1st April 2014
Service
number
Destination
Operator
Summary of changes
X7
Bristol – Clevedon
Pier Buses
Saturday service withdrawn.
13th April 2014
Service
number
Destination
Operator
Summary of changes
1
Bristol - Weston-super-Mare
First
Service 1 re-numbered to W1. Timetable amended.
3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3X
Bristol City Centre – Aztec West
Wessex
Service 3 withdrawn. 3A, 3B, 3C, 3X - timetable amended.
4
Bristol City Centre - Downend
First
Service withdrawn, please refer to service 5 and 24 for further information.
5
Bristol City Centre - Downend
First
Service extended to Emersons Green via Bromley Heath and will no longer serve Downend, The Horseshoe. Monday-Saturday daytime frequency increased from every 30 mins to every 20 mins. Monday-Saturday evening and Sunday & Public Holiday services will operate every 30 minutes which compares with the current frequency.
17
Southmead Hospital - Keynsham
First
New service operating between Southmead Hospital and Keynsham via Fishponds, Hillfields, Kingswood and Hanham. Provides an enhanced replacement for the withdrawn Service 507. Please note that Service 17 will operate via Muller Road and will no longer serve Lockleaze. The timetable has been amended.
18
Emersons Green - Southmead Hospital
First
Significant changes to route and timetable. Service will be extended beyond Southmead Hospital to Henbury via Westbury, Shirehampton and Lawrence Weston. Service 18 will now operate via Gloucester Road North, Filton Road and Monks Park Avenue before entering the Southmead Hospital site via Monks Park Way. Consequently, Southmead Road will no longer be served, however services 501/502 will still operate via Southmead Road.
20
Bristol City Centre - Southmead
First
Route and timetable amended. The previously withdrawn section of route along Clare Avenue, Kings Drive and Bishop Road will be reinstated.
24
Horfield Common - Ashton Vale
First
Service will be extended to serve Southmead Hospital. Frequency increased to every 10 minutes due to the withdrawal of the 25 service.
25
Horfield - Ashton Vale
First
Service withdrawn. Please see service 5 and 24 for further information.
36
Bristol City Centre - Withywood
First
Timetable amended.
37
Bristol - Bath
First
Service 332 is re-numbered 37. The route will be revised and services towards Bath will operate via The Horsefair & Penn Street rather than Fairfax St & Broad Weir.
38
Bristol - Bath
First
Service 338 is re-numbered 38. Minor amendments to timetable.
39 X39
Bristol - Bath
First
Service 339 is re-numbered 39. Minor amendments to timetable.
42
Bristol City Centre - Keynsham
First
Timetable amendments which will include an additional journey from Cadbury Heath to City Centre at 0632 (Monday to Friday). Route is revised around Cadbury Heath area.
43
Bristol City Centre - Cadbury Heath
First
Timetable amended which will include additional journeys from Cadbury Heath to City Centre at 0700 and 0722 (Monday-Friday) and from City Centre to Cadbury Heath at 1540 and 1840 (Monday-Friday). There will also be an additional night journey between City Centre and Kingswood at 0400 Tuesday to Sunday Morning. Route is revised around Cadbury Heath area.
44
Bristol City Centre - Kingswood
First
Timetable amended. Saturday daytime frequency increased to every 20 minutes from every 30 minutes. There will be an additional night journey at 0421 from Kingswood to Lawrence Hill.
45
Bristol City Centre - Longwell Green
First
Timetable amended. Saturday daytime frequency increased to every 20 minutes from every 30 minutes. There will be additional journeys from Longwell Green to City Centre at 0620 and 0720 (Monday-Friday).
46 / X46
Bristol - Yate / Chipping Sodbury
First
Service 327 will be renumbered 46 and operate a slightly revised route in South Gloucestershire. Service 46 will be supplemented by a new X46 service operating between Bristol and Chipping Sodbury, via the M32, Winterbourne, Iron Acton and Yate.
