§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. McFall.]
§ 10.1 pm
§ Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton)May I begin, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by thanking you for the opportunity to raise this issue today? The A3 Kingston bypass is worthy of debate for many reasons. For example, it is reputed to be the busiest stretch of non-motorway road in Europe. It has to accommodate large volumes of traffic on a road designed many years ago for a tiny fraction of that traffic. It is a difficult road on which to drive because the lanes are narrow and traffic is so heavy and fast-moving. Not surprisingly, there are many accidents.
These are good reasons for debating the A3 Kingston bypass, but they are not the main issue on which I wish to focus today. Instead, I want to focus on the people who live next to the A3—the communities on either side of the road which bisects my constituency. In my research and campaigning, I have been horrified by how little attention and weight is given to the needs of these people in the calculations and decision processes of the Highways Agency—the body responsible for the A3 and its service roads.
The shortcomings of the Highways Agency approach was shown recently in a report on the A3 Kingston bypass, entitled "Assessment of accidents involving vehicles leaving the main carriageway on the nearside." The report made the welcome recommendation that the speed limits on the road should be reviewed, but failed to back the case for more verge safety fencing. I believe this failure followed directly from the narrow terms to which the previous Government asked the Highways Agency to operate, and from the flawed statistical methodology the agency has to use. These have to change.
Even without such systemic changes, it is now vital that something is done to make this stretch of road safer for the people who live alongside it. These residents already live with the pollution and deafening noise from the road. It seems entirely reasonable to ask that they should at least be safe in their homes, protected from traffic accidents.
To improve safety for local residents, various actions are required. In some places, traffic-calming measures on service roads—such as Tolworth rise north—would help. Some service roads, such as Hook rise south, would benefit from a reduced speed limit. In other places, such as some stretches of Malden way, blocking the service road where it runs directly and dangerously on to the A3 might be the solution. I ask the Minister urgently to instruct the Highways Agency to consult residents on such options.
Whatever specific package of improvements might result from such a consultation, I am convinced that any safety improvement programme must contain three essential measures. First, it must provide a reduction in the speed limit, to 50 mph, along the entire stretch of main carriageway. Secondly, there must be measures to ensure proper and rigorous enforcement of such a speed limit. Thirdly, and above all else, safety fences must be installed in the many spots that are still unprotected. I argue for the urgent implementation of those three measures.
662 The A3 Kingston bypass is a unique stretch of road. Built before the war, compared with current standards, it is now substandard in many key aspects of its design and construction. The Highways Agency freely admits that, today, no new trunk road would be built to such poor safety standards. However, the bypass should not be compared with a new trunk road: it is more akin to an urban motorway. It is six lanes of fast-moving traffic, snaking through Chessington, Tolworth and New Malden, often at speeds well in excess of the 70 mph limit. That urban speedway has many dangerous features that would be considered totally unacceptable and unsafe on a new trunk road, let alone on a motorway.
The service roads at either side of the main carriageway are mostly two way, resulting in traffic passing near-side lane to near-side lane, with no safety fences in between, which is extremely disconcerting for drivers new to the road. As for the many entrances to and exits from that busy road, vehicles simply have insufficient room for adequate acceleration or deceleration into or out of the fast-moving A3 traffic. The road design and layout mean that often there are no proper slip roads. Even when there are slip roads on to the A3—such as that running from the Tolworth junction, by the Toby Jug pub-people experience real dangers when joining the A3. Several bus stops are still on the main carriageway—which would be unimaginable on a motorway and unthinkable on a new stretch of trunk road.
Undoubtedly, the most dangerous feature for local residents is the high speed of heavy traffic on a road with close proximity to unprotected footpaths and housing. Earlier this week, I met local residents and walked along both sides of the road. They told me how frequently accidents occur—once a week in some places. Cars leaving the carriageway and crossing a verge often end up crashing into parked cars, colliding with people's garden walls or smashing into people's houses. It is anyone's guess whether those accidents are all reported or appear in the Highways Agency's statistics, but I doubt that they do.
