Great Western Coffee Shop

Don't know where to start on this one!   Subject cropped up while I was working on server issues yesterday ...

http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/bath-breathes-2021-overview


I picked this up on Facebook at
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157913778499196&set=a.10153700771924196
and felt it of sufficient significance to share on my own timeline
https://www.facebook.com/graham.ellis.5055/posts/10156755830852094

Some excellent comments there - including some from names very familiar to me who are here abouts too. They include ...
* Only NO2 not CO covered
* Moves problem elsewhere - A350 from M4 to Warminster
* Creates rat runs round back of Bath to RUH and through other housing just outside zone
* Severe cost on businesses which could be pushed under
* Puts people off travel into Bath
* A36 / A46 corner not a Bath but a Highways England issue
* Unclear on exemptions

These are part of issue only - suggest consider alongside
- Alternative A46 to A36 link
- Better facilities for public transport in from east including park at transport hubs and ride in the final section
- Market existing public transport
Public transport elements include (from east) D1, D3, MetroWest, x31, x72, 3A, 228

Let's start here! CO₂ emissions are a global problem; NO_x emissions are a local one.

Post-Kyoto, motor manufacturers rushed to dieselise their products to reduce CO₂ emissions. The downside is that these (now older) diesel vehicles produce toxins, including oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter, which badly affect the air quality locally. New diesel vehicles, incidentally, produce similar levels of pollution to modern (if that's the right word to use when referring to fossil fuels) petrol-powered vehicles.

I don't claim a detailed knowledge of the A350 from M4 to Warminster, but I imagine that for the most part it is better-ventilated and less populated than the streets of Bath - so maybe it makes sense to divert traffic that way?

Ah - but you're comparing a total route against a pinch point there.

M4 - A46 - A36 to Warminster is also "for the most part it is better-ventilated and less populated than the streets of Bath" - it's just the bit through Bath that's the problem.  ;D

M4 - A350 to Warminster is indeed for much of the route length better that the streets of Bath - however it too has its problems, snaking though the town of Westbury which has no alternative route, and also passing through some of the sprawl  of Melksham before getting to the bypass that avoids the town centre.  There's also the village of Beanacre and a bottleneck at Yarnbrook ... all in all just as big an issue (over a much longer distance) that the joining of the A36 and A46 in the Bath area.

Well there's the conundrum.

There could well be significant economic benefits in improving connectivity between Bristol/Bath and Southampton/Bournemouth/Poole, whether by rail or road, though finding a suitable route for a road could prove challenging. Meanwhile people in Bath are dying, and their leaders are in a position to try to do something about it.

Or they aren't, or don't think they are. As it says on the page showing the proposed boundary:
I wonder how many of those views were along the lines of "Please extend the boundary so I get clean air too," compare? to those saying "Please make an exemption for Xyz Street as it's a major route to work," and how many councillors viewing the latter thought "Public health is more important than current commuting patterns" compared to those who said "I defend your right to get to work"?

Well, as I say, it's all a conundrum. Who should take precedence when weighing things in the balance: people who live in a street, or those who don't live there but find it convenient to pollute it or park in it?

The conundrum is often solved by them being the same people!

A few years ago BANES tried to put a weight restriction on Cleveland Place to remove north/south HGVs from Bath.  They backed down under the threat of a legal challenge as this forms part of a strategic route.  Being a cynical old b****r I can't help but to suspect that by proposing a totally unjustified high charge for HGVs they are trying to achieve the same aim by the back door.  I suspect this proposal will also be threatened with a legal challenge by the adjacent authorities who will gain the diverted traffic, some on unsuitable roads.

The charge does not apply to Euro-6 compliant HGVs, if I've read it right - so it isn't an HGV ban.

As to whether £100 is justifiable: it sounds pretty punitive to me, but then I don't know much about the economics of running haulage. At a guess most logistics organisations already do their best avoid Bath.

As to whether adjoining authorities will have grounds for a legal challenge: Improving air quality has been treated as less-than-urgent for far, far too long, and I don't think I would be overstepping the mark to suggest that senior politicians have lied in an attempt to mask the scale of the problem. I absolutely support Bath's efforts, and would hope (probably forlornly given the nature of Bristol's current 'leadership') that Bristol would follow. (...and there's a concept I never thought to see: Bristol following Bath's lead). If this leads to higher NOx levels in Melksham or Beanacre or Yarnbrook, then they can also follow Bath.

The boundary has been extended quite a bit since the first publication, so presumably the first of the views you have quoted was the majority one.

In that case the people and councillors of Bath are leading Bristol in many ways!

Meanwhile, in Bristol:

Source and full article: Bristol 247 (https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/rees-unveils-two-clean-air-options-for-bristol/)

This issue seems to present a conundrum for Mayor Rees:


So we sacrifice the children of low-income households so that their parents can continue to pollute, and we protect the roads outside the Children's Hospital but not the roads where people live or go to school.

Both schemes seem overly specific but I guess that does make it easier to get them passed. Excluding private cars from the charges will make it pointless though. "How can we keep polluting vehicles out of this area? We could introduce a charge, but exempt the vast majority of them!"

I don't know if Marvin has been on the M32 recently, but it does have a bus lane, open to all local buses with any age of engine, as well as the shiny new gas-powered MetroBust vehicles. He should really be pushing for electric transport, beginning with Temple Meads. All council vehicles should be electric, both as an encouragement to others and to identify problems with having electric fleets, most notably how to charge them all at the same time. That way, Bristol could pave the way for the end of fossil fuel cars.

Had we known then what we pretended not to know then, just maybe the Bristol tram project may have happened back in 2005, and the next line could be under construction, instead of building roads under the Trojan horse of MetroBust.

