HC Deb 19 December 1969 vol 793 cc1798-806

1.53 p.m.

Lieut-Commander S. L. C. Maydon (Wells)

The Street inner relief road in the town of Street in Somerset was started in December 1967 and was completed early in 1969. It was originally entitled the Street inner relief road and it has always been a relief road and never a bypass, although a large number of people have now come to call it that, including, I regret to say, such authorities as the Chief Constable of Somerset and the county surveyor in their correspondence about it with me.

A bypass is essentially a road circumventing an area, an area which is usually built up and densely populated. A bypass sets out to separate urban traffic from through traffic and to facilitate the rapid passage of through traffic. A relief road is quite distinct. It circumvents a town centre, has ready access to different parts of that centre and it sets out to relieve the town centre's congestion and to facilitate passage from of the town to another. Lastly and least, it is to provide easier passage for through traffic. The main difference between the two is that a bypass benefits predominantly through traffic, while the relief road benefits predominantly urban traffic, with a long-term view to future pedestrian areas.

If these two differing purposes are considered, it can immediately be seen that a bypass must be a high speed road, usually dual carriageway, with curves where they occur designed to high speed standards, while a relief road is not so designed. It must have a number of junctions to facilitate access to the town centre and to outlying residential and industrial areas. It must facilitate good traffic flow—that is essential—but not at high speeds, because with many junctions on a relief road, high speed would be essentially dangerous.

In the spring of this year, the Street Urban District Council and other responsible bodies, such as the local committee for accident prevention and a large number of members of the public resident in and around the town, expressed alarm because the relief road was opened and there was no speed limit upon it. In March, 1968, the urban district council asked the county council that traffic on the relief road currently under construction plus a length of the A39, which is the road on to which it joins, where there is a blind bend and a nasty junction at factory gates, should be restricted to 40 m.p.h.

In their negotiations with the county council over the line and the nature of the relief road, the urban council had always been led to believe that the road was constructed to 40 m.p.h. standards and that a limit would be imposed. Reluctantly, during 1968 the urban council had to accept the understanding that a 40 m.p.h. restriction would be imposed for the whole of the new relief road excepting 330 yards at the northern end and, of course, excepting that portion of the A39 which I have mentioned.

In March, 1969, when the road was opened, the urban council learned that almost the whole of the relief road was derestricted. It was stated by the county council that the Ministry of Transport had refused to confirm the 40 m.p.h. speed limit agreed between the urban council and the county council.

Before this, at two public meetings held in Street, public meetings concerned with the nature of the road and the safety measures for pedestrians who had to cross it, it had been stated by county council representatives that the relief road would have a speed restriction and that it had been designed with that in mind. The road was opened and without a speed limit.

By 1st April, this year, the first accident had occurred. It involved a vehicle trying to cross the relief road with another speeding along it and unable to stop in time. By 9th May, the junction at the north-eastern end of the relief road was the scene of three further accidents in seven days, one serious. On 12th May, I wrote to the Ministry of Transport asking for urgent attention to this problem before a fatal accident occurred.

Later in May, 1969 the Street Accident Prevention Committee wrote to me endorsing the concern felt by the Urban District Council. It was not until 10th July, 1969, that the Ministry of Transport finally replied, admititng that the county council and the urban district council had previously agreed to support the request for a 40 m.p.h. limit, but saying that it had been refused on the grounds that the road … did not have the frontage development normally associated with the 40 miles per hour restriction. It was prepared to consider, however, a 100-yard extension of the present 40 mile an hour limit at its western end. This has now been implemented.

By 22nd October, 1969, seven accidents had been reported to the Somerset police since the road was opened. Two involved no injury, two involved slight injury, but three involved serious injury. On Monday, 10th November, 1969, the first fatal accident, which we had all been fearing, occurred at the eastern end. The jury had at the inquest criticised the layout of the junction at the eastern end of the relief road, but the fact remains that one driver saw a clear straight stretch of unrestricted road ahead and so proceeded at speed, not unreasonable speed.

