ITEM 8 Lorries on the A26 through Wateringbury A report by the County Engineer to the Highways Advisory Board on 20 May 2003 _________________________________________________________________________ Background 1. At the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Joint Transportation Board (TMBC JTB) meeting of 16 September 2002, the Board considered a report which discussed requests received by the County Council for a permanent Lorry Ban to be imposed on the A26 through Wateringbury. The Board noted current County policy, namely that requests for lorry bans on ‘A’ roads are normally refused on the grounds that A class roads are the “best” in the area for use by HGVs, and highlighted the local circumstances of the traffic situation through Wateringbury. Members were also advised that the traffic situation through Wateringbury could be reviewed following construction of the Leybourne Bypass and further evaluation of the Colts Hill Strategic Link. At this meeting the Board resolved that Kent County Council be asked to investigate changes in signing to direct lorries away from the A26 through Wateringbury and report back on the outcome to the next JTB. 2. At the following meeting on 9 December Members of the TMBC JTB received a report, which discussed possible advisory alternative routes and associated signing for HGVs and noted the Highways Advisory Board (HAB) paper of 5 November regarding Countywide HGV Management Measures. The HAB conclusions were highlighted to the TMBC JTB namely that: - (i) The practice of refusing HGV bans on “A” roads continues; (ii) The principles of HGV routing on “A” Class roads as described be adopted; (iii) The second edition of the advisory Lorry Route Map for Kent and Medway be approved for publication and distribution 3. The HAB report also included criteria for designating non-primary “A” class roads, as is the case on the A26 through Wateringbury, as unsuitable for “through” HGVs on the Advisory HGV Map. These criteria are as follows: - (i) The “A” road must be a secondary (i.e. non-primary) route. (ii) Severe HGV impact caused by either the geometry of the road (e.g. low height bridge, weak structures, etc.) or by the structure of settlements along a route (e.g. a “string” of villages). (iii) Reasonable alternative routes exist (which must be primary routes, so that secondary routes do not transfer traffic to a similar or worse route) and can be signed effectively. (iv) Prior consultation with affected groups and the Freight Industry must be carried out. 4. The TMBC JTB paper of 9 December also discussed the necessary consultation that would be required and the results of traffic surveys that had been undertaken, during a recent road closure, as part of a reconditioning scheme for the A26 through Wateringbury. The Board resolved that this issue should be brought back to a future meeting of the JTB when up to date traffic counts were available. 5. At the last JTB of 10 March a further paper was presented with up dated traffic count information, reiteration of the consultation required together with a draft consultation letter, further refinement of the proposed alternative advisory route and additional basic information regarding alternative journey times and route lengths. A petition was also presented by Wateringbury Parish Council containing 610 completed questionnaires (response rate 79%) requesting a ban on Heavy Goods vehicles (other than for access) 8.1 Lorries on the A26 through Wateringbury _________________________________________________________________________ from using the A26 through Wateringbury. The JTB resolved that: - (i) the necessary consultation required regarding an advisory route be referred to the County Council’s HAB for approval to proceed from the portfolio holder for Strategic Planning; (ii) longer term possibilities for implementing a weight restriction upon completion of Leybourne bypass and widening of West Malling bypass be discussed as part of the report to HAB; and (iii) a meeting be held between County and Borough officers and local Members, Wateringbury Parish Council and the Police to discuss the advisory route proposal, implementation timescales and the contents of a consultation letter. 6. Copies of the three Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Joint Transportation Board papers and the HAB report of 5 November will be on display at the meeting. Alternative Advisory Route to A26 Route and Traffic 7. Bearing in mind the criteria supported by HAB for designating non-primary ‘A’ class roads as unsuitable for “through” HGVs, the alternative advisory route, using primary roads between Mereworth and Maidstone would need to follow the route illustrated on Plan 1. This is 4.2 miles longer than the existing route. An analysis of lorries on the A26 at Wateringbury crossroads is given below. Traffic survey Wednesday 4/12/02 (no. X026917 7am – 7pm) analysis of A26 movements at Wateringbury crossroads Rigid Articulated Buses & Total Total Total lorries lorries lorries Coaches Lorries with 3 or more