Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Campaigner claims Laurencekirk A90 flyover study was a sham

Post Thumbnail

A Mearns roads campaigner has accused Transport Scotland of attempting to ”shut her up” in the battle for a safe junction.

Jill Fotheringham said the roads authority had no intention of providing a flyover or any other safety major measures at the notorious Laurencekirk junction on the A90, and claimed a cost refinement exercise had been carried out from an office, without staff bothering to re-visit the site.

She said the whole review had simply been a ”paper exercise” carried out by the Scottish Government for publicity purposes.

Transport Scotland has not deemed the blackspot a priority despite four fatal collisions, 15 serious and 22 slight-injury accidents on the road near the town between 1999 and 2010.

Hope for action was rekindled near the start of the year when SNP transport minister Keith Brown visited the site to make his own decision on the junction immediately ordering a review of the costings.

Original estimates ranged from £4 million to £23 million and Transport Scotland was asked bring an exact figure to the table. It was subsequently announced that measures to make the road safer by installing a grade separated junction would cost £13.5 million.

Following a meeting with Transport Scotland officials to discuss the findings, Ms Fotheringham claims she was told no work would be carried out following the review and that it was only done for ”future development reasons”.

She said: ”I had a meeting with Transport Scotland after they released the figures so they could explain them all to me, but they let slip that they stand by their opinion that there is no need for improvements.

”They said they only did the cost refinement exercise for future development reasons. So basically they did exactly what they said they would do, but all the time never had any intention of acting on it.

”I feel let down, but I don’t know if I was actually expecting anything to happen because we have not been getting anywhere.”

Councillor David May, who also attended the meeting, said he was given a copy of the cost refinement exercise carried out by Transport Scotland and while it contained suggestions for Laurencekirk it had not taken account of major development a few miles down the A90 at Montrose.

Continued…

He said: ”It is clear that while the report takes account of the proposed developments in the Laurencekirk area, it completely seems to ignore the possible and planned developments in the Montrose area such as the considerable housing which has been given outline planning permission, as well as the recently presented South Montrose study, the developments in the harbour area, and the possibilities with GSK.

”Jill and I highlighted these Montrose issues to the Transport Scotland officers and discussed the impact of these to the Laurencekirk junction which will only increase the very considerable safety concerns we have.

”There is no doubt in my view that the Laurencekirk junction should be a priority for our Scottish Government and should now be included in their list of transport priorities, and I hope that in addition to this report the minister also takes account of the developments in the Montrose area.”

Angus MSP Nigel Don has publicly admitted that no single council, government or commercial organisation is likely to find the massive funding required to make the junction safe and called for partnership working.

However the issue refuses to disappear and a petition for an upgrade has attracted more than 8,000 signatures.

A Transport Scotland spokesman said: ”Transport Scotland has undertaken a cost refinement exercise in recent months into the costs of a grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk to provide greater certainty to developers and others on associated costs. As part of the development of the cost refinement exercise, a site visit was undertaken to view the engineering constraints and traffic flow.

”We continue to work with both Aberdeenshire and Angus Councils to understand the implications of their local development plans on the A90, including how the local authorities work with developers to ensure that any necessary developer-funded upgrades of the junctions onto the A90 are progressed.”

”A number of safety upgrades have already been implemented on the A90 at Laurencekirk. These include high friction surfacing, vehicle-activated signs, new road markings and road studs. In addition to this, work will get under way early next year to construct a new merge onto the A90 at the north junction which will further enhance safety.”