1-20 of 53 results for subject:Roads
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.28 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.008 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Roads
- We searched for
- subject_t:Roads OR subject_t:Carriageways OR subject_t:Highways OR subject_t:"Public highways" OR subject_t:Streets OR subject_t:"Trunk roads" OR subject_ses:92868
Answering member
X
Lord Adonis
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Adonis, Lord (53)
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
Lords second reading. Agreed to on question. Bill committed to a Grand Committee.
Lords second reading. Agreed to on question. Bill committed to a Grand Committee.
Lead member
Baroness Kramer
Answering member
Lord Adonis
Department
Department for Transport
Type
Debates on bills
Legislative stage
Second reading
Legislation
Infrastructure Bill (HL) 2014-15
Subjects
Complaints; Conservation; Construction; Capital investment; Housing; Fees and charges; Inspections; Energy; Infrastructure; Land use; Highways Agency; Oil; Planning permission; Natural gas; Public sector; Railways; Passengers; Property development; Pest control; Roads; Weed control; HM Land Registry; Homes and Communities Agency; Affordable housing; Fracking
Date
18 June 2014
Reference
754 cc837-900
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government which companies have contracts with the Highways Agency for litter collection from roads in England; what are the start and end dates of each such contract; and what geographical areas they cover.
To ask Her Majesty's Government which companies have contracts with the Highways Agency for litter collection from roads in England; what are the start and end dates of each such contract; and what geographical areas they cover.
Asked by
Lord Marlesford
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
24 March 2010
The Highways Agency is responsible for litter clearance on motorways. Local authorities have responsibility for litter clearance on all other roads, including most all-purpose trunk roads.
The companies contracted by the Highways Agency to collect litter on the strategic road network, the geographical areas covered by those contracts and the contract start and end dates are listed in the table below:
"Key:""MAC—Managing Agent Contract""DBFO—Design Build Finance and Operate""EMAC—Enhanced Managing Agent Contract""PFI—Private Finance Initiative"
"MAC—Managing Agent Contract""DBFO—Design Build Finance and Operate""EMAC—Enhanced Managing Agent Contract""PFI—Private Finance Initiative"
"DBFO—Design Build Finance and Operate""EMAC—Enhanced Managing Agent Contract""PFI—Private Finance Initiative"
"EMAC—Enhanced Managing Agent Contract""PFI—Private Finance Initiative"
"PFI—Private Finance Initiative"
| Type of Contract | Name of the Service Provider (as appears on the contract) | Geographical Area covered by Contract (either in counties or specific stretch of road) | Start Date of Contract | End Date of Contract |
| MAC | Enterprise Mouchel (formerly Accord MP) | Cornwall and Devon | 22/3/2006 | 03/07/10 |
| MAC | EnterpriseMouchel | Cornwall and Devon | 04/7/2010 | 03/7/2015 |
| EMAC | Interroute (Raynesway/Serco/Mott MacDonald) | Somerset, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Avon | 24/12/2004 | 31/06/2011 |
| MAC | Enterprisemouchel | Hampshire, Surrey, Berks, Oxfordshire, Dorset (part), Wiltshire, Buckinghamshire (part) | 03/2008 | 08/2013 |
| MAC | Balfour Beatty/Mott MacDonald | Kent, Surrey, West & East Sussex | 03/2009 | 09/2014 |
| MAC | Atkins Ltd | Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk and Peterborough | 01/06/2008 | 31/05/2013 |
| MAC | Carillion WSP | Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Suffolk (part) | 01/09/2008 | 31/08/2013 |
| MAC | A-One+ (Colas/Halcrow/Costain JV) | Derbyshire, Leics, Lincs, Northants, Notts, Rutland, Warwicks (part), Oxfordshire (part) | 01/07/2009 | 30/06/2014 |
| MAC | Amey LG Ltd | Herefordshire, Shropshire, Staffs, Warwicks (part), West Midlands, Worcestershire | 01/07/2009 | 30/06/2014 |
| MAC | Aone+ (Halcrow/Colas/Costain) | Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Merseyside and parts of Lancashire | 05/11/2007 | 04/11/2012 |
| MAC | Aone+ (Halcrow/Colas/Costain) | Yorkshire and Humberside Ports Motorways | 01/10/2009 | 30/09/2014 |
| MAC | Amey Mouchel | Cumbria, Lancashire (part) | 01/07/2003 | 30/06/2010 |
| MAC | Enterprise Mouchel | Cumbria, Lancashire (part) | 01/07/2010 | 30/06/2015 |
| MAC | A-one Integrated Highway Services | Durham, Northumberland, North Yorkshire, Tyne & Wear | 01/07/2003 | 30/06/2010 |
| MAC | A-one + (Halcrow/Colas/Costain) | Durham, Northumberland, North Yorkshire, Tyne & Wear | 01/07/2010 | 30/06/2015 |
