21 January, 2024

BFARe is a grassroots campaign comprised of nine Parish Councils, concerned residents and environmentalists fighting against East West Rail’s preferred Route E through Bedford and North of Bedford. We are working to influence the Government, Bedford Borough Council and East West Rail to reconsider this environmentally destructive route and make a better choice for Bedford.

BFARe was formed in early 2020, following considerable local public concern about EWRCo’s route proposal and the flawed non-statutory consultation (NSC) which had taken place in 2019. The comparative route costing information for the five EWRCo presented route options through Bedford Borough had been manipulated to favour Route E and this is of extreme relevance for the work of BFARe.

It is our firm belief that, since 2019, all EWRCo route consultations and public communications have been based on a false prospectus of Route E being the best route for Bedford Borough.

BFARe members voluntarily devote considerable time and energy into investigating and challenging EWRCo’s proposals, using their own local knowledge, experience and technical and professional expertise. Our responses to the May 2021 Alignment NSC, the 2023 Route Update Announcement and our own Technical Papers reflect the hard work by BFARe’s supporters.

Our work continues to provide the public with important and factually correct information regarding the considerable and unnecessary damage of Route E in contrast to the taxpayer-funded juggernaut of EWRCo PR and marketing.

With regard to the current Non-Statutory Consultation, it is worth re-emphasising some obvious facts. 

Uniquely along the whole of the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, EWRCo has chosen to:

• Force a new railway right through Bedford Town, a highly congested urban area.
• Inflict a decade of untold congestion and disruption on daily lives and the economic welfare of the town during the construction period
• Demolish people’s homes
• Adversely affect essential local services such as hospital car parking
• Destroy high-quality agricultural land and rural countryside in North Bedfordshire, and compromise operational performance (because of steep gradients)

All of the above is for no proven economic benefit to Bedford nor for any rail commuter or freight transport advantage, even when using EWRCo’s own figures. 

EWRCo’s proposals in Bedford and North Bedfordshire are highly risky in terms of delivery, timescales, cost, and inflation, and offer no “growth” advantage over the BFARe alternative. Attempting to engineer a railway line through uniquely unsuited and difficult terrain adds to this risk and creates many compromises during construction and rail operations that future generations will find difficult to understand, particularly when a better alternative existed. 

EWRCo’s proposals represent a classic example of the “sunk-cost fallacy”. 2

The BFARe route proposal can be delivered with less risk and at lower cost, up to £1billion cheaper than Route E. 

The Complete BFARe NSC Response can be found at this link.

BFARe Technical and Communications Teams

press@bfare.org.uk

1 Brickhill PC, Clapham PC, Colmworth PC, Great Barford PC, Ravensden PC, Renhold PC, Roxton PC, Wilden PC, and Wyboston, Colesden and Chawston PC. BFARE is also supported by other parish councils and Bedford Borough Council ward members across north Bedfordshire not directly affected by the route proposals crossing their parishes but nevertheless concerned at the wider implications for their own areas. 

2 A reluctance to abandon a strategy or course of action because there has already been heavy investment in it, even where it is clear that abandonment would be more beneficial.  

The post BFARe Response to the third EWR Non Statutory Consultation appeared first on BFARe.

15 November, 2024

Over the past few months, BFARe has been very busy obtaining detailed Route E maps from East West Rail through the Freedom of Information process.  We carried out this work as it was evident that the scale of the Route E construction project had not been disclosed although was already known.  The EWR maps and the BFARe analysis can be found on our web site here:- https://bfare.org.uk/bfare-latest-news-and-research/.

The new EWR non-statutory consultation documents further confirm just how much Bedford and our local environment will greatly feel the effects from the construction process and on-going rail operations.

Bedfordians have been feeling the impact of the East West Rail project for years.  The blight experienced by home and landowners is real, and to many, it is devastating.  Impacted Bedford residents are often without adequate assistance and support from their local elected officials.  

Bedford Borough Council promoted and approved Route E.  BFARe calls upon the council to now reconsider this decision.  There are alternative East West Rail route options which serve Bedford town that must be properly considered without undue pressure from those that made the original Route E decision.

HS2 is an example of how both the DfT and local officials have got things wrong at the expense of the taxpayer billions.  The DfT must learn the lessons from HS2 and stop making the same mistakes regarding blight, cost underestimates and overspend.  The Labour government need to question the Route E decision as it is clear that building a winding, damaging, indirect and expensive route is not exactly the best use of taxpayer funds.

What do we know about the new non-Statutory Consultation?

• Mapping information is much improved on previous consultations but gives little indication of how the extensive civil engineering involved in constructing the railway through the heart of the mature town of Bedford and elsewhere will be managed with any degree of acceptability.
• The claim of “green energy” fuelling the trains as announced is only feasible for passenger services, not freight.  According to EWR estimates, there will be 12 additional diesel freight trains per day travelling each way through the centre of Bedford.
• The number of homes in the Poets area to be affected has been increased to 75 properties.   
• This is the second time EWR has unilaterally changed what was consulted upon previously. They have now just announced their preferred route will cross the A1 Black Cat area without giving the public prior awareness.  This destroys public confidence in what EWR attempt to portray as an industry leading public marketing exercise.

We ask all Bedfordians to engage with this non-statutory consultation.  We will be producing further documentation and information to help.  The East West Rail project will cause years of upheaval for all Bedfordians at the expense of local mass housing and Cambridge Science Park growth.  

The economic growth that East West Rail will generate for Bedford remains unclear, and without a business case, the benefit of new East West rail transport remains wholly unproven. What we do know is that Bedford will experience years of construction blight, additional commuter traffic and EWR diesel freight running through our polluted town centre.

BFARe Communications Team

press@bfare.org.uk

The post Third EWR Non-Statutory Consultation Release appeared first on BFARe.

