§ Mr. Greg KnightTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport what temporary road signs were erected prior to and including 5 November informing motorists approaching the M69 of the total closure of the south-west-bound carriageway on 5 November.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyTemporary road signs were displayed on all approaches to the M69/M1 junction on 5 and 6 November advising motorists of the closure and to follow the diversion route indicated by a circle symbol. No signs were displayed prior to 5 November.
§ Mr. Greg KnightTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advance warning or notice was given to motorists advising them of the intention to close the whole of the south-west-bound carriageway of the M69 on 5 November.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyThe Department issued a press notice on 1 November giving full details of the proposed closures between the M1 near Leicester and the A5 at Hinckley.
§ Mr. Greg KnightTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the policy of phasing motorway repair work was not followed on 5 November in respect of the south-west-bound carriageway of the M69 so that at least one lane was kept open to vehicular traffic.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyThe main works were being carried out on the two-lane section of the M69 near its junction with the M1. There was insufficient space to allow the safe passage of vehicles and provide a safe working environment for the workmen in accordance with the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. As the works were of short duration and there was a reasonable alternative route for the traffic volume involved, expensive contraflow traffic management could not be justified.
96W
§ Mr. Greg KnightTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the whole of the south-west-bound carriageway of the M69 was closed on 5 November.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyIt was closed to enable the removal and replacement of a cracked running surface close to the M1 junction. During the closure other routine maintenance works were carried out along the full length of the motorway between Leicester and Hinckley.
The resurfacing work required the removal and replacement of the wearing course to both traffic lanes close to the M1/M69 roundabout. Due to physical constraints it was not possible to use the hard shoulder as a running lane. The joint report by the Department of Transport and County Surveyors Society provides notes for guidance about the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 as they affect personnel required to undertake work on motorways and trunk roads (revised 1985). It requires that a safety zone is provided between the works and live traffic. On motorways this is normally 1.2 m wide.
On the two-lane section of the M69 it was not possible to carry out resurfacing works and provide a safety zone and therefore the decision was taken to close the motorway under a temporary traffic regulation order. The alternative of installing contraflow traffic management was not very practicable and would have been very expensive. Traffic flows on M69 are not as high as on other motorways, such as the M1, and therefore delays caused by diverting the traffic were not expected to be serious. The opportunity was taken to make the most of the closure by carrying out other works such as safety fence repairs, joint sealing, replacement of road studs and replacement of vehicle counting loops. Because there is limited access at junction 2 (A5070 at Hinckley) it was also necessary to close the section of motorway between junction 2 and junction 1 (A5 at Hinckley).