Official Report 415KB pdf
A90/A937 (Safety Improvements) (PE1236)
We come to agenda item 2. PE1236 is on improving safety on the A90 by constructing a grade-separated junction where the A937 crosses the A90 at Laurencekirk. We will discuss a letter and report from Transport Scotland on the evaluation of safety measures at Laurencekirk. Members will see that other correspondence is annexed to the background note.
I welcome Nigel Don, who is the local member, to the meeting. I invite comments on the petition.
I am grateful for the further correspondence, but I am concerned that the level of understanding of the needs of the area and the use that is made of the junction are not as good as I would want them to be. Having the local member in front of the committee is a tremendous opportunity to hear both his views on the subject and about the latest consultation that he has had.
As no other member wishes to comment, I hand over to Nigel.
Thank you for the invitation to be here—it really is appreciated. I welcome BEAR Scotland’s analysis simply because any data is useful. I also welcome, as I am sure that we all do, the reduction in the total number of accidents in the area over the period analysed. Regardless of how that has happened, that must be welcomed.
I note that the north junction seems to have been particularly affected, but I am not surprised by that. Since a merged lane was added, apparently no accidents have happened, which is perhaps not surprising. That situation is welcome and I hope that it remains.
However, as I am sure that members will recall, the petition is about the south junction—it is about the A937 as it comes up from Marykirk and Montrose. The information to which I draw particular attention is to be found in paragraph 4.10 of the analysis, which indicates that, before the road safety measures were put in, there were three accidents in which slight injuries were sustained and that, since then, there have been only two. However, immediately underneath, it is stated that while there were seven damage-only accidents before the measures were implemented, there have been eight since then. I do not want to overstate the significance of small numbers, but if you add those figures together, you find that there were 10 minor accidents before the measures were put in and there have been 10 since then. That gives a reasonable indication of what the situation at the junction is like.
Although I welcome the general reduction in the number of accidents in the area, I do not think that the data in front of us indicate that there has been a particular improvement at the south junction. It might just be the case that people who drive in that area are now more aware of the issues, which is likely to lead to an improvement.
As members are, I am aware of the access to Laurencekirk study that the north east of Scotland transport partnership is undertaking. I very much welcome that, as I think that it gives us an opportunity to come up with the right answer and to encourage the Government to find the money to implement that right answer. In that regard, I think that we are still going in the right direction, and I hope that members will feel able to keep the petition open. We might just be beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel.
There is an additional point that members who have been on the committee for a while will recall. I occasionally hear people—not members of the committee—say, “I drove past that junction at half past 8 this morning and it was fine,” as if, somehow, that deals with the matter. I again put on record the fact that, if people want to see what is happening at the junction, they need to be there between 6.30 and 7.30 in the morning. That is when the rush-hour traffic comes up from Marykirk, and that is when the situation is at its most dangerous, as can be seen in some of the videos that are on the internet.
I am sure that the convener is aware that, when it comes to traffic leaving Aberdeen, there is an extended rush hour on Friday afternoon, which starts at lunch time. Quite honestly, it continues all afternoon, more or less. On the Fridays when I do a surgery in Laurencekirk in the late afternoon, I do not attempt to come across that junction. Instead, I return to Brechin through Fettercairn, which is twice as far, but it is plainly the safest thing to do. I think that that comment will resonate with most of my constituents, who understand that the junction is one that they would just rather avoid. Quite frankly, it is dangerous and it needs to be sorted.
Of course, the accidents continue. I have reported my experiences on the road at previous meetings. As I drove home in the early evening last Thursday, there were a number of police cars in attendance at an accident on the south-bound carriageway. At the point at which the traffic slows down for the 50mph limit, there had been a concertina accident. That illustrates the fact that, regardless of the other issues that we have experienced or heard about in relation to the junction, the fact that a 50mph limit is necessary on one of the busiest parts of our trunk road network is, in itself, a disadvantage.
I think that there is absolutely no doubt that there is a need for a grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk. The report is welcome. The Government has always said that such a junction must be funded through developer contributions and I do not think that there is any getting away from that, but I was immensely encouraged by something that I heard at the Nestrans meeting that I attended on Friday. Instead of one developer having to fund such a junction, there is to be a development bank, which a number of developers will pay into. In other words, there will be a fund; it will not be just one developer who has to pay. That is an extremely positive step forward.
However, Angus Council needs to come on board, too, because although the junction is in Aberdeenshire, traffic from Angus is making a significant contribution to the amount of traffic on the Marykirk road. It is incumbent on Angus Council to get on board, but I think that the work that Nestrans—and, to be fair, Transport Scotland—are doing is, as others have said, a reason for keeping the petition open.
Since the last time that we discussed the matter, a lot of progress has been made, albeit that, in the eyes of some people, progress is far too slow. As things are moving in the right direction, I agree that we should keep the petition open.
11:00
We should do so not least because, in his letter, the minister makes it clear that he will continue to update us on progress.
There are still many issues to think about, such as whether any new junction should be to the south or to the north of Laurencekirk; if it should be to the north, whether there should be a link road; and what the effect on traffic through Laurencekirk would be. All those matters should be taken into consideration.
I echo what you have said, convener. That is an important point that people need to understand; I suspect that many people are beginning to do so. We do not necessarily need a flyover at the south junction. If there is to be only one flyover, it needs to be in the right place, which might well not be at the current location of the south junction. That is what the current study needs to work out, because the last thing that we want is everyone having to go up Laurencekirk High Street, which those who can visualise it will know is a slalom run.
Okay. Do members agree to keep the petition open?
Members indicated agreement.
At our next meeting, we will begin our stage 2 consideration of amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I remind members that the deadline for lodging amendments to parts 1 to 3 of the bill is 12 noon this Friday.
Meeting closed at 11:01.Previous
Digital Infrastructure