Greater Bristol: Public Transport Corridor Options

1. Greater Bristol: Public Transport Corridor Options Final Report January 2007

3. Greater Bristol: Public Transport Corridor OptionsJanuary 2007 Monday, 08 September 2014 Prepared by: Steer Davies Gleave 28-32 Upper Ground London, SE1 9PD +44 (0)20 7919 8500 www.steerdaviesgleave.com

5. Contents • Introduction • Background • Approach to the Study • Policy Background • Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study • Joint Local Transport Plan • Regional Priorities • Option Generation • Corridors • Bristol City Centre • Long List of Options • Option Design • System Characteristics • Design Parameters • Operational Specification • Option Assessment • Reference Schemes • Assessment Criteria • Assessment Results • Assessment Summary • Next Steps

7. 1. Introduction Background • The four Councils of Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire have joined forces to plan and deliver transport improvements through a Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP). The JLTP sets out the transport plans for the next five years (2006 to 2011) and the vision for the next 20 to 30 years. • During the next 20 to 30 years up to a hundred thousand new homes, and at least as many new jobs, may need to be provided to sustain growth. The area has over £3 billion of potential development sites available. With appropriate investment in public infrastructure, the JLTP area has the capacity and expertise to reduce overheating in the South East without damaging the area’s high quality natural and built environment. • Transport infrastructure is vital for this continued economic and social success. Yet the Shared Priorities work completed by the four Councils with the Department for Transport (DfT) in 2004 showed that at least £300 million is required just to address the under-investment in transport of the last 20 years. If growth is to be managed and delivered sustainability, additional investment will be required to address existing social, economic and infrastructure imbalances and deficits. It is estimated that time lost due to congestion costs the local economy some £350 million a year . • Investment is required in a broad range of areas including bus, rail, park and ride, bus rapid transit or trams and also roads. All are critical to support economic development as well as tackling the impacts of large volumes of traffic on particular communities. A package of major schemes is being developed. This has been shaped by the outcomes of the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study. Achieving the Plan’s overall objectives and vision requires a range of major schemes to be delivered. • The importance of the JLTP area is being recognised through the Government’s new Regional Funding Allocation system for prioritising major transport schemes. As shown in Table 10.1 of the JLTP, eight major schemes in the JLTP area, including three Bus Rapid Transit schemes, are included in the list for funding during 2006 to 2016. A further 10 schemes are recognised as strategically important but requiring further work before they can be approved in this process. • In February 2006 Steer Davies Gleave was commissioned by the JLTP Team to look at options for the delivery of Second Generation Public Transport Improvements for the Unitary Authorities of Bath and Northeast Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire Councils, referred to in this report as “Greater Bristol”.

8. Approach to the Study • Options for the introduction of Second Generation Public Transport Systems, or Rapid Transit Systems, have already, to varying degrees, been studied or proposed in Greater Bristol for some years. These options range from previous light rail proposals through to identification of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors in the regional priorities, draft Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS) and the Provisional Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP). • The JLTP authorities are already implementing significant bus improvements through the Greater Bristol Bus Network (GBBN) bid. The bid contains a comprehensive set of bus network improvements for the area. These improvements aim to deliver significant benefit to bus users. The question for this study was therefore “how could an improvement in public transport, over and above the benefits of the GBBN proposals, be achieved?” • The task of this study was to take all the work undertaken to date, as well as undertaking an independent analysis of what options there are for delivering BRT in Greater Bristol. To do this a two stage process was undertaken: • Stage 1: Generation of a long list of potential corridors; and • Stage 2: Distillation of the long list in to a prioritised set of options or programme of implementation proposals. • This process is illustrated in Figure 1.1. • From early on in the study it became apparent that the key focus for BRT in Greater Bristol is to provide a ‘step-change’ in public transport provision, that is, to provide a new and different offer in the transport market that could provide current car drivers a comparable alternative. This study, as is reflected in this report, has deliberately focussed on options that are most likely to achieve modal shift from car and are considered to be deliverable in the current physical, policy, acceptability and funding environments. Consultation • The study has been undertaken in consultation with officers from all four Authorities. This has mainly been through a number of workshops, firstly to understand the context and background of the proposals and establish the key success factors for the study (this is discussed later); and, secondly to obtain feedback on the progress of options at the long-list stage. • In addition to this, some external consultation has been undertaken with two key stakeholders: First Group who are the main bus operator in Greater Bristol and Network Rail. Discussions with these organisations have informed the assessment of issues and risks associated with options. First Group has also provided initial views on the operational specification and possible services that may use the BRT infrastructure.

9. Figure 1.1: Study Process Option Generation Corridors Stage 1 Stage 2 Long List Options Background On Street Sections Option Assessment (Corridors/Alignments) BRT Potential Lines Reference Schemes Option Design GBSTS Design Parameters (Key Success Factors) Objectives System Characteristics Operations Specification Assessment Criteria Scheme Objectives Joint LTP NATA Regional Priorities Deliverability / Viability

11. 2. Policy / Background Regional Policy Regional Economic Strategy • The Regional Economic Strategy (RES), Final Draft February 2006, sets objectives, regional priorities and delivery activity for the period 2006-2015. • It has three strategic objectives : • Successful and competitive businesses. • Strong and inclusive communities. • An effective confident region. • Within the these strategic objectives sits a number of regional priorities. Regional Priority 3A is to improve transport networks by ensuring that poor journey times from parts of the region to major markets do not constrain productivity. It aims to reduce journey times to major markets and increase the reliability of public transport infrastructure. The RES recognises that Bristol has a lead role as a city-region of international, national and regional significance to strengthen the region’s economic base. Therefore improving journey times to and from Greater Bristol and the reliability of public transport are seen as key to regional prosperity. Integrated Regional Strategy • The aims of the Integrated Regional Strategy (IRS), November 2004 are to: • harness the benefits of population growth and manage the implications of population change; • enhance our distinctive environments and the quality and diversity of our cultural life; • enhance our economic prosperity and quality of employment opportunity; and • address deprivation and disadvantage to reduce significant intra-regional inequalities. • This again focuses on the importance of good quality access to employment across the sub-region and a sustainable transport system to support planned growth. Draft Regional Spatial Strategy • The draft Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) sets a framework for the location and scale of development in the region and the links between broad issues such as healthcare, education and crime, as well as infrastructure such as transport. It aims to protect the existing qualities of the region whilst making provision for sufficient new homes, jobs and facilities to meet the needs of a growing and increasingly affluent population. • The draft RSS notes that the population in the South West is forecast to increase by more than 750,000 by 2026; this equates to around 25,000 dwellings a year. It recognises Bath, Bristol and Weston-super-Mare as strategically significant towns and cities where significant growth is planned in order to support their economic and service role and regeneration. • One of the key priorities for investment to support the RSS is “investment in urban transport systems and demand management with a step change in public transport support, with investment to enable high growth to be accommodated”.

