction of the enhanced service in This shows the level of 14 39

41 suppressed demand. Large passenger increases are to be expected over the franchise period and should be planned for. Road congestion in the Greater Bristol area: It has been estimated by the West of England Partnership that the economic costs of road congestion were 350 million in 2005, rising to 600 million in 2020 if significant action is not taken. Rail journeys are considerably quicker than similar journeys by road and the carbon footprint is much smaller by comparison. Economic and residential developments: As the West of England Partnership notes, many residential and economic developments are planned that will increase the demand and need for greater rail capacity. Many of these will be adjacent to existing railway lines. These include: North Yate. The Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Scheme (CPNN) in Charlton Hayes and Filton airfield (next to the Henbury Loop station sites of North Filton and Henbury). Cheswick, the new Bristol Rovers stadium, and the expansion of the University of the West of England and Ministry of Defence at Filton Abbey Wood. Harry Stoke near Bristol Parkway. The Avonmouth and Severnside enterprise area adjacent to the Severn Beach line and Henbury Loop. The new Southmead Hospital (and its proximity to a potential Horfield and Lockleaze station at the Constable Road/gasworks site or at Bonnington Walk). Bath enterprise area. Weston-super-Mare enterprise area. Filton enterprise area. Bristol Temple Meads enterprise area. The development of Filton airfield alone will involve building 5,700 homes, 50 hectares of employment land, and 35,000 square metres of retail space, next to the Henbury Loop. We have serious concerns that, in waiting for developer contributions to fund rail improvements, particularly work on the Henbury Loop, new residents will become used to travelling by private car and those concerned with travel planning will then have to work hard to change existing behaviour. To avoid this, we want to see immediate funding of rail improvements, particularly the Henbury Loop, to enable work to start before the development is complete and therefore to provide prospective residents with positive transport choices from the start. If not funded by central government, this could be in the form of a loan from central to local government or by using the expected increase in council tax receipts ( the New Homes Bonus ). Existing capacity gap: Travel Watch South West estimates that there will be a capacity gap of approximately one third based on Network Rail's current predictions. This will make it difficult for local authorities to plan for sustainable future economic and population growth. - Bristol as a Cycling City: 15 40

42 We would like to see increased and secure bicycle parking at all stations. All trains should have sufficient provision for the carriage of cycles. Need for Integrated Ticketing: As is the case with ITA authorities elsewhere, the Greater Bristol area needs a fully interchangeable ticketing system enabling transfer between rail, bus and ferry on one ticket. 3. Respondents are encouraged to highlight interfaces with any other schemes that are likely to be delivered during the next five years, which the operator may need to consider. As well as the main body of our response, see also answer to question 2. As part of the redevelopment of Temple Meads Enterprise Zone, we would like to see buses (including BRT and local and country services through south Bristol) re-routed via Friary and Temple Back East. We would like to see an obligation on the franchisee, Network Rail and the local authority to work together on this and are concerned that there seems to be little coordination and a lack of integrated transport planning on this issue. It is also vital to ensure that provision is made to enable connections with any future street tram running at Bristol Temple Meads. Electrification of the Great Western main line provides the opportunity to electrify other local lines (to Weston-super-Mare/Taunton, to Yate, the Severn Beach line, the Henbury Loop and the Portishead line), to enable electric local services. Should local electrification be carried out, the franchisee should be able to obtain appropriate and additional rolling stock without the need for authorisation from DfT. 4. Respondents are invited to identify any changes or reorganisation to the routes served by the Great Western franchise that they would recommend; and to explain their rationale See also the main body of our response. With electrification and in view of the proposed reduction in the number of Inter-city trains linking South Wales and Bristol there may be a case for extra services using electric traction. Additionally a rolling programme of electrification would enable new electric services to a variety of destinations. 5. Respondents who wish to promote service changes should clearly identify these in their response to this consultation, as well as any supporting business case or value for money (VfM) analysis. See also the main body of our response. While we agree with the need to have value for money, we have serious concerns about the use of narrow and over-simplified numerical measures such as Cost-Benefit Ratios to guide investment. Value for money must incorporate long-term benefit for society and the environment. Such benefit ranging from human well-being, to network contingency 16 41

