Federation of Bath Residents Association (FOBRA)
Dear Member RAs,
The West of England Combined Authority (WECA) has now opened the consultation on the third (and last) tranche of the previously announced proposals on transport links into and within Bath. The related previous proposals were in our email of 16 July 2023 (Somer Valley Links) and in the Transport Report circulated to member Associations on 26 August 2023 (A4 Bath to Bristol).
The consultation now open proposes significant changes in central Bath. The consultation is here: https://www.haveyoursaywest.co.uk/ [Select “Bath City Centre”]
KEY DATES FOR YOUR DIARY:
Wednesday 29th November 2023: Drop-in event, 2pm to 7pm at Bath Cricket Club, North Parade, Bridge Road, Bathwick, Bath BA2 4EX
Wednesday 6 December 2023: Drop-in event, 2pm to 7pm at Percy Community Centre, New King Street, Bath BA1 2BN
Consultation closes: Sunday 24th December 2023
Summary of key points
Some key points are highlighted below but please consider the full proposals via this page where there are two separate aspects that need to be opened separately: https://bath.haveyoursaywest.co.uk/index.php?contentid=171
(i) St James Parade and Ambury Gyratory:
· Create a right-turn from Churchill Bridge into the bus station and make the Ambury Gyratory two-way
· St James’s Parade to be closed to motor vehicles except buses and taxis
· New cycle lane on Churchill Bridge
(ii) Cross-city centre cycling:
· Two changes of route of national cycle route 4 within the City Centre are proposed:
o Re-routing of Eastbound route from Monmouth Street to Beauford Square and Upper Borough Walls to avoid Westgate Street.
o Re-routing of Westbound route from Grand Parade to Bridge Street where cycle lanes would be provided on both sides (ie one in contraflow to traffic).
· Replacement of the current one-way Southbound cycle lane on Charles Street by a two-way cycle lane on the other side, extended down to Green Park.
Preliminary FoBRA comments
FoBRA supports the principle of improving bus services and making them more reliable and frequent. However, we believe there are changes within the proposals whose impacts may not have been adequately considered. The following comments are based on a preliminary consideration and therefore we would welcome receiving the thoughts of others:
1. One of just three overriding objectives stated is “helping to protect the Bath World Heritage Site by reducing traffic in some parts of the city centre”. That objective will be failed if the impact of the proposals is to increase traffic in residential areas adjacent to the City Centre, many of which are of at least equal or greater heritage significance than the City Centre – in fact, most of the roads where there are proposed changes are of lower heritage significance than many of the areas just outside the City Centre that could potentially be impacted. As published, the proposals do not consider wider impact, and do not provide for protection of residential areas from such impacts, which are significant concerns.
2. There is little indication of how the “Bath City Centre” proposals are intended to interact with the two corridor proposals previously consulted on. The absence of a Traffic Circulation Plan (which FoBRA has lobbied for over many years) is also an obstacle to success. Both these omissions further compound the concerns of 1 above.
3. Turning to some of the specifics:
o You are encouraged to consider the measures intended to assist bus circulation at Ambury Gyratory. Inevitably, improvements to assist bus circulation will have consequences for other forms of transport, and the consultation is an important phase in weighing up the pros and cons.
o The cycle route changes raise potential conflicts with pedestrians. For example Beauford Square is extensively used as a stopping point by tour guides with groups, which potentially conflicts with the proposal to mark the entire roadspace as two cycle lanes. Further consideration is needed, and should reflect that pedestrians are top of the hierarchy of road users now set in the Highway Code
o The impacts of significant loss of roadspace on Charles Street and Green Park do not appear to have been considered, and the potential “stickiness” this will cause for traffic requires consideration of wider impacts.
o The current proposals seem once again to be promoting bus improvement and traffic reduction along the Upper Bristol Road whilst doing nothing for Lower Bristol Road where bus services serve some of the communities for whom bus services are most important.
o With the new cycling/pedestrian bridge nearby, is it necessary to create another cycle lane at Churchill Bridge, rather than improving signposting to the new bridge?
o The decision to stop the cycling proposals at Bridge Street is difficult to understand. Pulteney Bridge has narrow pavements, high usage by pedestrians (including school groups, and many tour groups), and high levels of pedestrian spill into the carriageway mingling with considerably higher traffic levels than at Westgate Street where intervention has been deemed necessary.
We recognise that individual communities may have views of support of one or more aspects, or concerns about potential adverse impacts of the proposals, and we would like to hear both.
