§ Mr. HinchliffeTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 229, if he will identify those properties, within the Wakefield constituency, which could be demolished as a result of the construction of an M1-M62 motorway link along both proposed routes.
§ Mr. Kenneth CarlisleI will write to the hon. Member with details of the preliminary information we have on possible property demolition.
§ Mr. HinchliffeTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) public rights of way and (b) bridle ways will be affected by the proposed M1-M62 (i) yellow route and (ii) purple route.
517W
§ Mr. Kenneth CarlisleBased on a preliminary survey of rights of way, it has so far been identified that the yellow option would be crossed by two bridleways and 20 footpaths, and the purple route option by three bridleways and 24 footpaths.
§ Mr. HinchliffeTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 228, at what stage assessments will be undertaken to determine the extent and implications of farm severance in the development of proposals for an M1-M62 motorway link.
§ Mr. Kenneth CarlisleIf a route is selected for this proposed scheme for further development, an assessment of farm severance would be undertaken during the detailed design stage before the order for publication.
§ Mr. HinchliffeTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has available about areas of archaeological importance which may be affected by the proposed M1-M62 link road.
§ Mr. Kenneth CarlisleInformation has been supplied by the West Yorkshire archaeology service from its records. I will write to the hon. Member with details.
§ Mr. HinchliffeTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 229, what evaluation has been undertaken into the role of rail, when considering alternatives to the M1-M62 road link; how the balance between forms of transport is to be achieved; what action his Department takes to ensure these aims; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Kenneth CarlisleNo direct evaluation has been undertaken into the role of rail with regard to the M1-M62 scheme, but the scheme would cater for traffic with a wider variety of origins and destinations than could be realistically served by rail. We do not believe that it is our role to tell people where and how they should travel. However, we are supporting a high level of investment in rail as well as roads so that each form of transport can play its part in meeting the needs of travellers. We have also been working with the bus industry and the local authority associations on ways to encourage greater use of buses. And we offer freight facilities grants to encourage the transfer of freight from road to rail or water in appropriate cases.
§ Mr. HinchliffeTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport using current figures, what would be the assessed(a) annual and (b) 10-yearly maintenance cost for the purple and yellow routes for the M1-M62 link road.
§ Mr. Kenneth CarlisleBased on standard unit rates at current prices, the assessed annual maintenance costs of the yellow and purple routes are £160,000 and £190,000 respectively. The 10-year maintenance costs are assessed at £2.59 million and £3.02 million respectively.
§ Mr. HinchliffeTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessments have been made of vehicular volume on a daily basis along the proposed(a) purple and (b) yellow routes for the M1-M62 link road.
§ Mr. Kenneth CarlisleThe average traffic flows forecast for the turn of the century on the purple route option are518W between 43,000 and 76,000 and on the yellow route option between 50,000 and 77,000 vehicles per day, the lower figure in each case being at the eastern end of the scheme and the higher figure being at the western end.
§ Mr. HinchliffeTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, columns 228–29, if he will identify the areas of woodland directly affected by the M1-M62 link road proposals and produce details of woodland of ecological interest which could be adversely affected.
§ Mr. Kenneth CarlisleI have already written to the hon. Member with a list of sites of ecological interest, which included woodlands. All known woodland areas directly affected by the route options is included in the environmental assessment framework. I will send the hon. Member a copy.
§ Mr. HinchliffeTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 May 1992, columns228–29, if he will outline the evidence underlying his conclusion that viable alternatives are not available to the proposed M1-M62 motorway link.
§ Mr. Kenneth CarlisleMost traffic goes by road and will continue to do so and the large majority of passenger journeys are by car. Other forms of transport have an important role to play, but cannot offer the same flexibility. This conclusion is reinforced by a recent study of traffic across the Pennines in the M62 corridor which shows that around half the trips between some city centres are by rail, but only 7 per cent. of total trips.
§ Mr. HinchliffeTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport what extent of hedgerow destruction is envisaged in the construction of the M1-M62 link road.
§ Mr. Kenneth CarlisleNo assessment of the effect on hedgerows has been made. Detailed design of any option would include substantial landscaping and planting proposals.