We could close Cleveland Bridge forever…?
Just a thought piece, this. Here is one frame from a video taken by Ali on the Bridge of an otter out earlier this week under the bridge on the SE side. The ecology report in the planning documents refers to the nearest other sighting of this protected species a further 80m upstream. This proves they do now inhabit the river bank right under the bridge.
What if the bridge was closed and most of the heavy repair money saved? What would that look like?
‘Active travellers’ (walkers and bikers) would not be impeded. Maybe exceptions would be made for the emergency services and bus routes could terminate either side of the bridge and be connected by a short walk for passengers from one side to the other.
HGVs travelling North-South and vica versa are going to have re-route significantly for up to eighteen months from 3rd February according to the traffic order. They will have to find ways round for the longer term.
London Road from Alice Park is very elegant along much of its length but is blighted by the traffic, a sizeable proportion of which is aiming for Cleveland Bridge. What a wonderful thing for this to be returned to a previous glory and also be a quieter, safer route into the city for active travellers.
All this needs is a sizeable rethink about the road network as defined by Highways England. Have a look at this annotated version of their Route Network map.
The A36-A46 link is on the map, although there is a tiny but significant gap at Cleveland Bridge. It is the only single carriageway route. It is also the only part of the whole network which directs traffic through a conurbation without either a ring road, bypass or an existing dual carriageway (eg Churchill Way in Salisbury).
The whole city, Roman, Medieval, Georgian and Modern, very unusually, all has ‘UNESCO World Heritage’ status across its length and breadth. Yet, if you are a driver using their map, Highways England are offering you a rat run route through this precious city as opposed to the A34 or the invisible A350. This could be changed to everyone’s advantage.
This is part one of the story. I’ll continue in a couple of weeks.
So how would people living in the North side of the river access the South side? Over the toll bridge? It is one thing to wish to stop the lorries, but quite another closing the bridge to all city traffic.
Thanks, Colin.
We’ve all got to decide what to this summer because that is precisely the scenario we will face when the bridge is fully closed to vehicles other than buses possibly. It’s interesting to think through how we are going to adapt, isn’t it?
Closing the Bridge is not an option, ‘Legally’. This was tried a few years ago, A plan to close the bridge to all lorries, This was rightly so contested by Wiltshire council and Parish councils to the east of Bath.
The DfT at the time agreed with Wiltshire and the proposed plan was stopped.
Basicly a council cannot introduce a scheme that would have detrimental effect on other areas.
Thanks, IP. Can you point me at the legal ruling somewhere?
A useful start of the paper trail is here. https://cms.wiltshire.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=23464
I dont hold my notes from back then. Bit from the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-18407853
Most long standing cllrs will know this
Thanks for your retrospective look at the contention caused in 2012 which seems to suffer from a lack of concern for the effects elsewhere or indeed a desire to cooperate with the neighbouring councils. The ban was to be implemented over a few yards at the 3 way junction just outside the Holbourne Museum drive which gave HGVs from the south an escape route. From the north the HGVs would be confronted with the ban, having crossed the bridge and then were forced to use the same escape route through Widcombe. The current bridge HGV ban has a stronger reason for it to exist.
The proposed Ban was the banning of HGV on the Bridge and not “over a few yards at the 3 way junction” That was the turning restriction point, HGVs had the restriction was on the Bridge, but to do so HGVs have to be restricted so that they cannot be dead ended as what happend when overnight works took place on teh London Rd lights at night. https://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/10038889.joy-over-u-turn-on-lorry-move/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-12482931 https://swwiltshirelibdems.org.uk/en/article/2012/1319864/bath-s-lorries-are-coming-our-way http://www.melkshamwithout.co.uk/assets/documents/Page%201%20Wiltshire%20Council%20Report%20Cllr%20Mark%20Griffiths.pdf and many parish council minutes reafirm this. see also https://cms.wiltshire.gov.uk/documents/s44103/Cleveland%20Bridge%20Weight%20Restriction.pdf
Thank you for this. I’m happy to accept your account of then ban in 2012. My second point, I think, still applies that the ban seems highly unilateral from B&NES and hardly created friends amongst its neighbours. I’m not clear about the legalities. It looked like there was ‘concern’ from the Highways Agency but there is no hint, from what you sent me, of legal proceedings.
At no point did I say “Legal proceedings”, There is a legal precedent that the actions of a LA cannot have detrimental effects on its neighbours. and if it does it can be overturned or amended. This goes for schemes such as Bridge closures to CAZ’s primarily “implications from any traffic displaced to surrounding areas” must be borne in mind