Archived decisions

Contact: Les Dalby, ext 5204

1. Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

That the traffic signals option be adopted as the preferred scheme and taken forward for detailed design and implementation for the improvement on the A30 at the Dorchester Arms junction near Hook, and the attached report approved as the Project Appraisal.

2. Reason

2.1 To enable the scheme to proceed and be implemented.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 A number of options were reviewed and these were taken to full consultation. The selected option offers a robust solution.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - Not applicable.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor K B Estlin

7. Scheme

Introduction

7.1 There have been concerns about the Dorchester Arms junction extending back over a number of years. Following the detrunking of this route in the early 1970s, the accident record was unacceptably high and a number of 'low' cost safety measures were put in place . Although these were in the main successful, there remain concerns about safety at this junction.

7.2 A scheme was added to the capital programme in 1999/2000 to examine how this matter should be taken further.

7.3 This report considers the development of the scheme from that time and covers the Project Appraisal process by recommending a proposal to be adopted to deal with this matter.

8. Options

8.1 This junction had been reviewed on numerous occasions in the past but it had been concluded that the scale of any improvement was either excessively costly, unlikely to resolve the problem, or that a scheme might impinge upon the surrounding land which was designated as part of Hook Common and in part a Site of Special Scientific Interest. For these reasons such schemes did not proceed.

8.2 During the further review, closer examination of the traffic flows in this area were undertaken. The present safety schemes reduced the effective through carriageway layout on the main road (the A30) to a single lane in each direction. No significant delays were encountered and generally the junction worked efficiently. A more formal single carriageway approach layout would therefore seem appropriate and the earlier schemes were reviewed in this light.

8.3 Smaller roundabouts were found possible which marginally impinged upon the abutting land. A revised traffic signals scheme was prepared which was entirely contained within the existing highway boundary. In the event three schemes were presented to the public at an exhibition in January 2001.

8.4 The larger roundabout fully met the recommended design standards but required the acquisition of a small area of land abutting the highway. It would also be necessary to acquire a small area of land from the Dorchester Arms Public House and reach an agreement for a land exchange to be able to build this scheme.

8.5 The slightly smaller roundabout scheme, marginally below the recommended standard, still required a very small area of land to be acquired which may be already in highway use. In view of the sensitivity of this situation the same complex acquisition procedures would almost certainly need to be followed.

8.6 The revised traffic signal scheme was capable of being built without any further acquisition.

8.7 A consultation exhibition was arranged in Hook during January 2001 to seek the local residents' view of the proposals.

8.8 The residents clearly identified a need to improve this junction arising from speed related accidents which had occurred. Although only three accidents occurred in a three year period, this was still perceived as a dangerous junction.

8.9 The overall choice of scheme was 60/40 in favour of the traffic signal scheme. Many were influenced by the ability to deliver this scheme sooner and the nearest local residents felt it offered them an enhanced level of safety in their use of this junction.

8.10 There is a clear difference of option between the local residents and those of Hook generally, the latter respondents being almost equally divided between the schemes and the former almost totally supportive of the signals scheme.

9. Consideration

9.1 The formerly high and unacceptable accident record, 29 accidents in a three year period, has been reduced to three or four in a similar period. Isolated roundabout schemes produce similar in use accident records and frequently, for higher levels of design, even lower numbers occur. Remote traffic signals are found to produce about five to six accidents in the three year period. However when such signal controlled junctions are part of a comprehensive route management, this record may be significantly reduced and equal to the expectation of the standard roundabout. To reinforce the effectiveness of the signal scheme, it is proposed that the speed limits should be reduced from 50 miles per hour (mph) at the approach to the junction to 40 mph, and this limit extended to the present 30 mph at the edge of Hook.

9.2 Due to existing vehicular speeds of approach to this junction, the smaller roundabout scheme, which is marginally below recommended standards, may not fully achieve the aimed for accident reduction. The layout design, fully meeting standards, could take some time to deliver due to the need to overcome procedural steps to be able to achieve the extra land acquisition.

9.3 There is a marginal choice in favour of the traffic signal solution and such a scheme as part of the route strategy could be expected to produce the overall longer term gains the roundabout scheme might achieve.

9.4 A full report on the background, scheme options and consultation outcomes is attached as an appendix.

6653/LGD

APPENDIX

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Environment Grouping

County Surveyor's Department

REPORT ON SCHEME IDENTIFICATION

CONSULTATION

AND

RECOMMENDATION OF OPTION

FOR THE

DORCHESTER ARMS JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT

August 2001

Introduction

Prominently displayed in the Dorchester Arms public house is a photograph of a fatal accident which occurred at the junction outside this public house on the A30 on 13 February 1914. It is claimed that this was the first fatal accident in Hampshire and so began the infamous record and notoriety of this junction, which in part has increased in substance and in part by myth with the passage of time.

