HC Deb 08 November 1972 vol 845 cc1153-64

10.29 p.m.

Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South)

I very much welcome the opportunity of this short debate on traffic conditions in my constituency of South Bedfordshire. Most of the national traffic problems are very much concentrated on South Bedfordshire, and with all the trunk roads and motorways which pass through our area we have a considerable number of difficulties.

Any hon. Member from Bedfordshire obviously has the problem of the M1 very much in mind. The crash season, if I may so call it, the season of winter fogs and difficult road conditions, is very much with us. Tied in with it is the question of computer-controlled hazard warning lights and overhead gantry lights. It is important to distinguish between the two. The gantry lights are the yellow lights which light up the M4 to Heathrow and which since they were installed have cut accidents by half. Then there are the computer-controlled hazard warning lights which flash police orders about the speed at which cars should travel.

We do not yet have gantry lights on the South Bedfordshire section of the M1, though they are promised, nor do we have operating computer-controlled hazard warning lights, though they too are promised. In answer to a Question which I tabled recently on this subject, I was told by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development that he expected hazard warning lights on the Hertfordshire section of the M1 to be operating by the end of the year but he could not give a date for the Bedfordshire section.

We are most concerned about this matter and hope that we shall soon have gantry lights and computer-controlled hazard warning lights on our section of the motorway. We hope that in this way we shall avoid the accidents which took place last year.

If we have spectacular pile-ups, people in my constituency are asking whether there is a master plan for diverting traffic off the M1 if it should be blocked by a series of appalling accidents. We sincerely hope that the Government have plans to avoid the appalling traffic conditions in a town such as Dunstable, which is in my constituency, if traffic has to be diverted off the M1.

It will be appreciated that the town of Dunstable turns out many trucks and lorries and that as a town it is extremely traffic-conscious. There are, however, three major worries in the town. The first is the problem of the A505 relief road from Luton to Dunstable. A statement has been made that this will follow the route of the railway line between Luton and Dunstable. Local people are asking whether there will be a public inquiry, whether the decision to use the railway line is final, whether special powers will be needed to take over the railway line if it is to be used for a relief road and, if the public inquiry goes through, when work will be expected to begin.

A second major worry is the question of the A5 north-south bypass round Dunstable. The existing A5 has been with us since Roman times. It is not badly constructed, it is fairly straight, but Dunstable has moved a long way since the Romans. Its population has leapt, its industry has been extended and there is a major question now being asked in the town: when will construction work begin on the A5 north-south bypass? We are told that work is in preparation, but we should like to know which route it will take. Will it be up to the Department of the Environment to decide the route, and when will work begin?

The third major worry is the inner ring road, which is sometimes referred to as the spur road. Many in Dunstable say that if the A505 relief road and the A5 north-south bypass round Dunstable are built, that will be enough. Surely, it is thought, this would alleviate traffic congestion in the town. But there is mounting anxiety about, and indeed opposition to, an inner ring road or spur road. Will there be an experiment with these first two plans, or is it intended to have some form of inner ring road?

The second largest town in my constituency is Leighton Buzzard. There are three major plans of action which a lot of people in the town would like to see come to fruition in order to relieve traffic congestion in the town.

First, there is a desire by many people in Leighton Buzzard for an early start to be made on the second stage of the inner relief road. This would enable heavy traffic especially to avoid an awkward junction at Market Square. I am told that this has been programmed by the Bedfordshire County Council for its 1973–74 programme.

Then there is a desire in Leighton Buzzard for an early start on the southern access road along the disused railway line from Leighton Buzzard to Dunstable. At present heavy traffic from the industrial area of Grovebury Road tends to clog up the town. If the southern access road were built, heavy traffic from the industrial area would be able to avoid the town centre altogether. The Bedfordshire County Council is being urged to get this plan into its programme as soon as possible.

The third major desire in Leighton Buzzard is for improvements to begin quickly on the A418 ring road which carries a large amount of heavy east-west traffic. One of the improvements that will be needed is the reconstruction of the railway bridge. At present large goods vehicles cannot get through it and their only alternative route takes them through residential areas in Leighton Linslade. As hon. Members will appreciate, heavy lorries are not welcome in residential areas.

Those are three major projects for Leighton Buzzard. Obviously Government grants, action and help will be needed, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is in a position to give some hints about when we may expect action and starts on them.