24 October, 2024

David Hughes, the new CEO of EWR Co (since June) met with BFARe and local representatives on Tue 22 Oct for a close look at the challenges faced by EWR and the impacted Bedfordshire communities between the Midland and East Coast Mainlines. 

The group from EWR travelled to points along Route E prior to a presentation from BFARe. They stopped at the Fairhill locality (near the Sainsbury roundabout) and three further topographically challenging areas. A final view was then given to the South of Bedford showing the flat expanse of South Bedfordshire beyond the Great Ouse River. 

All of these topigraphical points were discussed at each stopping point.

A final presentation and parting words at Roxton Village Hall concluded EWR’s three hour visit with BFARe.

David Hughes was left in no doubt about the difficult and potentially extremely costly construction challenges of Route E and was appreciative of the chance to see up close for the first time the issues that EWR have consistently glossed over.  His staff will have briefed him in general terms but it was obvious to us that he was presented with additional dimensions of concern that had not previously been brought to his attention.

The group photo on arrival at Fairhill shows from the left:

Steve Arnold BFARe

Will Gallagher Strategy Director,

Rob Milner Project Manager CS3

Mo Alserdare Project Manager Bedford Town

David Hughes CEO

Peter Norris BFARe

Colleen Atkins Ward Cllr Harpur

Zara Layne Ward Cllr Harpur

Eric Cooper BFARe and Clapham PC

Sarah Jacobs LRG Engagement Manager took the photo

Further local participants included Phillipa Simms Clapham PC Chair, Keren Wilkins Claphan Park residents, Bernadette Russell Ravensden PC Chair, Cllr John Mabberley, Cllr Gordon Johnston and Justin Griffiths Roxton PC Chair.

During the final discussion, David Hughes stressed that there was still a hard core of support within the treasury for the EWR concept.  He also indicated that he had recently met with the Bedfordshire Hospitals Board of Directors who has expressed satisfaction with the planned improvements in the vicinity of the Bedford hospital South site.

All eyes will be on the Chancellor next Wednesday to learn if the government are willing to agree further funding of this project.  If EWR receive the go ahead they will endeavour to launch the planned Non-Statutory Consultation before Christmas.

Bedford Independent took the above BFARe statement and made contextual changes in conjunction with input from EWR as seen in their report on the same topic (Bedford Independent “East West Rail chief exec thanks campaigners for “honest and frank” discussion”). BFARe have written the attached open letter to the Bedford Independent in response to this action.

Please contact BFARe for any further information.

BFARe Technical Team

press@bfare.org.uk

The post BFARe Meet with East West Rail CEO appeared first on BFARe.

9 September, 2024

Two new EWR Plan Profile Drawings concerning Bedford town centre construction have been released through the Freedom of Information process.  The town drawings are in addition to those already obtained through FOI for the area from Clapham to Tempsford as BFARe recently published.

The new maps provide further information and pieces of the EWR construction process that Bedfordians will experience including:

The information above is in addition to that provided through the Jacobs Construction Assessment Report (BFARe press release on 28 August 2024) which included the following detail: 

• Demolition and rebuilding of four key bridges into and out of town- In the order: Ampthill Road, Bromham Road, Cauldwell Street and Ford End Road. These works will require full road closures on a rolling basis over at least six years.
• Possession of the larger part of Bedford Hospital’s car park will be taken for construction activities with no plans for an alternative solution to meet the needs of those using or working at the hospital. Hospital officials are already on record stating that the hospital cannot function without a car park.
• Use of Bedford’s roads for the transport of materials for construction from the A1 and M1 will add to the unbearable congestion and pollution resulting from road closures and the subsequent diversion route.
• The demolition of homes in the Poet’s area as the six-track option is confirmed.

Detailed EWR Bedford Town Plan Profile Drawings

The Bedford town plan profile drawings were received on 4 Sep 2024 and cover the area of the Jacobs Construction Assessment Report dated May 2023 as released by BFARe with explanatory notes. 

The plan profile maps are more specific in identifying the red line peripheral boundary of the construction effort in each affected area.  Most significantly however they detail the construction proposals within the Fairhill (Sainsbury’s Roundabout) area which were not included on any previous map or drawing.

The 2 pdf drawings have significant overlap margins with adjacent drawings and should be studied in conjunction with the previous Jacobs report.  As with the initial series of Plan Profile Drawings they are dated Feb 2022, just 8 months after the closure of the Alignment Non-Statutory Consultation and 15 months prior to the Jacobs report which itself was part of the process which led to the Route Update Announcement publicised in May 2023.

Sainsbury’s Roundabout area Detailed EWR Map (EWR_PGM-ARU-ZZ-XX-SC-C-000311)

The complete EWR map of the Sainsbury’s Roundabout area is available in pdf format here and is capable of infinite magnification to study detail. 

For convenience, BFARe have extracted the Fairhill section of the EWR detailed map (below) and annotated with place and road names to help the reader orientate with the drawing.

Previously seen drawings only covered the Bedford side of Fairhill and to the Northeast beyond the Paula Radcliffe Way viaduct onto the flood plain.  This drawing reveals:

• The turnout of the EWR tracks from the MML
• The tracks passing under the Great Ouse Way (GOW) and over the Paula Radcliffe Way (PRW)
• The need to build a new alignment of the GOW way with its new bridge over the MML in order to achieve the required rail underbridge beneath whilst allowing continuous use of the GOW
• The extent of the local area required to support construction (purple) compounds
• The use of the Fairhill road as a haul route to the EWR compounds – this road serves Aldi, Brewpoint and the recently built McDonald’s Drive-Thru
• Existing accesses between the strip of land between the GOW and the river to both the GOW and the PRW will be used
• The relocation of the National Power distribution facility which is planned as an early task in the project probably coinciding with the first moves to realign the GOW
• There is no haul access to the flood plain shown but it is almost certainly in this area
• Drawing -410 shows more of the flood plain and indicates EWR interest in The Ford and Lower Farm Road (into Clapham and Bromham respectively) but these are not suitable for heavy equipment.
• It is not known where the component parts of the viaduct will be manufactured (this drawing shows the viaduct to be 1.2km in length).