Local people told me how vehicles—cars and lorries alike—with no safety fences to stop them, often cross the near-side verge from the main carriageway on to service roads, simply to avoid queues. Unsurprisingly, such reckless queue jumping often results in accidents or in damage to parked vehicles. It can only be a matter of time before a pedestrian is killed, or even residents sitting in their lounge watching television are killed.
If the Minister doubts those dangers, I shall recount one relatively recent incident. On 18 January 1997, a Sainsbury's lorry left the main carriageway, crossed the service road and finally crashed into 210 Tolworth rise south. Before this debate, I gave the Minister a copy of a photograph of that dreadful incident. As the verge at that site is sloped and has absolutely no safety barrier, the vehicle left the carriageway and became airborne. It crashed into a house, but caused £135,000 in damage and destruction to two houses. Fortunately, no one was hurt.
The accident was not the first time that vehicles have ploughed into 210 Tolworth rise south. The resident, Mr. Wouters, told me that his front wall had been knocked down three times. Another time, one Christmas morning, his porch was destroyed. One might ask why he continues to live there. Perhaps, because he served his country in the 6th Airborne, he is reluctant to retreat in the line of fire. However, he should not have to retreat. Mr. Wouters, his wife and their neighbours should have 663 protection—and at the earliest possible opportunity. There is an unanswerable case for safety barriers along that stretch of Tolworth rise south. Indeed, as I walked along the A3, I saw that protection was needed in many places, along Malden way, for example. What makes the problem even more bizarre is that safety barriers are installed in some places and special kerbing in others, yet for some unfathomable reason, a number of places have been left totally unprotected.
Local feeling is now running high, especially after the recent report from the Highways Agency, rejecting the case for safety barriers. Local residents, especially those from Tolworth rise and Malden way, are so upset that, led by a local young mother, Ms Julie Fisher, they have recently set up the SCAR campaign—stop cars, add railings. After years of inaction and excuses, it is clear that they have simply had enough. Having spoken to them and seen the excellent work of Councillor Rev. David Ward on the subject over the years, and having worked on the issue for some months, I can understand residents' frustration.
Let us start with the report. Even from its introduction, it is clear that it is flawed. It says that it will look at only those accidents involving personal injury. In other words, it ignores the many other accidents that happen almost daily. On that distorted logic, a safety fence can be fitted only when a few injuries and deaths have occurred. It is madness. I hope that the Minister has read the report and that she was as unimpressed as I was by its sometimes illogical and always unconvincing arguments.
In one part, the report notes that sections of carriageway without safety fences have lower accident rates than sections with safety fences. There is no real attempt to discuss that—just the implication that safety fences may contribute to more accidents. With such a finding, one might have expected the Highways Agency to recommend the removal of existing safety fences, yet it does not. Just to show how inconsistent and poor the report is, it goes on to destroy its own argument by admitting that existing safety fencing was, of course, erected in places where accidents were most likely to happen.
Ministers must not allow decisions to be taken on the basis of reports that, frankly, are even more substandard than the safety features on the A3.
The report's conclusion that there is no case for more safety fencing is odd, given some of the facts that it sets out. During its 36-month reference period, 341 personal injury accidents were recorded, of which 37 involved vehicles leaving the main carriageway on the near side. Of those, 16 were in areas with no safety fencing. However, of the 21 which occurred where safety fencing was in place, only three resulted in the safety fence being breached—in other words, the barriers work.
Given the number of accidents, the effectiveness of the barriers and the other advantages the barriers would bring—such as an end to the dangerous queue jumping via the service road—the case for more safety barriers is extremely strong. Yet the report and my meeting with the Highways Agency made it clear to me that those facts were not sufficient to convince the agency to invest in safety.
So I brought the case directly to the House and the Minister. The Minister may reply that the agency has a long list of competing demands and that there must be a system for prioritising budgets. I do not disagree, but 664 the current system is wrong. Surely it would be in line with other excellent Government initiatives—such as those on drink driving and the 20 mph speed limits—for the Minister to instruct the Highways Agency to consider the interests of the local community and not just the road user in its decisions.
