Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Official Report 376KB pdf

---

Petition

---

A90/A937 (Safety Improvements) (PE1236)

Okay folks, we will reconvene. The next item is consideration of evidence that we heard from stakeholders at the meeting of 20 March on public petition PE1236, on the Laurencekirk junction. We heard a considerable amount of evidence from a range of stakeholders and I imagine that everyone has had an opportunity to review the Official Report from that meeting as well as further submissions from Transport Scotland and community representatives.

I ask members for any comments that they might have.

I have reflected on the evidence that we received on 20 March. I have the impression that, on the needs, there is still a significant difference of opinion among the agencies that were represented. However, at the same time, a process is taking place that has the capacity to bring those opinions further into line.

I understand that a meeting is likely to take place between the north east of Scotland transport partnership and Transport Scotland to discuss the matter further. I would be interested in considering the outcome of that meeting in the future.

I should say that we are joined by Nigel Don, who is the local member. Do you have anything to say?

Thank you, convener. At one level, I am not sure that there is anything to add. However, at the risk of repetition, perhaps the point should be made that, although the petition came to the Parliament on a matter of safety, on reflection, it is entirely clear to me—[Interruption.]

I am afraid that I will have to suspend the meeting, because the official report cannot report it when there is no recording.

11:19 Meeting suspended.

11:23 On resuming—

After that slight interruption, we can resume. Nigel Don had the floor. Have you lost your train of thought?

No, the train of thought is still there. At the risk of the Official Report backtracking, I was making the point that I thought that the petition should come before the committee because the safety issues at the junction are a direct consequence of the lack of infrastructure in the area, so it is really the infrastructure that we need to address. We heard previously that traffic has already reached twice the flow rate at which, if someone were designing the road from scratch, they would put in a grade-separated junction. That speaks for itself.

Given that house building in the area will increase, the number of cars on the road is bound to increase. We heard about a likely increase in traffic from Montrose harbour, and we are aware—perhaps more than others—of the increase in business in Aberdeen. That is well understood by those who are local to the area.

I do not think that there is any possibility that the completion of the Aberdeen western peripheral route in a few years’ time will reduce the amount of traffic going up the A90. Everything that we know says that there will be more traffic on the road, so the infrastructure will become increasingly inadequate.

It seems entirely obvious that the matter needs to be dealt with, and I encourage the committee to hold on to the petition because the infrastructure is giving rise to the safety issues of which the petitioner speaks. I ask the committee to see what it can do in the months ahead to get Transport Scotland to understand that the matter needs to be addressed, please.

I back what Nigel Don said. We have received two further submissions since we previously discussed the petition: a very emotional one from Jill Fotheringham, the petitioner, and a very informative one from Mike Robson, who makes the point that the figures that Transport Scotland is using are rather out of date, which supports what Nigel Don just said.

Mike Robson’s point is that, in relation to the proportion of traffic travelling along the A90 that crosses the road, the figure that Transport Scotland uses indicates that one in 12 vehicles crosses the road, whereas more up-to-date figures indicate that it is one in four vehicles. The situation is on the move and many of the figures are changing, so the issue must be dealt with on the basis of up-to-date figures. That is why I am interested in taking the opportunity to consider the outcome of current meetings and negotiations between the interested parties.

I will sum up the committee’s view. We are pleased that there will be a meeting on 24 April involving the local council, the north east of Scotland transport partnership and Transport Scotland, and we would like to hear a report of that meeting rather than close the petition. We are pleased that, perhaps as a result of our meeting and our addressing the petition, that meeting will take place. However, we will want to hear how that meeting went before deciding what to do further. Is that the committee’s view?

Members indicated agreement.