Aaargh.

Actually, sod it. I'm not going to let that be the last word on this.

My reply to the 'Scoping Note' fob-off the Highways Agency provided:

============================================================
3 September 2013

To: Highways Agency
CC: Tom Thacker (HCC), Sir George Young, MP, Cllrs Keith Watts & Eric Dunlop (B&DBC), Whitchurch Town Council


Dear ...

Thankyou for providing me a copy of the Scoping Note, which I re-attach here for those in CC.     (http://goo.gl/IqiynT)

I would like to raise the following points where I feel the Scoping Note misses the point or draws incorrect conclusions:

1) Page 15: 'Possible Remedial Options' - "Remedial measures at this location will not save any of the recorded personal injury collisions that have occurred on the slip road during the last 10 years, irrespective of severity of collision"

The three recorded crashes on the sliproad were the result of cars driving too fast, not being able to remain on the road, and crashing - for example: "Car travelling north  along slip road negotiates left hand bend at speed and driver lost control". These are a direct result of the speed limit posted being too high, drivers being lulled into thinking that the national speed limit is appropriate having just exited a 70MPH carriageway, and finding out too late there is a sharp corner to negotiate.

It is obvious that were the speed limit to be reduced on the slip road, these vehicles would not have crashed as they would not have been travelling at speeds too fast for the corner.

2) The conclusion (page 15, options 1 & 2) goes on to state: "However, if funded, some remedial works may alleviate the anecdotal problem of vehicles heading the wrong way up the slip road"

This is absolutely the case, and is what locals have been asking for. However, the eminently sensible suggestions are then shot down by the statement on the following page that: "In our conclusion it is stated that there are no solutions to mitigating the collisions identified and as such the score generated would not generate a positive score, with costs outweighing any Benefit"

This is total nonsense. These are two completely separate issues - one is concerning the SPEED of vehicles on the sliproad, the other is of vehicles driving the WRONG WAY up the sliproad.

Your report claims (wrongly) that nothing could have been done to prevent the three speed-related crashes on the sliproad, then goes on to say that because they couldn't have been prevented, there's no point in spending any money on the completely unrelated issue of HGV's and cars driving the wrong way up the sliproad. That this totally flawed logic made it into a formal report written by a senior road safety engineer and was allowed to then be issued to the public beggars belief. Is this Enterprise Mouchel/Highway Agency's usual standard?

Conclusions

In the conclusion, the report states that:

"Whilst statistics show that this area is above the investigatory levels and trends, the actual collision numbers are low. Any small increase or decrease in collisions, which could be subject to random fluctuations, results in a significant percentage change and as such these trends and investigatory levels should be treated with caution"

Who decides the benchmark here? The number of collisions in relation to vehicle movements is either above or below the 'trigger levels' for work. Binary - yes or no. The number of crashes is ABOVE the national average by THREE TO FOUR TIMES, yet your report dismisses this as needing to be 'treated with caution' - funnily enough, exactly how locals have come to treat this intersection, for fear of life or limb. The three collisions wer all of the same type - loss of control due to excess speed. These are not 'random fluctuations', rather built-in design failings.

"Any decision to change a speed limit is to be guided by the level of collisions occurring on that stretch of road. The relationship between the speed limit and collision frequency has led to the establishment of Investigation Levels, which trigger if action is required. From the information provided by the Safety Team this trigger point has not been reached"

What are the 'trigger levels'? How many more people need to be hurt? Is 3-4 times the national or area average not high enough?

"Reduction in the speed limit is unlikely to alleviate the concern of vehicles going the wrong way up the slip road"

I could not agree more. 

"None of the remedial works proposed, if funded, would save any STAT19 personal injury collisions, however, some remedial works may alleviate the anecdotal problem of vehicles heading the wrong way up the slip road"

Yes. Finally. So what I would like to see is for HCC / Highways Agency plan to put in place the suggested remedial works in Options One and Two to prevent vehicles driving up the sliproad the wrong way - which should also have the add-on effect of preventing vehicles exiting the sliproad from crossing onto the wrong side of the road into the face of oncoming Tufton-bound traffic - a problem reported by locals but not acknowledged in the report at all.