Let me give the Minister another example of problems with the agency's current remit and approach. During my meeting with the Highways Agency, I questioned its representatives closely on the agency's priorities for retrospectively implementing modern safety standards to old trunk roads such as the A3 Kingston bypass. I was told that the agency's priorities did not include safety fences along the verge, so I questioned it about that. I was continually referred to the agency's guidelines, so I asked them to send me a copy. For the record, it was departmental standard TD 19/85 published in June 1985—a thrilling read. It makes it clear that, like the accident cluster analysis in the report, the guidelines for retrospectively fitting safety fences and barriers are fundamentally flawed. Section 4 of the document sets that out. It states:
Fences can be retrospectively fitted to verges in cases (a) to (f) set out below.Let us look at (d). It refers toobstructions including bridge piers or abutments, posts or large signs and sign gantry legs and trees.Nowhere do the guidelines mention anything relating to pedestrian safety or the protection of property—with of course, the exception of the agency's own property. According to the guidelines, protecting subways is more important than protecting people's homes.I hope that the Minister will assure me that she will review those guidelines as a matter of priority, as they cannot be right. In the context of the A3 Kingston bypass, they have resulted, and could continue to result, in substantial amounts of public money being spent on items that are not the top priority for safety for either local residents or the road user.
Councillors and residents have been given many excuses over the years for inaction on safety barriers. They have, for example, been told that the verge is not wide enough for barriers, yet it is wide enough to install barriers to protect gantries and subways. They have also been told that barriers would reduce visibility for drivers but, with sufficient signing, good design and a reduction in the speed limit, I do not believe that that would be the case. No one believes the excuses any longer.
I make no apology for being hard on the Highways Agency and its attitude to safety fences, but I want to be fair. I am delighted that, with the agency's help, we seem at long last to be making progress on the speed limit. I understand that it is highly likely that, later this year, the limit will be reduced to 50 mph. Anything that the Minister can do to ensure that the change is made would be heartily welcomed. If she can confirm today that the speed limit will be reduced, that would be excellent news.
The Minister will know that a reduction in the speed limit is no good unless it can be enforced. I have been told by the Hampton traffic unit that, with current resources, it would be stretched to enforce the limit, so we must also ensure that speed cameras are turned on, that they contain film, that the film is processed and checked and that there are more speed cameras. We must also ensure that it is 665 made visually clear to motorists that they are entering the reduced speed limit section—the signing must be clear and precise.
This issue is not going to go away. The previous Government failed abysmally to listen. I hope that the new Government will have fresh ears to hear, especially as this is the first time on the Floor of the House that the modern A3 Kingston bypass has been discussed and the views of those who live on the road properly represented.
I hope that the Minister will assure me that she will ensure that, when the speed limit is reduced and enforced, safety barriers will be installed. If she has any worries about the issue, I extend to her an open invitation from the local residents to visit the site at any time. She will be most welcome, and I am sure such a visit would convince her, as it did me, that urgent action needs to be taken on this matter. My constituents are looking to her for help.
§ The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson)I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) not only on obtaining the debate but on having carried out so much research into issues that are, as he said, of particular concern to his constituents.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about the A3 Kingston bypass. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has discussed a number of issues relating to the road with the Highways Agency. The road forms part of an important connection between the M25 and central London, as well as providing for local journeys. It is approximately 9.7 km long, consisting almost entirely of dual three-lane carriageway. It has, as the hon. Gentleman said, a speed limit of 70 mph and lane widths of 3 m.
I am pleased to inform the hon. Gentleman—I hope that he will be pleased to hear it—that the Highways Agency has commissioned a planned infrastructure investment study, which will comprise a major review of the maintenance and improvement works. The study will take a long-term look at the road, providing an outline programme for a 40-year period and a more detailed programme for upgrade and improvements that are required over the next four to five years. We believe that that will help to improve co-ordination of works, reduce the impact on road users and result in less disturbance to residents.
As the hon. Gentleman said, a number of issues affect the Kingston bypass. The Highways Agency has been actively involved in commissioning its consultant agent—Parkman Ltd.—and the London accident analysis unit to provide in-depth route and accident studies.