| DBFO | Connect A30/A35 Ltd | A30 from Exeter to Bere Regis | 01/101996 | 30/03/2026 |
| DBFO | Road Management Services (Gloucester) Ltd | A419/A417 Swindon to Gloucester | 01/04/1996 | 31/3/2026 |
| DBFO | Connect+ | M25 (incl associated link roads, Dartford Tunnel, + stubs and tails from M25 to GLA boundary) | 13/09/2009 | 19/05/2039 |
| DBFO | Sheppey Route Limited | A249 Stockbury to Sheerness | 04/2004 | 19/02/2034 |
| DBFO | Road Management Systems | A1(M) Alconbury to Peterborough | 01/04/1996 | 31/03/2026 |
| DBFO | UK Highways M40 Ltd | M40 Junctions 1-15 (Denham to Warwick) | 06/01/1997 | 05/01/2027 |
| DBFO | Roadlink Ltd | A69 Newcastle to Carlisle | 01/04/1996 | 01/04/2026 |
| DBFO | Connect A1 - M1 Ltd | M1-A1 Link (Lofthouse to Bramham) | 01/04/1996 | 01/04/2026 |
| DBFO | Autolink | A19/A168 Dishforth to Tyne Tunnel | 24/02/1997 | 24/02/2027 |
| DBFO | Road Management Services (Darrington) Ltd | A1 Darrington to Dishforth | 13/02/2003 | 13/02/2036 |
| DBFO | Connect A50 Ltd | A50/A564 Stoke to Derby | 1/07/1996 | 30/06/2026 |
| PFI | Midland Expressway Ltd (MEL) | M6 Toll | 28/02/1992 | 2054 |
| PFI | Severn River Crossing PLC | M4/M49 Severn Crossings | 10/1990 | 2017 |
Subjects
Contracts; Highways Agency; Litter; Roads; Waste disposal
Date
24 March 2010
Reference
2961; 718 c306-8WA
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the costs of reconstructing highways following the construction of a light rail transit system in Great Britain will be charged to the system.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the costs of reconstructing highways following the construction of a light rail transit system in Great Britain will be charged to the system.
Asked by
Lord Bradshaw
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
23 March 2010
My department has not undertaken any specific studies on the costs of constructing light rail systems in Great Britain compared with the rest of Europe. However, the National Audit Office in its report titled Improving Public Transport in England through Light Rail published in April 2004 did consider European systems against those in operation in England.
There are crucial differences in urban geography which make light rail ideally suited to some French and German cities. Trams are most cost-effective in corridors of very heavy passenger demand. These can support frequent services and closely spaced stops, and generate high patronage per route kilometre. Broad avenues leading to French/German city centres make it relatively easy to accommodate street-running trams without conflict with motor traffic whilst narrower city centre streets have often been pedestrianised. Both these sorts of conditions are relatively rare in English cities. In addition population density in catchment areas of our existing tram systems tends to be much lower than in continental cities, with less frequent services and stops.
Any proposed light rail transit system that is seeking funding from the Department for Transport is assessed using the new approach to appraisal (NATA) process. The NATA process ensures that all impacts are considered when taking a decision about whether to fund a particular system. This includes an assessment of the impact on all transport users including light rail passengers. The NATA process uses the same approach to assessing benefits across all modes of transport.
With regards to utility services, utility companies, along with a number of other organisations, have a statutory right to place apparatus in the highway to enable them to fulfil a statutory duty, for instance the supply of energy or water. If a highway, bridge or transport authority is intending to carry out works in the highway that will affect apparatus, then it is only fair that the cost of moving that apparatus should be met by the organisation that requires the apparatus to be moved.
Promoters of light rail systems will factor in any costs associated with utility diversions into the total estimated scheme costs.
Subjects
Costs; Construction; Rapid transit systems; Roads
Date
23 March 2010
Reference
3006; 718 c286WA
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many people have been killed or seriously injured as a result of contact with heavy goods vehicles on the A55 since European Union regulations 1072/2009 and 1073/2009 came into effect.
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many people have been killed or seriously injured as a result of contact with heavy goods vehicles on the A55 since European Union regulations 1072/2009 and 1073/2009 came into effect.
Asked by
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
17 March 2010
The information requested is not yet available.
The regulations concerned came into effect in October 2009 and information concerning reported personal injury road accidents which occurred in 2009 will be available in late June 2010 following publication of Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: Main Results: 2009.
Subjects
Accidents; Casualties; Large goods vehicles; Roads; A55
Date
17 March 2010
Reference
2777; 718 c211WA
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will discuss with local authorities in rural areas options for removing double yellow lines in historic villages in favour of suitable parking signs and penalties.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will discuss with local authorities in rural areas options for removing double yellow lines in historic villages in favour of suitable parking signs and penalties.
Asked by
Lord Dykes
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
9 March 2010
Highway authorities have a number of options for making and signing parking restrictions and provisions. Because the choices that they make will impact largely on local people, these choices are best made at local level.
The Department for Transport publishes extensive guidance on the correct design and use of signing systems for various purposes. This guidance is primarily contained in the Traffic Signs Manual, which can either be purchased in hard copy from the Stationery Office or viewed on the department’s website at http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/.
Additionally, the department’s officials regularly give site-specific advice and assistance to highway authorities that are dealing with unusual or difficult situations.
Subjects
Parking; Roads; Road signs and markings; Rural areas
Date
9 March 2010
Reference
2565; 718 c54-5WA
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will work with the Scottish Government to review the quality of the trunk roads between Edinburgh and Newcastle and Carlisle.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will work with the Scottish Government to review the quality of the trunk roads between Edinburgh and Newcastle and Carlisle.
Asked by
Lord Steel of Aikwood
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
8 February 2010
This Government maintain close liaison with the Scottish Government on a wide range of cross-border transport issues, including trunk roads. Ministers meet on a regular basis with ministerial counterparts within the devolved Administration to discuss areas of mutual interest. In addition, officials from the Department for Transport, and Government Office for the North East also meet regularly with officials from the Scottish Executive to discuss cross-border transport improvements.
Subjects
Edinburgh; Newcastle upon Tyne; Standards; Roads; Carlisle
Date
8 February 2010
Reference
1759; 717 c99WA
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will issue new advice about clearing snow and ice from paths and other areas in front of premises belonging to (a) householders, (b) shopkeepers, (c) schools, and (d) other public services.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will issue new advice about clearing snow and ice from paths and other areas in front of premises belonging to (a) householders, (b) shopkeepers, (c) schools, and (d) other public services.
Asked by
Lord Greaves
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
8 February 2010
There is no legal restriction preventing members of the public clearing the snow and ice on the highway outside their properties. Such action by citizens does not remove the duty placed on the highway authority by Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 ““to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that safe passage along a highway is not endangered by snow or ice””.
With regard to the clearing of snow and ice from private property, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has worked with the Health and Safety Executive to provide advice, which is published on the DCLG website at http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1431227.
Subjects
Pedestrian areas; Roads; Snow and ice
Date
8 February 2010
Reference
1270; 717 c100WA
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government what road construction projects in England costing over £10 million (a) are under way, and (b) have beenapproved; what is the expected cost of each such project; and what are their planned start and finish dates.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what road construction projects in England costing over £10 million (a) are under way, and (b) have beenapproved; what is the expected cost of each such project; and what are their planned start and finish dates.
Asked by
Lord Marlesford
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
3 February 2010
The two tables below provide information on Highways Agency and local authority major road schemes costing over £10 million which are currently under way (under construction), together with their planned start and completion dates.
There are currently no approved Highways Agency schemes which are not already under construction. The local major schemes listed have been granted full approval which under the department’s local major scheme approval process allows construction to commence. There are other local major schemes that are an earlier stage within the approval process but have yet to reach full approval.