Midland Station and Hospital Area Detailed EWR Map (EWR_PGM-ARU-ZZ-XX-SC-C-000310)

The detailed EWR drawing of the Midland Station and hospital area of Bedford is available complete here extends from -311 southwards covering Poets, Midland station, the south of Ford End sidings complex and the Bedford Hospital/St Johns station area. 

In respect of Poets the drawing adds little information that is not covered within the Jacobs Construction Assessment Report or other existing plans published with the Route Update documentation in May 2023.  The sidings area between Ford End Bridge and the river crossings are virtually self-contained so not specifically explored here. 

Similarly, the plan to relocate the 5 Jowett 12-car train set sidings from this area to the Cauldwell Maintenance Facility involves moving into an area constrained by the facility and the adjacent MML.  This site is used by Bedford Timber Supplies Ltd and a range of small businesses plus a scrap yard.  It would appear that all businesses may need to be purchased and any land left at the end of the project used towards the Biodiversity 10% net gain requirement.

The above extract BFARe has taken from the detailed EWR drawing covers Bromham Bridge through Midland station to the Ford End Bridge. These bridges are the second and last to be rebuilt in the sequence of 4 bridges.

Of particular note in this section:

• There remains uncertainty over the provision of interim parking pending the final provision.
• So much of the available ground is required for construction it is not easy to visualize a satisfactory solution which will allow construction to proceed without unmanageable degradation of personal movement whether on foot, by cycle, by car or even by train
• The whole length of Ashburnham Road from the station to Ford End and part of Midland Road are designated as haul routes which raises the issue of impact on the residences and businesses which front onto this road
• In particular the slender triangle of properties to the south of Midland Station are oppressed both front and rear by the adjacent enforced work access

BFARe has created the extract above to cover the busy area of Bedford which is bounded by the Ampthill Road bridge (first to be worked on) and Cauldwell Street bridge (3^rd in line). This extract includes Bedford Hospital eastern frontage and most of its off-site parking which is to the West of Britannia Street along with the existing and proposed St Johns stations and associated track realignment. It was discussed in respect of the Jacobs Construction Assessment Report which described the works involved.  This drawing gives more precise indications of the areas of land take intended.  It also includes a more detailed description of the likely footprint of the new station.

Key points include:

• The new station is shown connected to the same carpark used by the existing station
• Hundreds of parking slots are sacrificed to the new EWR layout with no indication of mitigation both during construction and into the future
• Interestingly the Bedford Council Offices front car park becomes a project compound
• The major works, particularly on Cauldwell Street bridge and the adjacent junction with Prebend Street must carry a risk to ambulance emergency response times

Please contact BFARe for any further information.

BFARe Technical Team

press@bfare.org.uk

The post Bedford Town Centre EWR Plan Profile Drawings appeared first on BFARe.

28 August, 2024

The East West Rail Co Bedford town area constructional impact assessment has now been released through the Freedom of Information process.

A link to this report can be found here. https://bfare.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/CS-00200147.pdf

Jacobs Construction Advisory Team created the Construction Assessment Report, dated May 2023, at the time of the EWR Route Update Announcement.

Example Image from Report

Please see full report for complete detail and explanation

Report Geographical Coverage: 

From the pedestrian bridge over the Marston Vale Line (MVL) Ampthill Rd to Elstow Rd link along the MVL to Midland station then on to the Fairhill turnout (specifically the McDonalds Drive-Thru on the Clapham roundabout).  It also covers the Cauldwell Govia Thameslink Railway Depot adjacent to Cauldwell Walk.

Report Scope:

• Compounds and Logistics – Public road connections between work activities and the M1 and A1
• Relocation of Jowett sidings to Cauldwell Railway Depot
• Sequential bridge reconstruction order and timescale
• Hospital area proposals – realignment of MVL and relocation of St Johns
• Realignment of MVL through the Ford End sidings complex
• Midland Station redesign
• Poets Area 6-tracking
• Fairhill turnout

BFARe comments:

• The extensive work package in the hospital area requiring the larger part of their adjacent parking area with no mention of replacement parking, multi story or other mitigating options. 
• Confirmed destruction of homes and existing amenities through the Poets neighbourhood including the requirement for two new EWR tracks to be built (making it six tracks in total through the Poets Neighbourhood).
• Reconstruction / movement of essential Bedford arterial roads for Bedford including realignment of the Paula Radcliffe Way (actually the Great Ouse Way) by building a temporary haul route bridge across the river at Fairhill. 
• The town bridges construction sequence totals 6 elapsed years and is:
  • Ampthill Rd bridge Jan – Dec 2027
  • Bromham Rd Bridge – single lane Dec 2077 – Aug 2028 Demolish rebuild to Apr 2029 then single lane operation till Jun 2029
  • Cauldwell Rd bridge single lane May 2029 – Dec 2029.  Demolish/rebuild plus remodelling Prebend E/W junction Jun 2030 – Sep 2031
  • Ford End bridge Preparation Oct 2031 full closure Dec 2031 – Dec 2032
• A 3^rd EWR track under Ford End Road bridge (splitting off from EWR DN south of Ford End bridge) passing through new Midland Station platform A and rejoining EWR DN track before Bromham Rd bridge.  The intended logic is not clear – perhaps it has a freight association (?).
• The suggested haul and access routes between the work areas and M1/A1 appear naive and poorly described.  For example, the Northern construction traffic will use the A4280 to/from the A1.
• A total absence of haulage route definition for the Clapham viaduct construction and further eastwards. 
• There is little reference to the rebuilding of Bedford Station and the new St Johns appears to be just 2 platforms about 133m in length which won’t take more than a 4-car train set.  Universal Studios have stated a desire for 8-car capability on train platforms.
• The expansion of the Cauldwell Maintenance Facility to provide replacement 12-car sidings in place of the existing Jowitt sidings. This new Facility appears set to take over the whole of Cauldwell Walk area.