And also I would like EM/HA to acknowledge that these are two completely separate issues and therefore the flawed cost/benefit assumptions are not relevant.

Regards

Dead End.

This blog was started exactly one year ago with the following 'mission statement':

It's my belief this corner should be 40, no more. In fact, that the whole of Winchester road into Whitchurch should be 40, but one fight at a time.
So here is where I'll be posting a record of my communication with the council employees, managers, elected representatives at local, county and national level. This record will show how good (or bad) the Hampshire authorities are at reacting to public concern regarding road safety.It is my fervent hope that during what I anticipate will be a long struggle, no-one is injured or killed. Being proved right in that way would be a tragedy.

Now first and foremost, thankfully no-one has been injured or killed. For that, and the lack of opportunity to say 'We told you so', I'm very grateful. However in the intervening year nothing has changed.

What has just arrived is what seems to be the final word on the matter:

Dear Mr Stead

Referring to our previous correspondence, please find attached the Note of the Scoping Study carried out by the Head of Operational Safety with our service provider, Enterprisemouchel. The reports confirms that it will not be possible for us to justify the type of action you are proposing. We will continue to monitor the junction and give consideration to other possible actions we can take, subject to availability of funds.

... Asset Manager-Highways Agency | Federated House | London Road | Dorking | RH4 1SZ

And here is that Scoping Study, in all its glory: http://goo.gl/IqiynT

It takes about 5 minutes to read, end to end. It includes data on 10 different collisions that have happened in the area, and notes that none of these occurred at the Nun's Walk-Winchester Road junction.

Let's look at some of the findings:

"The severity ratio is higher than the national average and the Area 3 average, however due to small number of collisions the percentage change is high and as such should be treated with caution."

What this seems to say is that there *might* be a problem, but because more people haven't been hurt or killed, we can't be *sure* there's a problem. In the detailed description of the three crashes that occurred on the Northbound sliproad, the report finds:

"None of the above collisions occurred in the vicinity of the Nuns Walk Junction, and all three collisions involved driver error"

The report goes on to state: 

"Remedial measures at this location will not save any of the recorded personal injury collisions that have occurred on the slip road during the last 10 years, irrespective of severity of collision. However, if funded, some remedial works may alleviate the anecdotal problem of vehicles heading the wrong way up the slip road" 

The report seems to be assuming that the ONLY area of concern here was the Nun's Walk/Winchester junction, when it was actually the whole issue of the Sliproad being a 60-70MPH zone which then funnels vehicles into a sub-optimal intersection at speeds allowing only a fraction of a second to react to any road danger. If traffic was only doing 30MPH, this intersection would not be an issue.

The report then states that yes, the Nun's Walk/Winchester road layout is an issue, and that 

"some remedial works may alleviate the anecdotal problem of vehicles heading the wrong way up the slip road"

and then goes on to detail just what this might involve - more signs, more paint, some kerbing built into the existing road. But - and this is the killer, no pun intended:

"In order for any solutions to be put forward to address the concerns/problems a Project Appraisable Report (PAR) would need to be completed and presented at a Value Management Workshop. The PAR is populated with the need, intelligence gathered, costs associated with the solution and the calculated savings, a score is generated automatically in the form of a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) and a ranking score, derived from the BCR, scored out of 10. 

BCR = Benefit from Investment (expressed in monetary terms)  / Cost of Investment 

In our conclusion it is stated that there are no solutions to mitigating the collisions identified and as such the score generated would not generate a positive score, with costs outweighing any Benefit.

So they acknowledge that yes, this junction is not good, and that three vehicles have crashed in the last 10 years due to excessive speed / drivers 'losing control' (which is another way of saying they could not stop/avoid something in time, i.e. were travelling at an excessive speed). But because the three crashes occurred 1-200m up the sliproad and not actually at the junction itself, there is no benefit to be had from any improvements because they wouldn't have made a difference in those three cases.

