East-West Rail (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]

[richieb1971]

This project does actually show the UK for what it really is. Along with Brexit, hs2, building nuclear power stations. It really does take a couple of generations to get things going.

And like Brexit will we get what the majority voted for or what someone thinks is best? If we get a vote for any future referendum or railway will it be worth voting based on the outcome of what went previously?

 

[DarloRich]

This project does actually show the UK for what it really is. Along with Brexit, hs2, building nuclear power stations. It really does take a couple of generations to get things going.

And like Brexit will we get what the majority voted for or what someone thinks is best? If we get a vote for any future referendum or railway will it be worth voting based on the outcome of what went previously?

what are you on about? You keep posting silly things like this.I wish you would try to understand the concepts involved. The reason nuclear power stations, for instance, are taking ages is public finance or more accurately the desire of the government to have someone else pay for building the things.

Brexit is taking a long time because it is really hard to sort out, despite what you were told and chose to believe. Brexit wont make Britain in to the kind of fantasy island you desire. It may well make public infrastructure projects harder to deliver.

 

[richieb1971]

I find it hard to grasp how talking for years solves anything. My post was more to do with time spent talking between what is needed or voted on and the outcome that comes of it. That is not silly.

EWR has councils and public feedbacks and I was wondering if the majority vote decision will be built or it will be over ruled by a higher order.

 

[swt_passenger]

I find it hard to grasp how talking for years solves anything. My post was more to do with time spent talking between what is needed or voted on and the outcome that comes of it. That is not silly.

EWR has councils and public feedbacks and I was wondering if the majority vote decision will be built or it will be over ruled by a higher order.

TWA order applications are not ‘voted on’ by anyone. The inspector makes a yes/no recommendation to the Secretary of State.

 

[bspahh]

I find it hard to grasp how talking for years solves anything. My post was more to do with time spent talking between what is needed or voted on and the outcome that comes of it. That is not silly.

EWR has councils and public feedbacks and I was wondering if the majority vote decision will be built or it will be over ruled by a higher order.

The Ely Southern bypass had been in planning stages for years. Then with funding, the development was pushed through. James Palmer (now the mayor of Cambridgeshire), said how he wanted the building to start ASAP, rather than waiting for engineering reports or he would withdraw £1m of funding from his budget.

They pressed ahead and saved a month, but then found that they needed deeper foundations, and the project cost ~ 50% more than had been planned.

If they had waited for more detailed reports, they would have still needed the deeper foundations, but they might have been able to trim some costs elsewhere in the project.

 

[edwin_m]

If they had waited for more detailed reports, they would have still needed the deeper foundations, but they might have been able to trim some costs elsewhere in the project.

If they didn't find out until they started digging, then I guess they must have had to re-design it and the contractor would have claimed for abortive and additional work, all of which would have cost much more than if they'd known what was needed before the contract was signed. I'd also be very surprised if it ended up taking less time than planned.

 

[richieb1971]

TWA order applications are not ‘voted on’ by anyone. The inspector makes a yes/no recommendation to the Secretary of State.

Then why has EWR asked for consultations on routes? Is it just a box ticking exercise? The central route was originally going south of Bedford (via Wixams/Bedford parkway south) to Sandy and eastwards from there. The overall majority of people I've spoken to want BDM on the route (not my choice, I want Wixams/Bedford south parkway). The mayor of Bedford is rallying people around BDM getting the route.

So what I want to know is if this public opinion means anything in the grand scheme of things.

 

[swt_passenger]

Then why has EWR asked for consultations on routes? Is it just a box ticking exercise? The central route was originally going south of Bedford (via Wixams/Bedford parkway south) to Sandy and eastwards from there. The overall majority of people I've spoken to want BDM on the route (not my choice, I want Wixams/Bedford south parkway). The mayor of Bedford is rallying people around BDM getting the route.

So what I want to know is if this public opinion means anything in the grand scheme of things.

A consultation is what it is, not a referendum, it doesn’t generally get put to the vote at any stage. TfL even went to the trouble of reminding people of this a few years ago, I can’t remember which of their projects this was though.

