Funding for Cambridgeshire Guided Busway - only three days away
Jerry
hope, nay expect, to hear from the DfT that they have got funding for
the MGB by the end of June [1].
Well, today's the 27th and so there'only there days to go. I'm counting
down the hours.
We all know that the announcement will happen on time, don't we? After
all, every other event in the long-running saga of the guided busway
has been on time, hasn't it?
Jerry A.
[1] Did they actually say 2006?
Roland Perry
05:08:36 on Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Jerry <jerry.a...@virgin.net>
remarked:
>Cambridgeshire Country Council have been teling us for months that they
>hope, nay expect, to hear from the DfT that they have got funding for
>the MGB by the end of June [1].
I'm a bit doubtful of that because ministries don't tend to predict
things in calendar dates. They use jargon expressions like "Spring",
Late Spring", "Summer", and "Late Summer".
If this works how I think it does, then the Summer Recess this year is
26 Jul to 8 Oct (incl), so Spring lasts until 24th July, and Late Spring
is the 25th July. Summer is the period from 26th Jul until 7th October,
and "Late Summer" is the 8th October.
Perhaps the council has been promised an answer by "late Spring", and
thought Spring was April/May/June [1] ? Seems quite plausible.
It's just possible they were told something like "by halfway through the
year" (which to a software company would indeed mean by 30th June), but
even though it's a Friday (the 30th June, not today) I remain sceptical
that they've translated the promise correctly.
{When I was doing project management for a living, it mattered a lot
that you spoke the same language as your suppliers. I can virtually
guarantee that anyone with a delivery date of Friday 30th June 06 would
ring up around Thursday lunchtime and ask plaintively "will 9am on
Monday 3rd July be OK". That's when I had to explain that the person
doing the next stage of the process was starting work at 9am on the
Saturday, and that I'd already put "waiting late at work for the courier
to arrive" in my diary for Friday. For independent verification of this
work paradigm see Apprentice series 2 and the "Sayed late back after
selling petrol cans" episode. Not much changes in 20 years, it seems.)
[1] Yes, I know it's normally March/April/May.
--
Roland Perry
Tim Ward
news:1151410115.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Oh, so what I was told last night wasn't something that has yet been
publicly announced then.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
There is a briefing planned for County Councillors for this Friday, but
there is still a chance that it will be cancelled if the DfT don't get
in touch in time.
Timing is quite tight. If the Council can't decide to go ahead on the
18th of July (next Council meeting) then the nesting season etc means
that there would be significant delay.
Roland Perry
2006, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>Oh, so what I was told last night wasn't something that has yet been
>publicly announced then.
<sigh> So what was it you were told?
--
Roland Perry
Jerry
> Timing is quite tight. If the Council can't decide to go ahead on the
> 18th of July (next Council meeting) then the nesting season etc means
> that there would be significant delay.
Thanks for that Rupert.
I'm quite surprised about the bird nesting season problem.
Surely the Country Council's contractors could go on the line on
schedule to clear the vegetation. They did some of that last year as
part of their surveys. (They can't lift the track without completing
the purchase, which cannot be done until the members have voted.)
Speaking from the CAST.IRON perspective, from our discussions with
Network Rail, I can confirm that if CGB is officially abandoned
(subject to NR's satisfaction - not easy I know) then CAST.IRON will be
able (almost immediately) to go on the line to clear vegetation
(outside the bird nesting season obviously) under NR licence without
having to wait for our purchase of the line to be completed.
I have the Network Rail paperwork ("Track Access visitor Permit Form
for non-Operational Railway) in front of me on my desk.
Jerry A.
Tim Ward
news:8xCZ$+mwxT...@perry.co.uk...
Oh, only what Rupert just posted.
Paul Mc
Jerry wrote:
> CAST.IRON will be
> able (almost immediately) to go on the line to clear vegetation
> (outside the bird nesting season obviously) under NR licence without
> having to wait for our purchase of the line to be completed.
But assuming it isn't abandoned, which looks more likely, does anyone
know which bits they intend to start on first?
Jerry
One would assume that the stretch from Milton Road to Longstanton would
be first as the driver for CGB seems to be Northstowe. Of course,
developer funding will come into play too. I presume that the Section
106 funding will not necessarily be available when the work commences,
but the country council will borrow against the expected/contracted
funding (just like they will borrow against the DfT's committeed
funding).