43 robustness, to climate change mitigation is wide-ranging, and so cannot be reduced to a mathematical formula or single figure. We believe that the variety of positive outcomes that would result means further investment in the local rail network is beneficial. 6. Respondents are encouraged to bring to our attention research, evidence or publications which they believe should be considered in the development of the franchise specification. a) Severnside Community Rail Partnership s annual reports and passenger growth figures for b) Rail documents and research from the previous South West Regional Development Agency and South West Regional Assembly. c) Severnside Community Rail Partnership Progress Report d) West of England Annual Rail Survey Report e) TravelWatch South West 'Greater Western, Lesser Western' report September f) The previous Avon County Council Rapid Transit Plans. g) Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance document Growing Bristol s Railways. h) Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways previous submission to the franchise consultation, i) Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance's previous submission to the franchise consultation, j) Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways leaflet 'Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways (FOSBR)'s suggestions for the new Greater Western franchise' November k) Network Rail Route Utilisation Strategy for Great Western region. l) Network Rail Route Regional Urban Market Study m) Network Rail Route Long Distance Market Study Respondents are invited to propose any changes to the current service pattern which they feel should be considered and to explain their rationale, for example by identifying specific local factors which might influence the future level of passenger demand which they consider should be reflected in a revised specification. See the main body of our response above, in Section 1 8. Respondents are invited to say whether they value a faster headline journey time, or more intermediate stops, on a particular journey that they make (and to identify that journey). See the main body of our response above. In general we support an improved local service with a mix of intercity, semi-fast and local trains, but not at the expense of local services. We wish to express our opposition to the loss of stops at St Andrews Road and Sea Mills on the Severn Beach line and our support for their reinstatement. We note that cutting these stops has had no impact on journey times. We would draw a distinction between running new fast services with stops omitted (which we could potentially support on regular services such as Cardiff to Bristol) and the removal of stops, particularly when services are insufficiently regular, which we cannot support

44 9. Should any elements of the indicative modelled intercity service pattern be mandated, and can it be improved? What should the priority be for intercity services where IEP trains are not planned to operate? We continue to maintain that local services should be provided and not be sacrificed for gains in the intercity service. We want to see the continuation of the current number of direct train services from London Paddington to Weston-super-Mare and Taunton, which provide important through links between Weston-super-Mare and Bath, as well as intermediate stations. 10. What do you feel the Great Western operator s priorities on the suburban network should be once it is electrified in 2016 e.g. for additional higher capacity, fast commuter services, or improved journey times? We see no reason why these aspirations should be mutually exclusive and certainly we believe there is no reason to reduce the number of stops on the suburban network, as current journey times by rail are far superior to those by car or bus, owing to the current gridlock experienced in Greater Bristol at peak commuter times After the electrification to Newbury, expected in 2016, would passengers needs be best served by a diesel service from Bedwyn, Hungerford and Kintbury to Newbury connecting into a fast service to London Paddington, or a diesel stopping service from Bedwyn to Reading connecting to a fast service from Reading to London Paddington, or other options? The former would give faster journey times to London but add a change at Newbury for passengers to Reading. Bimodal trains (as for the London Paddington to Taunton service) would be preferable to a need to change trains. 12. Respondents are invited to suggest ways in which Community Rail Partnerships could deliver more of the beneficial outcomes for passengers achieved so far. Community Rail Partnerships should be given more powers and additional funding to publicise services and make further environmental improvements to stations. There should also be an obligation on the franchisee to consult with CRPs on timetable changes and to allow CRPs to make representations about service improvements. CRPs should also be obliged to meet with passengers and have passengers represented on their boards. See section 4 above, in particular 4.2, 4.4, 4.5 and While maintaining end-to-end service frequency, could the needs of passengers be better met by providing the operator with some flexibility over calling patterns on branch lines? We think the current calling pattern on branch lines should be specified as a minimum requirement, with the operator having flexibility to introduce further services in consultation with local stakeholders

