|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of light rail systems in (a) Manchester and (b) Birmingham in terms of (i) economic and (ii) environmental objectives. 
Mr. Darling: Light rail systems in Birmingham and Manchester have been subject to monitoring and evaluation studies. These studies focused on the impact of the schemes on travel behaviour, particularly in terms of levels of car usage, and the local economy.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which local authorities have set targets for the overall level of road traffic in their area as part of their full local transport plans in each year since the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 came into force; and what targets were set in each case. 
Ms Buck: Table 1 1 lists the local transport plan areas with targets for overall levels of traffic along with the targets as reported in the progress reports following the submission of the first full local transport plans in 2000. Many other plan areas set targets for levels of traffic for parts of their areas or for particular time periods (for example peak hours).
The Department requires all final second local transport plans (due for completion in March 2006) to include targets for the overall levels of road traffic. Some of the provisional second local transport plans (submitted in July 2005) have included indicative targets, although these will be superseded by those contained in the final versions of the plans.
|LT name||Local targets or outcomes|
|Blackburn with Darwen||Reduce annual peak hour traffic growth to 0 per cent. by 2006; contain off peak traffic growth to forecast local low growth levels.|
|Blackpool||Reduction in traffic levels.|
|Bristol||Reduce growth in private car traffic by 20 per cent. by 2005, and thereafter to seek a 20 per cent. reduction in private car traffic by 2015. 1996 base year: 1,228,000 (combined cordons). Base index = 100, 2005 Target = 110, 2015 Target = 80.|
|Cheshire||Cheshire traffic growth restrained to an overall increase of 15 per cent. on 1995 traffic levels by 2011.|
|County Durham||Reduce the forecast growth of traffic from 1.5 per cent. to 0.33 per cent. per annum throughout the plan period.|
|Cumbria||Local areas: traffic growth of 1 per cent./yr to 2006 in Allerdale; 1 per cent./yr to 2006 in Barrow; 0 per cent./yr in 2006 in Carlisle; 1 per cent./yr to 2006 in Copeland; 0.5 per cent./yr to 2006 in Eden; 3.7 per cent./yr to 2006 in South Lakeland; 0 per cent./yr to 2006 in Lake District.|
|Dorset||10 per cent. reduction in traffic growth in all areas of rural Dorset by 2006 and 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. by 2016 (varies by area).|
|Essex||Reduce the rate of growth in traffic. Baseline1998 traffic levels.|
|Gloucestershire||By 2010, average daily traffic volumes on the county's road network to increase by no more than 20 per cent., compared with 1996 levels. By 2006 the increase over 1996 to be no more than 15 per cent.|
|Greater Manchester||8 per cent. increase in annual car kilometres on A and B roads by 200506, on 1991 base. (5,957m)|
|Greater Nottingham||Below 2.5 per cent. per annum.|
|Hampshire||To halve the rate of forecast traffic growth between 1998 and 2020 from 32 per cent. to 16 per cent.|
|Hartlepool||Overall traffic growth to be less than 5 per cent. between base year and 2005.|
|Herefordshire||To restrict the growth in traffic levels in Hereford to 1 per cent. per annum during the period 2001 to 2010. To restrict the growth in traffic levels on principal rural roads to 1 per cent. per annum during the period 2001 to 2010.|
|Kingston upon Hull/Hull City||Reduce car flow by approximately 1 per cent. per year.|
|Luton-Dunstable||Reduction in the Do-Minimum traffic forecast (2011).|
|Merseyside||(a) 0 per cent. growth to 2006 in the centres for peak periods.(b) 0 per cent. growth for 200611 above 20.8 per cent. max to 2006.|
|Middlesbrough||Reduce daily flows to 0 per cent. growth at town centre cordon by 2005 and 2 per cent. by 2010.|
|North East Lincolnshire||1999 base line = 12,020 vehicles/km per 12 hour average weekday. Target = to keep annual growth to below 1999 level of 2 per cent. and to achieve zero growth by 2010.|
|Oxfordshire||To reduce traffic growth in the period 2000 to 2015 to half the forecast growth for Oxfordshire.|
|Redcar and Cleveland||Maximum 1 per cent. annual increase in traffic flows, national low growth forecast.|
|Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead||Windsor and Maidenhead: traffic to increase by no more than 6 per cent. by 2006 from 1999. Rest of the borough: traffic to increase by no more than 10 per cent. by 2006 (based on vehicle numbers).|
|Southend on Sea||Increase in vehicle kilometres per average weekday of less than 11 per cent. by 2006.|
|Stockton-on-Tees||Limit traffic growth to forecast low growth figure of 4.5 per cent. (200005).|
|Stoke on Trent||Constrain traffic growth increase to 10 per cent. between 19992011 compared with the 1997 low-growth national projected increase of 15 per cent. over the same period.|
|Surrey||To limit traffic growth (county roads only) to the 1998 level by 2016; milestone target 8 per cent. 2006; final target 2016 0 per cent.|
|Telford and Wrekin||Reduce to 1.6 per cent. per annum by 2010.|
|Tyne and Wear||Target for 2006 is to limit growth on principal roads to 2.524 billion vehicle kilometres from a base figure of 2.274 billion in 199697.|
|Warrington||Minimum 43 per cent. reduction in the predicted growth of traffic by 2011.|
|West Midlands||Restrict traffic growth from 1996 to 2011 to below 8 per cent.|
|West Sussex||Reduce by 50 per cent. the rate of traffic growth by 2016.|
|West Yorkshire||Traffic growth 19992006 not to exceed 5 per cent. (16 hour, all roads).|
|Wokingham||Restrain traffic growth in Wokingham (targets for borough split into five areas ranging from 4 per cent. to 8.5 per cent. between 1999 and 2006).|
|York||Limit overall growth in traffic to 4 per cent. (19992006) with a reduction of 13 per cent. on secondary and residential roads.|
Mr. Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent information he has received on pollution levels in residential areas near the M1 motorway in Twisley, Sheffield; what assessment he has made of the likely effect on pollution levels there of plans to widen the M1; and if he will commission independent research on this matter. 
Dr. Ladyman: The Highways Agency has taken base level data on current pollution levels from Sheffield city council, from the agency's own monitoring and from information available from groups such as the Tinsley forum, who have been monitoring air quality in the Tinsley area since 1998.
Emissions' modelling being carried out by the agency in collaboration with Sheffield city council, the Transport Research Laboratory and the Department for Transport is currently programmed to complete in summer 2006. This will feed into the Environmental Assessment, which will form part of the Scheme Appraisal. This will give a better guide as to what effects on air quality the M1 widening would have.
Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will introduce proposals to construct a filter slip lane on the exit from the northbound carriageway of the M1 motorway at junction 21 to enable vehicles to reach the M69 without having to negotiate the traffic island; 
This scheme includes proposals to provide a free flow link between the M1 Southbound and M69 and the M69 to M1 northbound. This will significantly reduce traffic movements through junction 21 and a filter lane for the M1 to the M69 southbound movement is not considered necessary.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|