Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
article index - [here]
 tomorrow - MRUG meeting
tomorrow - ACoRP board nominations close
18/10/2019 - TravelWatch SouthWest
18/10/2019 - GWR meet the team - Westbury
19/10/2019 - MRUG/CS "Thank you" BBQ
21/10/2019 - Ticket booking test - BRI
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
October 15, 2019, 06:58:16 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[76] Thames Valley services from December 2019 - GWR press release
[62] On crossing borders by public transport - to and within the UK...
[57] London Overground - proposed ticket office reduction of hours
[51] Restoration of original prototype HST to service
[45] December changes - all about more and faster journeys to Londo...
[34] Climate Change Emergency - Implications for UK Transport Strat...
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Linked Events
  • Bath Clean Air consult ends: November 26, 2018
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Bath and Bristol - clean air and congestion  (Read 2088 times)
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26725



View Profile WWW Email
« on: October 23, 2018, 01:30:40 am »

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

Quote
BathBreathes2021

Welcome to our consultation on a Charging Clean Air Zone for Bath.

The following pages outline our proposal for Class D Clean Air Zone (CAZ) in the centre of Bath. The aim is to urgently reduce harmful levels of NO2 across the city, caused by vehicle emissions.

We encourage you to take part in the consultation by reading this information, completing a questionnaire or talking to us at a regular drop-in session or surgery.

No decisions have been made and we’re really keen to hear your views.

The consultation closes on 26 November 2018.

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
« Last Edit: June 11, 2019, 10:37:37 am by Red Squirrel » Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and of RailFuture
Red Squirrel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3186


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2018, 09:16:09 am »

Don't know where to start on this one...

...
* Only NO2 not CO covered
* Moves problem elsewhere - A350 from M4 to Warminster
...


Let's start here! CO2 emissions are a global problem; NOx 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?
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26725



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2018, 09:33:07 am »

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.  Grin

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.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and of RailFuture
Red Squirrel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3186


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2018, 10:28:39 am »

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.
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2255


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2018, 11:57:30 am »

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:
Quote
It’s been amended since it was first published in Spring 2018 to take account of residents’ views,
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"?
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
Red Squirrel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3186


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2018, 12:29:20 pm »

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:
Quote
It’s been amended since it was first published in Spring 2018 to take account of residents’ views,
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?

Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2255


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2018, 01:05:29 pm »

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

Day return to Infinity, please.
rogerw
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 749



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2018, 04:01:54 pm »

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.
Logged

I like to travel.  It lets me feel I'm getting somewhere.
Red Squirrel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3186


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2018, 04:32:54 pm »

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.
Logged
froome
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 411


View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2018, 06:49:33 pm »

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:
Quote
It’s been amended since it was first published in Spring 2018 to take account of residents’ views,
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"?

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.
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2255


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2018, 10:55:19 pm »

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

Day return to Infinity, please.
Red Squirrel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3186


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 11, 2019, 10:59:06 am »

Meanwhile, in Bristol:

Quote
REES UNVEILS TWO CLEAN AIR OPTIONS FOR BRISTOL
All diesel vehicles could be banned from entering the city centre under plans revealed to improve Bristol’s air quality.

Two options have been unveiled which city bosses hope will enable Bristol to meet Government-set targets for air quality improvement.

Option one would include installing a bus lane on the M32, a targeted diesel ban on the roads surrounding the BRI, and a charging scheme for polluting vehicles excluding private cars.

Option two would see all diesel cars banned from entering the city centre for an eight-hour period from 7am to 3pm.
Source and full article: Bristol 247

This issue seems to present a conundrum for Mayor Rees:

Quote
He said: “We cannot and will not sacrifice our low income households by introducing widespread charges which will have a detrimental impact on them.

“These latest proposals could strike the right balance by targeting the most polluting vehicles within specific classes of vehicle and by considering a dedicated area outside our central Bristol hospitals including the children’s hospital, where we want to protect those most vulnerable to pollution.”

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.
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2255


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2019, 11:57:30 am »

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!"
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4535


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2019, 09:01:36 pm »

Meanwhile, in Bristol:

Quote
REES UNVEILS TWO CLEAN AIR OPTIONS FOR BRISTOL
All diesel vehicles could be banned from entering the city centre under plans revealed to improve Bristol’s air quality.

Two options have been unveiled which city bosses hope will enable Bristol to meet Government-set targets for air quality improvement.

Option one would include installing a bus lane on the M32, a targeted diesel ban on the roads surrounding the BRI, and a charging scheme for polluting vehicles excluding private cars.

Option two would see all diesel cars banned from entering the city centre for an eight-hour period from 7am to 3pm.
Source and full article: Bristol 247

This issue seems to present a conundrum for Mayor Rees:

Quote
He said: “We cannot and will not sacrifice our low income households by introducing widespread charges which will have a detrimental impact on them.

“These latest proposals could strike the right balance by targeting the most polluting vehicles within specific classes of vehicle and by considering a dedicated area outside our central Bristol hospitals including the children’s hospital, where we want to protect those most vulnerable to pollution.”

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.


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?
Logged

Now, please!
martyjon
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1805


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 12, 2019, 08:14:01 am »

Quote
Quote
REES UNVEILS TWO CLEAN AIR OPTIONS FOR BRISTOL
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.

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.
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page