Letter: County Council Should Act Now on Bridge Street

Published on: 10 Mar, 2016
Updated on: 10 Mar, 2016

From Chris Ogle

As many people will be aware there is a petition to get the council to address the problem of Bridge Street immediately. I understand that the council response is that they do not have a meeting until March 21st and therefore it will not even be discussed until then – let alone any action taken.

The online petition demanding action to improve pedestrian safety in Bridge Street hhas now attracted over 11,000 signatures.

The online petition demanding action to improve pedestrian safety in Bridge Street has now attracted over 11,000 signatures.

One of the councils (Guildford Borough or Surrey County) apparently said “although we don’t know if the road layout contributed to Saturday’s terrible incident, the town centre Masterplan includes options for improving transport and pedestrian movements around the station area and Bridge Street.”

We all know that the Masterplan will take years, if indeed it is ever implemented. Surrey County Council needs to show some urgency in dealing with this matter instead of, dare I say it, spending £400,000 on ruining Newlands Corner.

Guildford has had too many incidents recently and the state of some of the roads e.g. North Street is a disgrace.

Responses to Letter: County Council Should Act Now on Bridge Street

Mary Bedforth Reply

March 10, 2016 at 12:45 pm

Ironic that the Highways Agency now occupy Bridge House, originally occupied by SEEDA.

Highways Agency to relocate from Dorking to Guildford
30 July 2014
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-28564309

At the end of that piece, these words:

‘Earlier this month, Guildford Borough Council was awarded £2.7m of government funding to improve the Guildford gyratory, one of Surrey’s worst travel bottlenecks.’

and a link to:

Guildford gets £15m growth funding
8 July 2014
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-28215357

Borough and County Councillors, it is now March 2016.
- Bibhas Neogi Reply
  
  March 10, 2016 at 6:02 pm
  
  Thank you to Mary Bedforth for highlighting the fact that the councils got funding nearly two years ago and have done nothing to date. I had on a number of occasions, mentioned this fact here in these columns.
  
  We are aware that the town centre Masterplan includes options that it is claimed would improve transport and pedestrian movements around the station area and Bridge Street, but the options are, in my view, inoperable without a new route connecting Woodbridge Road with Guildford Park Road.
  
  However, councils are not actively seeking to protect such a route, are they? I would dearly like to be proved wrong.
  
  Solum Rgeneration’s plan for the redevelopment of the railway station, if approved, would compromise such a route.
  
  There are ways to improve matters for the shorter term. I have mentioned this under my comments in https://guildford-dragon.com/2016/03/06/48787/
  
  I would repeat Chris Ogle’s observation – “We all know that the Masterplan will take years, if indeed it is ever implemented. Surrey County Council needs to show some urgency in dealing with this matter.”
Dave Middleton Reply

March 10, 2016 at 4:25 pm

Be careful what you wish for.

If a quick fix, such as pedestrianising Bridge Street or reducing it from three lanes to two, by closing the lane on the north side of the road to traffic, is implemented prior to giving the traffic somewhere else to go, the town will simply grind to a halt.

If that happens, the town might as well shut up shop and give up, as no one will want to come to town either to work or shop.
- Bibhas Neogi Reply
  
  March 11, 2016 at 12:02 pm
  
  Dave Middleton is quite right in saying that traffic would grind to a halt if Bridge Street were to be simply reduced to two lanes. That is not what I’ve suggested. For the convenience of the readers, I would reproduce my suggestions here,-
  
  In the shorter term the changes could be:
  
  1. Reduce Bridge Street to two lanes (still one-way). This would require some alterations to phasing of pedestrian crossing lights in Onslow Street/Bridge Street junction. (Note, they would simply become traffic lights and no longer be controlled on demand so that both lanes in Bridge Street are under the same control, and the right hand lane used by vehicles going left or right.)
  2. Widen north footway (by putting down a line of cones straight away on the adjacent lane and then replacing them by steel or concrete barriers in stages).
  3. Take offside lane from Farnham Road Bridge turning right on to Park Street (now becoming two-way – one southbound and three northbound lanes).
  4. Traffic from this lane goes to Portsmouth Road or turns left on to Friary Bridge (now becoming two-way – one eastbound and three westbound lanes).
  5. This lane then turns right into Millbrook.
  6. Debenhams crossing is made into a two-stage crossing with an island in the middle either by blocking the offside lane or creating a chicane for the two northbound lanes.
  7. Make the High Street pedestrian crossing to work in tandem with Debenhams crossing thus eliminating the blocking of southbound traffic and allowing a much freer flow.
  The above alterations would increase southbound flow considerably and reduce congestion.
  These alterations could be done on several overnight lane restrictions until all signals and road signs are in place but remain covered up until the time to switch over that would probably happen in the middle of the night.
  As has been said before, counties already have funding for the gyratory improvement work.
Bernard Parke Reply

March 10, 2016 at 5:05 pm

We need to act now to decrease the flow of traffic passing through Bridge Street and the town in general. Much of it is heavy commercial traffic which causes considerable problems.

Do we really need to “play ay court” to unwanted visitors passing through Guildford?

Perhaps they should contribute to the cost any proposed safety measures by paying a “congestion charge”.
Martin Elliott Reply

March 10, 2016 at 7:21 pm

Yes there is a problem, no the GBC Local plan does not satisfactorily address it and neither do the helpful suggestions from individuals and organisations.

However, the last thing we need, especially as given above, is an immediate (knee jerk) plan.
The chance of getting a suitable solution is extremely remote and is likely to make it even more hazardous.
- Bibhas Neogi Reply
  
  March 11, 2016 at 9:46 am
  
  Not a knee jerk reaction – suggestions like this and many other improvement ideas including the A3 have been in the public domain via my website since 2009.