The A30 is an ancient highway formerly forming part of an important coaching route between London and Exeter. The route later became the responsibility of the County Council on 1 April 1930 under the Local Government Act of 1929 when it assumed Highway Authority status. Unfortunately this role was short lived as the road was `trunked' on 1 April 1937 following the passing of the Trunk Roads Act of 1936. The route became the London-Penzance trunk road and responsibility as highway authority passed to the then Minister of Transport where it remained for the next the 36 years.

As the responsible highway authority, the Minister carried out a number of improvements along this route, some of which included improvements to this junction. Much of the earlier work involved making repairs to and reconstruction of the highway to remove damage arising from the route's use as a tank route during the war. In the 1960s long sections of this route were dualled as was the A30 immediately to the west of the Dorchester Arms junction, extending towards Old Basing.

The advent of the motorway programme eventually saw the M3 Motorway being built to replace this trunk route and the existing route was detrunked in 1972 following the opening of the section of the M3 extending to Basingstoke. At the same time, responsibility for the route, including the Dorchester Arms junction was returned to the County Council. It remains the case that the M3 provides the strategic route for all east-west movements and the role for the A30 should be one of providing an important county highway which serves the local population. Through movements should be at a minimum level. It is acknowledged that although infrequently, during periods when the Motorway is closed, it is necessary to divert traffic along the A30 to maintain the strategic link. This is normally accompanied by high levels of police presence.

The route had been progressively improved over the years, and particularly during its life as a trunk route, 1936 to 1972, to deal with the rapidly growing demands for travel. However, on detrunking in 1972 no works were undertaken to change or alter the layout of this route or any of the intermediate junctions.

This left a high capacity route in place to initially carry a very light volume of traffic. This was not a problem. However, as the volume of commuters has grown, resulting in parts of the M3 becoming congested, especially at peak periods, the number of drivers being seen to use the A30 as a means of avoiding the congested Black Dam junction is becoming quite significant. This was also recognised in the early 1990s when a County Highway strategy was adopted for handling the high level of demand on this route.

The County Council has been monitoring both the volume of traffic and the number of personal injury accidents which have been occurring at this junction over the years. As a result of the greater use of this route, the number of accidents occurring at the Dorchester Arms junction continued to increase and reached an unacceptable level in the late 1980s/early 1990s. The records show that some 29 accidents were occurring in an average three year period.

In the event, a number of small safety schemes were implemented which have succeeded in reducing the number of accidents down to a level of only three or four personal injury accidents in an average three year period.

Early Studies

A number of studies have been undertaken over the years to assess how this junction might be improved. The speed limit on the A30 was generally unrestricted other than by the national limit for the dual carriageway. That limit is currently 70 mph. The recent safety schemes have brought in a lower 50 mph speed limit and effectively reduced the dual carriageway approach to the junction to a single through lane with protected turning areas by hatching out large areas of the carriageway surfacing. The maintenance of this heavy road marking system introduces a high maintenance running cost.

Early feasibility studies considered the provision of a roundabout or traffic signals at this junction. Since the speed limit was unrestricted, it was not considered safe to introduce remote traffic signals at this junction. The safest option was seen as the introduction of a new roundabout. However to build a suitable sized roundabout capable of linking in the dual carriageway approaches on the A30, additional land would have been required. Unfortunately the surrounding land is all designated as part of Hook Common and that land lying in the south-west quadrant was additionally designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The possibility of acquiring such land at that time was considered remote.

In the event, all options appeared too difficult and in response to the public concerns it was stated that the only feasible option was for a traffic signal scheme. This view has been maintained and locally it is believed that this statement remains valid. The introduction of the safety schemes however allowed the decision on this proposal to be held in abeyance.

Further Feasibility Studies

A further feasibility study was commissioned in late 1999 to look again at the options for this junction. Again the options of roundabouts and traffic signals were examined, together with an option which sought to divert the A30 from the west directly into the A287. The latter option was quickly discounted as the number of safety issues, which would need to be resolved, were considered unacceptable and the diversion scheme was not taken any further forward. The solutions again came up against the same problems which had been identified in the earlier studies.

Traffic signals would create delays throughout the day and result in extended queues at peak periods. The roundabout schemes would still need extra land and the possibility of acquiring the land was still considered remote. The current low level of accident numbers also precluded any early solution being cited in support of the need for the scheme to deal with a road safety issue in order to overcome the land acquisition difficulties.