There is a major lack of information between the northern extent of this report within Fairhill and the known features of the onward track beneath the Great Ouse Way and over the Paula Radcliffe Way and remainder of the 1.1km viaduct before it contacts the Clapham escarpment. 

There are important points of clarification and further detail that Bedford Borough Council should be demanding from EWR Co before considering whether to continue their stated support for Route E through Bedford.

Please contact BFARe for any further information.

BFARe Technical Team

press@bfare.org.uk

The post Bedford Town EWR Construction Assessment appeared first on BFARe.

5 August, 2024

The Route E constructional impact maps have now been released from East West Rail Co through the Freedom of Information process. These maps are referred to as “Plan Profile Drawings”.

The drawings provide previously withheld levels of detail regarding the intended route and its implications for landowners, commuters and local residents. Please bear in mind that these drawings date from early 2022 and may not represent the final proposal.  

The drawings cover the before and after effect of EWR Co’s adoption of the Tempsford Variation (TV) announced at the Route Update Report in May 2023.  The TV changes mainly affect drawing -412 and a simplified replacement Drawing -168001 has been provided and is included with explanatory comments.

Sample Image – Please Click Links below for detailed maps

The North Bedfordshire drawings showing detail from Clapham through to Tempsford are below and a comprehensive description on how to read the information and provide context as put together by our BFARe technical team is attached here (Al1(TV) Plan Profile Drawings Publicity Brief).  This brief also contains links to the drawing series -413 to -417 which cover beyond Tempsford to Cambridge

The adjacent Bedford Town constructional impact map has also been requested, is awaited and will be published when released by East West Rail.

The Drawings

The EWR Plan Profile Drawings show the impact of the construction along the preferred alignment of Route E.

They comprise a series of drawings (-410 to -417) starting at the River Ouse at Clapham and run through Brickhill, Ravensden, Wilden, Colesden, to the north of the Black Cat roundabout and on to Cambourne and finally Harston, SE of Cambridge. 

Although 2 years old, these drawings show what we consider will be very close to the intended fundamental final design and layout of the railway across north Bedfordshire.  The included landscaping features will no doubt be subject to debate and variation but the ‘structural’ nature of the design and the location and size of the construction logistics parks are believed unlikely to change.

The basic drawing sequence covers the original Alignment 1 which has since been varied with the incorporation of the Tempsford Variant to cross the East Coast Mainline (ECML) at Tempsford rather than St Neots (S).  This change is confined to the -412 drawing and a replacement drawing -168001 has been released by EWR Co and is included below in addition to the original.

The drawings show the immense scale of the intended works – not only the embankments, viaducts and cuttings, but also road diversions, public right of way closures and diversions, drainage works, and the huge construction compounds located at frequent intervals along the route. Conspicuously absent are any plans showing how many of these compounds will be accessed, unless by wholly unsuitable country lanes.

Key to Constructional Maps / Drawings

An A4 extract of the drawing series key can be found at this link. This can be printed for reference whilst browsing the -41* series of drawings at high magnification

Bedfordshire Constructional Maps / Drawings

Clapham to Ravensden

Example Map Only – Please click link below for complete map

Drawing -410    Clapham flood plain, Escarpment, Carriage Drive, North Brickhill/Woodlands, Graze Hill, Thurleigh Road, Sunderland Hill and Ravensden Water Tower

To help the public understand the implications of this drawing across a wider area, please see the Google Earth overlay here. Note that no constructional details from the original EWR -410 apart from basic depictions of cuttings, embankments and viaducts are included

Ravensden to Wilden

Example Map Only – Please click link below for complete map

Drawing -411    Ravensden Water Tower, Redbrick Cottages, Wilden, Reservoir, passing loop, start of Tempsford Variant

To help the public understand the implications of this drawing across a wider area, please see the Google Earth overlay here. Note that no constructional details from the original  -411 apart from basic depictions of cuttings, embankments and viaducts are included.

Original Alignment – Colesden, Chawston, Black Cat North, St Neots Station (S) and Little Barford

Example Map Only – Please click link below for complete map

Drawing -412    Original alignment 1 – Colesden, Chawston, Black Cat North, St Neots Station (S) and Little Barford

Updating Drawing -168001 showing the Original Alignment (blue) vs Tempsford Variant (red) Colesden, Roxton (North), Black Cat South and Tempsford Station

Example Map Only – Please click link below for complete map

Drawing -168001    Shows both original alignment (blue) and the Tempsford Variant (red) Colesden, Roxton (north), Black Cat South and Tempsford Station, then rejoining alignment 1

Overlay Tempsford Variant on Google Maps – Colesden, Roxton to Tempsford Station

Transposition of Drawing -168001 Track Footprint Features to the Equivalent Google Earth Base Map  between the drawing cut lines indicating embankments, cuttings and the viaducts which were not represented on -168001 but no details on land take whether permanent or just supporting construction.  The land take for the original Alignment 1 via St Neots (S) marked on -412 is broadly indicative of what will be required for the Tempsford Variant diversion.

Please contact BFARe for any further information.

BFARe Technical Team

The post EWR Constructional Impact Maps of Route E – Clapham to Roxton appeared first on BFARe.

• Fails to provide electrified rail transport from the inception
• Fails to provide transparent analysis of environmental impacts for the railway construction and operation, including the quantum of embodied  carbon
• Fails to adequately define how an acceptable level of economic growth will be achieved for Bedford
• Fails to define multi-modal transport plans for local communities to access EWR stations from their catchment areas
• FAILS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE UNIVERSAL PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

New Petition Launched Calling for an Independent Review of EWR Project

BFARe and Cambridge Approaches have created a new petition asking government to “Pause plans for Oxford-Cambridge rail link pending a full, independent review” of the East West Rail project.

