HL Deb 06 July 1993 vol 547 cc47-8WA
Lord Kennet

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether their "appraisal" of the widenings of the M.4 and the M.25 has covered the "combined and cumulative impacts" of these schemes, in accordance with paragraph 16.11 of their March 1992 response to the SACTRA (Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment) report.

The Earl of Caithness

The Government's response to the SACTRA report recognised that it would not always be practical to appraise the combined and cumulative effects of schemes already initiated and progressed over different timescales. This is the case with the M.4 and M.25. There are numerous separate widening schemes currently in the programme on which progress has been made and several are at different stages of development.

Where possible, appraisals have been carried out on the effects of M.25 schemes based on the assumption that all schemes currently in the programme are already in place. The effects of planned improvements on the radials to the M.25 have been included in assessing future traffic flows. Traffic forecasts have also included any planned improvements by the local authorities and the policy of restraint regarding journeys into London. Subsequent noise and air quality assessments for each scheme are based on these traffic flows.

Lord Kennet

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What "public transport alternatives [were] explicitly considered in the [M.4-M.25] appraisal" (paragraph 16.09, SACTRA response).

The Earl of Caithness

Studies have shown that transfer to public transport would not be sufficient to reduce the need to improve the M.4 and M.25. This is due to the complex pattern of journeys which cannot be catered for by public transport.