The Bristol Airport problem

[bleeder4]

The city airport at Bristol should really have been Filton, once Concorde retired. It already had great transport connections, it was right in the centre, has one of the longest runways in the country. It would have been ideal for the airport, rather than one out in the sticks.

 

[Western Lord]

The city airport at Bristol should really have been Filton, once Concorde retired. It already had great transport connections, it was right in the centre, has one of the longest runways in the country. It would have been ideal for the airport, rather than one out in the sticks.

The runway at Filton was an unremarkable 8,000 feet long. It was famously rejected by Brian Trubshaw for Concorde flight testing, as he put it "for one thing you couldn't see one end from the other". That's why Concorde flight testing went to RAF Fairford.

 

[The Planner]

Filton was effectively done for when Bradley Stoke was planned.

 

[Autspectorder]

Rubber-tyred trams (and I don't mean buses, I mean more like the trams in places like Clermont-Ferrand) should be able to cope with 1-in-20.


This is the real issue. In the 90s both airports were about the same size in terms of traffic, but since the turn of the century the airport traffic has concentrated on Bristol. Cardiff is a better location and is able to accept bigger aircraft- it still has a BA engineering base there- but it missed the boat because of historical mismanagement. Bristol is in a sub-optimal location for lots of reasons, but it has the established traffic flow and that traffic isn't going to move somewhere else anytime soon.

A trolleybus on a dedicated busway would be more flexible than a rubber-tyred tram.

 

[PTR 444]

The city airport at Bristol should really have been Filton, once Concorde retired. It already had great transport connections, it was right in the centre, has one of the longest runways in the country. It would have been ideal for the airport, rather than one out in the sticks.

I agree Filton would have been perfect for onward transport connectivity, but being so close to the Bristol urban area, I wonder if it would have become a victim of its own success like Heathrow. What’s now Bradley Stoke would probably be in the process of being developed for a second runway if the land was still vacant to this day.

I expect it might have also become subject to noise restrictions, being so close to the urban area.

 

[Topological]

Could an airport fit between the GWML and the M4 near Almondsbury, or immediately north of the M4 in the triangle bounded by the M48?

These are greenfield sites, but with the associated loss of land to access Bristol Airport and Cardiff Airport, a joint site would not be much more net land loss.

Transport links would be excellent and there are not that many villages in the way / flight path(s).

 

[zwk500]

Could an airport fit between the GWML and the M4 near Almondsbury, or immediately north of the M4 in the triangle bounded by the M48?

These are greenfield sites, but with the associated loss of land to access Bristol Airport and Cardiff Airport, a joint site would not be much more net land loss.

Transport links would be excellent and there are not that many villages in the way / flight path(s).

And into the valley of the South Glos' councils planning room, rode the Airport developer...

It's worth mentioning also that the floodplain probably isn't a brilliant site for an airport from a ground conditions POV, and that a Bristol Airport wouldn't completely replace Cardiff Airport. Even at Almondsbury, it'd be further from Cardiff than Gatwick is from Central London and comparable to Luton or Stansted distance.

Locating an Airport in the M4/M48/M5 area is awkward from an access POV as it'd need a new dedicated link (either people mover to Bristol Parkway or it's own heavy rail Spur), and the Motorway access would need to be really crammed in amongst the interchanges already present.

 

[Topological]

And into the valley of the South Glos' councils planning room, rode the Airport developer...

Airports do have strong local benefits, so perhaps some sops in terms of trains to Gloucester etc.

It would surely be a national planning decision though? So it could be called in and approved.

 

[zwk500]

Airports do have strong local benefits, so perhaps some sops in terms of trains to Gloucester etc.

It would surely be a national planning decision though? So it could be called in and approved.

It would be fought tooth and nail, for a site that's fundamentally not actually very good when you start considering how people would actually get there.

For reference, here's the Google Maps terrain view:

Where it's flat, it's got significant drainage works.

 

[Topological]

Definitely a lot of drainage works to be done. My thinking was that you have a 2-lane M4 that can be widened. It is not far off the M5 and an access from the M49 could also be added if desired.

The GWML works for the Pilning site and you could easily expand to a 2-island station.

I do not think there are many sites around that have so many options.

 

[The Pelican]

I think the advantage of tram-trains for airport services is that they only need a reasonably cheap new branchline at one end, so they seem the second best option after a proper railway branch. They make particular sense when a tram or stopping train from the airport to the centre doesn't look that likely. On the other hand, if Bristol ever gets a heavy rail metro system, that would also be good. Can a Clifton Underground Funicular revival be attached to any of these schemes? It was four-track I believe, which is surely one of the most unusual four-track railway sections in the country...

 

[The exile]

The runway at Filton was an unremarkable 8,000 feet long. It was famously rejected by Brian Trubshaw for Concorde flight testing, as he put it "for one thing you couldn't see one end from the other".

That presumably applies to Lulsgate as well.