"Notes:""(1) M1 Junction 10-13 Managed Motorways scheme is being progressed as two work packages to be delivered on different timescales:""Mainline Works—to be undertaken within the existing highway boundary; and""Junction Works—which require statutory processes including Public Inquiry.""The Mainline Works have moved into the Construction Phase. The Junction Works are planned to start in early 2011.""(2) For schemes which have been progressed through the project lifecycle (Options—Development—Construction), scheme costs are presented as range estimates approved prior to the scheme starting Construction. For earlier schemes which were developed before the introduction of the project lifecycle, scheme costs reflect the latest ministerial approved budget.""(3) The two M25 schemes are privately financed through a DBFO (Design, Build, Finance and Operate) contract. The latest ministerial approved budgets given in the table were approved in 2007. The schemes were authorised to proceed to construction in May 2009 with capitalisation costs, based on the financial close model at the time, of £563 million and £369 million for Sections 1 (J16-23) and 4 (J27-30) respectively.""(4) M1 J25-28 excludes controlled motorway costs of £13 million"
"(1) M1 Junction 10-13 Managed Motorways scheme is being progressed as two work packages to be delivered on different timescales:""Mainline Works—to be undertaken within the existing highway boundary; and""Junction Works—which require statutory processes including Public Inquiry.""The Mainline Works have moved into the Construction Phase. The Junction Works are planned to start in early 2011.""(2) For schemes which have been progressed through the project lifecycle (Options—Development—Construction), scheme costs are presented as range estimates approved prior to the scheme starting Construction. For earlier schemes which were developed before the introduction of the project lifecycle, scheme costs reflect the latest ministerial approved budget.""(3) The two M25 schemes are privately financed through a DBFO (Design, Build, Finance and Operate) contract. The latest ministerial approved budgets given in the table were approved in 2007. The schemes were authorised to proceed to construction in May 2009 with capitalisation costs, based on the financial close model at the time, of £563 million and £369 million for Sections 1 (J16-23) and 4 (J27-30) respectively.""(4) M1 J25-28 excludes controlled motorway costs of £13 million"
"Mainline Works—to be undertaken within the existing highway boundary; and""Junction Works—which require statutory processes including Public Inquiry.""The Mainline Works have moved into the Construction Phase. The Junction Works are planned to start in early 2011.""(2) For schemes which have been progressed through the project lifecycle (Options—Development—Construction), scheme costs are presented as range estimates approved prior to the scheme starting Construction. For earlier schemes which were developed before the introduction of the project lifecycle, scheme costs reflect the latest ministerial approved budget.""(3) The two M25 schemes are privately financed through a DBFO (Design, Build, Finance and Operate) contract. The latest ministerial approved budgets given in the table were approved in 2007. The schemes were authorised to proceed to construction in May 2009 with capitalisation costs, based on the financial close model at the time, of £563 million and £369 million for Sections 1 (J16-23) and 4 (J27-30) respectively.""(4) M1 J25-28 excludes controlled motorway costs of £13 million"
"Junction Works—which require statutory processes including Public Inquiry.""The Mainline Works have moved into the Construction Phase. The Junction Works are planned to start in early 2011.""(2) For schemes which have been progressed through the project lifecycle (Options—Development—Construction), scheme costs are presented as range estimates approved prior to the scheme starting Construction. For earlier schemes which were developed before the introduction of the project lifecycle, scheme costs reflect the latest ministerial approved budget.""(3) The two M25 schemes are privately financed through a DBFO (Design, Build, Finance and Operate) contract. The latest ministerial approved budgets given in the table were approved in 2007. The schemes were authorised to proceed to construction in May 2009 with capitalisation costs, based on the financial close model at the time, of £563 million and £369 million for Sections 1 (J16-23) and 4 (J27-30) respectively.""(4) M1 J25-28 excludes controlled motorway costs of £13 million"
"The Mainline Works have moved into the Construction Phase. The Junction Works are planned to start in early 2011.""(2) For schemes which have been progressed through the project lifecycle (Options—Development—Construction), scheme costs are presented as range estimates approved prior to the scheme starting Construction. For earlier schemes which were developed before the introduction of the project lifecycle, scheme costs reflect the latest ministerial approved budget.""(3) The two M25 schemes are privately financed through a DBFO (Design, Build, Finance and Operate) contract. The latest ministerial approved budgets given in the table were approved in 2007. The schemes were authorised to proceed to construction in May 2009 with capitalisation costs, based on the financial close model at the time, of £563 million and £369 million for Sections 1 (J16-23) and 4 (J27-30) respectively.""(4) M1 J25-28 excludes controlled motorway costs of £13 million"
