| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.43 pm
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on securing the debate. I know from many recent discussions with my hon. Friend of his concern at the lack of progress on work on the A12 in Waveney, and the Kessingland to Pleasurewood improvement and bridge in particular.
A combination of sharply rising road construction costs and reduced funds in the public expenditure settlement necessitated a review of the trunk road programme, as my hon. Friend has acknowledged. As part of the announcements at the time of the Budget in November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced the "Managing the Trunk Road Programme" review, which had looked at the whole national programme. The revised programme represents a practical assessment of what can realistically be achieved within the resources likely to be available.
We have targeted the new programme at key routes, while seeking to make the best possible use of the network. The new programme includes a significant number of bypasses, but many very desirable and strongly supported schemes have had to be deferred or withdrawn altogether. Within East Anglia, our main priorities are the A14 and the M11-A11. It was recognised in the review that the A12 and A140 between Ipswich, Lowestoft and Norwich were of lower priority in national terms. I accept, however, that they may be very important locally.
We have withdrawn all schemes on the A140, but on the A12 north of Ipswich we have retained the following four schemes in the longer-term programme--Martlesham to Wickham Market, Wickham Market to Saxmundham, the Yoxford bypass and the Wrentham bypass, to which my hon. Friend referred. These have been retained in the longer-term programme primarily because of the environmental benefits they will bring.
In Waveney, three of the original schemes on the A12 fall within the boundary of the district council. The bypass for Blythburgh was withdrawn from the programme because of its serious effect on the local environment. It would have passed through an area of outstanding natural beauty, and close to a Ramsar site and a site of special scientific interest.
The scheme that combined the Kessingland to Pakefield improvements and the Lowestoft relief road--and, as my hon. Friend has explained, would have included a third crossing of Lake Lothing--has been withdrawn. I know that there is strong local support for it, and I sympathise with the view which my hon. Friend has expressed today that the economic development of Lowestoft is being constrained by poor links to the national road network and congestion in the town. The scheme would be very expensive, however, and the bridge is a particularly costly element within it. The scheme would cater mainly for local traffic.
The decision to withdraw the scheme was a difficult one in the light of local needs. My hon. Friend and I have previously discussed arguments advanced by local authorities--he advanced these arguments again today-- that the bridge element of the scheme could be considered a candidate for a design, build, finance and operate project. But although the private sector would fund the work within a DBFO contract, an arrangement based on shadow tolling would still place a burden on the
Department's public expenditure budget. Faced with tight limits on expenditure for highways infrastructure, a third harbour crossing for Lowestoft could not be regarded as a high priority for investment in national terms. Any further developments of DBFOs will be targeted towards schemes that are of sufficient national importance to be included within the main road programme.
My hon. Friend mentioned his concerns about the bridge itself. I hope that I can assure him that a structural assessment and detailed inspection of the bridge completed recently has shown that it is in generally good condition. However, it is likely that some further inspections and testing will take place later this year, together with other minor maintenance works.
The lifting bridge is operated by Associated British Ports, which also oversees the maintenance of the mechanical and electrical systems on behalf of the Highways Agency. The structure of the bridge itself is maintained by the county council as agents of the Highways Agency. A detailed programme of routine maintenance is managed by ABP, which continues throughout the year. This involves day-to-day servicing of the operating systems, as well as a replacement and refurbishment of major components on a regular basis.
I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that the bridge is in generally sound condition and should continue to operate satisfactorily for many more years. I acknowledge his point that we must look far enough ahead to take account of what might be required in terms of substantial refurbishment or, perhaps, replacement of the bridge.
We consulted the public on the proposed Wrentham bypass in the summer of 1993. I realise how frustrating a further delay in that scheme must be, particularly for those who live alongside the existing trunk road. As I explained earlier, the A12 is not one of the nation's most important routes, and we have not yet been able to find a place for the bypass in the main programme. The scheme has not been abandoned but placed in the longer-term category, which means that we shall take it forward as we make progress with the main programme.
I cannot give any promises now as to when the scheme might be brought into the main programme because it will depend on our progress and resources during the next few years. In the meantime, work on the scheme will be suspended. In the near future we shall make an announcement locally about how matters rest following the 1993 consultation.
Where we have withdrawn major schemes or we are unable to make rapid progress with them in the foreseeable future, as a matter of course we shall consider whether more limited improvements to the existing roads can be implemented to improve safety and ease congestion.
Recent improvements to the A12 include work on the Lowestoft eastern relief road, which forms part of the one-way trunk road system north of the harbour, and was completed in 1994. That scheme was funded by the Department of Transport using a 100 per cent. grant under section 272 of the Highways Act 1980 and incorporated into the network on completion.
The new road is expected to boost the local economy by improving access to the town's industrial areas and docks. In addition, the scheme has removed some 7,500 vehicles a day from Lowestoft's Triangle market shopping
area. The local environment also benefits from reduced congestion and lower vehicle emissions--a point which my hon. Friend stressed.
The Department of Transport has carried out a programme of local improvements along the A12 corridor. Those include signing, road markings, junction modifications and improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.