12. The RSS makes a number of strategy statements. Those of most relevance to Greater Bristol and development of BRT are: • SR2 – balanced growth for the three urban areas of Bath, Bristol and Weston-super-Mare. • SR4 – provision on average of about 3,200 dwellings per annum within and adjoining Bristol’s urban area. Provision of around 40,000 dwellings complemented by the provision of urban extensions including 10,500 south west of Bristol, 6,000 south east of Bristol, 8,000 north and north east of Bristol. • SR5 – provision of an urban extension for up to 1,500 dwellings to the south/southwest of Bath. • SR6 – provision of about 600 dwellings per annum within and adjoining Weston-super-Mare’s urban area. Provision of around 9,000 dwellings complemented by the provision of urban extensions to the east of Weston-super-Mare. • SR4, SR5 and SR6 all also state that “investment will be made in infrastructure to enable the achievement of the development proposed”. Draft Regional Transport Strategy • The draft Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) updates RPG10 and is being reviewed as part of the draft RSS. • The draft RTS sets regional priorities for the West of England area (Greater Bristol); those of note include: • Development of a strategic public transport network to reduce reliance on the car and reduce congestion and pollution and improve safety. • Guided/concept bus and bus ‘showcase’ corridors and partnerships. • Investment to facilitate major development as proposed in the RSS and to address the infrastructure deficit from past levels of growth. Regional Funding Allocation Process • The Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) prioritisation process established a list of 'regional priorities' recommended to Government as the preferred schemes for funding in the South West. • The priorities for investment of the Transport RFA funding set out by the Regional Assembly are: • Promoting more sustainable patterns of transport. • Supporting development and economic activity in the strategically significant towns and cities through improved public transport, demand management, and selectively providing for new roads. • Improving the reliability and resilience on inter and intra-regional connectivity through a strategic road route into the region from London, on regionally significant transport corridors and on other transport corridors • Tacking access to jobs and delivery of services in rural areas. • Delivering against DfT/Regional shared priorities. • The importance of Greater Bristol has been recognised with a number of schemes identified in the first round of prioritisation. This includes the four rapid transit corridors identified in the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study as detailed below. The first three of these schemes are included in the current list of regional funding/investment with the first line planned for implementation in 2011.

13. Local Transport Policy Joint Local Transport Plan • The Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP) was published in March 2006. It set out the West of England Partnership key delivery priorities as: • Achieving a transport system that is capable of accommodating the proposed level of growth • Reducing dependence on the car and delivering a step-change in public transport provision that is reliable, safe, affordable and accessible. • Significant development of the heavy rail network. • Strategic rapid transit network delivering an attractive alternative to the car • Selective additional highway capacity • Selective additional strategic links to motorways and other trunk route developments. • Potential demand management proposals. • There is a major role for the JLTP in helping to deliver the Partnership’s key priorities. The JLTP has five main aims to: • tackle congestion. • improve road safety. • improve air quality. • improve accessibility. • improve quality of life. • The JLTP promotes a number of key major schemes to achieve its policies. These include three BRT routes: • BRT Phase 1 – Hengrove/North Fringe. • BRT Phase 2 – Bristol International Airport/Ashton Vale/Emerson’s Green. • BRT Phase 3 – Bath to Cribbs Causeway. • Other related schemes promoted by the JLTP are: • Showcase Bus Routes. • Bath Bus Rapid Transit. • South Bristol Ring Road. • New and expanded Park and Ride. • Callington Road Link. • North Fringe Transport Package.

14. Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study • The Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS) addresses the current and strategic transport needs in Greater Bristol up to 2031. It identified a preferred strategy which focuses on five main areas: • Measures to encourage alternative modes – smarter choices including travel plans and awareness raising activities. • Public transport measures – supports bus based schemes both conventional and development of a BRT system. • Highway measures – development of some additional highway capacity. • Freight measures – consolidation, focus on freight routes and rail freight. • Demand management measures – identified a phased approach for demand management. • The GBSTS is based on projections for spatial development as part of the RSS. This totals 138,000 additional dwellings distributed between brownfield sites (65,000) and greenfield sites (73,000). The majority of this development is at Ashton Vale (15,000 houses/6,500 jobs), Whitchurch (10,000 houses/6,000 jobs), Emerson’s Green/Pucklechurch (10,000 houses/10,000 jobs), Harry Stoke (4,500 houses/ 4,000 jobs), Keynsham (3,000 houses/1,500 jobs) and Cribbs Causeway (2,500 houses/5,400 jobs). Significant growth for Bristol International Airport is also anticipated with 12 million passengers per annum forecast by 2030, up from the current 4 million passengers. • Potential BRT Lines • The GBSTS sets out a network of potential BRT lines. These build on the series of improved bus corridors within the Showcase bus schemes in the Greater Bristol Bus Network bid. An assessment was made of the expected demand levels for each corridor. The best-performing corridors were: • Hengrove to North Fringe and Cribbs Causeway. • Ashton Vale to Emersons Green. • Bath – Cribbs Causeway. • Whitchurch – Avonmouth/Portishead. • The GBSTS potential BRT lines are shown in Figure 2.1. • The development of the BRT proposals was based on a system using guided bus with levels of segregation where practical. The potential lines were tested using the Greater Bristol Model. This assumed all other elements of the GBSTS strategy to be in place, and indicated a high level of demand for rapid transit, with up to 20,000 trips per hour on the system in the morning peak period in 2031. In addition, there was an increase of around 2,000 in trips by park and ride, with passengers taking advantage of the improved services by BRT from Long Ashton, Brislington, Whitchurch, Emerson’s Green, Avonmouth, Hambrook and Bristol Parkway park and ride sites. • Objectives • The GBSTS states the aim of Second Generation Public Transport Improvements in Greater Bristol as “to provide high quality alternatives to the private car”. To deliver this, the GBSTS objectives of BRT in Greater Bristol are to: • extend choice of transport modes for all, in particular for private car drivers to encourage a shift to public transport. • promote sustainable development by providing high quality public transport links. • improve access to public transport in areas that currently have poor provision. • improve integration of the public transport network. • promote social inclusion by improving access to employment, retail, community, leisure and educational facilities. • improve safety along the corridor by providing a high quality public transport alternative to the private car.