Going back to the bid nesting issue. If the DfT does not announce the
funding on time, surely the solution is for the council members to vote
to spend some of our council tax money to clear the vegetation, which
they will either get back if the CGB gets funding or will have to write
off. It will not be a lot of money.
Dare I say it, CCC could ask CAST.IRON to pick up some of the bill were
CGB to be abandoned.
CAST.IRON brought Avondale Environmental Services Ltd to the site to
quote for work to clear and weedkill the entire track to Fen Drayton.
It was affordable.
Jerry.
Jules
> CAST.IRON brought Avondale Environmental Services Ltd to the site to
> quote for work to clear and weedkill the entire track to Fen Drayton.
> It was affordable.
I thought the plan was always for volunteers to do that work? I doubt
there'd be a problem finding enough people, either.
Or did some H&S type come in and knock that idea on the head, telling
them that they had to pay a company to do the same job?
cheers
J.
Jerry
No, there's no health and safety issues though there are environmental
concerns that have to be followed. Once we have control over the line
we can put weedkiller down, but not as "visitors". There's also an
issue about the need to be supervised by NR (or their agents, Babtie)
prior to the transfer because CAST.IRON is not currently a 'recognised'
oganisation, although this is an unenforced formality as, for example,
the people employed by the Science Park to put up their fence were not
supervised.
The licence that we would get from NR to clear the vegetation to
inspect the line would not allow us to repair the line or use
weedkiller. Basically, the licence would not allow us to do anything
that risked reducing the value of NR's assets or caused them any
liabilities.
Our discussions with NR have led us to believe that it would take us
six months to acquire the line from the point where NR is at liberty
(from Cambs CC) to commence the transfer of ownership process. We do
not want to wait six months to start weedkilling so we have a contract
with Avondale to clear a proportion of the line for us and as a
recognised supplier NR would allow them to do so.
I hope that makes sense.
Jerry.
Colin Davidson
> Thanks for that Rupert.
>
> I'm quite surprised about the bird nesting season problem.
>
> Surely the Country Council's contractors could go on the line on
> schedule to clear the vegetation. They did some of that last year as
> part of their surveys. (They can't lift the track without completing
> the purchase, which cannot be done until the members have voted.)
>
> Speaking from the CAST.IRON perspective, from our discussions with
> Network Rail, I can confirm that if CGB is officially abandoned
> (subject to NR's satisfaction - not easy I know) then CAST.IRON will be
> able (almost immediately) to go on the line to clear vegetation
> (outside the bird nesting season obviously) under NR licence without
> having to wait for our purchase of the line to be completed.
>
> I have the Network Rail paperwork ("Track Access visitor Permit Form
> for non-Operational Railway) in front of me on my desk.
One of my main objections to MGB is that no serious consideration has been
taken as to the impact of wildlife that is now to be found on the old
railway route. You say that CAST.IRON wants to immediately rush onto the
line and clear the vegetation? Why should I support that scheme, then?
Jerry
> One of my main objections to MGB is that no serious consideration has been
> taken as to the impact of wildlife that is now to be found on the old
> railway route. You say that CAST.IRON wants to immediately rush onto the
> line and clear the vegetation? Why should I support that scheme, then?
Hence the reason for involving a professional company produce the
method statement.
CAST.IRON would not be rushing onto the western end, which is of
greater concern. The driver for MGB is Northstowe. We need to serve it,
and also the Science Park, which represents the commerical need (i.e.
CAST.IRON's funding), hence that is the extent of any "rush".
Legally CAST.IRON would not be subject to any greater environmental
restrictions upon its actions than Cambs CC, who have been very helpful
by performing most of the environmental assessment and it was accepted
by the inspector and the secretary of state.
The two advantages CAST.IRON has over MGB is that it does not need to
clear the entire formation, it will not be widening any embankments or
cuttings, and will not be laying concrete or creating balancing ponds.
Much of the railway will (initally) be single track. It's only
necessary to clear enough to allow trains to pass through easily and
safely, and initially there will be just works trains, which require
less space (no people sticking heads out of windows etc.). Therefore
wildlife will be able to remain.
Moreover, unlike the MGB the railway could see gradual vegetation
clearance. That is certainly the approach taken by heritage railways,
such as the Mid-Norolk Railway, of which I know a lot about. The lack
of available time and the need to get trains operating meant that they
cleared the minimum amount and each season they have trimmed vegetation
back a bit further to gradually recover most of the formation. (Their
track was just as overgrown as the St.Ives line.)
