Wednesday 14th September at Little Stonham
In the Chair:
Suffolk County Councillor Eddie Alcock
Speakers:
David Chenery, Road Safety Group Manager, SCC
Peter Grimm, Policy Manager (Transport), SCC
Chief Inspector Alan Pawsey, Suffolk Constabulary
Councillor Guy McGregor, portfolio-holder for road safety, SCC
Our MP, Sir Michael Lord, was unable to attend as he is recovering from an operation. We were pleased to welcome his wife instead.
We heard from each speaker in turn. David Chenery mentioned Suffolk Roadsafe, the County Council's new road safety website, and displayed graphs showing the decline in road accidents in the county since the 1980s. Although the Council's 2003 policy document "A140 Route Management Strategy" includes an action plan to rationalise the number of junctions on the A140, it did not include any justification for a Stonham bypass, and improvements of the A1120 junction were also currently out of the question as the junction does not meet the criteria (in other words, what we need is a few more accidents! - Ed.).
He showed figures to claim that the speed cameras had been effective in cutting accidents, although the validity or interpretation of these statistics was challenged from the floor in view of the fact that there had been no KSI accidents at any of the camera sites in 2003 when the cameras were deployed, and exactly the same number (one) the year before and the year after.
In the near future he promised the deployment of SID and RadarLux devices - these are speed-triggered, illuminated warning signs that have been successful elsewhere.
In a forthright presentation which pulled few punches, Peter Grimm described the failure of the previous Stonham bypass bid, including the surprising news that expert advice predicted it would have increased the likelihood of accidents. He then explained why government policy and regional funding arrangements made it extremely unlikely that any new proposal would even be considered, let alone succeed.
In view of the £500,000 cost of just preparing such a proposal, Suffolk County Council will only start the exercise if they believe the proposal is almost certain to be accepted. In view of the stringent criteria laid down by central government, Stonham would be a weak contender.
In addition, control of such schemes has now been devolved to the East Anglian Regional Assembly. Their very limited budget is already 75% committed for the next four or five years to schemes that have already been started. While there were certainly developments locally that would probably increase traffic levels on the A140, this was true of virtually every road in the region so would make little difference to our case.
Chief Inspector Pawsey said that the problems on the A140 were not all speed-related, and hinted that the Constabulary have their own views about the advisability of the current complex speed-limits. He heard views from the floor that the speed-limits were being inadequately enforced, but refused to undertake to increase enforcement, saying that in practical terms it was very difficult to do so given the many and varied limits. He did undertake to measure speeds over a three day period and report back, and also suggested that in the near future local police officers would be issued with hand-held radar guns. Nor did he rule out the use of unmarked police vehicles.
Guy McGregor wound up the meeting by explaining the administrative history of the road (first East Suffolk County Council, then the Highways Agency and now Suffolk County Council again) which may have led to the road's neglect. Although he repeated the warning that a proposal was so expensive that only "dead certs" were being considered, the bypass was still in the list of possible schemes, and the issue was not yet dead and buried.
Questions and views from the floor There was ample opportunity for question and comment, and plenty of response. It was hard to keep up, but these were some our reporter was able to note down …
• David Chenery's claim that the cameras had cut accidents was challenged, as was his claim that Suffolk's record is better than Norfolk's (the Norfolk section carries heavier traffic)
• Q: Was the Stonham camera actually live? (A: No comment!)
• Speeding and overtaking at the northern exit from Stonham was a problem. David Chenery said he would look at the possibilities of a mobile camera and double white lines.
• There was a strong feeling from several speakers that while few could quibble with the 30mph limits in villages, the 50mph limits were unnecessary and counterproductive. The 40mph buffer zones were far too long and, at least when leaving a village, unnecessary. Inappropriate limits increase driver frustration, make a few drivers take risks, slow traffic and make joining the road more difficult.
• There were equally strong feelings about the need for increased enforcement of 30mph limits in villages.
• Q: What are the projections for future traffic on the A140? (A: Traffic is going to get worse on all roads).
• Q: What effect will the massive growth at Felixstowe Docks have? (A: SCC are trying to persuade Felixstowe Docks to route more freight by rail, but there was likely to be an effect on the A14 and therefore, probably, the A140).
• The planning authorities seemed to grant permission for industrial developments (e.g. Eye airfield) without regard for the increase of HGVs they would bring.
• Accident statistics, with low numbers of single-car or overtaking or head-on crashes but many rear-end shunts at junctions, paint a picture not of a race-track full of mad drivers, but of a rural road with rural traffic, masquerading as a major trunk road.
This was an excellent and well-attended meeting. While the news from Peter Grimm about the likely success of a bypass proposal was … well, grim, there was nevertheless a feeling that councillors and officers were well aware of the problems on the A140 and were anxious to listen to, and indeed were actively seeking, the views expressed by members of the public.
Copyright © 2005 The A140 Campaign
This site created and maintained by PlainSite