15. Figure 2.1: GBSTS Identified Potential Bus Rapid Transit Corridors Source: Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study, Atkins, November 2005

17. 3. Option Design • It is clear from regional and local policy that a ‘step-change’ in the provision of public transport is desired, and required, in Greater Bristol to address the existing issues of congestion and sustaining economic growth but also, importantly, to support the planned growth of the area in a sustainable way. • The option generation process therefore started by looking at what characteristics a transport system would need to contribute to these policy objectives. System Characteristics • In order for public transport to offer an attractive, competitive choice to car it must be: • a choice users can make – it goes between the right origins and destinations and does not have barriers to use. • a choice users know they can make – it is easy to use and well known for this. • a choice users want to make again – the time, effort and cost involved does not deter repeat use. • Using this framework, the characteristics BRT services must therefore be: • Stops must be in a reasonable walk distance from key origins and destinations. • The system (vehicles and infrastructure) must be high quality and DDA compliant. • Services must be reasonably affordable compared with the real costs of other journey options. • Services must offer fast journey times and journey time reliability when compared with car. • Services must be frequent and easy to remember - ‘turn up and go’ or clock-face timing. • The system must offer simple to understand routing, including interchange opportunities. Users should know where to find information on routes, service frequencies, first/last services and fares. • The system must have high quality waiting areas. • The system must be designed to maximise safety and the perception of safety. • The system must offer high quality information, particularly when things are not running to schedule. • As important are key local considerations as specified in policy or arising from workshops with officers. These are: • The system needs to overcome ‘congestion hotspots’ – priority at road junctions and segregated right of way. • Good penetration of Bristol City Centre is required – direct routes to key destinations e.g. shops, rail stations, hospitals etc. • Sufficient road network capacity needs to be retained in key areas, particularly on the inner ring road in Bristol City Centre. • The system needs to serve the major new development areas providing a high-quality, high-speed, public transport link between these locations and central Bristol. • New cross-Greater Bristol linkages need to be created to improve accessibility in the area. • BRT needs to complement and integrate with the network of Showcase bus corridors.

18. Operational Specification Operational Approaches • There are broadly two operational approaches to rapid transit systems. These are: • Open Access System – any vehicle, provided it meets certain quality criteria, can use the rapid transit infrastructure. • Closed System – a series of specified vehicles use the system only, similar to a LRT system. Other vehicles do not have access to the system. • Given the objectives of providing a way for a range of services to overcome congestion hotspots, an open access system has been assumed in the design and assessment of options. Service Characteristics • Broad service characteristics were developed to understand the infrastructure requirements. Of importance in achieving modal shift was the need for fast and reliable services with end to end journey times at least as quick as the equivalent car journey. In terms of service reliability an aspiration of services achieving at least 90% of their timetabled service frequency and journey times was established. This is to ensure that the system is not only reliable but is seen to be so by the public. • The system should be flexible with the ability to adapt service patterns to fit with changes in travel patterns or to serve new areas as they are developed. Services should be able to leave and join the networl at different points. • To provide a ‘step-change’ in public transport the system must have high frequency services or a ‘turn up and go’ level of service such that passengers do not need to use a timetable. Service frequencies will be refined as the demand for services is assessed. At this stage indicative frequencies are: • Peak: minimum 5 minute frequency on core sections, 10 minute frequency on outer sections (average wait times of 2.5 minutes and 5 minutes respectively). • Off peak: minimum 15 minute frequency (average wait times of 7.5 minutes). • Ticket prices has been raised as a particular concern in Greater Bristol. It has been assumed that they will be comparable with other bus fares and that tickets would be able to be used on any BRT service, that is interoperability between services and operators. Services • Under an Open-Access system there will be a mix of services including: • New services introduced specifically to make use of the network by running from end to end of the busway. • Existing services diverted to use the busway for avioding congested roads, this is likely to be particularly the case on the approaches to Bristol City Centre. • There is also potential for new services to be introduced as a result of faster journey times and operational efficiency which could use the busway from some sections of the journey and then leave the busway to penetrate suburban areas. • Potential BRT services and existing bus services which could benefit from busway infrastructure are shown in Figure 3.1

19. Figure 3.1 Example of Potential BRT Services Insert figure 3.1

21. Design Parameters • These system characteristics and operational requirements were then translated in to design parameters to ensure that options generated met the aspirations of the BRT system. Design parameters for the individual elements are detailed below and examples shown in Figure 3.2 Infrastructure • To achieve fast and reliable journey times significantly better than existing public transport options an objective of 100% segregation for the busway was established. Although it is recognised that through the development of the BRT system this objective may not be achievable given a trade-off between cost and benefit, it was felt that designing for 100% segregation at this stage was an important aspiration. Similarly priority at all highway junctions for BRT vehicles has also been assumed. • Retention (including diversion or improvement) of existing pedestrians and cyclists facilities was considered an important design feature to avoid any disincentive to their use and to reduce the risk of opposition to any scheme due to the loss of existing facilities. • Options were designed to maximise interchange possibilities with other modes including car, bus, rail, cycle and existing pedestrian networks. Vehicles • Vehicles compliant with all relevant UK / European regulations and standards to ensure there are no problems in achieving the necessary approvals for vehicle operation on public highways. • Vehicles must have low or zero emissions and the use of alternative, efficient fuels is to be encouraged where appropriate. • High levels of passenger comfort and security. • Level boarding and alighting. • Real time passenger information. • Distinctive branding to clearly distinguish services from other regular bus services as part of an overall system branding. Stops • Level boarding and alighting (platforms to be provided at all stations). Aids for the mobility and visually impaired at all stations. • Real time passenger information. • Off-board ticketing to minimise stop dwell times. • High quality and convenient interchange with other modes of transport. • Shelters and passenger seating at all stations to ensure waiting passengers are protect from the elements. The size of the shelter to be determined by the likely peak period accumulation of waiting passengers at each station. • High standard of lighting at all stations to ensure the personal security of waiting passengers. • All stations to be able to accommodate one articulated vehicle, or two standard vehicles with, potentially, multiple boarding and alighting doors. • Distinctive branding to clearly distinguish from other regular bus stops. • Good access to stops including dedicated crossing facilities to negotiate junctions and convenient and safe pedestrian and cyclist links.

22. Integrated System Design • As BRT systems consist of different elements including services, vehicles, stops, busway infrastructure, passenger information etc. co-ordinated design and operation of the different elements is required way to provide a recognisable “system” to passengers. • This systemic concept is important in supporting the overall attractiveness of the system such that a system is identifiable rather than its individual elements. • It is also vital that the system is integrated in to the urban fabric with good quality links to existing walking and cycling networks and integrated in to new development where possible. This requires a high standard of branding and effective marketing of the system’s potential to stakeholders such as developers and local businesses.

