NEW INFORMATION                                                                     6B / Luton FoE / R1503

 

Milton Keynes & S Midlands Sub Regional Strategy Examination in Public

Comments from Luton Friends of the Earth  29 Apr 04

 

SUPPLEMENT TO MATTER 6B5  Key local infrastructure

 

 

TRANSLINK

 

A)  Clearly time is short, and the Inspector asked contributors to be brief on this issue.  However, there have been important developments since the deadline for submissions.

 

B)  The Inspector also asked on 28 April for views on whether Translink could provide the key infrastructure required for delivery of the Sustainable Communities Plan.

 

We have more to say on A and B than we believe would be allowed in the time, so felt we had no alternative but to submit a further paper.

 

 

A)  RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
It was assumed at the time of the submission of Matter 6B that Translink could not continue without support from Beds County Council as joint transport authority.  Clearly, Beds County Council, South Beds DC and Dunstable Town Council thought this too.  Consequently Luton FoE only contributed a short paragraph on the matter.

 

Dunstable Town Council has for many years supported its residents' overwhelming view (expressed in two referenda) that a railway should be reopened to serve the town.  It is generally believed that this is the best way to regenerate the town, and that there could be great benefit to the sub-region from also reopening an extension of this line to the west.  Luton residents would also prefer a railway.  A survey showed this in 1994, and letters from hundreds of individuals to the local press have been unanimous in condemning Translink.  A recent poll in Luton on Sunday asking 'Is Translink a good or bad thing?' brought the remarkable result of 98% saying 'bad'.

 

It may seem strange that the Strategic Rail Authority does not support a Luton-Dunstable railway.  But its blessing is not needed.  It is not the regulator; it is a government agency, dealing only in publicly funded railways, and the government supports Translink.  The SRA may shortly disappear.

 

A commercial rail project is on the table from Laing Rail, owner of award-winning Chiltern Railways.  Fed by buses, this could run in two years from Luton to Dunstable on the existing single track with passing places.  This is something that people of the 250,000 conurbation would use, as it would offer a real alternative to congestion between the two towns.  It also brings the opportunity to continue all the way from Dunstable to the West Coast Mainline, still for less cost than Translink. 

 

Following a unanimous vote by South Beds District Council to call for a rail link between Luton on the Midland Mainline and the West Coast Mainline, south of Leighton Buzzard, Beds County Council voted similarly on 12 February.  Houghton Regis then had a referendum with an overwhelming vote against Translink.  These were three strong democratic votes, representing the wishes of the people of  South Bedfordshire.  A clear inference is that if it were built, people believe it would be of little use to them.

 

The reason South Beds and the County had voted previously for Translink was not because they supported it, but because other transport funding was promised.  (Some of it never came, including money to resurface Luton Road between Boscombe Road and Halfway House.)  However, this all changed with the government announcements in the last two years on airport expansion and the massive housing plans. 

 

It became clear to these authorities that a decision had to be made: Translink obviously could not  provide an efficient and reliable transport system for either of these.  Beds CC believed that if they pulled out of the joint project with Luton, Translink was dead.  Sadly for them, this was not the case.  Luton became unitary only in 1997, and could be described as an inexperienced transport authority without a sufficiently strategic view.  Luton LibDems, in power less than a year, voted to go ahead with Translink against their own manifesto. They had been persuaded that key developments for the town could not proceed without it.  (Yet most developers and many local businesses would support an east-west rail link.)  Like the Labour group before them, this seemed more important than providing the best transport system for the sub-region.

 

The Executive group of councillors on Beds CC was visited on April 15 by government representatives from the Regional Office and from ODPM.  They doubtless wanted to know why, having set aside £78m in December (albeit half of this to be a loan that would have to be paid back over many years by council taxpayers who did not support the scheme) for a jointly supported project, the County had now withdrawn its support.  Despite the offer from Laing Rail, the government told Beds CC: "Translink is the only thing on offer, so you may as well have it."

 

On April 22 the County reversed its decision and decided once more to support Translink.  

 

How did the government persuade Beds CC to change their democratic vote, and let down voters who know they could benefit from rail across South Beds?

1) They said there would be no seat for them on the Urban Development Corporation set up to oversee the government's massive housing project.

2) They threatened to withdraw funding for the North Dunstable Bypass to the M1. (A strange threat, as GoEast had claimed the housing project they supported could not go ahead without the road).

 

In addition, Beds CC was asked to promise not to raise its criticisms or reservations about Translink at the Transport & Works Act Public Inquiry (now delayed until 2005).  If the Inquiry goes ahead, and approves the Translink scheme, construction would probably take place between 2006-2010.  The engineering work required would create massive disruption for residents throughout Luton and Dunstable for at least four years.  GoEast was asked about the gridlock of Dunstable.  Mr Dowie of the Regional Office said "Gridlock of Dunstable can be dealt with at the Inquiry."  But he had just made them promise NOT to raise such concerns there!

 

A further concern is that South Beds DC, which continues to oppose Translink, may lose its planning function to the UDC.

 

The democratic deficit of this action by GoEast is clear.  Voters' wishes have been overturned, and the government has interfered with an 'independent' public inquiry, restricting evidence reflecting genuine concerns.  To the best of our knowledge, this is a correct reflection of what took place: the EIA panel can choose what to do with the information.

 

 

B)  COULD TRANSLINK PROVIDE THE KEY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE PLAN?

