Agenda item

(1)       The purpose of the report was to inform the Board of the issues relating to this scheme to allow the Board to review the recommendations of the Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board (JTB) made at its meeting on 21 January 2008.

(2)       At its meeting on 29 May 2006 the Tunbridge Wells JTB considered the report submitted by the Mid Kent Divisional Manager which identified several options for reducing congestion at the junction of the A26, Yew Tree Road and Speldhurst Road, Southborough.  The JTB recommended that Kent Highway Services proceed on the basis of Option 2a ‘Provision of new left turn lane into Yew Tree Road’ and Option 3 ‘Alternative Staging’.  If it was found that Option 2a was either not achievable or too expensive then Option 2b should be progressed.  An extract from the above report identifying the proposed options was attached to the report.

(3)       The report submitted to the JTB anticipated that Option 2a would typically allow 3 vehicles per cycle to benefit from the left turn lane whilst Option 2b would typically allow 1 vehicle per cycle to benefit.  Both of the options would have an impact on vehicles turning right into Yew Tree Road.

(4)       Based on initial costs estimates an allocation for the delivery of the scheme had been set at £141,400 within the 2007/08 Capital Maintenance Programme.

(5)       Subsequent to the JTB’s recommendation an outline design was prepared and a cost estimate produced for Option 2a ‘Provision of new left turn lane into Yew Tree Road’.  The option would include:-

(a)       Construction of a new 50m long left turn lane into Yew Tree Road and associated footway.

(b)       Realignment of the Yew Tree Road junction.

(c)        Relocating the Yew Tree Road stop line further back to accommodate the swept path of left turning large vehicles and subsequent relocation of the existing controlled crossing point.

(d)       Construction of an offside traffic island for the positioning of the primary traffic signal.

(e)       Full replacement of the existing pelican crossing north of the junction, resultant from a combination of the widening on the east side and the age of the current installation.

The estimated outline cost for delivering the scheme had been given as £207,100.  This incorporated works, fee’s, utilities and signal costs but did not include potential costs for vertical realignment, accommodation and any unsocial working hours uplift.  The cost for delivering Option 2a would therefore be £65,700 above the schemes current allocation.

(6)       Because the estimated cost for Option 2a significantly exceeded the budget allocation and in accordance with the Board’s recommendation Option 2b was considered.  This option would vary from Option 2a in having a 25m left turn lane as opposed to the 50m left turn lane in Option 2a and the removal of the need to replace the existing Pelican Crossing on the A26.  The cost estimate provided for the outline design of Option 2b was £178,100 which was £29,600 above the schemes current allocation.  A significant cost component of both schemes related to the alteration to public utility apparatus.  It had been anticipated that the costs would be significantly lower in the case of Option 2b due to the shorter left turn lane.  However most costs were incurred in the immediate area of the Yew Tree Road junction which was affected equally by each proposal and therefore costs were similar for both options.

(7)       A further report was submitted to the JTB at its meeting on 21January 2008 detailing the issues identified above and including the following Officers Proposals and Recommendation:-

‘Proposals

(a)       The view of officers is that the anticipated improvement in traffic movements for either Option 2a or 2b are insufficient to justify the level of expenditure indicated by the cost estimates, and the disruption that would result from the delivery of either option.  Therefore officers propose that neither option be progressed further.

(b)       The report submitted to the Board on the 29^th of May 2006 recommended the implementation of  Option 2c ‘Extend 2 lane approach on Speldhurst Road’ and Option 3 ‘Alternative Staging’  In addition it recommended that the causes of the congestion prevalent in Southborough be investigated.  This should take the form of a route study to look at the wider local network that would fully establish and understand the traffic movements and demand along this section of the A26 corridor and also facilitate a micro simulation modelling exercise.

Recommendation

(a)       Having regard of the cost for the delivery of either Option 2a or 2b the Board reconsider the original recommendations contained within the Mid Kent Divisional Managers report submitted to the Boards meeting on the 29^th of May 2006.’

(8)       After considering the report the JTB recommended that KHS proceed with Option 2a.  Because of programme pressures it was not possible for the scheme to be delivered during the current financial year.  In addition, because the allocation for the scheme within this year’s Capital Programme was £141,400 there was a deficit of £64,700.

(9)       As the scheme had not been identified as part of the Capital Programme for 2008/09 previously approved by the Board it would be necessary to make provision within this programme for it to be delivered.

(10)     Because of the cost benefit aspects of the scheme and the potential impact on the Capital Programme for 2008/09 already approved by the Board, officers considered it appropriate for the Board to review the recommendation made by the JTB at its meeting on 21 January 2008.

(11)     However, forthcoming development proposals might present the opportunity to reconsider Option 2 in the light of associated traffic generation and traffic movement patterns, for example, the Southborough hub.

(12)     The Board was requested to review the recommendation of the Tunbridge Wells JTB in respect of the scheme and consider the potential benefits and costs associated with the delivery of the scheme.  If the Board supported the JTB’s recommendation to proceed with Option 2a, Officers review the Capital Works Programme for 2008/09 to facilitate the schemes delivery and report to the Board on the reprioritisation of schemes.

(13)     The Board reviewed the scheme and recommended that officers:-

(a)       proceed with the delivery of Option 2a in accordance with the recommendation of the JTB of 21 January 2008 and review and reprioritise the Capital programme for 2008/09;

(b)       proceed in accordance with the officer recommendations for options 2c and 3 with the associated route study contained within the report submitted to the JTB on 21 January 2008; and

(c)        defer the implementation of Option 2a and review in the light of forthcoming development proposals, for example, the Southborough hub.

Transportation Manager – Mr D Bond

The Chairman informed Members that this was the last meeting of the Board that David Bond would be attending prior to taking up a position in the private sector.  Mr Bond was congratulated and thanked for the excellent service he had given to Kent Highway Services.