Good Ideas Club asking for views (From Dorset Echo)

Perhaps 'they' in their well-lit, comfortable offices in Dorchester are unaware of the pedestrian tunnel never having ventured to Weymouth to visit the place on foot, though it is easily seen on Google Street view from the western side of the bridge but perhaps a teensy bit more difficult for them to view it on the eastern side. It has always seemed reasonably well lit when I have gone past it but then as you say it is OPM (other peoples money) that 'they' are spending.

How do you make a railway one way?

I am told that one of the objectives of the Littlemoor Railway bridge proposal is to discourage excessive traffic using Littlemoor Road (and Dorchester Road) and control speed. It also is supposed to assist with pedestrians crossing the road to the west of the bridge and providing better visibility for vehicles exiting from the station. The proposed footpath under the railway bridge is part of this package of measures to try and reduce traffic volumes and control speed.
I don't understand the need to discourage traffic from using Littlemoor Road (which goes from Dorchester Road to Preston). 
No-one goes along this road now without the need to do so, it is hardly a route to be used for a drive out for the sake of taking a drive but is used for utilitarian purposes. 
How do you define 'excessive traffic'? 
Since the upgrade to Littlemoor Road, this is, in the main, a wide, well lit safe road and similarly the traffic on Dorchester Road and Littlemoor Road has diminished greatly compared with the often stationary queues of traffic on Dorchester Road and the section of Littlemoor Road around the railway bridge prior to the opening of the current A354.  
I and presumably others, currently need to travel between Preston and Dorchester Road. 
To reduce traffic volumes along the northern section of Littlemoor Road, would 'they' rather that we travel along Preston Beach Road and up the crowded southern section of Dorchester Road? 
Providing a restriction at the railway bridge will not reduce traffic but will hinder the free passage of vehicles.

Putting speed humps in the road could leave the council open to claims from nearby property owners (both domestic and the owners of the nearby telephone exchange) due to vibration and or damage caused by the passage of heavy goods vehicles and buses. A 1990 TRL report, which predates the widespread use of road humps, did not deal with the effects of humps but with traffic vibration generally, in particular from uneven road surfaces. Nevertheless it was stated clearly that “traffic induced vibration is a common source of nuisance affecting residents, traffic vibration represents a serious environmental disturbance affecting large numbers of people”. The report also states that “ground-borne vibration is potentially a more severe problem (than airborne vibration) under the worst combination of conditions. This is because ground-borne vibration has been found to produce the greatest motion in floors and walls and to affect the whole building.”
I expect that there are other, perhaps later, reports which give a similar conclusion.