Plan for M4 to south coast corridor to avoid Bath, through West Wiltshire

[whole diary]

[Mark A]

Yes that is their problem, the strategic route they had before doesn't work any more so they need a new one.  When they planned it I think they assumed they could build the now aborted Swainswick - Batheaston bypass to avoid Bath. 

You are spot on there !  When the "proper" A46/A36 link was cancelled, that really made the remaining work that was carried out on the A46/A4 a complete waste of time and money and achieved absolutely zilch.

The A36 via the Limpley Stoke valley is... marginal... and a connection to it from the Batheaston bypass would be grim. A 'Proper' A46/A36 link would involve a dual carriageway connection from the east end of the current bypass via an 'A20-at-Folkestone' style tunnel to take it out of the valley and then to rejoin the existing road at Beckington. Awkward as the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) has been reluctant to undertake that sort of engineering task.

Mark

[John D]

Here is an interesting 1990 photo of the Batheastern & Swainswick bypass (looking towards Bath).   Those parts got built, by the link to A36 in left foreground was dropped due to local opposition

https://bathintime.co.uk/image-library/image-overview/poster/20931/posterid/20931.html

[Clan Line]

Here is an interesting 1990 photo of the Batheastern & Swainswick bypass (looking towards Bath).   Those parts got built, by the link to A36 in left foreground was dropped due to local opposition

https://bathintime.co.uk/image-library/image-overview/poster/20931/posterid/20931.html

35 years ago - and all they have managed to do since then is close the Cleveland Bridge to anything over 18 tonnes.

[Mark A]

Here is an interesting 1990 photo of the Batheastern & Swainswick bypass (looking towards Bath).   Those parts got built, by the link to A36 in left foreground was dropped due to local opposition

https://bathintime.co.uk/image-library/image-overview/poster/20931/posterid/20931.html

At the inquiry the potential of the new road to generate noise pollution was recognised, with various mitigations. Concerning the A36/46 link component, this was identified as a problem, as vehicles would come to a stand for its junction and then need to accelerate again for some distance, and uphill for good measure. Short of putting the whole thing underground, there wasn't a way to mitigate this, and also there was the issue that it then dumped the problem on the er, suboptimal A36 route through the Limpley Stoke Valley.

Another aspect of this road is the 50mph speed restriction throughout, but particularly on the flat bit past Batheaston. People who aren't keen on speed restrictions tend to rail against this thinking its for safety reasons, but again, it's an environmental restriction - vehicles are far noisier at 70mph than they are at 50mph.

Mark

[Mark A]

There's nothing wrong in avoiding Barf. Shame there isn't a Bath avoider for the railway. Never liked the place especially those who can't count when it comes to bikes in the HST^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) TGS.

Given that Bath's in the top ten and possibly the top five in terms of revenue generating stations for GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) that's a little ungenerous.

Thinking of the maximum number of bikes I've seen in an HST bike space, yes, that Sunday evening when at least 15 teenagers off the Bristol to Bath path happily piled a collection of wheeled things aboard for the trip home was memorable, and even if there were far too many of them they were helping to pay the railway's wage bill (and everything went aboard because the space was somewhat flexible and everyone including staff were in a good mood, confident, and generally less under the cosh). Of course the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) has now sorted this out with cycle accommodation on the IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project. This will offer more capacity on routes, save money, give a consistent and safe service and meet customer requirements. Intended to replace HSTs.) that's not particularly useable at all.

Mark

[Clan Line]

I think, with hindsight, and a fairly straight face, it is not unreasonable to say that if the money wasted on what was done at Bath had been (better ?) used to bypass Melksham and Westbury then the M4 to Warminster bit of this "strategic" route would now have a reasonable road. Only the A36 to, and round, Salisbury left to do 

[grahame]

I think, with hindsight, and a fairly straight face, it is not unreasonable to say that if the money wasted on what was done at Bath had been (better ?) used to bypass Melksham and Westbury then the M4 to Warminster bit of this "strategic" route would now have a reasonable road. Only the A36 to, and round, Salisbury left to do 

Certainly the A46 coming down off the M4 through Pennsylvania now dumps the traffic between Batheaston and Bathford ... with onward routes south for smaller vehicles through Bradford-on-Avon who love all the traffic they get - not sure how much is long distance stuff.  Other traffic carries on via Box - eastwards rather than south, and if it's headed south joins the A350 at Chippenham or Melksham.  I would not describe the Batheaston bypass as "wasted" investment, but I would agree that it misses an element that would have made it much more valuable.

[grahame]

There's nothing wrong in avoiding Barf. Shame there isn't a Bath avoider for the railway. Never liked the place especially those who can't count when it comes to bikes in the HST^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) TGS.

