We need to think about the choices for running the Metro, bus routes and walking routes so that the city centre is easy to get around by public transport and also that there is enough space for pedestrians.
Options for the running of the Metro, bus routes and walking routes need to be considered, so that the city centre is both accessible by public transport and space is freed up for pedestrians.
The most important way to improve how people see the city is to make it a nice place to live. This can be done by having:
The cities where people most want to live have a good economy and are attractive. They attract highly qualified people and investment. They make all of the people who live there feel valued. Table 2.1 shows where Birmingham is on the “Mercer liveability Index” (a chart of where people most want to live). The plan will focus on the aims of Birmingham becoming one of the most important cities in the world and also one of the cities where people most want to live. The plan will work with the way the city centre is set out now (the central part and the districts) and make a base on which Birmingham can grow and become a city where people want to live.
The most important factor in raising the city’s status is the city’s liveability. This includes a good physical environment to attract people and improve the city’s image, with well designed buildings, streets and spaces; a range of attractive homes and social facilities including schools, local centres and open space, attractive and safe walking routes, efficient and easy to use public transport. The most liveable cities are economically successful and desirable. People want to live there; they attract highly qualified people and hence investment. They promote social inclusion. Table 2.1 shows Birmingham’s position on the Mercer liveability index. Liveability is the essential ingredient in the recipe to raise Birmingham’s role as a world city. The plan will focus on the objectives of world city and liveability: the global city with a local heart. Working broadly with the grain of the existing city centre structure – the urban structure of core and quarters – the plan will create the foundation for Birmingham’s growth and its progress as a liveable city.
If there is a chance of European High Speed Trains to Birmingham we should grab that with both hands. The Big City Plan should look much more closely at which tracks and stations would best serve this line. If this means making sure land is available in the right parts of the city we need to plan for this.
The opportunity for European High Speed Trains to serve Birmingham should be firmly grasped. The Big City Plan should help influence the ultimate choice of route and station location for a future HST connection to the city centre, providing the opportunity for strengthened national and international rail connections in the future. Further work is required to understand what alignment the track would take, and requisite processes for safeguarding land requirements.
Centro have worked with Birmingham City Council and come up with four metro routes that will lead out from the city centre:
Centro has got hold of a Transport Works Act Order, which allows them to carry on with the extension of Line 1 along Bull Street, Corporation Street, through Victoria Square to Broad Street. This option would need us to remove the buses from Corporation Street in favour of the tram, but would not allow us to fully pedestrianise it. Centro thinks that doing this would mean that a lot more people would use Line1 because it creates a direct Metro link to the New Street Gateway. To pick up further routes, they suggest a one-way city centre loop to serve Southside, Eastside and Westside. (See Figure 4.1 for alternative metro routes)
Figure 4.1 shows the suggested future metro network developed by Centro in partnership with Birmingham City Council. As well as the Line1 extension mentioned above, a one-way city core loop is suggested serving the Eastside, Southside and Westside districts. The route, which runs around the south of the Bull Ring and immediately north of the international markets, will mean a lot more people can use the trams and will improve public transport in these areas. This loop would be needed to have the airport extension from Digbeth High Street. A further extension is planned out to Great Barr via New Town Row. The image also shows a route along Sherlock Street which would infill a route to the south.
Proposed Metro Routes (Popup full image)
For some routes, we could have ‘Bus Rapid Transit’ (BRT) instead of the Metro. Many modern cities have seen the benefits of trams in terms of transport and regeneration, setting them up is expensive and there are other practical issues. They can also affect other modes of transport (such as pedestrians in crowded streets). Bus Rapid Transport is halfway between buses and trams, with optional features such as better vehicles, priority through guideways, and not as many stops as normal buses. BRT may be a cheaper alternative to trams in some places and along some routes. Centro have suggested routes to Bartley Green, Chelmsley Wood and (as a pre-metro) to Perry Barr.
