UPDATE: Our press release on 13 August focussed on our two major concerns regarding the replacement of the bridges: 1) that DCC does not intend to take this opportunity to make any improvements to wider travel, especially for pedestrians, cyclists and canal borne vessels; and 2) that ECS is concerned about the expected chaos the works will create over the two
year period of construction because the County Council proposes that during this period there will only be one lane of traffic in each direction through the construction zone. You can read the full press release in the side column.
We understand that the Friends of Exeter Ship Canal & Heritage Harbour jointly with the Inland Waterways Association have been working with the council’s bridges team for some years now to investigate how the air draft below the bridge can be increased. They believed there was an understanding between you and them to increase the air draft to allow more craft to pass under the highway, resulting in the need to open the bridges less often. They were also pleased that the bridges team had investigated the provision of a pedestrian and cycle underpass, removing the need to have a traffic light controlled crossing on each carriageway. Both of the above issues would have allowed traffic to flow more efficiently, but that opportunity will be lost if you proceed with your preferred Option 2.
We urge Devon County Council to review and reconsider Options 3 & 4, for which they have provided very little detail, including how much the highway will be raised, the resultant air drafts, and the benefits, as previously discussed with FESCHH and the IWA. DCC has not published any analysis of the five options other than in the simple table in the Bridge Proposals section, so it is impossible to make an informed response to this consultation in comparing the options. Overall, we consider that this public consultation process is poor.
Keith Lewis also wrote to Steve Race, our MP for Exeter, highlighting our concerns. His letter reads:
‘Dear Steve
Replacement of the A379 Bridges, Exeter.
Whilst Exeter Civic Society has not been involved in the development of the scheme to replace the bridges, we have received feedback from the Friends of Exeter Ship Canal and Heritage Harbour (FESCHH) about what they believed was good progress for plans to create a greater air draft under replacement bridges. The recent consultation now says that is not being considered which is disappointing. I know you hold the same view.
We have sent a letter of concern to the County Council’s Transport Planning team which I attach, including an objection to using this government funding to undertake off-site cycling improvements. In our opinion, the County Council’s justifications for the choice of options fall well short.
I am mainly writing to you about a major concern we have for traffic management during the construction of the replacement bridges.
The council propose that, during the construction period of two years, only a single lane each way will be available for traffic to flow on what is now a dual carriageway. This is wholly unacceptable. It will cause traffic chaos across Exeter and beyond during peak times, especially as the A379 is used as the alternative route when the M5 is closed between junctions 30 and 31 when there is an accident or incident. This happens regularly, almost monthly, and often several times during the summer holiday period when the M5 is heavily used by tourists unfamiliar with the highway. I wonder what Highways England thinks of the proposal to operate just one lane as a relief road when the motorway is closed?
When the motorway is closed most motorway traffic will use the A379, with local traffic then likely to use the only other river Exe crossing at Exe Bridges, passing through the centre and causing congestion that then affects most main roads in the city centre. This will have a negative impact on people’s lives.
A temporary road was discussed with the Inland Waterways Association IWA and FESCHH during investigations but this has now been dropped.
The County Council is of course limited to a ceiling of £50m for the scheme, so a temporary road may well take the scheme over that budget. If a temporary two lane road does not make financial sense, I wonder whether the scheme should be completely rethought, but that may result in costs exceeding £50m. So, I am writing to you to ask whether you can discuss the possibility of more funding at ministerial level for this essential project to help deliver a solution that maintains two-way traffic in both directions during the construction period, and raises the levels of the bridges to support active travel for this essential infrastructure.
One option for a scheme that will achieve both of the above is to build a new two lane road either to the north or south of the existing bridges (this could be on columns rather than ground bearing to help the flow of various waterways in the vicinity) and that upon completion one of the existing bridges and dual carriageway is removed.
I hope you can intervene to consider this alternative approach and instigate discussions with Highways England, Ministers, DCC, and ECC as the prospective Highway Authority after unitary status is established, and who will ultimately deliver this scheme as the Highway Authority.’
We are currently working on a press release about the A379 plans.