I went along to the council's exhibition at the Guildhall regarding their proposed package of measures which they claim will cut Bath's traffic congestion.

I was glad to see that many had turned out for the opportunity to look at these plans in more detail but wonder just how many of those who will be affected would be comfortable attending such an intimidating and formal meeting.

I doubt there were many from social housing or ethnic minorities taking part in this consultation, even though the proposals will affect all B&NES people.

I also know for a fact that many living on the proposed route were completely unaware not only of this exhibition but also of the whole planned package.

Could this exhibition not have been taken to the communities affected as well, in particular to the sheltered accommodation, toddler groups, schools, day centres or old people's homes whose residents would have had trouble getting along to The Guildhall?

Those who did manage to go along were treated to a glossy fudge with no real evidence or research to show how this package will cut congestion. There was no great detail on the BRT route (as promised) so still no information on screening or fencing heights, bus stops, traffic lights, potential congestion hotspots (like Station Road), the height of the road in relation to exhaust pipes or any of the other concerns that people living on the route may have.

This so called 'consultation' was a shameless piece of marketing and a further example of the depths the council will go to feign openness.

It was also not inclusive.

If the council wants to know what the people think they really need to go out and talk to them.

Indeed, what they really need to do is to start LISTENING !

SUZANNE DAVIES Kaynton Mead, Bath

Having attended the public exhibition of Bath's transport package I was amazed at what a fiasco it turned out to be.

There were lots of 'bright young things' in attendance, but the minute you asked an intelligent question, they started to bounce you between each other.

When I asked, for example, what survey had been done to find out how much of the traffic approaching along the London Road from the east, merely turned left over the Cleveland Bridge and out onto the A36 Warminster Road, I was asked what difference it made and then I was told 'one in 10 did this' – but this survey was done in 2002!

When I then turned my attention to how the Bus Rapid Transit bus lane would be secured when not in use, readers will be fascinated to learn that we shall have 'erecting bollards' to shut it off at night.

Despite B&NES trying to bounce this scheme through I actually think it unlikely that the £54m will still be there at the end of the current grave recession.

In any case, given that one quarter of council tax receipts now go towards public sector pensions, don't we have the right to expect more from the officers of the council who have come up with, in my opinion, an ill-conceived and under-researched set of proposals that will forever scar our beautiful and historic landscape?

PAUL BOWDEN Bannerdown Road, Bath

It is very difficult for an ordinary member of the Bath public to object to the Bath Transportation Package while B&NES' answers to questions (when they come) seem to amount only to propaganda.

So here are some of the questions I would like to ask B&NES.

Why did the council submit a major bid to the Department for Transport containing elements, which they have subsequently changed, or may have to change?

Why are the council stating that the Government backs the proposed new park-and-ride site at Bathampton Meadows? B&NES have to fulfil a lot of criteria to make the case that it is a better choice than Lambridge. Is that not a bit of a leap from there to 'backing' the proposal?

Is it true that the DfT can reconsider its position at any time in the event of a significant change?

Are the council happy with threatening council tax payers with legal action, or do they seriously believe that it will be settled amicably before it comes to that?

Why, as we are going into a recession, are the council using growth forecasts that are changing rapidly on an almost daily basis, to make their case? Why, when motor manufacturers the world over are in huge trouble, and there is nervousness of oil price rises, can they continue arguing the case that car usage will continue to rise by the same numbers?

Who is liable for any shortfall in funding if (by some chance) it should go over budget?

Are the council 100 per cent happy with the £4.5m coming from 'local contributions'? Bearing in mind the country's financial situation, how certain is that private sector funding? Who is liable if it doesn't materialise?

I'm not expecting a response any time soon . . .

TONY LEES Bath

There have been many concerns raised about the Bathampton Meadows park-and-ride proposal which seem to mostly revolve around loss of walks and views and possible light pollution.

These are indeed issues but I do wonder if the real problem with this scheme has been properly appreciated.

The access to the park and ride, being off the bypass, has no vehicular access from the A36. However, there is pedestrian access from Mill Lane to the park and ride. This will inevitably mean that all those who approach Bath from the A36 and indeed from the south side of Bath will find the simplest solution to leave their car in Bathampton and pop through the so-called 'connecting cycle way' to the park-and-ride. Additionally, there will be those (and their sat-navs) who simply assume that the 'Bathampton park and ride' is indeed accessible from Bathampton!