axles Axles Axles Movement 2 * 3 4 3 4 5 6 + Eastbound 75 11 7 4 3 14 8 33 155 122 47 Westbound 63 11 4 3 4 8 4 39 136 97 34 * - 2 axle lorries maximum gross weight 18 tonnes 291 219 81 8. A maximum two way transfer over a twelve hour weekday (7am to 7pm) would be 219 lorries. As, however, some lorries would use the road for access and the alternative route is advisory it is unlikely that there would be this level of transfer. Signing 9. To avoid Wateringbury, eastbound lorries to Maidstone would have to be signed onto the alternative route at Mereworth (the A26/A228 junction). Westbound lorries would need to be signed onto the alternative route out of Maidstone to Tonbridge. Whilst eastbound direction signing may be relatively simple, signing out of Maidstone onto Fairmeadow and Royal Engineer’s Road would be more difficult due to one way systems, site constraints and more intense signing regimes and strategies in Maidstone. Detailed discussion regarding the practicability would need to involve Maidstone Borough Council. Direction signing would also be required at junctions 4 and 6 of the M20 and this would need the agreement of the Highways Agency. 8.2 Lorries on the A26 through Wateringbury _________________________________________________________________________ 10. If the alternative route were to be signed then the Lorry Map designation on A26 between Maidstone and Mereworth could be changed in future editions to an ‘A’ class road not suitable for through HGV traffic. Consultation 11. If the alternative route is to be progressed then the next step should be widespread consultation. The following would need to be consulted as a minimum. Parish Councils Mereworth, Kings Hill, West Malling, East Malling and Larkfield, Leybourne, Birling, Ditton, Aylesford, Boxley, Wateringbury, Teston, Barming, East and West Farleigh, Yalding and Nettlestead and Maidstone Borough Council Kent Police The Freight Transport Association The Road Haulage Association The Freight Forum The Highways Agency Also Maidstone Chamber of Commerce Tonbridge Chamber of Commerce As well as all Borough and County Council Members affected by the route. 12. The alternative route is longer so it is likely that more Parishes would be affected and so there may be more opposition to the proposal than support. The TMBC JTB is, however, seeking agreement from HAB to proceed with this consultation. Weight Limit on A26 13. Wateringbury Parish Council has requested a total ban on HGVs except for access, or alternatively the imposition of a 7.5 tonne weight limit (both specifying the A26 through Wateringbury). Both of these requests effectively amount to the same thing, as the minimum weight of a Heavy Goods Vehicle is 7.5 tonne. This is the minimum weight restriction that can be applied. 14. The other permitted weight restriction is 18 tonnes which is now the maximum permissible weight of a 2 axle HGV. An 18 tonne weight limit, therefore, restricts lorries with 3 or more axles. A guide to lorry sizes is appended. On A26 2 axle lorries account for 60 to 65% of the east to west and west to east lorry movements through Wateringbury crossroads and an 18 tonne weight restriction would potentially affect approximately up to 81 vehicles between 7am and 7pm. Given the need to access premises in Wateringbury and the relatively large rural hinterland along A26 not all these lorries would be transferred by these limits. The overall percentage of HGVs in the total traffic is approximately 4%, which is typical for roads of this category. 8.3 Lorries on the A26 through Wateringbury _________________________________________________________________________ 15. County policy is to refuse requests for HGV bans on “A” roads. “A” road designation implies that the road is the “best” in the area for use by HGVs. The location, status and route of “A” roads have historically developed, as with all roads, from demographics, the location of settlements, topography and geology factors to name but a few. In this case the A26 through Wateringbury is a main route between the major settlements of Maidstone and Tonbridge and broadly follows the Medway valley in this area. Other roads in the valley are far less suited to lorries. 16. Whilst it is understood that goods vehicle traffic can be intrusive and intimidating it is also a fundamental part of the fabric of our society. We all either directly or indirectly demand and rely on goods vehicle traffic. Measures which could lead to a more widespread restriction of the movement of goods would rapidly be detrimental to our way of life and cost of living. A weight limit is not, therefore, supported. Conclusions 17. Subject to the views of this Board and the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning it is proposed that: (i) as extensive consultations would be required regarding the use of this route as an alternative these are best left until the Leybourne Bypass is being constructed; (ii) Wateringbury Parish Council’s request for a weight restriction has been considered and should not be supported.