Rebuttal to the rebuttal
Firstly may I thank Shona Johnstone for sending me a copy of the rebuttal. Although
dated 11th November it had not been received at St John’s Innovation Centre when I
collected the post yesterday. If Shona had not responded to a press release we
issued, I would have not spend until the early hours of this morning working on my
3.1 Unnecessary detour – the prime reason for suggesting the guided bus goes
“behind” the Regional College is safety
In questioning it was stated a 2 minute increase in time down Milton Road
would have an insignificant effect on patronage.
No evidence has been provided on why buses don’t need to enter the
Science Park .
3.2 We have already provided an estimate of the cost of The camToo project -it
is £15 - £20 million.
3.3 We agree there has been no analysis of the camToo proposals which is why
we asked for one. This is also because we were advised by the County that
only they had the methodology to carry out such an analysis.
3.4 The Infrastructure Partnership is now known as Cambridge Horizons. They
have agreed that a project of the nature of The camToo Project would match
the criteria for projects they will be undertaking.
3.5 The reduced speeds mentioned here means the difference in time going
and “behind” the Regional College as opposed to in front of it will be less than we
3.7 We would expect all the junctions to comply with whatever regulations there
We understand approximately 5,000 visit the Regional College on a daily
basis including 3,000 students as identified by the County.
Using the railway route means all will have to cross the path of the buses,
and unless a bridge is provided this must increase the risk of accidents given
that many of the students are of an age range with possibly the highest
accident record. We do not believe there will never be an accident in the 30
year lifespan of the guided bus, an accident that would not happen if the
camToo route was chosen.
3.8 In questioning it was stated a walking speed of 3 – 3.5 Km per hour. Has
been used. This means it will take 15 minutes to walk the maximum
distance. However clever the computer model used is, common sense says
that more people will walk 5 minutes to a bus stop than 15 minutes, hence
our claim that patronage would increase if the buses go through the Science
3.9 I have certainly queued over the level crossing when using Milton Road. If I
remember correctly the analysis was done on the assumption that only
inward bound buses cross Milton Road, it did not cover the case for buses
crossing Milton Road to access or egress from Chesterton Sidings.
3.10 This is a fine general statement, we agree entirely with elements of it.
However, in order for the Inspector to make a fully informed decision, we
believe that there should have been some attempt to identify what expansion
might occur, this is why we added a Supplement to our original Statement of
3.11 As described in our proposal, the statement that the current guideway does
not frustrate any configuration we believe to be inaccurate. By running down
the side of the proposed development any connection will be via a cul de sac
rather than a through route.
3.12, We accept these statements are about The camToo Project. We believe the
3.14, comments indicate further the constraints under which the design team have
3.15, been operating
3.13 Mr Menzies agreed that a dual carriageway with bus lanes down both sides
would provide higher quality public transport access than Milton Road – The
camToo Project uses the dual carriageway part of Newmarket Road and will
be quicker than Milton Road, particularly from Chesterton Sidings
4.2 We are extremely pleased to read that our proposals in general are not
4.3 incompatible with the guided bus proposals.
4.4 We have requested for the details referred to, but have not yet received them
– perhaps they were in the same envelope as the Rebuttal hence cannot
However in his original Proof of Evidence Mr Hughes quite clearly stated that
the 1991 JPM report demonstrated the viability of guided bus for
Cambridgeshire, that report proposed running alongside the railway line and
using Newmarket Road for access to the City Centre.
It did propose a high level bridge over Chesterton Fen Road and the river
Cam which we feel would be impractical – our proposal avoids the need for
this expensive and environmentally intrusive element.
The camToo Project was evaluated by Jackson Civil Engineering who have
recently been added to the approved list of contractors to the County Council.
They would be very happy to demonstrate that the project is practical and
deliverable. However they have not been involved in this submission to the
4.5 As explained in our Supplement, Parry People Movers have been under
development for several years. We have checked with John Parry and his
colleagues and they have no record of an approach by anyone from
Cambridgeshire hence must question the validity of this statement.
4.6 We listed what we understood were the objectives of the system in our
appendix 8. In particular we understood that a direct high quality route
through Cambridge to the station and on to Addenbrookes was one of these
hence the inclusion of such a route as a second phase in the bid for
government funding, with, to quote “in the interim road access to the centre of
Our reason for putting forward Parry People Movers is that appears to us the
only practical way of achieving the objective of a direct route, we agree with
the County’s statement that the guided bus cannot satisfy this objective.
As mentioned John Parry has no record of any approach from the guided bus
team hence we would like to see evidence for the statement that the Parry
People Mover could not provide adequate capacity, indeed Mr Parry refutes a
claim that his vehicles can not provide the same capacity as double decker
We suggested that the Parry People Move could indeed satisfy the areas
west of Northstowe up to St Ives. We further suggested that until there was
market research that there was a need for such a service the resources f the
team should be concentrated on providing a link to Northstowe which we
understand to be the prime objective of the busway – we are still waiting for
the answers to our questions on the implications of the busway not being in
place by the end of 2007 which has been quoted as being the start date for
We have also suggested that the needs further west than St Ives could be
satisfied by buses using the A14 and dedicated slip roads on and off the A14
where the guideway passes under it, pointing out that such a route, we
believe, would be attractive if the buses then used the camToo route to
access the City centre.