The petition states “We do not want the Oxford-Cambridge rail link as described in the East West Rail Company’s Route Update Announcement and subsequent refinements. We call for these plans to be paused and for a full, transparent and independent review.”

Please join us and sign this petition. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/661989

Bedford Blight Serves the East West Rail Project

Bedford is the only town on the East West Rail line that will see major construction upend an existing historic town centre. Bedford already suffers constricted traffic flows which results in high pollution levels from the stationery and slow-moving traffic. The route through Bedford will destroy homes and businesses, disrupt residents’ quality of life, and have a major impact on the town’s environmental health.

BFARe has produced a more detailed report on how the EWR construction project will blight town and countryside. Please see this link for more detailed information.

Below you will see our content to assist the new distribution of our flyer (image below).

Irreversible Changes to Town and Countryside

Residents of Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire will suffer:

• Significant, permanent alterations to our countryside landscape and the loss or severance of Public Rights of Way
• Demolitions to property, loss of prime agricultural land and the re-construction of major transport routes and bridges
• Relocation with probable net loss of vital Bedford hospital parking facilities
• Very high levels of construction traffic in town and on countryside roads
• Loss of ancient woodlands and wildlife
• Unbridled greenfield housing development without the necessary services and road infrastructure to support the new communities
• Destruction of biodiversity that will not be recovered in our lifetime

The Construction Impact

The East West Rail construction process will blight all residents. 

• The first 8km from Bedford Midland Station will require a 1.1km viaduct over the Clapham flood plain, Paula Radclife Way and Clapham Road then mainly cuttings up to 14m deep and 122m wide over successive hills with little opportunity for spoil balancing embankments over this section or beyond. Disposal off-site of 2.97 MILLION TONNES of surplus spoil without rail assistance will require 185,000+ HGV arrivals and departures between the public roads and the project boundary.
• The proposed EWR ‘Tempsford Variant’ will require embankments from Colesden rising to the start of a 3.6km viaduct up to 13m high to span the A421, Bedford Rd, A1, River Great Ouse and Barford Rd leading to a new Tempsford Station elevated above the East Coast Main Line and beyond.
• Reconstruction of critical town centre infrastructure including rebuilding three main bridges
• Homes / Farms / Businesses demolished, impacted by blight, construction noise and vibration
• Damage to countryside roads from earth removal lorries and construction traffic
• Permanent and damaging change to countryside landscape
• Permanent loss or relocation of public rights of way
• Construction traffic adding to existing high levels of Bedford Town congestion and pollution

Poor Community Engagement

• We have all suffered greatly from the poor, unprofessional and disingenuous EWR Co. project management and communication with our local communities.
• The outgoing EWR CEO recently stated that local communication “is something that is extremely important.”
• The Local Representative Group (LRG) and other meetings are  most of all ‘tick-box’ exercises for EWR. 
• They refuse to provide a business case despite being repeatedly asked.
• They sidestep or fail to answer questions on how their travel times between Bedford and Cambridge omit the cost of the ‘first and last mile’ in both time and money  
• There is a continuous rotation of key post staff.  None of their LRG ‘team’ are from the original meetings
• Where EWR SMEs are offered up they are clearly under the corporate cosh to toe the EWRCo party line
• A vast amount of information is concealed from the public and their elected representatives  
• Questions are not answered at the meetings unless they are simple and of low consequence anything of consequence it taken away for a company view to be determined

Further Greenfield Housing Developments

Housing development in Bedford Borough is already 2.5 times higher than the rest of the country. Yet unbridled greenfield housing development is being used to justify the very high £8B+ taxpayer cost of East West Rail. 

Bedford Borough simply does not have the hospital capacity, schools, doctor’s surgeries, facilities and the supporting greenfield road networks to support the level of proposed housing attributed to the East West Rail project.

EWR Statutory Consultation

East West Rail Co is holding a series of public events concerning the upcoming Route E Statutory Consultation (SC) and eventual Development Control Order (DCO) processes.  The only event being held in north-east Bedfordshire is on Monday May 20 at Roxton Village Hall from 14:00-19:00. 

If you wish to be informed and/or take part in the SC process, you can register your interest at eastwestrail.co.uk for newsletter updates and separately learn how to become an Interested Party with speaking rights at the ensuing DCO process, follow the links at the end.

For further information

BFARe Press Office

Rachel Duke (BFARe) press@bfare.org.uk

BFARe is a Limited company. Company number: 13332104, Reg Address: Union House, 111 New Union Street, Coventry, West Midlands, CV1 2NT, United Kingdom

The post EWR Route E Will Cause Irreversible Damage to Town and Countryside appeared first on BFARe.

The Mayor of Bedford Borough, Tom Wootton, convened a Council meeting on 6th February 2024 to present the findings of three consultant reports that compare alternatives to the EWRCo preferred route through Bedford and out across north Bedfordshire countryside. These reports were from Systra, SLC Rail and JBA. 

In his summary report, Jon Shortland, the Council’s Head of Planning and Infrastructure concluded there was no clear winner between any of the options, with the southern options, including BFARe’s proposed hybrid route, performing almost as well as the northern options. 

Our full analysis of the consultant reports can be found below.

BFARe considers that if the consultants had undertaken more rigorous and in-depth analyses, the BFARe alternative would have come out as the clear winner. Our note explains our position in more detail, but in summary, the main issues are: 

• The Systra report, looking at the economic implications, concludes there is little to choose in terms of GVA benefit to the Borough between north and south options. However, their analysis contains some misunderstandings and some significant modelling flaws, which unfairly penalises the BFARe option against the others. It is clear it would deliver the most GVA benefit of any of the options, including EWRCo’s preferred route. 

