Help us to Keep The Lights On for another decade! Back the Cable
The Bristol Cable

Trams, or an underground? As Bristol weighs its public transport options, can it learn from across the Channel?

Bristol is notorious for its congestion and poor public transport, and has been hit by a worsening bus crisis. As it looks to a new mass transit system to solve its problems, cities such as Rennes and Bordeaux can offer valuable lessons.

Image of a modern tram travelling along a narrow street in Bordeaux (credit: Per Karlsson / Alamy)

A modern tram travels along a narrow street in Bordeaux (credit: Per Karlsson / Alamy)

Future of Cities

Back in the early 2000s, Bristol was one of more than 20 areas chosen by the then-Labour government for potential development of new tram networks. Had things gone ahead as planned, with a proposed first line expected to complete around 2007, we might now have been deep into a new era of trams in the city region.

Instead, Bristol and South Gloucestershire councils failed to agree on the route and the scheme fell apart. Fifteen years on, with local public transport in crisis, the question of whether a tram system – or an underground metro – can offer a solution to Bristol’s transport problems remains.

Martin Garrett, the chair of local campaign group Transport for Greater Bristol (TfGB), moved here from Nottingham, one city that successfully developed a new tram system during the New Labour years. “I was shocked at Bristol’s appalling public transport,” he says. “It made me a transport campaigner.”

After the failure of the Bristol tram project, the authorities began working on the much-criticised MetroBus scheme – which TfGB was set up in 2008 to campaign against – and in favour of a tram network. 

Bus users such as Mirela have been sharing their travel frustrations with the Cable (credit: Izzy de Wattripont)

“As we predicted, MetroBus has not had much impact [on Bristol’s public transport woes], with the possible exception of the service to UWE,” Garrett says.

Since 2017, the authorities have been looking again at ‘mass transit’ public transport options (see box), against a backdrop of mounting misery for citizens reliant on buses. As the Cable has reported extensively, driver shortages, reduced timetables and routes being cut have caused huge disruption to many people’s lives.

But the history of political conflict seems to be repeating itself.

Bristol’s mayor, Marvin Rees, favours an underground mass transit system. Meanwhile Dan Norris, the West of England ‘metro mayor’ believes that would be too expensive. The two men have clashed over a long-awaited feasibility study, which Norris’s West of England Combined Authority (WECA) has promised to publish in October, after previously refusing to release it in full under freedom of information laws.

While recent British governments have provided little support for new trams and light rail, these services have been spreading rapidly across Europe. Since 1992, 30 French cities, many of them smaller than Bristol, have built hundreds of new lines. 

Most carry trams, while some use driverless trains with rubber tyres. Some run entirely overground; others go underground in places. What can Bristol learn about its potential options from two contrasting examples – Rennes in Brittany and Bordeaux, Bristol’s twin city? And how justified is politicians’ rhetoric around these kinds of public transport offering a solution to notorious congestion – second only to London in the UK – which Bristolians suffer every day?

An alternative to gridlock

One recent European study found that on average, a new network reduced congestion by 7% and travel times by 1%, but new lines or extensions made no difference. On its own, light rail does not reduce traffic volumes or carbon emissions by very much. 

If cities want to do that, they also have to take more direct measures to restrict traffic. But, as illustrated by the heated debates around the East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood, which aims to reduce traffic in St George, Redfield and Barton Hill, these can be highly controversial.

Rather, the main benefit is to provide an alternative to congested roads. In cities like Bristol, where population density is growing and there is no more land for roads or parking, people need alternative ways to move around. Trams and metros may also bring other, more surprising benefits – as some French cities have discovered.

A pre-feasibility study, commissioned by Bristol City Council, was published back in 2017. It surveyed the wide range of rapid transit available (see box).

The next stage was a full feasibility study, commissioned this time by WECA in 2018, with input from Bristol City Council. So far, WECA has only released an extract showing the estimated costs, so we don’t know much about the different route options. However, we know that there would be four lines, running north, east, southeast along the A4, and southwest. 

The eastern route has been controversial in the past. Proposals in 2008 to run buses along the Bristol and Bath Railway Path prompted mass protests. 

This time, cabinet member for transport Don Alexander confirmed to us, the eastern route would run along Church Road – illustrating a further problem: the constrained width of Bristol’s radial roads. Rees has claimed the alternatives to digging an underground would involve “closing Gloucester Road to all other traffic or knocking down the shops on one side of Church Road”.