Secondly, unlike the county council, CAST.IRON intends to involve the
community in such work allowing butterfly experts etc. to help ensure
that the minimum damage is done.
Jerry
Jerry
> There is a briefing planned for County Councillors for this Friday, but
> there is still a chance that it will be cancelled if the DfT don't get
> in touch in time.
While we wait for a possible announceent on Friday, I wondered if
anyone wants to speculate on
a) how much the total scheme (or is it project, I can never remember)
wil now cost
and
b) how much the DfT will agree to fund, if any.
I will point out that the new draft guidance on LTP major schemes is
increasingly heavy about DfT not funding increases in costs on approved
schemes. They are clearly fed up of approving projects on the basis of
costs which escalate dramatically following approval, giving the
impression that the original costings must have been seriously
unrealistic. DfT say they will not in future fund cost increases beyond
agreed budgets.
According to a transport consultant I have spoken to, he says:
<<
The guidance is very tough on the consequences of cost increases during
project development (4.5). DfT is unlikely to support cost increases
"arising from poor project planning and management by the local
authority" (4.5.1). It expects local authorities to raise funds from
elsewhere to meet any cost increases, or look at scheme revisions to
stay within budget. Only as a last resort should funding for cost
increases be sought from DfT, which will in any case contribute no more
than 75% of the increase. Schemes which cannot raise funds, or require
substantial redesign, or are significantly delayed, or suffer
significant cost increases, are likely to have approval revoked, and to
progress further would have to be resubmitted as new bids."
>>
Note: "DfT will contribute no more than 75% of the increase", and also
no mention of allowance for inflation. Perhaps someone can tell me how
that is dealt with.
What will be interesting is whether the base is the £73m when the bid
was submitted (of which £65m was contionally offered six months
later), or £86m, when the TWA order was submitted.
If it's the £73m, then even if the cost is still £86m then at best
Cambs CC would need to find another £3.5m from developer
contributions. If the price is now £100m, then they would need to find
at least £6.75m of the £27m increase. With the £8m gap initially
that's only £14.75m to find from developers.
I'd be surprised if the DfT resolutely refuses to increase its £65m
offer, which is the worst case scenario for the county council. (OK,
second worst. The worst is to reduce the offer, but that would be
unprecedented.)
Jerry
Roland Perry
11:45:03 on Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Jerry <jerry.a...@virgin.net>
remarked:
>I will point out that the new draft guidance on LTP major schemes is
>increasingly heavy about DfT not funding increases in costs on approved
>schemes. They are clearly fed up of approving projects on the basis of
>costs which escalate dramatically following approval, giving the
>impression that the original costings must have been seriously
>unrealistic. DfT say they will not in future fund cost increases beyond
>agreed budgets.
The DfT seems to have thrown out every (yes, it may actually be all of
them) new Tram scheme on this basis, over the last year or so.
--
Roland Perry
Colin Davidson
> Hence the reason for involving a professional company produce the
> method statement.
>
> CAST.IRON would not be rushing onto the western end, which is of
> greater concern. The driver for MGB is Northstowe. We need to serve it,
> and also the Science Park, which represents the commerical need (i.e.
> CAST.IRON's funding), hence that is the extent of any "rush".
There are common lizards on the old railway lines up by Chivers lake, and on
patches right up to Milton Road. Green woodpeckers forage right on those
tracks there too. What does Cast Iron want to do about the wildlife, some of
it really rather uncommon if not rare, that lives there?
> Legally CAST.IRON would not be subject to any greater environmental
> restrictions upon its actions than Cambs CC, who have been very helpful
> by performing most of the environmental assessment and it was accepted
> by the inspector and the secretary of state.
Cambs CC have done insufficient in this respect, I totally agree.
> The two advantages CAST.IRON has over MGB is that it does not need to
> clear the entire formation, it will not be widening any embankments or
> cuttings, and will not be laying concrete or creating balancing ponds.
> Much of the railway will (initally) be single track. It's only
> necessary to clear enough to allow trains to pass through easily and
> safely, and initially there will be just works trains, which require
> less space (no people sticking heads out of windows etc.). Therefore
> wildlife will be able to remain.
Common lizards aren't going to do well during re-laying and surfacing. What
does cast iron plan to do to lessen their environmental impact on this rare
native lizard?