We have accepted the need for an interchange on the basis that it provides
maximum flexibility, avoids the need for tramlines in the City centre, and we
believe could avoid the need, at least initially, for any extra buses n the City
4.7 Our appendix 8 quite clearly states two options for bridging the Barnwell
Bridge – Coldham’s Lane gap
We further state the most expensive is to run the trams over the top of the
railway but that this opens up the opportunity of putting a rapid transit service
onto the Cambridge – Newmarket Line as it provides a graded junction from
that line over the main lines north.
We also state there is an alternative, indeed this is mentioned in our original
Statement of Case, and that is to use Newmarket Road and the beehive
Centre to bypass the double tracked section of railway between the two
4.8 I could respond in kind to what at first appears to be a couple of arrogant
patronising statements. However I think they underline our concerns that the
team have not been allowed to look beyond that desperate horizon of getting
the buses running before the first brick is laid at Northstowe.
We put forward appendix 8 more in sorrow than in anger as it has not been
our policy to appear to oppose the TWA outright – we believe kerb side
guided buses do have a role to play in the future development of public
transport in Cambridge and have proposed so.
Our reason for putting forward a combination is because that is the only way
we can see to achieve all the stated objects in the bid for government
As stated many times we believe the Inspector should be advised of the
possible consequences of whatever his recommendation is. In the absence
of such advice from the County we have endeavoured to provide possible
We specifically stated we have not costed the combined proposal – our
costings for The camToo Project have been provided by Jackson Civil
Engineering of Ipswich. Given that we ended up putting forward such a
radical change to the original proposal, and Jacksons are now an approved
potential contractor for the County, the last thing we would want to do is to
put that commercial arrangement at risk. I should therefore like to repeat
they have not therefore been involved at all in our submissions to this Inquiry.
Similarly I have already referred to the advice given to us that only the
County had access to the technology needed to estimate likely patronage
and hence never even considered trying to estimate it. However there is no
evidence that the County have either.
I resent the implications of the statement “relationships with Network Rail and
HMRI have not been considered”. I have been in touch with both in the last
4.9 No attempt has been made to explain why the proposals are impractical, or
Our proposals are indeed intended to serve the same prime destinations as
the guided bus, there would be no point in putting them forward otherwise,
although we do suggest some market research be carried out before existing
services such as the Trumpington Park & Ride – Cambridge centre service.
4.10 Summary – this is hardly surprising – however
The County Council has not provided reasons as to why the scheme does
not meet the needs of the area.
The County Council has not provided details of if or why it does not have the
support of the rail industry – I am happy to confirm that they do have very
considerable concerns but am unable to say more as the discussions were
on the basis their content was confidential.
Costing – I have already answered that
Engineering feasibility – ditto
Deliverability – the County Council has given no details for their conclusion
and does not appear to have researched it.
We put forward our appendix 8 more in sorrow than anger, it was not our
intention to be so radical. However the dramatic change in scope from the
bid for funding approved by the government led to concern that that funding
might be withdrawn if what was described as an interim measure was
actually permanent, - one of the key elements of the scheme presumably tied
up with a desire for Northstowe to house potential commuters to employment
south of Cambridge, a direct link to the station, could not be delivered by the
Everybody agrees there is a need for a quality public transport system for the
whole of the Cambridge sub-region. The scheme that is the subject of this
Inquiry will lay the foundations for that system and decide the technology /
technologies that will be used to deliver it. We expected the County would
have described their preferred view of the future and its implications to the
Inspector at the beginning of the Inquiry. We found no evidence of that and
therefore have attempted to bridge the gap.
To re-enforce our message please look at one of the last pages of our Project
Profile – the page that carries a picture of 20 children, the offspring of the first
ladies eight of the Champion of The Thames Boat Club in the Cambridge
Town Bumps in 2002.
To revise the caption – our objective is to provide a better future through
ensuring the economic prosperity and quality of life in Cambridge is
maintained through a better transport infrastructure.
Finally to plagiarise George Bernard Shaw
“You think and ask Why?, We dream and ask Why Not?” -
We don’t think that the County have answered that Why Not?
However there are two Why Nots
1) Withdrawal of government funding due to the abandonment of the
direct though route meaning the “interim” on road access becomes
permanent. We believe our appendices 7 and 8 show there is a
potentially feasible route using rail vehicles which should prevent any
2) Timing. We are not sure of the implications if the Inspector
recommends rejection. If it means acceptance of a recommendation
to reject results in another Public Inquiry then we cannot see how a
quality rapid transit system can be in place before the Northstowe
This in turn implies that the Deputy Prime Minister will over-rule any
such recommendation and calls into question the whole objective of