REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY ENQUIRY IN PUBLIC

South West Regional Spatial Strategy Revision

Examination in Public

 

Statement from the Alliance against the South Bristol Ring Road

(Respondent number 231)

4/1       West of England HMA sub-regional strategy

4/1(f)    Do the proposals adequately reflect the need to reduce the need to travel, support the use of public transport and minimise congestion and in particular do they reflect the output from the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study?      

1          We welcome those parts of the Strategy that propose improvements in public transport, although we do not believe that these go far enough. Since the draft RSS was written there has been a major shift in the way that climate change is perceived. The Stern Report (October 2006) gave an insight into how economies will be affected if we do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the government have recognised this as indicated with this statement by David Miliband, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, ‘a new model of economic growth will be required to address climate change and to marry productivity with the green agenda’ (7 February 2007). Parts of the Strategy need to be revised to take account of the new situation and, in particular, the part of the document referring to the South Bristol Ring Road (4.2.13) should be withdrawn.

  1. There is no doubt that it will be necessary to reduce the amount of car travel across the region and within the greater Bristol area in particular. Congestion costs Bristol over £1 million a week according to Bristol businesses and road accidents over £1.8 million each week (Bristol Local Plan Update 2002). We believe that further measures should be identified in the RSS that would encourage a much larger percentage of people to commute into the centre of Bristol by public transport.

 

3          The Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study recognised that it will be necessary to increase the number of people using buses and much of the report was about improving the bus network within our area. This was also the case in the Joint Local Transport Plan. We were pleased to see that the Greater Bristol Bus Network has received approval from the Secretary of State for Transport. Unfortunately neither of these addresses the issue of the cost of commuting by public transport that we believe is certainly one of the highest in the country, if not the highest. There is an opportunity for the RSS to ‘put this right’ and to make recommendations as to the relative costs of travelling by car or by public transport, as currently the high cost of public transport encourages car use.

  1. The draft RSS also fails to indicate how more effective use of the existing rail network might be used to help reduce vehicle delay. There are a number of possibilities, including better local services between Bristol and Bath that should be considered.

 

  1. The draft RSS identifies an expansion in the number of homes and jobs within the Bristol area so there should be serious consideration given to a light rail system, rather than spending significant sums of money on a new road that would have no effect on the traffic going towards the centre of Bristol.

6          There are areas in South Bristol (Areas A and B) in which it is proposed to build new houses. The GBSTS stated that ‘the design and implementation of the new developments should be planned so as to reduce the total volume of travel and encourage the use of alternative modes to the car. Such policies should include the concentration of developments within transport corridors easily served by public transport.’ We agree with this but there is no evidence in the draft RSS that this has been addressed. Indeed if it had been, then there would be no need for the proposed SBRR.

  1. The Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study states that ‘ It will be important to develop the full potential of the range of approaches to encourage alternative modes before embarking on major infrastructure developments.’ (Final Report, Executive Summary). We agree with this statement and it should be reflected in the RSS. With Consultation on Phase 1 of the proposed South Bristol Ring Road due to be started in 2008 (JLTP Table 10.1) this does not give anything like the required time to develop alternative modes.

 

  1. Promoting the SBRR totally contradicts the draft RSS/RTS ambitions to reduce car travel. There is ample evidence that a new road of this type increases traffic. In particular the July 2006 study by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Countryside Agency found that the A34 Newbury Bypass, the A27 Polegate Bypass and the M65 Southern Bypass had led to faster growth than predicted (the 2010 forecast levels were reached by 2006) and extra traffic has flowed onto local roads as a result of the schemes, undermining the claim that the Bypasses would reduce congestion. There is no evidence that building the SBRR would lead to a reduction in levels of travel by car.

 

5/1       Management of the transport network

5.1(a)      Has the draft RSS adequately demonstrated that the policies and proposals are based on a sound assessment of demand for transport?

 

1          The draft RSS gives just two reasons for the proposed SBRR namely access to Bristol International Airport and the re-generation of south Bristol (4.2.13).