47 / N47 / X47
Bristol - Chipping Sodbury
First
Service 342/X42 is re-numbered Service 47/X47 operating a revised timetable but unchanged route. Service N50 will be renumbered N47 and now operated by First.
52
Cabot Circus - South Bristol Hospital
Abus
Timetable amended.
57
Bristol City Centre - Stockwood
Abus
Timetable amended.
81
Kingswood - Yate
First
New service operating between Kingswood and Yate via Fishponds, Frenchay, Stoke Gifford, Winterbourne and Frampton Cotterell. This replaces service 581.
82
Southmead Hospital - Yate
First
New service operating hourly between Southmead Hospital and Yate, Monday to Saturday, and a two hourly service on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Service 82 replaces the current 482/483.
309/310
Bristol - Thornbury
First
Timetable amended. Additional off-peak journeys to Cribbs Causeway withdrawn.
327
Bristol - Yate
First
Service 327 is re-numbered to 46.
329
Bristol - Yate
Wessex
Service withdrawn.
332
Bristol - Bath
First
Service 332 is re-numbered to 37.
338
Bristol - Bath
First
Service 338 is re-numbered to 38.
339
Bristol - Bath
First
Service 339 is re-numbered to 39.
342 / X42
Bristol - Chipping Sodbury
First
Service 342 / X42 is re-numbered to 47/X47.
501 502
Parkway Station - Shirehampton / Avonmouth
Wessex
Route and timetable amended. Services will now terminate at Parkway Station, passengers travelling to the M.O.D or UWE will be able to use Service 18. Services will now operate via
Southmead Hospital grounds. Combined frequency of services is increased to every 20 minutes with the addition of Monday to Saturday evening journeys on 501.
505
Bower Ashton - Southmead Hospital
Wessex
Route and timetable amended. Services will now terminate at Parkway Station, passengers travelling to the M.O.D or UWE will be able to use Service 18. Services will now operate via Southmead Hospital grounds. Combined frequency of services is increased to every 20 minutes with the addition of Monday to Saturday evening journeys on 501.
506
Create Centre - Southmead Hospital
Wessex
Route and timetable amended. Service will now operate into Southmead Hospital via Dorian Road/Dorian Way.
507
Keynsham - Southmead Hospital
Wessex
Service withdrawn, replaced by 17.
581
Hanham to Chipping Sodbury
Wessex
Service withdrawn.
635
Bristol - Chippenham
Faresaver
Timetable amended.
689
Bristol - Yate
Wessex
Service withdrawn - replaced by X49
A1
Bristol Airport Flyer
First
Timetable amended. Monday to Friday daytime frequency increased to from every 10 minutes to every 8 minutes. Saturday and Sunday unchanged.
N50
Bristol City Centre - Chipping Sodbury
Wessex
Service withdrawn and replaced by N47.
X8
Bristol - Nailsea, Clevedon, Portishead
First
Timetable amended.
X9 / X10
Bristol - Nailsea
First
New X10 service will follow same route as X9, except that it will operate via Long Ashton rather than the Long Ashton Bypass. Minor amendments to X9 timetable.
X27
Bristol - Yate
Wessex
Timetable amended. Last trip from Bristol Monday to Fridays will now depart at 18:10. The Saturday service has been reduced to two-hourly.
X40
Bristol City Centre - Avonmouth
Wessex
Service withdrawn.
X49
Bristol - Yate
First
New service between Bristol and Yate operating via M32 and Fishponds Road, replaces the current 689
Friday 28 February 2014
Thursday 27 February 2014
Letter to the editor: cycling
Dear Sir
It is a shame to see Sid Weber continue with the abuse levelled at cyclists started by Tory councillor Richard Eddy ('Cyclists are arrogant and self-righteous', letters, 25th February). I am therefore not surprised that he has missed the point that my letter was trying to make.
