FOI/202500463161 · FOI/EIR · partially withheld
A75 speed controls and 20mph implementation: EIR release
Information requested
Information related to the A75 speed controls within Springholm and the 20mph implementation. For ease of reference I have repeated your questions below.
Response
As the information you have requested is 'environmental information' for the purposes of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs), we are required to deal with your request under those Regulations. We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), so that we do not also have to deal with your request under FOISA.
This exemption is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption, because there is no public interest in dealing with the same request under two different regimes. This is essentially a technical point and has no material effect on the outcome of your request.
Response to your request
1. Why has the reinstatement of the western Springholm A75 speed activated halt signals not been fast tracked to return them to their protective function to curb speeding placing vulnerable active travellers and home frontagers in harm's way?
Following completion of the surfacing operations on 4 March, the planned reinstatement of the ancillary equipment was intended to follow immediately after. However, the contractor was unable to do so at short notice due to unforeseen circumstances. Our Operating Company, Amey, then rescheduled the repairs to take place on 3 April. On completion of these works, and whilst testing the ancillary equipment, it was then found that there was a fault within the newly laid cable that could not reasonably have been identified prior to its installation.
As a result of the fault, Amey's contractor made safe the faulty cable but did not fully reinstate the slot to make it easier to remove when replacing the faulty cable. Amey's contractor attended site on 30 April and the signals were fully commissioned. The cabinet containing electrical equipment has since been vandalised and further repairs carried out. The signals were tested on Monday 19 May following the completion of Scottish Gas Network activities.
2. Why has the inoperative VAS at Faulds Cottage not been repaired or replaced after many weeks of reported outage?
Amey are working together with our suppliers to get the VAS repaired as early as possible which is envisaged to be completed at the same time as the eastern inbound signage is being attended to, refer to response to Q3 below.
3. As noted above the eastern inbound and exiting speed activated halt signal are now badly damaged and inoperative as a consequence of this RTC.
a. Will the reinstatement of these be fast tracked given the high fast traffic risks to vulnerable active travellers and frontage home occupant on main street Springholm?
Amey are working together with multiple sub-contractors to get the repair works completed as soon as possible. The repair works are currently envisaged to be completed by mid-June.
b. What will the reinstatement timescale be? The reinstatement timescale is for completion currently envisaged by mid June but is dependent on material deliveries etc.
c. Will interim measure be put in place to counter chronic speeding at the locus and mitigate attendant risks to the vulnerable inharm's way? Are you considering deploying a vehicle activated portable sign both sides of the destroyed signals ? if not why not?
Amey has instructed a temporary system which should operate in the same way as the permanent signals. As this system has not previously been used by Amey for this purpose their effectiveness will be monitored.
d. Will such roadside equipment damage be met by the public purse or does Transport Scotland have a policy of seeking cost recovery from any implicated party?
Costs as a result of Damage to Crown Property are generally recovered from the insurance from the party who caused the damage.
e. There have been two cases where crossing signals and their control box were destroyed at the pedestrian crossing in Crocketford. Who had to bear the cost reinstatement of each of those? A lorry driver later convicted was responsible for the latter RTC and a car driver for the first demolition soon after they were first installed.
Please see our response to question 3d.
4. Given the growing frequency of heavy run of RTCs in both villages why is the roll out of Transport Scotland's village end to end 20mph proposals first released for consultation in January 2024 not yet fast tracked? Are the Council or police dragging their heels to thwart early implementation? If so will you now do this unilaterally as a case of necessity on the basis of the patently unsafe existing traffic conditions for the vulnerable in harm's way as evidenced by these collisions crossing on to verges and pavements and our vast and ever growing compendium of speeding videos?
The Scottish Government is committed to the implementation of 20mph speed limits on those roads where it is appropriate to do so by the end of 2025.
It is the intention that 20mph speed limits on the trunk road are introduced at the same time as those on the Local Authority’s roads. This will simplify installation, provide a consistent message to drivers and prevent the abortive work of signage being installed at junctions by the Local Authority before potentially being removed shortly afterwards by Transport Scotland, or vice versa. As advised previously, Transport Scotland are liaising with Dumfries and Galloway Council to coordinate these works. We are currently working towards a date for implementing the 20mph limit in Springholm in November 2025.
5. We warned Amey that the illuminated vehicle activated display for eastbound traffic approaching the Haugh of Urr junction has substantially failed but a repair response was too slow and an RTC then occurred at said junction with a run off again destroying a roadside control cabinet and an solar panel array to power it.
a. Will the reinstatement of these outages/ damage be fast tracked given the high fast traffic risks to vulnerable vehicle occupants paused on the A75 before being able to right turn to cross the road to Haugh of Urr?
This has been actioned by Amey who are arranging for their specialist sub-contractor to fix these damages as a priority, envisaged to be completed by the end of June.
b. Will such roadside equipment RTC damage be met by the public purse or does Transport Scotland intend to seek cost recovery from any implicated party?
Please see our response to question 3d.
6. We are very unhappy with Dumfries and Galloway Council's tardy and inconsistent approach to its 20mph roll out. Not a single town yet in the former Stewartry District. It seems to be blatantly ignoring the national criteria in respect of many appropriate roads e.g.
Pleasance Avenue in Dumfries in marked contrast to wide area provision in Annan and Stranraer and is also mentioning consulting residents on Dumfries suburb proposals. This should surely be out of order for it allows selfish drivers and their sympathisers to potentially out vote and thereby veto safety for the vulnerable in harms way? Surely only a sober risk assessment under the national criterial should prevail? This irrational safety science denying two track approach risks discrediting road safety for the vulnerable on certain residential streets on the whim of some residents or obtuse councillors. Is the national guidance something that local council can take or leave as they see fit in an unfettered exercise of road safety discretion? If so the Scottish Government through Transport Scotland have made an patchy ineffectual mess of the 2025 national roll out and the vulnerable in many places will suffer the suboptimal protection consequences. So far we see impending disaster for our own hopes of robust 20mph protection on this most unsafe of trunk route streets . Your national 20mph declared ambition by teh end of this year seems to be faltering badly and is now very much set to be missed out on many appropriate roads. Progress is now glacial in our area when it should be a full speed. Do you not agree? Is it not the case too that the vast majority of your own trunk route streets are still at potentially fatal permitted speed like ours here and in Crocketford or up the A76? Please furnish the latest list of trunk route streets meeting nation place criterial as yet unprotected by 20mph in either temprary or permanent form and proper timescales for delivery not some vague "by the end of 2025" which at this point in the year carries the clear implication you really have formulated no coherent delivery timetale at all.
The current programme for implementation of 20mph speed limits on the trunk road is included in Annex A. The programme may be subject to change due to the coordination of works with local authorities and resource availability within the Operating Company and their sub-contractors to implement the works.
About FOI
The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.
Detected exemption language
We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), so that we do not also have to deal with your request under FOISA. This exemption is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption, because there is no public interest in dealing with the same request under two different regimes.