Now Friends of the Earth has warned that trying to combine the two would not work.

FoE were alerted after Railwatch magazine reported this month that Transport Minister David Jamieson told the Commons on 20 November that the idea of a light rail link fromBletchley, Leighton Buzzard, Dunstable and Luton should be considered by theSouth Midlands Multi-Modal Study.

He was replying to Kelvin Hopkins MP, who said: The Translink corridor is too valuable simply for local bus traffic. He proposed a light railway or tramway be built on this route and proposed that this should be shared in Luton-Dunstable
with a guided busway.

FoE's position is almost identical to that of the rail group ADAPT. They believe they have the support of the vast majority of the public in saying that the best option is to use the existing tracks for train OR light rail (tram), with occasional freight, serving the busy industrial corridor between Luton Parkway, Luton Central and Dunstable, to be extended ASAP to Leighton Buzzard or Cheddington, for access to Bletchley, Milton Keynes and many other stations on the West Coast main line.

This would also serve several communities in between (Eaton Bray. Edlesborough, Stanbridge). Dunstable is crying out for regeneration. Dunstable Town Council knows that it needs to be on the rail network. It prefers a train, but FoE think it better at present to keep the option open of light rail, which could get up the hill to Luton Airport, and, like Croydon, which has been hugely successful, could possibly have other extensions in future. FoE totally oppose a guided busway.

The idea of mixing buses and light rail between Luton and Dunstable would not work, and no one else has tried to promote it. FoE say Kelvin is an excellent MP, but in this case is trying too hard to please 'everyone', ie on one side the busway-obsessed Luton Council, and on the other the public.

Buses would be more frequent but would make slower progress. Various routes would be entering and leaving the guided busway, getting held up in traffic as soon as they left it, and holding up trams on the bus/tramway. Trams have greater capacity (vital to take not only more people but also airport travellers' luggage), have better braking systems and superior technology, are therefore far more comfortable, and would not need to be as frequent, but would travel faster, with fewer stops.

The busway falls within Luton Council's narrow vision of a local service, which Government consultant Atkins has confirmed would do nothing to reduce road congestion, and get no one out of their cars. It would serve almost exclusively existing bus users, and indeed reduce some current services while diverting others out of their way to use the busway.

Luton claims the busway would serve up to 100,000. A train or tram serving a strategic rather than local route would serve everyone - over 250,000 in the Luton-Dunstable area alone, and far more to the west.

Many tens of thousands are forced to travel in and out of this big conurbation daily by car, contributing to congestion, because buses do not serve their need - they stop frequently, go via circuitous routes, get caught in gridlock, and are too slow. The more passengers they take, the longer the time at each stop.

Trams, like trains, would serve the wider sub-region, forming a vital fast link between the West Coast Mainline at Leighton Buzzard or Cheddington and the Midland Mainline at Luton. This would join up many destinations with no fast, reliable or convenient links at present, and offer considerable potential to get people out of their cars, including not only those who clog up local roads going to Luton or Leagrave, but those who drive to London on the A5 or M1.

The existing railway, which is still in place, is single track (used as a mineral line until 1988), with a considerable stretch of embankment. It would be vastly more difficult, expensive and time-consuming to convert this to double track, as would be needed to accommodate a busway/two lane tramway, and would require four or five new or widened bridges.

As fewer vehicles and lesser frequency would be needed, a single track tramway or railway with passing places at stations/stops could be introduced quickly and far more cheaply. Bus services could be diverted to meet lightrail stops or train stations as in Croydon for a more efficient, integrated and popular service, rather than a bus dominated one.

The busway would cost £90m, need a Transport & Works Act and Public Inquiry, and not be open until 2007/8. With the political will, a train or tram could be in place between Luton Parkway and Dunstable for less than half this sum within two years.

There is a telling comment elsewhere in Railwatch by Lyndon Elias: A busway has nothing to do with improving public transport and everything to do with protecting local authority budget and planners' empires.

The reason the busway has seen delay after delay, despite heavy spin from Luton BC, is that it would not be cost-effective. FoE therefore hopes Arup, the current government consultant looking at the scheme, will strongly reinforce the concerns of last year's consultant Atkins, and advise the government that the busway plan is not viable and must be dropped, and the train or light rail options be looked at urgently so a quick decision can be made to solve the region's pressing needs.

Information from: David Oakley-Hill, Co-ordinator, Luton FoE Chair, Luton Agenda 21 Transport Group (which produced a three year study called Sustainable Moves)


15.04.02