“I understand your point in an earlier thread, Chris, about not wanting to direct traffic to the end of Linkfield Rd to join the London Rd (lack of traffic lights), but not the bit about increased traffic at the other end of Linkfield Rd if the road had been made one way all the way along.”Lynn, no, I said:“Also, the residents of the part of Linkfield Rd that is now one way weren’t (understandably) too keen on lots of extra traffic, so this was also a factor in not wishing to “impose” this diverted traffic onto the rest of Linkfield.” I.e the residents of the southeast end of Linkfield Rd have undoubtedly received more traffic than before the diversion was implemented. Some were not happy at this prospect but no-one from that end appears to have complained following introduction of the scheme because we implemented the agreed road markings and changed the speed humps as promised. My comment (above) was that, at the time of planning the scheme, we were receiving complaints and we didn’t want the area affected to be enlarged. Regarding your suggested road closure and use of Loring Road, I believe this would have added additional complexity to the scheme. I am confident that the correct decision was made, notwithstanding the unfortunate problems occasionally observed by residents of the north west end of Linkfield Road.
Chris Calvi-Freeman ● 6921d