Given that Bath's in the top ten and possibly the top five in terms of revenue generating stations for GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) that's a little ungenerous.

I am seeing what I'm pretty sure is some good-natured bantering there, but it does remind me that the railways showed startling levels of reliability when there were hardly any passengers travelling during covid - but I then remind myself that there was hardly any income to the railways either and in the continuum there is a need for income, even if it requires the harding of a wide range of passengers.

* Those with heavy luggage.
* Those bringing a bicycle with them
* Those who need customer information
* Those who require boarding assistance
* Those who'll want help buying a ticket
* Those who can't read and understand signs and notices in English or Welsh
* Those who wish to have a guaranteed seat
* Those who are otherwise limited for health or other reasons

Would you restrict the use of the railway to people without certain needs?  Make additional charge for some of those items?

Declaration of interest - I ALWAYS fall into one of these categories, and for certain journeys have fallen into most of the other too.

[Mark A]

I think, with hindsight, and a fairly straight face, it is not unreasonable to say that if the money wasted on what was done at Bath had been (better ?) used to bypass Melksham and Westbury then the M4 to Warminster bit of this "strategic" route would now have a reasonable road. Only the A36 to, and round, Salisbury left to do 

A photo of Batheaston/Swainswick bypass's river spans from beneath to follow.

Some years previous to the bypass being built, the bus service up the Swainswick Valley (number 210, hourly to the village) ceased as the buses could no longer maintain the timetable given the standing traffic on the A46. When the bypass opened, there were hopes that it would be reinstated, but nooooh.

And yes, a more economical bypass would have been good and enabled improvements elsewhere on the route. Including for people on foot. Thinking now of the feed into Melksham's bypass-that-isn't, which has murderous tendencies if you're on foot and don't know the road. One of the bus stops near the station is a good hike from... the station, and if you then innocently trot along the pavement in the direction of said station, the urban pavement, without any notice that it's going to do so, thins out slowly to nothing, and on a blind bend for good measure. Google streetview here: https://tinyurl.com/mwuw2nsb

Mark

https://i.postimg.cc/CxkWG8kC/A4-Batheaston-bypass-bridges.jpg

[UstiImmigrunt]

There's nothing wrong in avoiding Barf. Shame there isn't a Bath avoider for the railway. Never liked the place especially those who can't count when it comes to bikes in the HST^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) TGS.

Given that Bath's in the top ten and possibly the top five in terms of revenue generating stations for GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) that's a little ungenerous.

Thinking of the maximum number of bikes I've seen in an HST bike space, yes, that Sunday evening when at least 15 teenagers off the Bristol to Bath path happily piled a collection of wheeled things aboard for the trip home was memorable, and even if there were far too many of them they were helping to pay the railway's wage bill (and everything went aboard because the space was somewhat flexible and everyone including staff were in a good mood, confident, and generally less under the cosh). Of course the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) has now sorted this out with cycle accommodation on the IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project. This will offer more capacity on routes, save money, give a consistent and safe service and meet customer requirements. Intended to replace HSTs.) that's not particularly useable at all.

Mark

15 bikes, so you are happy for your exit to be blocked in an emergency then? I was infamous in Wessex days for enforcing the 1600 to 1800 no bikes rule.

Yes, I agree it's a disgrace regarding bike storage on IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) being abysmal but that was chosen by the "experts" at DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about).

Dear Passenger,

When you get home do you close your front door and then block it with luggage /pram/bike?

No?

So why do you block a door as soon as you board a train?

One of the dispatchers at Barf was abused so much by cyclists he had to be supported in the 6 bike rule, if not then probably 10 plus in the van, again blocking the emergency exit.

[Mark A]

As an aside, the BGS borehole maps can be revealing of intentions for road construction. The site doesn't allow deep linking, so, for, e.g. the 'Bypass for the Saltford bypass' you'll need to search by placename or zoom in.

The roads, or something, had it in for Saltford, because it also finds itself on a line of boreholes between the M4 at Pucklechurch and Ilchester on the A303, not that that's useful to relieve the likes of Bradford on Avon or Melksham - though south of Frome we have boreholes for a 'Frome-Trowbridge bypass'.

Oh, and the A46 Bath to the M4 has... a new alignment indicated.

The mapping has an inclusivity control - wind that up and many more old records appear, of the mineshaft variety. At least one house in Batheaston looks to be built either beside or on top of Batheaston colliery's mine shaft, hopefully well capped. (The colliery in question recovered no coal, as its shaft was sunk outside the coalfield. It did produce slightly tepid water though, which was rather alarming)

Mark


https://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html?layer=BGSBoreholes

[Clan Line]

https://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html?layer=BGSBoreholes

What a fascinating website ! I can see myself spending many hours on this.