All this will mean that Bathampton will be turned into an alternative car park for the park and ride.

I do not think it is any exaggeration to suggest that this will destroy the village as we know it. The effect of a thousand additional cars looking to park in Bathampton streets on a daily basis should be clear to all.

TERENCE MCAULEY The Normans Bathampton, Bath

I am sending you this long missive in order to correct what I believe to be a very inaccurate account of the effects the BRT will have on residents of Lower Weston as portrayed in the article headed 'Public mood is with us, say bus route protesters' in the Chronicle of October 30.

The introduction of this scheme as it currently stands will have the following effects.

The loss of the trees behind the garages will raise the present noise level from the industrial business park and make it extremely invasive. At present the area is reasonably tranquil which is why the street has a wide mix of residents from the very elderly to babes in arms. Everyone bought their houses because the area is peaceful, with little or no crime, is safe for children to go outside and has a small area of green woodland for adults to use for compost and children to build tree houses. Some residents have lived in this area for over 50 years making it a very stable area to raise a family or spend declining years. It is very rare now to find an area of such stability within an urban area and it would therefore be a social and historical crime to introduce this BRT scheme.

The scheme will further devalue houses in the area. The effect will be that some of the more recent residents may find themselves in negative equity whereas some more senior residents may no longer be able to afford the residential care they were budgeting for by the sale of their main asset.

The wooded area in front of the houses has provided the area with a perfect haven for small birds and animals and is a useful teaching medium for parents to educate their children about nature. It has also proved a useful, safe play area for the young as there is little or no traffic on the street. The next street along is busier but again with care the young have crossed it with relative ease and been able to walk to the nearby river. With the increase in traffic many of the river birds such as kingfishers will leave – much to the residents' dismay.

The old railway line that once created smoke and dirt has, since its closure, provided the area with health-giving vegetation, peace and quiet and a place to take a cycle ride or walk which has a very significant effect on the health and quality of life for residents.

Some residents have already become ill with worry through this proposed scheme and I can foresee their health being affected even further unless we can obtain the professional services we require to fight this plan.

The scheme will affect the community very badly as it will make it harder for local residents to visit the nearby shopping area, friends and neighbours as the level of traffic in the area will rise significantly. There is also already a parking problem and this scheme will not assist in alleviating it.

The communal compost area which all residents use to recycle their kitchen and garden waste into high-quality compost will be lost and carbon footprint of the residents will be increased many thousand times over as they or the council will have to go to the town's recycle department.

The garages will be adversely affected as at present there is a rudimentary soak-away system in place which can just about cope with the excess rainwater in a heavy shower. The trees and current vegetation under the tree canopy help to soak it up. With these gone there is a serious likelihood of the garages and surrounding area becoming flooded on a regular basis.

The proposed scheme will only save two minutes in time to the town centre and is being pressed on us by a council who have agreed without consulting the residents of Bath because the housing developers want a bus to go through the centre of their Western Riverside development, and the Government have agreed in principal to this when issuing their tentative agreement to provide £54 million towards costs.

Another aspect of this development that the residents of this area do not relish is the fact that the proposed dedicated bus route will (after a 'specified' time) be allowed to become just another main road into Bath. It means in future as residents look out from their front room windows, they will be faced with three busy roads plus extra noise and extra fumes from stationary traffic and the 'modern' diesel buses every ten minutes.

As you will have realised by now, there are numerous reasons why the residents of Lower Weston are against the BRT. I therefore would hope The Bath Chronicle will think twice before just using phrases like 'the scheme would see six homes lose sections of their gardens and a number of parking places removed' which was and is entirely erroneous and does not represent all the issues we face.

GRENVILLE GORE LANGTON Ashley Avenue Lower Weston, Bath

I was stunned to see a letter from Lib Dem Councillor Andy Furse arguing that the proposed BRT route will 'not reduce pollution levels along the Upper Bristol Road and will not deliver improved transport for Bath'. This new-found opposition to the BRT route from the Liberal Democrats is disingenuous.

