From eWatford Observer 2/5/08


Golden opportunity missed?

By John Harrison

Environmentalists have condemned the business plan behind the proposed
Croxley Rail Link, warning the county council could miss a "golden
opportunity" to finally get the long-awaited project on track.

Hertfordshire County Council, backed by Mayor Dorothy Thornhill and
Watford MP Claire Ward, presented its business case for the £95m
scheme to the Department for Transport (DfT) in February.

However, the bid was quickly rejected as being "non compliant" with
the Government's funding criteria.

The DfT said the application could not be considered for Government
cash until the flaws in the business plan were resolved.

In a letter sent to the county council the DfT said there was a lack
of evidence to show the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) - the
project's primary funder - could meet the current cost.

A spokesman for EERA told the Watford Observer this week that the
assembly had promised to invest £50m in the project.

Transport for London has previously promised a further £18m for the
scheme. However, the government is also seeking a clarification on
that promise.

Watford Friend's of the Earth has criticised the county council for
submitting an unsuitable business plan.

Alina Congreve planning advisor for the group said: "A lot of good
quality research is needed to make a sound case.

"The large redevelopment of the health campus is a golden opportunity
to show how many staff, patients and visitors would use the new rail
services.

"The Government has been highly critical of the quality of
Hertfordshire's bid for Government funding, with missing information
and a lack of up to date costs.

"Simply saying it would be a good thing without doing the work to
justify the rail link is not good enough."

Hertfordshire County Council this week said it had held a "productive
meeting" with the DfT, EERA as well as Claire Ward last month.

A council statement said the DfT has agreed to carry out a "limited
assessment" of the project and assess it against government "value for
money" criteria.

The statement read: "In the meantime, we will be working with London
Underground to identify the level of contribution it is able to make
into the project.

"This work will be undertaken between now and the end of May."

The county council said further discussions were scheduled in the
coming weeks.

It added that it expected a final decision to be made by "late
autumn".

Alina added that she felt it was time planners involved in the Watford
Health Campus publicly backed the Croxley Rail Link.

She said: "In the last two issues of the Watford Observer we have seen
two letters, one from Alastair Robertson (chief executive of Watford
Borough Council) and one from the project director of the health
campus, Kyle McClelland, in support of the hospital's new link road.

"So where is their vocal support for the Croxley Rail Link?"

.................................................. ................................

.................................................. ................................

John Burke

WRUG

On May 2, 6:40*am, wrote:
From eWatford Observer 2/5/08

Golden opportunity missed?

By John Harrison

Environmentalists have condemned the business plan behind the proposed
Croxley Rail Link, warning the county council could miss a "golden
opportunity" to finally get the long-awaited project on track.

Hertfordshire County Council, backed by Mayor Dorothy Thornhill and
Watford MP Claire Ward, presented its business case for the £95m
scheme to the Department for Transport (DfT) in February.

However, the bid was quickly rejected as being "non compliant" with
the Government's funding criteria.

The DfT said the application could not be considered for Government
cash until the flaws in the business plan were resolved.

In a letter sent to the county council the DfT said there was a lack
of evidence to show the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) - the
project's primary funder - could meet the current cost.

A spokesman for EERA told the Watford Observer this week that the
assembly had promised to invest £50m in the project.

Transport for London has previously promised a further £18m for the
scheme. However, the government is also seeking a clarification on
that promise.

Watford Friend's of the Earth has criticised the county council for
submitting an unsuitable business plan.

Alina Congreve planning advisor for the group said: "A lot of good
quality research is needed to make a sound case.

"The large redevelopment of the health campus is a golden opportunity
to show how many staff, patients and visitors would use the new rail
services.

"The Government has been highly critical of the quality of
Hertfordshire's bid for Government funding, with missing information
and a lack of up to date costs.

"Simply saying it would be a good thing without doing the work to
justify the rail link is not good enough."

Hertfordshire County Council this week said it had held a "productive
meeting" with the DfT, EERA as well as Claire Ward last month.

A council statement said the DfT has agreed to carry out a "limited
assessment" of the project and assess it against government "value for
money" criteria.

The statement read: "In the meantime, we will be working with London
Underground to identify the level of contribution it is able to make
into the project.

"This work will be undertaken between now and the end of May."

The county council said further discussions were scheduled in the
coming weeks.

It added that it expected a final decision to be made by "late
autumn".

Alina added that she felt it was time planners involved in the Watford
Health Campus publicly backed the Croxley Rail Link.

She said: "In the last two issues of the Watford Observer we have seen
two letters, one from Alastair Robertson (chief executive of Watford
Borough Council) and one from the project director of the health
campus, Kyle McClelland, in support of the hospital's new link road.

"So where is their vocal support for the Croxley Rail Link?"