> Moreover, unlike the MGB the railway could see gradual vegetation
> clearance. That is certainly the approach taken by heritage railways,
> such as the Mid-Norolk Railway, of which I know a lot about. The lack
> of available time and the need to get trains operating meant that they
> cleared the minimum amount and each season they have trimmed vegetation
> back a bit further to gradually recover most of the formation. (Their
> track was just as overgrown as the St.Ives line.)
>
> Secondly, unlike the county council, CAST.IRON intends to involve the
> community in such work allowing butterfly experts etc. to help ensure
> that the minimum damage is done.
That all sounds well and good, but there are specific species there that are
really uncommon, and I see nothing in what you are saying that makes me
believe that cast iron have given that issue any thought. If I'm wrong,
correct me.
Jerry
> That all sounds well and good, but there are specific species there that are
> really uncommon, and I see nothing in what you are saying that makes me
> believe that cast iron have given that issue any thought. If I'm wrong,
> correct me.
Re: "given any thought."
I'd agree if you had written "given sufficient thought".
The environmental work we did dates back to late 2003 when we thought
we had a realistic chance of reopening the railway line. We appointed
41 officers (from a pool of 25 people) who were all given roles and one
was environmental issues.
Once the provisional £65m (half-paid up front, half loan) funding for
CGB was announced in December 2003 we had to spend most of our time on
the TWA for CGB, and the full officer structure was put on hold
(keeping just the essential roles such as rail industry liaison
officer, which I am).
Sadly (because we weren't formed as an anti-bus lobby but an
organisation to get the line reopened) we've been rather side-tracked
by CGB TWA and the inquiry.
Then, when the public inspector recommended so enthusiatically in
favour of the busway we have been in a holding pattern waiting for the
funding decision (no point spending massive amounts of time on a
supposed lost cause), but keeping up our links with the people we have
to stay in touch with (NR, existing and potential rail industry
partners, financial backers etc.) and ensuring that we stay abreast of
all business/travel related issues.
However, we have still been busy. Some of us have been working on line
clearance (and several other activities) on the Mid-Norfolk Railway to
keep our wealth of experience up to date (the need to be an 'informed
buyer') and making sure that we are aware of current standard
practices. Interestingly, when the MNR acquired their northern
extension there was a requirement on them by the local authority to
keep the route clear, even though it is currently disused.
So, if we hear that CGB isn't going to get the funding it needs to go
ahead, I can assure you that CAST.IRON will come back into full life
and continue from the work it postponed back in January 2004, and
environmental concerns will be an immediate priority, ahead of
obtaining a passenger carrying licence, for example.
What I would like to hear from you (at the appropriate time) is what
you would suggest as the solution to the wildlife issues and to what
level you would like to be personally involved to see that the actions
you consider are necessary are carried out sensitively.
No need to reply now - I can't reply as I'm off to a rail conference.
Let's wait until we see if CGB will go ahead, otherwise the discussion
between us could be pointless.
Jerry
Jerry
> What I would like to hear from you (at the appropriate time) is what
> you would suggest as the solution to the wildlife issues and to what
> level you would like to be personally involved to see that the actions
> you consider are necessary are carried out sensitively.
I forgot to mention that CAST.IRON does intend (if CGB doesn't go
ahead) to listen to people with concerns about the environment. We will
reappoint an environmental officer, and their contact details will be
put on the web-site.
(I'm not guaranteeing that CAST.IRON would appoint someone before
clearing patches of vegetation to evaluate the state of the track. A
detailed assessment needs to be peformed prior to agreeing terms for
purchase. There is a time-consuming Network Rail ownership transfer
process to follow and we don't want to delay that. Of course,
foundation testing could be reduced if the county council made
available the results of their surveys.)
We have a very good reason why we want the public behind us: we want
some of them to buy shares. Of course, we can't make an omelette
without breaking eggs and I would hope that most people appreciate
that.
Going back to prior actions, I'm not aware of any environmental
sensitivity being shown when work has been done on the line in the last
few years:
a) Vegetation clearance to allow the high fence to be erected to
protect the Science Park boundary in 2004;
b) Cambs CC surveys along the line in 2005;
c) Laying of new gas pipe by Transco in April 2006 in front of the
Cambridge Regional College.
If anyone is interested in c), NR were very helpful when we reported to
NR that the track had been lifted for the new pipe, and they made sure
that Transco quickly put it back again and to a high standard. Press
release about this work on www.castiron.org.uk.
