---

4 Oct 2004 : Column 1841W—continued

Humberside Safety Camera Partnership

Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money has been raised in gross by the Humberside Safety Camera Partnership in each year since its inception. [188573]

Mr. Jamieson: The Humberside Safety Camera Partnership joined the National Safety Camera Programme in April 2003. Partnership accounts are audited by an auditor appointed by the Audit Commission. The audited 2003–04 accounts for Humberside are not yet available.

Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons were employed by the Humberside Safety Camera Partnership at its inception. [188740]

Mr. Jamieson: The Humberside Safety Camera Partnership, made up of the police, magistrates courts and local authorities, joined the cost recovery programme in April 2003. It employed a complement of 48.6 full-time equivalent posts. This means that some staff spend part of their time with the partnership and the rest with their parent authorities.

London, Tilbury and Southend Line

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on overcrowding on the London, Tilbury and Southend rail line. [189365]

Mr. McNulty: I refer the hon. Member to the written reply given to him on 13 September 2004, Official Report, column 1382W.

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the safety consequences of passengers standing on the London, Tilbury and Southend rail line; and if he will make a statement. [189366]

Mr. McNulty: None. Trains are designed to accommodate standing passengers and to operate safely when fully loaded.

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact on overcrowding on the London, Tilbury and Southend line of the removal of four four-coach Class 357 trains from that line. [189515]

Mr. McNulty: None. The redeployment of rolling stock was agreed by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) to cover a potential shortfall in rolling stock elsewhere on the network. The rolling stock formations now in use on the c2c route are expected to accommodate demand. The SRA and c2c continue to monitor the impact of the changes on crowding levels on the route.

Manchester Airport

Mr. Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of projected passenger numbers at Manchester airport in his deliberations on the proposed phase three Metrolink extension; [188015]

(2) what representations he has had from Manchester airport following his decision regarding phase three of the Manchester Metrolink extension; [188016]
 
4 Oct 2004 : Column 1842W
 

(3) what assessment he has made of the alternative available public transport links to Manchester airport in the absence of the Metrolink extension; [188017]

(4) what assessment he has made of the impact of the Metrolink phase three extension on future journey times between Manchester airport and the city centre; [188018]

(5) what assessment he has made of the economic benefits to Manchester airport of the Metrolink phase three extension; [188019]

(6) what assessment he has made of the contribution of an extension of the Metrolink to Manchester airport to an integrated transport strategy for South Manchester. [188020]

Mr. McNulty: It is for Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) as promoters of Metrolink to undertake any consultation and assessment. The Manchester Airport Line formed part of the original three line package of Metrolink extensions. However, following increased costs, the GMPTE submitted an alternative package replacing the airport line with a spur to East Didsbury.

It was for GMPTE to undertake the assessment of alternatives. GMPTE's assessment of the original package took account of: future journey times between the airport and the city centre; projected passenger numbers; economic benefits to the airport; alternative public transport links if Metrolink Phase III was not approved; and the contribution to an integrated transport strategy for South Manchester.

We have had no representations from Manchester airport. We have received one letter from British Airways based at Manchester Airport.

Manchester Public Transport

Mr. Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the contribution of an extension of the role of Metrolink in the economic competitiveness of Greater Manchester (a) in its present form and (b) with the completion of the phase three extension; [188021]

(2) what assessment he has made of the cost-to-benefit ratio of the phase three extension to the Greater Manchester Metrolink; [188022]

(3) what assessment he has made of the benefits to the local economy of the phase three extension to the Manchester Metrolink; [188023]

(4) what assessment he has made of (a) the contribution of the Manchester Metrolink to the process of creating a shift from car usage to public transport and (b) the likely impact of the phase three extension on that process; [188024]

(5) what assessment he has made of whether alternative public transport options have the capacity to meet passenger demand in the absence of the phase three Manchester Metrolink extension taking place; [188026]

(6) what estimate he has made of the projected traffic levels on (a) the M56, (b) the M60, (c) the M62 and (d) all major routes within the area of the proposed
 
4 Oct 2004 : Column 1843W
 
phase three extension of the Manchester Metrolink over the next (i) five, (ii) 10 and (iii) 20 years if the Metrolink extension (A) is and (B) is not put in placel; [188029]

(7) what estimate he has made of (a) the additional road space needed in the Manchester area in the absence of the Metrolink extension and (b) the cost of providing that additional road space; [188030]

(8) what assessment he has made of the implications for air quality along the proposed routes of the Metrolink phase three extension (a) of building and (b) of not building the extension. [188034]

Mr. McNulty: The Department for Transport's consideration of Manchester Metrolink and the Phase III extensions was based on an assessment undertaken by the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE). This took account of the impact on: the regional and local economy; shift from car use to public transport; cost and capacity of alternative public transport and road options; the effect on the local and regional road network; and changes in air quality. The Department's judgement of the benefit cost ratio for the Phase III extensions (Oldham/Rochdale, Ashton-under-Lyne and East Didsbury) is 1.6:1.

The Secretary of State took the decision not to approve Metrolink Phase III—along with the proposed schemes in Leeds and South Hampshire—because of a further substantial increase in costs. As the Secretary of State announced on 20 July, no government could accept the schemes as they are on the basis of their escalating costs and he could therefore not approve Phase III of Metrolink in its current form. In Manchester, costs had doubled and the project was reduced to less than the three lines originally proposed. The Department is working closely with GMPTE on developing alternative proposals.

Mr. Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has instructed officials to undertake a fundamental review of public transport options in Greater Manchester. [188025]

Mr. McNulty: It is for the Greater Manchester Transport Executive to consider the transport solutions that best meet the needs of the area. We will be working closely with the Manchester authorities as they undertake this work.

Mr. Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funds he is making available to keep the Oldham and Rochdale line open for local railway services in the absence of the phase three Metrolink extension; and what funds he is making available for the cost of upgrading the infrastructure. [188027]

Mr. McNulty: There are no current plans to upgrade the infrastructure. The existing heavy rail services will continue to be provided and funded under the current First North Western Franchise and its planned replacement.

Mr. Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guarantees he has offered regarding the funding of essential costs of track and systems renewals on the existing Manchester Metrolink. [188028]

 
4 Oct 2004 : Column 1844W
 

Mr. McNulty: None. It is for the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, as the promoters of Metrolink, to decide if track and systems renewals are essential and to make its own priorities and bid for funding if appropriate.

Mr. Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he sought from Greater Manchester Police before reaching a decision over the phase three extension to the Manchester Metrolink. [188032]

Mr. McNulty: The decision to withdraw funding approval for Metrolink Phase 3 was taken because of escalating costs. Therefore, there was no guidance sought from Greater Manchester Police before reaching this decision.

Mr. Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has undertaken with Greater Manchester Health Authority regarding the role of Metrolink in (a) improving access to health care and (b) reducing traffic congestion on hospital sites. [188033]

Mr. McNulty: It is for the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE), as promoters of Metrolink, to undertake any consultation with the Greater Manchester Health Authority throughout the development and assessment of the Metrolink and to present its findings to the Department for Transport. GMPTE's original assessment of the scheme did include information on access to health care, however, no information was provided specifically on reducing traffic congestion on hospital sites.

---