Written question asked by Andrew Mackinlay (Labour), in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Wednesday, 12 March 1997. It was answered by John Watts (Conservative) on Wednesday, 12 March 1997 on behalf of the Department of Transport.

Dept of Transport

Question: What factors underlay his assessment that his objectives for junctions 16 to 19 of the M25 could be met by smaller scale improvements than full D4 widening; and for what reason these criteria did not apply in respect of (a) junctions 12 to 15 and (b) junctions 15 to 16. - Inc ref to Managing the Road Programme, November 1995.

Answer: Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors underlay his assessment that his objectives for junctions 16 to 19 of the M25 could be met by smaller-scale improvements than full D4 widening; and for what reason these criteria did not apply in respect of (a) junctions 12 to 15 and (b) junctions 15 to 16. [19583] Mr. Watts: The decision, announced in "Managing the Road Programme" published in November 1995, to consider smaller scale solutions was aimed at maximising the use of capital resources whilst seeking to continue to meet the objectives of schemes. The proposed widening of the M25 between junctions 16 and 19 was identified for such a review but no decision has been taken. The proposals for widening the M25 between junctions 12 and 15 represent a scaling down of the previously published link road proposals. The Highways Agency is still looking at the options for widening M25 between junctions 15 and 16 following the withdrawal in April 1995 of the link roads scheme for that section.

Secondary information