Luton Borough Council wants to rip up the railway tracks from the disused Luton-Dunstable line and build a concrete busway. This is not what the majority of the public in Luton or Dunstable wants. Here's why the tracks should be used for a train or tram/light rail:
1 There was no public consultation in 6 years. Lots of public cash had meanwhile gone to consultants. When it came in November 2000, Luton BC spent a great deal of money presenting only its favourite option - a busway. The cost had risen from �17m in 1994 to �50m.
The bus has a poor public image, thanks partly to often unreliable local services. The buses look inferior to artists' impressions of 1994, and their all-glass fronts look dangerous. These vehicles would presumably replace a large part of the existing bus fleet. Would they be likely to attract people from their cars, or would it be giving bus passengers new buses and a slightly faster journey AT ENORMOUS COST? The council has suggested a likely shift of bus users from 9% to - wait for it - 11%!
In 1994 a busway was said to cost �17m, light rail �54m. With many light rail (tram) systems round the UK, a tram is now probably cheaper ! (See 15 below.) A rail shuttle service was then �10m and Thameslink �17m. These may have increased, but only a little. A busway is now THE MOST EXPENSIVE OPTION as well as almost certainly THE LEAST EFFECTIVE. Council adverts claim that trains from Dunstable would not run directly to London (the fastest way to get there). This may not be true - the Thameslink franchise is up for negotiation, and the service could be run by another operator sharing the line. Points joining the main line at Luton would be cheap and easy to reinstate. Timetabling would need to be planned carefully.
Most of the video at the exhibition focused on traffic problems, and on superimposing the uninspiring bus into familiar local settings, but was vague on detail about the busway. Trams went unmentioned at the exhibition, and trains were dismissed in a sentence or two. Yet these are most people would prefer if the choices were presented in a balanced way. In 1998, 80% of the people of Dunstable who voted (in a 30% turnout) for bus or rail wanted to reopen the railway.
2 Grossly misleading passenger figures
The figure of 100,000 residents living close to 'The Translink Network' includes everyone who ever uses a bus already, as well as all who choose NOT to use buses. 250,000 residents of Luton and Dunstable can't use an east-west train or tram, however appealing and useful this might be, because there isn't one. Circles and diagrams ignore the many people who would walk up to a mile (or drop off a partner or neighbour) for a fast train or tram, but not for a bus.
3 Speed: a busway would NOT be an express !
The claim of a 12 minute journey by 'Translink Express' from Luton to Dunstable is nonsense. Steam trains took 8 minutes in 1965. There may be a bus every 3 minutes (as in the town centre already) but they're not all going to the same place! It is not explained how an express would be possible when other 'all-stops' buses serving several different areas and not going the whole route would also be on the busway, collecting passengers and holding each other up! A tram or train (both can do 50mph) would be much faster and more reliable. Buses would be caught in jams once off the busway, and at the single track by Luton Football Club. The slogan for Croydon's trams is 'because trams beat jams'. They could be a winner here if given a chance.
4 Comfort
Everyone knows trains are more comfortable - but so are trams. They don't rely on tyres, suspension or air brakes, so give a smoother, quieter ride. They have 4 or 5 braking systems, and can stop or accelerate faster, yet more smoothly, than buses, giving a quicker journey without throwing passengers around. Trams would also have convenient, low-floor access.
5 Capacity and frequency
Trams or trains would take far more passengers than buses. The Croydon trams can take up to 200 - as well as luggage (trams would be better for airport passengers), and items such as flatpack furniture, bikes and wheelchairs. There could be a 20 minute train service or a 5 minute tram service. It is claimed that a 'Translink Express' would run every 5-10 minutes - probably less frequent and certainly slower than a tram, which would offer greater comfort and over twice the capacity.
6 Drawings conceal old buses on busway
Artists' impressions are misleading. A busway would have to use many existing buses for a long time. Far fewer trains or trams would be needed, cutting down the initial cost. They also have a longer life and need lower maintenance.
7 Driver shortage and salary costs
Luton has a severe shortage of bus drivers. Bus companies have proved unreliable in serving workplaces like Capability Green and the airport - and not because no busway's been available! They have been poor at managing and promoting their services. A busway would need 3 or 4 times the staff (including maintenance staff) to shift the same number of passengers as a tram or train. These long-term problems and costs would be likely to make the whole busway project unviable.
8 Bridges, embankments and engineering work
Trains and trams, having greater capacity but being slightly less frequent, could use the existing single track (much of it in good condition) with passing places. This is better value for money, and far more cost-effective than widening embankments and 3 or 4 bridges to double width for a 2-lane busway, and building many new slopes to join ordinary roads. This involves massive, very costly and technically complex engineering work, and at least 2 years of major disruption to residents. There is no sign of such difficulties in the technical diagrams presented at the exhibition.
9 Extension to West Coast Mainline
Trains and trams are the only practical (also much cheaper) options for a fast, reliable service from Luton and Dunstable to Leighton Buzzard, Milton Keynes, Tring, Hemel Hempstead, Northampton, Birmingham, Liverpool, Chester and many other destinations on the West Coast Mainline, currently almost impossible to reach without a car. The vital need to both business
and leisure travellers of a Luton-Leighton Buzzard mainline connection, giving a regional link which would help the whole area including the airport, is something Luton Council has never taken seriously.