 

[zwk500]

I think the advantage of tram-trains for airport services is that they only need a reasonably cheap new branchline at one end, so they seem the second best option after a proper railway branch. They make particular sense when a tram or stopping train from the airport to the centre doesn't look that likely. On the other hand, if Bristol ever gets a heavy rail metro system, that would also be good. Can a Clifton Underground Funicular revival be attached to any of these schemes? It was four-track I believe, which is surely one of the most unusual four-track railway sections in the country...

The worst possible thing you could do for public transport in Bristol is to half-arse a tram system by trying to co-opt the heavy rail network into a street running system.

 

[Smwrff]

The obvious solution is a new Severnside Airport to replace both Cardiff & Bristol - built to the south of Llanwern - with direct connections to M4 & SWML.

 

[JohnRegular]

Bristol, like many cities in the UK, could really do with a proper metro - or at least a high quality mostly segregated tram/light rail system.

The airport would be the first objective for a metro.

I can't see that a solution using the existing heavy rail network could provide a more frequent service than the existing bus, nor would it be much quicker to the city centre.

 

[HSTEd]

A gondola solution could get you to the railway east of Nailsea and Blackwell in about ~4.5km for a ~8-9 minute journey time, but that would require a new station.

If you were willing to pay for an angle tower, you could manage ~8.8km to Parson Street railway station without really passing over much in the way of residential buildings. But that would mean about a 15 minute journey.

 

[zwk500]

A gondola solution could get you to the railway east of Nailsea and Blackwell in about ~4.5km for a ~8-9 minute journey time, but that would require a new station.

If you were willing to pay for an angle tower, you could manage 8.8km to Parson Street railway station without really passing over much in the way of residential buildings. But that would mean about a 15 minute journey.

Is that an appropriate solution for an airport serving a significant proportion of holiday flights and therefore having luggage?

 

[HSTEd]

Is that an appropriate solution for an airport serving a significant proportion of holiday flights and therefore having luggage?

Gondolas can be configured with a substantial interior space if desired, the airport is unlikely to seriously stress such a link in terms of cabins available. It's not like its Heathrow or anything!

There are notionally 20 seat cabins available even for monocable products now (Doppelmayr D-Line), if you stripped some of the seats out you could make a lot of room for luggage. After all, my experience is that airlines are a lot more restrictive on luggage than they used to be anyway.

 

[Topological]

We are talking about a majority Ryanair/Easyjet airport as well. Luggage is important, but many passengers are not bringing big cases.

 

[JohnRegular]

Is a gondola connecting to Nailsea and Backwell/Parson St/new station going to provide a better service for airport passengers than the bus?

The gondola might be frequent but the heavy rail service isn't, and with the best will in the world will never be turn-up-and-go. Enjoy beautiful Parson Street station and its wealth of facilities whilst you wait for your train which still won't take you into the city centre.

And of course in the late evenings and early mornings there will still need to be buses because the trains don't run overnight.

It's worth it for the faster journey time to Temple Meads at least... assuming you only have to wait a couple of minutes for your train then it might be slightly quicker than the bus!

Apologies for the sarky tone, but these 'solutions' all seem half baked to me and IMO you'd need to start taking about something resembling a metro line (something Bristol could do with anyway!) to offer an improvement over the bus.

 

[JKF]

There should have been a motorway from J20 M5, but t was never built. That is why the J20 roundabout is unusually large for what is now just a single turn off into Clevedon.

While it wouldn't have run directly to the airport it would have gone a significant way and linked up with what is now the South Bristol link road.

From that map I’m guessing what is now the Long Ashton bypass was originally part of this proposed motorway scheme? I imagine they would have bulldozed most of Bedminster and the city centre to link it back in to the southern end of the M32 too.

My solution for the airport link would be to extend the quarrying rights up to the boundary of the airport, that’d save a bit on tunnelling costs. Then have a bloody long escalator from the station site at the base of the former quarry up to the terminal.

 

[HSTEd]

Apologies for the sarky tone, but these 'solutions' all seem half baked to me and IMO you'd need to start taking about something resembling a metro line (something Bristol could do with anyway!) to offer an improvement over the bus.

Well for another 2.5km over predominantly railway land or industrial park you could jsut go straight to Bristol Temple Meads and render the railway an irrelevance...... Although you might put a station at Parson Street regardless to tap off some intra-Bristol traffic.

Journey time of ~23 minutes with negligible wait time.

It's highly unlikely there would ever be money for a steel rail metro line that isn't just a rebrand of existing rail - and as you note it would struggle to convincingly beat the bus anyway.

 

[daodao]

The obvious solution is a new Severnside Airport to replace both Cardiff & Bristol - built to the south of Llanwern - with direct connections to M4 & SWML.

That solution has been dead in the water for at least the last 30 years, during which the airport at Lulsgate has expanded massively. The final nail in its coffin is the election of a Plaid Cymru government in Wales whose ultimate aim is Welsh independence. A new airport in South Wales that formally serves Bristol and Western England is now effectively off the agenda.