This new study showed a wide range of costs, from £1.6 bn for a bus rapid transit network up to £18.3 bn for a steel-wheeled underground metro, excluding land purchase, demolitions and the tunnel boring machine (see box).

The high estimated costs of the underground networks prompted Norris to answer simply “no” when asked by the BBC if Bristol would be getting one, a comment criticised by Rees. He has argued that WECA’s report is flawed because it is based on a whole network – rather than just the necessary sections, such as in the city centre – being put underground, therefore inflating projected costs.

Neither Bristol City Council nor WECA responded to our requests for an interview, ahead of the feasibility study’s publication. But one officer who is working on other transport projects was willing to talk off the record. 

“Marvin wants to have his cake and eat it. He wants to build a metro without upsetting drivers, and I don’t think that’s possible,” the officer said. “If we build above ground, we have to remove traffic lanes and parking spaces. 

“You should see the trouble it takes just to remove one parking bay – it takes months,” they added. “That’s why Marvin wants to go underground, but that’s very expensive. I don’t think we’ll be able to afford very much tunnelling.”

The officer questioned where funds would come from, pointing out that the Nottingham-style levy on workplace parking – which has anyway now been dropped – would not be enough.

“Could we put in a congestion charge?” they asked, noting that the council has “all the cameras for the Clean Air Zone”, which only applies to a minority of older vehicles. “But how would drivers react to that?”

The French advantage

The French cities that have invested heavily in new public transport start with an important advantage: a much wider local tax base. In 2017, French local authorities raised two-thirds of their income locally, whereas their British counterparts relied on national government for two-thirds of their income. 

For public transport projects, the difference is even greater. Since 1973, French cities have been able to levy a transport tax on employers. They can save those revenues, or borrow against them, to fund infrastructure projects.

Since it began building tramlines 20 years ago, Bordeaux – which has a metro-area population of about one million – has increased its transport tax to 2% of the payroll costs of each employer. In all, 82% of the cost of its first three tramlines was financed locally. All run overground, using a specially developed ground-fed system to avoid overhead powerlines through the city’s historic areas. 

The years of construction caused traffic jams and press criticism, with the city employing mediators to work with residents along the affected routes. As Bristol has found, any proposal to remove traffic or parking provokes opposition from shop owners. It’s often said that French cities have wider roads, and that’s true in some parts of Bordeaux, but not everywhere. 

On some streets there is only room for the tramlines and pedestrians – no other traffic. Deliveries to shops are sometimes done from side streets, or over the pavements at certain times of day. In other places, traffic was removed from squares and boulevards. 

Tramlines had a transformational impact on Bordeaux’s Place de la Comédie between 2001 (L) and 2011 (credit: Mairie de Bordeaux)

The decision to build a tram network followed years of familiar political arguments, with a former mayor wanted to build an underground metro. Karine Mabillon, director of transport for Greater Bordeaux, says the eventual choice of a tram system was “mainly because of the ground conditions, full of holes and waterlogged, for which the technology of the time wasn’t well adapted”. 

“Faced with growing demand for mobility, the plan was to create a network of tramlines, like a star linked by circular express buses, and to develop heavy rail for the longer journeys,” she adds.

The last part of that plan, a regional express rail network, is scheduled to be completed by 2028, along with extended networks of express buses and cycle routes. 

Surprising results

Bordeaux now has four tramlines, nearly 50 miles in length. So what difference has all that investment made? 

The statistics confirm Bordeaux’s trams are very well-used – three times the journeys per mile, compared with Manchester’s Metrolink trams – but the city’s travel surveys show some surprising results. 

The share of car journeys has fallen because traffic levels have been fairly stable, while the growing population now travels more by other means. Public transport use has risen, but not dramatically. 

Walking and cycling have increased more, because urban car ownership has fallen, and all that new traffic-free space may also have contributed. Several other French cities have followed similar trends.

But if all that sounds rosy, it’s not the full story. In recent years, there has been growing criticism of the trams. This is partly because they are often packed, but critics also describe them as slow and unreliable. 