 

One of the main reasons claimed for Translink is to support airport expansion - up to 30m passengers by 2030 (currently 7m).  When asked how Translink could handle over 10m using the airport, a government officer said recently: "We'll consider this when it arises."  These people are supposed to be overseeing the planning of local and regional transport for the next 30 years!

 

Reasons Translink could not support the Sustainable Communities Plan or airport expansion

 

1)  The only stretch of Translink that was expected to make a profit was the uphill stretch to the airport.  However, about the time Beds CC withdrew its support, ex-Luton Council officer Tim Malynn, now at Beds CC, said: "We always knew that we'd need to replace Translink with a people over to the airport once passengers reached 10m."  It has only taken 5 years for passenger numbers to increase from 3 to 7 million. If expansion continues at the present rate, this means 10m will be reached by the time the Translink scheme is built.  Translink would be redundant, or at least unable to cope, before it even starts!

One must therefore ask why the government is supporting it. 

2)  Luton Council's own figures claim 1% modal shift from cars once Translink opens. (This date has now shifted several years, and the cost has risen exponentially.)  Two independent reports by respected companies commissioned by government were scathing about Translink - they confirmed that it was not cost-effective and would get no one out of their cars.  Atkins described Luton's figures as 'implausible results'.  Arup had a long checklist of criteria - Translink, after ten years' work by officers and consultants, failed on nearly all of them.  Astonishingly, these two reports have been ignored by government.

 

3)  Five complaints were made to the Advertising Standards Authority about misleading claims by Luton Council in advertisements for Translink.  Three were upheld - the other two were justified, but unproven: Luton FoE has evidence of one of these on tape.  This did not prevent the council 'spinning' the results and claiming victory!  The ASA ruled that Luton Council's claim that Translink would prevent a rise in local traffic was misleading, and told them not to repeat it.  Shouldn't the main reason for spending large sums on a transport system be to reduce congestion and pollution by giving people a realistic alternative?

 

4)  Transport is a regional and strategic issue. Translink is a local scheme using part of what was a regional railway until the sixties, and a mineral line until the eighties.  It would deliberately maintain congestion, as it could not help the vast numbers travelling east-west who have no choice but to drive in and out of the area.  Extending the Luton-Dunstable railway to the West Coast Mainline, connecting with Milton Keynes, Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, Watford, Hemel Hempstead and many other towns, like Cheddington, Eaton Bray and fast-growing Stanbridge, would offer real choice, reduce congestion and help the economy.

 

5)  Translink is only ordinary buses.  They are only faster when they run on the busway (railway) section.  For the majority of the routes, which have been distorted and are often longer to meet the busway, they run on ordinary roads and would get stuck in traffic as soon as they leave the busway.  From that point there is nothing special about them and the name Translink is misleading.  This would also apply if they were extended to reach any new development to the north of Luton / Dunstable.

 

6)  Translink would take 5 years to build, causing massive disruption and noise pollution.  The engineering work for a two lane concrete track plus parallel maintenance road; lorry journeys bringing material to build up single track embankments to double width; road closures while 10 bridges were demolished and 8 rebuilt.  An important wildlife corridor would be destroyed.  In the meantime, serious congestion would continue. Rail would never reopen for passengers or freight, despite requests from many businesses along this busy urban corridor.  It cost over £3m to realign bridges and track when Hatters way was built.

 

7)  By the time Translink opened (2010?) traffic would be far worse.  A rail proposal is on the table.  A railway would not need any of the above work, and could be running on existing track by 2006 at a quarter of the cost, with one or two stops between Luton and Dunstable, relieving congestion, helped by buses meeting the trains at stations, and park and ride each end.  Less frequent, but more reliable.

 

8)  Translink has been called Translink Express.  It is claimed the fastest buses (when not held up by others turning on and off the busway across a security system to prevent access to cars and bikes) could go from Luton to Dunstable Town Centres in 15 minutes.  In 1966 a steam train could do this in 8 minutes.

 

9)  Large areas of Luton would not be on the route: people heading west would still have to reach it by other means and change in the town centre.

 

10)  Some useful bus services would be withdrawn or get worse, including services to the hospital.

 

11)  All routes would lead to Luton centre, serving commercial desires, not people's real needs

 

12)  Rail is more comfortable - covered waiting areas, no airbrakes to throw you about on the journey.

 

13)  Rail has far greater capacity - for people, luggage and bicycles.  Translink would be inadequate to serve airport expansion - a fixed link would be needed, and this is favoured by airport management.

 

14)  Rail is much less intrusive for those along the route.

 

15)  Rail is viable: Network South East trains were due to run from London in 1989, and even had "Dunstable" on their destination blinds.

 

16)  Guided busways have met with a wide range of problems elsewhere.  Rail is proven and popular.

 

17)  The busway would encourage a local bus monopoly - other companies would not be able to use it.

 

18)  Running costs would be far greater for buses - more drivers and maintenance.

 

19)  Translink would badly affect Dunstable and Houghton Regis town centres and traffic levels

 

20)  A railway would put Dunstable 'on the map' and add value to the town - a busway would not.

 

 

FoE's advice is that the only sustainable solution for current problems, let alone the massive development proposal, would be rail-based.  This could be heavy or light rail, with short bus routes to meet trains or trams (like Croydon).  Buses would mainly use quieter roads to avoid traffic. 

 

As was suggested in our 6B paper, a rail, light rail or off-road bus service should be introduced to the north to serve any new development, as car dependence should be avoided.  Buses could run north-south between two east-west railways.