23. Figure 3.2 Examples of Busway Elements Design Infrastructure Segregated Corridors – within highway Segregated Corridors Segregated On-Street Sections Vehicles Multi-door passenger boarding New, modern vehicles Level boarding and alighting ‘Tram-style’ interiors Stops High quality, safe stops Shelters and passenger seating Real time information Off-board ticketing

25. 4. Option Generation • Bus Rapid Transit options have been designed in a “Hub and Spoke” approach, that is, to provide key Bristol City Centre destinations at which some or all of the BRT services could serve and/or provide interchange opportunities. This approach is shown in Figure 4.1 • The benefit of this approach has been to: • Separate city centre running sections from corridor sections which would have different issues and assessment criteria in terms of option selection. • Separate the ‘common sections’ of routes - the aim of this study is to prioritise between route options. • To separately review the role and function of Bristol City Centre routes and how this works with existing bus services. • Therefore the assessment has been separated in to Corridors and Bristol City Centre Options: • City Centre Options: • A: City Centre – Loop Option • B: City Centre – Direct Through Route(s) Option • C: City Centre – Tram Alignment Option • Corridor Options • D: Ashton Vale to Bristol City Centre • E: Hengrove/Hartcliffe to Bristol City Centre • F: Bath to Bristol City Centre • G: Whitchurch to Bristol City Centre • H: North Fringe to Bristol City Centre • I: Cribbs Causeway to Bristol City Centre • J: Emerson’s Green to Bristol City Centre • K: Avonmouth/Portishead to Bristol City Centre • L: Bristol Internal Airport to Bristol City Centre Corridors • The starting point for the generation of corridor options was the four potential BRT lines identified in the GBSTS. These were effectively then truncated at the point where they meet the central BRT stops to form eight main corridors. Specific route alignments within these corridors were then generated. • The corridor options generated are summarised below.

26. Existing Services: Inner Urban Services Existing Services: Outer Services BRT-only Services Figure 4.1: Hub and Spoke Winterbourne Chipping Sodbury Thornbury Stoke Gifford Cribbs Causeway Frenchay Filton Westbury On Trym Lockleaze Mangotsfield Fishponds The Downs Emerson’s Green Weston-super-Mare Portishead Avonmouth Bristol City Centre Pucklechurch Yate Kingswood Weston-super-Mare Clevedon Nailsea Bedminster Brislington Knowle Weston-super-Mare Bristol International Airport Hartcliffe Keynsham Whitchurch Bath Wells and Bridgwater / Yeovil Midsomer Norton and Radstock

27. D: Ashton Vale to Bristol City Centre • The route from Ashton Vale to Bristol City Centre could serve the current park and ride site at Long Ashton and the potential new development at Ashton Vale and provide an important link to Bristol City Centre. Two main options were identified to link these two areas: • D1: Ashton Vale P&R to Bristol City Centre via Cumberland Road • A fully segregated two-lane busway running from Prince Street at a point to the south of the Bristol Industrial Museum, connecting with the railway line alignment running along the south side of the Floating Harbour adjacent Cumberland Road, crossing the River Avon on the existing Ashton Avenue Bridge and then connecting through to the Long Ashton Park & Ride site via an alignment through the proposed Ashton Vale development. Use of the railway alignment means that a segregated alignment largely exists. The main issue would be the connection across the freight line to Portishead and the connection in to the new development. • D2: Ashton Vale P&R to Bristol City Centre via Parson Street • A fully segregated two-lane busway running from Prince Street across a new bridge over the River Avon connecting to St Johns Road and Dalby Avenue to join the existing railway south of Bedminster Station. It would continue to run parallel to the railway south of the existing Ashton Vale development before crossing the railway and turning north to run through the proposed new Ashton Vale development area and terminating at Long Ashton Park & Ride. There are a number of feasibility issues with the use of the railway corridor as there is not sufficient room within the alignment for two-way segregation along the entire alignment particularly in the vicinity of Parson Street Rail Station where even single lane operation appears infeasible. A further issue would be the crossing of the operational mainline railway and the connection in to the new development. • Other options considered at the option generation stage were running via Hotwells Road (northern section of the Inner Ring Road) and Anchor Road, Cumberland Road (southern section of the Inner Ring Road) in to Bedminster Bridge. Both of these were dismissed as, in our view, they offered no significant difference to the more direct route via the railway alignment and both would take road space on the Inner Ring Road. • Both option D1 and D2 are separate from the proposed Greater Bristol Bus Network Improvements on Corridor 8 (A370) and Corridor 9 (A369) and should therefore be complementary. • The busway alignment to Ashton Vale could also benefit services to/from Weston-super-Mare, Portishead, Nailsea and Clevedon as well as services to/from Bristol International Airport (options L1 and L2).

28. E: Hengrove/Hartcliffe to Bristol City Centre • The route from Hengrove/Hartcliffe links the existing southern suburbs at Hartcliffe and proposed development at Hengrove Parkto Bristol City Centre. BRT services could also serve the intermediate areas of Bishopsworth, Headley Park, Lower Knowle, Bedminster and Windmill Hill. Bus routes benefiting from the busway infrastructure would be existing services in south Bristol including most services that run on Bedminster Parade. Five options were generated for this corridor: • E1: Hengrove/Hartcliffe to Bristol City Centre on-street • A partially segregated two-lane busway running along existing roads from Bedminster Bridge down along East Street and Hartcliffe Way to Hartcliffe and Hengrove. To achieve the necessary level of segregation, major road widening would be required along much of the route. Only on Hartcliffe Way south of the Malago Greenway is there sufficient space for a segregated busway. Over the rest of the route, significant land acquisition and demolition would be required, with a very large impact on commercial and residential property and existing communities. This option replicates the Showcase 76/77 route. • E2: Hengrove/Hartcliffe to Bristol City Centre via Parson Street and Ashton Vale • A partially segregated two-lane busway following the alignment of D2 to Ashton Vale then along Winterstoke Road and Hartcliffe Way to Hartcliffe and Hengrove. This option diverges from Option D1 at Ashton Gate to run along Winterstoke Road to Parson Street, then with Option E3 along Hartcliffe Way. Some widening of Winterstoke Road would be required. Much of its length is bounded by open space or wide verges so this could be achieved without major land take. A small amount of property acquisition would be required at various points but this would be mainly parking or landscaping. • E3: Hengrove/Hartcliffe to Bristol City Centre via Parson St and railway line • A fully segregated two-lane busway running from Prince Street across a new bridge over the River Avon connecting to St Johns Road and Dalby Avenue to join the existing railway south of Bedminster Station. It would then run parallel to the railway line, join the road network at Parson Street Railway Station and then continue down Hartcliffe Way to Hartcliffe and Hengrove. From Parson Street Railway Station the route uses part of the Hartcliffe Way carriageway with some widening to accommodate the busway. At the northern end this would require some commercial property acquisition which is mainly parking and landscaping at present. South of Bedminster Fire Station, where the Malago runs alongside the road briefly, the alignment runs in open space on the east side of Hartcliffe Way as a segregated busway.