A cycle network will increase the numbers of cyclists for several reasons. Experienced cyclists may use the road, but will know how much more pleasant an experience it is to use cycle path - and with more routes, will cycle more. Inexperienced cyclists will be nervous and can be given more confidence to cycle on road through cycle training, but also more opportunity to avoid traffic by having separate routes. Leisure cyclists get more places to go. And beginners have more options to get started.
The truth of it is that by building a cycle network for the whole of Bristol, you'd get fanstastic value for money. A whole network for around two thirds of the cost of a couple of BRT routes. But it doesn't stop there. The city wins because by converting motorists to cyclists, we have less congestion. It wins because cyclists are healthier. It wins because we reduce levels of air pollution, and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Even Mr Weber and Councillor Eddy would win, there would be fewer cars congesting the roads they use.
Yours
Charlie Bolton
Green Party candidate
Southville
It is a shame to see Sid Weber continue with the abuse levelled at cyclists started by Tory councillor Richard Eddy ('Cyclists are arrogant and self-righteous', letters, 25th February). I am therefore not surprised that he has missed the point that my letter was trying to make.
A cycle network will increase the numbers of cyclists for several reasons. Experienced cyclists may use the road, but will know how much more pleasant an experience it is to use cycle path - and with more routes, will cycle more. Inexperienced cyclists will be nervous and can be given more confidence to cycle on road through cycle training, but also more opportunity to avoid traffic by having separate routes. Leisure cyclists get more places to go. And beginners have more options to get started.
The truth of it is that by building a cycle network for the whole of Bristol, you'd get fanstastic value for money. A whole network for around two thirds of the cost of a couple of BRT routes. But it doesn't stop there. The city wins because by converting motorists to cyclists, we have less congestion. It wins because cyclists are healthier. It wins because we reduce levels of air pollution, and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Even Mr Weber and Councillor Eddy would win, there would be fewer cars congesting the roads they use.
Yours
Charlie Bolton
Green Party candidate
Southville
Friday 21 February 2014
Why we need to make RPS cheaper for those on low incomes (again)
I spoke to a woman today in Ashton Road who is unemployed and clearly desperate about residents parking. She can't afford to heat her house. She told me she simply can't afford to pay it.
She said she needed a car to get a job, although if she had a job, she'd pay the fee like a shot (to be rid of problems parking on matchdays)
I told her George is going to introduce RPS to Southville regardless - to which she was singularly unimpressed (unsurprisingly). Apart from that there was little I could say to her.
(Well I suppose I could have argued the toss about whether you really need a car to get a job. Ideologically, I suppose I'd say either you don't or those are the sort of jobs we need to phase out. Clearly we are, as yet, a long from a green nirvana).
Anyway, I have said that I can see reasons for doing residents parking. I've even been pushed into saying I support it with proviso's. But seeing this woman's look of desperation, this has to be one such proviso.
The question is, what can we do about it.....I've already submitted a statement asking for lower prices for those on low incomes....because I for one am not in the business of penalising the poor
I can't see there being a quick fix, but if elected I will pledge to campaign for a version of RPS where costs for those on low incomes are reduced.
She said she needed a car to get a job, although if she had a job, she'd pay the fee like a shot (to be rid of problems parking on matchdays)
I told her George is going to introduce RPS to Southville regardless - to which she was singularly unimpressed (unsurprisingly). Apart from that there was little I could say to her.
(Well I suppose I could have argued the toss about whether you really need a car to get a job. Ideologically, I suppose I'd say either you don't or those are the sort of jobs we need to phase out. Clearly we are, as yet, a long from a green nirvana).
Anyway, I have said that I can see reasons for doing residents parking. I've even been pushed into saying I support it with proviso's. But seeing this woman's look of desperation, this has to be one such proviso.
The question is, what can we do about it.....I've already submitted a statement asking for lower prices for those on low incomes....because I for one am not in the business of penalising the poor
I can't see there being a quick fix, but if elected I will pledge to campaign for a version of RPS where costs for those on low incomes are reduced.
