HC Deb 27 February 2001 vol 363 c631W
Mr. Key

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason he has decided to de-trunk the A36(T); and how much he estimates this will save his Department in the first three years of de-trunking. [150460]

Mr. Hill

[holding answer 26 February 2001]: The A36/A46 route was identified as a non-core route for de-trunking in the White Paper "A New Deal for Transport", which set out the factors taken into account in defining the core trunk road network (paragraph 3.130). Following consultation with regional planning bodies on the proposed core/non-core split a further study of the role of the A36/A46 was carried out. This. study concluded that the proportion of core route traffic on the route is low although it recognised that the A46/A36 met to some degree the criteria for core route status. In view of the short journey length of the majority of the traffic and in particular the need for local initiatives to manage the impact of heavy goods vehicles on the route the Secretary of State decided to confirm its status as a non-core route.

De-trunking is not an exercise to save money. We are committed to a fair transfer of resources to local highway authorities taking over de-trunked routes and arrangements for ensuring this have ben discussed and agreed with the Local Government Association.

Furthermore, in the light of the major study which we commissioned to look at alternative ways of dealing with the city's transport problems following the cancellation of the A36 Salisbury Bypass in 1997, we announced in the local transport settlement last December £13.7 million to be spent over the next five years on integrated transport measures from the Salisbury Package included in Wiltshire County Council's local transport plan. We also provisionally accepted the proposals for the Brunel Link and Harnham Relief Road, estimated to cost £13 million, which are also part of the Package.