And are these people in Bath who don't like diesel fumes related to those who don't want electric OHLE through part of the city?

Knowing the rate that BCC operates Marvins Clean Air Options will still be on the drawing board when he's voted out of office.

No, the M32 bus lane, although the indications suggest Local Buses Only, the reality of the situation is that its only buses on the m1 and m3 routes that can use that part of the infrastructure. Evidence. When the u3 was introduced in September 2018 to provide a service for party going hard up students in the sparrowfart hours of the morning from the City Centre to their beds on the Frenchay Campus the u3 was excluded from using the bus only M32 infrastructure. When the 'Y' series of routes were introduced also in September 2018 a request was made to allow a number of peak hour services to use the bus only lane to provide a link from Yate, Chipping Sodbury, Coalpit Heath, Frampton Cotterell and Winterbourne direct to the UWE Frenchay Campus and the Mandarins at TravelWest and Metrobus said NO, but we will allow you to use the Hambrook stop as an interchange and only interchange point. This means that some passengers for UWE at Frenchay have to alight their Y3/Y4 service in Hambrook Village and walk a 1/2 mile along a road with a foot path only on one side of the highway, cross the A4174 ring road and wait at the Hambrook Metrobus stop.

BCC's record for managing major projects is lamentable. Metrobust was 2 years late and £30 million over budget, the roadworks at Temple Meads is already running a year behind schedule, Prince Street Bridge was closed for 6 months for repairs and ended up being closed for 2 1/2 years and 80% re-built and restored and now the re-opening of the Colston Hall with a new name has been postponed for at least a year and I am told that's more likely to be more like two years as a result of structural problems unearthed during the gutting of the interior of this Victorian building. Mind you it needed something doing. The chandeliers high up in ceiling resembled grotesque hanging baskets in tha last couple of years before 'temporary' closure.

And now to add further woes the Metrobust infrastructure at Stoke Lane between the Stoke Park and the Begbrook stop seems to be bust. More on that to be posted on the relevant thread.

That's not the M32 bus lane - it's the M32 bus-only junction. The M32 southbound bus lane (to give it its long name) is regulated by the The M32 Motorway (Bus Lane and Speed Limit) Regulations 2018 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjp5fz-uOPiAhX5D2MBHRR_BoIQFjACegQIARAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legislation.gov.uk%2Fuksi%2F2018%2F11%2Fcontents%2Fmade&usg=AOvVaw1SlFpDA5fGwrrUFAm6fldW), and is managed by Highways England. The consultation about it was run by HE, and the summary of that for parliament (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwil2IXcuuPiAhXHA2MBHabgCiIQFjACegQIBxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legislation.gov.uk%2Fuksi%2F2018%2F11%2Fpdfs%2Fuksiem_20180011_en.pdf&usg=AOvVaw09R6NqNE3y1yLOxDGud-VX) included:
The regulations define "bus" to "have the same meaning as in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016(b);" - so allow any old bus. At least that's so until just past J3, when the road becomes the A4032 and the bus lane becomes BCC's business.

The other M32 interchange and link road at UWE appears to be called the M32 bus-only junction, but I can't find any motorway order about it nor (apart from a dead link to it) "THE M32 MOTORWAY (BUS ONLY JUNCTION) (STOPPING UP) ORDER 2017". There's a DfT order for its road signs (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&ved=2ahUKEwjtwvv_xuPiAhUK1eAKHW79B-cQFjANegQIBxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.dft.gov.uk%2Ftrafficauths%2Fcase-4555.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0q0hK-BbTO9up6eQRYMCEq), for some reason, but that doesn't even clearly indicate where the boundary of the motorway (and so of HE's remit) lies. There must be a BCC traffic regulation order hiding somewhere.

This comes up from time to time, and I found myself wondering whether it was a fact or a presumption. Now that further electrification is lurking in the long grass where it was kicked this may seem an academic question, but if the climate emergency is being taken seriously then it can only be a matter of time before things start moving again.

So I did a bit of Googling to see who objected, and how strongly, and couldn't find much. Here's what Bath Heritage Watchdog' had to say:

Source: Bath Heritage Watchdog (http://www.bathheritagewatchdog.org/brunel.htm#sgard)

...all of which seems pretty reasonable really, doesn't it?

Absolutely right stuving, brain engaged again too early.

The Bristol 24/7 article did say these plans were supposed to be in place at the end of 2018. But that was a requirement imposed by central government and they've hardly been swift in tackling air pollution.

Ha ha thunk splash! I just fell off my chair into the Sea of Avon.

#MeToo.

The critical phrase is "if the climate emergency is being taken seriously" Were that the case, we would be electrifying all railways, building new nuclear power stations each week (preferably using Thorium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power) rather than Uranium). We would then wire all homes in the UK to 3-phase AC to allow the use of electric water and space heating, plus the charging of an electric car via a charger of at least 5KW. The fast ones on motorways use over 11KW, which is beyond the supply to most streets, never mind homes, as things stand.

Today, a very windy one, wind power produces nearly 20% of our electricity. That represents less than 40% of our energy use, so wind - loved by city dwellers, hated by those who can hear it - produces less than 8% of our needs on a good day. The surplus that is to be stored in batteries (23 fires in South Korea in the last year) doesn't exist.

I believe that we should stop burning oil, coal, and gas in the production of electricity. I have a 1.2KW solar panel on my roof, which was the cheapest way that the builder could achieve an A+ rating for energy.Every light bulb in the house is LED, it gets so hot in winter when the sun shines that I have to open windows and doors, so I have done what I can. I am taking the "climate emergency" seriously, but only because it saves me money.

I am recently returned from Tokyo, and will be off to Tenerife in January next year.