Jerry
James
Looking at the timescales for the smaller Leigh scheme
(http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=409693) it got its TWA
approval 5 months before the CGB, and I presume its hasn't got final
funding approval yet. Also, a while ago the project manager of the
Leigh scheme told me that it would have to be re-evaluted against
regional transport spending priorities, even although provisional
funding had been given.
On a slightly different note, I know CAST.IRON have ideas about
reinstating the railway, but are there any other groups or individuals
who are still campaigning against the guided busway on the grounds that
its a waste of money, rather than due to its negative impacts?
As a City Council transport planner I started off being sceptical about
the scheme and became increasingly convinced it was poor as time went
by. I don't believe the issue is settled yet, despite the TWA decision.
I'd like to see a bit more pressure put on the County before it really
is too late.
James
Paul Oldham
> On a slightly different note, I know CAST.IRON have ideas about
> reinstating the railway, but are there any other groups or individuals
> who are still campaigning against the guided busway on the grounds that
> its a waste of money, rather than due to its negative impacts?
I'm not sure what you mean by "still". It was certainly one of my
objections (and I'm no more in favour of CAST.IRON than I am the MGB)
but the game's pretty much over at the moment from a campaigning point
of view.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"It's so long since I've had sex I've forgotten who ties up who"
Jerry
> On a slightly different note, I know CAST.IRON have ideas about
> reinstating the railway, but are there any other groups or individuals
> who are still campaigning against the guided busway on the grounds that
> its a waste of money, rather than due to its negative impacts?
I think I will let the orther gorups, such as Ragbus and Save our Lakes
speak for themselves.
I don't think "CAST.IRON have ideas about reinstating the railway"
quite does us justice.
The *only* thing that has stopped CAST.IRON in its three years of
existence from taking over the railway line is that NR is unable to
sell the land because of agreements it has signed with Cambs County
Council and now, more importantly, their TWA Order gives them
compulsory purchase powers over the line for another 4.5 years.
Reopening the railway is not an "idea". It is something that is at
least 95% likely to happen - and happen quite quickly - if the guided
busway falls thorugh completely.
Jerry
James
Paul Oldham wrote:
> On 29/06/06 21:30 James wrote:
>
> > On a slightly different note, I know CAST.IRON have ideas about
> > reinstating the railway, but are there any other groups or individuals
> > who are still campaigning against the guided busway on the grounds that
> > its a waste of money, rather than due to its negative impacts?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "still". It was certainly one of my
> objections (and I'm no more in favour of CAST.IRON than I am the MGB)
> but the game's pretty much over at the moment from a campaigning point
> of view.
Presumably if County Councillors were to change their mind, then
construction would not proceed. The Lib Dems don't really support the
scheme, although haven't been very strong in opposing it. The main
driving force behind it has been County officers, who have done an
excellent job in getting and maintaining the essential political
support for the project.
But many Members and officers must have serious worries about the
scheme. Notice the project director and Cabinet member have both 'moved
on' since the TWA order was granted.
If people want to stop the scheme, surely they should act now, not wait
until final approval is imminent and its full steam ahead.
James
Paul Oldham
> Presumably if County Councillors were to change their mind, then
> construction would not proceed. The Lib Dems don't really support the
> scheme, although haven't been very strong in opposing it. The main
> driving force behind it has been County officers, who have done an
> excellent job in getting and maintaining the essential political
> support for the project.
Ah, is that right. Didn't know that. From the outside it looked like it
was being lead by councillors, especially Shona Johnson.
> But many Members and officers must have serious worries about the
> scheme. Notice the project director and Cabinet member have both 'moved
> on' since the TWA order was granted.
I knew the fragrant Shona had moved on to other things but has Bob
Menzies moved on too?
> If people want to stop the scheme, surely they should act now, not wait
> until final approval is imminent and its full steam ahead.
How? The county has a large Tory majority and as far as I can make out
they are effectively whipped on things like this.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"Egotist: Someone who is usually me-deep in conversation"
Roland Perry
15:36:22 on Thu, 29 Jun 2006, James <thom...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>If people want to stop the scheme, surely they should act now, not wait
>until final approval is imminent and its full steam ahead.
<Friday>
Surely it's CAST.IRON, not the MGB that will have the steam?
</Friday>
Talking of Fridays, is the announcement still expected today?
