McDonald and Dodds screens on a TV near you

4 Responses

  1. Kit Routledge says:

    I absolutely agree with your observation about the sense in strengthening Cleveland Bridge for heavy lorries. These vehicles should be taking one of the alternative routes past Bath. Save the money and put it towards the creation of LTNs.

  2. Jeremy says:

    Thanks, Kit. To me, Bath is small, nonetheless it requires the same amount of thinking that goes into approaching London. From Bath, going to Bromley, do I use the M25 or plough through the middle? Probably the former, which is probably the best answer for the well being of London.

    We don’t have a ring road, but we do have major roads about 12 to 25 miles from Bath city centre which can be used a bit like the M25.

    After all, this is an UNESCO world heritage site, and the only one of four complete cities with that designation. And the other three are: Verona, Valletta and Venice…

    In terms of traffic, and its effect on the city centre and the experience for those visiting, that’s where the comparison stops.

    Well, that’s my take anyway.

  3. John Morgan says:

    It is really quite obvious that the recent funding (from Highways England) is so that the bridge can revert to being adequate for 44 tonners. Otherwise they wouldn’t provide the money. That’s why BANES has not supported any permanent ban or supported long term restrictions. Unfortunately the bridge has been restricted before, or work on the A36 at Limpley Stoke has meant an equivalent restriction, but the moment the restriction is lifted back come the lorries. To my knowledge for the past 35 years there has been spasmodic dialogue between Wiltshire, BANES and all other agencies but unfortunately civil servants and full time officials just love talking and attending meetings and have no intention of either reinstating the scheme of 32 years ago (killed by a change of Government and the antics of Swampy and his mates at Newbury) to link the A46 Batheaston bypass to Beckington (looping behind Sally in the Woods). Hysteria over a Euroroute from Southampton to the M4 at Tormarton put paid to this one. Nor is there an appetite to dual the A350 properly (which was what was designed many years ago) which is the obvious lorry route which would also bypass Bath (but only as long as Cleveland Bridge was restricted). There’s no doubt in my mind that a restriction on Cleveland Bridge would be fantastic for Bath but I’m afraid for the reasons above it’s unlikely to happen. I and others including the London Road Association advocated Bath against Through Heavies (BATH) 30 odd years ago, the key being a restriction on Cleveland Bridge. My current view is that the only way of achieving a restriction on Cleveland Bridge is to come up with a solution for Wilts County Council. Unfortunately I fear that the latest funding for Cleveland Bridge has in effect put any restriction back by years!

    • admin says:

      Thanks, John. Very good to get the long historical perspective on all this and it matches quite well with my delvings into the recent past. It seems to be a form of nimbyism based upon where you live – quite natural really. But having driven up and down the A350 every week for 18 months, 10 years ago, it is difficult to compare the 21 roundabout route from County Hall Trowbridge to Chippenham with the A36-A46 route. If the issue were rendered down to preserving Bath’s special UNESCO significance and two millenia of history I think most people nationally, would agree with the 18 tonne weight restriction.

      Finally from Poole the A350 is tempting from a mileage point of view but the A34 is just as quick to Bristol, and much quicker from Southampton’s container port.