Opinion: Guildford’s Groaning Gridlocks

Published on: 27 Aug, 2018
Updated on: 29 Aug, 2018

Traffic heading for Woodbridge Road – it’s already heavy

By Martin Giles

A few years ago, I was driving with my son Harry from Ladymead back home, south to St Catherine’s, maybe a mile and a half. It was about 5.20pm and he was to start work in our local pub at 6pm, so I thought there was plenty of time. Wrong.

Usually, I try hard to avoid driving in Guildford during rush hour but I was surprised to find traffic backed up on Walnut Tree Close as far as the Royal Mail depot. Surely, I thought, this could not be solid all the way to the gyratory. Wrong again.

As the minutes ticked by and we were forced to a crawl. I realised that walking would be quicker. I had to tell Harry to get out and jog, so he would not be late for work.

Two years ago, we residents learned that restrictions were being seriously considered for Walnut Tree Close. Like many others, I could only wonder where all the traffic would go. The Close became a through road only in the 1960s, ironically, to relieve pressure on other roads.

Of course, those who dwell on that road are deeply concerned about their immediate environment. Living on an increasingly congested and poisonously polluted thoroughfare cannot be pleasant.

Not surprising that when a resident raised a petition, more than 300 fellow unfortunates signed it. Also unsurprising is that the woman who organised the petition, perhaps frustrated with the lack of official response, moved away.

Surrey (population 1.2 million), Berkshire and Hertfordshire are the most densely populated non-metropolitan counties in England. According to the 2011 census, we average 1.5 cars per household in our county.

A few more facts from the Surrey County Council website:

There are 687,000 cars for Surrey’s households
Only 13% of Surrey households have no car
Nationally, more than 25% of households have no car
Between 2001 and 2011, car ownership levels in Surrey increased by 53,000 (8.4%)

Traffic counts by the Department of Transport show that the number of miles travelled on Surrey’s main roads is 6.2 billion miles per annum. West Sussex, our neighbouring county to the south (population 850,000 with 40% less density), has “only” 2.7 billion miles travelled.

But the problem of Guildford’s traffic is simply this. You can’t fit a quart in a pint pot. And we can’t make the pint pot bigger. Building more roads or enlarging existing ones, even where possible, would seriously damage our town and borough.

The 2011 census showed there were 54,000 households in the borough and 81,000 cars, so what are we going to do after the 13,000 new homes, expected under the Local Plan, produce 20,000 more cars to join the queues?

That’s not to mention those from the considerable developments nearby. Have you been to Cranleigh or Horsham lately?

Fortunately, we have been promised that developments will not be allowed until the necessary infrastructure is in place. So perhaps a miracle of physics, the kind employed in Dr Who’s Tardis, is being prepared? Perhaps Walnut Tree Close will be an early experiment?

Responses to Opinion: Guildford’s Groaning Gridlocks

Jan Messinger Reply

August 27, 2018 at 7:07 pm

I couldn’t agree with Martin Giles more. It just doesn’t work, all these people, all these cars, on roads unchanged for so many years. Think of all the little rat runs locals have to know.

I think we have all experienced the same problem. One has enough time mileage wise but not traffic wise.

All I can see is more homes means more traffic. I think the Hog’s Back will probably turn into a car park, like the M25 and A3 look every day in heavy traffic. The thought of the surrounding villages full of more homes with people trying to drive from A to B fills me with dread.
Jim Allen Reply

August 28, 2018 at 1:50 am

I also agree but the reality is even worse than painted in this article. The figure for the housing market area is 45,000 to 47,900 additional vehicles. Haven’t worked the number out for Aldershot Horsham or Mole valley but they all come into Guildford, notwithstanding the potential traffic trying to get to the new Heathrow.

But importantly, the longer any given vehicle is static, with engine running, or moving slowly, the higher the air pollution. Higher gears and lower engine revolutions reduce air pollution so instead of slowing vehicles down, there is a need to speed them up, so they leave less pollution per mile travelled.
Ben Paton Reply

August 28, 2018 at 9:50 am

“Fortunately, we have been promised that developments will not be allowed until the necessary infrastructure is in place.”
They made that promise in Ash. Has it made any difference at all?

Piecrust promises…
Jules Cranwell Reply

August 28, 2018 at 1:30 pm

How is that everyone, apart from the council leadership, gets this.

They are still pressing on with their ruinous Local Plan, with nothing, no plan, for the impact of these 20,000 new cars.

The roads through the borough, and in the town, are already unfit for purpose.

Their plan would turn most of the county roads, leave alone in Guildford into parking lots.

Time for a change.
- Wayne Smith Reply
  
  August 28, 2018 at 8:21 pm
  
  Sad to say but I think the council leadership do get it.
  
  They’ll worsen the traffic in the town centre (as if it’s not bad enough already) and then propose a congestion charge because of the congestion. Too outlandish? My glass is definitely half empty on this one.
Bernard Parke Reply

August 28, 2018 at 4:31 pm

Closing central roads such as Walnut Tree Close and Castle Street will only worsen the congestion problem in central Guildford.

I live about half a mile from the town centre and we dread going into town because of the heavy volume of through traffic.

I dare say some of us who are fit could walk that distance despite the pollution problem or even ride a bicycle, but this again is hazardous for if the if the fumes don’t get you the heavy traffic might.
Bibhas Neogi Reply

August 30, 2018 at 1:48 pm

In Walnut Tree Close (WTC), within its narrowest section, there are parking bays that restrict the passing of two wider vehicles. Sometimes when this happens, it takes a long time to sort out the blockage and queues build up. The HGVs/lorries etc. need to reverse or climb the pavement to pass each other.

Why do the councils not remove the parking bays? If they cannot do this for any contractual reason, they should provide a solution. Even in temporary traffic management during roadworks, if the remaining width is too narrow for the passing of two vehicles, traffic light control is used. So why the councils are allowing this in a permanent situation without any effective control?

The proposal to stop all vehicles going southbound in the experimental closure planned for next year (hopefully after Network Rail has finished work on Farnham Road Bridge) could be modified to cars only ie a width restriction of 6’6″, and a similar restriction on vehicles turning left out of the Station View exit on to WTC.

An alternative solution would be to create a one-way southbound route through Jewson’s yard on the strip of land safeguarded in Local Plan 2003 to connect up with the northern end of Station View. The access road to Jewsons Yard and serving other properties on the north side of it may require some attention. I have mentioned this elsewhere quite a few times.

At the same time, the gyratory could be modified to improve traffic flows in Bridge Street and southbound on Millbrook. I have mentioned this before. Please see my comments in:
https://guildford-dragon.com/2016/03/06/48787/.

Please also see various comments of mine in https://guildford-dragon.com/2016/07/05/trial-closure-walnut-tree-close-public-views-sought/#comments

I do not know if the councils have considered these suggestions. Why not pay a consultant to evaluate them?