Traffic in Bristol

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17468
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by Truvelo »

KeithW wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 22:37
booshank wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 19:17 Brunel certainly chose an inconvenient location for his station. But does Bristol have bad traffic compared to other British cities of similar size?
It was a perfectly convenient location when it was built. It is the poorly controlled growth since the mid 19th century that is the problem.
Virtually all stations were built on what was the edge of the town/city at the time. I assume this was to keep costs down. A key exception is Birmingham New Street which required tunnels at each end to avoid demolishing much of the city.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11162
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by c2R »

Chris Bertram wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 18:49
someone wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 15:37
WHBM wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 13:10
You do know that is what housebuilders build because they know that's what people want to buy and have long aspired to ?
Wow, I have always lived in cities but I would have never guessed that.

I can imagine some people not wanting to use public transport, but to want to not even have the option, to want to be car dependent, for that to be an aspiration? Wow, I am just stunned by that.
Public transport won't run where there are no people to use it. So new build estates will, almost by definition, be without buses until there are residents to use them. I tend to hear a lot of people putting the cart before the horse in these scenarios, and i wonder why.
But there's a difference between planning for these things, such as zoning for local shops, new schools, building cycle links and bus stops in a planned way (even where initially there may be no buses or shops), and just approving random developments of significant numbers of new houses without any of the above. More often than not, it is the latter that happens, not the former.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by Herned »

KeithW wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 22:37 It was a perfectly convenient location when it was built. It is the poorly controlled growth since the mid 19th century that is the problem.
I doubt it was, it's getting on for 3/4 of a mile from what would have been the city centre then, and the centre has moved further away post-war. No other major British city has a station quite so far out. I assume it was built there for onward access to the harbour as much as the city
User avatar
JammyDodge
Member
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 13:17

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by JammyDodge »

Bristol has one key issues:
A lack of high-capacity rapid transit

Inside the urban area:
A proper 'metro' system, which tram-trains would be perfect for.
Cycle lanes. High quality segregated cycle lanes everywhere.

Outside the urban area:
A proper southern ring road would help to draw traffic away from the urban area
Designing Tomorrow, Around the Past
Isleworth1961
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 14:15
Location: South Gloucestershire

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by Isleworth1961 »

booshank wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 19:17 Brunel certainly chose an inconvenient location for his station. But does Bristol have bad traffic compared to other British cities of similar size?
Brunel didn't exactly choose the location - the GWR wasn't permitted by Bristol Corporation (or it's 1830s equivalent) to build a station anywhere near the city centre. Many towns in the early days didn't want a railway nearby, then regretted it when other towns that did thrived while theirs stagnated. I think the GWR's original plan was for a Bristol station somewhere near Queen Square.
User avatar
Bfivethousand
Member
Posts: 1387
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 22:16
Location: Derbyshire

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by Bfivethousand »

It is obviously of no help that most of "Bristol's" housing developments - Bradley Stoke, Emerson's Green et al - are actually sprouting up in South Gloucestershire.

Closer to me, Tamworth is having development after development built on to the north-eastern side of town. Unfortunately for Tammies, the land in question is over the boundary into Lichfield District Council who are gleefully clamping their housebuilding targets on to another authority and community.
16 Sodium atoms walk into a bar
followed immediately by Batman
doebag
Member
Posts: 2311
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 11:47
Location: Wisbech, Cambs

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by doebag »

Isleworth1961 wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 02:18
booshank wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 19:17 Brunel certainly chose an inconvenient location for his station. But does Bristol have bad traffic compared to other British cities of similar size?
Brunel didn't exactly choose the location - the GWR wasn't permitted by Bristol Corporation (or it's 1830s equivalent) to build a station anywhere near the city centre. Many towns in the early days didn't want a railway nearby, then regretted it when other towns that did thrived while theirs stagnated. I think the GWR's original plan was for a Bristol station somewhere near Queen Square.
Cambridge being another notable example, the station is at least a 1 mile walk from the city centre.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by KeithW »