The issue of just exactly how to stop HGV's travelling up the sliproad and killing a family of four (£8M worth of Benefit-Cost savings right there, DfT/HMRC) is left hanging.

Here's the full conclusion:

Four collisions occurred on the Northbound off slip but none in the vicinity of Nuns Walk and all involved driver error and loss of control. None of these collisions have occurred due to vehicles going the wrong way up a slip road 

Whilst statistics show that this area is above the investigatory levels and trends, the actual collision numbers are low. Any small increase or decrease in collisions, which could be subject to random fluctuations, results in a significant percentage change and as such these trends and investigatory levels should be treated with caution. 

Any decision to change a speed limit is to be guided by the level of collisions occurring on that stretch of road. The relationship between the speed limit and collision frequency has led to the establishment of Investigation Levels, which trigger if action is required. From the information provided by the Safety Team this trigger point has not been reached. 

Reduction in the speed limit is unlikely to alleviate the concern of vehicles going the wrong way up the slip road. 

None of the remedial works proposed, if funded, would save any STAT19 personal injury collisions, however, some remedial works may alleviate the anecdotal problem of vehicles heading the wrong way up the slip road. 

Vegetation clearance as part of routine maintenance has taken place and these works were completed on 24th May 2013. 

Funding for improvements at this location would not score positively through the HA Value Management Process as no evidence based benefits can be established

So: crashes have happened due to speed. But not enough of them, and not at the intersection. People have seen HGV's and cars driving up the sliproad through the intersection, we know there's a problem there, but no-one's hit one yet. Therefore our Benefit-Cost ratio tells us we shouldn't do anything.

Genius. I'm out of options. If you want to write your local or national representatives further on this matter, please do. All the info is here, in order, laid out plain to see.

...and if you hear of anyone being hurt or dying, please do drop me a line. Maybe then we'll see the magic Benefit-Cost ratio tip in favour of a safer road.

Hopefully it won't be you or your kids waiting to turn right...

Thanks for reading

Mike

Scoping Note ahoy!

A reply from the Highways Agency, with a promise of...paperwork:


3 June 2013 09:55:

Dear Mr Stead

Referring to your Email below, I am sorry that you feel that the Highways Agency is acting unreasonably. I would refer you to my Email of of 12 December 2012 regarding the process used by the HA to determine whether safety proposal is taken forward and is proportionate to the need. This is in place to ensure that an objective and consistent approach is taken to all such issue across the Strategic Road Network, throughout the country.

Our funding is on an annual and we bid for funding on the business case, mentioned in my earlier Email of 12 December 2012. Our bid is assessed against other bids throughout the Agency areas across England. Our business case have to be sufficiently robust to stand that scrutiny.

I am at present awaiting a scoping note on the issues at this junction and the proposals put forward. I will contact you again when this is to hand.

... 
Asset Manager

===================================
My reply:

Dear ...

Thankyou for clarifying this. I fully appreciate the need for an objective approach to road safety investment, which is why I raise the questions regarding efficacy and future spend. My further questions below in italics.

You are proposing some 'paint', again I ask:

• What proof is there that 'paint' slows down traffic in a situation like this?
• How will 'paint' prevent an HGV crossing the centreline into the face of oncoming traffic, as has been witnessed by residents?
• How will 'paint' prevent confused motorists driving the wrong way up the off-ramp, again as witnessed by residents?

I also remind you that based on DfT records £67,899 has been spent on two minor injury crashes in the last 5 years, almost certainly speed-related where vehicles have lost control on what can be a deceptive corner if taken at anything near the posted speed limit.

• Does your 'business case' take into account the existing crash-related costs of £67,899 and prevention of further crashes?
• What is the formula applied here - i.e. how many minor or serious or fatal crashes need to happen before funding is likely to be approved?

