Letter: Traffic Solutions? They Are All On My Website

Published on: 14 Sep, 2012
Updated on: 15 Sep, 2012

From Bibhas Neogi

I would like to draw Cllr Tony Phillips’ and Cllr Fiona White’s attention to my web site (http://www.spanglefish.com/revampguildfordgyratory). In addition to suggested improvements of the gyratory, it includes possible improvements to the A3. I quote from this web site that has been in public domain for over two years:

“The A3/A31 junction – northbound traffic intensity will increase once Hindhead Tunnel is opened. Although percentage increase in volume of traffic is predicted to be small, the volume arriving at Guildford will certainly intensify and cause difficulty for the A31 merge. It is understood that the HA intends to widen the A3 from the A31 to the Stag Hill Interchange but no details are available yet. This scheme has been suspended due to recent cut backs to the roads programme.”

“Egerton Road roundabout near Tesco. At peak times, this roundabout is congested. GBC intends to construct a Park & Ride (P&R) on Manor Farm but firm proposals are not yet known. Access is planned to be from the hospital roundabout modified to become a signalised junction, however, the HA should consider an off-slip from the A3 to this P&R. It would be extremely beneficial to have access to the RSCH, Surrey University Buildings and Research Park from this P&R. Traffic from the A3 and the A31 could then use this off-slip and thus reduce congestion at this roundabout.”

“The A3 is the responsibility of the Highways Agency (HA). It did have a scheme for improvements to the section between the A31 and the A247 but like other current cutbacks to the road programme, I gather this has been suspended. We do not know what the HA would have proposed by the way of improvements but it seems appropriate to address the inadequacy of the existing interchanges. I think it is possible to modify the Stoke Road Interchange to a full interchange by constructing a northbound off-slip road and a southbound on-slip road. It would then reduce congestion on Ladymead. Another improvement would be to construct an off-slip to Clay Lane, which would provide easier access to the Slyfield Industrial Estate and the proposed Slyfield housing scheme. It may also be possible to construct a southbound on-slip by converting the emergency access next to the Clay Lane Bridge. Improvements at Clay lane would further reduce congestion in Ladymead.”

In connection with Hon Alderman Bernard Park’s comment on increased traffic on the A3 after Hindhead Tunnel is opened , I quote from my web site –

“I am not aware of any proposals to deal with the after-effect of opening the Hindhead Tunnel. Traffic will arrive much quicker to Guildford and additional congestion is inevitable. If and when widening of the A3 is carried out, it would cope better with the increased volume of traffic but until then there is an urgent need to take some measure to deal with this problem. A possible solution would be to install Variable Message Signs to control the speed of traffic approaching Guildford. As the A3 is a two-lane road, cantilever signs would probably be adequate for this purpose. I suggest to the HA that the cost could be justifiably added to the Hindhead Project, as the additional congestion would be directly attributable to it.”

“Suggested widening of the A3 and access to Park and Ride

Beechroft Drive junction could not remain when widening of the A3 is carried out here for safety reasons. Widening may be carried out using reserved Manor Farm areas (10 m wide strip of land) and in addition central reserve areas and a possible link from Beechcroft Drive to Park and Ride off-slip. It may be possible to provide an alternative access to Beechcroft Drive from the A31 Farnham Road via Down Place (requiring negotiations with the owner if it is Private) and a northbound link connected to the Park and Ride access.”

The link below shows a possible access to the Park & Ride –

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m536/Gyratory1/Suggested%20Improvements%20to%20the%20A3%20through%20Guildford/BeechcroftandPR.jpg

“Suggested A3/A31 Junction Improvement

The central barrier is repositioned such that three lanes southbound and one lane northbound are created. The nearside northbound lane of the A3 is diverted to go under Hog’s Back housed in a tunnel and the A31 on-slip is re-aligned to meet up at a set of traffic lights. From here two lanes are re-aligned and they merge with the existing on-slip. The existing on-slip has been hatched out into a single lane for safety. This would be re-opened as two lanes. Beyond the Farnham Road Bridge on the north side, the widening would start for both carriageways. An off-slip to the proposed Park & Ride could be accommodated but the widening has to deal with the junction of Beechcroft Drive with the A3. A possible option would be to create a two-way road in conjunction with the access to Park & Ride or access could be provided by connecting up southern end of Beechcroft Drive with Down Place. Access to Down Lane from the widened southbound A3 is possible and Down Place could be accessed via Farnham Road as shown on a separate sketch. If Down Place is a private road, this change would require negotiations with the owners. Option 2 uses a more expensive curved tunnel but no traffic lights as the movements are freeflow although the merge would be for two lanes only.”

The link below shows the suggested improvements-

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m536/Gyratory1/Suggested%20Improvements%20to%20the%20A3%20through%20Guildford/A3_A31Junctionrev6.jpg

Apologies for a somewhat lengthy note but I urge the readers to visit my website or read the summary document by accessing the link below –

http://www.guildfordvisiongroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Gyratory_website_rev11.pdf

This document addresses the whole problem of traffic, bus station and bus routes, railway station redevelopment etc. and their possible solutions.

Please note – readers’ letters do not necessarily reflect the views of The Guildford Dragon NEWS or its writers.

Do you have an issue you wish to write about? Perhaps you wish to complain about something, bring attention to a subject, offer congratulations, express thanks or simply reply to another reader’s letter?

