“I hate to have to correct it but rogerh3's statement: "Some years ago the Council's CI:TE (City Initiative: Traffic & Environment??) had a specific policy of reducing central on-street parking spaces in line with increased provision at P&Rs. That was later watered down to an aspiration before disappearing altogether." is erronious.

There have been plenty of recent messages published by B&NES, in justification of both their Transportation Package plans (the bit about reductions in-line with increased P&R provision is correct) and Public Realm strategies, which say it's an aspiration it still intends to fulfil.

Disappeared it definitely hasn't and this fact makes the Chamber of Commerce statement revealing. The strategies cannot be truly concerned with reducing congestion and pollution or the effects of traffic displacements.”

“The problem in the centre is cars, and tourist coaches permitted to park around Bog Island ,the Parades, and Victoria Park.

Also, has a major incident scenario ever been tested, with the need for access to all central areas ?

The problem around the Cleveland Bridge interchange is predominately from lorries and heavier vehicles.”

“If P&R capacity is not increased, the problem parks elsewhere, usually in residential streets, getting in the way."

This rather ignores the fact that almost every street within walking distance of the centre - certainly any likely to appeal to visitors - will already have restricted parking, mostly residents-only.

And what is this problem anyway? Are people queuing up to get into existing P&Rs? Or will these proposed extra spaces themselves attract the extra traffic?

Some years ago the Council's CI:TE (City Initiative: Traffic & Environment??) had a specific policy of reducing central on-street parking spaces in line with increased provision at P&Rs. That was later watered down to an aspiration before disappearing altogether.

We're undoubtedly well rid of the Tory's BTP. However is the remaining £34.8m, to be spent mostly on extra P&R places and bus messaging, going to be money well spent? And if we're providing £17.8m ourselves plus contributions from Crest and First, is the DfT's share worth having if it means we can't decide ourselves how best to spend it?”

“Funny how Tories are keen to save taxpayers money by slashing key services, but seem disappointed that they can't waste a large chunk of it on an utterly pointless transport scheme.
Note for Warren, Gerrish and Haeberling - The impact on the Bath economy of scrapping BRT rhymes with Duck Hall!”

“Interesting that Ian Bell, Chairman of the Bath Chamber of Commerce was heard to say at yesterday's meeting that an eastern P&R would encourage much needed investment in Bath because it's inclusion in the package would lead to spaces in the city centre being freed.

It's interesting on two counts:

1. It completely contradicts the Council policy of reducing central parking spaces - to discourage traffic, a policy the Chamber of Commerce has previously supported. But not anymore apparently. Either that or there was a hidden agenda all along - which leads to...

2. If the original package, before being subject to the scrutinies of the current administration, was designed (as suggested by Mr Bell) to encourage traffic to both the facilities on the outskirts AND the centre of Bath, does that not make every previous statement and message of support about it being designed to tackle congestion and pollution entirely dishonest?”

“The 'old' BTP just-wasn't-right on countless levels, and is obvious as such to anyone willing to look closely – as have the new administration evidently.
Everybody who spent more than 5 minutes thinking about it now agree that the BRT was an expensive joke, and that the previous administration should be ashamed of themselves for even thinking about building on Green Belt land. Their dubious tactics throughout the affair then compounded the errors.

The 'new' BTP is a massive compromise, but you can't polish a t**d.
Using this particular t**d as a baseline for discussion is inevitable, but we are where we are – the previous administration should have done it properly in the first place.

On the subject of an A36/A46 link road – there's one already – through Bathampton and over the tollbridge. This is for people, in cars, going from a particular local 'A' to a particular local 'B'.
A link road such as the type that keeps rearing it's ugly head, is for trucks going from waaaay down the A36, to waaaay down the A46. Building one for that purpose will encourage heavy traffic on both those roads and add to our problems on the approaches.
Expensive and daft – heard that before ?.

I would like to add that this is personal comment and not a news item.
Probably.”

“There never was a BRT! There was a cobbled together bodge which provided a dedicated route where it wasn't needed only to dump the buses out in the centre to fend for themselves amongst the badly planned layouts around Southgate. Once they escaped from that mess they'd join the crawl out along the London Road and arrive at the Eastern P&R so slowly that it would deter people from using it.

Its all quite simply tinkering at the edges - BRT or not, significant numbers of people are not going to give up their cars whilst First continue to charge double the cost of driving. People might pay a premium for a luxury, but in this instance the luxury is the privacy of their own car.

All that considered if we have to do anything in the absence of solving the bus fare issue, we might as well spend as little as possible thereby wasting as little as possible. The only place worth spending money is to fill the missing gap between the A46 and A36 in order to remove some of the non essential traffic from the centre but no-one has the bottle to do that anymore than they have to come up with creative means of holding First to the fire!”

“It's a double-edged sword. If P&R capacity is not increased, the problem parks elsewhere, usually in residential streets, getting in the way. A popular perception is that a lot of pollution is caused by bigger vehicles. That's generally put forward by those who can't contemplate life without car dependency.

Agree with AlastairSteel. Unless you live in metro cities, where the car finds itself second or third in transport options, there will always be a growth in their numbers. Losing the heritage status will help Bath plan better measures to accommodate its unbreakable car-addiction.”

“mickyluv99 - Did you know that in the east of Bath 10% of traffic creates 40% of the adverse affects on air quality? That 10% is HGVs.

Part of the problem facing the council is that this should have been but was not addressed by the last administration. Opportunities were inexplicably ignored in favour of park and ride which, with its encouragement of more traffic and inevitable release suppressed demand, would increase traffic medium to long term.

This is just one item in a long list revealing a lack of credibility and value in the £60 million proposals put forward by the previous cabinet. Therefore, its rejection, AlistairSteel, has nothing to do with any real or imagined NIMBYisms.”

“It is the East where the issues are....Sort out London Road at least with a Park and Ride and by linking the A's 36 and 46....or just leave it in the too difficult tray......”