Cllr Furse should not think that the memory of Bath residents is so short as to forget that it was the Lib Dems who were the largest party on B&NES until last year. And many people will also remember that proposals to use the disused railway line for a rapid transit system have been around for many years. This sort of re-writing of history is one of the things which gives politics a bad name and voters see through it.

The Lib Dems have supported council papers and documents on many occasions which clearly state an intention to construct a rapid transit route along the old railway line. The idea was in the Local Transport Plan as long ago as the year 2000, when the Lib Dems were the largest party. It was in the submission to Government for the Bath Transport Package in 2006 and clearly identified in the draft Local Plan since 2003 which the majority of all political parties voted for only last year.

Cllr Furse must know that the Local Plan clearly stated that 'consideration has been given for a number of years to the possibility of using the former Midland railway on the Western side of Bath for some form of rapid transit'. In fact, Cllr Furse also voted in favour of a council paper back in 2006 which clearly set out the intention of constructing the BRT on this route.

It is perfectly legitimate to debate whether this scheme will improve Bath's transport or not, and I happen to think it would play a large part in keeping Bath moving, but it is wrong of Cllr Furse to ignore his previous support for the scheme.

CLLR COLIN BARRETT Conservative, Weston

I would like to comment on the item in the Chronicle stating that a new £50,000 capital cash pot has been set up by the council to find projects to build strong communities for people to feel safe and secure.

There is a happy community in Lower Weston who feel safe and secure playing, working and picnicking in a lovely green space close to home away from dangerous roads. The same council members intend to filch this lovely space to build a third road into the city for a bus (no way rapid) that could use one of the two roads that run parallel.

Methinks these council cabinet members in particular speak with forked tongue!

MRS J ASH Brassmill Lane, Bath

Was anybody else struck by how ridiculous a farce it was when they held the recent BRT 'consultation' at the Guildhall?

How these people have got the gall to call it a consultation when they're going to do it anyway is beyond me.

These people care so much that at a recent council meeting three householders about to lose their land were allowed three minutes to plead their case and when one had the timidity to run over time, was abruptly cut off. This is what council leader Cllr Haeberling calls democracy – three minutes!

I wonder too about the increasing 'propaganda' by the council with their expensive new 'spin'. Isn't it a well known ploy in advertising, that if you have a poor product you desperately push it in the hope it fools people? Isn't this what the council has been doing in the past weeks, with their flurry of 'congestion, commuters and gridlock' stories?

If the BRT was any good, it would stand on its own feet.

Cllr Haeberling should listen to Don Foster, a man who has had years of experience on the national stage. To rethink the choice of route is the obvious solution.

It is still the biggest insult ever to a community that all this destruction is being done for the sake of two minutes.

PETER BURNS Avon Park Lower Weston, Bath

I am getting really exasperated with the Chronicle's take on the BRT proposal.

The reasons for people's objections seem to be trivialised and brushed over.

It is very hard for residents to fight their case against the council's plan for the BRT.

We are a group of ordinary people, not an organisation.

We don't have the resources to be able to send information to all of the greater public in Bath like the council do.

The council has used a public relations campaign to spin against us with our own money.

I found it very frustrating to see the council's 'visualisation' of the route in a recent Chronicle.

Residents were talking about this for weeks before it came about. We guessed that the council would use this particular stretch when it came to painting a picture to show the public. We knew they would pick the only derelict piece of land along the whole lane.

I have lived along the proposed route for 17 years, and see no resemblance to the council's picture, and the peaceful and tranquil reality of this green space.

Unfortunately I have come to expect the council to use spin doctors. (They need all the help they can get with this plan).

But what I am angry about is that I feel The Bath Chronicle is helping them to achieve their goal.

I'm annoyed that the recent 'then and now' picture has been presented by the Chronicle as 'Lower Weston as it is, (showing the shabby Hartwells Land), and right, as it would look as part of the Bus Rapid transit scheme'

That is spin.

Most of the corridor in reality looks very much like the Oldfield Park Linear Park – leafy and green. The section which has been shown is just a tiny, well selected part and I'm sure by now the Chronicle must know that?

Please don't alienate your readers by misrepresenting the impact.

Our only voice is the local media and I feel let down.

I have always bought the Chronicle and thought highly of the reporting, but now I'm thinking that was just because the reports had never applied to me before.

I do hope the Chronicle starts to report on the realities of this awful scheme.

KAREN HILL Bath