Letter: Measures Are Possible to Manage Traffic from New Development

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

Guildford traffic – “wrong to assume” car numbers will increase in proportion to housing development

From Bibas Neogi

Increasing number of houses without improving the road network is not sustainable.

Current EU regulations require Sustainability Assessment for new schemes and, indeed, lead councillor Paul Spooner has stated that he won’t go for the expansion unless infrastructures that would be required are also provided.

Let’s hope the UK keeps the EU regulations that are deemed necessary and the councils do adhere to their stated objectives.

There would be an increase in the number of cars obviously but it would be wrong to assume that numbers would increase proportionally. By providing infrastructures to serve new housing and adequate connection to the road network and strategic routes, the need to travel to Guildford would be reduced considerably.

Bus services could be built in with the proposed developments and operated with subsidies by the councils funded out of taxes. Cutting corners on these, as had been done in the past, must be avoided. So no more piecemeal developments should be allowed but rather a holistic approach which should be the planners top priority.

Parking in the town centre could be further discouraged by increasing parking charges while the Park & Ride capacities could be increased by building more sites and by making them all multi-storey parking with increased future demand in mind.

Increasing use of the internet and video conferencing would reduce business journeys by car and shopping journeys would also be reduced with increasing use of online shopping and home delivery by the supermarkets.

Restrictions for on-street parking within the town centre would discourage car ownership as would the non-provision of parking facilities for new housing schemes.

It is not easy to be optimistic judging by the past performance of the councils but greater openness and true consultation on proposals are essential for drawing up and the execution of a successful Local Plan.

Yes, road works and disruptions are unavoidable when large scale expansions are undertaken but traffic management and the method of construction have to be carefully thought out to minimise disruptions and make them reasonable and acceptable.

Responses to Letter: Measures Are Possible to Manage Traffic from New Development

Jim Allen Reply

August 6, 2016 at 5:13 pm

I totally disagree with the writer. The argument is increase the cost of the car and provide more public transport. But should the cost of the car increase for those who work 14 miles away from home when it is a practically impossible to provide buses to the 50 plus likely work destinations.

As for increase in car use, one additional car increases pollution, so with most mothers having a car and a fathers using them to go to work we can look at increased pollution. Then we need more water 2.8 million litres per day for current SHMA numbers. Just where is this coming from?

Our electricity supply is also “over heating” and our drains running at hydraulic capacity.

Changing a mind set is wonderful in principle, if it achieves the collective goal – but forcing mind set change and brain washing people into another way of life is something From China and North Korea – not England.

It is the same with enforced development. The claims for the need for houses (never the claim for homes) are associated with claims for the need to increase job opportunities while everyone is employed.

There is simply far too much rhetoric and not enough practicality and reality floating through Guildford these days, be it from politicians or council officers.
- Bibhas Neogi Reply
  
  August 7, 2016 at 11:30 am
  
  The article “How will London cope with a massive population increase?”, –
  
  https://heditionmagazine.com/2015/10/12/how-will-london-cope-with-a-massive-population-increase/
  
  is equally applicable to Guildford and other areas of the SE counties albeit to a slightly lesser degree.
  
  Predicting population increase is a difficult task that has become even more complicated due to what effect Brexit will have on net migration.
  
  Nevertheless the trend is upward growth in population and even if the targets in the Local Plans of Borough Councils are higher than the eventual rate of increase, the targets could be revised to match the future trend as time goes. It is always easier to cut down than to expand to match changing demands when planning for new housing and infrastructure.
  
  The key to sustainable development is to address all related issues and think beyond the traditional ways we got used to. New techniques to boost renewable energy and provision for infrastructure within the development areas to reduce the need to travel are needed.
  
  Wherever possible brownfield sites are to be used for the expansion provided existing utility services have the capacity to absorb the increase. Otherwise blocked drains and overheated electric supply (is that really possible?) predicted by Jim Allen, will manifest in overflowing sewage and glowing transmission cables over Clay Lane. And not forgetting smelly people mingling around us (what a terrible thought!) not able to take a shower due to shortage of water!
  
  Therefore, it is easier to plan and design completely new clusters outside of urban areas as self sufficient as possible in terms of jobs, schools, medical services and social amenities but opposition to build on such green sites could be formidable whether or not they are justifiable.
  
  Changes to ways we live will have to be embraced if we are to maintain our standards while coping well with the inevitable increase in population. Changes cannot be enforced in a free society rather these have to come as a natural process through greater understanding and co-operation.
  
  Denying that housing need exists and that developments will be forced upon us by the councils as Jim Allen thinks, are signs of a mind already manipulated by preconceived ideas and fearful of changes.
  
  Whatever is floating through Guildford’s Flood Zone 3b is certainly not overflowing sewage yet but cramming people more and more into inadequate housing may lead to such a reality!
Paul Stevenson Reply

August 9, 2016 at 10:51 am

“The argument is increase the cost of the car and provide more public transport. But should the cost of the car increase for those who work 14 miles away from home when it is a practically impossible to provide buses to the 50 plus likely work destinations”

I don’t agree. You have a choice where to live, so don’t choose to live in a place that requires you to make antisocial car use and then whine about it. If you make a bed, lie in it, and try to be a bit responsible to your fellows who share the infrastructure with you.
- Bibhas Neogi Reply
  
  August 9, 2016 at 1:01 pm
  
  Thanks for you comments. I think Jim Allen has missed the context of my letter and that is the effect and how to reduce the impact of additional car journeys from new housing schemes.
  
  Reducing existing congestion would require new infrastructure and to make Guildford town centre user friendly. The design should have the capacity to cope with the possible increase in traffic for the next 15 to 20 years at least.
  
  Whilst we wait for Local Plans to be finalised (it is anybody’s guess when that will be), there is an urgent need to improve traffic flows. I strongly believe this could be done by making part of the gyratory two-way with a very modest funding that I have described on my website and wrote about it many times here in these columns.
  
  The councils appear reluctant to do anything ahead of the Local Plan. Unfortunately their current options would do very little to improve matters and and on top of that the proposal to closing Walnut Tree Close would worsen congestion significantly.
  
  Why the councils (GBC and SCC) would not go for a shorter term solution baffles me. They were nearly there when they were consulting with the public about their ideas for the gyratory a couple of years ago but were almost obsessed with the idea of replacing the gyratory with two-way traffic and closing Bridge Street. I do not mind if they claim that the idea was theirs but they had not made it public and then they claim full credit for it.