Lick 'o paint, lick 'o paint...

I'm reminded this week of the classic Fawlty Towers episode, where Basil sacks the expensive builder and hires an Irishman, who comes in and starts pointing at major structural works (like removing a supporting wall) and saying that a "lick 'o paint...lick 'o paint" is all that's needed. The same mindset appears to be entrenched in the Highways Agency...


The latest response from the Highways Agency:

from:		...@highways.gsi.gov.uk
cc:		"Thacker, Cllr T" <tom.thacker@hants.gov.uk>,  Traffic Management Team <traffic.management@hants.gov.uk>
date:		7 May 2013 15:08

Dear Mr Stead

I refer to your Email below and note your comments.

The intention would be extend the white lining further back along the slip road to slow straight line speeds of vehicles coming off the A303. Nevertheless, this would be subject to a robust business case being made which seems very unlikely at present. There is no proposal for a physical barrier on the highway.

As regards funding for Highway Agency schemes, I would refer to you to my Email of 18 December 2012 regarding the business cases required to bid for funds. All schemes must go through this process and provide a robust score and priority.

Firm bids for funding are made on an annual basis and schemes promoted by our area must then compete with others put forward by other Highway Agency areas in the rest of England. Only those with highest priority are funded.

...    
Asset Manager



And my reply:

(in CC: HCC Cllr Tom Thacker, MP Sir George Young, Whitchurch Town Council, B&DBC Cllrs Keith Watts and Eric Dunlop)

Dear ....

"The intention would be extend the white lining further back along the slip road to slow straight line speeds of vehicles coming off the A303"

Again, I ask: on what do you base your belief that it would change driver behaviour? As robust assessment is a key part of budget allocation surely you would have robust science of the efficacy of paint markings, before even suggesting them as an effective speed reduction? And also a plan to measure before and after to gauge effectiveness. I'm sure the HA wouldn't spend the time and money painting the road if it wasn't 100% sure the paint would dramatically slow traffic and prevent vehicles intentionally or otherwise crossing to the wrong side of the road into the face of oncoming traffic.

"There is no proposal for a physical barrier on the highway"

No proposal from yourself perhaps, but residents have suggested it and there are physical barriers (both soft and hard) in place on many parts of the highway network to keep traffic within designated lanes. Why won't you consider them here?

I repeat my unanswered question: Regarding funding, what is required to make this happen? 

• How much funding?

• What is the funding cycle? 

• How can locals have input to the allocation to progress this matter?

"Nevertheless, this would be subject to a robust business case being made which seems very unlikely at present"

This seems to me that the HA is now refusing to even contemplate an initial investigation of this problem. Is that a fair and correct assessment? 

We are coming up on a year's inaction here, despite many emails and photos from locals showing how dangerous this intersection is. Three people injured in the last 5 years at a DfT-estimated taxpayer cost of £67,899 and more to come based on the current layout. I'd appreciate knowing if there's a line being taken by your office to politely ignore this issue in the hope locals will get tired of banging their heads against a taxpayer-funded wall.

I now re-copy in our MP, as well as other local elected representatives. Should the HA continue to refuse to take this issue seriously I believe ramping up public pressure on elected officials and HA managers might be the only recourse. We cannot accept a clearly dangerous section of road in our community, or a bureaucratic view that not enough locals have died or been seriously injured yet to justify action.

Again: two crashes, three people hurt, £67,899 wasted, and every day more inappropriate speed, more near-misses. The Highways Agency will be fiscally and morally irresponsable to ignore this.

Regards

Mike