• The SLC Rail Report wrongly states EWRCo’s decision-making process had been sound, which is a highly contentious conclusion. For example, decisions have been based on false, incomplete, misleading and withheld information and distorted feedback from the 2019 consultation. There were unexplained variations in construction cost estimates between 2019 and 2020 which misled affected residents. The need for homes in the Poets area to be demolished was known to EWRCo as early as 2018 – and to the previous Bedford Borough Council administration in 2019 – but was not disclosed publicly until 2021. 

• BFARe disagrees fundamentally with SLC Rail when they estimate our alternative will require the demolition of 10-20 homes, when it is highly likely none will be lost. (This compares with 66 being required in the Poets area under EWRCo’s proposals.) 

• SLC Rail also fail to consider impact on landscape character and visual amenity. Sections of countryside north of Bedford (and around Roxton when considered alongside the A428 improvements) are highly vulnerable to change. Some of the most significant additional impacts of the EWR Co route are due to the hilly topography it would cross, such as construction costs and impacts, carbon impact, operational costs and freight suitability. However, SLC Rail either say it is not possible to assess at this stage, or the impacts are the same for all options. We disagree. 

• On the JBA report (flooding) no conclusions were drawn on the merits of each route, due to the lack of data from EWRCo. 

SLC Rail also question the need for 6 tracks north of Bedford, whereas we know EWRCo have consistently rejected the notion of 4 shared tracks. The BFARe hybrid option avoids the need for demolitions in the Poets area completely, whilst continuing to deliver town centre connectivity and regeneration prospects. 

Our full analysis of the Consultants’ reports can be found below.

Background 

In Autumn 2023, the Mayor of Bedford Borough, Tom Wootton, commissioned three consultant firms to compare the merits of EWRCo’s Preferred Route alignment (RA1 with Tempsford variant) in Bedford Borough against alternative proposals including those put forward by BFARe and ERTA, together with four other options generated by EWRCo (RA1, RA9, Varsity, and Varsity Hybrid). At a special Council meeting on 6th February 2024, Jon Shortland, the Head of Planning and Infrastructure, presented the results of those consultant reports, together with his own overview. 

The reports were from JBA (flooding issues) Systra (economic issues) and SLC Rail (differentiating criteria). The JBA report was inconclusive owing to a lack of suitable data from EWRCo, so we do not consider it in this response. 

BFARe welcomes the open and transparent way in which the alternatives have been considered and reported to the public by the Council, but we are not satisfied the BFARe option has been properly assessed or accurately reported. 

Mr Shortland’s report concluded there was “no clear winner” amongst the routes considered – “the southern options are almost as good as the northern” – but further work on each option could change these findings. 

BFARe firmly believes a more rigorous analysis of alternatives to EWRCo’s Route E would clearly point to the BFARe hybrid option delivering the best solution to serve Bedford and the Borough as a whole – “the clear winner” in Mr Shortland’s words. 

As context to the Borough Council’s comparative appraisal, it is relevant to consider how EWRCo have themselves evaluated and compared routes through Bedford Midland with routes to the south of the town. 

Previous consultations by EWRCo and relevance to decision-making 

In 2019, EWRCo put forward 5 Route Options (A-E) for connecting Bedford and Cambridge. Routes B and E were similar between the ECML and Cambridge and only differed between Bedford and the ECML. In summary, Route B went south of Bedford (with an interchange with the MML in the vicinity of Wixams) and Route E went through Bedford Midland and then across the north Bedfordshire countryside. Whilst Route E was seen as delivering opportunities for connectivity with Bedford town centre, challenges were envisaged with it potentially having complex linkages with the MML. Route B could support new homes south of Bedford whilst Route E could support new homes “through densification of Bedford town centre”. Slightly longer Oxford-Cambridge journey times would result from routing through Bedford Midland (Route E) compared with Route B. The indicative upfront construction costs in 2015 prices were c£2.6bn for Route B and c£3.4bn for Route E (the latter being by far the most expensive of the 5 options). 

In the Preferred Route Option report (2020) EWRCo set out their reasons for identifying Route E as the preferred option. 

Taking into account their main route selection criteria, EWRCo asserted:

• Route E would provide the greatest transport benefits for users serving the most households in the catchment surrounding Bedford Midland, and better connectivity than a new station south of Bedford (para 1.21); 
• The GVA (productivity) benefits of routes via Bedford Midland and routes via a new station to the south of Bedford would be very similar (para 1.28); 
• Several large housing sites south of Bedford had already been allocated and an EWR service south of the town was not seen as adding to that position, whereas EWRCo referred to the Borough Council’s argument that a Bedford Midland option could support new housing as part of the regeneration of the town centre and potentially new opportunities north of the town (para 1.36); 
• Route E costs had now fallen in relative terms to being the second cheapest £3.7bn (2019 prices) versus £3.9bn for Route B (para 1.37) but the reasons for that change were not explained; 
• Routes via Cambourne (both Route B and Route E) had the fewest environmental impacts. EWRCo said that the specific route alignment that was chosen would ultimately determine impact on environmental features, but singled out that careful consideration would be given to potential noise, vibration and air quality impacts in the Bedford urban area (paras 1.39 and 1.40). Bedford town centre was considered a high risk hotspot (Route E) but no high risk hotspots were identified for Route B south of Bedford (Table 15.8); 
• All options were expected to be able to satisfy existing and potential freight demand; 
• All options could provide an acceptable level of operational performance, particularly if the EWR tracks through Bedford were fully segregated from existing infrastructure; 
• Safety risk was not considered to be a differentiating factor (para 1.42). 