Thursday 20 February 2014
A lament for Labour - the big budget miss
Having attended part of Bristol City Council's budget meeting on Tuesday night, it occurs to me that a massive opportunity to take on the government over its ideologically driven cuts program has been missed.
To set the scene, the LibDems, Labour and the Greens had all expressed their opposition to the budget. Indeed, Helen Holland, leader of the Labour group had said (2hrs 54mins into the webcast) said Labour couldn't support the budget. Her reason - 'we have lost sight of the huge amount of cuts we have to deal with'. 'By the general election', she said local authorities 'will be working with 42% less than they had'. At the time, the cuts amounted to £83 million from Bristol's budget. A clear majority existed against the cuts, and the budget that contained them.
So - imagine - if Bristol's councillors refused to set such a savage budget, and the reason being given was the scale of the cuts. It would in itself have been newsworthy.
But there would have been an opportunity - of course, one council acting alone in defying government will be picked off. But lots of councils acting together, now there is a challenge.
(And of course, Labour control lots of councils, and government cuts have hit them much harder than the Tory heartlands). So Helen could have taken the opportunity to contact all those like-minded Labour councils leaders and said 'now is the time - lets say no to the cuts, let's all refuse to set a budget'. Perhaps George would have helped.
Unfortunately, within two hours of these statements - possibly the quickest U-turn in history - Labour had done a deal with George to put just over £1 million back in to the budget, and vote it through. This is of course great for the services saved. But, what they have actually said is while local government working with 42% less than before is no good, working with 41.5% less seems fine. £83 million of cuts bad, £82 million of cuts is perfectly acceptable.
Of course, opposition may not have worked. But for goodness sake, for the sake of all those who will still be deveastated by their severity, couldn't they have even tried?
To set the scene, the LibDems, Labour and the Greens had all expressed their opposition to the budget. Indeed, Helen Holland, leader of the Labour group had said (2hrs 54mins into the webcast) said Labour couldn't support the budget. Her reason - 'we have lost sight of the huge amount of cuts we have to deal with'. 'By the general election', she said local authorities 'will be working with 42% less than they had'. At the time, the cuts amounted to £83 million from Bristol's budget. A clear majority existed against the cuts, and the budget that contained them.
So - imagine - if Bristol's councillors refused to set such a savage budget, and the reason being given was the scale of the cuts. It would in itself have been newsworthy.
But there would have been an opportunity - of course, one council acting alone in defying government will be picked off. But lots of councils acting together, now there is a challenge.
(And of course, Labour control lots of councils, and government cuts have hit them much harder than the Tory heartlands). So Helen could have taken the opportunity to contact all those like-minded Labour councils leaders and said 'now is the time - lets say no to the cuts, let's all refuse to set a budget'. Perhaps George would have helped.
Unfortunately, within two hours of these statements - possibly the quickest U-turn in history - Labour had done a deal with George to put just over £1 million back in to the budget, and vote it through. This is of course great for the services saved. But, what they have actually said is while local government working with 42% less than before is no good, working with 41.5% less seems fine. £83 million of cuts bad, £82 million of cuts is perfectly acceptable.
Of course, opposition may not have worked. But for goodness sake, for the sake of all those who will still be deveastated by their severity, couldn't they have even tried?
Monday 17 February 2014
Bristol Labours chance to show Ed's views on Climate Change are serious
So lets make a quite reasonable assumption that the local Labour Party supports Ed. I therefore ask the following.
For Ed's comments to be more than so much hot air, we as a society are going to have to take a whole set of decisions to tackle climate change.
Some will be popular, some will be easy, But there will be others which are neither.
One decision which fits into this latter category is residents parking. On the one hand, there is no doubt that residents parking will stop commuters coming in to parts of Bristol. It will also set some small limits to the number of vehicles owned in an area.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that numbers of people both resent and loathe the very idea.
So perhaps the local Labour Party can tell us. Do you take your leader seriously? And if so - are you prepared to risk unpopularity in order to tackle climate change?
