Rebuttal to the rebuttal

Document Sample
Rebuttal to the rebuttal Powered By Docstoc
					                             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
3.6    envisaged.

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
       Park stands.
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
        comment directly.

        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
      guided buses.

      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
       two weeks.

4.9    No attempt has been made to explain why the proposals are impractical, or
       without merit.

       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
guided bus.

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
        this Inquiry.

Shared By: