Showcase bus routes and expanded park and rides as Bath scoops £31m transport funding

Trusted article source icon
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Profile image for Bath Chronicle

Bath Chronicle

Updated:

The Government has approved a £31 million package of transport improvements for Bath.

The Department for Transport has agreed to pay for £11.7 million of the cost of expanding three park and ride sites and bringing in new showcase bus routes.

The department announced the cash injection as part of a £1.4 billion investment programme made up of 41 different schemes across the country.

The Bath Transportation Package has been whittled down from a far more controversial £66.7 million programme by the incoming Liberal Democrat administration at the Guildhall.

The overall price tag was reduced by cutting the most contentious parts of the package, including the Bathampton Park and Ride site and the Bus Rapid Transit through Newbridge. But the amount of money being offered by Bath and North East Somerset Council had to increase in response to warnings over the public sector spending squeeze.

B&NES Council will pay £17.8 million, while the amount originally requested of the Department for Transport has been slashed from an original £55.1 million. Money will also come from bus operator First and developer Crest Nicholson.

The package includes:

* expansion and improvement of park and ride facilities at Newbridge (250 extra spaces), Lansdown (390) and Odd Down (250) - a 50 per cent increase in total capacity.

* upgrades to nine key bus routes, with real time information and bus priority measures.

* permanent flashing variable message signs on the approaches to Bath and in the city centre which can be used to tell motorists when car parks are full

* improvements to the High Street area in the city centre

* transport work at the Bath Riverside development.

The new regime at the council - which took power from the Tories in May - has removed a bus lane in Lower Bristol Road from the plans, and halved the size of the expansion of the Newbridge Park and Ride.

Council cabinet member for transport Councillor Roger Symonds (Lib Dem, Combe Down) said: “The city needs measures to improve the ease with which people can get to their homes, jobs, and shops by tackling congestion so that they are not stuck in jams.

“The Bath Transportation Package will result in improved access to the city centre and its car parking spaces for those who need them because our park and ride capacity will increase by almost half. Instead of out-of-town commuters and shoppers facing full park and ride sites and heading into an already congested city centre, they are more likely to be able to find a space.

“The plan will back the development of the infrastructure needed to encourage private sector business investment in the city.”

Transport minister Norman Baker said of the Bath package: “We think it makes good environmental sense and will deal with congestion issues as well.”

The council will run a public consultation exercise on the design of bus shelters for the nine improved routes next month and work on those and on expanding the park and ride sites will start in the second half of 2012 and last around two years.

Bath Chamber of Commerce executive director Ian Bell welcomed the funding and the extra park and ride spaces, but said he hoped that a park and ride site to the east of the city would still be found in the future.

“There are many other improvements to our local transport system, such as an eastern park and ride which would play a big part in reducing congestion in the city centre.”

Opposition Tories said the deal now secured by the council was the worst in the country, with B&NES the only local authority to get a DfT contribution of less than 50 per cent, and others securing 90 per cent of the total cost.

Transport spokesman Councillor Tim Warren (Con, Mendip) said: “The Liberal Democrats cut back on the package but increased the amount local council tax payers will have to fork out for the scheme. Now we find out that B&NES is the only council paying more than half the cost of a scheme.

“Liberal Democrat councillors clearly have a lot of explaining to do to local residents as to why our area has received the worst deal in the country, leaving council tax payers out of pocket. It will now be more important than ever for the council to come up with a broader overarching transport vision for the years to come, hopefully with a greater political consensus.”

But Liberal Democrat Councillor Caroline Roberts, who represents the Newbridge area targetted for the BRT, said: “Bath residents have always made it clear that they want improvements to traffic and public transport in Bath, but not the acres of new concrete and Tarmac or building a road through residents’ gardens as favoured by the previous administration. The new Bath Transportation Package is proof of the Liberal Democrat commitment to listening to residents and delivering transport and traffic improvements for Bath. This funding will make an enormous difference.”

And city MP Don Foster praised his party's leadership of B&NES.

Earlier this year, he brought fellow Liberal Democrat Mr Baker to Bath to discuss the package with councillors.

He also met the minister a number of times at Westminster to discuss its merits.

He said: “The delivery of the Bath Transportation Package shows just how well Liberal Democrats running the council are working with Liberal Democrats in government.

“As a result of effective engagement between Lib Dems in government at both a local and national level, Bath will now benefit from significant transport improvements and a boost to the economic growth of the city. I’d like to congratulate the Liberal Democrat council in delivering this key aspect of their manifesto.”

Ministers said all the projects funded had been through a “stringent assessment process to ensure they offer value for money and are affordable for both the Government and the local area.”

Transport Secretary Justine Greening said: “Almost all journeys begin and end on local authority networks, which provide the crucial links that allow people and businesses to prosper. We are investing in schemes that will provide better access to jobs and services, reduce congestion and enable more goods to move more easily around our country.”

The Government has assessed the BTP as being worth £28.6 million, regarding some of the council-funded preparation work as not part of the package itself.

The total number of park and ride spaces will rise from 1,990 to 2,880.

*The council told us last week that the overall package was worth £34.3 million - but now says it will cost just £31 million.

27
Tweet this article
Report

27 Comments

  • Profile image for iamtheuser

    by iamtheuser

    Monday, December 19 2011, 11:40PM

    “Full disablied access thought all of Baths bus routes? - I hope so!”