A study has been carried out on the existing A12 corridor through Lowestoft, and a package of improvements has been identified, which includes changes to the one-way system, the introduction of a bus lane, changes to signal controls, junction improvements, signing, road markings, and waiting and loading restrictions. The package is designed to ease congestion and improve safety, and individual elements can be implemented to suit the level of any future funding allocation. Preliminary consultations have been carried out in order to draw up the proposals, but a more detailed consultation exercise will be necessary prior to implementation.
North of Lowestoft, a scheme is being prepared for the installation of central reserve safety fencing on the one and three quarter-mile length of dual carriageway north of Lowestoft. That will complete the installation programme for the county and assist in the overall installation target for the whole country by the end of 1996.
At Kessingland bypass southern roundabout, a scheme has been prepared to improve the existing layout in order to reduce the high number of overrun accidents. Contract documents have been approved, and the scheme is ready to go out to tender when funds become available.
A scheme has been prepared to install a right-turn lane at the A12 Benacre junction in order to reduce turning accidents. Contract documents have been prepared, and negotiations for land acquisition are under way. When that has been completed, the scheme will be ready to go out to tender when we can make funds available.
A scheme is also being prepared to improve the Wangford junction in order to reduce accidents. There is also a scheme to close one leg of the Wangford junction crossroads, where there is poor visibility, in order to reduce accidents.
A study has been carried out into the provision and standard of laybys on the A12, which has identified a further package of improvements along the route. It is intended that a rolling programme of improvements should be drawn up to suit the available funds.
I mentioned an investigation to identify improved facilities for cyclists along the route, not that we have forgotten the needs of pedestrians as well. A further scheme to reduce accidents along the A12 seeks to improve the conspicuity of junctions and implement other local low-cost measures.
We must look further than the A12. The other major route serving Lowestoft is via the A143 and A146 from the A14 at Bury St. Edmunds. The Government have provided considerable grant support for the Norfolk and Suffolk county council schemes to upgrade that route. In the past two years alone, support has been given for the Scole-Stuston bypass, the Brockdish-Needham bypass and the Rickinghall-Bottesdale bypass, all of which are now open to traffic.
We also continue to maintain the existing routes, and we have completed three schemes this year within the Waveney district. We have undertaken resurfacing work at Kirkley Cliff, at a cost of £25,000, resurfacing and reconstruction work at Waveney road, at a cost of £98,000, and resurfacing at Denmark road, which has cost £30,000. We propose to undertake further maintenance next year, including the resurfacing at Battery Green road and resurfacing at Sparrows Nest, at a combined cost of
£186,000. I hope that that shows our commitment to a realistic programme of improvements to the strategic routes serving Waveney on trunk and county primary roads.
I said at the beginning of my speech that it was vital that priorities were set within a realistic financial framework. We have done that in a responsible manner, concentrating our efforts on the key national routes.
In East Anglia, the most important road project in recent years was the A14, which was opened in 1994. It is a dual carriageway trunk road from the Ml-M6 junction to Felixstowe, and it is regarded as one of the key strategic routes for the region. We have six schemes for capacity and safety improvements in the programme for that route. As part of the Ireland-UK-Benelux road, it is one of the 14 Christophersen priority projects for the European Community and therefore eligible for some funding from the trans-European networks budget. The A14, as I mentioned earlier, serves the needs of Lowestoft via the link at Bury St. Edmunds.
Our next priority is the M11-A11 route from London to Norwich. That priority appears to be widely accepted in the region as the key route to Norwich and the coast. We are making great strides with the dualling of the A11 from south of Cambridge, with eight of the 12 schemes already opened--I opened one scheme only a month ago--and the Besthorpe-Wymondham scheme to open later this year. That will leave us with only three schemes, all of which are retained in the main programme.
The Roudham Heath-Attleborough improvement is ready to start when funds become available. It is our firm intention to complete the dualling of the A11 from the M11 to Norwich.
On our third priority, the A47, we have spent some
£150 million in recent years, on the schemes in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, between the A1 at Peterborough and Great Yarmouth; including the Norwich southern bypass, which has considerably improved travel to the coastal towns of Great Yarmouth and, to some degree, Lowestoft. There are further A47 schemes in the main and longer-term programme, but I recognise that the long-cherished hope of many businesses and authorities for a complete dual carriageway route will not be forthcoming.
I know that my hon. Friend would like more by way of future intentions and improvements to the A12, but we have carried out a thorough review of the roads programme and put into the main programme a number of types of schemes which we think that we can deliver within the funding that we believe will be available over the next few years. We have identified for the longer-term programme schemes which we still believe will be needed at some time in the future, but which are not of sufficient priority to be taken forward immediately. It would not have been responsible of us not to recognise that, beyond those two elements of the programme, there are other schemes of which the possibility of being delivered is so far into the future that it would not be reasonable to continue to impose the blight which attaches to schemes in the programme, even if they are many years ahead.
To have kept schemes in the long-term programme which we know we have very little realistic opportunity to deliver would be to con people. I know that my hon. Friend would not want me--I know that he would never do it--to excite expectations which could not be realised among his constituents. I shall continue to reflect on what he has said, and to pay close attention to the bridge and the measures necessary to keep it available as a vital link on the A12 and within the town of Lowestoft, so that some of the problems which have been experienced in recent months will not be repeated.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |