The town of Merthyr Tydfil, with a population of 40,000, is located at the head of the Taff Valley in south Wales. Once known as the Iron Capital of the World, the town has suffered a steady decline in its fortunes; firstly with the demise of the iron industry and then of the coalfield. Despite being adjacent to the Brecon Beacons National Park, which is a popular area for tourism, Merthyr Tydfil is a relatively disadvantaged area.

Figure 1: Sketch Map of Project Area

Extensive improvements have been made to the transport infrastructure in order to attract new industry into the area. Such improvements include dualling of the A470 Trunk Road that links Merthyr Tydfil with the M4 Motorway and Cardiff, 32 km (20 miles) to the south. A large proportion of the Merthyr Tydfil workforce still needs to travel out of the area to find work, however, and a significant number commute to Cardiff along the A470. These travellers, along with those from the other valley communities adjoining this route (Figure 1) contribute to high levels of congestion amounting to 60,000 vehicles per day on the outskirts of Cardiff.

The transport planning authority, Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council, belongs to the South Wales Integrated Fast Transit (SWIFT) consortium of local authorities and transport operators. The consortium's policies include increasing public transport usage, particularly along the A470 transport corridor, through bus and rail and the improvement of interchange between bus and rail. The aim is to ease traffic congestion and promote sustainable transport options by reducing the reliance on the private motorcar.

The Current Situation

There is currently regular and frequent bus service between Merthyr Tydfil and Cardiff (every half hour in each direction) but the service gets delayed by traffic congestion along the A470. There is also hourly rail service to Cardiff. That frequency will double shortly with the planned upgrading of the railway line.

The bus station in Merthyr Tydfil is used by five operators using fifteen separate bays. It is centrally located in town near the shopping and administrative centres, thereby offering good accessibility for passengers travelling to and from the town centre by direct links onto the highway network. There are, however, poor bus and pedestrian links between the bus station and the railway station that is 300 m (nearly one-quarter mile) away on the opposite side of the town centre.

PB was commissioned by Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council to examine alternative locations and layouts for a bus and rail interchange along the rail corridor between the rail's terminus at Merthyr Tydfil and the next station down the line, Pentrebach, a distance of approximately 1.6 km (1 mile).

The Study

Audit at Stations. We commenced the study by carrying out an audit at the bus and railway stations in order to establish the existing conditions and mode of operation. This included informal discussions with the bus drivers and railway station staff. The main points highlighted by the audit were:

• overprovision of stands at the bus station
  
  
• layout and facilities not passenger friendly
  
  
• lack of signing between the bus and rail stations
  
  
• buses frequently delayed upon leaving the station by congestion on the adjacent highway
  
  
• park and ride facility at railway station used by non-rail users
  
  
• taxi facilities absent at the railway station
  
  
• difficulty manoeuvring in the bus station owing to the perimeter type layout of the stands (Figure 2) and
  
  
• only seven of sixteen return train journeys per day connected with buses.

Figure 2: Manoeuvring out of the bus stand is difficult.

The surveys we had undertaken included the times and volumes of passenger arrivals and departures at the bus station; and an on-board questionnaire survey of rail users.

Our analyses of the bus surveys revealed the numbers of local and long-distance travellers and the routes taken. The questionnaire survey gave information on the combined modes of transport; for example, bus and rail, walk and rail, park and ride, kiss and ride. In the case of the rail users, questionnaire post code information was also taken to enable passenger origins and destinations to be established.

The issue of the bus and rail integration was raised during the formal consultation exercises with the bus and rail operators, which included discussion of their aspirations for future enhancements of their services.

Investigation of Sites. Concurrent with this work, we began investigating possible sites within the 1.6-km (1-mile) -long corridor that would be able to accommodate a new bus and rail interchange physically and also have suitable links with the highway network. For most of this length, land within the corridor was bounded by the Afon Taf (River Taff) on one side and by commercial and residential development on the other.

Two sites were identified as being feasible for a bus and rail interchange. These were on land adjacent to the existing railway stations at Merthyr Tydfil and Pentrebach. At Merthyr Tydfil, a large area of land that was formerly a goods yard but is now used as a car park would be an ideal site for a new bus station, but planning permission had already been given for a retail development to be built on most of the site. At Pentrebach, land designated for development was available for use as an interchange. The bus station would operate as either a replacement for the existing bus station or function only as a call-in facility for buses to pick up and drop off at the railway station. In total, eight interchange layouts were considered at the two sites.

These two sites and the layout options were then subjected to a detailed investigation and subjected to a common appraisal based on the method given in the Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), the methodology adopted in the UK by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. A Do-Minimum Option of refurbishing the existing bus station was also considered at this stage. The GOMMMS method compares the impacts of the transport options through the five objectives of environment, safety, economy, accessibility and integration.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The option for an interchange at Pentrebach was disregarded for several reasons. Although links to the A470 were good, this location was not where people naturally wished the interchange to go, its location might encourage car journeys and the facility would not assist in the regeneration of Merthyr Tydfil.

The options at Merthyr Tydfil railway station had to take into account the retail development proposals at the adjacent site. Several meetings were held with the developer's representatives and adjustments were made to both the interchange and developer's layout to ensure that each would benefit from the other's development, whilst the integrity and viability of each development would be maintained. Due to the different construction start dates for each development and also in the interests of safety and operations, we recommended layout options that kept the bus access separate from the retail development access.

With regard to the choice between a call-in facility or a replacement bus station, analysis of the survey data showed that:

• Twenty percent of all rail passengers interviewed used the bus and then walked to the railway station or vice versa.
  
  
• The potential existed for further transfer onto buses as an additional 28 percent of rail passengers used private transport to get to and from the railway station.
  
  
• As a percentage of total bus passenger throughput at the bus station, bus/walk/rail and rail/walk/bus users accounted for less than 2 percent of all bus journeys.
  
  
• The remaining 98 percent of bus passenger journeys were undertaken for reasons other than to travel by train; for example, bus/shopping and bus/working.

Based on this evidence, we concluded that a properly constructed call-in facility at the railway station that would function as a feeder to the railway would be the preferred solution. This facility would operate in conjunction with a smaller refurbished bus terminal at the existing bus station site.

The final choice between the two service options is to be the subject of further consultation with the bus operators and will be opened up for discussion with the townspeople. In the meantime, sufficient land has been safeguarded for either option to be constructed and the adjacent retail development can proceed independently.