|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Dr. Ladyman: The original estimated cost of the scheme at TPI entry in 1998 was £25 million and excluded VAT, optimism bias projected inflation and revising costs in line with the road construction price index.
Following the application of these Treasury Green Book principles in April 2003, the costs of schemes submitted for TPI entry approval have been reported including the above items. The estimated cost for the A421 was then adjusted to £37 million. A budget increase to £58 million was approved by Ministers prior to start of works.
David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total expenditure on highways in Haltemprice and Howden constituency was in each of the last two financial years; and what the average figure was per constituency in each year. 
Dr. Ladyman: This information is not available. A study of fatal accident victims during the period 1996-2000 showed that in a sample of 779 drivers and riders killed, 17 per cent. had traces of illegal drugs. In 8 per cent. of the sample the drug detected was cannabis, traces of which remain detectable in the body long after consumption.
Dr. Ladyman: No such estimate is made by the Department. A 2004 European Commission study Impaired motorists: methods of roadside testing and assessment for licensing co-funded by member states, examined the prevalence of illegal drugs in drivers. The summary of the results of the UK element of that study are at www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_611649-03.hcsp#P58_ 5194. The full report is at www.immortal.or.at/
Mr. Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of safety measures on the London Underground network in relation to protection against the threat of terrorism. 
Gillian Merron [holding answer 17 July 2006]: The Department for Transport keeps the preventative transport security measures we require under regular review. Industry implementation of the measures is subject to an ongoing programme of compliance monitoring and enforcement by DFT inspectors.
Dr. Ladyman: The M25 between junctions 8 and 9 will not require resurfacing for maintenance needs within the period of the Agencys current five year forward programme. However when it does need to be resurfaced a quieter surfacing will be used as a matter of course.
Dr. Ladyman: The Chief Executive of the Highways Agency wrote to the Transport Select Committee in April 2006 with information on the latest ministerially approved budgets for major road schemes. I have placed the same data in the Library. Since April the following changes have been approved:
|Previous approved budget cost||Latest approved budget cost|
In addition, on 20 July the Secretary of States announcement on the Inspectors Report and scheme orders for the A3 Hindhead Improvement noted that the latest estimate for that scheme is £370.9 million.
The Secretary of State has now asked Mike Nichols, Chairman of the Nichols Group, to review the Highways Agency approach to cost estimating and project management, and to make recommendations, including on how the agency should best assess, monitor and report on risks to its cost estimates. He will report in the autumn.
Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate his Department has made of the economic effects of the implementation of the published scheme for improvements to the A303 Stonehenge in the first year after construction. 
Dr. Ladyman: The Highways Agency's economic analysis of the A303 Stonehenge scheme is based on an assumed start of construction in 2008. On this assumption, it is estimated that in the first year after construction (2013) of the published scheme there would be travel time savings of between £3.495 million at low growth and £6.317 million at high growth. In addition, there would be safety benefits (resulting from a reduction in accidents) of between £2.035 million at low growth and £2.211 million at high growth.
Dr. Ladyman: I have asked the Highways Agency to undertake a review of policy on roadside facilities, including motorway service areas. As part of the review process we shall be carrying out a public consultation exercise. It is anticipated that this consultation will commence shortly.
Mark Lazarowicz: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what mechanism is used to grant consent to new oil handling facilities (a) within harbour authority areas and (b) elsewhere in UK internal and territorial waters. 
Dr. Ladyman: There is no single mechanism for the granting of consent to new oil handling facilities. There are a range of possible consent regimes for such facilities, dependant upon where they are, whether there are new works involved and the extent to which there are existing powers available to the authorities involved.
John Barrett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the comments received in response to the Maritime and Coastguard Agencys consultation on oil spill contingency plans covering ship-to-ship transfers of oil in the Firth of Forth were categorised as not relevant; what proportion of such comments related to the effects of oil spill plan amendments in combination with effects of the proposed transfers; whether these comments will be made available to Forth Ports to assist them in assessing the transfer proposals under regulation 3 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994; and whether these comments will be published. 
