Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Official Report 492KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

A90/A937 (Safety Improvements) (PE1236)

Agenda item 3 is consideration of two petitions. First, we will consider PE1236, by Jill Fotheringham, on safety improvements on the A90 and A937. Members have a paper by the clerk that sets out the background to the petition. The Public Petitions Committee considered the petition on 27 November and agreed to refer it to this committee for further consideration.

The committee should note that responsibility for any work that is carried out on the issues that are raised in the petition lies at the local level and that the relevant local authority and transport bodies are engaged with the issues. I invite members to comment.

I will jump in and comment first because I think that I was the first member to sign Jill Fotheringham’s petition many years ago. It resulted from one of a number of fatal accidents at the junction. The first achievement of the campaign was that a previous transport minister, some years ago, put what was believed to be a temporary speed limit on the A90 at the junction, and speed cameras were erected. Since then, there have been no fatalities, but there continue to be accidents.

The A90 is busy at the junction and the A937 is a key route that deals with traffic coming from the Montrose area, including both commuter traffic and heavy lorries related to the oil industry that are going north. The inadequacy of the junction is obvious. It has been the subject of a petition for some time and I have regularly found myself visiting the Public Petitions Committee to support the petition. It is an extreme disappointment to me that it has been on the agendas of committees and others for so long and yet no progress has been made.

I emphasise that the measures that were taken to improve safety on the road were always assumed to be temporary, but now they seem to have become permanent.

So what are you suggesting?

I was going to allow other members to air their comments before I make a suggestion.

I have looked at the matter and done some research on it as well. I was going to say some similar things to what Alex Johnstone said. However, if it is possible, I would like us to ask some of the people who have been involved in writing letters and in the petition to come to the Parliament and give us some evidence and some more information on it.

I support what Margaret McCulloch has said. I suggest that we get the local MSP and the petitioner to come along and give evidence. I have used part of the road in the past and I know that, further south, new road junctions have been put in. I do not understand why this junction has not been replaced. It might be useful to hear from the MSP and the petitioner about the situation.

Are a number of MSPs involved in that area? Should we also hear from local businesses and other groups?

Convener, I am not against that suggestion in principle, but I wonder whether in the first instance the petitioner should give evidence to the Public Petitions Committee, before coming to this committee.

That happened many times before the referral took place.

Should we not be trying to take the petition beyond having another witness session on the issue? Is there not something more that we can do by way of taking the matter forward, as opposed to just hearing the arguments again?

Well, we have not heard the arguments. It would be useful for us to hear them as well.

We have all the background material from the Public Petitions Committee’s consideration of the petition. As a current member of that committee, I know that, when the petition was passed on to this committee, frustration was expressed that this long-running issue is not being progressed appropriately. The Public Petitions Committee wants us to take it forward.

I do not know whether Alex Johnstone has any suggestions, given his long-running involvement in the petition.

Before Alex Johnstone responds, I will outline the options that we have. We could write to Transport Scotland to seek an update on the issues that the petitioner has raised in her most recent correspondence and on the discussions with the north east of Scotland transport partnership. In that letter, we could also request information on the processes that are involved in assessing and acting on safety issues at road junctions more generally, together with details of where responsibility for making decisions on such matters lies. Alternatively, we could write to Angus Council to find out what is being done to discourage the use of the A937 and hence reduce traffic at the junction between the A937 and the A90 at Laurencekirk.

I am surprised that people do not use the coast road more.

The issue with the coast road is that the bridge over the North Esk on the A92 north from Montrose is unfit for heavy traffic. As far as heavy goods vehicles are concerned, I should point out that Montrose is the southernmost town to be heavily involved in fabrication work for the North Sea oil and gas industry. A number of companies in Montrose transport unusually wide or heavy loads. As a consequence, the road network in that area is under pressure. An effort is being made to encourage that traffic to use the road to Brechin and the junction at Brechin to access the A90, but given that most of the traffic in question is travelling north, that is quite a long way round to go. In addition, there are problems with the road through Brechin to access that junction.