 

[DevonshireRail]

Is a gondola connecting to Nailsea and Backwell/Parson St/new station going to provide a better service for airport passengers than the bus?

The gondola might be frequent but the heavy rail service isn't, and with the best will in the world will never be turn-up-and-go. Enjoy beautiful Parson Street station and its wealth of facilities whilst you wait for your train which still won't take you into the city centre.

And of course in the late evenings and early mornings there will still need to be buses because the trains don't run overnight.

It's worth it for the faster journey time to Temple Meads at least... assuming you only have to wait a couple of minutes for your train then it might be slightly quicker than the bus!

Apologies for the sarky tone, but these 'solutions' all seem half baked to me and IMO you'd need to start taking about something resembling a metro line (something Bristol could do with anyway!) to offer an improvement over the bus.

My issue with a metro is that the scheme would require an express airport service, alongside a regular southwesterly stopper through Bedminster, Bishopsworth etc, to make it tenable. The latter service simply wouldn't be bus-competitive. How many of each can be offered depends on the nature and eventual capacity of the scheme.

Don't get me wrong, I'd absolutely encourage Bristol to think big with its system.

I completely agree that Nailsea and Backwell would have to be beefed up into a "regional" station to make any connector scheme feasible. Other contributors above have referenced Bedminster four tracking, and the construction of a passing loop to allow the long distance services to bypass it, to help improve service frequency.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Tbh, as someone who lives in Bristol and had used the airport a fair bit over the last 2 years, I am not sure a rail based connection is necessary. The bus is fine most of the time!

Imo the focus right now should be on the city itself, and when we sort that out then the airport could be brought into scope - potentially as a branch from a metro system that should be developed in the meantime.

 

[tumbles]

From that map I’m guessing what is now the Long Ashton bypass was originally part of this proposed motorway scheme? I imagine they would have bulldozed most of Bedminster and the city centre to link it back in to the southern end of the M32 too.

My solution for the airport link would be to extend the quarrying rights up to the boundary of the airport, that’d save a bit on tunnelling costs. Then have a bloody long escalator from the station site at the base of the former quarry up to the terminal.

The Long Ashton bypass was build to be upgradable as part of this plan - hence why it has extra wide viaduct going over the rail line

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 May 2026 ==

Tbh, as someone who lives in Bristol and had used the airport a fair bit over the last 2 years, I am not sure a rail based connection is necessary. The bus is fine most of the time!

Imo the focus right now should be on the city itself, and when we sort that out then the airport could be brought into scope - potentially as a branch from a metro system that should be developed in the meantime.

The new A2 service that covers Portishead/Clevedon/Nailsea has been very well received

 

[The exile]

My issue with a metro is that the scheme would require an express airport service, alongside a regular southwesterly stopper through Bedminster, Bishopsworth etc, to make it tenable. The latter service simply wouldn't be bus-competitive. How many of each can be offered depends on the nature and eventual capacity of the scheme.

Why would it need an express service? I'm assuming that by "metro" we don't mean on-street tram (where I can follow the argument that a crawl through suburban traffic would hardly attract much airport custom) but something basically "off road" with limited stops (doesn't have to be underground - but similar in terms of distance between stops and passenger capacity). As others have said, the bus link isn't bad (would be even better if it wasn't charged at an airport premium) - however the airport is a good unmoveable destination with high traffic volumes that can act as a catalyst to get some form of urban metro service up and running.

 

[JKF]

!

Apologies for the sarky tone, but these 'solutions' all seem half baked to me and IMO you'd need to start taking about something resembling a metro line (something Bristol could do with anyway!) to offer an improvement over the bus.

I could cycle it faster than the bus. I did the bus last year, catching it from the bus station, the journey included a tortuous lap of the centre with a ten minute wait at Temple Meads, a crawl out through Bedminster with several stops (despite the millions spent on a segregated route out through Ashton that was supposed to bypass that section) before finally getting to an open road up to the airport. Something like 45 minutes from memory. It didn’t feel like a premium service at all.

 

[DevonshireRail]

Why would it need an express service? I'm assuming that by "metro" we don't mean on-street tram (where I can follow the argument that a crawl through suburban traffic would hardly attract much airport custom) but something basically "off road" with limited stops (doesn't have to be underground - but similar in terms of distance between stops and passenger capacity). As others have said, the bus link isn't bad (would be even better if it wasn't charged at an airport premium) - however the airport is a good unmoveable destination with high traffic volumes that can act as a catalyst to get some form of urban metro service up and running.

I was assuming a tram, apologies for the inaccurate terminology. I'm under the impression that, in order to comprehensively serve South Bristol, the only two options are underground or on-street running. I don't know the area too well, but I can imagine there being a lot of ex-industrial brownfield land just south of the Avon that could be used for the system you're describing.

 

[Western Lord]

Tbh, as someone who lives in Bristol and had used the airport a fair bit over the last 2 years, I am not sure a rail based connection is necessary. The bus is fine most of the time!

Indeed. I suspect that for the vast majority of airport users there is not a "Bristol Airport Problem".