As part of the planning conditions, Morrison has to pay for traffic calming in Baker Street. The draft plans are below and have been sent to Surrey’s transportation development planning team to agree as a condition of the planning permission. What do you think?
Now that the associated roadworks for Morrison’s development are largely complete traffic should reduce along Baker Street. These are the “developer’s” draft proposals for Baker Street. The scheme is currently with Surrey’s Transportation Development Planning Team to agree as a condition of the planning permission. There might be an option for a 20mph limit (or 20mph zone).
Just when the vanguard countries like Denmark and the Netherlands are removing road humps – Surrey is still putting them in place. Just make sure the humps are not near your house!! Ask the people of Portmore Park Road, Thames Street and Walton Lane.
The London plane at the junction of Monument Road and Monument Hill – the local landmark fast becoming an icon in the development debate – is potentially threatened by the Morrisons planning application for a new store in Weybridge. Many options, including mine of using shared space, have been considered but at an early stage discussions between Surrey and Morrisons ruled out the inclusion of raised crossings and shared space, due to the function of Monument Hill as an A road as it says in a recent report.
This is lazy. There are already “A” roads in Britain with shared space – indeed there are already primary routes with shared space. (Primary routes are strategically more important than “A” roads). There are also roads with shared space that have greater flow of traffic than Monument Hill.
If we cannot get a shared space solution with lower speed limits or a “four stop” stop solution there will have to be a roundabout. A roundabout will almost certainly lead to the felling of the Weybridge plane tree.
We need to have an open mind in this debate and consider as many options as possible.
A number of people gave positive feedback about my piece on traffic in the most recent Focus – but what about cycling said some.
I could not agree more. In my day job I not only provide, what I believe to be, the country’s best cycle insurance policy but I have campaigned for over twenty years for better cycling provision. Not just for recreational cycling the like of which Sustrans provide so well, but for day to day cycling in our towns and cities. We all know that encouraging cycling is good for people’s health and for the environment but even for people who do not take up cycling it reduces congestion.
In these hard pressed times investing providing safer routes for cyclists is probably one of the most cost effective use of government spending.
There is a good reason why we should introduce 20mph limits for urban streets and rural lanes – it makes travel very much safer and, counter intuitively, increases traffic flow at times of congestion.
At speeds below 20mph people can recognize the intentions of others by their facial expression – beyond around 22mph this is no longer possible. That it why at higher speeds we need traffic signals, signs and indicators etc.
Unfortunately Surrey has voted against promoting such proposals.