29. E4: Hengrove/Hartcliffe to Bristol City Centre via Malago Greenway • A fully segregated two-lane busway running from Prince Street across a new bridge over the River Avon connecting to St Johns Road and Dalby Avenue up to the existing railway and then continuing along the alignment of the Malago Greenway to Hartcliffe and Hengrove, retaining the existing cyclist and pedestrian facilities. The alignment of this option is the same as Option E3 except for the section between Windmill Hill and Bedminster Fire Station, where it follows the course of the Malago Greenway. • Further options were looked at as part of potentially using the proposed South Bristol Ring Road (SBRR) alignment. This proposed new corridor could provide new radial or part radial route alignments for BRT. These options would be dependant on delivery of the SBBR and adequate space being made available as part of that scheme. • Two options were considered: • E5: Whitchurch to Bristol City Centre via Hengrove/Hartcliffe and the Malago Green Way • A fully or partially segregated two-lane busway following the alignment of E4, then following the South Bristol Ring Road (SBRR) alignment to connect to Whitchurch. This option use the Hengrove to Hicks Gate section to access Whitchurch. • G3: Hengrove/Hartcliffe via Whitchurch and the Callington Link Road. This options is discussed below. • The route identified in the GBSTS for Hengrove/Hartcliffe to Bristol City Centre was for services to operate within the existing highway with local priority measures, taking advantage of reduced traffic flows on the A37 associated with the SBRR. Use of the A37 has been considered under options to Whitchurch (Option G2).

30. F: Bath to Bristol City Centre • The route from Bath to Bristol City Centre links the two areas and intermediate locations such as Keynsham. This link can be achieved in a number of ways by running BRT services: • between the two areas; • between Line 1 of the BRT system in Bath and Bristol City Centre through interchange with Line 1 at the Newbridge Park and Ride site (Bath Package); or • between Bath Road Park and Ride site and Bristol City Centre. • The route between the two areas is approximately 17 miles. A heavy rail service of at least two fast trains per hour (with a journey time of 15 minutes) serves both centres with a stopping service also serving Keynsham and Oldfield Park. The A4 is also a proposed Greater Bristol Bus Network Corridor, Corridor 3. This will provide improved bus priority mainly within the existing highway. • At the option generation stage it was decided that options linking the Bath Road Park and Ride site to Bristol City Centre would be looked at. This was on the basis that the Bath to Bristol corridor would be a long route serving an area already directly served by heavy rail with planned bus priority measures. It was considered that providing a segregated alignment to the Bath Road Park and Ride could provide buses serving Bath segregation where the majority of the congestion exists and bus priority would be used for the remainder of the route. Services such as the Bath Road Park and Ride service, the Bath services X39 and 178 and Keynsham service 349 could benefit from this option. • In addition to looking at options to the Bath Road Park and Ride, and to ensure consistency with the approach to other corridors, an option using the disused Bath Railway Path was also considered as this would provide a different alignment and journey opportunities to the A4 corridor. • F1: Bath Road Park & Ride to Bristol City Centre via the A4 • A partially segregated two-lane busway running along existing roads from the Bath Bridge along the A4. To achieve the necessary level of segregation, major road widening would be required along much of the route. Some priority has already been achieved with bus lanes, but significant land acquisition and demolition would be required, with a large impact on commercial and residential property. • F2: Bath Road Park & Ride to Bristol City Centre via Callington Link Road • A partially segregated two-lane busway running from Temple Meads Railway Station through St Philip’s Marsh joining the Callington Road Link alignment to the A4174 Callington Road then using the A4174 and A4 to the existing Bath Road Park & Ride. This option makes use of the former Whitchurch railway alignmentbetween Bristol City Centre and Callington Road and then diverges to run on Callington Road and Bath Road to the existing park & ride site. • F3: Bath to Bristol City Centre via Bristol to Bath Railway Path • A fully segregated two-lane busway following the alignment of J2 but continuing along the Bristol to Bath Railway Path to the Newbridge Park & Ride site outside Bath.

31. G: Whitchurch to Bristol City Centre • The route from Whitchurch to Bristol City Centre would serve a major new residential developments at Whitchurch together with the proposed park and ride site adjacent to the A37, and existing locations such as Knowle and Brislington. Services which could benefit include the 375/376 to Yeovil/Bridgwater and services to Whitchurch, Stockwood and Rookery Farm. Three options have been identified: • G1: Whitchurch to Bristol City Centre via A37 • A partially segregated two-lane busway running along existing roads from Bedminster Bridge along the A37 to Whitchurch. To achieve the necessary level of segregation, major road widening would be required along much of the route. North of Callington Road, bus lanes are already provided in one direction where practicable, but to increase the level of priority would again require extensive land acquisition and demolition. Similarly there would be very large impacts on property (mainly residential), on existing communities and on servicing and access.The A37 is also a proposed Greater Bristol Bus Network Corridor, Corridor 6. • G2: Whitchurch to Bristol City Centre via Callington Link Road • A fully segregated two-lane Busway following the alignment of F2 directly to the proposed Whitchurch Park & Ride site. Between Callington Road and West Town Lane, the recent development at Hither Bath Bridge occupies the railway alignment.While a narrow strip has been left between new and existing development, this is not sufficient to accommodate a two lane busway without some acquisition, and the busway would still be very close to gardens. Two alternative routes to avoid this problem have been identified which involve either a deviation to the east, following the stream between the Sports Ground and Knowle Golf Course or a shorter deviation to the west, skirting the Hither Bath Bridge development and rejoining the railway at West Town Lane. Approaching Whitchurch, the busway alignment diverges again from the old railway to the east before curving to cross the A37 Bristol Road. • G3: Hengrove/Hartcliffe route continuing along the South Bristol Ring Road • A fully or partially segregated two-lane busway following the alignment of G2 but continuing along the SBRR to connect with Hengrove and/or Hartcliffe.

