HC Deb 01 April 1936 vol 310 cc1987-8

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has approved the schemes for road improvements involving the making of dual carriageways separated by a central reserve on the Harrow to Kingston Road, on the Kingston by-pass, on the London to Portsmouth Road, and on the proposed Crawley by-pass of the London to Brighton Road; and whether, as a result of the experience of this form of road construction on the Great West Road and other roads in Middlesex, he will in all cases take care that each of the dual carriageways has a width of at least 28 feet?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha)

I have approved the construction of dual carriageways, each 20 feet in width, on the Harrow-Kingston Road between Western Avenue and Ruislip Road, and the construction of dual carriageways of similar width, with cycle tracks, on the Crawley by-pass. The width of carriageways is, of course, properly determined by the density and nature of the traffic. For the appropriate layout I would refer my hon. Friend to the recent circular issued to highway authorities on standard widths. I will send my hon. Friend a copy.


Is my right hon. Friend aware that the dual carriageway on the Great Western Road is far too narrow at the present time, and is it not a waste of money?


Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that they intend to put down cycle tracks there so as to relieve the congestion.


Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that where there is no service road for standard vehicles, these 20-feet tracks are much too narrow? Would he see that the 20-feet width is only allowed as a service road for standard vehicles?


We are doing our best to get wider and wider tracks, and I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the circular from which he will see that we intend to implement that pledge.


In the meantime, is it not a fact that this 20-feet scheme is making them narrower and narrower?