Reflecting the issues identified and the comparisons made between Routes B and E in the 2019 and 2020 reports, BFARe’s 2021 Consultation response put forward a hybrid between Routes B and E, picking up on the advantages of each route proposal whilst avoiding many of the downsides of Route E. In particular, 

• Even wider Bedford related catchments would be served, with services calling at town centre stations (both Bedford Midland and St Johns), and at a new South Bedford Parkway station at Kempston Hardwick which could also accept fast through services not requiring a stop at Bedford Midland (a situation similar to the station arrangement at Bletchley and Central Milton Keynes); 
• GVA benefits would be augmented by providing several station locations, allowing both town centre connectivity and out of town accessibility; 
• Bedford BC aspirations for town centre regeneration and housing could still be achievable, whilst there would be additional transport support for south of Bedford sites, increasing their viability and attractiveness for development; 
• Town centre environmental impact, including from additional traffic congestion and parking pressure, would be reduced, and EWR freight movements to/from the south and west could be routed away from the town centre; 
• EWR and Thameslink/MML tracks would remain segregated, but the threat of acquisition and demolition of homes in the Poets area would be totally removed; 
• Broad consideration of the topography north and south of Bedford (for the BFARe and the EWRCo options respectively) suggests significant advantage to the BFARe route in terms of engineering complexity, cost, environmental impact, and reduced risk. 

We have raised particular concerns with the Chief Executive of EWRCo that the BFARe 2021 consultation response was not seriously assessed in the 2023 Route Update Announcement documents and have still not received a satisfactory response. This disregard for local opinion and elected officials is typical of the EWRCo approach, and the matter is now the subject of Freedom of Information Requests. 

For further information

BFARe Press Office

Steve Arnold (BFARe) press@bfare.org.uk

BFARe is a Limited company. Company number: 13332104, Reg Address: Union House, 111 New Union Street, Coventry, West Midlands, CV1 2NT, United Kingdom

The post BFARe critique Bedford Borough’s report on the alternative EWR Alignments appeared first on BFARe.

A recent HM Treasury Freedom of Information request raised by Cambridge Approaches has confirmed that the EWR Economic Growth Board will operate in secrecy. They justified the secrecy stating that being open and honest about the EWR Project justification would “prevent officials from conducting rigorous and candid assessments of the options available to them, and that disclosure would risk closing off discussions and the development of better options now and in the future.”

Candid robust discussions should be welcomed in any democracy, so why hide them?

Spokesman for BFARe Mike Barlow comments “EWR boast of transparency and working with local communities which we know is just PR posturing. Then they hold meetings in secret like this without openness or accountability. They hide environmental evidence and cost information stating ‘not in the public interest’. This is our environment. This is taxpayers’ money. Have they learned nothing from HS2, Horizon and other scandals based on civil service and government opacity?”

The shocking fact is that we are meant to trust a secret board with £ 8 billion of taxpayer money to justify the building of East West Rail.

William Harrold of Cambridge Approaches said “There has already been interest and raised eyebrows from many thousands of people about this FOI refusal on social media. Our democracy works best where there is consensus about how to spend public money. Where projects are controversial like EWR, where there is every indication that a project is either a complete waste of public money or involves urbanisation on a huge scale; then transparency is even more important. Instead, we have a group of entitled, un-elected and nameless officials advancing their agenda to advise one minister after another. This is Britain in 2024.”

It is well documented that the costs of building East West Rail far outweigh any claimed benefits to be achieved.

The NAO on East West Rail also stated “Improved communication and joint working between central government and local bodies are needed to overcome barriers to progress and achieve the goals of the project over the long term.” How are we to know whether the joint-working is being achieved if we do not know who is representing local interests on this board? And the decisions this board is taking on our behalf?

Julia Virdee from Protect Poets said “This is another example of the Government’s blatant disregard for the general public, taxpayers who are not only funding this project, but also bearing the cost in terms of having their lives turned upside down. What exactly are they trying to hide? They are clearly not listening to the recommendations of the NAO report. Ministers refuse to meet residents, fail to reply to concerns and have gone so far as to say they will not look again at the project if the majority of Consultation responses are opposed (Huw Merriman Westminster Hall Debate June 2023). We didn’t think they could continue to shock us with their underhanded tactics and disregard for residents but they have hit a new low.”

We are reminded of another “strategically important” railway. The HS2 overspend of public money is a portend of British infrastructure project doom. Those impacted by poor East West Rail project management and route choice are very wise to this fact.

For further information

BFARe Press Office

Mike Barlow (BFARe)

Rachel Duke (BFARe) press@bfare.org.uk

BFARe is a Limited company. Company number: 13332104, Reg Address: Union House, 111 New Union Street, Coventry, West Midlands, CV1 2NT, United Kingdom

Cambridge Approaches Press Office

William Harrold (CA) 07595 951664

Phillip Phan (CA) 07875 756831

Email: info@cambridgeapproaches.org

Cambridge Approaches Limited is a not for profit company registered in England and Wales. Company Number:  13165368.

Protect Poets Press Office

Julia Virdee (PP) email: protectpoets@gmail.com

The post The secret East West Rail Economic Growth Board deciding your future appeared first on BFARe.

The National Audit Office (NAO) report on East West Rail[i] found it to be unclear how the value of the project will be realised. Here’s how we see the situation in the light of this report.

Rail fares won’t fund East West Rail and no hard evidence that it will be a catalyst for growth.

It’s clear from the comments made by EWRCo.[ii], England’s Economic Heartland and the East West Mainline Partnership[iii] on the NAO report, that even they do not think this railway is viable in itself. It’s not about ticket sales. It’s all about connecting new houses with new jobs and the claimed £103 billion Gross Value Added (GVA) by 2050[iv]. The source of this claim, according to the DfT, is the November 2016 Cambridge Econometrics Report on the OxCam Arc.[v] Their analysis with locally led planning, included EWR and their model predicted an £85 billion GVA increase in 2011 prices from 2014 to 2050 across the whole area from Oxford to Cambridge. The £103 billion GVA is just an update for inflation to 2021 prices.

The important point is that the Cambridge Econometrics report made no claim that ANY of this GVA increase comes from EWR. Quite the reverse. Nor does the report contain any figures without EWR so we can see the difference.