 

[Bald Rick]

There’s a saying in civil engineering:

You pay for your ground investigations whether you do them or not.

 

[Bald Rick]

Then why has EWR asked for consultations on routes? Is it just a box ticking exercise? The central route was originally going south of Bedford (via Wixams/Bedford parkway south) to Sandy and eastwards from there. The overall majority of people I've spoken to want BDM on the route (not my choice, I want Wixams/Bedford south parkway). The mayor of Bedford is rallying people around BDM getting the route.

So what I want to know is if this public opinion means anything in the grand scheme of things.

A consultation is what it is, not a referendum, it doesn’t generally get put to the vote at any stage. TfL even went to the trouble of reminding people of this a few years ago, I can’t remember which of their projects this was though.

It is a requirement in planning law that people affected by a development of any type* have the opportunity to comment on the proposals. And the definition of ‘affected’ has no limit. When it comes to an application for an order under the Transport and Works Act, or a Development Consent Order, or even a hybrid bill, if any party can show that they weren’t given the opportunity to comment the whole thing is immediately invalid. Also, if any party makes a reasonable comment in good faith that the promoter ignores without due reason, then that is also grounds for the inspector / Parliament to either rule in the commenters favour, or again throw the whole thing out.

*except those covered by permitted development rights, which are rather limited.

 

[swt_passenger]

It is a requirement in planning law that people affected by a development of any type* have the opportunity to comment on the proposals. And the definition of ‘affected’ has no limit. When it comes to an application for an order under the Transport and Works Act, or a Development Consent Order, or even a hybrid bill, if any party can show that they weren’t given the opportunity to comment the whole thing is immediately invalid. Also, if any party makes a reasonable comment in good faith that the promoter ignores without due reason, then that is also grounds for the inspector / Parliament to either rule in the commenters favour, or again throw the whole thing out.

*except those covered by permitted development rights, which are rather limited.

Agreed entirely, but what we wouldn’t generally see is a choice between routes being put directly to a public vote, referendum style, in the context of post #2852.

 

[Bald Rick]

Agreed entirely, but what we wouldn’t generally see is a choice between routes being put directly to a public vote, referendum style, in the context of post #2852.

Agreed, although... public opinion from consultation does carry weight in the option selection process. If 99% of the public said that option X was preferred, then there would have to be a very very good reason to build a different option.

 

[swt_passenger]

Agreed, although... public opinion from consultation does carry weight in the option selection process. If 99% of the public said that option X was preferred, then there would have to be a very very good reason to build a different option.

Yes sure, but taking public input via consultation feedback. It may be that that was what richieb1971 was getting at...

 

[70014IronDuke]

This project does actually show the UK for what it really is. Along with Brexit, hs2, building nuclear power stations. It really does take a couple of generations to get things going.
...

We could do it like they do in China - they get things done very quickly.
Just a shame if it happens to be your house in the way of the new High-speed line, motorway or hydropower lake.
Never mind, sacrifice for the people, Mao said.

 

[richieb1971]

We could do it like they do in China - they get things done very quickly.
Just a shame if it happens to be your house in the way of the new High-speed line, motorway or hydropower lake.
Never mind, sacrifice for the people, Mao said.

Thought about this before since it has come up many times. The UK should have a law that if its only farm land, or a house that sits alone that any railway could be built on top of near it.

As a democracy the home only has up to 8 people in it, which means 8 votes against all the rest.

If your talking about a whole suburb, town or city. I would say places should be protected. Since there are a lot of homes, schools and shops and it affects many people. But in all my life (even HS2 doesn't do this) have I heard of any railway in the world doing such a thing.

What we have in the UK is a law which protects individuals for the most part, who have the power of veto'ing a railway on the grounds that one home/building is in the way. Move it somewhere else.

 

[richieb1971]

Yes sure, but taking public input via consultation feedback. It may be that that was what richieb1971 was getting at...

