- 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: Claim on Environmental Impact of London Road Scheme Should Have Been Verified
Published on: 31 Oct, 2024
Updated on: 31 Oct, 2024
London Road Burpham (image Google)
From Terry Newman
chairman of the London Road Action Group
In response to: County Council Rejects £6 Million Active Travel Scheme for London Road
Local democracy reporter Chris Caulfield opens his report with a statement that appears to suggest that it has been confirmed that: “A £6 million active travel scheme … would have helped Surrey hit net zero targets in Guildford”. This issue was repeatedly raised during the public engagement: “how was, or is, this assessed, and please could the data be disseminated?”
Regrettably, since it seems to be water under the bridge now, it might have been useful if Surrey County Council could either have presented supporting data or simply said that it was an inference that the trade-off between increased active travel and the reduction in vehicle journeys would prove a positive step. As it was, it came across as an unprovable claim, and led to an impression that it could not be verified and might not be accurate.
I’d also like to make clear that the statement I made at the Cabinet meeting was not, as the article implies, merely a personal opinion. It was taken, as I said at the time, from the guidance document that all cycling schemes use: Cycle Infrastructure Design – Local Transport Note 1/20.
In full the paragraph says: “Too much cycling infrastructure is substandard, providing little protection from motorised traffic and giving up at the very places it is most needed. Some is actually worse than nothing, because it entices novice cyclists with the promise of protection, then abandons them at the most important places. Poor cycling infrastructure discourages cycling and wastes public money.”
Share This Post
Responses to Letter: Claim on Environmental Impact of London Road Scheme Should Have Been Verified
Leave a Comment Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear. Full names, or at least initial and surname, must be given.
"Found any?" - "Nope, it all looks green to me!" (See Opinion: The Future is Congested, the Future is Grey)
Sam Peters
November 1, 2024 at 8:16 am
When you build infrastructure that makes it safer and more accessible to travel outside of a carbon-spewing vehicle, more people will do so. This happens in every city, town and village worldwide where active travel infrastructure is improved.
Transport is the single largest source of emissions in Surrey. Guildford may be unique in many ways, but not in that making walking and cycling safer will actively decrease the number of people walking and cycling and instead convert them into more drivers.
Bibhas Neogi
November 8, 2024 at 2:35 pm
What happens now that the SCC cabinet has decided not to proceed in view of safety concerns? Should all that efforts and funds spent on designing the scheme would simply be thrown away?
The fact that the scheme may not have considered the effect of Gosden Hill development is a factor in that traffic in London Road is likely to increase substantially if nothing is done and cycling would be even more hazardous.
I have suggested a possible solution that assumes a new A3 on-slip would become available when Gosden Hill gets approval. Southbound HGVs could be banned from London Road and it could be made into a bus lane with restricted hours to make cycling and walking much safer during those period. Such a scheme would use the already designed scheme and only signing and painting the bus lane would be needed. It shouldn’t cost too much. However, further consultation with the interested parties should be carried out to test the efficacy and acceptance of my suggested modifications.
A revised document on London Road can be found in my keepandshare website.