Best regards,
FoBRA Transport Group
The West of England Combined Authority (WECA) has now opened the consultation on the third (and last) tranche of the previously announced proposals on transport links into and within Bath. The related previous proposals were in our email of 16 July 2023 (Somer Valley Links) and in the Transport Report circulated to member Associations on 26 August 2023 (A4 Bath to Bristol).
The consultation now open proposes significant changes in central Bath. The consultation is here: https://www.haveyoursaywest.co.uk/ [Select “Bath City Centre”]
KEY DATES FOR YOUR DIARY:
Wednesday 29th November 2023: Drop-in event, 2pm to 7pm at Bath Cricket Club, North Parade, Bridge Road, Bathwick, Bath BA2 4EX
Wednesday 6 December 2023: Drop-in event, 2pm to 7pm at Percy Community Centre, New King Street, Bath BA1 2BN
Consultation closes: Sunday 24th December 2023
Summary of key points
Some key points are highlighted below but please consider the full proposals via this page where there are two separate aspects that need to be opened separately: https://bath.haveyoursaywest.co.uk/index.php?contentid=171
(i) St James Parade and Ambury Gyratory:
· Create a right-turn from Churchill Bridge into the bus station and make the Ambury Gyratory two-way
· St James’s Parade to be closed to motor vehicles except buses and taxis
· New cycle lane on Churchill Bridge
(ii) Cross-city centre cycling:
· Two changes of route of national cycle route 4 within the City Centre are proposed:
o Re-routing of Eastbound route from Monmouth Street to Beauford Square and Upper Borough Walls to avoid Westgate Street.
o Re-routing of Westbound route from Grand Parade to Bridge Street where cycle lanes would be provided on both sides (ie one in contraflow to traffic).
· Replacement of the current one-way Southbound cycle lane on Charles Street by a two-way cycle lane on the other side, extended down to Green Park.
Preliminary FoBRA comments
FoBRA supports the principle of improving bus services and making them more reliable and frequent. However, we believe there are changes within the proposals whose impacts may not have been adequately considered. The following comments are based on a preliminary consideration and therefore we would welcome receiving the thoughts of others:
1. One of just three overriding objectives stated is “helping to protect the Bath World Heritage Site by reducing traffic in some parts of the city centre”. That objective will be failed if the impact of the proposals is to increase traffic in residential areas adjacent to the City Centre, many of which are of at least equal or greater heritage significance than the City Centre – in fact, most of the roads where there are proposed changes are of lower heritage significance than many of the areas just outside the City Centre that could potentially be impacted. As published, the proposals do not consider wider impact, and do not provide for protection of residential areas from such impacts, which are significant concerns.
2. There is little indication of how the “Bath City Centre” proposals are intended to interact with the two corridor proposals previously consulted on. The absence of a Traffic Circulation Plan (which FoBRA has lobbied for over many years) is also an obstacle to success. Both these omissions further compound the concerns of 1 above.
3. Turning to some of the specifics:
o You are encouraged to consider the measures intended to assist bus circulation at Ambury Gyratory. Inevitably, improvements to assist bus circulation will have consequences for other forms of transport, and the consultation is an important phase in weighing up the pros and cons.
o The cycle route changes raise potential conflicts with pedestrians. For example Beauford Square is extensively used as a stopping point by tour guides with groups, which potentially conflicts with the proposal to mark the entire roadspace as two cycle lanes. Further consideration is needed, and should reflect that pedestrians are top of the hierarchy of road users now set in the Highway Code
o The impacts of significant loss of roadspace on Charles Street and Green Park do not appear to have been considered, and the potential “stickiness” this will cause for traffic requires consideration of wider impacts.
o The current proposals seem once again to be promoting bus improvement and traffic reduction along the Upper Bristol Road whilst doing nothing for Lower Bristol Road where bus services serve some of the communities for whom bus services are most important.
o With the new cycling/pedestrian bridge nearby, is it necessary to create another cycle lane at Churchill Bridge, rather than improving signposting to the new bridge?
o The decision to stop the cycling proposals at Bridge Street is difficult to understand. Pulteney Bridge has narrow pavements, high usage by pedestrians (including school groups, and many tour groups), and high levels of pedestrian spill into the carriageway mingling with considerably higher traffic levels than at Westgate Street where intervention has been deemed necessary.
We recognise that individual communities may have views of support of one or more aspects, or concerns about potential adverse impacts of the proposals, and we would like to hear both.
Best regards,
FoBRA Transport Group