£20 million – just for bendybus paperwork

“Gary_Hopkins,

No small boy ever wrote to Santa, asking for a BRT Set for Christmas, but there is more to this than just an emotional response. Norman Baker might not want to rip up years of BRT research, but someone ripped up years of planning for the failed Avon Metro and the successor systems. Millions spent has been lost. Only 4 years ago, we were expecting the beginning of a tram system, lobbied for in the face of a hostile government. Now that the government has shown itself more amenable, our council wants to build more roads and bus lanes - which is what BRT is, when what little gloss still remains is removed.

Edinburgh is a shambles, true. But that scheme was proposed and planned by a Scottish assembly in the face of constant sniping from the opposition. As it began to be constructed, so that opposition became the government. It's hardly surprising that they are not throwing their full weight behind it with happy, smiling faces. For the first time, a Scottish administration is complaining about the cost of one of its projects. A variation on this theme could be in store for Bristol, alas.

On a public relations level, the BRT scheme has hardly been sold to the people of Bristol and surrounds. Rightly or wrongly, it looks to be a scheme designed to attract funds rather than something with a real chance of solving problems. The consultation process looks to those affected by the scheme to be purely an exercise in informing us what an arrogant and overbearing council is going to impose on an apathetic electorate, so that the appropriate boxes can be ticked on the application for the money. Only one mayoral candidate has given unconditional support (and he won't win!). The Chancellor's haste to approve it in his budget seemed motivated more by a need for some good news than anything else.

If I thought this would be the solution to all our problems, I wouldn't be so worried. The route from the Northern Fringe looks sensible enough, because the infrastructure is largely in place. Whether it will tempt people out of their cars, or just out of the other slower bus routes remains to be seen. From Bedminster to Hengrove, though, it looks like just another bus route. The South Bristol link has a high environmental cost that I don't think has been fully perceived by those residents who will find that the spare ground where their children play is to become a dual carriageway.

The bit I like least is BRT2, which will change forever the ambience of the Harbourside, something that has been one of Bristol's greater successes of recent years.

I would rather pay £20 for a good dinner than £10 for a poor one. Having said that, I recognise that it isn't just me paying for the meal. This scheme looks very well in the glossy brochures, but will look old hat in just a few years time. The long-term maintenance problems of rail are very well known - we have 180 years of experience. Blackpool has just renewed its tramway, after over 100 years - not bad! BRT is a mere rookie, and will bring new, unknown, challenges and costs.

Since ATA first proposed a tramway, Manchester, Sheffield, Croydon, Nottingham and Birmingham have gone ahead and built one. Cambridge has a BRT system, which is well used, but hugely over budget, and late. It was chosen against the option of reopening the railway that served the towns. As the council prepares for the £60 million court action against the builders, something that will leave it in deep debt if they lose, I wonder if they feel it was the right thing to do? Thank goodness we didn't do that with the Portishead and Severn Beach routes, as DfT considered doing.

The BBC reported disappointing passenger numbers in Hampshire, on their new BRT system. I worry that Bristol will be the city that proves beyond doubt that BRT is expensive and ineffective, after which the government will say "No more, but you're lumbered with it". I don't expect you to agree with me.”

“London got rid of bendy buses for good reason, so what does Bristol Council do? Spend 20 million on thinking about getting some? Just goes to prove what the rest of the country thinks about Bristol, idiots!”

“@sheppas

"What's been spent is sunk cost. This doesn't mean you have to waste more. And any arguement to do so, becuase "we've already wasted money on this" is a stupid analysis."

It's called 'throwing good money after bad', I believe. Politicians do it a lot, as an alternative to admitting that they were wrong.”

“Another Post 'newsitorial' to appeal to their core readership.

What would the consultant fees have been if it was a road scheme? Or a tram? Don't suppose anyone knows?

If it shouldn't have been £20m, what should it have been? Does anyone know and can they prove it? If we shouldnt' be employing 'blood-sucking consultants' on major transport projects, who should we employ? The sage wisdom of commentators on this website?