45 14. Respondents are asked to suggest what mitigating actions and steps the GW operator should be expected to take to meet the needs of its passengers both during the planned disruption to the GW franchise as a result of planned upgrade works and when force majeure events, such as extreme weather, impact the network. There should be an obligation on the franchisee to consult with passengers, Community Rail Partnerships and other stakeholders on timetable changes and planned disruption. See also section 5 of the main body of our response. 15. Where the provision of temporary, alternative service is unavoidable, respondents are invited to suggest what alternative provisions they would prefer the GW operator to put in place. For long distance journeys, train services should be diverted via alternative routes rather than being partially replaced by buses. The franchisee should also arrange for tickets to be valid with other train operators. For local services, buses and/or taxis should be provided. Limited stops introduced on diverted long distance trains could supplement some displaced heavily loaded local stops. 16. Respondents are encouraged to consider what steps the GW operator should be expected to take when reacting to changes in passenger demand, and what targets for capacity should be set. All targets for capacity and passenger growth have been exceeded in recent years and the recent trends should be expected to continue as urban traffic congestion worsens and passenger numbers increase. Initially the franchisee must reduce and move to eliminate overcrowding. The franchisee should negotiate with local authorities within the area and plan to increase capacity within the Greater Bristol area. Additional rolling stock must be specified in the franchise and the franchisee must have the power to obtain this. Targets for growth should be set in line with Travel Watch South West's estimate that there will be a capacity gap of approximately one third based on Network Rail's current predictions. Rolling stock from Thameslink or north west England services should be cascaded to Greater Bristol, and any new rolling stock orders should provide a higher capacity than initially required. The franchisee must also have the freedom to provide service improvements without seeking DfT permission and without financial penalty (as has happened previously under the cap-and-collar arrangements). 17. Respondents are invited to highlight if there are specific stations or services where they feel particular attention should be paid to reliability or punctuality. There are persistent, albeit usually minor, problems with punctuality on services from Cardiff to Taunton and from Taunton and Weston-super-Mare to Yate and Gloucester. These may be due to capacity constraints in and around the Severn Tunnel, Filton Bank, Gloucester and Cheltenham, from Worle Junction to Weston, and south of Temple Meads 19 44

46 station. We welcome the area resignalling and quadrupling of Filton Bank, and would like to see work undertaken to improve capacity in these other areas as a priority. 18. Are there any areas of the GW franchise where you feel cost savings could be made? See the main body of our response above. Electrification with newer and more efficient rolling stock would result in lower running costs. The franchise s trains are already by far the oldest main line fleet in the country, as noted by TravelWatch SouthWest. Revenue protection is a major problem, particularly on the Severn Beach line. Investment in more revenue protection staff and ticket machines, together with new forms of ticketing, including carnets, and more regular services would make travel more convenient, leading to increased passenger numbers and economies of scale. 19. Respondents are encouraged to consider which locations merit consideration for future improvement under these schemes. See the main body of our response above: Section 1 for service improvements and Section 4 for station improvements. 20. Respondents are encouraged to consider how best to communicate information with passengers across the franchise and how best to keep passengers informed during times of disruption. We would like to see CCTV and information points rolled out to local stations in the Bristol Travel to work region. This would enable further improvements to stations, particularly the installation of ticket machines. 21. Rail Executive is considering what the appropriate approach for monitoring and improving service quality in the new franchise would be. Respondents are invited to say what matters most to them (for example, cleanliness of trains and stations, or the helpfulness of staff) in terms of the service quality they receive. We do not consider that these are mutually exclusive alternatives. We would like the Rail Executive to consider that a variety of factors influence perceptions of quality, including service frequency, welcoming station environments and ticket price. 22. Please indicate if there are any additional areas that you think Rail Executive should consider consulting on and that have not already been addressed during stakeholder engagement. We hope we have been comprehensive in our response in the main body of this text! Drafted by: Rob Dixon, Chair of TfGB Rail Group and FOSBR member Christina Biggs, FOSBR Secretary Martin Garrett, TfGB Chair and FOSBR member 26 June