“The network is slow, on average, because it travels through some constrained areas and some very busy areas in the city centre – there’s not much we can do about that,” is Mamillon’s response. “There are probably too many stops, but that was what the councillors wanted at the time. It does suffer from breakdowns, but no more than any of the other French networks.”

In another significant twist to this story, the city has just commissioned a feasibility study into an underground metro. Why?

“We’ve now finished extending the tramlines,” Mabillon says. “Beyond a certain length, the journey distances become uncompetitive, and further extensions offer poor value for money. We’re starting at the beginning, looking again at those soil conditions.”

Planning for the long term

Although underground systems are more expensive, some French cities have built them at a reasonable cost. Rennes, a city half the size of Bristol, opened its first driverless VAL (véhicule automatique léger – or lightweight automatic vehicle) metro line in 2002, which has since been expanded and a second one added. 

It carries three times the passengers per mile of Bordeaux’s tramlines, at nearly double the speed. Its cost per mile was nearly four times Bordeaux’s latest tramline, but less than a quarter of the underground estimates in the WECA feasibility study. 

A driverless VAL train on Rennes Metro (credit: Arnaud Lubry, Rennes Ville and Métropole)

Why are transport projects so much more expensive in Britain? Back in 2010, a Treasury report identified several reasons, which still seem relevant today. Their first one was “stop-start investment programmes”. As a result, contractors would invest for the next project but not for the longer term. Instead of sharing costs across projects, they are more likely to price each one as a one-off opportunity. 

The comparison with France is clearest on that point. In any one year, several cities will be building or expanding tram or metro lines, supporting a domestic industry able to plan for the longer-term.

Engineers and contractors contacted by the Cable agreed with those points and added a long list of others. One wrote: “I worked with a major European contractor for several large infrastructure projects in the UK. They could not believe the amount of red tape and political interference over here.”

‘Bristol should revert to being a tram centre’

At a local level, the political landscape in Bristol is set to change once more in the coming months, with the city mayoral system on its way out to be replaced with a return to a committee-led arrangement. What would the Greens, who have overtaken the ruling Labour Party as the largest political grouping, do differently if they controlled the council?

Ed Plowden, who used to work in the council’s transport department and is now a Green councillor for Windmill Hill, talks about “complementary measures” around cycling, walking and parking restraint.

“On rapid transit, we would improve our existing bus network first – rolling out far more bus lanes on the main corridors that don’t have them and increasing the protected space on the ones that do,” Plowden says. 

Image of a bus in heavy traffic on Church Road, a potential route for trams in east Bristol (credit: Alexander Turner)
A bus in heavy traffic on Church Road, a likely route for trams in east Bristol (credit: Alexander Turner)

“Over time this could create the conditions for tramlines,” he adds. “But in the short term we need to work with what we have – we cannot afford to pin our hopes on plans for expensive projects which may not get funding, or disruptive heavy engineering or tunnelling.”

Transport campaigners partly agree. They support bus priority in some places, but want to see trams running as soon as possible.

“Most progressive comparable cities in both Britain and Europe have street-tram or rail-tram systems, including Birmingham, Nottingham, Sheffield, Newcastle, Edinburgh and soon Cardiff and Coventry,” says Gavin Smith, a retired transport planner and TfGB member. “Trams are high-capacity, frequent, reliable and close to zero emission. They are an attractive alternative for car owners, buses are none of those things.

“Underground metros are ludicrously expensive,” Smith adds. “They have fewer stations, are less physically accessible and are less visible than trams.” 

He suggests that a pilot tramline between Bristol and Bath would be a good way to start, possibly using the old railway line from Arnos Vale to Brislington. “Bristol City Centre should revert to its former status as a tram centre,” Smith says.

Once a city has built its first tram or metro line, expansion usually follows. That is true of all the cities mentioned in this article, and many others, so the recommendation, to start with something easier and get it built, is a good one. Some cities, such as Nice, have begun with an overground line and added a partly tunnelled line later. 

The Cable will return to the subject of public transport when the feasibility study is published, but it is already clear that there are no easy alternatives. 

In a growing city, doing nothing will make a bad situation worse. If we want trams or a metro, we need to figure out what mixture of traffic removal and new taxes or charges we are willing to accept.

Want more solutions for Bristol?

Reporting on solutions to Bristol’s biggest problems is expensive.

We won funding to explore how to make this important work viable for a local paper like the Cable! But to keep doing it, we need funding that won’t run out: monthly-paying membership.