10 Busway no good for longer journeys
Thirty or forty thousand people drive in and out of the area most weekdays, many of whom have no choice. These people, who help the local economy, would not be helped at all by a local busway - which would stifle commerce. In contrast, a fast Parkway-Luton-Dunstable-Stanbridge-Leighton Buzzard (or Dunstable-Edlesborough-Eaton Bray-Cheddington) train or tram, with buses routed to meet it at major stops, would provide a really useful choice. Many people from the Dunstable area driving to London
on the A5 or M1 may switch to a train or tram. This would also reduce demand for a costly and damaging Dunstable bypass.
A busway would not reduce car journeys to London, or have any effect on traffic, CO2 or pollution outside the local area.
11 Existing bus services would be WORSE !
The busway would divert many routes on to the busway when that's not where many people need to go! These buses are needed to serve other local routes. Useful services, relied on by local people (including pensioners, a rapidly growing proportion of the population), may disappear or get worse. The Luton-Dunstable road, the hospital, Leagrave, Bushmead and Bramingham, Round Green, Stopsley, and Wigmore areas would all be likely to suffer. Arriva, the local monopoly, does not want to serve Houghton Regis. Translink admits that bus services would drop by 30% on parallel routes ! Poor perception of buses means they would be less likely to be used in the evenings (including busway routes), so would continue to be less frequent.
12 It's NOT integrated transport !
A busway would remove choice. It would force over a quarter of a million people to rely on only one form of public transport. The Croydon tram is successful partly because the bus routes have been diverted so feeder buses serve the express tram stops. The tram routes meet 8 different rail stations. A Luton busway would deprive Dunstable (the biggest southern town without a station) of ever being reconnected to the rail network. Many who drive to London would park at a station. Dunstable North (opposite South Beds Council offices) could become a major park and ride, the route later to be extended across High St North towards Leighton Buzzard. Translink bypasses this opportunity, to reach Houghton Regis. (Croydon tram drivers will order a taxi by ringing from the tram!) This gives seamless journeys - important for women after dark, or those with heavy luggage.
13 Trains and trams viable, cheaper and more practical - they'll attract car drivers
In 1989 Network SE was about to open a rail service from Dunstable to London. Politics stopped it, not viability. In 1995 Chiltern Railways said that for �5m they could run a viable light or heavy rail service between Dunstable and Luton Parkway. Rail reopenings are always popular and bring real economic benefits. There are no examples of successful busways which
have tempted many drivers from their cars - a reliable train service is always more successful, exceeding expectations. The Wolverhampton-Birmingham tram has attracted up to 30% of customers from former car users, compared to 'much-enhanced' express bus route 33 with low floors, priority at lights etc with less than 1%. People also prefer trains or trams to buses passing their gardens - they're less intrusive!
14 Much easier to find finance for tram or train
The government provides grants for railways - private sector finance must be found for a busway. A bank would make the key loan, probably for 30 years. The whole-life cost is critical, and much more than the initial cost. Partly due to staff costs, a busway would have to recoup much more money. But in Luton's case, the initial cost would also be very high because of complex engineering work (see 8).
15 Finance - the figures
All rail options are far cheaper to start up. The initial cost of the busway is now claimed to be about �50million. (It could end up at �75m.) The operating cost per passenger kilometre over 30 years is likely to be 50% higher. Total cost difference - over �100m ! This is not cost-effective, and makes it almost impossible to establish a business case for a busway. Banks will say no thanks. Who would pay the extra cost if banks did agree ? Passengers. But it's important that fares are low.
16 Timescale
If the council is concerned about reducing gridlock, it could do it much faster by asking train or tram operators and talking positively to the Strategic Rail Authority. It is NOT objectors' fault there is to be a public inquiry which will cause a delay - this is needed because of the council's insistence, against government advice, not to present a balance picture of the options. It is the massive engineering work on embankment and bridges, as well as unproven vehicles. (A proposed busway for Greenwich has had major technical problems and is likely to be abandoned, to join the growing pile of busways refused by the government in the last year). This means a busway is at least 5 years away, even if finance could be found. A train or tram could be operating in 2 years, with buses serving the stops, like Croydon. A train or tram could be extended to Leighton Buzzard in 5 years, and a tram might also be extended on to some streets later on.
17 No railfreight
A busway would prevent the opportunity (which the government wants taken up, and most of us would welcome) of getting some freight off big, heavy, dangerous lorries and on to rail. The tracks on the busy industrial corridor between Luton and Dunstable could be used for freight whether trams or trains ran on the tracks.
18 Environmental impact
No Environmental Impact Study has taken place. But trams or trains would produce less CO2, and a 2-lane busway would have a far greater impact, destroying a wildlife corridor, and causing greater noise and intrusion.
Comments from Luton Friends of the Earth 25 Nov 2000
Contact - David Oakley-Hill 01582 724257