A review of the schemes, having regard to the present policies to both reduce traffic growth and to encourage use of alternative sustainable forms of transport, together with the policy objective to promote greater use of the strategic network by through traffic, led to the questioning of the appropriate carriageway standard which was necessary to handle the demand upon the A30 at this junction.

It was clear that the present volume of traffic using this route could be accommodated on a single carriageway. The previous practice of anticipating future traffic growth over the next 10 to 15 years is no longer appropriate as the policies are to reduce the volumes of traffic likely to use this route. Growth rates will also be lower.

In addition, if the users experienced congestion and delay they would be less likely to divert from the strategic network when there was no achievable advantage in doing so. This assessment led to the decision to review the options for this junction and it was recognised that the effective carriageway standard for the A30 could be reduced to a single two lane provision (S2L). In effect this confirmed the reduction in carriageway space as promoted by the safety schemes.

Traffic signals were easily accommodated and protected right turning lanes were included in the revised scheme designs. No land acquisition was required. An analysis showed that there would be some queueing at peak periods but this was seen as positive and supported the strategy to reduce the attraction of the A30 for through traffic movements.

A roundabout still required a small area of additional land if it were to be built to full highway design standards. A smaller roundabout was also examined which appeared to be able to be contained within the existing highway boundaries. This would appear to overcome the difficulty of fitting in a new junction within the existing highway and with it the associated difficulties of land acquisition. This scheme was also developed a little further.

In the event, all three of these preliminary solutions were taken forward for further outline design. A detailed topographical survey was undertaken to ensure that accurate plans were available. These three schemes were worked up to a suitable standard for presentation to the public at an exhibition.

Issues to be Addressed

The Dorchester Arms Junction is clearly perceived as a dangerous junction, especially to the residents of Newnham and other local users of the junction. They experience significant delays at peak periods in entering and crossing the main A30 road to travel on that route (to Basingstoke mainly) or on the A287 to reach the M3 (J5) interchange, Odiham and beyond. There is a nervousness and respect about negotiating this junction. As a result all users of the junction exercise extreme caution. At peak periods however this extreme caution results in unacceptable delays and is perhaps the underlying cause for the unease. Many resort to using unsuitable side roads to reach the A30 at another point of entry. There is no alternative if the intended direction of travel is along the A287.

To the main road user (A30) Old School Road is a low class rural county highway and its relatively light use is taken to reflect and substantiate that view. As a result it is not seen as an important side road and is variously dismissed or totally disregarded. Again the local users acknowledge this perception and this leads to the continued unease by them in their necessary use of the junction.

The A287 is clearly seen and is further highlighted by the signing and its importance as a classified county highway. This further diminishes the status of Old School Road.

More traffic moves in and out of the A287 which accounts for over 20% of the vehicle movements at the junction. The through movements at the junction amount to about 75% of the movements, whilst Old School Road amounts to only 4% of the junction movements.

For traffic exiting the A287 there is a particular problem for right turning vehicles, especially at peak periods. Often, vehicles from the A287 move towards the centre area but then become hidden to through traffic as an A30 right turning queue develops. As the turning vehicle moves into the through A30 path (or even more difficult, tries to access Old School Road) they are potentially moving out into a blind area with the resultant difficulties and dangers of a possible side impact accident.

For a combination of the above reasons it is acknowledged that any solution which brings all traffic to a stop would overcome these problems for Old School Road users, even at the expense of all other traffic using this junction and should be the preferred solution. In view of the relatively light usage of Old School Road, this view is understandable. However, this is the situation essentially at the two peak periods of the day. It totally disregards the situation which arises throughout the rest of the day when traffic flows are lighter and the tendency is for through A30 vehicles to travel at a higher speed, frequently exceeding the present 50 mph speed limit.

To deal with this situation therefore requires a solution which deals with off peak and peak periods in equal measure. This design solution would introduce the need for all vehicles to reduce speeds no matter what time of day the junction was encountered.

Accidents

There is a significantly different accident pattern for either of the options being considered.

This site is a rural location and lacks the roadside features normally associated with a mainly urban area where traffic signals might be the appropriate form of junction control. It is an open area where a significant number of turning movements take place. Approach speeds are generally high, often exceeding the current 50 mph speed limit. A comparison with other similar remote signal controlled junctions would suggest that an accident record of between six and eight accidents per three year period would occur. Since the junction would be a square crossing, impacts would at a higher speed and consequently the level of injury would tend to be of the more serious outcomes and possibly, in rare cases, fatal. In the main the accidents would be out of peak periods and any debris would be removed before the next peak flow occurred. This could give a perception that the junction appeared safe.