Yes exactly. And I'm wondering if as i've read in the posts before this one that if Bedfordshire wants BDM on the route, Sandy gets the nod, Cambridgeshire wants Cambourne on the route if we will have this kind of upsy downsy snakes and ladders style affair. Because thats what I'm reading. It all seems like someones vote is going to be granted and others may not.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes exactly. And I'm wondering if as i've read in the posts before this one that if Bedfordshire wants BDM on the route, Sandy gets the nod, Cambridgeshire wants Cambourne on the route if we will have this kind of upsy downsy snakes and ladders style affair. Because thats what I'm reading. It all seems like someones vote is going to be granted and others may not.

But this is not “voting” in the generally accepted sense, ie with some form of ballot and count...

 

[Bald Rick]

Thought about this before since it has come up many times. The UK should have a law that if its only farm land, or a house that sits alone that any railway could be built on top of near it.

As a democracy the home only has up to 8 people in it, which means 8 votes against all the rest.

If your talking about a whole suburb, town or city. I would say places should be protected. Since there are a lot of homes, schools and shops and it affects many people. But in all my life (even HS2 doesn't do this) have I heard of any railway in the world doing such a thing.

What we have in the UK is a law which protects individuals for the most part, who have the power of veto'ing a railway on the grounds that one home/building is in the way. Move it somewhere else.

Nobody has a veto. They just have the opportunity to have their say.

To put it another way, how would you feel if someone said they were going to build a dual carriageway through your house, when there was a perfectly decent open space next to it, but you weren’t allowed to have a say?

 

[richieb1971]

I'd say knock my house down and pay me.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'd say knock my house down and pay me.

Pay you what though? Market price? Market price in a no-project world? Market price plus compensation?

 

[richieb1971]

Pay you what though? Market price? Market price in a no-project world? Market price plus compensation?

Like for like is fine. 1/2 mile down the road...

 

[Bald Rick]

Like for like is fine. 1/2 mile down the road...

Well fair play to you. However, you are very much in the minority!

 

[bspahh]

Then why has EWR asked for consultations on routes? Is it just a box ticking exercise? The central route was originally going south of Bedford (via Wixams/Bedford parkway south) to Sandy and eastwards from there. The overall majority of people I've spoken to want BDM on the route (not my choice, I want Wixams/Bedford south parkway). The mayor of Bedford is rallying people around BDM getting the route.

So what I want to know is if this public opinion means anything in the grand scheme of things.

The current TWA orders are for the Western section. It is a project with funding in place, and its likely to happen.

The consultation is about the Central section. It doesn't have a budget. It might happen. Anything that makes it more expensive will either need to earn payments from house builders, or from future governments that are likely to have a lot of other worries.

 

[gingerheid]

Well fair play to you. However, you are very much in the minority!

Likewise. I swore that when I got a property I'd never be one of those selfish people that suddenly decides nobody else needs one.

My property is built on land that once wasn't built on, and when that land was built on it decreased the amenity of people around it. The infrastructure I used to get everyone I go (whether cycle path, guided busway, road or railway) uses land that once wasn't built on. The journeys I make increase crowding and congestion for people that made those journeys before I did, the goods and services that come to my property bring lorries to roads.

For as long as there are people that need housing (which there are) I will only accept arguments against it from people that can truthfully say they live in places that have none of those characteristics. When I hear arguments like that new houses in Cambourne (Cambridgeshire) would be an over-development that would harm the character of the village, or people that have cars that find the A14 roadworks annoying, or whatever I tell people exactly what I think.

If one day the A14 (or better still a railway line) needs to come through my property then I would say that it should, and that they should get me a similar property as close as possible to in the same area.

 

[richieb1971]

If one day the A14 (or better still a railway line) needs to come through my property then I would say that it should, and that they should get me a similar property as close as possible to in the same area.

That sounds like common sense. I agree that some people will anchor down and try their best to stop a project if it means their home is uprooted. Personally my house is somewhere I live. I'm not attached to it. If my home was in the way I would gladly see it demolished in favour of letting the project get the green light.

I'm not saying we should have Chinese law here in the UK. I'm saying that in some cases the greater good should win the day and people should not block progress on the basis of a single or even a few dwellings that sit too close a new alignment.