Becoming a member, and encouraging others to join, means we can continue investigating solutions for Bristol into the future.

Find out more

The Future of Cities project is funded by the European Journalism Centre’s Solutions Journalism Accelerator, supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Join 2,500 Cable members redefining local media

Your support will help the Cable grow, deepening our connections in the city and investigating the issues that matter most in our communities.

Join now

What makes us different?


Report a comment. Comments are moderated according to our Comment Policy.

  • Very good summary, what I take away from this is the continuing poor governance we have to put up with. Whether this is leadership competence or systematic I am not really sure, probably more systematic as the bulk of the UK seems to have the similar issues, even in small towns. On the leadership side we seem to have many politicians who want to help homeless, the elderly onto buses etc. which is commendable and likely vote winning but the big picture with harder decisions is missing. Rishi Sunak wants to make UK open for business but if people cannot get to work efficiently then this needs to be tackled upfront. I believe Siemens refused one location in the UK for their HQ based on lack of access.


  • A really useful article that is well researched. You would never get this anywhere but in the Cable. I’ve been waiting for decent transport in this city for 50 years. I don’t have much hope of seeing it. Good public transport is life enhancing. Always feel better after a trip to a European city with good transport. Buses and cycl tracks are not the answer btw!


  • Similar learning could come from Vancouver, a city slightly bigger than Bristol, but with a much bigger metropolitan area outside the city boundaries, that I know very well. For Expo 86, they built Skytrain, the original line of which mostly runs on elevated tracks apart from the Downtown where it goes underground for about 1 mile. It’s driverless, uses steel rails, plus it’s quick and efficient. Overtime as the suburbs have grown that original line has been extended. A second elevated route was built in the late 90s that linked with the original route. This is now being extended underground along the route of a main highway. Finally for the 2010 Olympics, the “Canada Line” was built from Downtown to the airport and to the southern suburbs. For reasons of geography (hills) and local opposition in the wealthier parts of the city, this line mostly runs underground until it gets close to the airport and takes a bridge over the river.

    Admittedly Bristol won’t get the scale of funding that came for Expo86 or the Winter Olympics, but it shows how systems develop and that you have to start somewhere. Plus the elevated line option might work along the current Bristol to Bath cycle path as the cycle path could still potentially run underneath.

    Given the heavy rail developments with resurrected lines and stations how about starting with a better link between the city centre and Temple Meads, as within the city commuting to the city centre via rail is a pain if you don’t actually work close to Temple Meads. How about a route that goes from St James Barton around the inner ring road to Temple Meads either elevated or at ground level? Surely that wouldn’t cost many billions and lines could then be extended out from there. Or given that Victoria Street and Baldwin Street have become an impossible route from drivers other than buses or taxis to link the Centre to Temple Meads, plus they are relatively wide streets by Bristol standards, put a street level tram route through there.

    There certainly needs to be something better than the current situation in Bristol, which is frankly a bit embarrassing for a city of its size, although actually more in keeping with the wider situation in the U.K. as regards incapable politicians and political set-up, both at local and national level, usually thinking short-term for political gain, leading to poor, ageing or non-existent infrastructure.


  • A well-written and well-researched article, but it feels somewhat superficial in the end as it follows other local news outlets (like BBC points west) in that there isn’t actually any follow-through or critical evaluation of the various parties’ positions. Nor does it properly lay out the realities the city will face.

    Over the next two decades, we will see a population increase of about 200,000-250,000 in the metro area, most of which will be at the fringes of the city. That’s almost a quarter of a million people! (Not to mention the existing population of course)

    How are they going to travel across the city? MetroBus isn’t going to cut it (too slow to reach the fringes). MetroWest is nice, and maybe we can still achieve a 15-20 minute clockface service in my lifetime, but it doesn’t really have enough coverage, and the chances of new heavy rail lines being built overground are practically zero seeing that we struggle to re-open existing ones.

    The Green Party’s policies here are particularly unconvincing: we’d sort out the busses first (d’uh, that’s pretty much something everyone can agree on, but it’s only a minor short-term solution, it doesn’t help solve the long-term issues facing the region). Cycling, walking, great stuff that everyone can get behind, but is ultimately small fry when it comes to the big picture.