  • Profile image for JoMcCarron

    by JoMcCarron

    Friday, December 16 2011, 6:38PM

    “I might add - campaign groups in Newbridge have been requesting information from the LibDems about the siting of the Newbridge P&R, but nothing. So much for better consultation than the last administration - it seems they're both as bad as one another when they want something to go ahead despite opposition from residents”

  • Profile image for MajorFlack

    by MajorFlack

    Friday, December 16 2011, 3:27PM

    “Anil: Ignoring the hypocrisy of your communicating with the people of Bath on this site, because you think "Bath is far below me", you could at least give a nanoseconds thought before committing more meaningless words to the web.

    Words like: "Tourists only get a snapshot of the city. They don't have to live or work long-term in a city that lacks even the most basic public transport infrastructure."

    Another example of a prejudiced assumption. This time one that spells out a belief that no tourists ever arrive or depart the city using public transport. What nonsense!”

  • Profile image for rogerh3

    by rogerh3

    Friday, December 16 2011, 12:55PM

    “Strange. It was previously Avon you claimed to work for. If you'd ever worked for Bath City Council you'd know that they were never responsible for bus services.”

  • Profile image for airhellair

    by airhellair

    Friday, December 16 2011, 12:21PM

    “No assumption, Major. I worked for BANES' predecessor, Bath City Council. It was like working for toytown, run parochially. When I questioned this from people who had been there for the previous 100 years or so,they said that was how it had always been done. Luckily for me, I found employment elsewhere in a short time. Those people would have not lasted 20 minutes in a London borough I once worked at.

    Tourists only get a snapshot of the city. They don't have to live or work long-term in a city that lacks even the most basic public transport infrastructure. No one I know has revisited. They say it's cheaper to watch Bath on video....”

  • Profile image for JoMcCarron

    by JoMcCarron

    Friday, December 16 2011, 11:07AM

    “I'm sorry, but what an incredible waste of money. The BTP was seriously flawed from the start and should have been scrapped. How can the government justify this incredible waste of public funds at a time when making serious, life changing and unjustified cuts to just about everything else? Just to get things in perspective, some people are having to get food donations to survive as the cost of living is 8 times higher than the average wage and unemployment is at a record high. 40,000 people look set to lose homes due to cuts to housing benefit. This is nothing short of disgrace that the libdem & tory coalition can grant the funding for this scheme whilst shamelessly cutting on considerably more important things. Disgusting.”

  • Profile image for MajorFlack

    by MajorFlack

    Thursday, December 15 2011, 5:17PM

    “a conclusion which wrongly and prejudicially assumes a parochialism - is exactly what you've arrived at.

    Millions of tourists, year after year, cannot be wrong.”

  • Profile image for Chipnum

    by Chipnum

    Thursday, December 15 2011, 4:28PM

    “by housebird5
    Wednesday, December 14 2011, 5:24PM

    "real time info at a bus stop - what is the benefit????

    The 'benefit' is that you can see how delayed your bus will be, a delay that might have been mitigated had the money been spent on real physical priority measures such as bus lanes, bus gates, bus-only streets, and a reduction in city centre car park capacity. Taken together such measures would reduce the amount of cars entering the city, yet maintain or increase the capacity for more people to access shops, services and businesses.”

  • Profile image for airhellair

    by airhellair

    Thursday, December 15 2011, 4:25PM

    “.....is a conclusion which wrongly and prejudicially assumes a parochialism (saying more about its writer than the subject)...."

    Assumes parochialism? Bath is its very definition. A minor town on the way to other places which thinks itself as a city. As I've said before, the Romans had the right idea.

    Seventeen million will definitely improve this service - http://tinyurl.com/89jzrn8 running at 3 an hour to 6 an hour. As you can see from the picture, current vehicles are about 5 years old. They could be replaced by these - http://tinyurl.com/8axnmpo

    Whatever compromised, sedan-chair-based, on-bus-fare-collecting, 1950s system you end with, it's money wasted. Much better to reallocate it where people are more likely to use and appreciate it. As Mcupis puts it - us londoners like to "sit on piles of vomit on stinking buses stabbing each other..." That may have been so in parts of London where he used to live, but generally, vehicles are never as decrepit or smelly as the ones in Bath.

    But please dont take my word for it. I'm sure TfL's PR team will only be too pleased to put you in touch with the 25 or so operators that run services in London. Then you'll be able to see for yourself - http://tinyurl.com/72d9j4q

  • Profile image for MajorFlack

    by MajorFlack

    Thursday, December 15 2011, 3:35PM

    “...This shows a rural approach to a city's public transport needs...

    No, it definitely does not. It shows a responsible approach to a proposed allocation of considerable public funds to a scheme that provided no real benefits, save those that were retained in the final bid at reduced cost.

    "The picture epitomises local attitudes... Please give up the money. There are some well deserving enhancements that can be done in SW london/surrey borders..." is a conclusion which wrongly and prejudicially assumes a parochialism (saying more about its writer than the subject) and takes no account of just how inappropriate the original proposed spending of over £60 million was, in its offer of negligible public transport improvements to the population unjustly criticised.”

        Your comments awaiting moderation

        Add your comments

        max 4000 characters