32. H: North Fringe to Bristol City Centre • The North Fringe to Bristol City Centre corridor would potentially serve a large area including a potential new park and ride site, the proposed Harry Stoke development, Bristol Parkway station, the core of the existing major Bradley Stoke development, potential development at Filton Northfield, Aztec West and Cribbs Causeway.There have been eight options identified: • H1: M32 Southern Park & Ride to Bristol City Centre via river alignment • A fully segregated two-lane busway running from Broadmead along a new alignment to the rear of the new Broadmead development and along the River Frome to link with the M32 at the Easton Way junction and continuing along the south side of the M32 to a new park and ride site at Broomhill. This would involve decking of the River Frome (the river is already culverted to the west of Wade Street), declassification of the M32 and new access ramps to/from the M32 to the park and ride site. This option replicates the proposed GBBN, Corridor 1 to the Easton Way junction. • H2: M32 Southern Park and Ride to Bristol City Centre via Newfoundland Road • A fully segregated two-lane busway running from Broadmead along Newfoundland Road to link with the M32, continuing along the south side of the M32 to a new park and ride site at Broomhill. This option is the same as H1 except the section between the new Broadmead development and the Easton Way junction would be on the existing highway. This option replicates part of the proposed GBBN, Corridor 1. • H3: Bradley Stoke to Bristol City Centre via H1/H2 • A partially or fully segregated two-lane busway using either the H1 or H2 alignment, leaving the M32 at a new park and ride site at Broomhill to continue along Stoke Way to the University of Western England (UWE), Bristol Parkway Railway Station and Bradley Stoke. This option builds on the H1 and H2 options to provide further segregation for services to the North Fringe. • H4: M32 Northern Park and Ride to Bristol City Centre • A fully segregated two-lane busway using either the H3 alignment up to the A4174 Avon Ring Road but heading east to connect to a new park and ride site to the north continuing along the M32 to junction 1. This option replicates part of the proposed GBBN, Corridor 1. • H5: Filton Abbey Wood to Bristol City Centre via railway alignment • A fully segregated route using the H1/H2 alignment from the City centre to Stapleton Road where the busway would divert to run parallel to the railway largely on the previously identified Light Rail alignment. Services serving the North Fringe could access the busway at a point near Filton Abbey Wood railway station.

33. H6: Cribbs Causeway to Bristol City Centre via Filton Abbey Wood and railway alignment • A fully segregated two-lane busway using the H5 alignment and then continuing on a segregated alignment over a new bridge through to the proposed development at Filton Northfield and connecting to Cribbs Causeway. New bridges would be needed to cross the main line operational railway. • H7: Bradley Stoke to Bristol City Centre via railway alignment • A partially or fully segregated two-lane busway using the H5 alignment and then continuing to Bradley Stoke via Bristol Parkway Railway Station. A new bridge would be needed to cross the mainline operational railway. • H8: Cribbs Causeway to Bristol City Centre via H1/H2 • A fully segregated two-lane busway using the H1 or H2 alignment and then continuing to Cribbs Causeway connecting UWE, Harry Stoke, Bristol Parkway railway station, Filton Northfield and Cribbs Causeway. • Options H1, H2 and H4 replicate the proposed Greater Bristol Bus Network Corridor, Corridor 1. Option H3 and H8 could build on the proposed GBBN, Corridor 4. • The GBSTS route used partial segregation on highway. This has not been included as an option as it replicates the proposed GBBN, Corridor 2 and there are other segregated options in the corridor.

34. I: Cribbs Causeway to Bristol City Centre • The Cribbs Causeway to Bristol City Centre corridor focuses on options that link Cribbs Causeway with Bristol City Centre via the A4018, that is approaching Bristol City centre from the northwest. This route would serve intermediate demand through Henbury, Westbury and Clifton. • The ability to establish a two lane busway along this corridor is severely restricted as the highway is narrow and properties and frontages are close to the highway boundary. Some sections of two lane busway could be achieved through College Green and cross the Downs on Westbury Road but this is limited. For the majority of the corridor bus priority is the only potential solution without significant land take and demolition of property. Two options have been identified: • I1: Cribbs Causeway to Bristol City Centre via Whiteladies Road • A partially segregated two-lane busway using the A4018 Whiteladies Road mainly using priority measures on the approaches to Clifton Down up Whiteladies Road and Blackboy Hill and across the Downs. This option replicates the proposed GBBN, Corridor 2.This route is the same as that identified in the GBSTS. • I2: Cribbs Causeway to via Gloucester Road • A partially segregated two-lane busway using the I1 alignment but then joining the K2 alignment at Clifton Downs Railway Station to access the A38 to continue to Bristol City Centre. At Station Road a structure is required to access the Severn Beach Railway line to provide segregation up to Clifton Down Station, from there the route follows I1 to Cribbs Causeway.

35. J: Emerson’s Green to Bristol City Centre • The Emerson’s Green to Bristol City Centre corridor links new development at Emerson’s Green and existing areas such as Mangotsfield, Fishponds and Easton to Bristol City Centre. Services that could benefit from the busway in this corridor include services to Yate and Chipping Sodbury as well as urban services to Mangotsfield, Kingswood, Fishponds and Stapleton. • J1: Emerson’s Green via A432 • A partially segregated two-lane busway running along existing roads from the new Broadmead site along the M32 and A432 to Emerson’s Green. To achieve the necessary level of segregation, major road widening would be required along much of the route which would require significant land and property impacts.This option replicates the proposed GBBN, Corridor 5 and is the route proposed by the GBSTS. • J2: Emerson’s Green via the Bristol to Bath Railway Path • A fully segregated two-lane busway from Temple Meads Railway Station along the Bristol to Bath Railway Path to Emerson’s Green South and then continuing along the A4174 Avon Ring Road to the proposed Emerson’s Green development, retaining the existing pedestrian and cyclist facilities. The section between the Kingsland Road Bridge and the Lawrence Road Bridge would require some land take to industrial properties in the Kingsland Trading Estate as well as realignment of the railway sidings. This option could build on the proposed GBBN, Corridor 5. • J2a: Fishponds via the Bristol to Bath Railway Path • As for Option J2, a fully segregated two-lane busway from Temple Meads Railway Station along the Bristol to Bath Railway Path but terminating at a new bus interchange at Fishponds. Existing pedestrian and cyclist facilities would be retained.