All publishable views are welcome. Please do send your letters in to The Guildford Dragon NEWS by emailing mgilesdragon@gmail.com

Responses to Letter: Traffic Solutions? They Are All On My Website

Jim Allen

September 15, 2012 at 9:25 am

Interesting suggestions but they fail to actually solve the “Burpham Problem”. 95% to 100% of road capacity is used in the rush hours.
Putting a slip road onto Clay lane will not improve access to Slyfield as there is no suitable road into slyfield at this point.
Further, putting a south bound ‘on’ slip road of Clay Lane would result in a 90 degree entrance: far better to re-jig Merrow Lane and London Road traffic which can then go directly to Merrow .

The south bound slip road at the same point as south bound ‘off’ slip road is far more sensible.
As for the other end of town, simply single up the lanes. Through traffic to use “outside lane” and inside lanes for turn-off only. Far cheaper than new road building.

The other way to reduce traffic is to ensure buses go to the train stations (a very radical argument!) and bus lanes are removed from the town centre. Further, if employers staggered their start and finish times (another radical idea from the past) we would not have 95% – 100% road capacity between 07:30 and 09:30 and empty road the remainder of the day. In short, we need a psychological approach to road provision not a politically correct one. Get the traffic flowing, not slowing. Think of all the extra pollution associated with traffic crawling through Guildford.
Bibhas Neogi

September 16, 2012 at 6:24 am

Thank you Jim Allen for your comments.

If Clay Lane Interchange is made all directional, as per my proposal, traffic heading for the A3 southbound via London Road would be reduced, since this traffic could join the A3 at Clay Lane. Similarly traffic that now has to exit at the Dennis Interchange and use Ladymead and London Road for Burpham would exit at the new off-slip at Clay Lane, turn around at the roundabout and use Clay Lane for Burpham/Merrow.

I would expect a new link to be provided to Slyfield developments from the roundabout on Clay Lane that I’ve also suggested.

Yes, a 90 degree turn will be required within the Clay Lane on-slip but this would be within the access before it joins the A3. There are a couple of sketches on my web site that shows these.

Re-jigging Merrrow Lane is an option but involves a longish detour and it would affect a lot more properties along the route. A 180 degree turn would be required for this option.

My suggestion for the re-located bus station on Mary Road car park, with associated new bus stops, waiting areas and routes modified to suit, includes the railway station as an important connection. This topic is also covered on my web site.
Jim Allen

September 18, 2012 at 9:56 am

The Clay Lane intersection argument fails on several points:

1: Getting to Slyfield is more simply cured by ‘dueling’ the Woking Road as the land layout permits and was planned for in the past, through this route

2: Putting a totally new road into Slyfield would change the balance of all traffic through residential areas and small country lanes

3: It would further destroy the historic c1600 “running river” and bring greater noise-levels to the rear of houses in Jacobs Well or simply cut straight through green belt/nature reserve/flood plain – for what benefit?

4: The A3 can cope from the Woking Road north and if the north slip road off at the Woking Road was in place there would be no need to build a totally new road across the flood plain

5: Noting if there was a North ‘off’ slip road at Clay Lane then traffic through to Woking would use this route (it is HGV restricted due to extremely bad bend which can’t be cured without demolition of peoples property) through Jacobs Well into the surrounding lanes with no right turn at the end of Clay lane (so that would need sorting as well)

6: It fails on traffic going south which would still have to negotiate the two lane section and the continuing inflo from the Dennis Roundabout. Therefore entering at this point would become even more contentious.

The problem needs to be solved for traffic heading south from the Dennis Roundabout by increasing capacity, not by causing further problems at that junction.

As for the 90 degree turn from the right hand side of the road under the Clay Lane bridge as opposed to the wide radius of a sweeping bend, as at Send ‘on’ slip road south, is totally different.

As for bus stations, they could be in Cranleigh or Woking. They hold no relevance to the actual service provided to the customer who currently are being ‘forced’ to serve the station at appropriate times.

None of this will cure the Burpham (south bound) problem with the local roads running at 95%, moving nose to tail, between junctions to 105% (stationary for at least 5 minutes at a time) of capacity at many times of the day.
Bibhas Neogi

September 19, 2012 at 5:13 pm

Jim Allen’s points 1 to 4 are not directly related to the Clay Lane Interchange enhancements that I suggested. Why would anyone coming off the A3 choose to use Clay Lane off-slip if provided and use Clay Lane for Woking when a better route using the A320 already exists? It would be even better if my proposed off-slip at Stoke Road Interchange is also provided to connect with the A320.

Regarding point No.5, when Slyfield housing scheme is designed, the question of access to it and the existing industrial area would no doubt be looked at in detail. It is not directly related to Clay Lane off-slip which would be mainly for the traffic heading for Burpham and Merrow.

The A3 south of the Dennis Interchange was to be widened to three lanes but the scheme has been suspended due to cut backs in the roads programme.

As for the bus station, it could be anywhere but satellite stations mean that there would be a number of them if they are located at the remote ends of bus routes intersecting at Guildford. The system works well for bigger areas like London, but for Guildford, a single bus station, I think, is operationally more suitable than multiple ones.

I fail to see how Jim concluded that “None of this will cure Burpham southbound problem with local roads” when traffic in London Road would surely be reduced if Clay Lane Interchange is provided with a southbound on-slip as I suggested.