§ 33. Mr. Isaacsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the cost of providing and constructing new roads and bringing into conformity with the new scheme the existing roads in the Elephant and Castle area.
§ Mr. WatkinsonThe total cost of constructing the two roundabouts and the associated roads at this junction will be about £1½ million, including the cost of acquiring land and property.
§ 34. Mr. Isaacsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what were the recommendations made to him by the London County Council and the Southwark Borough Council on the choice of surfacing material on the carriageways in the new Elephant and Castle area before the decision was made that part of the carriageways should be of mastic asphalt and part of hot rolled asphalt; what is the estimated cost and period of useful life of each of these road surfacing materials; what would be the extra cost if the whole surface instead of part of the surface were of mastic asphalt; and whether he is satisfied that such extra cost would not be fully compensated by a longer useful life, which, in the estimation of the Southwark Borough Council, would be twice that of hot rolled asphalt.
§ Mr. WatkinsonThe Southwark Borough Council recommended hand-laid mastic asphalt. The London County Council, whose scheme it is, provided in its specification for hot rolled asphalt because it was cheaper. The extra cost of using mastic asphalt throughout would be about £13,000, and I am not satisfied that the additional cost would be justified by a longer potential life of about five years.
§ Mr. IsaacsMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the £13,000 extra cost on a total of £1½ million is worth all this trouble, in view of the undoubted fact that the use of hot rolled asphalt will mean that the road will require resurfacing in much less time than if mastic asphalt is used? In view of the amount and nature of traffic that will use this road compared with the present time, is it worth while going to the trouble of disturbing the road surface in five or seven years' time, when for another £13,000 it could be used for a longer period?
§ Mr. WatkinsonIt is rather difficult to debate this technical matter, but I think I can answer the right hon. Gentleman by saying that cane disadvantage about the type the Southwark Borough Council wants is that the road becomes very highly polished and dangerous to traffic. It is better, on the whole, to leave it to the London County Council, which is the authority to construct the road.
§ Mr. IsaacsRegarding the argument about the polished road, if we put this where buses stop and start, we shall polish the road. Will it lessen the danger to traffic on that account? In view of the fact that I have given the right hon. Gentleman time to deploy his arguments and consult his experts, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.