.................................................. ..........................*......
This whole fiasco is starting to look like a comedy of errors. IIRC
this project has been reviewed several times over two decades.

The Croxley link offers tremendous value for money. For the cost of
one bridge and a mile or so of new track passengers will be offered
convenience and many new interchange possibilities. Yet not one foot
of new track has been laid.

This is stupidity gone to seed.

Quote For the cost of one bridge and a mile or so of new track

Well for £95m actually which makes it an incredibley expensive bridge and
mile of track.

Kevin

On 2 May, 17:33, 1506 wrote:
This is stupidity gone to seed.

Don't forget that if politicians were actually any good at getting
things done they'd all be in business earning a fortune. They can't ,
so instead they do a job where all they have to do is talk and make
empty promises. This is even more true for that bottom dwelling
species known as local councillers.

B2003

On May 2, 12:13*pm, "Zen83237" wrote:
Quote *For the cost of one bridge and a mile or so of new track

Well for £95m actually which makes it an incredibley expensive bridge and
mile of track.

Kevin

What WAS that price for a mile of motorway?

On 2 May, 20:13, "Zen83237" wrote:
Well for £95m actually which makes it an incredibley expensive bridge and
mile of track.

The "one bridge" is a 500 metre viaduct, because joining the two lines
directly isn't possible without a sharp turn and a far bit of
demolition. Plus add two new high-spec stations.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:37:53 -0700 (PDT), Boltar
wrote:

On 2 May, 17:33, 1506 wrote:
This is stupidity gone to seed.

Don't forget that if politicians were actually any good at getting
things done they'd all be in business earning a fortune.

ITYF quite a few of them already are.

They can't ,
so instead they do a job where all they have to do is talk and make
empty promises. This is even more true for that bottom dwelling
species known as local councillers.

B2003

"1506" wrote in message
...
On May 2, 12:13 pm, "Zen83237" wrote:
Quote For the cost of one bridge and a mile or so of new track

Well for £95m actually which makes it an incredibley expensive bridge and
mile of track.

Kevin

What WAS that price for a mile of motorway?

Roads are a hell of a lot cheaper in England and elsewhere. For the very
high cost of rail, it only carries about 5% of the people in England.
Brits are really ****ed with all rail building draining money from roads
along with causing high congestions and the crumbling of the roads. Go tell
them your opinions at uk.transport and see how they attack you with your
highly destructive opinions.

http://www.transwatch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-8.htm

1.. Tables 6.2 and 4.1 of Transport statistics Great Britain 2004 provides
41 billion passenger-km and 19 billion tonne-km via national rail. Dividing
the passengers by 20 yields 2.05bn coach-km. Dividing the freight by 15
yields 1.27 lorry-km. Adding the two yields 3.32bn (bus plus lorry)-km.
Maintenance and renewals for the system may be running at between £2 and £3
billion annually for the decade (Table 8.2 of Network Management Statement
2001). On that basis the cost per equivalent bus/lorry vehicle-km has the
range (60-90) pence. (If the equivalent bus flows are eliminated from the
sum on the basis that it would be lorries that do the damage then the cost
has the range (157-236) pence per equivalent lorry-km). Alternatively divide
the £(2-3) billion by the 32,000 km of track length and get £62,000- £94,000
per track-km per year. Alternatively again, if we set one tonne as
equivalent to one passenger then the infrastructure maintenance cost per
(passenger + tonne)-km has the range 3.3 pence to 5 pence.

a..
1.. For roads we here consider the Motorway and Trunk road Network only.
All maintenance costs are assigned to the heavier class of lorries, namely 4
axle rigids, and all artics, since it is those classes of vehicle that do
most of the structural damage. Further maintenance costs have been set to
the current account cost plus half the capital expenditure on the basis of
discussions with the DfT. On that basis the emboldened data in table
following show:
1.. (a)
That the cost per lorry-km was 12 pence (compared with the (60-90)
pence by rail).
(b) The annual cost per lane km has the range £25,000-£33,000
(compared with £62,000-94,000 per track-km for rail).
(c) The cost per (person + tonne)-km is 0.5 pence, one-sixth to
one-tenth the value for rail.



1.. The comparison is biased in favour of rail since (a) buses on trunk
roads and motorways amount to one tenth of the heavy lorry flow but are
ignored when calculating the factors (b) substantial elements of road
maintenance such as signs, lighting, verges, hard shoulders, winter
maintenance, and some wear and tear should be attributed to vehicles other
than to lorries alone.

Jack May wrote:

Brits are really ****ed with all rail building draining money from roads
along with causing high congestions and the crumbling of the roads.

When most of Britain's railways were built, crumbled was the natural
state of most of the roads.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13857114.html
(31 138 at Birmingham New Street, Oct 1987)

On 3 May, 01:20, "Jack May" wrote:


What a load of complete tosh.