The Campaign to Save Stringers Common attended a public inquiry held last January to raise objections to the County's proposals. Much was needed to match the might and money of S.C.C. who had a panel of five experts and a barrister. Fortunately, we raised the interest of a consultant who after studying the scheme agreed to appear as an expert witness. With this generously given help the campaign was able to put forward some expert arguments against the scheme.
In order to allow traffic to move slightly faster between Hazel Avenue and Salt Box Road, a more direct route will be hacked through what is the most densely-grown part of the eastern half of the common. This will leave the open and wooded areas in the middle of the common less protected from the noise and fumes of the road which will be closer. In their survey of trees S.C.C. marked 221 mature trees for felling, including a 150 year old oak tree. This tally does not include countless young trees, not yet of the designated width. The pond at Salt Box Road will be relocated, this will cause damage and in a lot of cases death to the aquatic life. There has been much consternation in Britain over the destruction of the equatorial rainforests. Trees produce the oxygen that we all need to breathe and absorb carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, yet in our own backyard we continue to chip away at the countryside and its precious resource of trees.
The council is obliged to purchase and give back to the community land of equal size and quality in exchange for the land that the road will take. This concept is fundamentally flawed from an ecological point of view due to the fact that the land to be given back in exchange is already in the Green Belt. Changing the name of the land from "Green Belt" to "Common Land" will not create new Green space and replace the land that will be lost.
Pollution, caused by traffic and by industry is one of the biggest problems we have to face today. Toxic engine products such as benzene, lead and carbon monoxide from petrol have been linked to the sharp increase in asthma and other respiratory diseases, whilst the particulates produced by diesel engines are linked to diseases such as lung cancer, heart disease and bronchial complaints. Surrey County Council hope to reduce the pollution caused by standing traffic on one section of the road only to have it transferred to another. There will be more pollution on Salt Box Road and Clay Lane. The new wider road will also be more attractive to lorries. If the County Council decide to build waste incinerators in Surrey, Slyfield Industrial Estate, previously marked out as a suitable site will be subject to a huge increase in diesel lorries.
One of the main objectives of S.C.C. in altering the A320 is to ease the congestion at peak times (rush hour) and so to improve the flow of traffic. However because of pollution and damage to the environment it is no longer a solution simply to build a bigger road. The Government and councils now recognize the need to "manage" or control traffic rather than continuing to meet the ever-increasing "demand". A recent Government report, the S.A.C.T.R.A. report, found that in many cases building bigger roads only attracts more traffic and the new road becomes more congested than before. Despite policy changes at S.C.C. to fit in with this new way of thinking, the plans for the scheme have remained more or less the same for twelve years. The reasons for building the scheme (known as "objectives") have been re-written to fit into new Government and council policies without actually re-thinking the scheme itself. The scheme is better fitted to cater for traffic "demand" rather than seeking to "manage" it. This short-sighted approach will cause big problems on other sections of the road, southwards. The Ladymead junction is already running at capacity, and further into Guildford town centre the road is narrow and built up on either side. The delays at peak times eased by the scheme will be transferred down the road, where they will worsen. At the public inquiry our expert witness pointed out that S.C.C. had used a computer program that could not take into account the effect of moving a traffic jam further up the road.
Apart from affecting traffic along the A320 Woking Road, the scheme will also increase the traffic travelling along Salt Box Rd. and Clay Lane. At present, most of the rush hour traffic along these roads are commuters travelling to destinations such as London via the A3. This is not the proper route for non-local traffic who should not be using small unsuitable roads, over commons or by villages. The proper route for this traffic is the A31 Hogs Back. This sort of problem has been termed "Rat-Running" and it is not Government policy to help it. S.C.C. will be doing exactly that when they build two huge roundabouts where Salt Box Road and Clay Lane join the A320. The roundabouts will make this route far easier to use during the rush hour and so it will encourage more traffic along this route. Perhaps it won't be long before they have to consider enlarging Salt Box Road and Clay Lane too. This is a good example of the problems described in the S.A.C.T.R.A. report, where road improvements attract more traffic. Our consultant suggested that traffic lights should be placed at these junctions instead of the roundabouts, as this would deter commuter traffic and give priority to A320 rush hour traffic, where it is needed.
S.C.C. are proposing to reduce the number of accidents by straightening out the curve between Jacob's Well Road and Salt Box Road, and by building bigger junctions: according to the Council's own figures, there have been no accidents on the curve. Most of the accidents have happened at junctions, and have not been serious. Two serious accidents happened on the fast, straight section further up the road near the Borough boundary. The council's own figures show that it is faster, straighter roads that are the cause of more serious accidents. Additional evidence for this is that the council have never felt it necessary to mark the road with double white lines, to light it for safety reasons, or to impose a speed limit. In contrast to this, the new road will be built to allow traffic to travel at 62mph, and then a 40mph speed limit will be imposed. Whereas the present curve of the road forces traffic to slow down, many people simply ignore speed limit signs. The new fast and straight road will be less safe than the road it replaces. It will also be the cause of more serious accidents.
Budget constraints are forcing S.C.C. to make drastic spending cuts in all areas, including health and education. How then can they justify spending £2,651,000 on this ill-conceived and unnecessary road scheme? A scheme that will only generate more traffic and pollution. The Council have to justify their spending by weighing the cost of the scheme against the benefits that it will provide. They must decide whether the benefits justify the expenditure, environmental damage and inconvenience to local people. This weighing in the balance is called the "Cost-Benefit analysis". The Council claim that the cost and environmental damage caused by the scheme will be justified by relief of congestion and improvement of traffic flow. However, an analysis of the S.A.C.T.R.A. report by leading transport consultant Keith Buchan states: "It is difficult to think of a recent road scheme which does not have a major part of its cost-benefit analysis derived from congestion relief. This justification will now have to be removed to a very large extent." In short, "They will be a waste of money."