    Tunnelling is expensive. Ok. Fair enough, but what if that’s the solution that makes the most sense? Would the greens still oppose it on environmental grounds even if the money could be found? And the alternatives to tunnelling, whilst mentioned in the article, are rarely seriously explored or put to parties’ representatives. And in any case it would be a combination of tunnels in the centre and overground outside anyway. And even overground would be fairly expensive still, and have a much much bigger deliverability risk.

    Chances are there’s going to be a new government in 1-2 years time, and one that might be willing to invest in infrastructure too (which should be a no-brainer even for conservative government, but apparently not any more). What are their policies and how do they relate to the various plans/options?

    Not to mention the travesty of Dan Norris and WECA. I mean, they literally put out a consultation on the A4 corridor where none of the options are supported by the city’s mayor?! (I suspect that might somewhat reflects local councillors’ position in this case as well, but I don’t know for sure).

    The “problem” with trams as mentioned in the article resonates as well. In Manchester the route from MediaCity to Picadilly station is a bit of a joke. It’s like watching paint dry. Tram takes more than double the time it takes a taxi. Would probably still be faster on a scooter, ridiculous. Edinburgh airport to city centre was also not the most impressive ride. Not that I don’t think trams aren’t great. I’d love to have them everywhere instead of MetroBusses, but I don’t think they scale for city centre to fringe mass transit either.


  • It will be interesting to see whether the new committee system will manage to make any decisions at all, when they replace the mayor next year. I get the impression that the council will be as jammed up as the traffic.


  • A good article but future coverage could be improved by looking at benefit-cost ratio – the key point of the tram v metro debate. The current discussion of “tram-cheap, metro-expensive” is one-dimensional and uninformed. This is something the spokesperson from Bordeaux actually mentions in the article – “beyond a certain distance trams are uncompetitive due to speed”. Analysis of why Rennes thought metro had higher BCR would inform the debate in bristol a lot more.
    Also it would be useful to highlight which roads would have to be closed for a tram, Marvin mentioned Gloucester Road – presumably lots in South Bristol as well if the tram was ever to get to the airport. Usually the tram supporters don’t mention that part of the tram option!


  • My vote is for an advanced rapid tram system but finding adequate road space for it in a highly congested city like Bristol, in competition with cars and other motor traffic, may prove next to impossible!


  • Elevated rail along the Bristol Bath cycle path sounds like a potential option but would it be noisy fro nearby homes. A good model to follow is Tyne & Wear metro – take local control of existing intra urban lines like Severn beach and turn them into a metro or tram/train higher frequency service. Then expand it to other routes with an underground link through the city centre to tie them all together as a single network.


  • The article doesn’t mention that VAL is a proprietary system, and brings its own set of problems (including supplier “lockin” for replacement vehicles, extensions and maintenance). per Wikipedia, there are competing rubber tyred system from other manufacturers but those have similar issues, as there isn’t a non-proprietary set of standards to allow “open sourcing” of vehicles, equipment, and maintenance.

    VAL may not represent enough of a cost reduction versus competing technologies, which include electric trolleybuses (especially if properly implemented as “true BRT” for the majority of the route, but not mentioned in the article as an option) or narrow gauge steel wheel trams (with as much traffic priority or traffic separation as possible).

    Some previous generations of VAL-like rubber tyred systems have been removed/replaced

    It will be interesting to see the outcome of the Coventry ULT trials, to see if that technology will be a viable alternative to lower costs of steel wheel trams, or is just a “gadgetbahn” with no practical future (I fear the latter but happy to be disproved).


Post a comment

Mark if this comment is from the author of the article

By posting a comment you agree to our Comment Policy.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related content

Photos & Video: Eviction of Stapleton Allotments

The eviction of the metrobus site started today. Teams of bailiffs and private security teams arrived on the site in the early hours to begin...

Metrobus: a ‘timetable of destruction’ for Bristol’s Green Capital?

Tessa Gleeson looks at plans to build a large scale bus network across Bristol and finds out why campaign groups and protestors would like to...

Join our newsletter

Get the essential stories you won’t find anywhere else

Subscribe to the Cable newsletter to get our weekly round-up direct to your inbox every Saturday

Join our newsletter

Subscribe to the Cable newsletter

Get our latest stories & essential Bristol news
sent to your inbox every Saturday morning