I am aware—indeed, the hon. Gentleman made it brilliantly clear—that he and his constituents are especially concerned about the provision of near-side safety fencing. I fully understand his wish to protect the occupiers of properties that front the bypass, especially those along the section at Tolworth rise south where, as he so graphically detailed, a heavy goods vehicle left the near-side carriageway on 18 January 1997.
Following that dreadful incident, it was decided that the Highways Agency should investigate the history of near-side accidents. The London accident analysis unit 666 was commissioned to carry out an analysis of accidents involving personal injury along the entire length of the A3 Kingston bypass from the A243 Hook road to the A308 Kingston vale. It used, as a basis, accident data collected over a three-year period ending November 1996. There were 341 personal injury accidents, of which 194 involved vehicles on the main carriageway. Of those, 37 involved a vehicle leaving the main carriageway on the near-side.
The analysis found no evidence of accident clusters, which, for a road such as the A3, are locations where there are three or more injury accidents within three years. The analysis found no such locations on the A3 verges. The study also found, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that those sections of the Kingston bypass with safety fencing had a higher incidence of vehicles running off the verge than did sections without verge safety fencing. However, that could be due to existing safety fencing having been erected where it was geographically most likely that vehicles would leave the main carriageway.
A comparison of personal injury accidents taken from the London accident analysis unit reports for 1994 and 1996 shows that the Kingston bypass has fewer personal injury accidents per kilometre than other trunk roads, borough roads and motorways within Greater London. For the A3 Kingston bypass, typical values are 12 accidents per kilometre. Elsewhere, the figure is nearer 16 accidents per kilometre.
A key target set by the Secretary of State for the Highways Agency is to contribute to reducing the number of accidents by the year 2000 by a third. One of the ways to achieve the target is to carry out safety schemes where the road environment is believed to contribute to the occurrence of accidents. The identification of suitable locations is not simple. The nature of accidents is such that it is not possible to predict where or when one will occur. Besides the isolated cases, it is known that accidents occur at sites of higher risk and those are identified by clusters of similar types of accidents. Therefore, the Highways Agency targets such sites.
Reliable data on personal injury accidents are available as a result of the legal requirement to report them. However, I recognise that a number of damage-only accidents will also have occurred. Indeed, residents and their representatives have brought those to the attention of the Highways Agency, for which I am grateful. As yet, there are no reliable records of those and, therefore, the nationally accepted practice is to use injury accidents to decide priorities between sites.
The criteria used by the Highways Agency for the provision and location of safety fencing are set down in departmental standard TD 19/85, "Safety Fences and Barriers", which is contained in volume 2, section 2 of the "Design Manual for Roads and Bridges". A copy of TD 19/85 is lodged in the House of Commons Library. The then Minister for Roads and Traffic made a statement to Parliament on 17 December 1986, which extended the provision of safety barriers to all dual carriageway trunk road central reserves where it could be shown that that was justified by the traffic using the road. That was to reduce the number of multiple-vehicle crossover incidents.
667 The "Safety Fences and Barriers" standard gives advice on the need to protect exceptional local hazards and it is for the designers to consider whether, in their professional experience, safety barriers should be provided. Safety barriers in themselves may present a hazard.
Verge accidents on the highway, unlike central reserve crossover accidents, usually involve one vehicle. Therefore, continuous-verge barriers are provided at sites of higher risk in accordance with departmental standard TD 19/85.
The policy of providing vehicle protection only at identified obstructions and hazards is well tested. However, it is under continuous review and is amended in the light of changing circumstances. The Highways Agency and the Transport Research Laboratory are examining accident data to evaluate the case for extending the provision of safety barriers at verges. Safety fencing on the verge should be provided where there are exceptional local hazards involving layout and roadside features. That includes obstructions closer than 4.5 m to the edge of the running carriageway on roads with speed limits above 50 mph. There is no requirement to protect obstructions, including buildings, beyond that point.
