Monkeh Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 Ok, but where have you got high speed link from? Who has mentioned it? Where in the article do 'they' talk about it? They don't. High speed airport link is something altogether different from electrification of the great western line to paddington. But you know that already because you work on the railways. The point is that the old passenger shed at TM, which will be adjacent to the new transport hub will be converted for electrific trains running between TM & parkway and beyond, hence creating better connectivity for the proposed arena. on the one hand people are bemoaning the lack of joined up thinking regarding the bus station (which was unfortunately redeveloped way before anyone knew the enterprise zone would happen) but are quick to dismiss the prospect of an interchange which would in effect make the arena more viable. Saying it is merely next to temple meads doesn't do it justice, considering it will become much more than just a train station in the future. The interchange isn't merely on the manifesto of the greens - it has been at the forefront of planning for the enterprise zone for a long time now. The brt, (if it comes to fruition) will stop at the interchange at Tm. But it can't stop there before the interchange is built! Until then it will stop across the roundabout at kpmg. for that interchange to work you would need to completely remodal Dr Days Jn which is between TM and Park and that currently can't be done because there isn't enough room available any more since the took the lines out, they would also need to put 2 additional tracks in at Stapleton Road and Lawrence hill which can't be done because currently hasn't gt the room at the moment, All in all that remodaling would probbily take about a 40% chunk of the money Tim Kent is on about, Just to bring the POD (Portishead and district line) back in to use for passengers will cost an estamated 58 million pounds, Its not as simple as just laying track, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manon Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 I thought assurances had been given that they were replacing lawrence hill bridge and four tracking all the way as part of the metro anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 I thought assurances had been given that they were replacing lawrence hill bridge and four tracking all the way as part of the metro anyway? assurances yes budget no, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 The sooner we get this shower out of the Council House the better, and replace it with another shower of incompetents. However I still think City should develop AG and bin this new stadium thing, we have one of the best situations in the country at AG iconic too with the Suspension Bridge as a back drop, could you imagine if we were seeking planning for that existing site to-day? Underlined post? Dunno what happened there how do we pay for the redevlopment of Ashton Gate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manon Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 I for one wasn't dismissing the other options that are likely to be added, I welcome any such developments. I was just noting that such a gap between two main transport functions makes no sense. I remember saying this when the bus station redevelopment was taking place, I don't see why the creation of an Enterprise Zone was necessary for planners to put 2 and 2 together and utilise what was wasteland around TM anyway. The more integration that can be achieved the better, I am sure the bus companies would prefer to be in a central hub competing with the other options you mention rather than being isolated a mile and a quarter away I agree with you. Clearly there's no sense in having them separated. But the point I was trying to make is that when they decided to redevelop the bus station (2002 ish), the bus station was geographically much more central than TM, and the area around TM was, as you say, wasteland. Had they known/been able to predict back then how the whole area was to change, and how TM has been brought back into the city proper with all tge development around it, as opposed to being out on an unsightly limb, then I'd imagine they would've relocated it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 I agree with you. Clearly there's no sense in having them separated. But the point I was trying to make is that when they decided to redevelop the bus station (2002 ish), the bus station was geographically much more central than TM, and the area around TM was, as you say, wasteland. Had they known/been able to predict back then how the whole area was to change, and how TM has been brought back into the city proper with all tge development around it, as opposed to being out on an unsightly limb, then I'd imagine they would've relocated it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I see what you are getting at now, but I still think if I visit a strange town by train and I can get off said train and straight onto a bus that will continue or complete my journey, I would have a better feeling for that town. I understand your point about the bus stations central location but in many ways it has always been divorced from where the action is in that respect. I am 50 and born and bred Bristolian but I think I was an adult before I even entered the bus station, somehow that doesn't seem right for something that should be a central hub of travel. No hindsight, just how I have always felt about the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manon Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 That's probably because the bus station was, and still is for the larger part, a coach station first and foremost, and a bus station second. It's primary purpose is as a terminal for those departing to or arriving from destinations further afield outside the city on national express or mega bus etc.. The REAL bristol bus network hub is the centre promenade, st augustines, which dates back to when the trams all stopped there. So, really, I suppose the interchange will prob take over from the bus station in essence, since transport in bristol is changing massively. If the bristol rail metro is fully realised and/or BRT, then the bus as we currently know it could well play a much smaller role in the city (thank god!), and the station also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real_bristol Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 Ok, I'm still struggling to grasp what your trying to say. I've re read the article, and your post. Ok the post, & in particular their thisisbristol site are usually a pile of poo. But why is it sensationalist in this case? It merely talks about the arena in the context of the enterprise zone, which is highly relevant considering it wouldn't stand a chance of being built without it. The new transport hub (we are not taking about TM station here, but a new attachment to it), is also intrinsically linked to it; how else would everyone get to the arena otherwise? They can't all arrive by train or car. That's my point, its misleading (admitedly it might not be the post's jargon). A new transport hub/interchange IMO would be in a completely new place, but I don't understand how its a new transport hub rather than an extension of the existing one, even though its going to have a new type of bus and an electrified train stopping there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manon Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 Ok, I get ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.