"(2) For schemes which have been progressed through the project lifecycle (Options—Development—Construction), scheme costs are presented as range estimates approved prior to the scheme starting Construction. For earlier schemes which were developed before the introduction of the project lifecycle, scheme costs reflect the latest ministerial approved budget.""(3) The two M25 schemes are privately financed through a DBFO (Design, Build, Finance and Operate) contract. The latest ministerial approved budgets given in the table were approved in 2007. The schemes were authorised to proceed to construction in May 2009 with capitalisation costs, based on the financial close model at the time, of £563 million and £369 million for Sections 1 (J16-23) and 4 (J27-30) respectively.""(4) M1 J25-28 excludes controlled motorway costs of £13 million"
"(3) The two M25 schemes are privately financed through a DBFO (Design, Build, Finance and Operate) contract. The latest ministerial approved budgets given in the table were approved in 2007. The schemes were authorised to proceed to construction in May 2009 with capitalisation costs, based on the financial close model at the time, of £563 million and £369 million for Sections 1 (J16-23) and 4 (J27-30) respectively.""(4) M1 J25-28 excludes controlled motorway costs of £13 million"
"(4) M1 J25-28 excludes controlled motorway costs of £13 million"
"Notes""(1) Total estimated scheme costs are based on local authority current estimated costs (Quarter 3, 2009/10)"
"(1) Total estimated scheme costs are based on local authority current estimated costs (Quarter 3, 2009/10)"
| Table 1—Highways Agency Schemes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name of Scheme | Status—(a) Under Construction or (b) Approved | Total Estimated Scheme Cost (£ million) (2) | Start Date or Expected Start Date | Expected Completion Date |
| A3 Hindhead Improvement | (a) Under Construction | 371 | Jan-07 | Summer-11 |
| M1 J25-28 | (a) Under Construction | 345 (4) | Oct-07 | Oct-10 |
| M40 Junction 15 (Longbridge Roundabout) | (a) Under Construction | 77 | Mar-08 | Jun-10 |
| A421 Bedford to M1 Junction 13 | (a) Under Construction | 201-231 | Oct-08 | Dec-10 |
| A1 Dishforth to Leeming Improvement (A1 Dishforth to Barton) | (a) Under Construction | 314-340 | Mar-09 | Spring 2012 |
| M25 J16-23 Widening (Section 1) | (a) Under Construction | 697 (3) | May-09 | Summer-12 |
| A46 Newark-Widmerpool Improvement | (a) Under Construction | 357-408 | Jun-09 | Spring-12 |
| M25 J27-30 Widening (Section 4) | (a) Under Construction | 583 (3) | Jul-09 | Summer-12 |
| M1 J10-13 Managed Motorways | (a) Under Construction (1) | 412-504 | Jan-10 | Spring-13 |
| Table 2—Local Authority Major Road Schemes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scheme Name | Local Authority | Total Estimated Scheme Cost (£ million) [See Note 1] | Date Scheme Commenced | Expected Completion Date |
| Hemsworth to A1 Link Road | Wakefield MBC | 24.257 | 11 February 2008 | November 2009 |
| B1115 Stowmarket Relief Road, Suffolk | Suffolk CC | 17.700 | 24 June 2008 | June 2010 |
| Rugby Western Relief Road, Warwickshire | Warwickshire CC | 55.000 | 20 August 2007 | December 2010 |
| Markham Vale (Markham Employment Growth Zone), Derbyshire | Derbyshire CC | 29.977 | 30 April 2007 | Summer 2012 |
| A1073 Spalding to Eye Improvement Scheme, Lincolnshire/Peterborough | Lincolnshire CC and Peterborough City Council | 79.099 | 1 April 2008 | September 2010 |
| Selly Oak Relief Road, Birmingham | Birmingham City Council | 63.734 | 15 October 2007 | Summer 2013 |
| M4 Junction 11 (Green Park Improvements) and Mereoak Roundabout, Reading | Reading Borough Council | 65.501 | 28 April 2008 | Summer 2015 |
| A34 Alderley Edge Bypass, Cheshire | Cheshire East Borough Council | 51.648 | 15 August 2008 | Spring 2011 |
| A628 Cudworth and West Green Bypass, Barnsley | Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council | 21.261 | 10 November 2008 | August 2010 |
| A353/A354 Weymouth Relief Road, Dorset | Dorset County Council | 89.271 | 22 August 2008 | Summer 2011 |
| A4123/A461 Junction Improvement, Burn Tree, West Midlands | Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council | 12.280 | 7 September 2009 | Summer 2011 |
| Carlisle Northern Development Route, Cumbria—PFI Scheme | Cumbria County Council | 176.000 | 19 October 2009 | Spring 2012 |
| Hall Lane Area Improvement Scheme, Liverpool | Liverpool City Council | 18.707 | 19 October 2009 | Summer 2011 |
| East Kent Access Phase 2, Kent | Kent County Council | 87.000 | 1 October 2009 | Winter 2012 |
| Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road, Kent | Kent County Council | 34.228 | 2 November 2009 | Winter 2011 |
Subjects
Costs; Construction; Roads
Date
3 February 2010
Reference
1664; 717 c55-8WA
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the annual cost of litter picking on the roads for which the Highways Agency is responsible.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the annual cost of litter picking on the roads for which the Highways Agency is responsible.