Centro, in partnership with Birmingham City Council, has identified four metro routes that will radiate from the city centre:
Figure 4.1 shows the proposed future metro network developed by Centro in partnership with BCC. As well as the Line 1 extension referred to above, a one-way city core loop is proposed serving Eastside, Southside and Westside quarters. The route, running around the south of the Bull Ring and immediately north of the international markets, will greatly improve tram system capacity and improve public transport accessibility in these areas. This loop would be required to deliver the airport extension from Digbeth High Street. A further extension is planned out to Great Barr via New Town Row. A route along Sherlock Street is also shown, which would infill a route to the south.
An alternative to Metro for some routes would be to implement ‘Bus Rapid Transit’. While the transport and regeneration benefits of trams are well understood in many modern cities, the costs and practical issues surrounding their implementation are considerable, while they can have adverse impacts on other modes (e.g. on pedestrians in crowded streets). Bus Rapid Transit is an intermediate mode between buses and trams, with optional features such as better vehicles, enhanced priority through guideways, and less frequent stops than conventional buses. BRT may be a more cost-effective alternative to tram in certain locations/corridors. Centro have suggested routes to Bartley Green, Chelmsley Wood and (as a pre-metro) to Perry Barr.
Buses could make more trips to and from the city centre but the drawbacks of this are that they could cause traffic problems, they are not always on time (or people think they are not always on time), they are not always comfortable and generally have a bad image. We should see the Big City Plan as the chance to improve the quality and image of bus travel in Birmingham.
Buses have the potential to carry a greater proportion of trips to and from the city centre but suffer from various drawbacks in terms of increasing patronage, such as congestion, actual or perceived reliability, levels of comfort, and poor image generally. The Big City Plan initiative should be seen as the opportunity to pursue a transformation in the quality and indeed dignity of bus travel in Birmingham.
We could change the existing bus network serving Birmingham city centre to give a better service to passengers and cut the impact of buses on the street environment. To do this we would gradually put bus priority measures (such as bus lanes) on the routes that go into and out of the city centre, we would have very good bus shelters, facilities and information, we would make waiting for a bus better and generally improve the look of the streets. This would be the very least we would to.
One approach would be to reconfigure the existing bus network serving Birmingham city centre to provide a more efficient service to passengers and reduce the impact of buses on the street environment. This approach envisages the progressive installation of bus priority measures on radial routes. ‘Showcase’ standard bus shelters, facilities and information, improving the quality of the waiting experience and overall public realm of the streets. This should be regarded as a ‘do-minimum’ level of bus service enhancement.
Birmingham can also make bus travel in the city centre better, make more people want to use it, improve what people think of it and set a new standard for town travel. One idea is to look for good partnerships. Another is to encourage better vehicles and physical facilities, computer systems and customer facilities to develop one of the best public transport systems in Europe (the ‘Birmingham Bus’ idea). To do this, we could work with vehicle makers, universities, product designers and others, especially those based in the region.
In addition to the options identified above, Birmingham can take the opportunity represented by the Big City Plan to launch an initiative to transform the quality, attractiveness and dignity of bus travel in the city and set a new benchmark for urban transit. One approach is the pursuit of quality partnerships. Another is to encourage further improvements in hardware and software and customer facilities to develop a truly leading European public transport brand (the ‘Birmingham Bus’ concept). This could be pursued with participation from vehicle manufacturers, educational establishments, product designers and others, especially those based in the region.
How should we manage moving more people around the city, bearing in mind our aims of promoting modes of transport other than car and cutting carbon emissions? How can we manage access to the city centre for delivery and service vehicles? How can we use technology and new design to help deliveries to all types of buildings?
How should we manage the anticipated growth in people movement, both “natural” growth and growth from new development, bearing in mind the objective of promoting non-car modes and reducing carbon emissions? How can future demands for delivery and service vehicle access to the city centre best be managed? What technological and design innovations could help facilitate deliveries to all types of premises?
Where should the city centre metro routes go and how should they work? What are the alternatives to the metro in different places? Should we think about having undergroud trains?
Where should the city centre metro routes go and how should they operate? What are the alternatives to Metro in different locations? Should an underground option be relooked at?