Responses to Letter: How Does Cllr Potter Suggest We Reduce Congestion and Improve Air Quality?

1. Ian Macpherson Reply

   December 15, 2022 at 1:08 pm

   It ha been fairly generally accepted that the only long-term solution locally to congestion and air pollution is the “tunnel” concept. I note with interest that Guildford’s MP has now come out in favour, though obtaining funding is another matter.

   And in the long term, the more general use of electric vehicles will also reduce pollution. Meanwhile, the partial closures of London Road will create havoc right across the town, and not just with the more selfish motorists.

   The carers that get me and other clients up in the morning will have to cope with greatly extended travel times, as will the weekly home help that keeps the dust at bay and brings the shopping in. These are essential users, I suggest, and it is not realistic to propose that they should cycle between their various calls, taking their kit with them.

   I haven’t been approached in the consultation and I resent this- it is not an outrage that consideration be given to the needs of the Highly Vulnerable.
2. Jim Allen Reply

   December 15, 2022 at 1:23 pm

   Actually, Cllr Potter does not want it ‘completely stopped. He wants the community to be asked in a polite and reasonable non-confrontable manner complying with statutes and guidance, the design considerations which matches the need of all road users and most of all – he wants a diversion that matches the need of all road users and complies with statute while it is executed.

   Does Mr Howard want an apparently illegal diversion for a scheme to benefit, currently, just 0.7 per cent of road users taking precedence over the other 99.3 per cent?

   Surely that is a flawed argument.

   As for the vocal “minority”, over 800 people as of last night signed the petition on the SCC website, all local councillors expressed concern over various aspects. And as for “clean air”, over the past 30 years, air pollution has in fact reduced; the particulate levels have dropped dramatically, but ironically will be increasing as more electric cars take to the streets due to higher tyre wear and thus more rubber pollutants?
3. Alan Morris Reply

   December 21, 2022 at 4:31 pm

   I disagree with Jim Allen’s assertion that electric cars will increase the level of particulates due to increased tyre wear.

   It might be true that comparably heavier electric vehicles have the potential to increase the rate of wear of the tread, but it is the case that the battery mass will not be that significant a contribution especially as the energy density of batteries continues to increase.

   Moreover, there is a general reduction in the weight of the electric motor, transmission and control system as compared to a conventional internal combustion engine and its associated equipment. So weight increase will be marginal.

   Some suggest that the enhanced acceleration of EVs may be a cause for increased tyre wear, I would take this with a heavy pinch of salt. Not only are developments in traction control during acceleration ameliorating the threat of tyre wear, these more sophisticated systems are also improving our ability to negotiate low adhesion encountered in snow and icy conditions.

   I would also suggest that even with a marginal increase in vehicle weight, tyre designers will counteract altered handling and wear characteristics by modifying tyre compounds and construction.

   Furthermore, EVs benefit by providing the feature of regenerative braking that lessens the possibility of tyre skidding and reduces the amount of wear of brake discs. As a consequence, the airborne particulates from this source also diminish.

   Taken as a whole it is highly probable that vehicle-derived emissions will continue to decline.