Park and Rides – Batheaston bypass as a park and ride P&R… TV video from some years back…..(Conservative Council then)

Link to a tv video ( some years back with a Conservative Council, where the idea of converting half the Batheaston Bypass to P&R is discussed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GK3f48S8sk&t=68s

Link to Press Article where the then transport minister says the idea is “interesting” ( again some years back): https://www.pressreader.com/uk/bath-chronicle/20190117/283321818563202

Link to article on down sides of P&Rs https://bathtrams.uk/is-park-and-ride-the-answer-to-baths-traffic-problems/ by From Sarah Warren, 17 April 2018, presently Councillor for Bathavon North, Deputy Council Leader and Cabinet Member for Climate Emergency and Sustainable Travel.

From: Professor LJS Lesley. BSc, AKC, PhD, CEng, MICE, FRSA, FCIT, MTPS


Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 at 21:33
Subject: Re: Batheaston bypass as a park and ride… video from some years back…..
To:

Mike,
There have been many studies.
Like other public investments it depends on the right location for the right reasons. The US has used P + R for many decades and built a large body of understanding over these matters. Park and ride to attract commuting trips needs a large site, as cars are parked all day, and typically each space diverts on average 1.2 passenger trips from car to public transport. So a 600 space P+R site = 720 trips diverted in the peak. This could reduce the peak of the peak, but will not make much difference to the total daily traffic. If P+R is aimed at serving another facility, e.g. hospital, cinema or shopping centre, where stays are shorter and there will be a turnover of about 3 cars daily per space, so 600 spaces is over 2000 diverted trips.
 
Then there is the question of the mode of public transport that serves the P+R. Again the evidence both in the UK and US is that a rail link will be much more likely to attract car trips, than bus. In the US about 40% of rail passengers have switched from car. In the UK about 25% have switched to tram  A nice example is the Meadowhall site on the M1 in Sheffield with 10,000 parking spaces and both a main line train and tram link into the centre of the city. A competitor bus service at half the tram fare lasted 3 months, as so few people used it.
 
Then there is the location. The P + R needs to be on the inward side of the road, since going to work is the most stressful trip, and being held up to cross a line of traffic puts people off, especially if there is a risk of missing the train or tram. Similarly the P+R needs to the near the origin/start of the trip, rather than the destination, since having driven a way to get to the P+R, if the destination is only a short distance further, people will continue to drive especially if there is parking at the destination.
 
Finally there is the reason for building a P+R. Too often public authorities do this for political reasons, to be seen to do something. So many of such schemes have failed. A P+R needs good market research to look at the origins and destination of trips on a particular road, their length and purpose. A P+R for transport reasons is usually a good investment, e.g. at Parkway Rail stations.
 
Hope this is helpful. I have also attached a PR for the Chester project FYI.
 
Kind regards,
 
Lewis Lesley  (Professor Lesley. BSc, AKC, PhD, CEng, MICE, FRSA, FCIT, MTPS)
Mon, 28 Mar, 18:27 (2 days ago)

From Fred Starr

Dear Dave and Lesley

This is a nice lilttle piece about location etc.
I would have added that P&R is more likely to succeed if the bus or tram is free ( and the parking spaces have got to be free, of course)
Because of the shambolic way that Croydon Tramlink  was conceived.As well as not having P&R, as far as I recollect most of the stops do not have parking nearby.
Fred
On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 at 15:42, Dave Andrews <tyningroad@gmail.com> wrote:
What is the origin of this press release as attached?

David Andrews
Chair Bath & Bristol Area  Trams Association
Chair Claverton Energy Group
tyningroad@gmail.com   

Hi Lewis

It’s Tallinn rather than Riga that has gone fares-free and both there and in Luxembourg (the entire country, of course, not just the city) there is mounting evidence of a shift away from car use.  It has to be said that public transport in both places is more comprehensive and of higher quality (trams in both) than most of the UK, however.

Of equal or greater interest is the trend in Austria and Germany to 365 Euro annual season tickets, which are lowering what is already much lower car use than in the UK in the cities concerned.

I am not a fan of fares-free and loved the interminable debates on the subject with dear old Dave Wetzel in my time at LT/TfL.

The really important thing is availability across all modes – we don’t need more than one key to use a car!

All the best,

Andrew

From: LJS Lesley
Subject: Re: [Claverton] Please have a look at this from LJS, I didnt notice when I first read it the excellent attachment……..have a look.

Fred,

Thanks for the complement. As well as a large body of research about P+R, there is even more about the reasons people choose or ignore the option of public transport. Fares usually come 4th or 5th of the reasons. Quality of service is the main attractor of car trips. Those with a car pay a high price (even if  they don’t necessarily perceive it) for the convenience and comfort of car travel. Several cities already offer free travel, e.g. Luxemburg and Riga. The evidence there, like that of the earlier 1970’s  ‘low fare schemes’ in Liverpool and Sheffield show insignificant modal switching from cars.

