L U T O N
99 Manton Drive
Luton LU2 7DL
01582 724257
Ross Bull,
Deloitte Touche
Auditor to
Luton Borough Council
Verulam
Point, Station Way
St Albans,
Herts AL1 5HE
Copy:
Mick West, Auditor to Beds County Council
5 Dec 2001
Dear Mr
Bull
Urgent
concerns about Luton Borough Council's performance regarding Translink
I am
writing to summarise my concerns about the way Luton BC, particularly a small
group of councillors and officers, has conducted itself in regard to the above
major project, for which Luton and Beds CC are joint transport authorities. The
project dates from when Beds CC was the sole transport authority for the
county.
Background
Following a
sudden U-turn several years ago in its manifesto commitment to reinstating the
rail link between Luton and Dunstable, the controlling group on Luton Council
has dogmatically - many would say obsessively -pursued the idea of a guided
busway, which it calls Translink, to the exclusion of other options, against
the wishes of the public. Luton Borough
would claim otherwise, but its publicity in October 2000 derided rail options
and was so misleading that 5 complaints were made to the Advertising Standards
Authority, of which 4 are likely to be upheld.
Friends of
the Earth is a broad-based organisation, not a single issue group. We have
engaged considerably with the public and decision-makers on a local, regional
and national basis. We have no vested
interests - we only wish to see the best option for the public, and a
sustainable, healthy future for people and the environment We are aware of considerable public feeling
on this matter. We have been to many
public meetings, and monitored letters to the press. The overwhelming majority
in both Luton and Dunstable want trains or trams - not a guided busway.
The South
Midlands Multi-Modal Study has confirmed what we have known for years: there is
a clear, widely perceived need for a fast east west rail-based public transport
service joining the Midland Mainline to the West Coast Main Line, to serve the
busy industrial corridor across South Bedfordshire, between Luton Airport
Parkway, Luton Central, Dunstable, Leighton Buzzard and Milton Keynes. This is a separate issue from the proposed
east-west rail route from the east coast ports through Bedford, also much
needed. The conurbation of Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis is a quarter of
a million people. 300,000 use the Luton-Dunstable hospital. Dunstable is the largest town in Southern
England without a station, and its citizens need fast access to London.
Luton BC
refuses to acknowledge this need, or to listen to Dunstable Chamber of Trade or
the Federation of Small Businesses - it is not interested in non-voters who
come in to support the local economy, those who leave the area to go to work,
or whether more businesses close in Dunstable.
It only wants to provide a local busway. This would prevent any rail solutions being put in place; would
not take any journeys from the A5 or M1; would lead to gridlock, frustration,
stress, poor health, and increasing CO2 emissions; and would lower quality of
life for the population of South Beds and many others who are obliged to travel
into or through the area by car because they have no choice.
OUR MAIN CONCERNS FOR THE AUDITOR
We note
that the Auditor views poorly the regular practice by Luton BC of producing
documentation at meetings rather than in advance. The government consultant, W S Atkins, considered Translink and
produced a highly critical report, which Luton officers did not release even to
members for over 6 months. Luton now
claims to have addressed all the criticisms: we believe that scepticism at this
claim is justified. We note also that
the Audit Commission has ordered Luton Trading Standards officials to improve
their service to reflect what is important to local people. Given this background, we believe it applies
not only to Trading Standards department. / OVER
1 Council asked to
vote without adequate information
A county committee chair complained on 6 Nov that Translink
documents were missing. Five final
documents (at least one of which is still not completed) were supposed to have
been available since 26 November -
a)
full
environmental study (not yet available, as 2nd draft unacceptable to
conservation officers)
b)
engineering
study
c)
business
case
d)
operational
case
e)
alternative
modes study
It is
clearly essential to have studied these documents before approving the project
for TWA. Of great concern to the public
would be the environmental study statement that 16 sites between Luton and
Dunstable are of County Wildlife Site status.
No overlay or large scale map has been produced of the busway
development's footprint over these sites, which would not need to be damaged
for a rail option. These facts are not mentioned in the summary.
Because
Beds CC has at least twice deferred a decision, members may be able to read
these studies before voting on 13 Dec whether to go ahead with a TWA
application. Luton members were given
no such option in September. A few
details were available in draft form only. The County's select committee was
informed on Sep 14 that the figures were now very close to being final, ready
for submission in October to the Local Transport Plan annual review. Yet the financial and environmental
picture has changed considerably since then.
With none
of these studies available, Luton voted on 18 Sep to apply for a Transport
& Works Act to enable compulsory land purchase, construction and operation
of the busway. An amendment was lost to
refer the scheme to a scrutiny committee for a more detailed examination of
various rail-based alternatives.
2 Escalating cost
of scheme
In 1994 the
cost of the busway was given as £17m.
(A Thameslink rail option was also £17m, and a diesel rail shuttle as
£10m.) Light rail was considered too
expensive at £54m, but like the current busway, this allowed for vehicles to
travel off the track and into the town centres. It could of course run along the existing track far sooner and
far more cheaply, with possible off-track extensions later. Luton BC has never taken this option
seriously.
A Luton
scrutiny committee in summer 2001 was told the total cost of the busway would
be £50m. A County Select committee on 14 Sep heard that the total cost was
£60m, and that this was "pretty close to the final figure".