--
Roland Perry
James
Paul Oldham wrote:
> On 29/06/06 23:36 James wrote:
>
>
> Ah, is that right. Didn't know that. From the outside it looked like it
> was being lead by councillors, especially Shona Johnson.
That was my perception anyway, that officers were leading and Members
supporting, which is probably how it should be.
> I knew the fragrant Shona had moved on to other things but has Bob
> Menzies moved on too?
Bob is still there, but the project director was Graham Hughes
previously.
> > If people want to stop the scheme, surely they should act now, not wait
> > until final approval is imminent and its full steam ahead.
>
> How? The county has a large Tory majority and as far as I can make out
> they are effectively whipped on things like this.
By persuading Members it's a bad scheme, although this would ultimately
require a public U-turn. An alternative tack could be trying to
persuade the DfT that the cost-benefit analysis for the scheme was
flawed. For example, I believe the County's 'low cost alternative' was
not optimal, although even the one they did assess had a higher
cost-benefit-ratio than the CGB (but much lower costs and benefits).
James
Paul Oldham
This just in from Bob Menzies at the County Council:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am pleased to be able to tell you that Cambridgeshire County Council
is to be given UKP92.5m from central Government to build the
Cambridgeshire Guided Busway.
Following the submission of our Business Case for the busway in April
this year, we have been engaged in discussions with the Department for
Transport for some months now. The outcome of these discussions is that
the Department is convinced of the need for the busway and the value of
money it offers and has agreed to contribute UKP92.5m (as a 100% grant)
towards the costs.
As you know, the Guided Busway will provide high quality, reliable and
frequent bus services for thousands of people living in the A14 corridor
and is a central part of the Council's approach to managing the growth
agenda.
The Guided Busway will be the world's longest busway and Government has
recognised the significant benefits and value for money the scheme offers.
Buses will travel on a dedicated, segregated route away from the A14 and
other congested local roads, offering passengers a more reliable, higher
quality and frequent bus service.
As part of the Guided Busway we will build two brand new Park & Ride
sites at St Ives and Longstanton. These new sites will serve drivers on
the A1096 and B1050 commuting into Cambridge.
The other stops on the route are Hinchingbrooke hospital, Huntingdon
town centre, St Ives town centre, Swavesey, Oakington, Histon &
Impington, the new development at Arbury Park, Cambridge Regional
College, Cambridge Science Park, Cambridge city centre, Cambridge
railway station, Addenbrooke's hospital and Trumpington Park & Ride.
The Guided Busway will also serve Cambridgeshire's proposed new town -
Northstowe as well other proposed developments such as Clay Farm and
Trumpington Meadows. High quality, reliable and frequent bus services
will encourage new residents to use public transport from day one.
In 2004 we estimated the cost of the busway to be £86.4m. The total cost
of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway is now £116.2m. This is because of
significant increases in local land values that have occurred in recent
years and also because the rate of inflation in the construction
industry has been far higher than the Retail Price Index rate of
inflation. (Our estimation for the Government in 2004 required us to use
the Retail Price Index rate of inflation.)
I can confirm that there is sufficient money available from Government
grant and developer contribution to cover the cost of the project.
The Council will be asked to approve the final funding package for the
busway and appoint the contractor (Edmund Nuttall Ltd) on 18th July.
When the contract has been awarded we will start to acquire the land we
need for the busway. We will also work with the District Councils to
discharge the planning conditions relating to the busway such as the
landscape design and Park & Ride site design.
Once we have discharged the necessary conditions and acquired the land
we need, Nuttall will start site clearance along the disused railway
line in January 2007 (before the bird nesting season).
The provisional construction programme proposes a base at Longstanton at
the site of the proposed Park and Ride. The section of Guided Busway
from Longstanton to Cambridge will be constructed first, with the first
1.5km section of this forming the test section for construction techniques.
It will take us nearly two years to build the busway. This means that
services will start to carry passengers in late 2008.
Our discussions with the four bus operators who want to run services on
the busway are going well and we expect to have signed agreements for
minimum levels of services within a few weeks.
I sincerely hope that you are as pleased as I am about this news and
should you have any questions at all about the scheme please do not
hesitate to contact me or my team on 01223 716972 or
guided...@cambridgeshire.gov.uk
Yours sincerely,
Bob Menzies
Head of Delivery - Guided Busway
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So yup, the announcement was on time. Just. :-(
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"Never test the depth of the water with both feet"
Jerry
> Jerry wrote:
> > We all know that the announcement will happen on time, don't we? After
> > all, every other event in the long-running saga of the guided busway
> > has been on time, hasn't it?
