MetroBus - Why it’s the right solution

Everyone in Bristol wants improved public transport, however recent news reports have highlighted that some Bristol residents don’t feel that MetroBus is the solution. In this post I want to advance a few reasons why it’s a good idea and debunk some of the reasons put forward for cancelling the scheme.

Benefit 1: Cost

The estimated cost of all three MetroBus schemes is £200M. Sounds like a lot but it’s cheaper than building a tram. Consider that in 2003 the Bristol Supertram was budgeted at £200M (or £250M in today’s prices) for a route which only went from Bristol Parkway to the centre. MetroBus goes a lot further than that and costs less.

A recent article in “The Economist” quotes stats from the American Public Transportation Association that the capital cost per mile of a streetcar (an American tram) is between $30m and $75m, while a rapid bus service costs anywhere between $3m and $30m.

The case is clear cut – Rapid Bus Services cost less than trams.

Benefit 2: Flexibility

If you build tram lines then only trams can use them. If it gets busy then you can’t quickly lay on more trams. Similarly if no one is using the tram then you can’t re-deploy the existing trams for other purposes.

If you build the MetroBus, then existing buses can be inexpensively modified to also use the MetroBus routes. This makes it much easier to increase/decrease capacity quickly.

With a tram you make two journeys, one to the tram stop and one on the tram. With the MetroBus your normal bus can use the MetroBus lanes and you are making just one journey.

The arguments above apply equally to conventional railways as they do to Trams, in fact conventional railways cost more and are less flexible.

Now to debunk a few of the reasons put forward by the opponents of the MetroBus scheme:

Reason 1: The MetroBus won’t have any impact on congestion, it will only increase bus passengers by 200 people, basically it won’t have any benefits.

These arguments involve selective presentation of the facts and do not give the full picture. The North Bristol package has a benefit-costratio of 2.34. This means we get back double what we pay in wider benefits. These benefits run to over £400M of which, £189M is reducedtravel time in the North Bristol area. To say the MetroBus is going to cost a lot of money and we’re not going to get any benefits back is clearly a load of rubbish.

Reason 2: Costs are rising exponentially, the current cost is underestimated therefore we need to cancel.

First, What does exponentially actually mean? It sounds bad but is it £1M, £10M or £100M.

Second, cost increase alone this is not a reason to scrap the scheme. The actual questions are: Does MetroBus still offer significant benefits? Does MetroBus still offer value for money compared to other methods of transport? The opposition does not answer these questions.

However it is true that costs have risen between 2011 and 2014, I agree that this is unacceptable. The people who originally estimated the cost of this project need to be held to account. We need to know why and how it will be avoided in the future. We need to demand reforms to the project cost estimating process. This is the real argument but no one seems to be passionate about this.

Reason 3: We don’t need MetroBus, we just need to make better use of existing rail lines such as the Hengrove loop.

The opposition to MetroBus paints this as an either/or issue. In fact we can - and are going - to have both. The project to re-open these rail lines is called MetroWest and funding of £81.4M has already been received.

Construction on the Hengrove Loop is due to start in 2020 however work on it has been paused while the Bristol Port Company carries out an assessment on the impact on freight traffic. The delays to this project are an example to us, somebody always objects! There are no easy solutions.

It’s obvious that re-opening the train lines won’t solve all the problems MetroBus does. For example, Emersons Green doesn’t have a train station yet a lot of new houses are being built in the area. How does Emersons Green get reliable public transport? If you want to build a new train station and train line here then you are looking at a very large cost.

Reason 4: Buses are worse for the environment than trams

This is simply not true. The MetroBuses will emit 25% less carbon emissions than a normal bus. If you think this is still not enough, then lobby the council for electric buses. Electric buses will still be cheaper than trams and they will be emission free. 

On the Feed Bristol project

Bristol City Council (BCC) has been supportive of Feed Bristol and the Avon Wildlife Trust:

• BCC provided the Stapleton allotments for this project when Avon Wildlife Trust’s original site became unavailable.

• BCC told Avon Wildlife Trust the size of their site would be reduced by MetroBus when they signed the lease three years ago.