Dr. Ladyman: This information was placed on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency website on the 14 July 2006 in the form of a Responses Consultation Table and a Summary Analysis of Consultee Responses. The website address for these documents is: http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-guidance-requlation/mcga-consultations/mcga-current_consultations/mcga-consultations-sts_forth/mcga-consultations-sts_outcome.htm
John Barrett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the timetable is for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to report to him following its consultation on (a) the implications for European wildlife sites of the proposed changes to Forth Ports oil contingency plans and (b) the other documents on which comment was invited in connection with ship-to-ship transfers of oil in the Firth of Forth; and what mechanism is proposed for making the findings public. 
Dr. Ladyman: The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) announced on 14 July 2006 its intention to approve the Oil Spill Contingency Plan covering Ship-to-Ship (STS) transfers in the Firth of Forth submitted by the harbour authority, and the harbour authoritys proposed amendments to the overarching Clearwater Forth contingency plan, subject to a number of specified changes being made.
Concurrent with this announcement documents were placed on the MCA website. These included an assessment of the implications of the Firth of Forth STS transfer Oil Spill Contingency Plan in conjunction with the Clearwater Forth Plan for designated nature conservation sites, a summary analysis of consultee comments, a consultee table and a copy of the letter sent to the harbour authority (Forth Ports) in which the specified changes were set out. The website address for these documents is: http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4 mca/mcga-guidance-regulation/mcga-consultations/mcga-current_consultations/mcga-consultations-sts_ forth/mcga-consultations-sts_outcome.htm
John Barrett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses have been made by (a) statutory bodies, (b) non-governmental and community organisations and (c) private individuals to the Maritime and Coastguard Agencys consultation on ship-to-ship transfers of oil in the Firth of Forth. 
Dr. Ladyman: This information was placed on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency website on the 14 July 2006 in the form of a Responses Consultation Table and a Summary Analysis of Consultee Responses. The website address for these documents is: http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-quidance-requlation/mcga-consultations/mcga-current_ consultations/mcga-consultations-sts_forth/mcga-consultations-sts_out come.htm
Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he plans to make to the existing regulations in respect of the working hours of professional drivers; and if he will make a statement. 
Dr. Ladyman: A new, directly applicable, EU regulation on drivers' hours has recently been adopted by the EU institutionsit was published in the Official Journal in April 2006 and will, for the most part, come into force in April 2007.
We will consult later this year on the amendments that will need to be made to domestic legislation to facilitate compliance with the new EU regulation. These amendments will adopt all of the national derogations
available in the new EU regulation (without any additional restrictions), apart from the newly available derogation for specialised vehicles transporting money and/or valuablesin Article 13.1.(m). We do not intend to adopt this derogation because there is no obvious case to exempt these operations which currently take place within the scope of the existing drivers' hours rules without any apparent difficulties.
The working time of mobile workers (basically drivers, crew and other travelling staff) operating on vehicles subject to the EU regulation on drivers' hours is governed by the European Road Transport Working Time Directive 2002/15/EC. A review of the UK's implementing regulations is due to commence later this year.
Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which railway lines in England and Wales are under consideration for reopening; and what his policy is on the reopening of railway lines. 
Derek Twigg: In July next year we will publish our High Level Output Specification. This will set out the railway outputs the Government wish to buy in terms of capacity, safety and reliability and the funding to support this for the next five years. It is for the industry to determine what inputs are needed to deliver this.
Derek Twigg: We are currently seeing huge growth in the railways, with more than a billion passengers carried last year, and this is set to continue. To help meet this challenge we are investing record amounts in the network.
Work is being undertaken to improve timetabling, infrastructure maintenance and renewals and other factors that can impact on reliable delivery of train services, which in turn will impact on crowding levels. We are also considering different measures to increase the capacity of the network, from train layout and length, turnaround times and infrastructure improvements. Major investment programmes such as the west coast main line modernisation project have already seen capacity improvements.
It is for the train operating companies to take decisions about the deployment of rolling stock. We will continue to review train counts and train plans to assess whether resources are being deployed effectively.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|