He was unfortunately involved in a collision with a vehicle, quite wrongly emerging from the junction. This latter vehicle should have given way. It can be argued that speed was not the cause of this accident, but had there been a limit, had the first driver conformed to it, it is probable that his speed would have been much less and so he would have been able to stop or swerve to avoid the accident.

Following this first fatal accident, the Public Works Committee of the Street Urban District Council met representatives of the Ministry of Transport and the County Council on the site and subsequently held discussions. A number of measures which I do not think are adequate were agreed and consent was given to the consideration of further measures. My complaint is that from the beginning people who live in the area, knew the locality, knew the sort of traffic involved, have all along said that 40 miles per hour was a proper speed for this relief road with its junctions and the fact that it divided the town—residential and industrial areas are on both sides of it and frequent crossing has to take place.

Admittedly under pressure we got two tunnel pedestrian crossings instead of one, which was at least a concession. The real need is for a speed limit, a tolerably low one. Negotiations are going on concerning a 50 m.p.h. speed limit but, knowing well the nature of this road, and the use to which it is put and the amount of traffic crossing it, I believe that is too high a speed. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to give serious consideration to these facts and to institute the 40 m.p.h. speed limit.

2.5 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown)

I should just make it clear that the Somerset County Council is the highway authority responsible for the principal road A39 which runs from Bath via Glastonbury, Bridgwater and Porlock into North Devon and passes through the shopping and business centre of Street.

The hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lt.-Cmdr. Maydon) will recall the correspondence he has had with previous Ministers of Transport about the need for a relief road to ease the congestion which occurred in the High Street at peak hours and during the summer months. He will also remember that a place was found in the 1967–68 programme for this improvement scheme and that the county council was able to start work on the construction of the relief road in December, 1967.

Sizeable contributions towards the cost of the scheme were made by the principal industrialists in the town who ought to have credit for that and the Street Urban District Council. My Ministry made a grant of £105,000 to the county council towards the remainder of the cost of the scheme.

The relief road runs on the northwestern side of the town leaving the existing A39 north of the town and re-joining it on the south-western outskirts. It is about 1⅓ miles in length with about half of a mile of dual two-lane carriageways on the north-eastern length, the remainder being single 24 feet wide carriageway. The number of points at which pedestrians and vehicles have access to the new road has been kept to a minimum in the interests of road safety. Subways have been provided in order to reduce the pedestrian-vehicle conflict and thereby lessen the risk of accidents from this source.

I know it can be argued that there are not sufficient subways. This is argued with any scheme.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon

That is not my argument at all. I think pedestrians have been very adequately catered for by the addition of the second subway. It is the traffic that causes the real danger not pedestrians.

Mr. Brown

I have misunderstood the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The improvement scheme was carried out by the county council's direct labour force and the relief road was opened to traffic in April of this year when the carriage-way works were completed. Certain works such as fencing and street lighting have still to be completed.

In the eight months between the opening of the new road and the end of November there have been eight accidents resulting in personal injury on the relief road. However there has been only one accident involving personal injury on the superseded length of road through the town centre in the same eight months period. This compares with a total of 46 personal injury accidents on this section during the three year period 1963–65, the latest period for which figures were readily available. This is a considerable improvement.

Six of the eight personal injury accidents on the new road took place at the junction with Glastonbury Road, near the north-eastern end of the new road. One of the remainder was north of this junction and the other at the junction with Hound Wood Drive. None of the eight occurred in darkness so it would appear that the temporary absence of street lighting does not seem to have been a contributory factor. A total of seven accidents involved vehicles turning right on to or off the relief road, and in five cases prosecutions have either resulted in convictions of one of the parties involved or prosecutions are in progress or have been notified by the police as intended.

In spite of the concentration of accidents at the Glastonbury Road junction, the incidence of prosecutions and convictions seems to indicate that the fault may well lie more with driver-behaviour than with design of the junction, which I must stress conforms to known principles and is of a type generally accepted as suitable for the volume of traffic using this junction.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to the opinions of local people who know the area. I would refer to the Western Daily Press of Friday, 9th May, when Councillor Tom Brooks, Chairman of Street Urban District Council Public Works Committee, was reported as planning: … to lead a sit-down demonstration on the town's inner relief road to get a 40 m.p.h. speed limit introduced. He is quoted as saying: I think in the summer there is going to be wholesale slaughter. I am delighted, as I am sure Councillor Brooks will be, that his forecast has been proved to be completely erroneous.

