The below article has been produced by the STCRA Traffic Group. We hope that it offers some important feedback and points to the Council about our wonderful historic Town Centre, and the ways we feel our traffic problem can be best dealt with.

STCRA is aware not every point will align with every view of every resident in the loop - it is a complex issue and we welcome as much local feedback as possible!

Few wouldn't welcome the aims of Shrewsbury Moves.  The issue is whether the plan will deliver; whether the proposals will be effective; or whether unintended consequences will outweigh the benefits.

However, there remains a whiff of the Lewis Carrol about the plan. There's touch of the 'we know best'. And, while the council claims positive reaction from the public consultation, reality is that such feedback is always self-selecting and should be read with caution.

The Ford Motor Company when they decided to build a car that the public really wanted. So, the company asked: how important is safety to you?  Does fuel economy sway your purchase decision? Is speed and acceleration important? On a scale of 1-10…, how important are low servicing costs? Ford then built the very car the public wanted. The last Ford Escort bombed. Truth is the public don't do detail, have difficulty weighing one factor against another, and they rarely give straight answers. 

You may as well ask a child if they'd like an ice cream!

In this case, we all want fewer vehicles and less pollution in the town centre, but how many of the voices in support, considered the wide-ranging effects of forcing traffic around the inner and - incomplete - outer ring roads?

It is unclear whether the proposals have accurately assessed and considered how the congestion and pollution, just outside the Loop, will impact. There seems to be no calculation relating to the additional mileage through traffic will have to travel - the extra miles on newly congested streets - and the degree to which the proposals merely shift emissions and congestion from the centre to the outskirts.

While walking and cycling is good and should be encouraged, any war against the motor car will be unpopular. If 2 in 10 opined that the proposed town centre Road Loops would make life impossible, in all likelihood the real split is closer to 50:50. And, if one takes out the opinions of those from outside the town - who won't have to live with the consequences - one can be sure that the majority of the residents and traders are against such.

The STRCA would also argue that the experts have wholly missed a most important, key principle: heritage.  Shrewsbury is special because of its heritage and fine old buildings. The proposed Loops will steer all legitimate traffic into a few narrow backstreets, flanked with old buildings, the fabric of which will be damaged.  Already there is evidence that the buildings along Town Walls are being adversely affected by the increase in traffic. The idea that all legitimate traffic is channelled into just a few streets is deeply flawed. It will lead to degradation through weight and vibration, congestion and localised pollution.

Map below shows how proposed Loops concentrate traffic into streets flanked with vulnerable listed buildings:

Likes & Dislikes

STRCA prefers a more flexible approach to town centre traffic reduction.

In terms of limiting through traffic, we support the redirection of HGVs. These can be banned from travelling through the town centre.

Beyond that, we support the adoption of congestion charging in place of the traffic loops, with appropriate exemptions for residents and businesses. These measures alone will significantly reduce town centre traffic and pollution, and allow greater space for better, safer circulation of buses and cycles and a new generation of micro EVs.

The congestion charge would deter and limit through traffic but retain a degree of flexibility. Importantly the charge could be varied (and timing) to optimise and balance traffic reduction and the town's trade.

STRCA supports the idea of pedestrian priority zone in the heart of the Loop in daylight hours only and prefers that town centre road closures be minimised and non-permanent. By restricting legitimate traffic, albeit a reduced amount, to a limited number of streets, i.e. the proposed loops, damage to vulnerable, historic properties within the town centre will be increased.

STRCA believes and supports that the above should be developed in conjunction with the proposed two-way bus corridor and the development of consolidation hubs for deliveries and last mile solutions. That said, the latter should not inhibit the development of the town's existing car parking sites.

STCRA prefers the commercial development and improvement of existing car parks - close to the town centre - as opposed to the creation of new, distant, out-of-town P&Rs.  The capacity of existing car parks (St Julian's Friars; Abbey Foregate; Wyle Cop; Frankwell Riverside; Shrewsbury Station) could easily be expanded by building multi-story solutions. 

 Perceived convenience is key for visitors, and the fact that car parks already exist on the periphery of the old town centre is a rare bonus. P&R schemes are frequently unpopular and underutilised. Critically, the proposal speaks only in vague terms of 'priority measures on key routes into the town centre'.

The notion that P&R buses can be given priority over other traffic, in what will become the heavily trafficked inner ring road areas (between the P&R sites and the TC) is questionable. The STRCA is sceptical about how such could be physically achieved in already densely populated zones, especially once carrying all the through traffic banned from the town centre!

Several proposals are geographically beyond our remit, i.e. beyond the Loop, but we note that there are many examples of towns and cities where Local Access Priority Zones have been deeply unpopular. It's hard to argue against 20mph speed limits (especially within the Loop) and the Active Travel Links (cycle paths) to the north of the town make sense. 

• STCRA Traffic Group - Christopher Bibb, Caroline John, Peter Stewart