99 Manton Drive
Luton LU2 7DL
01582 724257
P R
E S S R E
L E A S E
17 April 2002
Advertising
Standards Authority ruling
Luton Council STILL misleads public
on Translink -
drop the scheme, says Luton Friends of the
Earth
The Front Page of Local Transport Today (11 Apr) ran the story "Advertising Standards Body rules Luton misled public with guided busway claims". It also prompted an editorial feature "Planners or salesmen?" and suggests that the wish to deliver can turn professionals into "storytellers". This story surely merits a front page in Luton's local press.
Three of the five complaints made were upheld. Yet Luton Borough Council immediately produced a press release entitled "Advertising watchdog rejects main complaints about Translink advertisement".
Complaint No 3 against Luton Council was UPHELD but the council dismisses it as "secondary".
The ASA ruling is that Luton Council implied in its
advertising that Translink would prevent a rise
in local traffic, but had NOT demonstrated that it would. Yet surely this is the main purpose of spending a large amount of money on a major public transport system - to offer a service to the wider community. The ASA said the council's claim was misleading and told them not to repeat it.
This is supported by government consultant W S Atkins, who produced such a damning report on Translink (using expressions like 'overstatement of Translink demand' and 'implausible results') that Luton Council suppressed it for six months, and asked Government not to mention it in the Local Transport Plan Funding letter in case it undermined the scheme.
The cost of Translink, supposed to open in 2007, rose from £60m in Summer 2001, AFTER Atkins saw it, and after the public was told there would be no more significant changes, to over £90m in November 2001. Any cost benefit analysis is now worth no more than a used bus ticket.
Complaint 4 was UPHELD. The Council referred to six other UK bus schemes which didn't exist - they were only proposals. Two have since been refused, and at least one will now be a tram scheme.
Complaint 5 was UPHELD. Luton claimed that using LPG fuel was "cleaner and more environment friendly than electric or diesel trains." The Council sent no evidence to the ASA to back up this claim.
Complaint 2 was not upheld - the ASA noted that the complainant and the Council had both produced valid but contradictory evidence. So the Council was allowed to get away with the statement that Translink would serve far more people than rail. But like was not being compared with like. Luton's figures include existing bus passengers, whereas no one is using a tram or train because there isn't one. Many people would leave their cars behind to use a train or tram, as they have in Croydon, to make new public transport journeys. They know these are quicker, more comfortable, more reliable, and can take more people and luggage. Fewer stops on the tracks mean a quicker journey. / OVER
Luton Council claims the busway would serve 100,000 people, but this figure is meaningless. Consultants' figures stated that about 4000 would actually use Translink. The Council claimed a train would serve only 10,000 people - all in Luton and Dunstable. An east-west rail link would attract most commuters over a much wider area - not only the 250,000 in Luton-Dunstable, but the tens of thousands who are forced to drive in and out of the area, contributing to congestion, because they have no choice. Translink would not change that. Buses alone could not serve their need - they take too long because they stop frequently, go via estates, and get caught in gridlock. The more passengers they take, the longer the time at each stop. In addition, the wider community would be served by all the goods that could be moved using the line.
Complaint 1 is that Luton Borough Council states that no rail companies were interested in running a Luton-Dunstable rail service. That this complaint was not upheld does not clear Luton Council of misleading the public. The ASA does not state that Luton Council has substantiated its claim.
A letter to ADAPT from Adrian Shooter, MD of Chiltern Railways, the UK's top performing railway, was submitted, on Chiltern's letterhead, stating interest in operating the line. ASA chose not to accept this as evidence because it was not addressed to the local authority. However, a letter from the Government Office to Chiltern Railways recognises that they are willing to run trains, but says that as Luton does not support this option, this is academic. The ASA recognises this extra evidence, but has no proof that Luton were aware of the letter.
This is perverse. Railways have to be asked to tender to run a service. At a meeting with Mr Shooter at Dunstable Town Council Offices, including Dunstable's Town Clerk and members of FoE and ADAPT, Mr Shooter said he could run a service between Luton Airport Station, Luton and Dunstable, which would be viable, and would tender if asked. After a phone call with Luton Borough Council, he was dissuaded that this was worth pursuing.
Luton Borough Council's press release of 9 April states that it "demonstrated beyond doubt that no rail company was interested in offering a train service as an alternative transport system between Luton and Dunstable." But no rail companies have been asked to run a railway. Luton Friends of the Earth has a tape of a Town Hall meeting on 8 Feb 2001. Present were three Senior Luton Council officers in charge of Translink; three consultants to the project; Matthew Deaves, who made the complaint to the ASA, John Deaves, and David Oakley-Hill of Luton FoE. John Deaves asked the question "Which companies have you spoken to?" The answer from the Senior Project Manager is "Thameslink and Midland Mainline". To the question "What did you ask the railway company?" the answer is "We've written to them and asked if they support our project or not" (The Translink busway).
This proves that Luton Borough Council has REPEATEDLY AND DELIBERATELY MISLED THE PUBLIC, and CONTINUES TO DO SO. Both the 'misleading' and the Translink scheme must stop NOW.
There has been a fall of 8% in bus journeys in Luton over the last year. Kelvin Hopkins MP said in the Commons that "the Translink corridor is too valuable simply for local bus traffic", and proposed a light rail or tramway. It is obvious that buses alone are not the answer, but bus services could show a big improvement if integrated with a train or tram service, as in Croydon.
Previous figures suggesting that rail options were not viable were based on figures heavily criticised by Atkins, which Luton has now retracted. The Translink busway project must be abandoned immediately, and the viable choices of light rail, tram or train researched seriously, to bring the existing track into use to provide a fast, convenient service from Parkway via Luton Central to Dunstable, for extension as soon as possible to serve Eaton Bray, Edlesborough, Stanbridge, Leighton Buzzard, Milton Keynes and many stations on the West Coast Mainline.
ENDS
Contact: David Oakley-Hill
Co-ordinator, Luton FoE
Tel 01582 724257