It is understandable, however, that a good deal of concern should have been expressed locally about these accidents, and the situation at the Glastonbury Road junction was discussed on 24th November at a meeting between the Street Urban District Council and officials of the Somerset County Council at which the Ministry's divisional road engineer was represented. The urban district council pressed for a change in the layout of the junction at Glastonbury Road from a T-junction to a roundabout design and urged that in the interim period certain amendments should be made to the signs and road markings at the junction. I understand that most of these minor measures have been rejected by the traffic signs and safety subcommittee of the county council but the request for a roundabout will be considered by the highways committee on 22nd December.

Turning now to the question of a speed limit, in October, 1968, the county council applied for the Minister's consent to a 40 m.p.h. speed limit over the major length of the relief road. This proposal was examined in detail by our divisional road engineer but rejected because the new road, despite the fact that it passes through an area of some residential and industrial development, does not have the frontage development normally associated with a 40 m.p.h. speed limit.

Perhaps I may briefly describe our policy on the use of speed limits to help illustrate this particular case. The previous Minister announced in April of this year a new policy for speed limits; this followed up the outline suggested in the Green Paper "How Fast?", published the previous July, which invited public discussion on the question of speed limits. We received over 200 contributions from organisations and members of the public. The whole theme of this discussion paper and the keystone of our new policy is realism. We recognise that the success of speed limits largely depends on the co-operation of the majority—I stress, the majority—of drivers. When we consider the difficulties of the police in enforcing limits which are not observed by the majority of, I think fair to say, reasonable drivers, and the severe penalties for breaking speed limits—which can deprive a driver of his licence and livelihood—we have an obligation to see that these limits are imposed only where they are justified.

The aims must be to strike a balance between traffic movement and the need to avoid accidents. A limit can only help to the extent that it alters speeds and it can only alter speeds to the extent that most drivers choose to observe it. Similarly, we do not want speed limits on roads that have a better accident record than the average for the same types of road, otherwise the entire country would soon be littered with speed limit signs. To impose a speed limit knowing that it would make no real contribution to the safety of the road certainly is not helpful. Indeed, it can be positively harmful, since an increase of unnecessary and unrealistic speed limits would only bring a valuable safety weapon into disrespect. That is the last thing that the House would wish.

To ensure uniformity and consistency in applying speed limits throughout the country, we have to lay down established criteria and it was on these criteria that we judged this application. As I have already explained in previous correspondence with the hon. and gallant Member, our view was—and still is—that the situation here does not satisfy the criteria for a 40 m.p.h. speed limit. This is not to say that we have not taken account of local views. We were well aware of the strong local desire for a 40 m.p.h. speed limit, but we could not agree to adopt a measure which would, in our view, make no contribution to road safety and might, indeed, have had the contrary effect.

We therefore wrote to the Somerset County Council in March of this year, turning down its proposal for a 40 m.ph. limit on the length of just under a mile. After further representations from the county council, we later agreed to consider a 100 yard extension along the relief road of the present 40 m.p.h. speed limit on the A39 through Walton, but this has not to date been taken up by the county council.

I understand that at the recent meeting betwen the county and urban district councils, the question was raised as to whether a 50 m.p.h. speed limit might be more acceptable, but the county council has not asked the Minister to agree to such a limit. On the evidence at present available on speeds and accidents on this road, I think I am bound to say that a speed limit does not appear to be justified. However, I am asking the Divisional road engineer to co-operate fully with the councils concerned and to continue to study conditions on this road to see whether any additional safety measures can be put into effect. I need hardly say that we, and, I am sure, the county council, are ready to adopt any solution to the problems of this road that we consider provides the right answer. We will keep the situation under constant review and see whether there is anything that we can do to improve it. In terms of other roads in the county of Somerset and nationally, the record of this road is not bad.