A Blind Eye to Soaring Costs

The NAO’s conclusions about EWR are negative, even without recognising the full effect of inflation on project costs. The estimated cost to completion of the EWR CS1 section (Bicester to Bletchley) is now £1.24 billion.  This is 63% higher than the original 2020 cost. The NAO makes no comment on this overspend.

The estimated cost for the EWR CS2/3 sections (Bletchley to Bedford and Bedford to Cambridge) have been updated from 2010 to Q2 2021 and exclude a 20% rise in infrastructure inflation that has since occurred[vi]. The NAO and DfT have not included this recent inflation increase.

EWR will have to be electrified and the NAO points out that an additional £1 billion needs to be added to the quoted construction cost for this.

Ignoring key stakeholders

Across the affected region – and beyond – there are major concerns about agricultural production and water supply.  DEFRA is tasked with maintaining food security, and the Environment Agency (EA) has cited water shortage as grounds for objecting to five major housing development plans in the Cambridge area. The NAO approached neither DEFRA nor the EA in compiling their report.  The inability for the government to work across departments shows that there is a failure to consider the impact of climate change on major infrastructure projects. Recent examples of court cases the government has lost as a result of their failure to successfully work across departments include the Heathrow third runway and the Stonehenge tunnel projects.[1] 

Furthermore, if housing plans are to be locally led, why are local authorities barely included the EWR plans? They are critical to delivering the benefits.

Conflicting Strategies

• The Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) abandoned the Oxford-Cambridge Arc proposal in 2022 and is now driving major growth plans for Cambridge, probably with a new Cambridge mass transit system.
• But the DfT continues to pursue a strategy more aligned with the Oxford-Cambridge Arc.

The NAO report states: “It is not yet clear how aligned these two approaches (DLUHC and DfT) to growth in the region are and whether both can be delivered together.” That’s because they conflict about whether to develop green field sites between Bedford and Cambridge. One resolution recently suggested by the DfT is to do both, however, the latest water infrastructure plans show that the region already needs 3 new reservoirs and 3 desalinations plants by the 2040s even without either of these growth plans.[vii]

Start from the problem, not the solution.

The NAO report announced the creation of a new Treasury-led EWR Economic Growth Board. How will this Board manage the concerning number of different and uncoordinated government, regional and local growth strategies when DfT has completely failed to produce a business case?  The grassroot campaigns of Cambridge Approaches, BFARe, along with local politicians, MPs and local residents believe it is dangerously presumptive to accept EWR as a solution to economic growth in Cambridge.

Local impact and bad communication

The NAO report suspiciously concludes “improved communication and joint working between central government and local bodies is needed” yet they state they did not examine… “infrastructure on the route or the management of the project by EWR Co.” Bedford will suffer a decade of construction blight due to the poor town centre design of the East West Rail route. The residents of Bedford have suffered greatly from the unprofessional and disingenuous EWR Co. project management. They will realise home demolitions, the re-construction of major transport routes and bridges, relocation of vital hospital parking facilities and very high levels of construction traffic in town and on countryside roads.  The construction will turn a huge swath of our beautiful South Cambridgeshire green belt and prime farmland into an area more reminiscent of the battle of the Somme. Years of road and rail disruption particularly for London rail commuters and leave us with a permanent blight – EWR sitting on top the community-dividing “Great Wall of South Cambridgeshire”.

This significant issue of EWR communication and project management has not been reviewed by the NAO despite important evidence having been submitted by BFARe, Cambridge Approaches, Protect Poets STARC and local government officials.  The project management of East West Rail should have not been outside the scope of the NAO review as it demonstrates very poor stakeholder engagement and communication failures as noted in the NAO report conclusions.

Bedford Borough and Cambridgeshire residents demand to be heard. The infrastructure cost, the route selection and the project management process must be properly investigated.  Without transparency, another HS2 with spiralling costs is looming and surprisingly, EWRCo. spend their time on media spin rather than properly performing their job.

Quotes

Spokesman for BFARe Mike Barlow said, “For communities that have already suffered three years of project-related doubt and blight, the NAO report is frustrating, to say the least. It’s yet another example of a continuing and widespread determination to reject reality and displays a breath-taking disdain for residents.”

Cambridge Approaches spokesman William Harrold said, “Our views on EWR have been vindicated. The NAO report concludes that it is not clear how the benefits of the EWR project will be achieved or how it aligns to other government plans for growth in the region. If we have to supersize the Cambridge area, government needs to start from the problem and not assume that EWR a solution or indeed the only solution.  The impending and critical water shortage in Milton Keynes, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire should also be addressed first.”

[i] https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/investigation-into-the-east-west-rail-project.pdf

[ii] https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/sections/news/east-west-rail-not-yet-clear-how-benefits-of-6-6bn-project-will-be-achieved-13-12-2023/

[iii] https://www.englandseconomicheartland.com/news/eeh-and-east-west-mainline-partnership-chairs-reaction-to-nao-report/

[iv] https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-06-13/debates/7D65D691-B362-4AE2-BD7D-693FE85D0FD8/EastWestRailBedfordToCambridge

[v] https://www.camecon.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/CE-SQW-CaMkOx-corridor-report-NIC.pdf, baseline scenario.

[vi]https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/datasets/interimconstructionoutputpriceindices

[vii] https://wre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/WRE-Regional-Water-Resources-Plan-for-Eastern-England.pdf

For further information

Cambridge Approaches Press Office

William Harrold (CA) 07595 951664

Phillip Phan (CA) 07875 756831

Email: info@cambridgeapproaches.org

Cambridge Approaches Limited is a not for profit company registered in England and Wales. Company Number:  13165368

BFARe Press Office

Mike Barlow (BFARe)

Rachel Duke (BFARe) press@bfare.org.uk

BFARe is a Limited company. Company number: 13332104, Reg Address: Union House, 111 New Union Street, Coventry, West Midlands, CV1 2NT, United Kingdom.

The post East West Rail Value is Based on Wishful Thinking appeared first on BFARe.