Thursday 13 February 2014
Letter to the editor - cycling
This is a response to a letter from Tory councillor RIchard Eddy (link to original
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Reader-s-letter-Cyclists-behave-badly-Amsterdam/story-20602751-detail/story.html#ixzz2t2Y9h8vu)
Dear Sir
I note that Tory councillor Richard Eddy describes cyclists as 'afflicted with a sense of self-righteousness, superiority and entitlement' (the Post letters, 'Cyclists behave badly in Amsterdam as well', 11/2/14). I was surprised, because I thought the Tories had cornered the market in those particular attributes.
He further describes a friend whose visit to Amsterdam was a 'confusing mix of users ( tram lanes, buses, cars and bikes)'. Well, I can only recall my own experience of visiting Amsterdam. The trams were fun, the cycling pleasurable, the infrastructure good to see, the cyclists - there were lots of them. Overall I had a great time.
As far as I'm concerned, having an extensive cycle network in Bristol, combined with policies to maximise levels of cycling is exactly what Bristol needs to do. But more pertinently, I would point out that we could introduce an entire cycle network for the whole of Bristol for less than the price of the a couple of the proposed bus rapid transit schemes - and to do so would have far greater benefits for the city as a whole.
Yours
Charlie Bolton
Green Party candidate
Southville
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Reader-s-letter-Cyclists-behave-badly-Amsterdam/story-20602751-detail/story.html#ixzz2t2Y9h8vu)
Dear Sir
I note that Tory councillor Richard Eddy describes cyclists as 'afflicted with a sense of self-righteousness, superiority and entitlement' (the Post letters, 'Cyclists behave badly in Amsterdam as well', 11/2/14). I was surprised, because I thought the Tories had cornered the market in those particular attributes.
He further describes a friend whose visit to Amsterdam was a 'confusing mix of users ( tram lanes, buses, cars and bikes)'. Well, I can only recall my own experience of visiting Amsterdam. The trams were fun, the cycling pleasurable, the infrastructure good to see, the cyclists - there were lots of them. Overall I had a great time.
As far as I'm concerned, having an extensive cycle network in Bristol, combined with policies to maximise levels of cycling is exactly what Bristol needs to do. But more pertinently, I would point out that we could introduce an entire cycle network for the whole of Bristol for less than the price of the a couple of the proposed bus rapid transit schemes - and to do so would have far greater benefits for the city as a whole.
Yours
Charlie Bolton
Green Party candidate
Southville
Tuesday 11 February 2014
Statement to Council scrutiny committee re RPS
I have submitted the following statement to the council's Sustainable Development Scrutiny commission. In it, I ask them, in considering the report of a Residents parking working group, to weight any cuts in costs of permits that they can make (from having a 10 year rather than a 7 year payback period) to those on low incomes.
Residents parking working group report
I note with interest the report of the Residents Parking Working Group and in particular note the statement
'It was felt that by extending the repayment time back to the original 10 years for the inner scheme that the price
could be dropped for residents within the inner zone'
My
understanding of this is that you are proposing a drop in the price for
a basic permit from £48 to whatever level you can achieve.
I
would like to suggest that you further refine this, and target any drop in
price towards those on lower incomes.
I'm sure it is obvious to you that those on low incomes are less able to pay a £48 fee than those who aren't, and presume a greater saving for those on low incomes may be available. I'd hope you will also agree that targetting any saving towards those on low incomes is the most equitable way to go.
I therefore urge you to include it in any recommendations you make.
Yours
Monday 10 February 2014
Statement from Cllr Tess Green and candidate Charlie Bolton re the proposed RPS in Southville
The mayor has made a firm decision to impose residents parking schemes and we consider that it is appropriate to make this work as well as possible for the local area. We have no doubt that there are a number of issues to do with parking which need to be addressed.
We have both lived in Southville for over 20 years, and in that time, seen the area fill up with cars. When Charlie Bolton was councillor the last time RPS was an issue locally, he found from the council that there has been growth in ownership of cars locally of around 2% per year. Growth in the number of vehicles seems certain to continue. The area is either at or close to its capacity.