47 TRANSPORT FOR GREATER BRISTOL ALLIANCE COMMENTS AND IMPROVED PROPOSALS re MetroBus NFHP The current MetroBus NFHP needs to be substantially revised to lower costs and better serve the transport needs of the city region. 1. The expensive and elaborate junction works and bus bridge at M32 / Stoke Lane are unjustifiable. The proposed works are explicable only as preworks for a future Park & Ride site access road (which we understand is no longer contemplated); this option was undesirable as it was sited on prime agricultural land. Any Park & Ride site in this transport corridor should be sited: a. close to the M4/M32 or M32/Avon Ring Road junctions; and/or b. at rail stations - either/or Bristol Parkway, and the future North Filton MetroWest station. c. IF there is a case for a buses half way up the M32 then bus only slip roads directly to/from Stoke Lane would promote services to UWE that are direct. Please see attached Plan and Table. d. One alternative is using Frenchay Park Road from J2 of the M32 to access Stoke Lane. e. Another alternative is a bus priority route to UWE using the new Romney Avenue bus link, from the M32 at Eastgate, through a much needed Eastgate interchange along bus lanes on Muller Road to Shaldon Road & Romney Avenue Link. This could also incorporate a redesigned 24/25 service also serving Lockleaze. Bus priority measures on Muller Road would deter motorists, but Bristol has to make such choices. Appeasing car culture will always negatively affect public transport and modal shift. If we want to avoid any slip road onto Stoke Lane we should contemplate the promotion of the Eastgate Interchange, Muller Road, Romney Avenue route to UWE. This route would use the UWE bus hub, thus promoting connectivity, whereas the proposed scheme avoids the bus hub by staying on Coldharbour Lane. Bus priority measures on Muller Road would also promote the orbital links to Southmead Hospital. 2. The proposers' own passenger forecasts suggest that there is little case for a through bus route from Bedminster direction up to the Northern Fringes. Virtually all passengers boarding in South Bristol will alight before reaching 46

48 the M32. They will be replaced by new boarders in the central area. Passenger forecasts predict a similar situation for buses coming from UWE to the central area stops. For those who do want the cross city journey a train from Bedminster or Parson Street could do it in half the time, IF they were direct and as frequent as they could be should MetroWest be developed. 3. There may be a case for an express bus route from the centre northwards. However the proposed works in the Centre are environmentally undesirable in their present form. They would break up the existing pedestrianized area. Buses and general traffic (if any) should be confined to the perimeter roads of the Centre, and not cross the Centre. Any proposed layout should incorporate stops for conventional bus services. 4. The proposed alterations to Bedminster Parade would be obstructive to pedestrian and cycle flows in this major desire line. The proposed route northbound at Bedminster should go via Dalby Avenue (as the southbound route will do) to form an interchange with new MetroWest rail services in conjunction with the redevelopment of St Catherine's Place to promote pedestrian access to East Street. 5. MetroBus and the bus network in general should be integrated with Bristol s rail network, in agreement with DfT and Bristol mayoral policy. High quality bus/rail interchanges are required at the following stations: Temple Meads, Bedminster, Parson Street, Filton Abbey Wood, Bristol Parkway, and the proposed MetroWest reopened stations at North Filton and Henbury. 6. There should be high quality bus/bus interchanges in the city centre at Haymarket, Centre and Temple Meads (Friary). At present, MetroBus is designed with no integration with the rest of the bus network. 7. We understand that MetroBus has no operator partnership, and only a very limited operating budget. Its operational support by WEP and the Local Authorities will therefore result in further cuts to the rest of the financially supported bus network. The proposers' data shows that it will also compete with existing commercial bus services. This can be mediated by: a. in the south of the city, MetroBus should be integrated with services 75 and 76 in a new (commercial?) format, so as both to run two-way 47