Asked by
Lord Marlesford
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
3 February 2010
Section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on the Highways Agency to remove litter from motorways in England. Responsibility for removing litter from the all-purpose trunk road network, with the exception of roads managed by a design, build, finance operate company lies with local authorities.
Litter collection on motorways is one of the numerous duties carried out as part of the Highway’s Agency’s routine maintenance function and costs for individual activities are not recorded separately. It is therefore not possible to provide costs for litter collection.
Subjects
Expenditure; Highways Agency; Litter; Roads; Waste disposal
Date
3 February 2010
Reference
1666; 717 c59WA
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to learn and disseminate lessons from the effects on road, rail and air transport from the recent cold weather and snow.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to learn and disseminate lessons from the effects on road, rail and air transport from the recent cold weather and snow.
Asked by
Lord Condon
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
1 February 2010
We will wish to consider carefully the lessons from the recent severe weather, taking into account the reviews which local authorities and others conduct. Valuable reviews were conducted last year by the House of Commons Transport Select Committee (The Effects of Adverse Weather Conditions on Transport, HC328), the Local Government Association (Weathering the Storm), the UK Roads Liaison Group (Lessons from the Severe Weather February 2009) and the Greater London Authority (Slipping Up?). It will be important to build on these. Four recommendations from the UKRLG report were specifically addressed to this department and the Highways Agency. My Written Statement on 15 December 2009 (Official Report, cols. WS 253-55) advised what action had been taken by this department and the Highways Agency consistent with those recommendations. These recommendations have been adopted.
With respect to the strategic road network in England, following the winter season the Highways Agency will be conducting its own review of the events this winter and will contribute to any wider lessons-learned exercises that are undertaken.
Looking at the longer term, my department's climate change adaption plan, which is due to be published in March, will set out how the department and its agencies will be addressing the challenge of making the United Kingdom’s transport network more resilient to the more extreme weather events which we are likely to see in future.
Subjects
Aviation; Railways; Roads; Snow and ice
Date
1 February 2010
Reference
1388; 717 c14WA
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government what guidance they provide to the Highways Agency and local authorities on the maintenance of highway verges and waysides for (a) use by people walking and riding horses, (b) conservation of flora and wildlife, and (c) environmental amenity.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what guidance they provide to the Highways Agency and local authorities on the maintenance of highway verges and waysides for (a) use by people walking and riding horses, (b) conservation of flora and wildlife, and (c) environmental amenity.
Asked by
Lord Greaves
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
18 January 2010
Highway authorities in England have a duty, under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980, to maintain the roads in their charge. This duty includes maintenance of verges, where these form part of the highway.
The Highways Agency provides guidance to its managing agents on the maintenance of highway verges and waysides in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges that specifically covers conservation of flora and wildlife; in the Network Management Manual in relation to people using these areas for walking and riding horses; and in the Routine and Winter Service Code for other amenity aspects. All the Highways Agency’s guidance describes management requirements and techniques for maintenance for application across a range of situations on the trunk road network.
It is for local authorities to decide on their maintenance strategy for verges. The Department for Transport has not issued specific guidance on this topic (although local authorities may follow the Highways Agency’s guidance where appropriate). However, the department endorses the UK Roads Liaison Group’s code of practice, "Well-maintained Highways" (available from the House Libraries or from www.ukroadsliaisongroup.org), which provides advice to authorities on highway maintenance management. It encourages authorities to consider the entire range of road users, including pedestrians and horse riders, and it contains guidance on nature conservation and biodiversity and environmental management. Natural England also provides guidance on the management of quiet lanes and greenways, where a greater emphasis on the needs of pedestrians and horse riders may be appropriate.
Subjects
Environment protection; Horse riding; Nature conservation; Pedestrians; Roads; Repairs and maintenance
Date
18 January 2010
Reference
1112; 716 c215-6WA
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many road accidents are attributed each year to distractions caused by advertising beside major roads.
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many road accidents are attributed each year to distractions caused by advertising beside major roads.
Asked by
Lord Lloyd-Webber
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
13 January 2010
The information requested is not collected by the Department for Transport.
Subjects
Accidents; Outdoor advertising; Roads
Date
13 January 2010
Reference
1066; 716 c165WA
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the effect of creating a dual carriageway on the A1 north of Morpeth to the Scottish border on the number of deaths from accidents on that road.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the effect of creating a dual carriageway on the A1 north of Morpeth to the Scottish border on the number of deaths from accidents on that road.
Asked by
Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
14 December 2009
The Al north of Newcastle multimodal study was completed in 2002. This assessed the benefits for the economy of the north east and for access to markets of creating a dual carriageway on the Al north of Morpeth to the border with Scotland, as well as the impact on safety. A copy of the final report is in the Library.
