Latest CAZ news is mostly positive for Camden and North East Bath

4 Responses

  1. Nicky says:

    I think there is a lot to be said for the idea of out-of city transport hubs. Further out than our current park and rides – even based in Chippenham, Trowbridge, Keynsham. Free parking, regular, reliable buses. Commuters don’t need to drive near us. Cheap land too. But this isn’t a solve-all. Reliability of alternatives to commuters is paramount

  2. Danny Lunnon says:

    I always copy someone who has solved the same problem I have. If many have done so then all the better, I can learn and use the best ideas. Plenty of European cities have achieved their target reductions years ahead of us even starting to organise a plan.
    There is a common theme, they remove city centre and arterial on street parking, they used the new space to build bus lanes and cycle lanes. Cycle lanes safe enough for primary school children to use to get to school. They invest in good quality public transport. A really great city is not one where the poor can afford cars, but one where the wealthy use public transport.
    It takes vision and there is a lot of resistance because people only see what they might lose initially, but it works and can be done in 4 years as it was in Seville.
    Not everyone can use alternatives, lots of people travel in from small villages, but if you provide enough attractive low pollution options it can make a big impact. We have focused for years on trying to address through traffic and ignored the fact 80% of the pollution problem is being caused by journeys of just a few miles.
    Sadly our councils are so poorly funded they can do little to improve public transport and it takes people with political will and funding to make the required changes.

  3. admin says:

    Some very interesting points here:

    1. The ride of P&R does not have to be just buses, but can be train, bike or electric bike (coming to Bath (ref yesterday’s announcement)). The train is quick but only gets you to the station with no stops in between.

    2. Sometimes taking a solution which suits one location does not work elsewhere. Bath is hard:
    a) no ring road to take passing traffic
    b) very hilly, unlike Seville for example, which makes cycling and even walking harder
    c) very limited river crossings to the east of the city
    d) Southern european cites are more temperate and outdoor travel is more appealing
    e) Bath is relatively small (89,000 vs 690,000 in Seville) so economies of scale don’t apply in quite the same way
    f) Bath has 5 million visitors per year (compared to 2 million in Cheltenham, for example), many of whom are hours/day visitors who all need to come and go.

    3. Absolutely agree on the causes of resistance being to do with perceived loss, rather than potential gains, which is why I hope the small curtailment of traffic from the CAZ will illustrate what life could be like and will generate an appetite for a less congested city.

    4. Through traffic versus radial journeys. I think this may be an overly simple distinction. How would a journey from Bathford to the RUH be classified? I think some intra city car journeys are made because the alternatives are a multi legged journey. Some work has been done by Cycle Bath to reconfigure bus routes to give circular routes linking the main hubs for people. Other journeys to the outskirts of Bath, from the M4 to Locksbrook for example, are going to imply a journey through Bath.

  4. admin says:

    There’s been a little more correspondence on this subject on Bath Newseum recently. Here’s my bit…

    As far as I understand the CAZ is dealing with NOx, not pollution in general, nor climate change and not congestion – the central government imperative and consequent funding rules do not stretch that far. NOx is a hidden enemy because it is undetectable by those breathing it – the transport fumes and smells we are aware of are something different. We did a blog post on this last year ( The less obvious benefit of the CAZ is that it gives us the technical infrastructure (cameras, computers, charging and enforcement) to bear down on the actual cause of the fumes we also object to – vehicle numbers – in due course.

    If the modelling is correct then there will be a small, but hopefully significant, reduction in traffic levels and proportionately less diesel cars like mine, which emit many more fumes and particulates than their petrol equivalents. Hopefully these detectable effects will be enough for users and residents of Bath to push harder for exclusion measures for the worst emitters which are more achievable with the technical infrastructure in place.

    What the Camden Residents Association is asking for are ways to keep vehicles out of the city by providing better alternatives in the right places. We have 5 million visitors each year mostly arriving by road. We don’t have a ring road which could get people quickly to a few peripheral P&Rs from all the radial routes, so we need more, well positioned hubs to serve all the main radial routes in. At present only 40% of radial routes into Bath even have a P&R. If you don’t believe me look here ( at our post entitled ‘Latest CAZ news…). Setting these up creatively and supporting them with cleaner mass transport solutions into the city must be the right direction for us.