Translink
Steering Committee agenda, 22 Nov, gives the figure submitted to government for
LTP review as £99m. (Infrastructure
£31.5m, land and compensation £23.8m, capital cost £39.2m, cost of vehicles
£4.5m.) A sheet handed out at the 22
Nov meeting gives a total of £90.5m, of which £70.5m is to be provided by
government and local authority, and nearly £20m by third party
contributions. Interestingly, new
vehicles are now to cost £14.5m, an increase of £10m in a month. This figure, extremely unlikely to be found
by the local monopoly bus company, may be connected to a government requirement
that 25% of funding should be from the private sector. We also note that new vehicles are to have a
life of 5 to 6 years - this seems absurdly short, and poor value for money.
Items such
as £31.19m for "Detailed design and construction", £8.12m for
"infrastructure renewal" and most of the £17.74m land acquisition
costs would simply not be needed for trains or trams, which have greater
capacity and could run a little less frequently, but would be more reliable.
The scheme
can now be compared with rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. A practical note is that the fins to guide
buses would have to be fitted to intercity buses coming to the area if they
wish to benefit from the busway.
Whether
£90m or £99m, it is a very different figure from two months before. Surely 'Best Value' is now shown as 'Worst
Value'; and the cost benefit analysis and business case, which Luton BC was
previously struggling so hard to prove was justifiable, must now be considered
'lost in transit'.
3 Failure to
comply with government objectives for public transport
The prime
purpose of funding major public transport schemes is to give people viable
alternatives so they will switch from their cars. Luton BC claims that when the busway opens (projected for 2007 -
it would probably take longer) it would attract either 1 or 2% of people from
their cars. Nearly all would be
existing bus passengers. Given the cost
and disruption being considered, this denotes total failure. Compare South Hants tramway (similar
population, also to be on disused railway, already funded by government) where
the number of ex-car drivers is projected as 45%.
If a train
or tram service were to be introduced for Luton-Dunstable, because no widening
of embankments or new bridges would be needed, they could be running within two
years at a small fraction of the cost.
Routes for extension to Leighton
Buzzard for Milton Keynes could then be considered. Rail freight could run once or twice a day. There would be no on-road delays as with a
busway. However, as with the highly
successful Croydon tramway, bus routes could be diverted to meet the train or
tram stops.
Rail is
proven technology. Trains and trams are known to be more comfortable and
reliable (particularly late evening), and have greater capacity. With buses, success is an enemy - queues of
people delay the driver. Far more
operating staff, if you can get them, mean greater cost, leading to a longer
payback time and higher fares, affecting viability. Yet extra coaches can be added to trains at peak times with no further
staff. Translink proponents have said that 30% of buses on existing routes
would be removed. But this includes
areas parallel to the busway all along the Luton to Dunstable road, and past
the hospital, where a regular service would still be needed.
4 Top-slicing funds
Luton
Borough Council has top-sliced £700,000 from its LTP settlement, which was
destined for other important local 'integrated transport' schemes, and diverted
it to Translink.
5 Pressuring
neighbouring authorities to support Translink
Considerable
pressure has been put on neighbouring authorities who benefit from the LTP
settlement. They believe that if they do not support Translink, they will
receive less money, and their own audits will be criticised. This amounts to
bullying. The government wants to see a public transport scheme upon which
everyone can agree, but this must not be at the expense of democracy. Transport authorities should not create
conflict, but work in partnership with their neighbours, and sub-regional needs
must play an integral part in any transport decision-making. Luton Council has given its consultants only
local, not sub-regional, briefings.
This is unacceptable.
6 Continued waste
of public money on TWA and Public Inquiry
We are
afraid that if TWA application is approved, Luton BC may take irreversible
action like removing bridges or rail tracks, or buying land, before a Public
Inquiry, which could be a year away.
This would be an enormous waste of public money and another year
wasted. We believe enough is enough:
the auditors, and the government, should reject the scheme without a public
inquiry, and Luton Council should be told to begin afresh in partnership with
neighbouring authorities, focusing on public need. Increasingly frequent gridlock is a regional problem, which
urgently needs some kind of rail solution, coupled with a revised and
integrated bus service. The government has rejected several guided busway
schemes around the UK; it must do so here before further damage is done.
Relevance to auditors
Finally, we
have seen the booklet Statement of responsibilities of auditors and of
audited bodies.
It may be
of particularly relevance to our concerns that auditors have a responsibility
to report on -
Legality of
transactions that might have significant financial consequences;
standards
of financial conduct and management, budgeting and compliance with financial
targets;
compliance
with relevant codes and guidelines;
the impact
of planned future policies;
the
identification, evaluation and management of operational and financial risks;
whether
systems of internal financial control are adequate and effective in practice;
arrangements
in place to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of
resources;
arrangements
to prepare and publish specified performance information;
compliance
with statutory requirements regarding preparation and publication of its best
value performance plan;
arrangements
to ensure best use of resources at its disposal;
setting
performance targets and monitoring outcomes against them.
It is also
noted that the views of auditors may be sought on -
financial
statements;
matters
that the auditor considers to be in the public interest;
the value
for money of a transaction before embarking upon it.
This is
an urgent matter as
Beds CC is due to vote next week on whether to apply for TWA. We therefore look forward with great
interest to hearing at least your initial views at the earliest opportunity. If
you share our concerns, we would hope you could recommend halting TWA
application until you are satisfied that all is well.
Yours
sincerely
David Oakley-Hill, Co-ordinator, Luton Friends of the Earth