This section of the Al forms part of the regional trunk road network. The north west authorities are responsible for promoting schemes as part of the regional funding allocation (RFA) process. The regional authorities have not prioritised the dualling of the Al north of Morpeth within their RFA advice and the Department for Transport has therefore made no further assessment of any benefits of a dualling scheme on the Al north of Morpeth to the Scottish border.
Notwithstanding this, over the past 10 years, the Highways Agency has invested in 41 projects to improve the Al in Northumbria, and will this year invest a further £4 million.
Subjects
Death; Accidents; Roads; Northumberland; Dual carriageways; A1
Date
14 December 2009
Reference
397; 715 c188-9WA
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, under the legal obligation to protect endangered species, there is any limit to the expenditure that the Highways Agency is required to undertake to provide bridges for bats over new roads; and whether, in the event of the provision of such bridges making the...
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, under the legal obligation to protect endangered species, there is any limit to the expenditure that the Highways Agency is required to undertake to provide bridges for bats over new roads; and whether, in the event of the provision of such bridges making the...
Asked by
Lord Marlesford
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
10 November 2009
Mitigation works undertaken on a Highways Agency major project for bats are implemented under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994.
The legislation does not place an expenditure limit on the provision of bat bridges over new roads. The costs associated with the construction of a bat bridge will vary for a variety of reasons, therefore each scheme is assessed on an individual basis.
If the cost of provision of bat bridges caused the benefit-cost ratio to drop to the point where construction of the road was uneconomic, then alternative options which meet the scheme’s objectives at a lower cost would be considered in the first instance.
If no viable options were found, it is possible that construction could be postponed or cancelled. However, this would be highly unlikely as bat bridges form a very small part of the overall scheme cost for new roads.
Subjects
Costs; Construction; Bridges; Highways Agency; Nature conservation; Roads; Bats
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
6161; 714 c127WA
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government over which roads the Highways Agency has constructed bridges for bats in each of the past five years; and what was the cost of each such bridge.
To ask Her Majesty's Government over which roads the Highways Agency has constructed bridges for bats in each of the past five years; and what was the cost of each such bridge.
Asked by
Lord Marlesford
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
10 November 2009
The Highways Agency has constructed structures that enable bats to cross roads at four locations. The table below highlights the locations, length and costs of these structures.
| Bat structures designed and constructed between 2004 and 2009 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scheme Name | Road Number | Road opened | Approx Length of Structure (metres) | Single or Dual Carriageway | Cutting/Embankment/At Grade | Approx Construction Cost of Structure |
| Dobwalls 2 Structures | A38 | June 2008 | Structure 1—59.47m Structure 2—70m | Dual | At Grade/In Cutting | £300,000.00 |
| Haydon Bridge | A69 | April 2009 | 19.5m between support posts | Single | In cutting | £60,000.00 |
| High and Low Newton | A590 | April 2008 | 33m span between timber supporting posts | Dual | In cutting | £45,000.00 |
| Parton to Lillyhall | A595 | Dec 2008 | 34m span between supporting steel structures | Dual | On embankment | £34,133.00 |
Subjects
Construction; Bridges; Expenditure; Highways Agency; Nature conservation; Roads; Bats
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
6160; 714 c126WA
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Adonis on 28 October (WA 147), on the advice of which other Governmentagency the Highways Agency decided to build two bridges for bats over the Dobwalls Bypass in Cornwall; what consideration was given to the adequacy of a...
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Adonis on 28 October (WA 147), on the advice of which other Governmentagency the Highways Agency decided to build two bridges for bats over the Dobwalls Bypass in Cornwall; what consideration was given to the adequacy of a...
Asked by
Lord Marlesford
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
10 November 2009
The Highways Agency is legally bound to protect endangered species such as bats. Mitigation of the severance of three of their main flight lines formed part of the commitments we made at public inquiry in support of European protected species legislative requirements to enable the bypass project to progress, especially since surveys found 12 of the 14 native species of bat in the area.
The Highways Agency sought advice from English Nature (now Natural England), a statutory consultee. They indicated that measures would be required to mitigate the severance of three of the most important bat commuting routes by the then proposed Dobwalls Bypass.
These three commuting routes are some distance apart, and highlighted the need to provide separate mitigation measures for each route. The measures comprised two artificial bat crossing structures plus a raised parapet modification to the new Havett Road overbridge crossing.
The contractor for the bypass, Interserve Project Services Ltd, constructed the bat bridges. Interserve’s design consultant, Parsons Brinckerhoff and environmental sub-consultant Ecological Planning and Research Ltd drew up the specification for them with advice from Natural England.
