§ Virginia BottomleyTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what implementation plan he has drawn up to(a) commence and (b) complete the A3 Hindhead tunnel; [7557]
- (2) if he will make a statement on his policy on the environmental and economic implications of the proposed tunnel at Hindhead on the A3; [6474]
- (3) what reports he has received from the Highways Agency concerning the A3 exhibition at Hindhead. [7556]
§ Mr. JamiesonI have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews to write to the right hon. Lady.
Letter from David York to Virginia Bottomley, dated 16 October 2001:
I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the A3 Hindhead Tunnel. I am replying since Tim Matthews is currently abroad on Highways Agency business.The environmental and economic implications of the proposed tunnel were assessed as part of the study completed earlier this year into possible charging for the tunnel. I attach a copy of the table summarising that assessment. As you will be aware, Ministers accepted the recommendations of the study and the scheme was added to the Government's Targeted Programme of Improvements last Spring.1165WThe exhibition last month to remind local people about the scheme details was extremely successful and we received a considerable amount of useful feedback. The comments are now being considered and will be taken into account as the detailed design for the scheme is prepared. Our next step will be to appoint a contractor, next Summer, early in the planning process to help with that detailed design work. That work should lead to the start of the statutory procedures in 2003–04.Subject to the outcome of those procedures, work could start on site in 2005–06 and take between three and four years to complete.1166W
A3 Hindhead—appraisal summary table January 2001 Objective/Sub-objective/Qualitative impacts Quantitative measure Assessment ENVIRONMENT Noise With the Base Tunnel Option significant changes in traffic noise (3 dB1) predicted on some 35 km of the road network, in some cases including parts of Haslemere and Liphook as well as in Hindhead. The tunnel would reduce noise levels substantially for parts of Hindhead Common, but tranquillity on footpaths near the new road north of the tunnel would be lost Base Tunnel vs Do Min. in 2023 Properties benefiting by 3 Db1:675 Properties dis-benefiting by 3 dB:1151 Net number of properties benefiting by 3 dB:5601 Local Air Quality The assessment has been carried out for the road traffic model simulation area for links which would have a traffic flow of more than 5,000 veh/day (DETR, May 2000: Review and Assessment: Pollutant Specific Guidance, Part IV The Environment Act 1995, Local Air Quality Management LAQM.TG4(00)) Properties where LAQ improves PM10 1,567 NO2 715 Properties where LAQ worsens PM10 801 NO2 652 LAQ Index: PM10—249.7 NO2—2,702.9 Greenhouse Gases The change in CO2 is calculated over the whole road traffic model area and would be roughly equivalent to 0.012 per cent. of the total emissions of CO2 by road transport in the UK in 1996 n/a +3,575 CO2 tones/annum Landscape Slight beneficial impact on Surrey Hills AONB. Substantial benefits to landscape of the Common arising from inclusion of a bored tunnel and removal of the existing surface route would be, in part, off-set by substantial adverse effects outside tunnel at northern and southern ends of scheme n/a Slight beneficial Townscape Removal of congestion within Hindhead provides opportunity for townscape enhancement and redevelopment, including visitor 'gateway' to the Commons and Punch Bowl. These benefits would be off-set by adverse effect on southern approach to Hindhead; new route running parallel to existing A3 would create a wide road corridor with disturbance to existing mature properties Three residential and four non-residential properties would be demolished Moderate beneficial Heritage of Historic Resources No direct/indirect impacts on designated sites. Risk to unknown/undiscovered archaeology. Substantial benefit to historic landscape of the Common by removing existing surface route and re-establishing links with Punch Bowl, offset by adverse effects outside the tunnel n/a Slight beneficial Biodiversity No direct impact on the adjacent SSSIs/SPAs. Direct impact on areas of non-designated woodland and SNCI east of Hindhead, but avoiding main nature conservation interest. Beneficial indirect effects on Punch Bowl SSSI/SPA by removing existing surface route and reuniting commons n/a Intermediate positive Water Environment The scheme would cross two of the four streams within the corridor, one of which is of excellent quality (Begley) and the other (Nutcombe) of poor quality. Surface water measures would be needed to ensure there is no pollution risk. Existing data and boreholes indicate possible conflict between tunnel and ground water levels and underlying aquifer; without detailed modelling the impact cannot be determined, but there is a risk n/a (potentially) large adverse 1167W
Base Tunnel Option: (BTO) vs Do-MinimumDual two-lane all-purpose bypass (6.5 km) incl. bored tunnel (1.7 km)Problems: substantial delays and journey time variability on the A3 due to the traffic signals at Hindhead, the single carriageway sections either side and nearby junctions and accesses, also causing substantial amounts of "rat running" on local roads. Traffic flow 27,000 veh/day (9 per cent. HGVs).Present Value Cost to Government: £75 million.