I am pleased that a 'scoping note' is forthcoming, this is a new development.

• What exactly is this, how long does it take to arrive, and what might it tell us?

Regards

Mike

Footpath update...and a sign of great things to come?

A most welcome update on the Tufton footpath works from our newly-re-elected Hampshire County Councillor, Tom Thacker:


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The works for the footpath under the bridge are ordered and the team will let me know the start date shortly.

(see below for where these works are to be done - moving the 'No Stopping' sign back from the road edge and establishing a footpath from the Nun's Walk intersection to under the bridge)

 

The team have also told me that we are also progressing a study looking at a potential footway/cycleway from Tufton to probably the allotments/Micheldever Road area. The study will commence in late June/July as the land survey needed is programmed for early June.

The study will identify what is feasible and the likely cost of the works. A decision can then be taken as to whether it is progressed further or prioritised higher than other measures we have identified elsewhere in the town. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to these works, a request (21015315) has been made to have the vegetation cleared back from both the footpath surface and the adjacent hedgerow at the town end of the current footpath, just where there is the off-road turning loop. This is critical as now spring has arrived the growth is typically strong there, nettles slowly forcing people on bikes and foot ever closer to the road and 60MPH traffic.

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

Spring cleaning: an update on progress from HCC and the Highways Agency

An update on the Tufton intersection:

Hampshire County Council are on the case regarding the de-facto footpath along Winchester Road leading to the A34 underpass and then to Tufton:

From: Mike Stead
Sent: 03 April 2013 15:24
To: ...
Subject: Re: Enquiry regarding A34 junction with Nuns Walk and London Road Whitchurch

Dear ...

I realise this is a very late reply, apologies.

My feedback on the immediate need is for the existing unofficial footway that has been laid with gravel to be cleared back of its overgrowth and possibly re-surfaced with more gravel prior to summer, to allow safe cycling and walking. 

I understand this is not a formal footpath - can you please confirm its exact status and who is responsable for its upkeep, if indeed anyone is?

I've attached a photo of the area in question. It would be my desire to see this adopted by HCC as a shared-use path, running all the way from the 40MPH gateway to Nun's Walk.

The HCC response:

Dear Mr Stead

Thank you for the information I can confirm that your request for a shared use path running from the 40mph gateway to Nun's Walk has been added to the Basingstoke and Deane area Transport Statement.  The transport statement schedule is where all requests of this type are listed.  A colleague has instructed some initial feasibility work to ascertain the possibility of implementing such a provision and initial costs.  The proposal shall then be put forward along with other schemes within the Whitchurch area for prioritisation by both the County and Town Council members. 

Regarding the maintenance requirements a request to cut back the vegetation and top up the gravel would need to be made via the following link.  The relevant member of the maintenance team will then be able to deal with your enquiry. 

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/roadproblems   {Registered 24/4, Track It number 21015315 - Ed}

The status of the path I believe is a rural type footway and it is the responsibility of Hampshire County Council.


Regarding the 'No Stopping' sign and the short section of footpath to be installed between the A34 underpass and Nun's Walk:

Unfortunately we are unable to confirm at this time exactly when the works are likely to be completed.  The order for the works has been placed and is with our contractor.  These works are then prioritised according to the urgency of the works, with emergency highway defect works taking a priority.  As soon as there is an available resource the works shall be undertaken.

The 'No Stopping' sign shall be relocated at the same time as the gravel footpath works on this corner are undertaken.

Kind Regards 
...Assistant Transport Planner
Hampshire County Highways

---

And then there's the Highways Agency, my requesting an update 4 months after the public meeting:

On 12 April 2013 17:24, ...@highways.gsi.gov.uk wrote:



Dear Mr Stead

Referring to your Email below, I am looking at the possibility to extending the existing road hatching and vegetation clearance, to improve sightlines. However, this is subject to funding being available, which is not the case at present.

As regards the speed limit, there is little I can add to my previous comments.
..., Asset Manager


My reply:


Dear ...

