Forget Ghent - Bath needs its own plan

Bath’s carbon net zero plan is based on the town of Ghent in Belgium.

But a look at that town shows that it is flat, has both an outer and inner ring road, plus an excellent and inexpensive public transport system.

So based on a town that has no obvious similarities with Bath, not a good start. And as Bath suffers from through traffic on major trunk routes, unlike Ghent, the plan must be adapted to account for this.

Or better still, devise a plan specific to Bath, rather than lazily copying a town with a totally different infrastructure!

Bath’s liveable/low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) scheme is supposedly being ‘community led’, and local councillors assure me that nothing has been formally decided.

However, in this plan, the full LTN plan is in place, with traffic moving from residential roads to main (also mostly residential) roads. So is the current LTN community led with nothing decided, or just a sham with pre-determined outcomes?

Do the main roads have capacity to cope with extra traffic? Has impact on bus services been assessed? Yes, no and no at a guess.

Unsurprisingly, the cycle network plan is fully developed, with segregated cycle lanes along the main routes through Bath, limiting space for traffic and buses, and with no passing room, traffic will stop for buses pulling in, refuse wagons etc.

I’m already seeing pinch points being created, and there are so many practical difficulties for residents living on the main roads. Is this really the best/most efficient use of very limited road space?

These main roads taking all traffic, including buses, converge on the centre of Bath, and of course, Bath does not have a ring road around the centre, so it will be using disjointed roads, and doubtless mostly residential, that are totally unsuited to increased traffic levels.

The same central roads that will be expected to cope with the central traffic trying to move from one central cell to another.

It might be an idea to identify the roads bordering the central cell, as they are going to suffer horrendous pollution and congestion, as will the main roads trying to feed into this ‘Ring of Fumes’. Does not look ideal for a net carbon zero plan!

The priority component for any travel plan should be public transport, or mass transit as it is called in the plan. Unfortunately, there are no details or definitions, so mass transit could be anything from a modern tram system to herds of electric scooters!

Having determined that the main routes will be congested, it’s not clear how the mass transit will be able to travel freely and efficiently.

The plan seems to overlook that there is finite space on Bath’s roads, and it needs to be used wisely and efficiently, ensuring that this mysterious mass transit system can convey large numbers of people efficiently, and hopefully, affordably.

Any sensible, and workable plan would start from this, not add it as a vague afterthought when limited road space has already been allocated. The current WECA plan is very bus focussed, further adding weight to this argument.

The whole plan seems to focus on active travel, which whilst laudable, is far from fully inclusive.

There are so many queries/obvious difficulties for less able people, or do they no longer count within BANES.

These will be raised separately, but BANES councillors must remember that they are supposed to represent all residents, not just a limited demographic that fit in with their pet project.

So it looks like a plan to create congestion, move pollution from selected residential roads to other residential roads, not compatible with the WECA bus priority plan, and zero detail of the mass transit, the key element, in terms of what it is, and how it can be accommodated. John Chapman Bath