Isleworth1961 wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 02:18 Brunel didn't exactly choose the location - the GWR wasn't permitted by Bristol Corporation (or it's 1830s equivalent) to build a station anywhere near the city centre. Many towns in the early days didn't want a railway nearby, then regretted it when other towns that did thrived while theirs stagnated. I think the GWR's original plan was for a Bristol station somewhere near Queen Square.
The driving force behind the Great Western Railway was the needs of the Bristol merchants to protect their trade. They were the men with the money and as always he who paid the piper called the tune. By the 1830's the once dominant port of Bristol was struggling to compete with Liverpool so the two prongs of the Bristol vision were the Great Western Steamship Company and the Great Western Railway. It is no coincidence that Brunel was the chief engineer for both.

Let me quote from Bristol's Railway Mania
https://bristolha.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/bha066.pdf wrote: In 1840 few people realised all the implications that the building
of a railway station would have for a large provincial city. In
Bristol Brunel chose Temple Meads as the site of his terminus
because it was the nearest piece of open land to the centre of the
city if the approach route of the railway was to be along the valley
of the river Avon. The station was just outside the old extended
city walls with Temple Gate adjacent to the frontage of the offices.

Earlier proposals had envisaged a terminus near Old Market and
in 1835 Brunel stated that the Great Western Railway could have
been carried across Pill Street and Queen Square, but in the event
the area round Temple Meads was chosen because it was so
sparsely populated and there was no need to displace many
householders when the station was built.
Central Bristol lacked the free space for a major station and goods terminal let alone the Locomotive depot, coal yard and engine sheds which required a large amount of land. This is the major reason Temple Meads became the main terminus . The branch from Temple Meads to the harbour was part of the greater vision that would attract trans Atlantic ships to dock in Bristol and allow passengers to travel on to London a day sooner than would be possible by sailing to London. The trade with Birmingham and Manchester could also be carried out from Bristol, The grand vision was that ships such as the SS Great Britain coupled with the GWR would give Bristol a major advantage. In the end of course the limitations of Bristol Harbour and the Avon navigation meant that this failed and the dominant trans Atlantic port became Liverpool. The SS Great Britain spent most of her working life as a passenger and later cargo ship on the Australian route. Local passenger traffic in and out of Bristol was a secondary issue. Similarly we forget that London stations such as Kings Cross had huge goods stations.
https://www.kingscross.co.uk/history-kings-cross-area

We tend to forget today just how important the goods business was in the 19th and early 20th century. This map showing the early 20th century Bristol layout shows it very well.
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ind ... 16&layer=6
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by KeithW »

doebag wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 11:56
Cambridge being another notable example, the station is at least a 1 mile walk from the city centre.
The difference however was that Cambridge was a University with a relatively small town. The University was the dominant force. Bristol was dominated by the merchants and they were in the driving seat. The core of their wealth was the transatlantic trade including slavery. As such they were less concerned with the needs of Bristol than with their own business requirements. For that they needed a large goods yard which could not be fitted into the harbour area. Temple Meads was convenient for passenger traffic, the land was cheaper and the joint line to the harbour meant that ships could be unloaded and their cargo carried to the good yards at Temple Meads for shipment to the larger UK. Temple Meads was a large , largely agricultural area close to the city centre.

Had Cambridge been similarly governed the Railway Station would likely have been where the Grafton Centre is today,
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by Chris Bertram »

doebag wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 11:56
Isleworth1961 wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 02:18
booshank wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 19:17 Brunel certainly chose an inconvenient location for his station. But does Bristol have bad traffic compared to other British cities of similar size?
Brunel didn't exactly choose the location - the GWR wasn't permitted by Bristol Corporation (or it's 1830s equivalent) to build a station anywhere near the city centre. Many towns in the early days didn't want a railway nearby, then regretted it when other towns that did thrived while theirs stagnated. I think the GWR's original plan was for a Bristol station somewhere near Queen Square.
Cambridge being another notable example, the station is at least a 1 mile walk from the city centre.
The story - maybe apocryphal - goes that the university didn't want to make it too easy for the students to hop on the train when the racing was on at Newmarket, or for visiting the fleshpots of London. Note that Oxford station is also a little way out from its centre, though not as far as Cambridge, and for similar reasons.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Graham
Member
Posts: 287
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2002 12:37