Safety fencing does not always provide the full solution. A safety fence would not have prevented the lorry from leaving the carriageway on 18 January 1997. Safety fences are designed and provided to contain vehicles of up to 1.5 tonnes. Evidence shows that a safety fence would have only a marginal effect on reducing the speed of errant heavy goods vehicles. In many locations on the verge, there is insufficient room to erect safety fencing that complies fully to TD 19/85. Where safety fencing is erected with less clearance than desirable there is an increased risk of accidents. For example, a car hitting a safety fence may be redirected back into a fast-moving traffic stream.
Another consideration is the effect that safety fencing can have on drivers' stopping sight distance, as the hon. Gentleman said. A safety fence can be an obstruction to a driver's line of vision approaching a bend and inhibit the ability to brake safely and stop before reaching an observed hazard. Other alternatives to protect near-side verges on the A3 such as higher kerbs are not viable. Research has shown that they are not suitable for high-speed roads such the Kingston bypass.
One positive proposal to come out of the London accident analysis unit's report was a recommendation for a review of the existing 70 mph speed limit on the A3 Kingston bypass. The Highways Agency has discussed the matter with the police, who are keen for the existing limit to be lowered to 50 mph. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. Having completed an initial consultation with interested parties, the Highways Agency is proposing to publish draft orders on 20 March 1998 to reduce the speed limit to 50 mph. A statutory objection period of seven weeks will follow before the Highways Agency can make the necessary orders. If no objections are received, it will organise the erection of signing to implement the new speed limit. The works will include the installation of additional speed cameras, 668 requested by the police to enable the effective enforcement of the new speed limit. The hon. Gentleman said that that was particularly important. It is anticipated that implementation will be completed by summer 1998.
We believe that the measure will offer benefits to road users and local residents. Research has shown that reducing the speed limit can result in a reduction in the total number of accidents. That is an important principle in the Highways Agency's key objective of achieving a one-third reduction in the number of accidents by 2000.
I am aware that local residents and councillors have campaigned for a reduction in speed. A petition presented to the Government last year by local residents favoured a 50 mph speed limit. I trust that the residents will recognise that their concerns have been taken into account and something has been done. The Government have a duty to protect road users and residents. A 50 mph limit will strike a balance between the needs of both. Once the Highways Agency has completed the exercise, I shall ask it to monitor the situation and report back to me on the benefits obtained and make recommendations for any further measures.
There is also the problem of vehicles crossing the near-side verge at certain locations and using the service roads as a short cut when traffic on the A3 is delayed. The most notable example was on 18 December 1997, when a burst water main caused a long tailback and led to a driver intentionally crossing the near-side verge. The vehicle subsequently hit a car parked in the service road. The Highways Agency is aware of the situation, but, because of the specific circumstances and site constraints, it is having difficulty identifying a practical and safe solution. For example, raised kerbs and concrete bollards can create risks.
For other road users, such as motor cyclists, flexible knockdown bollards do not present a significant deterrent. The Highways Agency will therefore continue to monitor and consider the situation carefully. The service roads are part of the trunk road network, but are more akin to local roads in terms of problems faced by residents. The agency would like to reopen discussions with a view to transferring all service roads to local authorities. They could then be managed as local roads for the sole benefit of local residents.
Concern has also been raised, and was again tonight by the hon. Gentleman, about the safety of pedestrians, particularly schoolchildren. However, the majority of such journeys are made on footpaths not adjacent to the A3, and we therefore believe that the risks are low. The risk will inevitably be further reduced by the intended reduction in the speed limit. I will, however, ask the Highways Agency to identify any locations where large numbers of pedestrian movements occur on footways immediately adjacent to the A3 carriageways. It will also identify opportunities to implement schemes that encourage reduced dependence on car-borne journeys in support of its Toolkit initiative, which was launched by noble Friend the Minister for Roads on 22 January 1998.
669 In conclusion, it is clear that the reduction of speed on the A3 Kingston bypass will have an impact on the entire length of road in terms of reducing accidents. By monitoring the situation closely, the Highways Agency will be able to determine whether the speed limit reductions, combined with action to safeguard areas where exceptional hazards exist, will have the desired 670 effect. However, I realise that the hon. Gentleman will conclude that that does not go far enough. An open mind will therefore be kept on the issue of safety fencing following the introduction of the 50 mph speed limit, and I will—
§ The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.