§ Mr. CorbynTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what evidence has been submitted to him since the start of construction of the Newbury bypass on new environmental damage; and if he will make a statement; [19065]
(2) what representations he has received concerning the Newbury bypass since construction began; and if he will publish them with his response; [19066]
(3) what estimates he has made of the effect of completion of the Newbury bypass on (a) volumes of traffic on the A34, (b) volumes of traffic in Newbury itself and (c) journey times of traffic travelling (i) through Newbury and (ii) along the bypass; [19111]
(4) what has been the cost of (a) police and (b) security at the site of the proposed Newbury bypass since October 1995; and if he will make a statement. [19072]
§ Mr. Watts[holding answer 5 March 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 7 March 1996:
As you know, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the Newbury Bypass.
307WThe cost of security for the advance works contract incurred so far is £1,182,000. The cost of Policing the work is a matter for the Thames Valley Police force.
You ask for details of the effect of the Bypass on traffic flows on the A34, and on the rest of Newbury. On the A34 itself, the bypass provides substantial relief by allowing longer distance through traffic to avoid the town. The table below shows the benefits the bypass would bring to the A34 Inner Relief Road on which traffic flows would be reduced by about %. The figures for the residual local traffic remaining on the A34 after the bypass is open do not allow for the potential additional benefits to be provided by local traffic management measures.
Without bypass With bypass Year Low growth High growth Low growth High growth 2000 57,000 63,000 35,000 39,000 2005 61,000 70,000 38,000 43,000 2010 65,000 78,000 40,000 48,000 Note:
The flows given are Annual Average Daily Traffic for low and high growth.
There would be greater benefits to other sections of the A34 bypassed by the scheme, for example traffic along Tothill Straight will be reduced by up to 75%.
In addition to the general relief provided by the bypass there would be particular benefits from the substantial reductions (typically 65–70%) in heavy lorry traffic (estimated at up to 400 an hour at peak times) using the A34 through the town.
Traffic flows on other major routes through the town would also be affected by the bypass. The change in traffic patterns will of course depend on what traffic management measures are brought forward. For example, on the A343 substantial flow reductions of about 30% are forecast. There would be some increases on routes feeding the bypass, for example flows on the A4 on the west side of the town would increase slightly by up to 5%. However, in overall terms the net effect of the bypass would be to remove substantial volumes of traffic, particularly heavy lorry lorries, from the town.
As part of the traffic appraisal for Newbury Bypass, we have assessed the journey times of traffic travelling through Newbury and on the proposed bypass. The savings in travelling time have also been assessed as part of the economic evaluation of the scheme.
For through traffic using the bypass instead of the existing A34, COBA shows average peak period time savings of 15 minutes when the scheme opens. Currently, at the worst times, delays can be up to and over one hour. In the longer term, the savings would be significantly greater since congestion on the existing road would become much worse without the bypass. A major benefit to industrial and business road users will be the much improved journey time reliability provided by the bypass.
Since site clearance operations began, we have received about 700 written representations against the scheme, mostly from outside the area, and a small number from supporters. We have previously received nearly 20,000 expressions of support for the bypass. It would be inappropriate to publish these letters without the consent of the writers which could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. The reply to the recent representations against the scheme has been broadly along the lines of the draft attached.
No evidence of new environmental damage has been submitted although it has been suggested that the Desmoulins' Whorl Snail, a non-priority annex II species in the Habitats Directive, may be present on the route. It has been established that these snails are present elsewhere in the Kennet and Lamboum valleys. We are liaising with English Nature and carrying out further surveys to determine whether the snails are in the area affected by the bypass and if so, what further mitigation measures are necessary.
308W