49 via Hartcliffe Way direct to Hengrove Park bus interchange, and thence two-way via their existing routes back to Bedminster. This would involve redesigning the HPNF MetroBus route so that it would take a more direct route northwards, by turning right into Whitchurch Lane, crossing Hengrove Way direct towards Hartcliffe Way. (Currently it is due to turn left, away from the centre of Bristol, considerably lengthening journey times from significant destinations such as SBSA and the new hospital: the proposers' own data predicts increased journey times to/from these vital end destinations of up to 10%; there are current reports that potential patients and students are already reluctant to face the lengthy journey there ). Such a proposal would also assist the integration of the 75 & 76 route into the scheme and perhaps reduce the need for extra MetroBus vehicles. Incidentally the proposed 90 route using the long way round route to serve Filwood Park and Inns Court could still operate. It is just that an express X75 and X76 directly along the full length of Hartcliffe Way would provide the fastest route towards Bristol city centre from the Hengrove Park destinations, with the added benefit that it would also speed up journeys from the rest of the Southern Fringes, via William Jessop Way and Hengrove Park. b. in the north of the city, a rapid service needs to run direct to/from Cribbs Causeway via Parkway station and Hayes Way. (The current proposals continue the ludicrous sight of buses from Cribbs Causeway bound for the Centre of Bristol heading North on A38 at Patchway in the opposite direction!) There is no case for routing an express service to Cribbs via Aztec West, duplicating the 73 bus route there. A separate direct spur from Parkway station could serve Aztec West. 8. We note that the modal split and interchange models being used in replanning Temple Meads station and presumably, MetroBus are essentially trend planning, using basically the existing observed modal split. This is unrealistic, and fails to take into account: a. the mayor s Residents Only Parking programme; b. the potential for a Workplace Parking Levy (as in Nottingham) or Road User Charging (as in London) both of which the mayor is known to be examining; c. the intended development of MetroWest as a city rail system including 48

50 the Henbury Loop; and d. the mayor s policy on greatly expanding the cycleway network. e. Modal shift from cars, brought about by better public transport. Conclusion Overall NFHP has potentially positive elements, but needs to be rejected in its present form, and the scheme substantially revised to lower costs and better serve the transport needs of the city region. We have shown where NFHP MetroBus has significant areas for improvement if it is to contribute to the public transport offer. Gavin Smith Martin Garrett on behalf of Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance 49

51 Design assumptions for Metrobus South West facing on- and off-ramps on the M32 at Stoke Lane, Bristol The following assumptions drawn from the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges have been made for the design of South facing on- and off-ramps connecting Stoke Lane to the M32. Parameter TA ortd / Vol.Sect.Part Para / Table Assumption Output Design Speed TD22 / Table 4/1 Mainline Rural 120kph 70 kph Stopping sight distance TD22 / and TD9 / Para 2.57 and Table 3 As for an MSA, stopping sight distance may be one step below 70m Horizontal curvature TD22 / 6/2/1 and TD 9 / Para 2.57 and Table 3 design speed As for an MSA, horizontal curvature may be one step below design speed. Assume 5% superelevation Maximum vertical TD22 / Para 4.7 6% grade on slip road Merge. Length of TD22 / Table 4/3 205m / 1:40 / 115m entry taper / nose ratio / nose length Diverge. Length of TD22 / Table 4/4 170m / 1:15 / 80m exit taper / nose ratio / nose length Merge. Near straight TD22 / Para 2.34 Minimum, same as nose length 115m length upstream of nose on merge Diverge. Near TD22 / Para 2.46 Minimum, same as nose length 80m straight length downstream of nose on diverge Width TD22 / Table 3/1a Merge MG1C and diverge DG1C Single lane with hard shoulder Taper for right turn pocket for on-slip Direct Taper length for right turn pocket for on-slip (dimension e in Fig 7/4) Turning length for right turn pocket (dimensions a and b in Fig 7/4) 255m TD42 / Table 7/3 70 kph design speed 1:20 TD42 / Table 7/4 70 kph design speed 15m TD42 / Para 7.32 and 7.33 N/A Verge 1.5m / hardshoulder 3.3m / lane 3.7m / hardstrip 0.7m / verge 2.3m 10m 50

52 51