There is however the social benefit of people in poorer households being able to make more trips. Finally in the UK the largest use of taxis is by lowest quartile households, which don’t have a car, and are mostly shared, e.g. coming home with shopping. The next highest taxi user group is the top quartile, as a chauffeur substitute, and normally a single person ride. The two middle quartiles have cars and only use taxis when the car is in for servicing and a courtesy car is not provided.

Lewis   (Professor Lesley. BSc, AKC, PhD, CEng, MICE, FRSA, FCIT, MTPS)

n Tue, 15 Mar 2022 at 21:33, LJS Lesley <ljslesley@aol.com> wrote:
Mike,
There have been many studies. Like other public investments it depends on the right location for the right reasons. The US has used P + R for many decades and built a large body of understanding over these matters. Park and ride to attract commuting trips needs a large site, as cars are parked all day, and typically each space diverts on average 1.2 passenger trips from car to public transport. So a 600 space P+R site = 720 trips diverted in the peak. This could reduce the peak of the peak, but will not make much difference to the total daily traffic. If P+R is aimed at serving another facility, e.g. hospital, cinema or shopping centre, where stays are shorter and there will be a turnover of about 3 cars daily per space, so 600 spaces is over 2000 diverted trips.
Then there is the question of the mode of public transport that serves the P+R. Again the evidence both in the UK and US is that a rail link will be much more likely to attract car trips, than bus. In the US about 40% of rail passengers have switched from car. In the UK about 25% have switched to tram  A nice example is the Meadowhall site on the M1 in Sheffield with 10,000 parking spaces and both a main line train and tram link into the centre of the city. A competitor bus service at half the tram fare lasted 3 months, as so few people used it.
Then there is the location. The P + R needs to be on the inward side of the road, since going to work is the most stressful trip, and being held up to cross a line of traffic puts people off, especially if there is a risk of missing the train or tram. Similarly the P+R needs to the near the origin/start of the trip, rather than the destination, since having driven a way to get to the P+R, if the destination is only a short distance further, people will continue to drive especially if there is parking at the destination.
Finally there is the reason for building a P+R. Too often public authorities do this for political reasons, to be seen to do something. So many of such schemes have failed. A P+R needs good market research to look at the origins and destination of trips on a particular road, their length and purpose. A P+R for transport reasons is usually a good investment, e.g. at Parkway Rail stations.
Hope this is helpful. I have also attached a PR for the Chester project FYI.
Kind regards,
Lewis    (Professor Lesley. BSc, AKC, PhD, CEng, MICE, FRSA, FCIT, MTPS)
On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 at 09:20, David Lucas  wrote:
Dear All
We in Bath are lucky to live in a city that has been less scarred than most towns and cities by road building.
In the 1970’s there was a plan to cut Bath in two with a dual carriageway, going up on stilts in front of Royal Crescent. I kid you not. If you don’t believe me, look it up. They tried to justify it by calling it “The Buchanan Tunnel. Underground for just 400yards.            A hard fought campaign got it thrown out. remember those SAFE BATH stickers.
Then the Department for Transport had the long term plan to have a trunk road from the M4 to Southampton. They called them by passes to get locals on side, and then the plan was to join them up. Trunk road building by stealth.
They managed to get permission  for Swainswick and Batheaston bypass, when local campaigners had argued that a small, single carriageway Batheaston bypassed  was all that was necessary.
When the inspector at the public enquiry looked at the link between the proposed bypass and the A36, Warminster Road, he concluded that it would be just too environmentally destructive, and so it was thrown out.
There was the opinion at the time that the inspector felt that the whole idea of the link, including the Batheaston By Pass was a crazy, environmentally damaging, idea, but there was nothing he could say about the by pass, as permission had already been given. But that without the link, there was no point in having the environmental destruction of building the by pass.
The Department of Transport, in their arrogance went ahead anyway, leaving us with a duel carriageway to nowhere. Now giving us the ideal opportunity to use one of the unnecessary carriageways as a park and ride.
The only sensible reason to have park and ride is to allow a reduction of city centre parking spaces, which will reduce traffic into the centre. This will then free up city centre carparks for residents, thus clearing our streets of cars parked long term. This will free up the streets for cycle tracks, buses and trams. But of course the council will never do this, because they are hooked on the revenue they get from car parking. So this is where we are stuck.
We don’t need more road building. We need the infrastructure to encourage fewer car journeys.
It is just as well Venice is not part of UK. If it was the Department of Transport would have drained the canals by now, just so Venetians could park their cars outside their houses.
Keep campaigning
David Lucas

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *