| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Value for money is as important to the Highways Agency as it is to right hon. and hon. Members. When a
site has been assessed and it is determined that a crossing should be provided, the agency has in place a range of internal controls and processes to check value for money. Indeed, a managing agent contractor generally undertakes the design and construction of Highways Agency crossings. The rates used to inform the target costs for such schemes are secured through competitive tendering. There is then the agency’s value management process, which balances a scheme’s benefits, such as accessibility, possible accident prevention and mobility within communities—I am thinking particularly of what the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents gain—against its disbenefits, which I recorded earlier, such as journey times and delays that it may cause to traffic.
Returning to the NAO review, I am informed that a comparison may have been made of the Highways Agency’s costs and those of local authority-installed crossings. The agency’s roads are heavily trafficked, and hence on average more expensive to work on than local authority roads, so comparisons of the costs of those road operators could be misleading.
If the right hon. Gentleman has evidence, I ask him to bring it forward to us. I hope that he will recognise that there are differences between crossings. The ones in question are not simple, straightforward crossings on slow-moving roads. They are on the strategic network, and I hope that he will take the opportunity to welcome the decision that the crossing in Chideock will go ahead. We are moving forward on that, the Highways Agency is working and—
10.30 pm
House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).
| Index | Home Page |