Bristol Civic Society logo Civic Society Comments

Home Up

Bristol Civic Society response to the draft Joint Local Transport Plan. Response from the Transport Group,  14.12.05 

Introduction 

The Transport Group of Bristol Civic Society would like to raise several key issues which do not appear adequately to be dealt with by the proposals set out in the draft Joint Local Transport Plan. 

Congestion 

Demand management is an essential tool of congestion relief but in section 3.2.23 (p31) this appears to be a means of catering for increased demand through road widening and building which, in our view, is the opposite of demand management.  Generally, the plan offers little hope of congestion relief or proposals for effective demand management, and if the recommendations of the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS) are accepted, congestion in Bristol will be aggravated by the general anticipated increase in traffic. 

Improvements in public transport, though welcome, (Section 5.2, p62), will not be effective in reducing congestion without corresponding disincentives to car use.  They could lead to an increase in the amount of travel and have little effect on pollution. 

Air Quality 

Though vehicles are getting cleaner, no evidence-based predictions of air quality are included.  Table 3.5 (P40) does not indicate any real improvement in the Bristol Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) over the last five years.  The Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) set out three targets for improvement, upon which there was public consultation which supported the strictest target of a 40% reduction in emissions, which was needed to meet nationally agreed public health requirements.   The transport plan offers no realistic hope of achieving this target given the failure to curb congestion anticipated above, and this is stated in 12.3.11 (p161).  The Group finds this unacceptable. 

The AQAP stipulates that a Low Emission Zone is necessary if the 40% target is to be reached but the JLTP only gives this consideration rather than actually including it.  Transport is now the main source of urban atmospheric pollution and poor air quality is a matter of major public concern as a health hazard.  The plan must therefore include the measures set out in the AQAP in total. 

CO2 emissions 

Bristol's Climate Protection and Sustainable Energy Strategy sets a target for CO2 emission reduction of 60% by 2050 in line with nationally and internationally agreed targets.  If traffic levels increase as forecast by the GBSTS, there is little hope of achieving this target and the JLTP only mentions the possibility of a reduced rate of increase.  20 m.p.h. zones could achieve a significant reduction in all emissions but few are proposed.  The Society would support more widespread introduction or even a city-wide limit with a few exceptions (e.g. Temple Way)

Fuel cost 

Rising fuel prices could discourage motorised travel. However, bus operating costs will be disproportionately affected if the level of fuel duty rebate remains unaltered.  This is already being given by the bus operators as the reason for the steep rise in fares.  This will discourage bus use and lead to further social exclusion. It will also adversely affect Bristol's economy.  Greater attention should therefore be given to planning for reduced energy use in transport and, in particular, the development of energy efficient rail transport (e.g. Ultra Light Rail). 

Fuel supply 

Fuel scarcity is already becoming apparent.  This is not recognised in the JLTP.  The plan should therefore include measures to reduce fuel consumption in all forms of transport as well as encourage more sustainable modes of travel, particularly rail based, and to provide for the reduced need to travel through planning measures. 

Pedestrianisation 

Though walking is encouraged, few measures are proposed to improve the environment for pedestrians.  The idea of 'shared space' should be promoted to allow at least equal, rather than marginal, access for pedestrians to more of the city's streets, thoroughfares and public spaces.  Accessibility to all areas should be improved for non-car users. 

Development 

Sections 3.6.4 and 3.6.5 (p42) point out that funding is needed to provide the transport infrastructure to support future development set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy but there is no mention of how such development or transport planning would meet the criteria for sustainability described above.  Box 3C (p43) does list some measures to mitigate the effects of development but these are only given as comment and not necessarily included in the plan.   

There are large areas of brownfield land in Severnside and Ashton Vale which could be sustainably developed by use of existing rail infrastructure, namely the Severn Beach line, the Henbury Loop, the Ashton Line and the Portishead Line.  These lines could be developed individually or as a through route via the Centre.  They could be adapted to accommodate light rail at low cost as recommended in the Faber Maunsell report on the future of the Severn Beach Line.  This should be largely financed through developer contributions. 

Showcase Bus Routes  (Box 5D, p69) 

Whilst plans for more routes are welcome, specific agreed standards of service quality need to be set out, in order for such services to earn the 'Showcase' designation, otherwise the description has little meaning.