This is the text of a document sent on 15th February 2006 to all Suffolk County Councillors, to local MPS, to the Secretary of State for Transport, and local newpapers and other media.
Introduction
The A140 is probably the most dangerous road in Suffolk and has killed 57 people since 1987 and 28 in the last 10 years (figures from the Eastern Daily Press newspaper which also revealed that the Diss-Norwich stretch of the A140, which carries heavier traffic, has only killed 21 since 1987 and 12 in the last ten years). We believe that Suffolk County Council are not doing enough to make it safer. The road passes through several villages, and increasing levels of traffic are blighting the lives of those who live there.
There has been no significant alteration to the road for very many years. While the authorities in Norfolk have built bypasses and carried out other major improvements to their part of the same road (which carries more traffic and has killed fewer people), all Suffolk have done is tinker with speed limits.
This road is a major artery between Norwich and Ipswich, the two main commercial and social centres in the region. The A140 Campaign calls on the County Council to make a serious and responsible effort to provide us with a road which is suitable for its purpose, which does not make our day-to-day lives a misery, and which allows us to go about our daily business in safety.
What Suffolk County Council has done
SCC has re-modelled the junction at Coddenham, but has carried out only minor works elsewhere. It has installed speed cameras at Coddenham, Angel Hill and Brome.
Otherwise, SCC has pinned its hopes on a sweeping (and cheap) system of speed limits despite the fact that its own figures show that comparatively few accidents on the A140 are caused by excessive speed. See below.
Speed Limits
The speed limits currently in place and recently made permanent, drive a coach and horses through SCC's own policy. Their publication "Guide to Speed Limit Policy" stipulates that "in exceptional situations 50mph speed limits have been introduced. These are only appropriate .... on higher standard roads … where there are high traffic speeds … where there is a history of speed-related accidents … and where there is likely to be effective police enforcement".
None of these criteria apply to the A140. As a main route between the region's two most important commercial and cultural centres, it is certainly not a high standard road. SCC's own figures show that traffic speeds were not high before the limits were imposed. While there is certainly a history of accidents, the same figures show that very few indeed are caused by excessive speed. Nationally, only 7.3% of all accidents are caused by excessive speed. Suffolk police have admitted at two recent public meetings that they can't police the A140 properly and don't intend to try.
SCC's claim that the new speed limits have cut accidents is premature and probably inaccurate against a pattern of steady reduction for several years. In Brockford Village, for instance, speeds have fallen by a paltry 2 miles an hour. In two accident black spots at Creeting and Brome speeds have actually risen. Non-compliance with speed limits has soared by up to 37%. It is therefore hard to see how the limits can have been effective in reducing accidents.
There is only a little anecdotal evidence to show that local residents support the new speed limits. Clearly road-users do not, and in SCC's consultation exercise four out of five respondents were opposed to the new limits. Although this opposition included several local Parish Councils, their opinions were ignored by SCC.
Major improvements to the A140
There have in the past been at least two proposals to bypass sections of the road. One leading local MP has campaigned for the whole road to be dualled. However, at a recent A140 Campaign public meeting in Stonham, SCC officials made it plain that any such proposals are unlikely to be successful in the foreseeable future because of government policy and funding issues.
We therefore call on Suffolk County Council to put into immediate effect the following affordable, achievable short-term measures to make this important route fit for its purpose in the 21st Century …..
ONE
Identify those minor road junctions that can be closed. This will involve small inconvenience to those local drivers who may have to go a little further to join the A140, but will influence the very high proportion of accidents that involve turning traffic, many of them rear-end shunts.
TWO
Install rumble strips on the remaining minor roads on the approach to the A140 to warn drivers that they are about to enter the main carriageway. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that some drivers are, despite the "give way" signs, reaching the main road before they realise it. Rumble strips are cheap and, unlike obtrusive road signs, have little effect on the environment.
THREE
Re-model the remaining major junctions. The existing junction where the Mickfield - Mendlesham Green road crosses the A140 may be taken as a model. Although this is on one of the fastest sections of the A140, there appears to be no history of accidents at this location because …
(a) visibility is excellent in all directions
(b) the road at this point is sufficiently wide to allow the provision of adequate right-turn lanes in both directions
(c) there are also adequate left-turn lanes in both directions so that turning vehicles do not impede following traffic
In comparison, the more important and much busier junction of the A140 and A1120 …
(a) has right-turn lanes that can only accommodate three cars or one lorry
(b) is narrow so that vehicles waiting to turn are perilously close to those going straight on
(c) is on a slight curve so that heavy lorries travelling south frequently stray into the right-turn lane
(d) has poor visibility in at least two directions.
FOUR
Provide regular, spacious lay-bys so that slower-moving vehicles can pull over and allow traffic to maintain a sensible speed, thus reducing the need for overtaking.
These measures will cost a mere fraction of even the shortest bypass, can be put in place relatively quickly, need involve only a small amount of land-use in carefully selected locations, and should have been carried out years ago. Some were included in SCC's strategy document for the A140 several years ago, but nothing has happened.
We urge Suffolk County Council to finally do something effective and realistic to give Suffolk residents and businesses a route they can use in safety. Please, Suffolk, do it NOW!
UPDATE 21st SEPTEMBER 2006:
The document was sent to every Suffolk County Councillor on the 15th of February. Apart from one or two routine acknowledgements, THERE HAS BEEN NO FORMAL OR INFORMAL RESPONSE AT ALL. Obviously this is SCC's new policy - ignore the issue and hope it goes away!
Copyright © 2006 The A140 Campaign
This site created and maintained by PlainSite