§ Mr. MackinlayTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how the error relating to the quality of the capping layer laid between junctions 6 and 8 of the M25 occurred; and when it was discovered; [19588]
(2) for what reasons the geological and consequential structural difficulties of the M25 between junctions 6 and 8 were not identified by surveys before the letting of the widening and engineering contract; [19589]
(3) when he now expects the completion of the widening and engineering works on the M25 between junctions 6 and 8; [19591]
(4) what is the estimated cost to his Department of relaying the capping layer and the replacement of the asphalt surfacing between junctions 6 and 8 of the M25; [19590]
(5) pursuant to his Department's memorandum of 12 February in evidence to the Transport Committee, (HC 213-i of Session 1996–97) who was responsible for the problem leading to the required relaying of the capping layer and replacement of the asphalt surfacing between junctions 6 and 8 of the M25. [19594]
§ Mr. WattsI have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
252WLetter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 12 March 1997
I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the M25 between junctions 6 and 8.
The contract started in March 1994. In Summer 1994 the Contractor dug into the 20 year old carriageways and this was when we first realised that the amount of deteriorated capping layer material needing replacement was much greater than we had estimated.
Site investigations were carried out before work started and standard investigation procedures were followed. Site investigation is not an exact science. We knew there were problems, but without exhaustive tests on a live motorway we could not reasonably have foreseen the full nature of variations in the quality of material lying one metre below the road surface. In the event, the capping layer was in a much poorer state than had been assumed, following the survey work.
I am happy to say four lanes were open in both directions on Saturday 8 March. The hardshoulders will remain coned off until Easter to allow for electrical and communications works and signalling to be carried out. Landscaping work will continue into 1998. A small contract will be let this Summer to carry out localised maintenance works at the side of the carriageway at junction 7. We do not expect this to disrupt traffic.
Negotiations about the costs of relaying the capping layer and the replacement of the asphalt surfacing are taking place. To provide an estimate of the costs now would undermine the position of the Consulting Engineers appointed by the Agency to administer this contract and deal with the claims for extra payment submitted by the Contractors.
Hot rolled asphalt surfacing has been used for over thirty years in the UK. The material used here met fully the specified standard. We can only conclude that the problems were a result of an exceptional combination of site-specific factors which included the high number of lorries using this stretch of the M25, the temporary traffic, management arrangements which concentrated the lorries into one lane and the exceptionally hot weather experienced last Summer which could have affected the newly laid hot rolled asphalt materials.
§ Mr. MackinlayTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with the British Airports Authority in the past 18 months relating to the M25's(a) existing and (b) future volume and capacity needs between junctions (i) 12 to 15 and (ii) 15 to 16. [19587]
§ Mr. WattsThe Highways Agency has had a number of discussions with BAA about the capacity of the motorway network in the vicinity of Heathrow airport in connection with the proposal for a fifth terminal. Evidence flowing from those discussions has been provided to the inquiry.
§ Mr. MackinlayTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors underlay his assessment that his objectives for junctions 16 to 19 of the M25 could be met by smaller-scale improvements than full D4 widening; and for what reason these criteria did not apply in respect of(a) junctions 12 to 15 and (b) junctions 15 to 16. [19583]
§ Mr. WattsThe decision, announced in "Managing the Road Programme" published in November 1995, to consider smaller scale solutions was aimed at maximising the use of capital resources whilst seeking to continue to meet the objectives of schemes. The proposed widening of the M25 between junctions 16 and 19 was identified for such a review but no decision has been taken.
The proposals for widening the M25 between junctions 12 and 15 represent a scaling down of the previously published link road proposals.
253WThe Highways Agency is still looking at the options for widening M25 between junctions 15 and 16 following the withdrawal in April 1995 of the link roads scheme for that section.