Traffic Issues

Release of Kilmardinny greenbelt for development, by providing the rail halt and park and ride, was envisaged as an opportunity to improve the traffic situation for Bearsden and Milngavie. Instead, extensive alterations at points along the A81 might just avoid the worst effects of the development itself (although even this is controversial).

What follows is taken from KWAG's closing submission at the Public Local Inquiry. "Modal shift" means people switching to public transport.

6.1 The Appellants purport to show that certain measures at Canniesburn Toll would fully mitigate the effects of generated traffic. However, we believe the traffic model used did not adequately address the extent to which trips generated by houses at Bearsden Academy site (143) and St. Andrew's campus site (86) would be diverted to the A81. This diversion would arise because Bearsden Cross is already over capacity and could not pass the full number of generated trips. Another factor to consider is the suggestion that the 10% reduction in generated trips applied to the traffic model due to modal shift has not been rigorously demonstrated. This has a crucial role in achieving adequate mitigation.

6.2 The Auchenhowie Road/A81 junction was highlighted as a problem. It is clear from the evidence at the inquiry that changing the timing of the traffic signals will not prevent an increase in traffic congestion. Paragraph 9.1.2 of the WSP report confirms this.

6.3 The Burnbrae roundabout junction is, we believe, sub standard at the moment and would become worse with an increase in traffic from the proposed development. This was not disputed at the Inquiry. The Appellants propose improvements but no details were provided. It is proposed that improvements would be covered by planning conditions however we are sceptical whether a satisfactory solution will be achieved.

6.4 We pointed out that there were no proposals to improve the Main Street/ Park Road and Park Road/Craigdhu Road junctions in Milngavie. These junctions are heavily congested at the moment and would be subject to increased traffic from the proposed development, particularly from car trips to schools. The Appellants have not given this matter any consideration.

6.5 Also of concern is the impact of increased traffic beyond the bounds of the traffic study. We highlighted the difficulties along Switchback Road and the junctions at Fulton Street and Anniesland Cross which are currently over capacity.

6.6 We raised the problem of gaining access to the A81 from side roads and businesses. This is a serious problem and a matter of widespread concern that was not addressed by the Appellants. There seems little point in discussing seconds saved on a journey on the A81 if extra minutes are taken in getting onto the road. The section of the A81 of most concern is from the Burnbrae roundabout to Hillfoot. The seven side roads affected are Mosshead Road, Kilmardinny Avenue, Reid Avenue, Manse Road, Hillside Road, Burnmouth Place and Birch Avenue. The proposed roundabout at Reid Avenue should help but the problems that already exist will be exacerbated. There is also the problem of pedestrians attempting to cross the A81. There are parts of the road where we believe that it is virtually impossible to cross at peak flow periods.

6.7 John Cullen presented calculations in his main precognition, which were not challenged, relating to increased traffic flow. He highlighted that there would be an increase in traffic in the AM peak hour varying from 27% at Westpark roundabout to 20% at Hillfoot. In the PM peak hour the increases are 20% and around 15%. We believe that this outcome would be an intolerable imposition on the number of citizens affected.

6.8 Travel to schools is an important issue that has not been adequately addressed by the Appellants. All six schools that would serve the site are remote but not at a distance that the Council would have to provide school buses. Children would have to cross several very busy roads to get to any of the schools. This makes walking or cycling extremely hazardous options that parents are unlikely to allow their children to take. Travel to schools is incorporated in the person trip rates used by the Appellants however these are average figures. The average distances to schools in this case are higher and with average car ownership also higher in the area the total trips have been underestimated.

6.9 The proposed development will also create additional parking demand at local town centres. We estimate that at least 90 additional spaces would be necessary. Both Milngavie and Bearsden Cross town centres would be further compromised by a severe shortage of parking spaces. This matter has not been addressed by the Appellants.

6.10 If the Appellants are correct in their assertion that the traffic mitigation measures will ease congestion on the A81 then this will not result in mode shift from car. In other words people will continue to use their cars. This is clearly contrary to National and Local transport strategies. The stated aim of Government and Councils is to encourage a pattern of land use which is integrated with the public transport system. This application fails to deliver on this important aspect and should be refused.