36. K: Avonmouth/Portishead to Bristol City Centre • The Avonmouth/Portishead to Bristol City Centre corridor would link Avonmouth/Portishead to Bristol City Centre and serve intermediate areas such as Sea Mills and Shirehampton and the existing Portway Park and Ride. The GBSTS looked at using the rail corridor and replacing the existing rail service with BRT services. There are two options where the railway alignment could be accessed, at the Clifton Downs railway station and near the Montpelier railway station. A third option is to use road space on the A4 Portway. • K1: Avonmouth/Portishead to Bristol City Centre via Railway Line and Whiteladies Rd • A partially segregated two-lane busway running along the A4018 Whiteladies Road to Clifton Down Railway Station where the busway uses the existing railway alignment to Avonmouth. • K2: Avonmouth/Portishead to Bristol City Centre via Railway Line and Gloucester Rd • A partially segregated two-lane busway running along the A38 Gloucester Road to a point west of the existing Montpelier Railway Station where the busway uses the existing railway alignment to Avonmouth. • K3: Avonmouth/Portishead to Bristol City Centre via A4 Portway • A partially segregated two-lane Busway running along the A4 Portway to the existing Portway Park and Ride sire and continue on to Avonmouth and/or Portishead.

37. L: Airport to Bristol City Centre • The Airport to Bristol City Centre corridor is an extension of the Ashton Vale to Bristol City Centre Corridor. A two lane segregated busway would be utilised on sections closer to Bristol City Centre supported by bus lane priority along the A38. • L1: Airport to Bristol City Centre via A38, South Bristol Ring Road and Ashton Vale • A partially segregated two-lane busway following the alignment of D1. • L2: Airport to Bristol City Centre via A38 and railway line • A partially segregated two-lane busway following the alignment of D2. M: Orbital Routes – A4174 Ring Road • M1: A4174 Ring Road Orbital Route • A partially segregated two-lane busway using the H8 alignment to the A4174 the running along the A4174 to Emerson’s Green. This would replicate, in part the proposed Greater Bristol Bus Network Corridor, Corridor 7. • This option is not within one of the four corridors identified by the GBSTS but was included as a result of consultation with officers from the four Authorities. • The options generation exercise resulted in a total of 32 corridor options with varying degrees of segregation potential for taking forward for appraisal. These are shown in Figure 4.2.

38. Figure 4.2: Long list of Options

39. City Centre Options • Six potential stops for Bristol City Centre were identified as key locations to serve the majority of this area. These locations are: • Broadmead shopping area. • Haymarket. • Colston Avenue. • Broad Quay. • Castle Park. • Temple Meads Railway Station. • Four of these: Broadmead, Haymarket, Broad Quay and Temple Meads Railway Station along with a stop near the Bristol Industrial Museum have been taken as the key points (or “Hubs”) at which each of the corridors (or “spokes”) link from and connect with the city centre services. • Service patterns through and/or around the city centre will depend on the routing of the corridor options. There are three basic patterns which could operate: • A: Loop Option. • B: Direct Routes Option. • C: Tram alignment Option. • These are shown diagrammatically in Figure 4.3. Further detail is provide in Figure 5.2.

40. Figure 4.3: City Centre Options

41. 5. Option Assessment Assessment Framework • At outline appraisal has been undertaken to determine the relative costs and benefits of the options in comparison with each other and their contribution to policy objectives. To do this the following appraisal criteria were used to differentiate the options: • Scheme Objectives – how well the option assists in the delivery of the scheme objectives. • NATA - the level of impact the option has in terms negative impacts, such as environment, land take and highways impact against its positive impacts, such as number of persons using public transport and the associated safety and other such benefits. • Deliverability/ Viability – how deliverable the option is in terms of construction and operation and its acceptability to the public, policy makers and funders and how attractive the option is in terms of commercial attractiveness and its requirement for ongoing financial support. • The long list of options was assessed in a two-stage process: • Stage 1: All corridor options – A qualitative assessment against the above criteria by scoring the options from 1 to 5, 1 being strongly negative and 5 being strongly positive. The results of this outline assessment was reported in May 2006. Options were summarised as either: • High Impact / High Benefit • High Impact / Low Benefit • Low Impact / High Benefit • Low Impact / Low Benefit Figure 5.1: Long list of Options • Figure 5.1 demonstrates the results of the Stage 1 assessment.

42. Stage 2 took the strongest rating alignment within each corridor and identified in further detail a fully segregated alignment and potential service pattern. These are referred to as “Reference Schemes” as shown in Figure 5.2. The Reference Schemes chosen were: • D1 – Ashton Vale to Bristol City Centre. • E4 – Hengrove/Hartcliffe (via Malago Greenway) to Bristol City Centre. • F2 – Bath Road P&R to Bristol City Centre. • G2 – Whitchurch (via Callington Link Road alignment) to Bristol City Centre. • H1 – M32 Southern P&R to Bristol City Centre. • H4 – M32 Northern P&R to Bristol City Centre. • H8 – Cribbs Causeway (via North Fringe, UWE and Broomhill P&R) to Bristol City Centre. • J2 – Emerson’s Green to Bristol City Centre. • In addition to this, two other reference schemes were included: • J2a – a shorter version of J2 to look at the issues of provision of the busway part way along a corridor. • E5, Whitchurch (via Malago Greenway) and G3 Hengrove/Hartcliffe (via Callington Link Road alignment) - either of these could provide for a potential loop on the southern section of the BRT system. • Where a qualitative assessment was undertaken corridors were scored as: • Strongly Positive ++ • Positive + • Neutral o • Negative – • Strongly Negative --

43. Figure 5.2 Map of Reference Schemes Insert Figure 5.2

45. Although at this stage the assessment remains largely qualitative, some quantitative assessment has been undertaken in the following areas: Passenger Demand • Demand modelling of the Reference Schemes has been undertaken by Atkins at a strategic level using the Bristol Area Transport Study (BATS) model. At this stage there are a number of limitations on the use of this model for assessing BRT. These include: • The model does not specifically cater for BRT corridors as it only contains three modes: car, rail and bus. • To gauge the range of possible demand, services have been modelled as both “Bus” Services and “Rail” Services. In reality BRT comes somewhere between these two modes and should be reflected with its own mode constant based on the qualities of the proposed BRT scheme. • However, the model also assumes Rail Services require bus feeder services for passengers to access the system. This would not be the case for the BRT system. As a result, demand forecasts generated for the “rail mode” would be different than it would be for BRT. For this reason a ‘central case’ between Bus mode and Rail mode has not been able to be established. • For the purposes of comparing options, the Bus mode modelling results have been used. These tend to underestimate the benefits of BRT and therefore demand and benefit estimation is a conservative estimation of the BRT business case. • BRT services are modelled ‘on top of’ GBBN improvements. As a result, existing bus services effectively compete with BRT services and the journey time difference between bus and BRT is therefore reduced. In reality GBBN and BRT services would not be in competition within corridors and should be complementary. • Only the morning peak in 2011 and 2031 has been modelled. The difference in build out rates of new developments and housing within Greater Bristol is not captured until 2031, where it is all included. • In summary, a significant degree of estimation is implicit in the results reported in the option assessment. Therefore the absolute results of the demand modelling should be treated with considerable caution. As the limitations of the current model are consistent across options however, a comparison of the relative performance of the different corridors is possible. Capital Costs • An estimate of capital costs has been made for each Reference Scheme. The estimates are based on the latest available information on BRT costs but no detailed engineering has been undertaken. Therefore these estimates should also be treated with caution. A risk premium of ± 30% has been applied to estimates.

