6. Plaid Cymru Debate: Alternatives to the M4 Relief Road

Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 5:20 pm on 12 June 2019.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of David Rowlands David Rowlands UKIP 5:20, 12 June 2019

I do not wish, here, to comment on the pros and cons of the decision of the Welsh Government not to proceed with the M4 relief road. I simply want to concentrate on the implications of that decision and give a brief outline of what I humbly believe will be a cost-effective—one could almost say 'cheap'—alternative, designed to alleviate the problems at the Brynglas tunnels, and thereby, obviously, taking a huge weight off the shoulders of the Cabinet Minister. My submission starts with the premise that the Brynglas tunnels are precisely 369m long. In other words, it is a short tunnel. The Welsh Government has just spent, quite rightly, £42 million on bringing the tunnels up to the latest European safety standards. So, one must ask the fundamental question: why is this relatively minor obstruction causing the turmoil that we see manifest itself in the huge tailbacks that are a daily feature on the approaches to the tunnels, for both westbound and eastbound traffic?

As someone who habitually, almost daily, uses the eastbound approach to the tunnels, I take a keen interest in the causative influences on the traffic flows. I have, in fact, made detailed observations in relation to both light and heavy traffic flows, which lead me to believe that a major factor in causing traffic to slow, resulting in traffic build-up and subsequent long queues, is the speed restrictions that are placed immediately before the Tredegar Park interchange. A speed limit of just 40 mph is often in place from this junction right up to the tunnels themselves—a distance of almost 3 miles. My contention is that if these speed limits were disregarded and substantial lane indicators placed on large overhead gantries, placed at appropriate intervals prior to the tunnels, each containing graphic illustrations of the two lanes that give access to the tunnels, and the inner lane, which gives access to the Malpas turn-off, any safety issues resulting from late lane changes would be largely, if not entirely, alleviated. I assume that is why the speed limits are there in the first place. Indeed, the Malpas exit lane could be made a solid colour-coded line at least a mile prior to the tunnels, and motorists would be warned that any change of lane after that point would attract a penalty fine. Exactly the same signage would operate on the westbound approaches to the tunnels, with exits to Caerleon and Cwmbran being clearly illustrated, and again, penalty cameras installed to avoid lane changes after a certain point. The introduction of these new lane indicators would allow traffic to flow freely through the tunnels at the standard motorway speed, thus negating traffic build-up.

One issue that would have to be addressed is that at present there is access to the M4 from Malpas eastbound, just prior to the tunnels. This would be closed permanently, as would the egress from the M4 immediately after the tunnel for westbound traffic. Anyone who has travelled through Europe will be aware of tunnels that can be a few miles long, often containing several bends, and yet carrying speed restrictions of 100 kph. These tunnels often carry volumes of traffic comparable to those on the M4, but from my extensive observations over many years of travelling through Europe, do not experience the hold-ups that we witness at the Brynglas tunnels. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to my proposals when I publish them in full.