Tuesday 25 August 2015
Media Enquiry from Open Lines Column, Guernsey Press:
Why is it that the Environment Department makes everything so complicated? Is it so that they can put off making a decision?
Capelles. I was at the meeting where Environment were present in the form of the Road Safety Officer who presented an ill-thought out, ill-prepared presentation on how a one-way system could - or more accurately wouldn't work. For instance how would a bus negotiate the Grande Capelles lane let alone make a left turn in the Effards? Out of the 40 or 50 people there not one person supported the proposals apart from Living Streets who showed very clearly that they are anti-car using terms such as pavement surfing.
If you look at an old Mini and a modern one anyone will note that cars are very much wider today than they were even 10 years ago. So motorists aren't pavement surfing when they have to mount the pavement in order for two cars to pass one another. Getting on a pavement and not getting off it again is pavement surfing. There is a problem in the road leading to the Capelles School as it is too narrow and means that cars are obliged to mount the pavement. Making it one-way would create much greater difficulties in other roads which are even more narrow and simply could not accommodate a bus whatever remedial work was carried out.
At the meeting at least one land owner offered to create a footpath inside the hedge but the next day an Environment spokesperson said that no decision could be made as they would have to look at it in the context of their traffic strategy. How, to any common sense person, does this excuse for taking no action have anything to do with a traffic strategy? The road is too narrow, land owners (one 10 years ago) have offered land and are offering a solution - why not simply make a decision?
The influence of a pressure group on Environment such as Living Streets is very worrying. Who are these people and who do they think they are and why do Environment share a platform with them? By all means put your point but accept that the car is here to stay.
Environment are, however, happy to make a rash decision in reducing the traffic to one lane along the sea front and then belligerently holding onto the idea until forced to change it. Then, when they do, in a fit of pique, they say that the courtesy crossing will be closed - at the same time that they have created a new one at the Halfway.
This is just so petty and such a waste of money.
Apparently they have to consult 'Traffic Experts' before they can make a decision - maybe one reason why they have no money. As this worked very well before they meddled why don't they just do the right thing and admit they made a mistake. Instead, they said it was an experiment but if it was, why go to such high cost when bollards would have produced the same effect while testing the scheme. However any sane person - didn't need a traffic expert - who, in the past drove along the front knew that when the Albert Pier car park was getting full, cars lined up in the left hand lane and so could bypass this by taking the other lane. And then when they do do this they have to employ, at enormous expense, Police to make what was supposedly a safer crossing, safe to cross.
So Environment have money to put right their expensive experiment but apparently have no money to advance the footpath at Capelles. This they say is because their ill-thought out traffic strategy didn't have any money because every time they took it to the States it was tampered with. It was tampered with because it is/was so unfair to large portions of the public.
One aspect that never seems to be brought up is an MOT. Work for the hard pressed garages, money for the Traffic Strategy, safer and fewer cars on the road and therefore funds to do worthwhile work like create a footpath to keep children safer on their way to school. But, sorry I forgot that would take an army of civil servants to administer and therefore wouldn't make any money for the States and obviously someone somewhere would have to make a decision - obviously before they did they would need the advice of a traffic expert. Where has common sense gone?
Environment Department's Response:
Your correspondent defends cars being on pavements and believes MOTs will result in fewer cars as opposed to simply newer cars. They argue in favour of paying money to garages to conduct an MOT (the garages will of course need to use the money to pay staff to conduct the MOT and to cover overheads) but the correspondent argues this will somehow generate money which Government can use to fund the transport strategy. Your correspondent then argues in favour of funding the strategy this way even though they consider the strategy ill thought out anyway. To quote your correspondent "Where has common sense gone?"
If one examines the facts rather than myth and supposition one can find the common sense.
Vehicles are wider and over the years the numbers have grown significantly. The result is that vehicles use up more of the road (and footpaths) and so pedestrians and people with disabilities are disadvantaged. Some parents are reluctant to allow their children to walk to school because of the perceived safety risks and hence add to the car problem by driving their children to school. We have pollution hot spots caused by vehicles. We have an obesity problem caused by a sedentary lifestyle. We can ignore all this and live with the consequences or we can try and encourage walking, cycling, buses, car sharing etc. That is what the strategy seeks to do, it is not ill thought out, it is common sense.
But, Guernsey has very little space with which to strike a balance. We do not have the luxury of spare land with which we can put in tram ways, cycle ways or car free areas and so whatever adjustments are made will inevitably have impacts and will require compromise.
The Town sea front was a trial which attempted to give back some space to pedestrians and to make the informal crossing safer. It did not cost vast sums as suggested by your correspondent, it cost the Environment Department less than £10,000. Widening the road at Capelles, subject to being able to obtain the land, is certainly an option to resolve the issues in that area, but it won't be able to be done for £10,000. Any "common sense" estimate would put the likely costs in the tens of thousands - money the Department simply has not had whilst funding for the strategy has been debated and resolved. Now that funding can be made available options to improve school access roads will be fully considered.
Whilst we are on the subject of money it should be noted that the pedestrian refuge at the half way was paid for by the developer. It is also incorrect to state that the Environment Department has appointed Police officers to man the Town informal crossing at busy cruise ship passenger times. Neither are police needed as a result of the traffic experiment. They would have been required to man the crossing on cruise liner days had no changes been made to the traffic layout, in fact they would have been needed more so.
I will close in commenting on the use of advisors. The occasions on which Guernsey carries out significant modification of a highway are very few. It would not be common sense to employ as a full time civil servant a highway engineer with the specialist skills and modelling software required for these rare occasions. Similarly it would make no sense whatsoever for an unqualified person to design the changes simply because they thought they knew best. What does make sense is to commission the expert advice as and when it is needed. The very reason these issues are difficult and complicated to resolve is because there are so many different viewpoints, so many conflicting needs and so few resources with which to find the acceptable compromise.
Contact Information:
Steve Smith, Chief Officer
Environment Department
Tel: 717200
