[The main road through Victoria Park]
Work on three new active travel schemes was recently announced by BANES, including heritage-style and eco-sensitive lighting, does not increase safety, according to the Green group.
Councillor Saskia Heijltjes for Lambridge ward said,
“We want to be able to support efforts to make walking, wheeling and cycling an option for more people, but we cannot support the plans for Royal Victoria Park. Even with additional lighting, a secluded and quiet route through a park is often experienced as socially unsafe.”
The new plans are now open for public consultation as part of the Traffic Regulation Order (link www.bathnes.gov.uk/weston-bath-city-centre) and include adding lighting to the plans, but the Green group say the issue remains that a route through a secluded park is not safe.
The Green group criticised the plans in December 2024: “Several critical issues that must be addressed to ensure the scheme’s success in enabling more travel choices, healthier places and people, and greater connectivity in and out of the city centre.”
Green group leader Councillor Joanna Wright said,
“If we want people to take up cycling, we need to opt for socially safe routes which are not secluded.”
A 2015 study published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health found that streetlights don’t prevent accidents or crime, but do cost a lot of money.
Councillor Heijltjes said
“Our previous comments about the return on investment are even more prominent with the recent plans because more of the funding is going to Royal Victoria Park, which is not offering a strategic active travel route, which is the aim of the CRSTS funding.”
The Green group applauds the recently announced updated plans for the A4 in Keynsham, which shows that the designers have listened to the community. This project is managed directly by WECA, which oversees this project.
Respond to the A4 Bath to Bristol – Keynsham section consultation: https://haveyoursaywest.co.uk/keynsham/index.php
Meanwhile, on the same subject, Christiane Thorne writes: “B&NES is planning to create a counterflow cycle path through Royal Victoria Park joining the North West corner of the park to the Royal Avenue in the South East via the South side of the Park.
The reasoning is that it will facilitate West-East cycle access from Weston to Bath and that the plan satisfies the wishes of the residents.
Cyclists can, however, already use the one-way system going through Royal Victoria Park from Weston in the North East to Royal Avenue, via the North side of the Park, unhindered by very scarce car traffic.
The planned counterflow cycle lane would run downhill past the large children’s play area on the South side of the park and would require the removal of a substantial number of parking spaces in the proximity of the play area.
This project raises a number of questions:
- What is the rationale for spending funds creating a cycle lane and removing parking spaces when easy and safe cycle access to the park already exists from Weston to Bath? Does the plan present any real benefits and to how many people?
- Have users of the play area been consulted regarding the substantial reduction in the number of parking spaces in the vicinity of it? Parking places near the play area are already very difficult to come by during weekends and holidays.
- Has any consideration been given to the safety of pedestrians and in particular small children given that one would expect a downhill cycle lane to encourage cyclists to speed past the children’s play area?
- Are the interests of cyclists favoured over those of families with children? The Royal Victoria Park children’s play area is a major free amenity for local families and reducing nearby parking would restrict its use to residents of the wealthier neighbourhoods surrounding the Park who can access it on foot. Less well-off families from the suburbs who need free facilities the most would be excluded.
The interests of the Bath public at large need to be taken into account before this potentially controversial plan is implemented.”
Christiane came back to me after seeing l had published her email. She wrote:
“Thank you for including my comments in your blog today.
My husband James used the council link now made available to have a look at the consultation data re the RVP cycle lane project.
He informs me that it showed that 59% of respondents disagreed with the contraflow cycle lane, of which 51% strongly disagreed. The people who strongly agreed amounted to only 25% of respondents. Half the number who strongly disagreed.
What does it take for the council to get the message? What is the point of consultations if the council goes ahead regardless?
The new consultation currently running appears to be only about the modifications to the existing plans, which now include 5 raised table crossings in the park near footpaths, roads and the play area, presumably to mitigate the anticipated speed of cyclists.
This would appear to confirm our concerns that the contraflow plans are both dangerous and ill-conceived, and it now also seems like a big waste of money.
Just to give you context, the residents of Marlborough Buildings asked for one speed bump to be built on Marlborough Buildings and were told that it was too costly, and the council had no funds left.
Unfortunately, the decision to go ahead with the RVP project itself seems now a fait accompli, which is very disheartening.
Many thanks for highlighting our concerns.”
I totally agree with Christiane Wrights comments on the totally unnecessary cycle route through Victoria Park.
There is so little traffic through the park at any time…and the route past the children’s play area is unsafe and also not required.
In fact, any thoughtful cyclist would either go slowly on this path or dismount!!!
Her points re parking and accessibility for those with young children are also very valid.
It seems this council are hell bent on wasting our hard earned money!!!!!!
I am a cyclist and would appreciate more signage through the city centre alerting pedestrians to the fact that cyclists are using the roads…and they need to use the pavements provided for pedestrians…and look where they are going when crossing roads (instead of at their phones!!!)
Would this replace the ‘official’ cycle route through Weston Rd, Julian Rd and Crescent Lane, created with funding a few years ago but little used because of the road traffic?