 

[mwmbwls]

http://www.cambridge-connect.uk/wp-...03/EW-Rail-Mar2019-CambridgeConnect-v1-LR.pdf

The promoters of Cambridge Connect - a light rail system for Cambridge have published their response to the EWR proposals and mapped the latter on to their ideas for a step change in Cambridge's internal connectivity. Considered as a logical "and" rather than an "either/or" choice, they make a persuasive case for a southern approach to Cambridge for EWR leaving the Cambourne route to the Metro.

 

[si404]

Considered as a logical "and" rather than an "either/or" choice, they make a persuasive case for a southern approach to Cambridge for EWR leaving the Cambourne route to the Metro.

No, it's because they see things as either/or that they don't want a via Cambourne route.

They also say that direct St Neots-Cambridge service should exist, but shouldn't be heavy rail as heavy rail doesn't serve all the villages in between. It's classic false dichotomy thinking - that there can only be one service between two places, so either you have fast heavy rail, or local light rail, but you can't have both.

Where they are convincing about not serving Cambourne with E-W Rail is when they say "because we're going to Cambourne, but aren't going to Bassingbourn, serving the latter is a good idea".

 

[Richard Ingram]

No, it's because they see things as either/or that they don't want a via Cambourne route.

They also say that direct St Neots-Cambridge service should exist, but shouldn't be heavy rail as heavy rail doesn't serve all the villages in between. It's classic false dichotomy thinking - that there can only be one service between two places, so either you have fast heavy rail, or local light rail, but you can't have both.

Where they are convincing about not serving Cambourne with E-W Rail is when they say "because we're going to Cambourne, but aren't going to Bassingbourn, serving the latter is a good idea".

I'm not sure it's a false dichotomy, you could have Cambourne served by heavy rail and metro, but it might cause a drop in the cost/benefit of both, and the document suggests that since the commuters from Cambourne are mostly headed to the West Cambridge site and Science Park, so using heavy rail to Cambridge Central, then another mode from there would make public transport less appealing.

I think they have a point, EWR is meant to be a long distance route, not a local commuter route. Serve Bassingbourn, since you can hopefully get money from the developers for the project, and people who want to live in Bassingbourn are more likely to work in the south of Cambridge, so a rail link to Cambridge South(Addenbrookes Hospital) is more attractive.

Cambourne already exists, and once the A428 is upgraded is on a fast road to the West, and hopefully if a metro system is built, they would have a single mode public transport link to the areas of Cambridge they most want to get to.

I personally am in favour of route A, although I do understand people who want Bedford Central on the route. But I think Cambourne is not the best use of the project.

 

[si404]

the document suggests that since the commuters from Cambourne are mostly headed to the West Cambridge site and Science Park, so using heavy rail to Cambridge Central, then another mode from there would make public transport less appealing.

You've continued the false dichotomy here, that if Cambourne is served by E-W Rail, the Metro won't exist (even though your scenario has both) - there's zero reason why people would take E-W Rail from Cambourne to Cambridge and change onto the Metro to get to the Science Park if there's the Metro running directly there from Cambourne!

Cambourne on both E-W Rail and Cambridge Metro allows people from Bedfordshire to change there to get to the Science Park and West Cambridge site, rather than having them go via Central Cambridge, or (much more likely) drive. The interchange creates additional benefit and makes public transport more appealing, not the opposite.

That all said, serving Bassingbourn is the better option. What I'm objecting to is that Cambourne is being rejected by people for nonsense reasons, rather than Bassingbourn being pushed for better reasons.

 

[Mordac]

We could do it like they do in China - they get things done very quickly.
Just a shame if it happens to be your house in the way of the new High-speed line, motorway or hydropower lake.
Never mind, sacrifice for the people, Mao said.

There is a balance to be struck. In the UK, the pendulum has swung too far to the side of NIMBYs, while in China, it's obviously too much on the side of developers.

If someone is adversely affected by a development, they should be fairly compensated. But they should not be allowed to hold up nationally necessary projects for years with endless appeals and consultations.