Has anyone yet grasped that it's not a case of £20m sitting in the BCC bank account that can be spent on EITHER a BRT scheme or a care home - it's a central government competition for funding on a specific project, take it or leave it.

Why is the Post continuing to call it a bendy-bus, after numerous articles saying it probably wouldn't be?

Results from GBBN project - bus passengers have gone up. I assume that's irrelevant to folk here?

Results from Cycling City project - cycling has gone up. Again, I assume that's irrelevant?

Feel free to give this comment as many red arrows as you like, but I wouldn't mind hearing concrete answers to the above concrete questions.”

“I'm against BRT - I think it's a classic example of a 'tempry' solution, of the type which has bedevilled Bristol over the years (remember the 'tempry' flyover?).

However to react to the figure of £20 million spent on 'paperwork' is to react to sloppy journalese: A great deal of planning work has been done in preparation for spoiling the quayside, and the railway and associated structures along the cut. Of course it isn't money well spent, but to characterise it as having been spent on paperwork is inaccurate.”

“@sheppas

You might not agree, but there is nothing stupid about my analysis, so please don't insult people.

Just because it is spent or sunk as you a call it, doesn't mean that its irrelevant. You state that its not reason to continue, but clearly it is, otherwise it will be wasted. if the scheme goes ahead it won't be wasted will it?

Also you happily ignore the other the obvious benefits that will be lost while we wait for an alternative scheme, If this was quantitified as a cost in terms of the impact on congestion for businesses in the city, this wold also be a downside of scrapping BRT.

I'm sorry your objection to BRT isn't as clear cut as you would like, but there are always two sides to the arguement. Scrapping BRT might be the way to go, but clearly doing that will have downsides which should at least be acknowledged.”

“@PJ1979

What's been spent is sunk cost. This doesn't mean you have to waste more. And any arguement to do so, becuase "we've already wasted money on this" is a stupid analysis.”

“How many times are these astronomical costs ever challenged by the 'decision makers' ?

How are they arrived at in the first place?

Un this case alone, £20 million just for admin costs is absolutely unbelievable !!!

In any other walk of life, the budgeted figures are a closely guarded secret (Commercial Confidentiality etc) because as soon as the figure is in the public domain any likely contractor immediately knows what he/she can get away with when bidding for the work. Surely this is simple economic sense. Otherwise it is a charter for rupping us all off.

Surely it is far better not to band these outrageous sums about until the tender stage is completed and bids are in, then the lowest bidder is agreed provided it us under or on budget.”

“Correction:

The last paragraph in my previous post should read -


You have repeatedly chosen to dodge these questions in the past. Continued failure to demonstrate that GBBN is the resounding success that you and your colleagues promised will only confirm to the people of Bristol that local transport projects, part funded by the now discredited Department for Transport, are a continuing recipe for disaster!”

“"History is one of the best predictors of future events."

Using the statement above as a starting point, in order to demonstrate that the analysis of Bus Rapid Transport's promised benefits will be achieved, can Cllr @Gary_Hopkins answer the following questions?


1. Why have you chosen not to publish the GBBN Fishponds Road Justification Document which you have continued to keep secret from the public? The report stated that before GBBN, buses travelled through Fishponds in rush-hour somewhere between 2 minutes 45 seconds minimum and 3 minutes 35 seconds maximum, with the post GBBN-implementation target of 3 minutes. (Please remember that the document failed to identify how many buses were already travelling through Fishponds in under 3 minutes BEFORE all the GBBN modifications).

2. Can you prove, using post-implementation travel logs, from buses using the completed bus route in rush-hour, that all buses are now completing this section of the route in the target-time of 3 minutes?


You have repeatedly chosen to dodge these questions in the past. Continued failure to demonstrate that GBBN is the resounding success that you and your colleagues, will only confirm to the people of Bristol that local transport projects, part funded by the now discredited Department for Transport, are a continuing recipe for disaster!”