The introduction of a roundabout here would result in a number of accidents which would tend to be classified as `slight'. There would also be a number of damage only incidents but no one would be injured. In the main these accidents would occur when flows would be at their highest. They would be very visible to other users of the junction. It is unlikely that there would be any need to close the junction as a result of these accidents. At peak periods, accidents would inevitably result in some delay. As a result the perception would be that the roundabout was dangerous. A comparison of similar roundabout junctions elsewhere in the county and also nationally indicates that an accident rate of three or four in a three year period could be expected. A closer examination of new fully designed roundabouts shows that they actually achieve a lower level of accidents than this and a few record no accidents at all.

The current accident record indicates some three or four accidents in a three year period, but this is not considered sustainable with the volume of traffic currently using this route and the complex turning manoeuvres at this junction. A typical accident record for this uncontrolled type of junction would be of the order of six to eight accidents in the three year period. This is approximately the same as expected for new traffic signals.

The Options

The larger roundabout design fully meets the standards as set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridgeworks, but it would lead to the need to acquire a small area of extra land. In addition it would be necessary to reach an agreement for a land exchange with the owners of the Dorchester Arms public house. The extra land may be part of Hook Common and also classified as an SSSI. Special statutory procedures would then be involved and result in an unacceptable delay in delivery of the project. To overcome this difficulty, a smaller roundabout design was also examined. This was slightly below the recommended standard but could be accommodated within the existing highway land boundary. The smaller central island would allow the traffic path to marginally exceed the minimum radius for the through vehicle movements. The smaller central island would also cause heavy goods vehicles to need to manoeuvre more slowly, particularly those making a right turn from the eastbound A30 to the southbound A287. This further introduces the potential for articulated vehicles to induce resonance `roll-over'. If the drivers try to make this manoeuvre too quickly, the vehicle may fall over or the trailer could become detached from the tractor unit. This is usually the result of poor driving and excessive speed. In this case, the reduced entrance widths would be expected to further control the speed of vehicles entering the roundabout and eliminate the potential for the 'roll-over' problem. This risk is relatively small and even so could occur in either roundabout case. The risk would be less if the larger roundabout were to be adopted.

The traffic signal junction would fully meet the design standards but it would do little to advance the strategy ideals for the management of the A30. An unacceptable by-product of this scheme could be that the volume of traffic using Old School Road would significantly increase. A further analysis of the impact of the greater use of Old School Road and the associated increase in turning movements has been undertaken. The results showed that there was no significant change to the delay forecasts for this junction arrangement.

The Costs

An estimate was prepared for all the schemes which were examined. These costs were shown at the exhibition and are shown in the table below:

This did not include any allowance for running costs and maintenance costs. Thus whilst the roundabout would incur minimal ongoing costs, there would be a high level of energy and replacement costs for signals. The whole life costs of these options were considered to be broadly the same, so there is no financial benefit in overall choice of scheme.

Other Issues

Lighting would probably be required at this junction due to its remoteness if signals were installed. However, lighting would be mandatory if a roundabout were to be built.

Signalised junctions can better provide for pedestrians and cyclists, but sufficient land areas would be created in the roundabout scheme to provide suitable facilities for this group of road users.

In the event that signals are provided, there would be very little land available for landscaping and adequately linking the site into the surrounding area. The roundabout schemes generates surplus highway land which could be used for landscaping works.

Consultation

The consultation process commenced with the issue of a press statement and the holding of a public exhibition at Hook in January 2001. A questionnaire was issued with a brochure to members of the public who visited the exhibition. Consultees were asked to list the issues which influenced their choice of scheme for improvement of this junction. Almost 92% indicated that their selection of scheme was influenced by the need to improve the safety record at this junction. Just below this concern at 82% was the view that speed contributed to the poor accident record. These were common assessments by all respondents but the manner in which these objectives could be attained clearly reflected the location of the respondents' residence and their use of the present junction.

As a result the other significant features, potential for diversion of the traffic, ease of construction (delivery of the scheme) and cost, only rated between 44% and 29%. It is however significant that the needs of both pedestrians and cyclists both rated at around the 30% level. Neither of these uses are noted as significant and very few pedestrians or cyclists have been observed using this junction.

It is clear that the traffic signals scheme attracted a level of support because it could be delivered in the shorter period of time. However, a number of comments indicated that the slightly longer period required to deliver the roundabout scheme, which would result in a more acceptable longer term scheme, would be worth waiting for.