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by Graham »

Debaser wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 14:01 The UK housebuilding industry continuing it's fine tradition of providing us with the smallest houses in Europe
I don't think you can pin this on the housebuilding industry. What the industry really wants to build is large, detached houses on greenfield sites - cf the five large houses now scheduled for demolition at Grundy Fold Farm near Bolton. The constraining factor is local planning (and a good thing too, IMHO).
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by KeithW »

Herned wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 23:35
KeithW wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 22:37 It was a perfectly convenient location when it was built. It is the poorly controlled growth since the mid 19th century that is the problem.
I doubt it was, it's getting on for 3/4 of a mile from what would have been the city centre then, and the centre has moved further away post-war. No other major British city has a station quite so far out. I assume it was built there for onward access to the harbour as much as the city

Let me requote what the Bristol Historical Station has to say about why Brunel selected Temple Meads
https://bristolha.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/bha066.pdf wrote:
In 1840 few people realised all the implications that the building
of a railway station would have for a large provincial city. In
Bristol Brunel chose Temple Meads as the site of his terminus
because it was the nearest piece of open land to the centre of the
city if the approach route of the railway was to be along the valley
of the river Avon. The station was just outside the old extended
city walls with Temple Gate adjacent to the frontage of the offices.

Earlier proposals had envisaged a terminus near Old Market and
in 1835 Brunel stated that the Great Western Railway could have
been carried across Pill Street and Queen Square, but in the event
the area round Temple Meads was chosen because it was so
sparsely populated and there was no need to displace many
householders when the station was built.
The location was in fact Brunel's choice.
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by Herned »

KeithW wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 21:14 The location was in fact Brunel's choice.
Brunel wasn't always right. Later railway projects were far more confident to demolish big chunks of cities to build better situated stations, so Bristol pays the price for being one of the earliest city stations which is still in the same location. A station at Queen Square sounds unlikely given the need to cross the harbour
User avatar
trickstat
Member
Posts: 8738
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 14:06
Location: Letchworth Gdn City, Herts

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by trickstat »

Bfivethousand wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 11:19 It is obviously of no help that most of "Bristol's" housing developments - Bradley Stoke, Emerson's Green et al - are actually sprouting up in South Gloucestershire.

Closer to me, Tamworth is having development after development built on to the north-eastern side of town. Unfortunately for Tammies, the land in question is over the boundary into Lichfield District Council who are gleefully clamping their housebuilding targets on to another authority and community.
This is something of a pet peeve of mine. It seems to be almost unheard of for the political boundaries of cities to be adjusted to reflect their suburban expansion.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by KeithW »

Herned wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 22:23
Brunel wasn't always right. Later railway projects were far more confident to demolish big chunks of cities to build better situated stations, so Bristol pays the price for being one of the earliest city stations which is still in the same location. A station at Queen Square sounds unlikely given the need to cross the harbour
I don't know of anyone who was always right, even George Stephenson made mistakes :) If you want to recall some of Brunels greatest flops consider the broad gauge, the atmospheric railway and the SS Great Eastern.

As for Bristol remember this was a commercial venture so cost was an issue but Queen Square was also the area where many of his backers lived. For example William Miles , Mayor of Bristol bought the house at it became the offices of his family's extensive business interests. Why hack off the people who you rely on for backing if there is a cheaper alternative ? The toffs could afford a carriage and the plebs could walk :)
crb11
Member
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 21:35
Location: Cambridge

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by crb11 »

KeithW wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 13:02
doebag wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 11:56
Cambridge being another notable example, the station is at least a 1 mile walk from the city centre.
The difference however was that Cambridge was a University with a relatively small town. The University was the dominant force. Bristol was dominated by the merchants and they were in the driving seat. The core of their wealth was the transatlantic trade including slavery. As such they were less concerned with the needs of Bristol than with their own business requirements. For that they needed a large goods yard which could not be fitted into the harbour area. Temple Meads was convenient for passenger traffic, the land was cheaper and the joint line to the harbour meant that ships could be unloaded and their cargo carried to the good yards at Temple Meads for shipment to the larger UK. Temple Meads was a large , largely agricultural area close to the city centre.