Therefore, there is a tendency for all traffic, especially traffic from the north end of Montrose, where there is a substantial population who work in Aberdeen and commute to the north, to use the A937 as their natural access point to the A90, with the result that it has become a pinchpoint on the network. Heavy lorries have to cross the southbound carriageway to turn north. Substantial queues of traffic form, especially in the morning, as vehicles try to turn north across the southbound carriageway. Those who are aware of the local circumstances will know that there is a particularly wide central reservation there. There is the problem of cars that have to cross the southbound carriageway to turn north queueing in the middle of the road.

Although there is the option of Angus Council encouraging traffic to take other routes, in practice people will use the A937 because it is the main road north out of Montrose to the A90. I do not think that there is much that we can do to encourage people to virtually travel south to join the road, before travelling north on the A90.

That is certainly the case for big HGVs, which cannot get round the bridge over the North Esk, but it is not the case for all traffic, is it?

In my experience of that road, it is not an attractive route for commuters to take, particularly at busy times. During a recent closure on the A90, the traffic was diverted down there. When traffic levels reach a certain point, the traffic just comes to a standstill at many points on that road.

In my view, the decision to de-trunk that road some years ago was a demonstration that it was not a suitable road for development. Consequently, the A90 was made the main trunk road. All those who are involved in considering access to that road must take into account that previous decision and the fact that the A90 is the main trunk road north. Indeed, it is the only trunk road north at that point, and access to it should remain a priority.

So what is your suggestion? Is it the same as either of the ones that I outlined?

Ultimately, my solution to the problem is a grade-separated junction.

How do you suggest that we make progress with the petition?

I think that your suggestion that we write, in the first instance, to Transport Scotland for an update on the position and that we consider the reply when it comes back would be the appropriate way forward.

Fine.

Will we do that in the first instance?

Yes, in the first instance.

It strikes me that Transport Scotland is saying, “Yes, we need a grade-separated junction but, no, we will not prioritise it. We will wait for a local housing development to come up with the cash to provide the wherewithal to put in the junction.”

12:15

On local housing developments, there are two junctions to access Laurencekirk. The north junction is essentially on a local road; it is not a crossroads. There is a reasonable argument to be made that those who are investing in housing development in the area can contribute towards the improvement of that junction.

The A90 and A937 junction is for two A-class roads. It does not have a direct relationship to any housing development in the Laurencekirk area, but it may be argued that it has a relationship to housing development in the Montrose and Hillside areas, which are in a different local government area. As a result, there is an element of responsibility for that junction not being claimed by either local authority, and consequently it has been systematically ignored. The idea that we might get local development to provide finance is probably impractical.

That is a good point. When we write to Transport Scotland, we should ask for specific information about the processes, how it acts on safety issues at junctions, and where the responsibility lies for collectively looking at how much housing has gone in and how that affects the junction. Alex Johnstone is right. Has there been more development in Hillside at Portlethen, for example, than at Laurencekirk recently? Possibly not, but a grade-separated junction went in there.

That is a different Hillside.

Yes. There is Hillside in Montrose, too. That is a bit confusing.

We will write a letter to Transport Scotland with specific requests about how it comes to its decisions, and take things from there.

---

DVLA Local Office Closures (PE1425)

The second petition is PE1425, by Maureen Harkness, on the adverse impact of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency local office closures. Members should note that the matter is reserved, of course, and that the Scottish Government is actively engaging with the Department for Transport and the DVLA on the proposed office closures.

What action should we take in relation to the petition? Given that the matter is reserved, I am not sure that there is much that we can do if the Scottish Government is engaging with the Department for Transport. Does Steve Farrell have a suggestion?

It is really a case of members taking a view on the matter. Given that the Government is actively pursuing the matter, that should be continued. That is our strong view. One option for the committee is to close the petition and ask the Scottish Government to keep it apprised of any progress on the matter.

Why do we not ask for the result of the Scottish Government’s active engagement, wait for the reply, and then consider what we will do with the petition? Do members agree with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.