The general support is indicated in Table 1 below:

Table 1 Overall Choice of Scheme

A review of the respondents clearly showed a wide coverage both in and around the area of Hook. There were actions by promoters of different schemes to encourage attendance at the exhibition and the effects of this direct canvassing were examined to assess whether it had resulted in any distortion of the simple analysis of the results. In the event the responses were analysed by their post codes which best represented discrete areas in the districts. The results are given in Table 2 below:

Table 2 Analysis by Area

The analysis by the areas clearly shows the polarisation on preferred scheme by areas involved. Table 3 shows the external areas to Hook with and without the returns from unidentified areas and its effect on the option selection.

Table 3 Analysis by Post Code Groups

Delivery of a Scheme

It is clear that urgency is one of the issues which influenced choice of option as expressed by the need to deliver a scheme quickly. That perception is clearly motivated by the location of the consultee and use of the junction. Comments made at the exhibition support this view and it is felt that ease of delivery would give greater certainty of delivery. A number of others however saw the longer term benefits and felt that another scheme would provide the most effective solution. The above tables clearly show the divide between the communities of Newnham and Hook. Newnham is solidly for traffic signals and residents from this location refused even to consider the possibility that another solution had any merit. This was in line with a recent petition submitted to their local Member advocating such a solution. The residents of Hook however are effectively split in choice. The Parish Council however is fairly supportive of the roundabout schemes. This apparent split reflects the concerns expressed about the diversion of the A30 around Hook to use the Griffen Way South to regain the route of the A30 to the east of the village. It is seen as potentially creating severance of this community from the main areas of the village.

Conclusions

In light of the consultation results above there is only a marginal choice in favour of the traffic signals. The underlying concerns are particularly related to speed and safety. Neither of the issues are well dealt with by provision of the traffic signals. Experience indicates that there would be no improvement in the current safety record and that it could be marginally inferior. It is clear that the rural area residents see the provision of traffic signals as a means of solving their difficulty in exiting Old School Road. It is accepted that for the peak periods, signals may well serve these communities well but unfortunately they would be less well served at other times. The analysis of potential queue formations indicates that there would be some delay at peak periods to all traffic and that the main road traffic would be most disadvantaged.

The construction of a roundabout does deal with speed most effectively and is expected to at least maintain the low accident record, and could possibly reduce it even further. There are problems of delivery due to land issues, but subsequently from the exhibition, some of the concerns about the land acquisition may be capable of resolution. However, the timescale is less certain and could be even further extended than initially thought to be the case. A roundabout offers a better traffic management regime for this section of the A30 and does not compromise other management measures which may be introduced in due course. The queue analysis does not indicate any excess queues being formed and certainly the users of Old School Road are not disadvantaged. A sensitivity analysis of examining a range of flows using Old School Road was also examined. This represented both an increased use and a significant increase in right turning traffic at the junction. The results indicated that there would be an insignificant effect. In reality, this means that there would be sufficient gaps in the traffic to accommodate the needs of the users of Old School Road. The benefits of a roundabout scheme are available for the whole of the 24 hours of each day. This scheme would certainly contribute to the policy for the A30 to encourage users, where appropriate, to remain on the strategic route. Unfortunately, the possibility of adopting a scheme with even only a minor lowering of standards on this fast moving section of road and where expectations are high raises issues about the longer term benefits. In the choice of roundabout solution, the best scheme tends to be the adoption of the full standard roundabout for longer term safety benefits. This exacerbates the land issues and could even further delay the scheme.

It becomes then a direct choice between the larger full standard roundabout and the traffic signals scheme.

Recommendation

In light of the issues discussed above it is clear that the choice of junction improvement is finely balanced. Arising from the consultation exercise there is a 60/40 split in favour of the signals solution but there remains the concern about the potential safety issues. There is a marginal difference in the delay effects, albeit that the roundabout would introduce the more significant level of delays to journeys. The roundabout solution does offer a greater potential to maintain the current reduced low level of accidents. It could even further reduce the number of accidents.

This scheme may however take longer to deliver than was anticipated. Signals can be provided sooner and do offer a more positive exit arrangement for the users of Old School Road at peak periods. The greater number of accidents possibly with higher levels of severity are a potential source of concern. The need to implement a solution sooner however drives the solution towards the adoption of the signal scheme. This would clearly need to be kept under review to ensure no undue problems were being encountered.

The signals scheme as part of the positive strategy for dealing with the A30 becomes more acceptable as other elements of it are brought on stream. Therefore in the final management of this route, a signals scheme would probably almost achieve the same benefits as an isolated roundabout scheme albeit that the severity ratio may still disadvantage the signals solution.

In light of the above it is recommended that the traffic signals scheme be adopted as the preferred scheme for this improvement with a revised lower (40mph) speed limit on the approach to the junction in order to gain advantage in delivery of the project.