Had Cambridge been similarly governed the Railway Station would likely have been where the Grafton Centre is today,
I've got a history of the railways in the Cambridge area which contains a map of proposed locations for a station - there were 17 (not including the one actually built). One group of proposals would have had a line running east of the city centre along a line west of what was built, roughly from near the current station, across Parker's Piece and the bus station, crossing the river near Mitcham's Corner, with stations at various points along this line (the northernmost near Christ's Pieces). Another would have built up near the line of the river to a terminus station which might have been as far north as Silver Street. The rationale for all of these being rejected isn't as simple as the university vetoing them, but its opposition was a major factor in having the line that far out.
[real name Colin]
User avatar
rhyds
Member
Posts: 13724
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 15:51
Location: Beautiful North Wales

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by rhyds »

JammyDodge wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 23:52 Bristol has one key issues:
A lack of high-capacity rapid transit

Inside the urban area:
A proper 'metro' system, which tram-trains would be perfect for.
Cycle lanes. High quality segregated cycle lanes everywhere.

Outside the urban area:
A proper southern ring road would help to draw traffic away from the urban area
Its near neighbour Cardiff is in a similar position. The problem seems to me to have been that Cardiff and Bristol have historically fallen between two stools. They're too small to have seen the big urban transport planning of the 60s, 70s and 80s that Birmingham, Newcastle and the like saw, but are too big for small town transport projects such as the ones you'd see in Abertawe or Exeter.
Built for comfort, not speed.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by KeithW »

Isleworth1961 wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 02:18
Brunel didn't exactly choose the location - the GWR wasn't permitted by Bristol Corporation (or it's 1830s equivalent) to build a station anywhere near the city centre. Many towns in the early days didn't want a railway nearby, then regretted it when other towns that did thrived while theirs stagnated. I think the GWR's original plan was for a Bristol station somewhere near Queen Square.
Feel free to provide evidence for that assertion, I have found none. To the contrary the merchant venturers who were the major backers of the railway were strongly represented in the Corporation of Bristol.
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17468
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by Truvelo »

rhyds wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 19:36 Its near neighbour Cardiff is in a similar position. The problem seems to me to have been that Cardiff and Bristol have historically fallen between two stools. They're too small to have seen the big urban transport planning of the 60s, 70s and 80s that Birmingham, Newcastle and the like saw, but are too big for small town transport projects such as the ones you'd see in Abertawe or Exeter.
Cardiff and Bristol had some spectacular urban motorway plans in the 60s and 70s of which only a tiny bit came to fruition. I'm not sure what the public transport proposals were at the time. For Cardiff it was all about providing additional road capacity for cars. I don't think size really mattered then as everyone was jumping on the bandwagon. Even modest sized towns had lofty road building ambitions.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
DB617
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 00:51
Location: Bristol

Re: Traffic in Bristol

Post by DB617 »

Truvelo wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 21:31
rhyds wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 19:36 Its near neighbour Cardiff is in a similar position. The problem seems to me to have been that Cardiff and Bristol have historically fallen between two stools. They're too small to have seen the big urban transport planning of the 60s, 70s and 80s that Birmingham, Newcastle and the like saw, but are too big for small town transport projects such as the ones you'd see in Abertawe or Exeter.
Cardiff and Bristol had some spectacular urban motorway plans in the 60s and 70s of which only a tiny bit came to fruition. I'm not sure what the public transport proposals were at the time. For Cardiff it was all about providing additional road capacity for cars. I don't think size really mattered then as everyone was jumping on the bandwagon. Even modest sized towns had lofty road building ambitions.
Ah yes... The Buchanan plan, actually evidenced in the current version of the A48 Gabalfa Interchange. The only part of it that might be remotely useful today is the Llantrisant Radial in some form, because of the woeful inadequacy of the A4119, but thank all that is holy that Cardiff did not get turned into American style concrete hell.
Post Reply