2          The BIA Masterplan has serious deficiencies particularly to do with the issue of climate change. Both Bristol City and North Somerset Councils have expressed reservations about the Masterplan and its failure to address this issue. While aviation accounts for around 3.5% of greenhouse gas emissions at the present time the figure could rise to over 15% if growth predictions are fulfilled. This is unsustainable. We do not have any objections to measures that encourage the use of public transport to access the airport. For example a free bus service to the airport with far more nodal points of access would increase the use of such a service and this could be funded by a very small increase in airport charges. At present airport usage levels there are very few problems in accessing the airport to the east of the A38 for those who have to use a car. To the west of the A38 the proposal to build the red route (phase1 of the SBRR) bring almost no improvements to airport access by car. The figures given in table 6.5 of the GBSTS show journey times between Bristol City Centre, Thornbury and Portishead to Bristol International Airport. For the first two journeys there would be no saving at all on journeys of 22 minutes and 47 minutes respectively and a saving of one minute on the third journey of 22 minutes. We do not think that a case has been made to justify the building of the SBRR for this purpose. Proposing to spend at least £20 million pounds on phase 1 to save 1 minute on total journey times of 91 minutes is ludicrous.

  1. South Bristol is already being re-generated at an impressive rate. For example, housing at the former Wills site, a new Tescos store at the Imperial Park Complex, the Symes Avenue development involving Morrisons’ supermarket and the Hengrove Park project that includes a hospital and leisure pool. This is on top of recently completed developments at the Hengrove Leisure Complex and the Trading Estate. All of this has been built, or planned, without the SBRR. Businesses do not invest as they have in areas that people do not have reasonable access to. We do not believe that an area in which there is a relatively low car ownership will benefit from the proposed road as is claimed in the draft RSS.

 

  1. We feel strongly that a road along the indicative route will divide communities.  A dual carriageway will impede people’s access to amenities and open spaces and will have a disproportionate impact on the young, the elderly and those without access to private motor vehicles.  It will create a physical barrier between where children live and where they go to school. Residents in long established neighbourhoods will be divided and the isolation of many will be increased rather than enhanced as pedestrian access to facilities – shopping, banks, leisure and recreation are made more difficult.

5          Inevitably any new roads have environmental impacts in the loss of green open space as would occur along the edge of Stockwood, the Dundry Slopes, adjacent to the Gatehouse Centre in Withywood and on Highridge Common.
6          The points made in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 also reflect the views of the directors of Hartcliffe and Withywood Ventures. This is a not-for-profit local economic and community development trust founded by local people in 1985. The Board of Directors are mainly local residents and the organisation is a significant local employer of around 100 people. Their statement on the SBRR has been lodged in the EiP library.
7          The above gives lie to the Bristol City Council assertion, echoed by the West of England Partnership, that the proposed SBRR is particularly critical to much of the growth and regeneration in south Bristol.

5/1(b)   Is the draft RSS/RTS ambitious enough in seeking to reduce the growth of travel or should it seek to reduce the overall levels of travel by car?

8          Promoting the SBRR wholly contradicts the statements in the draft RSS/RTS that seek to reduce the volume of car travel. There is ample evidence that a new road of this type increases traffic. In particular the July 2006 study by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Countryside Agency found that the A34 Newbury Bypass, the A27 Polegate Bypass and the M65 Southern Bypass had led to faster growth than predicted (the 2010 forecast levels were reached by 2006) and extra traffic has flowed onto local roads as a result of the schemes, undermining the claim that the Bypasses would reduce congestion. There is no evidence that building the SBRR would lead to a reduction in levels of travel by car.

9          Bristol is one of the only large urban areas in England not to have a Passenger Transport Executive that would be accountable to a Passenger Transport Authority. In a recent Prime Minister’s Question Time in the House of Commons Bristol MP Dr Naysmith said: “Despite increased investment in public transport in recent years the situation for my constituents who use First Group’s disastrous commuter trains and unreliable and expensive buses is dire” He then went on to argue that public transport in the Greater Bristol area would be greatly improved by setting up an integrated transport system. We agree with this and feel that the RSS should reflect this need. This should take priority over any reference in the RSS to a road proposal for which no case has been established.

10        The transport proposals in the draft RSS for the Greater Bristol area offer insufficient measures to alleviate the existing levels of congestion. Bristol is the major economic and business centre in the region and the draft RSS does not address the need to improve public transport in order to reduce travel by car. It does not address the problems of carbon emission in sufficient detail and to include the proposal to build a road that will only add to the problem of pollution is not sensible.

 

11        The Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study states that ‘ It will be important to develop the full potential of the range of approaches to encourage alternative modes before embarking on major infrastructure developments.’ (Final Report, Executive Summary). We agree with this statement and it should be reflected in the RSS. With Consultation on Phase 1 of the proposed South Bristol Ring Road due to be started in 2008 (JLTP Table 10.1) this does not give anything like the required time to develop alternative modes.