South Bedfordshire is very much a traffic sandwich. We are sandwiched between trunk roads and motorways. There are two villages which suffer particularly from this sandwich effect. The first is the village of Barton, on the A6 between Luton and Bedford. Traffic uses Barton to get from the A1 to the M1, and that means a large number of heavy vehicles on the Sharpenhoe Road. In addition a great many commuters drive from Bedford to Luton along the A6 to their places of work, and big hold-ups result. Therefore, the desire of many people in the Barton area is for a new feeder road from the A1 to the M1 and for there to be road widening and a bypass of the A6 round Barton.

The second village which suffers from the sandwich problem is Toddington. At present a great many heavy goods vehicles use the A5120 as a link between the M1 and the A5. Conditions are particularly difficult in the winding section known as Station Road. There is strong feeling in the village that large vehicles should be restricted to more suitable and safer roads.

I know that my constituents will welcome what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries said to the Europeans in Brussels about the weight and size of lorry that we were prepared to tolerate in this country. What is extremely interesting is that Toddington Parish Council moved a resolution at the County Parish Councils Association meeting last September that heavy and large vehicles should be restricted to more suitable and safer routes rather than be permitted to thunder through Toddington on the A5120, causing difficulties in the village.

As one would expect in a constituency which is part village and part town, there is a mounting demand for 30 m.p.h. speed limits to be imposed in villages. First there is the village of Totternhoe, where the roads are winding and quite unsuitable for speeds much in excess of 30 m.p.h. Totternhoe has the additional problem of heavy lorries en route to a lorry testing station at Stanbridge.

Then there is the village of Heath and Reach, which has a 30 m.p.h. limit but would like it extended towards Leighton Buzzard in order to make traffic slow down earlier when approaching the village.

Then there is Hockliffe, which is on a straight section of the A5, and there is a deadly temptation for drivers to see just how fast their cars will go. There is a 40 m.p.h. speed limit now but the villagers say that it is not enough and that they would like a 30 m.p.h. limit, properly enforced. I have received a large number of complaints from constituents and there is an overwhelming and mounting desire for this 40 m.p.h. limit in Hockliffe to be reduced to 30 m.p.h.

Then there is the village of Slip End. For more than 10 years the villagers have battled for a 30 m.p.h. speed limit. This village is sandwiched between Dunstable and Luton and many people use it to get to work in Luton or Dunstable. There is no speed limit and it is amazing that this should be so. Cars can race through quite legally at speeds up to 70 m.p.h. When we consider the places where there are speed limits it is staggering that there is no such limit in Slip End. There is an overwhelming desire that one should be imposed.

The small yet growing hamlet of East Hyde in my constituency would like a speed limit of 30 m.p.h. It is fairly close to the large Vauxhall works in Luton and inevitably large numbers of people drive through it to get to Vauxhall's. In addition commuters go through East Hyde en route to workplaces in Hertfordshire. As the traffic grows, the anxiety of the villagers increases and their desire for a speed limit grows. We have a growing population with more houses and schools. A great deal has been asked of South Bedfordshire since the war in terms of industrial expansion, housing and school expansion. We now feel that no effort or money should be spared on safety, particularly on those points I have mentioned. I have mentioned too the need for gantry lights and computer-controlled hazard warning lights.

I do not think it is too much of an effort to slow down to 30 m.p.h. in a village, particularly when the roads were not designed to take cars going faster than that speed. Surely safety should come first in a village. I would like to see a 30 m.p.h. speed limit imposed in every village in my constituency and especially in those I have mentioned.

There is an obvious limit to the amount of road building that can be done in South Bedfordshire. I hope that the Government will always give the environment priority over the bulldozer. There is a particularly important passage in the Gracious Speech which I know my constituents were glad to see. It said: My Government will take further positive action on the protection and improvement of the environment. We want traffic conditions in our villages in South Bedfordshire to be improved. We earn money from producing vehicles, and we are not anti-car or anti-lorry, but we want the balance to be tilted more towards safety and we want the greatest care to be shown by the local authorities and by the Government in preserving the environment. A good deal can be done by both Government and local authorities to see that the intent in the Gracious Speech is carried out and the environment is improved and protected.