The problems as we see them include commuters parking in the local area, the sheer volume of cars owned by residents, matchday parking, pavement parking on some streets, and ensuring our great local shopping streets continue to thrive.
Residents parking as currently proposed is far from a perfect solution but starts to address some of the issues - particularly commuter parking. The limits in permits issued per household may make some small difference to the numbers of vehicles in the area. We hope the scheme will address blocking of street ends and pavement parking. We think there is a case to be looked at for extending the hours of operation to the evening and to include Saturdays. We also think it appropriate to liaise with local traders associations over impact on local business.
We have concerns over the price of residents parking - we would prefer to see the cost being less for those on low incomes or for carers. We don't expect anyone to be pleased at the prospect of paying an extra tax. However, we do not want to allow the problems of parking in the area to fester, and consider that an 'implement and improve' approach is the way to go.
We have both lived in Southville for over 20 years, and in that time, seen the area fill up with cars. When Charlie Bolton was councillor the last time RPS was an issue locally, he found from the council that there has been growth in ownership of cars locally of around 2% per year. Growth in the number of vehicles seems certain to continue. The area is either at or close to its capacity.
The problems as we see them include commuters parking in the local area, the sheer volume of cars owned by residents, matchday parking, pavement parking on some streets, and ensuring our great local shopping streets continue to thrive.
Residents parking as currently proposed is far from a perfect solution but starts to address some of the issues - particularly commuter parking. The limits in permits issued per household may make some small difference to the numbers of vehicles in the area. We hope the scheme will address blocking of street ends and pavement parking. We think there is a case to be looked at for extending the hours of operation to the evening and to include Saturdays. We also think it appropriate to liaise with local traders associations over impact on local business.
We have concerns over the price of residents parking - we would prefer to see the cost being less for those on low incomes or for carers. We don't expect anyone to be pleased at the prospect of paying an extra tax. However, we do not want to allow the problems of parking in the area to fester, and consider that an 'implement and improve' approach is the way to go.
Letter to the editor re climate denial
Dear Sir
It has always fascinated me the way in which climate deniers such as R L Smith seem to pursue their dismissal of climate change with an almost messianic hatred (Changing global climate easy, Post 10th February), which seems to go far beyond the rational.
It has also bewilders me that when it comes to proving climate science they demand every 'i' to be dotted, and 't' to be crossed - otherwise they deny it exists at all. But when it comes to them presenting their own case, they seem to require no intellectual rigour at all. In fact, a bit of 'Mr Google' seems to be all they need.
When I look at the Somerset levels - clearly a victim of extreme weather events - I am aware that climate science has warned for over two decades that this is what climate change will bring. The misery these people face is both real and devastating. And frankly, it is likely to get worse and occur more frequently.
So I suggest to Mr Smith and his likes, just for once, take a responsible approach. Stop glorying in other people's misery. And help us work towards a solution to a changing climate for the sake of future generations.
Charlie Bolton
Green candidate for Southville
It has always fascinated me the way in which climate deniers such as R L Smith seem to pursue their dismissal of climate change with an almost messianic hatred (Changing global climate easy, Post 10th February), which seems to go far beyond the rational.
It has also bewilders me that when it comes to proving climate science they demand every 'i' to be dotted, and 't' to be crossed - otherwise they deny it exists at all. But when it comes to them presenting their own case, they seem to require no intellectual rigour at all. In fact, a bit of 'Mr Google' seems to be all they need.
When I look at the Somerset levels - clearly a victim of extreme weather events - I am aware that climate science has warned for over two decades that this is what climate change will bring. The misery these people face is both real and devastating. And frankly, it is likely to get worse and occur more frequently.
So I suggest to Mr Smith and his likes, just for once, take a responsible approach. Stop glorying in other people's misery. And help us work towards a solution to a changing climate for the sake of future generations.
Charlie Bolton
Green candidate for Southville
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)