5/1(c)   What other demand management could be considered? 

12        For the Greater Bristol area research into road pricing and/or congestion charging should be promoted, linked to public transport improvements in terms of reliability and affordability. This should be stated in the RSS as a practical alternative to spending at least £140 million on the South Bristol Ring Road.

 

 

Report of the Enquiry in Public (EiP) on the Draft RSS (Regional Spatial Strategy)

The main question was:
4/1(f)    Do the proposals adequately reflect the need to reduce the need to travel, support the use of public transport and minimise congestion and in particular do they
reflect the output from the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study?

. The question relating to the SBRR was as follows:

To what extent should the development of the SBRR be regarded as an integral part of the regeneration and development of South Bristol?

The debate was opened by Barton Willmore Associates. This is a private organisation that works with local authorities and firms on planning matters. They argued that the road was essential for the regeneration of South Bristol. This was not surprising since they had previously put the case for further housing to be built on top of the 92 000 already proposed in the draft RSS. They were supported by other private planning firms.

We gave our evidence which may be summarised as follows:-

South Bristol is already being regenerated. Examples are Imperial Park and Hengrove Park as well as the Symes Avenue project. Business such as Tesco would not build a new store if they had concerns about people travelling to it using the existing roads. 

It is not clear from the Draft RSS, the GBSTS or the JLTP how South Bristol is to be regenerated.

The lead business agency in the area, Hartcliffe and Withywood Ventures, does not see a need for the road. We share their view that a ring road takes traffic through areas not to them. The proposed route for phase 2 uses existing roads very close to people’s homes and also close to schools. The indicative route will divide communities in phase 2 much the same way as the M32 in Bristol has done, hardly improving the quality of life in the area given as an aim by Bristol City Council.

In our submissions to the EiP we highlighted the research on the injurious effects of air pollution, from diesel fumes in particular, on asthma sufferers and it can be a cause of this ailment as well as effecting the lung development of children. To propose building new schools close to the proposed SBRR as detailed in the BartonWillmore Partnership submission is hardly appropriate.

It is a well-researched fact that building a road increases traffic. Last year the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Countryside Agency issued a report highlighting that the A34 Newbury bypass, the A27 Polegate bypass and the M65 southern bypass all experienced faster growth than predicted with the consequences of extra traffic on local roads. This undermines the claim that new roads reduce congestion. We see the same result if a SBRR were to be built. The Avon Ring Road is a bottleneck at peak times.

We support the continuing regeneration of South Bristol but in looking forward we should take note of the statement that the Prime Minister in waiting made that we need to develop in an eco-friendly way and that includes not building roads that are not eco friendly. Given the need to reduce our carbon footprint the RSS should promote the enhancement of existing public transport and the introduction of new ones such as light rail. This would be a first step-change in addressing the acknowledged public transport deficit in Bristol. Why waste £140 million at today’s estimates on a road? It should be used in a less injurious way. Not all residents of South Bristol have their own transport and more public transport would be welcomed. In this regard the current reliability of public transport and the cost of using it needs to be challenged to encourage car owners to use it.

It was stated that, in response to your reference to difficulties finding out what is proposed for South Bristol, it was stated that a considerable amount of money will be spent on producing a plan. We would argue that this plan should examine all possibilities for improvements in public transport and should not be pre-empted by a specific reference to the SBRR in the RSS. This would also deliver the statement in the GBSTS that ‘it will be important to develop the full potential of a range of approaches to encourage alternative modes before embarking on major infrastructure developments’.

Finally we would draw your attention to the contradiction within the draft RSS in that building a ring road does not reflect the need to reduce the need to travel, support the use of public transport and minimise congestion.

 

We were very strongly supported by Friends of the Earth, Transport 2000 and received further support from the Bristol Civic Society and the Council for the Protection of Rural England.

The Local Authorities of Bristol, North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset all supported the SBRR.

The Government Office of the South West then gave a statement presented by Cliff Baston, the project manager for the SBRR. He appeared to ignore the question of the regeneration of South Bristol but spoke about the main purpose of the SBRR. He stated that it was planned as a dual carriageway throughout its length and it was envisaged as an Orbital Road. A function of the road was to provide relief for the M4 and M5 motorways.

He was supported by the Highways Agency and tacitly by the South West Regional Assembly.

Bristol International Airport argued that the road was not needed at the present time and was not essential for their expansion plans but would be desirable.

We had the opportunity to briefly respond and made the following points:

There is no case for the SBRR to be built to service the airport either now, or in the future.