10.43 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed)

I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) and to congratulate him on raising this important subject of the traffic conditions in his constituency. I would also like to thank him for the courtesy he showed in letting me know in advance one or two of the points he intended to raise.

The area in question is well known to me as well as to my hon. Friend. My sister went to school in Leighton Buzzard for many years and so I understand from personal knowledge the problems to which my hon. Friend has referred. There is no doubt that motorways are the safest roads we have. Their grade-separated junctions, their dual carriageways and their high design standards, with no sharp bends or gradients and with good visibility, all ensure this. This is not to say that they cannot be made even safer. My hon. Friend has referred to the terrible pile-ups we have had, particularly in foggy conditions. There were examples in his constituency and we cannot shrug these off as isolated incidents.

My Department is tackling this problem on many fronts. The overall 70 m.p.h. speed limit reduces differential speeds. We have developed advice for drivers—announced recently by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries—on how to behave when there is fog on the motorway. We are implementing an urgent programme to provide crash barriers on all major motorways. We are also introducing a computerised warning system and providing overhead lighting where it can be really useful.

My hon. Friend referred to the last two of those things. My Department has developed a system of warning signs for motorways which can display advisory speed limits and lane closure information. We intend to erect these signs at about 2-mile intervals and at intersections. They will be operated from control centres by the police and they are a considerable advance on the warning systems used up to now. Their use in fog or when there has been an accident or when road works are in progress should be evident. The introduction of this system to the length of motorway in my hon. Friend's constituency is now at the forward programme stage, but I cannot yet give a firm date for completion, just as my right hon. Friend was unable to do so a few weeks ago. I do, however, promise to write to my hon. Friend as soon as I am in a position to give him more specific information about this. We are aware of the urgency of it.

As regards motorway lighting, we intend during the next 12 months to install lights on the whole of the 38-mile stretch of the M1 from the Scratchwood service area to Newport Pagnell. There may in some places be problems in bringing electric power to the motorway, but we shall be starting on the length north of Scratchwood in the spring and I hope that the motorway will be lit throughout South Bedfordshire by next winter. The lighting will incorporate a switching system enabling it to be turned on in the daytime by the police if conditions require it.

My hon. Friend was not only concerned with safety on the motorway. He mentioned cases in his constituency where there is unhappiness with existing speed limits. The difficulty here is that all of us who are drivers have a schizophrenic approach to the problem. When we are driving we take one view of limits, often regarding them as tiresome and unreasonable, but when we are pedestrians we take another view, sometimes regarding them as a panacea for all road safety ills. The truth is that speed limits are one component, and one only, in a whole complex of safety measures, and if speed limits are to work they must succeed in restricting to controllable levels the speeds at which motorists travel. Therefore, they must be enforceable.

This makes it important to have a national policy—a reasonable and realistic policy—using a series of consistent national criteria. In other words, what we have to do is to look at the characteristics of the road and its environment. We must consider whether the particular road is more, or less, dangerous than other roads of a similar kind, which means that we must examine the accident records and see whether it has more, or fewer, accidents than the average for roads of that kind. We also take into account the volume of traffic and the speed at which the 85 percentile proportion of the traffic travels. All these factors go into the determination of an effective limit—that is, a limit which will be regarded by the majority of drivers as reasonable and realistic and which is, therefore, enforceable.

I cannot stress too much that all that happens if one tries to impose limits which do not meet the established national criteria is that they are ignored and the policy itself is devalued. This means that speed limits will no longer make a proper contribution to the safety situation.

That is by way of general comment, and I now propose to refer to the specific cases mentioned by my hon. Friend. At Totternhoe and Heath and Reach, the national criteria support the limits at present in force, though I can tell my hon. Friend that at Heath and Reach the 30 m.p.h. limit is to be extended slightly towards Leighton Buzzard to improve the visibility of the signs.

My hon. Friend has written to the Department about Hockliffe on the A5 and I understand that the county surveyor is to discuss matters with the parish council next week. We are obtaining up-to-date information and, of course, if it justifies any change in the limit there we shall certainly consider it. I give my hon. Friend that assurance.

At Slip End I am afraid that the criteria do not justify any speed limit. My hon. Friend said that cars could drive through at 70 m.p.h. quite legally. That may be true in certain circumstances, but in other circumstances it would be highly illegal. In bad visibility it would be illegal to drive at anything like that speed, even in an unrestricted area. At Slip End the criteria for a speed limit are not met. This is a matter for the county council. I think that if one tried to impose limits where the criteria are not met, and apparently are unjustified, this would undermine the whole policy.