By 'extend the existing road hatching' do you mean more paint? or a physical barrier that actively prevents motorists cutting the corner? There is hatching there already and it is frequently ignored. If you do simply mean more paint, on what do you base your belief that it would change driver behaviour?

Regarding funding, what is required to make this happen? how much funding, and what is the funding cycle? How can locals have input to the allocation to progress this matter?

There have been two crashes in the last 5 years resulting in 'slight' injury to three people. The DfT rates the cost of three 'slight' injuries at £22,633 each, totalling £67,899 over the last 5 years §

Obviously in these cash-strapped times we must all seek to spend taxpayers money wisely. If the cost of assessing then fixing the various issues at this intersection total say £100k, but the cost of treating injured crash victims over the course of their lifetimes runs to say £20k with three people being injured every 5 years, clearly there is a business case to sort out the problem now  and not waste more taxpayers money over the following decades. Of course if someone does die as a result of lack of action all bets are off regarding value for money - as a death clocks up a whopping £2,000,000 in one go.

Does the HA take a long-term investment view in regard crash prevention / taxpayer savings? or does the counter reset every five years or so?

Regards

Mike

§ http://www.roadsafetyfoundation.org/media/11070/saving%20lives_saving%20money.pdf

HCC Cllr follow-up

Our HCC Councillor Tom Thacker updates on progress following the public meeting: http://whitchurchandclere.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/a34-slip-road-and-tufton-junction.html

MONDAY, 31 DECEMBER 2012

A34 slip road and Tufton junction

After a brief break for the Christmas and New Year, I'm posting my report of a meeting held for residents of Tutfon by Mr Mike Stead, addressing the concerns about the danger of accidents posed at the junction by the A34 slip road and the lane known as Nun's Walk, on the South side of Whitchurch.

Mr Stead, opened the meeting and used presentation slides to show the junction in question and described his concerns and those of Tufton residents and what correspondence he had had with Hampshire, the Town Council and the Highways Agency (HA). Mr Stead then introduced me, as Hampshire County Councillor, and invited me to address the meeting.

I explained what Hampshire's approach is and how the County needs to work with the HA, as responsibility of the road falls between the two, with the junction itself under Hampshire's responsibility. I described the site visit I had undertaken with HA, Hampshire and Town Council representatives two weeks previously to look at a practical set of steps to provide a quick, short term solution.

The County has established a working relationship with the HA, which has agreed to see what it can do with the marking and clearing sight lines at the off slip road. 

I had also asked the HA to look at whether red and white concrete barriers could be used to stop off-traffic crossing over into the oncoming traffic at the bend by the junction. The HA has explained it has very limited funds and that the slip road is near the bottom of the current priority list, based on recorded accident data and casualties for junctions along the A34.

I described how a solution to formalise the worn verge - under the overpass on the Tufton side - into a hard foot way is planned by Hampshire for completion in 2013.

During the Q&A session afterwards, there was some desire to put in a cycle path on the other side of the road and change the priority at the Tufton junction. I explained that changing the priority at the junction would not work if the main flow was required to give way, since regular users would tend to ignore the Give Way, and in effect make the junction more dangerous.

I also explained how a possible longer term solution to put in a footpath with cycle path is being investigated by Hampshire. I emphasised that my priority was to make the road safer for families and others who needed a safe path between the town and Tufton. 

A continuous path on the left hand side of the road, when travelling to Tufton from Whitchurch, that may be wanted by recreational cyclists, (who would not want to have to stop and cross the road to access a cycle path), would be very costly as it would need to traverse both the on and off slip roads at Tufton. I explained that I could not support that kind of costly facilities to satisfy such recreational cyclists (or those who 'enjoy a burn', as I recall Mr Stead describing it).

The meeting adjourned with broad agreement that the solutions proposed by Hampshire were welcome, and a hope that the HA would be able to make the changes discussed.

The meeting also thanked Mr Stead for his hard work.