| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Rail Freight Services
Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what due diligence processes his Department has undertaken in relation to the Wisconsin Central and Loadhaul/Omnitrax bids for the British Rail Freight businesses. [9916]
Mr. Watts: All bids were evaluated in detail by British Rail and its professional advisers, and then discussed with my Department before a preferred purchaser was selected.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway freight grants were granted in each year since 1987; and what was their total value in each year. [10865]
Mr. Watts: The Government have awarded 28 railway freight facilities grants since 1987. The value of the awards were as follows:
1987: £2,595,810
1988: £651,473
1989: £4,145,985
1990: £765,000
1991: £1,771,000
1992: £7,601,500
1993: £403,000
1994: £2,911,720
1995: £7,348,219
Mr. Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of freight grants in encouraging the transfer of goods from road to rail. [10880]
Mr. Watts: More than 200 schemes have benefited from these grants at a cost of £90 million, removing more than 3 million lorry journeys per year from the roads.
Socially Necessary Rail Services
Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rail services in England and Wales he plans to designate as socially necessary; and if he will make a statement. [10085]
22 Jan 1996 : Column: 29
Mr. Watts: This is a matter for the Franchising Director. He considers the services to be specified in passenger service requirements on a franchise-by- franchise basis. When setting passenger service requirements he is required by his instructions and guidance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider each service individually, taking account of all surrounding circumstances. Where services are essential but unprofitable to run, the Franchising Director will set the PSR close to or at the level of the British Rail timetable in operation at the time. Where a train is exceptionally lightly used and is not an essential service he may omit it from the PSR where he considers that its inclusion would not provide value for money. He has specified a number of socially necessary but uneconomic services in the PSRs that have so far been finalised.
West Coast Main Line
Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current estimated cost for the complete refurbishment of the west coast main line between London and Glasgow. [9926]
Mr. Watts: The overall cost of the west coast main line core investment programme has been estimated at about £1 billion.
Mr. Chris Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport where the signalling technology proposed for the modernisation of the west coast main line is currently installed; and what assessment he has made of its operational liability. [10309]
Mr. Watts: Railtrack informs me that in-cab signalling technology is currently employed in differing forms in various parts of the world, but is not identical to the system planned for the west coast main line. For this reason, Railtrack intends to let further development contracts for the signalling system during the first quarter of this year and expects that a reliable signalling system can be developed within the time necessary for the modernisation works.
Rail Privatisation
Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 9 January, Official Report, column 29, what is the budgeted expenditure for 1996-97 for the employment of consultants and other advisers in the Officer of Passenger Rail Franchising. [9942]
Mr. Watts: The budget has not been finalised. It will be published in the transport report in due course.
A590, Cumbria
Mr. Jopling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to start on the High and Low Newton improvements on the A590 in Cumbria; and how much has been spent to date in preparations, including land purchase. [10094]
Mr. Watts: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my right hon. Friend.
22 Jan 1996 : Column: 30
Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Michael Jopling, dated 22 January 1996:
The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the High and Low Newton improvements on the A590 in Cumbria.
You will have seen from the Secretary of State's announcement on the Road Programme on 28 November that this scheme has been included in the main programme but against a background of continued pressure on public spending, I am unable to give you a firm start date. All I can say is that it will be brought forward as quickly as resources and statutory procedures allow.
To date preparation costs total £889,400 in addition to lands costs of £230,000.
Motorway Noise
Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to use porous asphalt on the areas of the M4, between junctions 5 and 8, which are being resurfaced. [10193]
Mr. Watts: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr Graham Allen, dated 22 January 1996:
Mr. Allen:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it is his policy to use major works on motorways to reduce the impact of motorway noise on nearby homes. [10183]
The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the use of porous asphalt for resurfacing a section of the M4 between junctions 5 and 8.
Resurfacing of the M4 between junctions 5 and 8 is being undertaken using a conventional hot rolled asphalt surface similar to that originally laid on this section of motorway,
There are statutory obligations which require the Highways Agency to provide noise attenuation measures but these relate only to new or substantially altered roads. Maintenance can only be undertaken in the most cost effective way. Although I recognise that porous asphalt surfacing does cut down the noise generated by vehicle tyres it is significantly more expensive to provide, requires special highway drainage, costs more to maintain and has a shorter life than hot rolled asphalt.
Porous asphalt was not therefore considered suitable as a replacement for the existing surface for the M4.
Mr. Watts: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 22 January 1996:
Mr. Allen:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he encourages the use of porous asphalt to reduce noise pollution near motorways. [10184]
The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the use of major works on motorways to reduce the impact of motorway noise on nearby homes.
There is a statutory requirement to consider the impact of noise on nearby homes only in the case of works involving the construction of a new road or of improvements which alter the line or level of an existing road. It is Departmental policy to regard this as covering the widening of motorways. In such cases, the scheme will include appropriate measures designed to mitigate noise and other environmental impacts. In the case of other roadworks such as minor improvements and structural maintenance which have no subsequent effect on the position of traffic relative to adjacent properties there is no requirement for such impacts to be reviewed.
22 Jan 1996 : Column: 31
Mr. Watts: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 22 January 1996:
The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the use of porous asphalt to reduce noise near motorways.
The Highways Agency has developed with industry a general specification to permit the use of porous asphalt. Its adoption is encouraged where conditions are suitable and where the benefits can be shown to outweigh the higher costs associated with its use.
Railway Stations
Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new stations have been opened on the rail network in the last three years; and what estimate he has made of the number to be opened on the railway system during the next three years. [9946]
Mr. Watts: Twenty-two new stations have been opened on the rail network since January 1993. There are plans for 17 new stations to be opened over the period 1996 to 1998.
Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish for each British Rail region and for British Rail as a whole for each of the last available three years (a) the total number of railway stations and halls and (b) the total number of such stations and halls with ticket sales offices, indicating (b) as a percentage of (a) in each case. [8917]
Mr. Watts: The information requested is not available for each British Rail region. The information requested at (a) for BR as a whole is as follows:
1992-93: 2,482 stations
1993-94: 2,493 stations
1994-95: 2,506 stations
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |