Agenda item

(To receive a report by Sam Edwards (Senior Project Leader (Major Schemes)), which summarises the assessment process undergone for generating the highway improvement project at Gedney and then identifies the details and benefits.  The report also identifies how the National Productivity Investment Fund is being allocated across the County for Highway and Transportation Projects to maintain existing infrastructure and drive improvements)

Consideration was given to a report which summarised the assessment process undergone for generating the highway improvement project at Gedney and then identified the details and benefits.  The report also identified how the National Productivity Investment Fund was being allocated across the County for Highway and Transportation projects to maintain existing infrastructure and drive improvements.

Members were advised that most of the concerns with this scheme were around the delineation between the lanes and the proximity to the junction.  It was reported that the merge would begin 325m in advance of the junction and be fully merged at 150m in advance.  The minimum design requirement was for the lanes to be fully merged by 50m.  It was noted that the authority was significantly exceeding the minimum safety requirements of the national design standards.

The Committee was provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report, and some of the points raised during discussion included the following;

·         One member commented that the proposals seemed fine, but they could understand why people would have concerns about 3 lane carriageways.  It was hoped that people would look at the design of the scheme being proposed and not the perception of historical dangerous schemes which scheme did not mirror.

·         It was commented that a loose comparison with schemes at Louth and Leadenham had been made regarding very low accident figures, however, it was felt that that these schemes were not directly comparable with Gedney but did provide an expected trend.

·         One member commented that when all parish and district councils were against a scheme, then it was time for a rethink.  There were concerns that £2.5m was going to be spent on this scheme and then more money would need to be spent at a later date, to rectify any issues.

·         One member commented that they could not see a problem with this piece of road and that many district councillors and local people were against it.  It was felt that the scheme was in the wrong place, or not needed at all.  It was also commented that the road was in good condition, and it could not be understood why the scheme was taking place, as there had not been accidents on this stretch of road either.

·         It was clarified for members, that this scheme was taking place as it had been identified through a Routes Action Plan (RAP) for the A15, A16 and A17.  This analysis showed that there was a need for improvements based on modelling work which had been done.  The decision to carry out this scheme had been evidence based.  This scheme is a strategic improvement to the road network in order to reduce congestion.  It was noted that this was one of the slowest stretches of road on the A17.

·         It was noted that transport businesses where in favour of this scheme.

·         It was important to not allow an unclear consultation to determine an outcome.  It was commented that this was an important point as a lot of people did not understand what the scheme was or the reasoning behind it.

·         One member commented that they would be supporting the scheme as there was a clear need to scrutinise proposed projects based on evidence of facts.

·         It was also commented that if this scheme was going ahead, then it was felt that the double lane was on the wrong side, as one area of frustration for drivers was when Cross Keys Bridge was closed, and it was suggested that the two lanes should be on the convex side of the bend.

·         It was noted that it was correct that there had been no accidents on this stretch of road, but this was not an accident reduction scheme, it was primarily aimed at improving journey time reliability. 

·         In relation to the comment regarding the side of the road for the two lanes, it was reported that an analysis of both sides had been carried out, and the east bend had resulted in a better cost benefit analysis.  Members were advised that the analysis data was contained in the RAP document on the LCC website.

·         One member commented that they would support this scheme on the basis of it being part of the strategic network that would significantly reduce congestion.

·         The Committee supported the proposal for an information event on this scheme before a decision was made.

·         It was suggested that the Route Action Plan document should be brought to a future meeting.

Upon being put to the vote, it was noted that Councillor C J T H voted against the proposed scheme, but supported a consultation before a decision was made.

RESOLVED

1.    That the Committee supported the proposed carriageway improvement scheme on the A17 at Gedney.

2.    That the Committee supported the carrying out of a consultation before any decision on the scheme was made.

3.    That the comments made in relation to this scheme be noted.