The Underscore Archives

On 28/01/2008, Andy Gale <andy at mentalist.co.uk> wrote:
> 2) It has always been intended for joint use between walkers and cyclists

But not buses.

> 3) It is part of the existing rail network. There were never any
> guarantees that it wouldn't become a rail line again that I know of.

It doesn't have tracks on it and it's been diverted in slightly
strange directions in places (in Fishponds and near the Ring Road, for
example) so I would dispute the fact that it's part of the rail
network. It would be impossible to restore the tracks in some places
without knocking down subsequent development.

But this has nothing to do with restoring it as a working railway.

> 4) It's the cheapest way to introduce a mass transit system between
> the two points which is why it's being suggested. When the railway was
> shut down nobody used the railways, now they are becoming more popular
> again because of traffic congestion and the green movement.

But this has nothing to do with restoring it as a working railway,
certainly not as a solution to the Bristol/Bath commuter problem. It's
about better transport links for suburban north-east Bristol. As
Sustrans said: right idea, wrong place.

> 5) I disagree. A reliable bus service - which this would be, no
> congestion to contend with - would be enough to get people out of
> their cars. The reliable and usable alternative needs to be their
> *before* people will get out of their cars. This idea sounds like
> both. With a bit of compromise from cyclists everyone could benefit.

Except that's not likely to happen in Bristol:

"The poor bus service in Bristol - generally accepted to be the worst
in the country - is a key factor in the social exclusion of older
people. The free bus pass is a substantial step in the right, but free
access to an unreliable and inconvenient service leaves much work to
do. This paper sets out some of the problems, and some of the
arguments for change."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A22491452

Tim