Council confident new Bath bus gate signs are working
Council chiefs are confident that new and clearer signs at Bath’s bus gate have now cleared up confusion among visiting motorists.
They now want to make temporary signs and markings in High Street and New Bond Street permanent.
-

Bath and North East Somerset Council had been forced to revise the way motorists are warned about the bus gate after a string of successful appeals by visitors fined for inadvertently breaking the ban on cars going through the lights in Northgate Street, which aim to keep most vehicles out of the city centre.
Officials have prepared a report for cabinet member for transport Councillor Roger Symonds (Lib Dem, Combe Down) urging him to adopt the new signs - put up for an 18-month trial - permanently.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
The report says traffic counts in November found fewer than one per cent of vehicles approaching the bus gate and associated bus lanes went on to break the rules.
The report says: “This illustrates the effectiveness of the revised signage.”
The council was told in that same month to make further changes - increasing the size of some signs, and moving those on High Street to make them more visible - which it has now done.
The report says that the ‘no motor vehicles’ sign which is used to signal the bus lanes is widely understood, with 88 per cent of people in a survey correctly recognising it.
The council says the option of simply putting up ‘no entry’ signs - with plates underneath explaining the hours of operation and an exception for buses and taxis - had been rejected.
“These signs are not authorised for use as bus lane signs and the council would need to approach the Department for Transport to see if it would be willing to authorise the council to pilot these signs for this particular purpose.”




42 Comments
View all
by a1rhella1r
Saturday, February 16 2013, 8:18PM
“Well said Henry - couldn't put it better myself. The idea that a stream of singly-occupied cars is somehow going to stimulate a city centre's economy is, at best, mistaken. Most of UK's city centres started dying slowly when they had unrestricted car access. Some places had the sense to reverse that trend. I guess, being from mainland Europe, bath must seem like a toy town from a children's tv programme to you. It does to me.”
by HenryCrun
Saturday, February 16 2013, 7:02PM
“I see that those bogged down with the blinkered car-centric ideology are still at it. Ideology and dogma, the last refuge of the hard of thinking and plain thick. Notice how they conveniently ignore the range of thriving, living cities out in the rest of Europe, or indeed, the world, which thrive because of their car traffic restriction policies, not in spite of. This is because those cities think through the whole package. It's not just about restricting the car traffic.
But, you lot go ahead. Let that ugly slit trench full of phony facades and phony pseudo-intellectuals stay clogged with stinking traffic. Carry on pretending that it's "thriving" because of the traffic congestion. It isn't. It's dying a slow, drawn out death. Just like some of its occupants, many of whom appear to be dead from the neck up already. Yes. Go ahead. Choke to death on a toxic soup of your own making. I feel sorry for most of you, but it's exactly what some of you want and deserve.”
by mcupis
Saturday, February 16 2013, 4:02AM
“Largely because they have no practical alternative and partly, simply, because they want to. If the choice is between spending their money in a place that is quick, convenient and cheap to access and another place that isn't then they will go with the former.”
by MoeXXX
Saturday, February 16 2013, 1:12AM
“I fully agree with nearly all of that; lots of good reasons why city-centres need lots of people to maintain their economies. But remind me again, why must all these people arrive by car?”
by mcupis
Friday, February 15 2013, 8:46AM
“It's not a matter of choice. The vast majority of people in this country do not live in urban areas. Businesses do not thrive on local trade. Jobs are not just created locally. Businesses need to attract people in and this means they need to be quick and convenient to access. This is true of retail and commercial businesses. Cities will die if you make them a chore to get in and out of and to move around in. It goes back to demand. Town and city centres NEED demand. They NEED to be busy. Empty streets may be a lovely dreamy notion but they demonstrate a lack of demand which equals failing businesses, no jobs, no opportunity and economic oblivion. If people want lovely quiet streets in Bath that they can cycle around in peace, they need to understand that this will have repercussions for Bath as a retail and business destination. You can't have it both ways. Either you accept that it is a city and it should be a place that is in demand and thronging with people who are spending money and creating opportunity, who need to be attracted to do so, or you desire that it should be a nice peaceful little place which dissuades visitors and businesses and which has no interest in generating a successful local economy.”
by MoeXXX
Thursday, February 14 2013, 8:36PM
“Malcolm: "Yes Moe, but the vast majority of people in a city centre at any given time do not live in that city centre, they travel to it."
And luckily the city centre is serviced by public transport. So I think what you're trying to say is: some people must be permitted to drive their cars right into the centre because they choose to "live in suburban and rural areas where transport options are limited"?”
by DaveF_Walcot
Thursday, February 14 2013, 2:25AM
“"Precisely how much slaughter has been caused by people failing to spot the bus gate and driving through it?"
It's disappointing, but probably not surprising, that Malcolm has no comprehension of the word 'potential'. The stress he mentions along with unobservantness increases the risk of mistakes which can lead to serious injury, & yes, fatalities.”
by mcupis
Thursday, February 14 2013, 1:49AM
“Yes Moe, but the vast majority of people in a city centre at any given time do not live in that city centre, they travel to it.”
by MoeXXX
Wednesday, February 13 2013, 11:37PM
“Malcolm: "The vast majority of people in this country do not live in city centres. They live in suburban and rural areas where transport options are limited to say the least. The car is absolutely vital to them and even more so if they are disabled."
Indeed. But we're talking about the city centre.”
by a1rhella1r
Wednesday, February 13 2013, 9:41PM
“"Wow Anil, pointing out that you are talking utter billhooks suddenly makes me some sort of Colonialist. For a normally intelligent and articulate individual, I expect better than sad abuse...."
No. My comments were directed at Malcolm. Please read the post.
Then again, wonder if Bath really is the only place in the UK with trafic issues? My football travels suggest not, with London being particularly awful, but I'm sure your chip on shoulder will disagree."
Have never suggested bath is the only place with traffic issues. When I was working in London in the 1980s - height of thatcher rule - a bus journey of 16km took an hour and 10 minutes. Now it takes 35. Traffic has increased about a hundredfold and as you keep telling me, huge amount of cars in London. So what makes the bus journey take half the time 30 years later? Magic perhaps? Or is it long-term planning, bus priorities, smartcard ticketing and bus lanes, all supervised and enforced by a public authority?”