[ad_1]
A plan for a new mass rapid transit system that involves some underground tunnels under Bristol is needed, is achievable and work towards creating it should continue – that’s the conclusion of a report written by senior transport chiefs at the West of England Combined Authority. The report – a draft of which has been seen by Bristol Live – is to be submitted to a key meeting of WECA on October 6, and makes it clear that while it will be expensive and cause a lot of upheaval, Bristol, Bath and the wider West of England needs it and it ‘can be delivered’.
The report is the first major look at the proposals for a mass rapid transit system conducted by WECA officers themselves, following a series of previous feasibility reports and assessments that have been argued over and formed part of a rift between Labour Mayor Marvin Rees and his fellow Labour metro mayor for the West of England, Dan Norris.
Bristol’s Mayor has long been a proponent of a mass rapid transit system, particularly one that includes sections underground, and first suggested such a scheme back in 2017. But metro mayor Dan Norris has largely poured cold water on such an aspiration, answering with a curt ‘no’ when asked earlier this year if Bristol would ever ‘get an underground’.
Where do Bristol’s two mayors stand? Marvin Rees says a mass rapid transit system HAS to include some bits underground – read the full story on that here.
And read the full story from February this year, when the West of England’s Metro Mayor said ‘no’ Bristol won’t get an underground.
But this latest report is from Mr Norris’s own transport chiefs, and assesses all the previous studies. They now recommend that there ‘will be a need for a more transformative system’, that ‘the project can be delivered’ and ends with a recommendation that the ‘Strategic Outline Business Case’ is approved and the ‘Future4West’ project moves on to the more detailed ‘Outline Business Case’, which will then be used to go to Government and other investors, to find the money to pay for it all.
The WECA report says it looked at the proposals and costs for four ‘corridors’ – all of which go to and from the city centre, and which are mainly overground, but with some potential parts of the routes heading underground. The report outlines how that could either be achieved with a ‘cut and cover’ tunnel, or with more traditional and deeper underground tunnels. The report outlines three options for each of the four routes – shortlisted from a total of 73 options, using 12 different types of technology.
Crucially, even the combination of options for the 57 miles of new transport routes, that include the most miles of underground tunnels has less than half the total routes actually underground in the first place. The study looked at four ‘possible delivery modes’ across ‘two broad categories’, which were either ‘rubber-wheeled solutions’ like a bus rapid transit, a bit like Metrobus, or a ‘trackless light transit’, or what are known as ‘steel-wheeled solutions’, which were called ‘very light rail’, or ‘light rail transit’.
The report found that the costs would vary wildly depending on whether things run overground all the way or are partly underground, and that ‘South West Corridor’ and the ‘Bristol-Bath corridor’ could both be potentially entirely above ground. The other two corridors – the ‘North Corridor’ from a proposed Almondsbury Transport Hub, and an ‘East Corridor’ from the Bristol & Bath Science Park, would need some or all parts to be underground.
If all the underground tunnel options were taken across the city on all four ‘corridors’, it would mean the entire project would have 57 miles of rapid transit routes, 27.6 miles of which would be underground – and that most expensive option would be between £15.5 billion and £18.3 billion.
But, the report gives cheaper options for a combination of some corridors being largely or entirely overground, and if ‘cut-and-cover’ tunnels were used where an underground element was required, the ‘Future4West’ project could be delivered for much less – between £7 billion and £9 billion.
The report makes it clear that, while an underground element is more expensive, it will also be more popular and better used, because it would be more reliable, and quicker, and overall, such a mass rapid transit system is needed, even after all the other projects to open new train stations and bus lanes across Bristol are continued.
“As the transport system will remain near capacity as these improvements are made, there will be a need for a more transformative system,” the WECA report states.
“It presents an opportunity to deliver a fully integrated transport system, connecting our key population centres and improving links to onwards destinations across the country. It would enable us to build upon the schemes we are currently developing, integrating bus, rail, walking and cycling with potential future options for new services,” the report’s authors add.
And they point out that Bristol is now being left behind as one of the only cities in the country of its size not to have something – either trams, light rail, metro or underground rail networks. “It is notable when compared to other cities and population centres nationally and internationally that our region doesn’t benefit from an enhanced public transport network,” the report’s authors state.
“Development of enhanced public transport options will help to bring the region closer to its peers, supporting additional housing, jobs and economic growth. It will enable growth in productivity and will better link residents with employment and training opportunities. An enhanced public transport system would also enable significant investment in residential and commercial developments along the corridors, enhancing the capacity of the region’s economy,” they added.
The authors say that it will be expensive, and Bristol and Bath may struggle to convince investors and the Government that it represents value for money. They report outlines the quandary faced by creating a new system – either it uses and takes over existing roads, displacing existing traffic, or it is built using a ‘cut-and-cover’ method, which would see years of disruption to the city’s road networks, or it will be built with underground tunnels, which would be the most expensive.
“For options that are above ground, which often require reallocation of road space to allow for full segregation, there are significant negative impacts on highway users accounted for within the appraisal,” the report confirmed. “For options including tunnelling, although there is substantially less impact at surface level to highway users, the significant costs of these options outweigh the scale of benefits generated. Therefore, based on the current scope of Future4West, and modelling frameworks available to the time of the Strategic Outline Case, the current options offer very poor, to poor, value for money,” they added.
But it is not all negative – because the report authors state that, with a combination of above ground and tunnels, it is achievable, if ‘Future4West’’s design is more flexible and creative in mixing up underground, overground, on-street and segregated parts.
The report concludes that the entire project should progress to the next stage. “Should a viable solution for both public transport and highway users be established, an enhanced public transport solution could bring extensive benefits to the region.
“Detailed assessment of projects…has indicated amendments to scope within each project enables the programme to be delivered within the grant award funding allocation. The analysis has also assessed the region’s ability to deliver the projects within the grant award timescales, this has shown all projects can be delivered, albeit some with an element of risk as described within this report,” the report added, with a recommendation that the WECA authority moves onto the next stage of developing the mass rapid transit system.
The four ‘corridors’
The four routes that a proposed ‘Future4West’ mass rapid transit system would take have been revealed and speculated on before.
The latest WECA report offers four routes with different options, but they are:
North Corridor
A route between a ‘proposed Almondsbury Transport Hub’, which then loops between Cribbs Causeway and Filton’s Brabazon development, and Bristol Parkway Station and Filton Abbey Wood Station, then to Southmead Hospital, Horfield and down Gloucester Road to Bristol Bus Station. The various options have this corridor almost all above ground, with an option for an underground section from Southmead Hospital into the city centre.
East Corridor
From the Bristol & Bath Science Park, via Staple Hill, Kingswood, Lawrence Hill Station and into Temple Meads, with an option of a branch from Cadbury Heath. This corridor has three short-listed options, two of which are entirely underground.
Bristol-Bath Corridor
From Bath Spa to Temple Meads mainly along the route of the A4, with two different options from the Callington Road junction – which is the source of a consultation and controversy already. All the options for this route are above ground.
South West Corridor
From Bristol Airport to Temple Meads, largely overground. Possibly over ground the entire way, if it uses the existing railway from Parson Street. One option has an overground or underground element via Imperial Retail Park.
And in the city centre, the draft report includes a loop that connects Temple Meads with the bus station and the city centre – all of which is above ground.
[ad_2]
Source link