Fewer Junctions – Fewer Traffic Holdups, Says Vision Group’s Report

Published on: 20 Nov, 2018
Updated on: 20 Nov, 2018

Guildford’s gyratory, frequently clogged.

Memories of gridlocked Guildford could be turned into a fading nightmare, shows a report from the Guildford Vision Group (GVG).

The group commissioned local transport consultancy Motion and their experts said the new east-west traffic corridor over the river and railway put forward by GVG reduced the aggregate number of junctions encountered by vehicles across the town centre by 40% to 93 from the 156 in the present gyratory.

Map of Guildford town centre showing proposed new vehicle route and pedestrianisation.

The report also found that the new corridor and associated routeing “can deliver major environmental, safety and transport benefits as well as adding considerable resilience to the system”.

As the latest public consultation on the Local Plan comes to an end, Motion also points out that the creation of a Sustainable Movement Corridor (SMC) is a key part of the spatial vision for the borough, as set out in the submission Local Plan, and that the GVG masterplan covers this.

The plan aids key SMC elements by substantially improving the town centre for pedestrians, cyclists and buses, making car journeys easier and separating modes to ease modal shift.

John Rigg, chairman of GVG, said: “We’re delighted to receive this confirmation of the validity of our proposals for town centre traffic, especially in relation to our proposed crossing.

“The crossing is the great enabler. It frees riverside and other space for pedestrians. Bridge Street becomes a car-free route and remains the natural desire line for pedestrians to and from the station into town. Cyclists get dedicated paths.

“It enables creation of great public realm, making Guildford an even more attractive place to visit, to relax in, and to live and work in.

“Our plan is a win-win all round.”

GVG has included the Motion report as part of its submission under the latest Local Plan consultation which ended at noon on Tuesday, October 23.

The report also appears on the GVG website.

Responses to Fewer Junctions – Fewer Traffic Holdups, Says Vision Group’s Report

David Smith Reply

November 20, 2018 at 8:05 pm

People are rapidly becoming frustrated with this pompous unelected group who persist in forcing plans across which have no credibility whatsoever. I am not even sure Highways would support this latest hair-brained scheme.

John Rigg purports that this latest plan is a win-win all round. I doubt those in affordable housing on Walnut Tree Close would agree when their homes will need to be demolished nor will those on Rupert Road when they have in effect, a major road directly behind their gardens.

Those travelling by car from Woodbridge Road will not only have to negotiate what will be an extremely dangerous double roundabout (try the Scilly Isles roundabout in Esher if you want to sample what one of these is like) but then to get to the Shalford Road they will have to travel double the distance – over the railway then the river and back again.

Then there are these ridiculous high-level flyovers crossing a wide point of the railway tracks (will this be funded by toy money?) and a road that runs behind Guildford Park Avenue – I am not sure this is even possible with the gradients in the land and for what? This notion that pedestrians can walk and cycle down Onslow Street and Bridge Street – two of the ugliest roads in Guildford. Even without cars, these will be horrid places. Onslow Street is sided by a multi-storey carpark and the unattractive and dominating side of the Friary shopping centre.

Fewer traffic hold-ups and fewer junctions actually encourages more cars and with fewer junctions and hold-ups we can expect higher speeds and more pollution. None of these things that we should accept

I hope GBC crack on with their Guildford Park Avenue scheme so that once and for all we can put a stop to this bridge idea and hopefully this unelected group.
Bibhas Neogi Reply

November 20, 2018 at 8:47 pm

Did GVG ask Motion to look at my alternative suggestion to free up the town centre from traffic and indeed the holistic solutions to bus routes and other network alterations? If they haven’t I would consider Motion’s assessment as incomplete.
Bernard Parke Reply

November 20, 2018 at 9:23 pm

Very interesting.

However, we must discourage through traffic which adds not only to congestion but to pollution within Guildford.

If through traffic wish to add to our problems they should pay for the privilege.

I still think a congestion charge could help?
- Bibhas Neogi Reply
  
  November 21, 2018 at 1:42 pm
  
  A congestion charge cannot be justified unless there are viable alternative routes and there are none. It would then be a mere revenue raising method and have very little effect on the volume of traffic or reducing pollution.
  
  There are two different issues – making the town centre pedestrian friendly and removing through traffic from it.
  
  A possible solution to removing traffic from the town centre is to either put the A281 traffic underground as I have suggested or divert it to the West as the GVG has suggested.
  
  A possible solution to removing through traffic is to put it in a tunnel from the A281 (with a link to the A3100) to the A25 Parkway.
  
  Both the above suggestions appear on my website. Please do visit it. It also contains many other suggestions for improvements in Guildford including dealing with bus routes and the bus station.
David Williams Reply

November 21, 2018 at 11:19 am

Very interesting, but will take years to implement.

In the meantime, more could be done to make alternatives to the private car more appealing. Bus fares in Guildford are far too high for under 60s.

Cycling into the town centre is dangerous. Can we have cycle lanes painted onto central Guildford roads like they are in some of the outer roads? Can the potholes be fixed, especially on North Street where many cyclists go.

When will we get uberPOOL in Guildford?
Richard Vary Reply

November 21, 2018 at 2:30 pm

Why does the plan include the cathedral development that planning permission has already been refused for?

But I think it is very important to have a further crossing. The gridlock around the back of the station and up Madrid road is awful. On calm days it is hard to breathe for traffic fumes as you leave the station.