Letter: Why Guildford Needs A Second Railway Bridge

Published on: 6 Aug, 2016
Updated on: 6 Aug, 2016

Possible position of additional bridge proposed by Guildford Vision Group.

From Geraint Jones

In reply to David Smith’s letter: Why Would A New Railway Bridge Help?

The fundamental point of having a second rail crossing is that the current bridge over the railway line is the only means of crossing the line.

A lot of attention is naturally given to medium- and long-distance traffic, but what about those just trying making the short local trip to get from the east side of central Guildford to the west, where the university and Royal Surrey County Hospital are located? The only choices in the centre are the single existing bridge and the need to follow the gyratory to get to it. There is no option to the south until Shalford, and drivers need to join the A3 for the next crossing to the north.

I’m not addressing any of the proposed options for the adjustment of the road layout, just the key question raised in the title of David Smith’s letter.

The town is split in two north-south because of the existing bottleneck, and the way to address that issue is with a second bridge.

Responses to Letter: Why Guildford Needs A Second Railway Bridge

Paul Stevenson Reply

August 8, 2016 at 3:55 pm

That route drives through a built-up area, replacing peoples homes with roads so that those who choose not to live in the town centre can use their personal vehicles to plough through it more quickly.

If this is considered as too selfish by a Conservative council then I really don’t think it is a goer.
Bibhas Neogi Reply

August 8, 2016 at 10:08 pm

I agree with Paul Stevenson. I consider the proposal by Guildford Vision Group too disruptive and I have said this before in these columns.

However, a two-lane bridge over the tracks is very much needed to ease traffic congestion in the town centre.

The route over the railway bridge continued on a flyover towards Woodbridge Road would provide a much better route for the east west traffic and reduce a great deal of traffic in the gyratory and its eventual removal.

An alternative scheme that I suggested would be to put the A281 traffic in a short tunnel under Millbrook and Onslow Street in order to make the town centre pedestrian friendly.

It is true that such a scheme would involve removal of a few properties but a great deal less than those warranted by the GVG’s scheme.

The overall benefit would be to improve the road network not just for the motorised traffic as in GVG scheme but for the pedestrians and the cyclists as well. The environment would be much improved by removing daily traffic jams and exhaust fumes in the town centre, Guildford Park Road and Farnham Road areas.

My website could be found by searching for ‘revamp guildford gyratory’. There is a short term solution without building any new structures and a longer term one with new structures that would create a pedestrian friendly town centre.

I have posted my comments describing these scenarios in response to letters on this topic that are awaiting moderation.