Letter: GVG Plan Is Causing Real Concern With My Constituents

Published on: 6 Feb, 2017
Updated on: 6 Feb, 2017

From Caroline Reeves

Lib Dem ward councillor for Friary & St Nicolas

As one of the ward councillors for the area where much of the “vision” will be created, I have been contacted by a number of residents with real concerns:

Rupert Road residents will have an A road running behind their gardens, higher than their gardens and level with their homes.

The flyover will be seen by the residents around Mary and Margaret Roads, even if, as John Rigg rather facetiously said, no homes will be demolished.

Why are there only a few cars shown on the rebuilt, higher and wider town bridge? This will be the main road into town from Shalford, it will be very busy.

Why are the roads shown in a pleasant cream colour, will this be a new approach from Surrey Highways?

Where are all the trees? We need greenery as in trees and shrubbery not paving and steps everywhere.

Why call it a bridge when it is a flyover?

Why is there no indication of the height of the flyover?

Why is it all joined up into one concrete mass, surely we want to create character spaces that flow into each other not one big building site?

Why has there been no consultation with residents?

When will this work start?

If this is for our children and their children surely we must have a say?

Responses to Letter: GVG Plan Is Causing Real Concern With My Constituents

David Smith Reply

February 6, 2017 at 12:54 pm

The proposed flyover is completely unacceptable and is likely to create the most unpleasant area beneath and around it. Did the vision group use Croydon for inspiration?

All the plans are vague but it looks as though the proposed road will align with the back gardens of Rupert Road and then tear through, at height, various residential properties on Walnut Tree Close. It also looks as the Mews development will be affected. The road will then continue and join the already busy York Road roundabout into what looks like a dangerous double roundabout.

As if this isn’t bad enough, the proposals then seek to increase capacity on the bridge at the bottom of the High Street which again will have harmful consequences to the immediate environs namely our setted High Street. It’s bad enough having the A281 road without a bridge increasing traffic further and destroying the river setting by the White House pub.

I have to ask yet again (and nobody seems to have the answer) why would someone travelling down Madrid Road, onto Guildford Park Road want to go over this bridge to then go out of town down the Woodbridge Road? Would they not just join the A3 at Onslow and go that way? Why also should we be directing more cars through our Waterden Road conservation area?

Traffic from the Farnham and Guildford Park Road is mainly trying to get on to the A281 Debenhams Road. Anyone that travels on the gyratory from the station each evening would be well aware of this – of the three lanes the right hand lane is always solid. A simple fix to start would be to make two lanes on Bridge Street dedicated to a right turn and one to a left which could then open up to two lanes past the traffic lights.

A master plan in my mind should seek to discourage cars from the town altogether not make it easier for them.
Guy Sutlieff Reply

February 6, 2017 at 1:48 pm

As I’m sure readers must realise, due to the almost mythic “modal shift”, there won’t be any traffic. All the people who presently travel into Guildford to shop, work or catch a train will suddenly buy Dutch bicycles or catch the new 24/7, every 10 minutes bus service!

Or perhaps the thought of cycling in inclement weather in the hilliest town this side of the Alps, or catching non existent buses to a new non existent bus station might make the average person want to go and shop etc in Woking or somewhere where they can park easily.
Gina Redpath Reply

February 6, 2017 at 5:22 pm

In France they move the shops out of the town centre to great big shopping centre with parking, leaving the town centre a very special place to shop for essentials, a real butcher, fishmonger, greengrocer plus all the artisan shops and mini markets, it makes the town an eclectic place, a pleasure to visit and park.

In France they put people first and build huge flyovers over their precious towns. Flyovers so high you forget that they are there when you are in the town.
Brian Holt Reply

February 6, 2017 at 7:25 pm

People will not use buses if they are not going to the town centre. GVG is the group who want to do away with a bus station and cause even more traffic congestion by having bus stands in already congested Onslow Street. Elderly bus passengers will have to cross the entrances to find their bus bay. This will cause even more accidents and buses blocking access to the Friary Centre loading bays.

What is the point of adding further congestion to busy Onslow Street? This does not make any sense to me.

A bus station is essential for all bus passengers and bus drivers, for a cafe, toilets and a warm waiting area, especially in the winter.
Paul Bishop Reply

February 6, 2017 at 9:27 pm

Ditch the flyover and put a tunnel in. A new underground exit on the A3 to bring traffic across Guildford without it having to actually go through it. Put a single exit into the centre of Guildford. No one will have more cars forced past their house.

Let’s think big, if this is worth doing it’s worth doing properly.

There’s still some tunneling machines leftover from cross rail, I’m sure they’ll just about have enough life left in them to dig us a tunnel.
John Robson Reply

February 6, 2017 at 11:11 pm

Notwithstanding this supposed modal transportation shift, the Conservative/Liberal Democrat “coalition”, as it appears to be, aspires to create a replica of the M3 thundering through Guildford. This is likely to result in homes being demolished to support expansion of a road that already supports 15,000,000 traffic movements per annum.

So surely the odd “flyover” wouldn’t be too much to bear for a few town centre residents.

Or, dare I say it, Nimbyism strikes again.

I have no affiliation with the GVG, but just on the prima facie evidence it looks like a decent starting point for dialogue and a quantum leap on anything I’ve seen from GBC and it’s myriad of banal town planning consultants.
Gordon Adam Reply

February 7, 2017 at 9:51 am

Mode share is the new “buzz” word. However to achieve even some of the GVG plans would require a large shift from car to other modes. However, Guildford town and surrounding villages does not have the population to support a bus network that would have to be present to attract people out of cars.

Cycle use is a low percentage too. To attract more cycle usage good infrastructure is required to provide safe and attractive routes for cyclists. But remember even in London a large increase in cycle use only leads to a small reduction in car use.

Whilst some of the ideas in GVG’s presentation are welcome, it must be remembered that Guildford is a county town and historically lies on routes that cross each other.

If people wish to improve the town centre, it is essential that the entire area of Guildford and the surrounding borough is investigated because what happens in Guildford town centre affects other areas too.
Harry Eve Reply

February 8, 2017 at 4:10 pm

Also, how would the various road junctions be designed ? Will they be traffic lights, roundabouts or some other solution (any suggestions)?

These are the points that cause queuing, so is the proposed layout just moving the problem away from shops and into a residential area?