My Department has not been notified of any proposals for a limit for East Hyde but no doubt if the local authority or my hon. Friend wishes to put them forward we can examine them and see how they meet the criteria.

My hon. Friend mentioned a number of road schemes, including Dunstable, Leighton Buzzard and the surrounding towns and villages in his constituency. The problems at Dunstable are to a large extent tied in with those of Luton. My hon. Friend will know that work is now being done on the Luton-Dunstable and Houghton Regis Transportation Study to test different transport solutions and road networks for the area. The study is expected to finish its work later next year. Until the study is completed and until its conclusions are known it would be foolish to make firm decisions about major road schemes, including the schemes in Dunstable mentioned by my hon. Friend.

No proposal about the inner relief road has been put to my Department but I take note of what my hon. Friend has said about that tonight and the views of his constituents which he has represented forcibly. I can tell him that I have decided, subject to a final decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the light of the statutory procedures, to accept the railway route for the A505 Luton-Dunstable relief road as recommended by the Luton and Dunstable Borough Councils and Bedfordshire County Council. That route is more satisfactory as it is already a line where a development and environmental barrier exists, so that a road on this alignment would be less detrimental than the Dallow Road route which would sever a residential area. It would also involve much less acquisition of property than the Dallow route. The timing of a public inquiry or the holding of a public inquiry will be a matter for the local authority. However, there is still a lot of work to be done, and many procedures have to be gone through, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, concerning this road.

My hon. Friend mentioned three schemes in Leighton Buzzard. I confirm that stage 2 of the inner relief road is included in my regional controller's list of schemes for the next financial year 1973–74. The A418 scheme mentioned by my hon. Friend has not yet been found a space in our regional programme. As he will appreciate, our resources are limited and there are many schemes all over the Home Counties and East Anglia which are competing for them. No scheme for a southern access road, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend, has yet been submitted to us by the county council. The A418 scheme and the southern access road could he affected by proposals which we are considering for a new system of transportation grants under which Government aid for local authority transportation expenditure would be related to a comprehensive programme of expenditure rather than individual schemes. Thus the responsibility would be much more with the local authorities to determine their priorities. They will be receiving more of a block transportation grant for this purpose than in the past when individual schemes have had to be evaluated by my Department.

A Toddington bypass was included in the list of principal road schemes on which preparation work was authorised by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development in March of this year. It is now up to the Bedfordshire County Council to develop a scheme and submit a detailed report so that it can be considered for inclusion in the Department's firm programme. I have no doubt that the county is doing just that.

Finally, my hon. Friend mentioned Barton-in-the-Clay. A bypass for this village was one of more than 50 small schemes included in the trunk road preparation pool in July. Preparation is now in hand but it takes a little time to investigate possible lines and develop proposals. I can promise my hon. Friend that draft proposals will be published as soon as possible. I know about the very real difficulties that this village is suffering. I hope we can press ahead with the scheme as quickly as possible.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising these issues concerning roads in his constituency. Perhaps the main point that will emerge from this brief debate is the extent to which the local authority plays a large part in so many of these matters, even where the Government are responsible for the overall policy and for considerable sums of money. Obviously, it is right that as far as possible these essentially local matters should be for local decision. The establishment of new local authorities under the Local Government Act from April, 1974, will provide a framework within which this can be carried further forward and I hope that our transportation proposals will enable them to have more rather than fewer powers, and certainly less interference from the central Government.

I can respond to the inquiry which my hon. Friend made about the environment and say that one of the reasons for setting up the Department of the Environment was to protect and improve the environment. I give my hon. Friend a firm pledge that not only as regards his area but in all our road-building and other activities one of our principal aims, apart from the economic necessities in having roads and apart from the needs of industry, since roads are often an extension of the factory production line, will be to take and use every opportunity to protect and improve the environment in so many of our towns and villages. I give a firm pledge that my Department will do just that.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising these important matters tonight and I hope that our short debate will go some way towards putting him and his constituents into the picture of what we are trying to do, with the local authorities, in dealing with their problems in South Bedfordshire.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.