Hyde Park Corner and Cromwell Road Extension

HC Deb 22 January 1958 vol 580 cc1035-6

28. Mr. Ernest Davies

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what decisions he has reached on the construction of a four-lane instead of the proposed two-lane underpass at Hyde Park Corner and on the flyover on the Cromwell Road Extension at Hammersmith.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson)

I have decided, and the London County Council has agreed, that there must be no risk of under-insuring against future traffic growth at Hyde Park Corner. I therefore propose at the appropriate moment to seek to amend the Bill so that a four-lane underpass can be included at the outset at this point.

As I said in answer to a Question on 20th December, I hope to make a grant of 75 per cent. in the next financial year towards the construction of the flyover at Hammersmith as I have always taken the view that this flyover was necessary to the solution of the traffic problem here.

Mr. Ernest Davies

While congratulating the Minister on having second thoughts on this matter, and commending him for accepting the advice which was given to him from both sides of the House during the Second Reading debate, may I ask if it is not a fact that in the original proposals of the L.C.C. there was provision for a four-lane tunnel? Why did the Minister in those circumstances, in spite of the L.C.C. recommendations, decide not to authorise it at an earlier stage?

Mr. Watkinson

Of course. I am always willing to defer to the collective good sense of this House when it is displayed as clearly as it was when we discussed the problem. As to the other point made by the hon. Member, of course the scheme was always designed for a four-lane underpass, but all the experts took the view—the extreme view—that no underpass was necessary at all. It was not an easy decision, but I think that on the whole it is always right, in London at any rate, to over-insure against traffic growth rather than to under-insure.

Mr. Ernest Davies

With regard to the Hammersmith' flyover, can the Minister state what extra work has been done which would not have been necessary had the flyover been decided upon in the first place, and what has been the extra cost and delay involved?

Mr. Watkinson

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member—I do not think I will disappoint him. No extra expense has been incurred, because we always saw that the site was fitted for a flyover. Therefore, no additional expense was incurred.