FULL dualling of the A66 around Darlington has been shelved in favour of a lesser scheme.
Its price tag of £118m is the main factor in the work being ditched.
But a meeting next week will be told that a preferred option of part dual carriageway could be a step towards full dualling in the future.
Members of Darlington Transport Forum will hear that the lesser scheme will cost about £52m - a figure which should prevent the Highways Agency directing refusal of planning permission.
In a report, Darlington council's development and environment director John Buxton says a study was commissioned on what could be done to alleviate the potential constraint to economic development imposed by the single-carriageway section of the A66 linking Tees Valley to the motorway network.
Entitled the Tees Valley Gateway Study, it says: "The issue is important for future development of the airport, links to the port, generally to the development of the Tees Valley and east Darlington in particular."
Mr Buxton says that at a cost of £118m, funding and implementation of full dualling could take a long time to achieve because other competing schemes will be tackling more severe congestion problems.
The preferred scheme involves dualling from the existing dual carriageway section east of Darlington to the A66/A67 Morton Palms junction. The remaining section to the A66 would still be single carriageway, but with the possibility of some junction improvements.
At a cost of about £52m, Mr Buxton says this is the least costly scheme, which should prevent the directing of refusal.
"The preferred scheme could be step towards full dualling at a later date, should that be justified," said Mr Buxton.
Consultation is now taking place and the North East Assembly is seeking comments by February 4.
The Highways Agency has said that if the preferred scheme goes ahead, then the A66 could accommodate key development schemes in Darlington.
After publication of a final report, the project will be presented to the Government with a view to the scheme achieving a place in funding programmes.
* Spectator's Notes: page 22
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article