The fact that it had been stated that the SBRR was to be an orbital road supported our case that extra traffic would be brought into South Bristol and this would not help with regeneration.

The communities that the road was supposed to help would be divided by the construction of a major highway.

Bristol City Councillors had been misled as they were quoted figures about the proposed road that were dependent on it being a dual carriageway even though a single carriageway was being actively considered. For the same reason the figure in the JLTP indicating a reduction of travel time across the Greater Bristol Area of 6% if the SBRR was built was also very misleading.

We had the opportunity later to state that one of the reasons that many of our numerous supporters gave for opposing the road was the intrusion into the Green Belt

Notes

 

We feel that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to stop the planned housing from being constructed between now and 2026. However we do need to make a decision as to whether we should also oppose the housing. It would involve a change of name and a great deal of research and lobbying if we were to take this on.

The planned number of houses in Search Area A (between the A370 and A38 and to the east of the A38) is 10 500. The planned number of houses in Search Area B (between the A4 at Hicks Gate and A37 and to the west of the A3) is 6 000. Part of the land will be allocated for non-housing purposes to give job opportunities within these urban extensions.

The Green Belt boundaries will be redrawn to accommodate the housing and other constructions.

If we feel that the housing is fairly inevitable we do need to be clearer about the alternatives to the road.

We do need to exploit the difference between the Local Authorities and the GOSW, the Highways Agency and the SWRA.

 

Richard Hall and Mike Landen

Summary of Attendance at EiP of Draft RSS in Exeter on 26/27 June 2007 to examine items 5/1 and 5/2

attended by Peter Goodwin (lead) and Richard Hall (support ).

The subjects covered were:-
5/1 – Management of the Transport Network.
5/2 -  Improvements to the Transport Network

There were no questions relating directly to the SBRR but we were able to make the following points:-
      5/1

  1. endorsed comments of FoE,Transport 2000 and Bristol Civic Society that much more focus required on public transport.
  2. no evidence that SBRR is essential to regeneration of South Bristol and this premise should be tested much further.(It is of note that the Panel Inspector did highlight that public transport is very important and cited that this drove urban developments in Europe.However the SWRA believe the RSS has a strong focus on public transport)
  3. disappointing that Local Authorities accept that road transport will rise without demur.
  4. Increased traffic adversely affects people
  5. the RSS should engineer alternatives to roads
  6. Bristol needs a PTA to move forward.(It is of note that the Wof EP said that better public transport must precede road pricing and a PTA received support from FoE,Transport 2000 etc)
  7. need to reduce delays in issuing tickets,through ticketing,real time information to encourage bus use(Inspector supported)
  8. Temple Meads as a hub is priority for Bristol(This was also said by Pegasus)
  9. KEY points made by others included the RSS giving a clear steer to LAs to use new modes of transport to reduce car use,pricing must play a part in encouraging use of public transport,public transport must be in place at start of new developments,school buses should be promoted.
  10. 5/2
  11. need to decouple economic growth & transport growth – they do not necessarily go together.(GOSW made point that RSS does not make clear what infrastructure is critical to economic growth)
  12. the RFA shortfall could be reduced by £140m by removing SBRR
  13. Temple Meads could be made a major transport hub but rail capacity needs to be enhanced by eg the RSS having a specific reference to need for resignalling at TM,reopening of Portishead line and establishment of a PTA with power to influence and commission local rail services.This will be better than building SBRR and it will be forward looking (CBI made point that they support better use of rail and that the RSS is passive on improving use of rail for freight)
  14. in seeking clarification as to whether SBRR is seen as offering relief to M4/5,Highways Agency said it was not a strategic link,GOSW said it is for local strategic movement around south Bristol and SWRA said,inter-alia,it will be a road for facilitating public transport
  15. improved access by public transport is most sustainable method
  16. SBRR should not be in RSS but money spent on public transport as it is more flexible as demand changes
  17. SBRR is not essential to BIA access.
  18. KEY  points made by others included carbon footprint cannot be reduced without investing in public transport,the WoEP and GOSW said rail is key part of whole but not answer in itself, RSS pays little attention to enhancing local rail network,there being a potential network in Bristol to use,RFA should not be used to aid development of BIA,an ambition to reduce car travel to London airports by expanding BIA should be replaced by prioritising rail travel as means of getting there and TR9 should incorporate need for Airports to prioritise improving surface access eg more bus routes.

 

link to Second Day

Link to Original Submission