• BCC have waived the rent on the site and provide support from allotment staff free of charge.

I point you to the Avon Wildlife Trust's statement on the matter.

It is undoubtedly a shame that MetroBus will lead to a reduction in the size of the Avon Wildlife Trust’s project. However, in the end I believe that MetroBus will lead to less roads being built, improve air quality and make Bristol a greener city. I do believe that the dedicated bus junction onto the M32 is needed. If you’ve regularly sat in traffic queuing for the motorway then you will know that the ability to avoid this is a major benefit.

We could go on all night, we could spend hours debating the pros and cons of cost benefit relationships, we could argue about whether there is enough time to re-design the route before we lose the funding and no matter how long we go on for there will always be more objections to answer. In the end, I believe George Ferguson when he says:

“No one has workedharder than I have to mitigate the negative impacts of the scheme. I continueto listen to concerns raised about the project, but we must also look at thebigger picture and the huge environmental, economic and social benefit MetroBuswill deliver."

MetroBus is the right solution for Bristol.

Identity and Housing in South Glos

South Glos and Identity

On the BBC debate More Power to the West the leader of South Glos council was asked “Where do you think South Glos residents say they live when they go on holiday?”, his answer was “I hope they say that they live in South Glos”.

If this situation is ever to become a reality then South Glos needs be memorable to visitors and it must have its own identity. One way South Glos should be creating its identity is through buildings and architecture which reflect the geography and character of the county, however recent housing developments permitted by South Glos are doing the opposite and destroying the county’s character.

Exhibit A: Lyde Green (next to the Emersons Green Science Park)

Could be Anywhere In The Country

Lyde Green consists of a collection of developers including Taylor Wimpey producing homes with descriptions such as “The Belbury”.

 “The Belbury” as an example, is a home whch can also be found in Dunstable, Haverhill, Leighton Buzzard, Rotheram, Bridgwater, East Anglia, Cambridgeshire, Woburn Sands, Milton Keynes, Wembdon and many more…

“The Belbury”, and indeed the other homes under construction in Lyde Green are an illustration of architecture which pays no respect to local context. Lyde Green could be anywhere in Britain. It has nothing which identifies it as South Glos, or even South-West England.

Unfortunately, Lyde Green is just one example of several developments through which South Glos council has overseen the destructionof this county’s character. For example, were you to get lost in Emersons Green or Charlton Hayes then you could quite easily imagine yourself to be in any new housing estate, anywhere in the country.

If we want South Glos to have its own identity then we need to stop housing developments like Lyde Green.

Lyde Green: Row upon Row of homes without identity

What would local Architecture look like?

I don’t want this blog to just highlight problems, I also want to suggest potential solutions.

So what would architecture look like that reflects South Glos’ character. Ideas might be:

1. Bristol has the highest cycling rate amongst Britain’s core cities. Why can’t South Glos houses reflect this fact? 8 House Copenhagen is a radical example of one way to do this. 
2.  South Glos has a strong presence in the aerospace industry, this could be reflected in housing. An extreme example is the 747 wing house. 
3.  Totterdown, Bristol and Bergen, Norway are two example of areas which have developed a distinctive style of housing architecture which makes them instantly recognisable. There is no reason why South Glos can’t be the same. 
4. The South-West is the spiritual home of cider. Why don’t we see apple trees dotted throughout developments and inspiring local building.

The Impact on Cost

The obvious reply of critics to this plan is “Creating local architecture will cost more?”. In response:

1. Some of the examples given above might be radical but it’s not just about that. What developments need are small additions/modifications which reflect the local context. 
2. It doesn’t have to push up house prices. The council could sell the land to the more innovative developers at lower prices, leaving more to be spent on the actual construction of the property
3. More needs to be done to encourage more smaller housebuilders if we want a more diverse range of homes. The biggest five housebuilders increased their share of the market from around 20% in 2008–09 to 33% in 2012–13.

It’s too late to save Lyde Green, Emerson Green or Charlton Hayes but many houses are still to be built in South Glos. Residents of South Glos I call you to action before it’s too late. 

Any other thoughts?