- Stay Connected
Socialize
Abraham Lincoln
If given the truth, the people can be depended upon to meet any national crisis...
Guildford news...
for Guildford people, brought to you by Guildford reporters - Guildford's own news service
Letter: A Solution To Guildford’s Traffic Problem Must Be Equitable For All Road Users
Published on: 10 Oct, 2015
Updated on: 10 Oct, 2015
From Bibhas Neogi
The vision for Guildford by Allies and Morrison is excellent no doubt but there has to be much more balanced approach to making the town pedestrian friendly.
In all walks of life, be it in personal dealings or public bodies and governments dealing with issues, fairness should be the goal.
When dealing with the congestion in the gyratory and difficulties for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users to access and enjoy the town centre shopping and other activities, one group of users should not be treated favourably at the expense of the others. Equitable measures to improve the situation for all users must be the aim.
Yes, more walking, cycling and use of Park & Ride by visitors to Guildford would help but traffic has to pass through Guildford which is, after all, a gap town. Simply to expect congestion melting away due to a “modal shift” would be naive.
We all value our time and hence we tend to use cars for our journeys to work when public transport could be time consuming and expensive. Out of hours and weekend public transport is not really available and most households depend on cars for this reason and for shopping groceries etc.
Our cars are on the road. We have invested in them, paid road tax and insurance. These costs are a massive disincentive for using other modes of transport that represent an extra expense. The distance most of us can cycle is also limited and only viable for locals in Guildford.
Continental towns generally have ring roads and their roads are wider. To try and create Guildford in a similar fashion would require ring roads but the topography is hilly and required tunnels are likely to be prohibitively expensive.
A less expensive option would be to have a short tunnel for the A281, replacing Millbrook, with Portsmouth road traffic routed through a one-way Walnut Tree Close and a bridge over the river to Woodbridge Road.
Additionally, pedestrians should be provided a safer route from the railway station to the town centre on an elevated walkway. Existing routes to the town centre would continue to be available and pedestrians and cyclists would experience much less traffic.
Bold solution? Yes. Efficient solution? Yes. Equitable solution? I think so.
A new bridge over the railway roughly at the same location as in GVG’s proposal, was proposed by me when I was a member of the Guildford Society transport group. At the time I did not take the route through to York Road as this would have blighted the properties en route.
Sketches are on my website (can be found by searching for ‘revamp guildford gyratory’).
Now that Guildford Vision Group and Guildford Society have proposed this, I would support it but for traffic between Guildford Park Road and Woodbridge Road, not as per the Vision Group’s idea of shifting all the traffic to the west, over the Town Bridge and the totally inadequate Farnham Road Bridge, constructed before the advent of motor cars.
Anyway, it is of utmost importance that the route for this bridge through Network Rail land is secured now as it conflicts with Solum Regeneration development proposals.
Share This Post
Responses to Letter: A Solution To Guildford’s Traffic Problem Must Be Equitable For All Road Users
Leave a Comment Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear.
See Dragon story: GBC’s Explanation of Major Land Sale Notice Error ‘Borders on Arrogant’ Says Councillor
Alan Cooper
October 11, 2015 at 12:54 am
Good, logical and careful consideration in your proposals. Let us hope that they are deemed worthy of note.
Bibhas Neogi
October 12, 2015 at 8:16 pm
Thank you Alan Cooper for your encouraging comments, however, I think unless the councils and their consultants get over the psychological block of “not invented here” syndrome, I do not expect they would give my ideas any serious consideration.
Bibhas Neogi
October 2, 2016 at 3:45 pm
I hear the councils are looking at the bridge idea over the tracks for the second east-west crossing but I have not come across any official announcement.
Council’s report by Arup concludes that a major infrastructure dealing with one route only would not be the solution as the volume of traffic on all roads approaching the town centre is more or less similar. Therefore Arup have dismissed the idea of such a bridge.
I would reiterate here that a tunnel-like structure to put the A281 Millbrook and Onslow Street together with a two-lane bridge over the tracks and the route continuing to Woodbridge Road would be an appropriate solution and that it would be much less expensive. Such an arrangement would achieve a pedestrian friendly town centre and open up the riverside as well. Farnham Road Bridge could be removed or made part of the pedestrian route to the town centre.
A rough estimate for the A281 ‘tunnel’ would be about £40m and that for the bridge and Flyover about £20m. Of course the cost of acquisition of affected properties, traffic management and service diversion etc. are not included in these sums.
Sketches for the A281 ‘tunnel’ using a top-down method of construction are shown in
http://s1130.photobucket.com/user/Gyratory1/library/
I hope the councils would look into this idea since the cost is much less than any other options proposed to date that achieve all the objectives in the same way.
Bernard Parke
October 3, 2016 at 8:39 am
These proposals are all very well, but we need action now if the town is not to grind to a halt as it did last Saturday (October 1).
We never seem to learn from the past, such as why Walnut Tree Close was opened up in the 1960s.
Further building in the centre of town will make the immediate situation even worse as the infrastructure is virtually unable to cope now.
Through traffic should be discourage from travelling through the town centre.
Perhaps a congestion charge might help to concentrate their minds.
Bibhas Neogi
October 4, 2016 at 10:40 am
In reply to Bernard Parke:
Yes, these are longer term proposals but I have described possible measures to reduce congestion in the shorter term on my website and not so long ago here on Guildford Dragon News as well.
Quite simply – it needs a lane for cars only from Farnham Road Bridge to turn right, left on Friary Bridge and then turn right into Millbrook or go straight on to Portsmouth Road, reducing Bridge Street to two lanes and making Debenhams pedestrian crossing a two-stage crossing with an island in the middle.
The council has/had a funding of £2.9m for improvements to the gyratory but to the best of my knowledge has done nothing with it.
Congestion charge is not a workable proposition as there are no viable alternative routes bypassing the town centre. If implemented, it would be an unfair charge and would not materially reduce congestion.
Bibhas Neogi
October 3, 2016 at 9:17 am
Apologies for the wrong name in my comments above – “Farnham Road Bridge could be removed …….” It is of course the Friary Bridge.