>
> is to be given UKP92.5m from central Government to build the
> Cambridgeshire Guided Busway.
I'm eating my words now.
As I say in another thread, congratulations to the people who have
worked so hard on the task they were given to do.
Jerry
R.C. Payne
I remain to be convinced that it will actually cost £116.2m any more
than it would cost £86.4m. What happens when the price goes up to £150m?
Robin
Stephen Borrill
It's a fixed price bid, so any increases _should_ be covered by Edward
Nuttall.
--
Stephen
Roland Perry
04:13:58 on Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Jerry <jerry.a...@virgin.net>
remarked:
>> I am pleased to be able to tell you that Cambridgeshire County Council
>> is to be given UKP92.5m from central Government to build the
>> Cambridgeshire Guided Busway.
>
>I'm eating my words now.
Same here, it seems they really did mean "end of June".
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
04:26:49 on Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Stephen Borrill
<gsbo...@precedence.co.uk> remarked:
>> I remain to be convinced that it will actually cost £116.2m any more
>> than it would cost £86.4m. What happens when the price goes up to £150m?
>
>It's a fixed price bid, so any increases _should_ be covered by Edward
>Nuttall.
No, the bid price has already gone up. If was a *fixed* price bid then
Edward Nuttall would be eating the various inflationary and land cost
increases that have already occurred.
Even if it's "fixed as of 1st July", how do any of the parties involved
actually know what the land costs are going to be? And I note that the
first few miles are going to be an experiment. How much of the costing
relies upon it being a successful experiment?
--
Roland Perry
Alan
> It's a fixed price bid, so any increases should be covered by Edward
> Nuttall.
Although if they're any good at writing contracts, there will plenty of
small print to help them get more money, or reduce quality of delivery.
--
Alan
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! Replace 'deadspam.com' with 'penguinclub.org.uk' to
reply in email.
Douglas de Lacey
>
>>>If people want to stop the scheme, surely they should act now, not wait
>>>until final approval is imminent and its full steam ahead.
>>
>>How? The county has a large Tory majority and as far as I can make out
>>they are effectively whipped on things like this.
>
>
> By persuading Members it's a bad scheme, although this would ultimately
> require a public U-turn. An alternative tack could be trying to
> persuade the DfT that the cost-benefit analysis for the scheme was
> flawed. For example, I believe the County's 'low cost alternative' was
> not optimal, although even the one they did assess had a higher
> cost-benefit-ratio than the CGB (but much lower costs and benefits).
I've been pointed to <http://www.transporttimes.co.uk/;news;item/1/72/>
re an independent report of the Regional Spatial Strategy which "called
for a complete rewrite of the regional transport plan and its policy
objectives" and "recommends demand management and climate change
mitigation be made key priorities and calls for the deletion of a list
of priority schemes, to be replaced by priorities expressed 'in terms of
outcomes sought'". I realise that a knee-jerk reaction would be that
this supports PT and therefore the MGB, but if more people *are*
actually discuoraged from driving then MGB people-moving figures will
add up even less. Any mileage for your campaigns, James and Jerry?
(I realise James isn't running a campaign:)
Douglas de Lacey
Douglas de Lacey
> I've been pointed to <http://www.transporttimes.co.uk/;news;item/1/72/>
Oops, I've just seen that Alan Quick has mentioned it here too.
Douglas de Lacey
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
> But many Members and officers must have serious worries about the
> scheme. Notice the project director and Cabinet member have both 'moved
> on' since the TWA order was granted.
James, you forget that the management model at the County is the 'strong
leader' one. In other words, Cabinet members are appointed and removed
by the Leader. All the Councillors can do is complain.
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
> Paul Oldham wrote:
>> On 29/06/06 23:36 James wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ah, is that right. Didn't know that. From the outside it looked like it
>> was being lead by councillors, especially Shona Johnson.
>
> That was my perception anyway, that officers were leading and Members
> supporting, which is probably how it should be.
>
>> I knew the fragrant Shona had moved on to other things but has Bob
>> Menzies moved on too?
>
> Bob is still there, but the project director was Graham Hughes
> previously.
Yes, Graham is now in overall charge of such things and still managing
at a higher level. So he hasn't really moved on. Certainly at the
briefing on Friday he dealt with the more strategic questions.