Subjects
Contracts; Construction; Cornwall; Highways Agency; Nature conservation; Roads; Bats; A38
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
6159; 714 c125-6WA
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Adonis on 5 October (WA 392), which Government department paid the £300,000 for the construction of two bridges for bats over the Dobwalls bypass in Cornwall; and what cost-benefit analysis was made of that project before it was...
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Adonis on 5 October (WA 392), which Government department paid the £300,000 for the construction of two bridges for bats over the Dobwalls bypass in Cornwall; and what cost-benefit analysis was made of that project before it was...
Asked by
Lord Marlesford
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
28 October 2009
The Highways Agency paid for the two bat bridges over Dobwalls bypass as they are legally bound to protect endangered species such as bats.
Dobwalls bypass was subject to the department's normal cost benefit analyses at various stages throughout its design, preparation and construction. The benefit-cost ratio indicates that the project is high value for money.
Subjects
Construction; Cost benefit analysis; Cornwall; Nature conservation; Roads; Bats; A38
Date
28 October 2009
Reference
5867; 713 c147WA
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government what instructions they have issued or propose to issue to the appropriate authorities concerning the creation of separate cycle and motor vehicle paths in inner cities.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what instructions they have issued or propose to issue to the appropriate authorities concerning the creation of separate cycle and motor vehicle paths in inner cities.
Asked by
Lord Laird
(Ulster Unionist Party)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
19 October 2009
The Department for Transport has not issued (and does not propose to issue) instructions in this respect. The department publishes good practice guidance, but it is for individual highway authorities to determine what is appropriate in terms of local cycling provision.
In October 2008, we published guidance on designing for cyclists in Local Transport Note 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design. This document brings together and updates guidance previously available in other documents.
Guidance specifically related to off-carriageway cycle routes is contained in Local Transport Note 2/86 Shared Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians, published in August 1986. We expect to publish an update to this document in 2011.
Subjects
Cycling; Roads; Cycleways
Date
19 October 2009
Reference
5644; 713 c53-4WA
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Adonis on 21 July (WA 365), whether the A303 Wincanton bypass has been resurfaced with "low noise" surfacing; and, if not, whether it is intended that it will be.
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Adonis on 21 July (WA 365), whether the A303 Wincanton bypass has been resurfaced with "low noise" surfacing; and, if not, whether it is intended that it will be.
Asked by
Lord Patten
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
5 October 2009
The A303 Wincanton bypass has not been resurfaced with "low noise" surfacing. It was last resurfaced prior to 1998 using hot rolled asphalt. The bypass will be resurfaced with "low noise" surfacing materials when maintenance of the existing surface is due. As the surface remains in good condition, the A303 Wincanton bypass is not currently within a programme for maintenance resurfacing.
Notes
Answer received between Monday 14 September 2009 and Monday 21 September 2009.
Subjects
Pollution control; Noise; Roads; Somerset; A303
Date
5 October 2009
Reference
712 c478WA; 5388
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government in respect of the two bridges for bats constructed on the Dobwalls bypass in Cornwall, (a) what was the purpose of the bridges; (b) how much they cost to build; (c) how many bats have been monitored using the bridges; (d) how many bats used...
To ask Her Majesty's Government in respect of the two bridges for bats constructed on the Dobwalls bypass in Cornwall, (a) what was the purpose of the bridges; (b) how much they cost to build; (c) how many bats have been monitored using the bridges; (d) how many bats used...
Asked by
Lord Berkeley
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
5 October 2009
(a) The bridges provide a linear feature over the bypass that is used by the bats to guide them along their flight lines. Previously they used the hedgerows but these were removed by the scheme.
(b) The bridges cost £300,000 to construct.
(c) Sample monitoring during 2008 and 2009 has identified that on the day of the survey on average there were between 11 and 17 bats using the bridges to cross the bypass.
(d) In 2004, prior to construction of the scheme, on the day of the survey, some 30 to 40 bat movements were recorded at the bridge locations.
(e) The monitoring exercise concentrated on bat movement at the bridge. There is consequently no specific data about how many bats cross the bypass without using the bridge.
(f) There have been no recorded incidents of bats hitting cars since the bridges were built.
Notes
Answer received between Monday 27 July and Monday 3 August 2009.
Subjects
Construction; Cornwall; Expenditure; Nature conservation; Monitoring; Roads; Bats; A38
Date
5 October 2009
Reference
5321; 712 c392-3WA
House
House of Lords