46. Corridor Options: Assessment against Scheme Objectives Objectives • The objectives of BRT were identified by the GBSTS as set out in Section 2. In scoring the Reference Schemes against these criteria the following objectives were taken in to consideration: • Objective: Extend choice of transport modes for all, in particular for private car drivers to encourage a shift to public transport – options were scored on the extent of segregation as this was viewed as being an indication of the potential for achieving fast and reliable journey times. • Objective: promote sustainable development by providing high quality public transport links – options were scored against whether they directly connected identified growth areas in Greater Bristol. • Objective: Improve access to public transport in areas that currently have poor provision – options were scored against whether they provide new access opportunities through either a different service opportunity or different option, i.e. use of a new park and ride site. • Objective: Improve integration of the public transport network – options were scored against how well they provided for interchange opportunities including car (park and ride) and rail. • Objective: Promote social inclusion by improving access to employment, retail, community, leisure and educational facilities – options were scored on the extent to which they connected housing with significant employment opportunities. • Objective: Improve safety along the corridor by providing a high quality public transport alternative to the private car – options were scored for their contribution to safer travel. All were assumed to provide a similar level of safety as all achieve mode shift (although to varying extents) and design of high-quality shelters, waiting areas and access to the system will take in to consideration passenger safety. Key Success Criteria • In addition to the set of GBSTS objectives more specific criteria were developed in workshops held in March 2006 attended by officers of all four Authorities. These workshop focussed on the outcomes that would be required for BRT to be considered a success. Three factors were identified. The key success criteria and the basis upon which Reference Schemes were assessed are: • Mode shift - be a step-change in the quality of public transport – options were assessed on their modelled mode shift from car to BRT. • Contribute towards economic growth - options were scored on the extent to which they connected with areas with significant number of jobs. • Help reduce traffic congestion- options were assessed on the extent to which they would impact on the existing road capacity.

48. Corridor Options: NATA Assessment - Environment • Assessment of environmental benefits and effects was undertaken to understand the relative impacts of the options. This was based on walk-over site visits and a review of available mapping. • The standard NATA environmental categories were used for the assessment. However, it was assumed that all options would achieve some level of modal shift (although the extent of this varies across options as discussed) and therefore result in some benefit in noise, local air quality and physical fitness from all the options. It was also considered that some criteria would not vary significantly between options. These included local air quality, climate change and journey ambience (for example, implementation of a high quality BRT system would have a similar journey ambience benefit for all options). Therefore only environmental criteria that differentiate between options were looked at in detail. These were: • Noise – whether the option would introduce a new noise source in to the surrounding area or whether location of the busway infrastructure would be near to existing transport noise. Proximity of the busway infrastructure to populated areas was also taken in to consideration. • Landscape – whether there would be significant visual impacts on the landscape as a result of construction and operation of the busway. • Townscape – whether there would be significant visual impacts or benefits on the townscape and setting as a result of construction and operation of the busway. • Heritage – whether any listed buildings would be affected. A detailed assessment of buildings and property has not been undertaken. The assessment is simply a view as to the risk that there might be buildings or property of significance within the corridor. • Biodiversity – whether the option uses green space, fields or currently vegetated land which may have species that would be adversely affected. • Water Environment – the extent to which construction or operation of the option may affect the water quality of existing waterways or water catchments. • As can be expected, options which utilise existing transport corridors are assessed to have the lowest environmental impact. The assessment shows that H1 and H4 M32 options have the lowest impact except for the potential landscape and biodiversity impacts of a new park and ride site. Similarly D1, the Ashton Vale route, mainly using the existing rail corridor, also has minimal impacts. • Key environmental considerations are: • Potential new bridges over the River Avon and their visual and water environment impacts. • Potential landscape and biodiversity for alignments not using brownfield land – links to Cribbs Causeway across fields, use of the Malago Greenway, use of the disused Bath to Bristol railway line and use of the disused Whitchurch railway line. These areas are mainly within or close by to built-up areas so the likelihood of specific protected species in these areas should be low. • Potential noise impacts for options using the Callington Road Link given the proximity of housing to the alignment. A new link via the Malago Greenway would also introduce a new transport corridor but it is more closely aligned to the existing road network and not as close to potential noise receptors. • Overall, there does not appear to be any environmental ‘showstoppers’ for any of the options. This initial, strategic assessment needs to be supported with more detailed surveys of the existing conditions as there may be issues which are not easily identifiable at this level of assessment. The potential effects identified should be able to be mitigated with considerate design of the busway infrastructure and inclusion of appropriate mitigation measures.

50. Corridor Options: NATA Assessment – Safety, Accessibility and Integration • As for the environmental impacts, this part of the NATA assessment has only considered criteria which will differentiate between options at this stage. Criteria such as security, option values and access to the transport system would not vary significantly as the quality of the facilities provided for all options would be the same. Similarly, an assessment against Other Government Policy has been undertaken through assessment against the scheme objectives established by GBSTS and JLTP objectives. It has been assumed that the Accidents criterion directly relates to modal shift and has therefore also been excluded as this is covered under Key Success Criteria. • The remaining factors that have been used to asses the options against Safety, Accessibility and Integration categories were: • Option Values – whether the option introduces a new link in the transport system for the area it serves. • Severance – whether the option would introduce a new barrier in to the surrounding area or whether location of the busway infrastructure would be adjacent to an existing transport corridor. Where the busway is at ground level limited severance would be experienced as pedestrians and cyclists could cross the busway as they would a road (with significantly less traffic volumes). This has still been assessed as severance at this stage of the analysis. • Transport Interchange – the number of opportunities the option contains to interchange with other modes including car (P&R) and rail. • Land Use Policy – whether the option supports the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy and if the land use is already identified for transport. • The assessment shows that route options using the Malago Greenway (E4 and E5) and H8 to Cribbs Causeway provide benefit in terms of new, more direct options in to Bristol City Centre that are not provided by existing public transport in the same way. • Transport interchange mainly occurs at the start or end of routes for all options (apart from H8 connecting with Bristol Parkway Station). This emphasises the importance of a comprehensive and integrated bus network serving and using the busway infrastructure. • As the options originate from the GBSTS, all options are consistent with land use policy, but to varying degrees.