A3 Hindhead—appraisal summary table January 2001 Objective/Sub-objective/Qualitative impacts Quantitative measure Assessment Physical Fitness Relatively few pedestrians currently cross the A3 in Hindhead (less than 200 a day). Reduced traffic severance in Hindhead resulting from the scheme may encourage more pedestrian and cyclist trips. Tunnel will reunite severed sections of the Common which is likely to encourage greater recreational use of the Common by pedestrians and cyclists. Dedicating existing sections of A3 to pedestrians and cyclists will also offer increased opportunities for walking and cycling No data available on number of pedestrians and cyclists who will walk/cycle for more than, or less than, the 30 minutes a day health threshold Slight beneficial Journey Ambience Large beneficial effect on driver stress. Large adverse effect on views from road. Slight beneficial effect with respect to traveller care (facilities) arising from the new dedicated footway/cycleway on sections of existing A3 Over 25,000 road users a day affected Slight beneficial SAFETY Accidents Substantial reductions in numbers of accidents Accidents reduced by 27 in 2009 rising to 34 in 2038. Thirty-year reduction 919 PVB £13 million 17 per cent, of PVC Security N/a n/a n/a ECONOMY Transport Economic Efficiency Positive NPV under both High and Low growth scenarios. Benefit/cost ratio higher than in the last study in the mid-1990s BCR 1.6 Users: NPV £108 million Public providers: NPV £75 million Other Government: NPV £13 million Reliability Moderate reduction in travel time variability from relieving bottleneck; would be larger but for traffic attracted (back) into the A3 corridor. Low-moderate flow Current range of 12–32 minutes for peak journey on Liphook-Milford section of A3 would be reduced substantially Slight beneficial Wider Economic Impacts This sub-objective is targeted at designated regeneration areas. Nevertheless, it is relevant that South Hampshire may benefit substantially from the improved transport connection. Also, the blighted part of Hindhead should recover when relieved of major traffic flows n/a (potentially) moderate beneficial ACCESSIBILITY Option values Unlikely there would be substantial changes to the availability of transport services in the area n/a Severance Some relief from severance along the existing A3 from the signals (at A287) northwards, particularly around the Devil's Punch Bowl, and from the signals southwards to Crossways Road Moderate beneficial Access to the Transport System No change Neutral INTEGRATION Transport Interchange No change Neutral Land-Use Policy Across the relevant national, regional and local policies (transport, environment, landscape, nature conservation, agriculture, cultural heritage, general development and recreation, there would be equal numbers of policies affected beneficially and adversely. There would, however, be more large positive effects than negative ones, and more of the more important policies would be affected positively. The two policies that would be affected most positively are: to provide an efficient and effective road system and to reduce congestion; and to conserve and enhance biodiversity. On balance the effect would be beneficial Sixteen policies would benefit; 16 policies would be adversely affected; five policies where effects would be neutral. All four most important policies would benefit. Ten of the 21 policies middle-ranked in importance would benefit; eight would disbenefit Beneficial Other Government Policies N/a n/a n/a 1 Greater than