Why traffic problems won't be fixed from the comfort of the office chair

However, the recent activity via the pages of your newspaper has prompted me to add my two pennies'-worth.

Although I did not retain previous advice published in your paper about the use of the two lanes along the North Esplanade, I distinctly remember drivers being criticised by an Environment spokesperson for using the left-hand lane and then forcing themselves into the right-hand lane in order to 'beat the queue'. The sign by the Weighbridge clock tower categorically advised drivers that the left-hand lane was for access to the Crown Pier only and the road markings, left-turn arrows, clearly enforced this. However, the Environment Department failed to remove the sign just after Salerie Corner warning drivers to approach the roundabout in the left-hand lane if intending to park on any of the piers or to travel south, i.e. up Le Val des Terres. I wonder if the Environment spokesperson knew the sign was there.

However, on Thursday 4 June, your paper published an Environment Department 'reminder' about how drivers should use the two lanes on approach to the roundabout, mentioning the road markings that indicate that the left-hand lane along Glategny Esplanade is for traffic going straight ahead, i.e. along North Esplanade.

No mention of the sign to which I referred in the previous paragraph.

This spokesperson then had the audacity to suggest that the sign by the Weighbridge clock tower did not require drivers to get into the right-hand lane and so was being removed as it 'was perhaps giving the impression that motorists must get in lane before exiting the roundabout.' I wonder if this Environment spokesperson has spoken to the other spokesperson who gave the advice referred to in the previous paragraph.

On Saturday 6 June, your paper published the suggestion by Deputy Mary Lowe that the controversial changes to the Town Quay were a 'costly mess' and the road layout should revert back to what it was prior to the changes. Then, on Monday 8 June, you published details of the number of organisations and individuals who use the roads as professional drivers and who are unhappy with the current road layout.

Finally, on 9 June, an Environment spokesman was quoted as saying that 'it must be remembered that the main reason changes were made was to make it better and safer for pedestrians'.

Then followed a series of major errors that are obviously guiding the advice being given to the political board by its staff, possibly the same spokesperson or spokespersons who are clearly very confused and are attempting to justify their costly mistake. Allow me to comment on each point made in their press release.

Making the crossing safer.

Would the Environment Department please advise the public of this island exactly how many accidents there have been involving pedestrians during the past 50 years on this courtesy crossing.

The reason why it has worked so well for so many years is because no one has priority, it is an area of roadway for shared use. Not every car stopped to allow pedestrians to cross, but many did, and pedestrians waited for cars to stop before attempting to cross because they were aware that they had no priority.

In other jurisdictions, an area of shared road surface is given a different texture such as brick paviors so as to make it obvious to approaching drivers that they are entering an area that does not belong to them exclusively.

Another method used successfully in Guernsey has been the use of slightly-raised pedestrian tables.

Other options – removing the crossing completely or putting in a signalled crossing.

Removing the crossing has been suggested so many times over the years but the demand for it is there and will continue to be there because it is on the line from Albert Pier to the Town Church. Putting in a signalled crossing is not an option as the former Police Committee, against my advice (I was the island road safety officer at the time), installed a pelican crossing which was switched off after about a week and then removed as it proved to be highly dangerous. Drivers coming down Church Hill and turning left were concentrating on looking for traffic from the right in order to negotiate the filter and were then confronted by a red light with pedestrians in the roadway. This was acknowledged later in the press release but the spokesman also suggested that a zebra crossing had been installed but had failed. There has never been a zebra crossing here.

The spokesman said it (the Environment Department) acknowledged the concerns of the blind and partially-sighted. By placing the tactile surface tiles on the approaches to the crossing place, the blind could easily be led to believe that the crossing gave them priority as they would be unable to see that there were no alternate black and white "zebra" markings. The blind and partially-sighted should always be encouraged to use official crossings where they have priority.

Merging from the left lane to the right lane was common practice in most, if not all, jurisdictions. This statement reveals a woeful lack of understanding of traffic management. It is common practice where two lanes coming out from a junction, particularly roundabouts, merge into one where traffic is accelerating away from the junction. It is widely used on 'A' roads where the speed limit is 60mph and it is widely used on the main roads into towns where there is sufficient length of roadway before the next intersection, where again the speed limit is often 40mph.

The spokesman then quoted the Doyle Road junction as an example. I designed this system and it cannot be compared to the situation at the Town quay. Two vehicles approaching Doyle Road in opposite directions are able to turn into Doyle Road at the same time and drive parallel with each other, separated by a continuous white line. If either or both of those drivers need to change lanes for the approach to the Grange traffic signals, they may do so as they accelerate well away from the Brock Road junction.

The spokesman also quoted South Esplanade before the Castle Emplacement. Wrong again. Clearly, the spokesman wrote this from the comfort of an office chair, and maybe he would have been wise to visit the area first. The two lanes going south along South Esplanade do not merge into one, although the dividing white line does not continue towards the filter.

Lastly, the spokesman quoted the Glategny Esplanade. Wrong again, as this cannot be compared with the Town Quay because traffic is leaving a 25mph zone and driving into a 35mph zone. In other words, drivers are accelerating away from the roundabout which makes merging both safe and efficient.

It has to be acknowledged that disruption to traffic will be created when hundreds of cruise liner passengers are attempting to cross the road at this point, hence the need for police control. But then, the same police control would be required if the two southbound lanes were reinstated without the need for spending huge sums of money on an experiment that was doomed to fail. Against the advice of the engineers at the time, I persuaded the former Traffic Committee to install two southbound lanes from the roundabout in order to cope with the volumes of traffic that use the quay. To reduce two lanes into one cannot and never will work unless the States of Guernsey are able to reduce the traffic volumes.

Although I remain unconvinced that the Traffic and Transport Strategy will have any noticeable effect on reducing traffic volumes, at least we now have, for the first time ever, a departmental board willing to have a go at achieving some reduction. From little acorns mighty oaks do grow.

The other problem is one that the States over the years has persistently ignored, and that is the provision of commuter parking. Ever since I came to Guernsey over 50 years ago, successive harbour masters have expressed concerns that the harbour environs should be for harbour use. But the States have repeatedly ignored advice that, if multi-storey car parks were built, rather than increasing the capacity for parking by the total number of spaces provided by that car park, the equivalent of 50% of the number of spaces should be removed from the piers. Several sites were identified but allowed to go to commercial development.

There are, I would suggest, only two sites remaining where multi-storey car parking for commuters with frequent shuttle bus transfers into and out from Town. For drivers from the south, the field at the top of Les Vale des Terres could be excavated and the structure grassed over to restore the green space. It would be hugely expensive and would require a private/public partnership to achieve.

For drivers from the north and west, a large multi-storey car park could be built on States-owned land at Belgrave, again with a frequent shuttle bus service.

Then the cruise ship operators could be instructed to segregate their passengers before leaving the ship, which has been my experience on cruises, and transport the island tour coach passengers to a virtually empty Albert Pier where the coaches would be lined up waiting and the foot passengers could be landed at the Inter-Island Quay. Probably pie in the sky, but maybe some forward-thinking deputy might pick it up some time in the future. But I know that there is no appetite with the majority of deputies to really do anything to reduce the traffic congestion in the island.

PETER DERHAM,

Vue du Clocher,

Route des Coutures,

Vale,

GY1 5LA.