Revealed - the cosy meeting to progress 'Bypass 2.0'

This week has seen the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities publish a document (opens PDF) outlining which major transport schemes will be prioritised in the region and how they will be funded. The story has hit the headlines and is in today's Manchester Evening News.

If you don't know much about the background to this report, then you'd assume the numerous references to a 'Mottram Bypass' would be shorthand for the Mottram/Hollingworth/Tintwistle Bypass, even though the latter scheme is referred to only once in the document (on page 4). Look more closely at some of the tables illustrating costs, and you'll find the 'Mottram Bypass' is described as now only costing £100 million - and you may be wondering 'what happened to the other £200 million'?

But if you take this in the context of the previous AGMA press release issued at the end of March and also the TMBC Executive meeting last month, then you'll quickly start to understand something new is on the table.

And now, we can shed more light upon exactly who has been up to what in terms of progressing this new 'Bypass 2.0' scheme. Well, almost.

First we must set down some context. On 19th March 2009, representatives from various agencies met at the Highways Agency's offices at City Tower in Manchester. The date is neatly sandwiched between the announcement of the deferral of funding for the original bypass scheme by 4NW on 12th March and the announcement by the Highways Agency that they were withdrawing from the PI on 24th March.

The purpose of the meeting was to salvage something from the 4NW decision, and the (redacted) minutes of the meeting - obtained by John Hall - can be read here.

Upon reading the minutes, it quickly becomes clear that all of the major players in the Bypass have no intention of simply dropping the plan for a road through Longdendale, whatever their public position may be. Whilst this is unsurprising for the likes of Tameside MBC, you do start to wonder what is going on when the Highways Agency play a major part, and as you read further into the minutes, you realise it is they that are playing a strange game.

The key section of the minutes lies in section 5 'Existing scheme', with paragraph 7 showing duplicity is at work with regard to the Public Inquiry (emphasis added):

"(redacted) explained that the Public Inquiry had been adjourned but was still live. A discussion took place about the potential for a Phased Inquiry based on any revised option, and it was agreed that there may be some value in exploring this, dependent on the shape of any emerging proposals"

Presumably, this anticipates that the last two years (and as yet undisclosed £X million) have been 'phase 1' which is now adjourned, and that another scheme can be drawn up and emerge in 'phase 2' when it is ready.

Looking back to March 24th, when the Highways Agency announced their withdrawal from the PI, one has to look at the wording of their statement which we emphasised at the time (again, our emphasis added):

The Highways Agency is withdrawing from the current Mottram-Tintwistle bypass Public Inquiry

We feel that these minutes are an important part of the puzzle falling into place: they demonstrate that the statements made by Alex Bywaters - the head of the Bypass project - in his email to the PI programme officer are wilfully misleading, and also that the HA have clearly not formally withdrawn from the PI yet because it doesn't suit the plans that this little crowd have for our Valley and the wider area. After all, the idea for a 'phased Inquiry' that they float means that there must be a period of transition: closing the current PI would simply be the end, and getting another PI running at a later date would clearly be much harder. It wouldn't be 'phase 2', it would simply be a second Inquiry.

One also has to note that 'alternative proposals' as described in the minutes means a road drawn up by the agencies, and not those presented to the Public Inquiry so far. The minutes go further in a section entitled 'Alternative proposals', which is clearly concerned with TMBC's 'Bypass 2.0', and makes clear the background behind AGMA's announcement in the press yesterday.

What we would be interested to learn is whether or not those individuals that had taken time and effort to propose 'alternatives' to the bypass or were due to do so at the PI (i.e. the Translink scheme for reopening Woodhead) have been invited to be present at these discussions? And if not, why not?

There's much more to these minutes than can be commented upon by us at this time (particularly the role of GMPTE, Faber Maunsell and Sir Howard Bernstein who the minutes suggest are joined at the hip), and one interesting point to note is that some of those present were due to meet the following day to progress 'Bypass 2.0'. We wonder what went on there?

Finally, there's the issue of the redacted names. There seems to be a spurious reason given for not releasing these names, so we're inviting readers to posit exactly who these people are. If this all looks plausible, at a later date, we'll amend the minutes to show who we think was there. So let's have your ideas.

This one will run and run...

Public Inquiry - Bywaters leaps into action!

We have proof positive that the Highways Agency simply haven't been paying attention to a word the Public Inquiry Inspector says.

For the past couple of weeks, stalwart objector John Hall has been emailing Persona Associates reminding them of the wishes of the Inspector regarding the closure of the Public Inquiry (you'll remember our blog about it the other week).

Last week, the programme officer Brenda Taplin was forced to email the Highways Agency Bypass chief Alex Bywaters to get some movement. Brenda very handily passed the email, along with Bywater's reply, on to John Hall, and it's available to view here (opens PDF).

For those who don't want to open the PDF, Brenda reminds Bywaters of the Inspector's request, and stresses the urgency in a very 'scolding' manner.

Bywaters replies, portraying himself as piggy in the middle: he says that, from his end, the respective legal departments of the Treasury and the Department for Transport are 'debating' something. He then asks Brenda if the Planning Inspectorate know what's going on!

The immediate question is - does this mean that neither the people in charge of the Bypass project nor the programme officer for the PI know what's going on? On first impressions, it would seem not*.

The other observation we can make is that Bywaters has failed to update the programme officer about the reasons for the delay. She has to email him, and then only after being mithered by an objector. Bywater's closing line "I want and end to this as much as the Inspector!" is ridiculous given that Taplin has had to remind him of the Inspector's request. It would seem to us that neither of them are motivated unless prodded by someone else.

Given that this charade is currently costing more than £7,000 a day, you wonder what it will take to get someone somewhere to do something to end this farce...

*As for what the DfT and Treasury are debating - well, we'll blog about our own views on what that is in the days to come.

Trying to hide the facts

Even after disposing of the Project Leader for the Mottram Bypass scheme Stephen Greenhalgh and appointing Alex Bywaters from Yorkshire to take over his mantle, the Highways Agency is still trying everything in the book to stop you knowing the facts. This latest example should appal everyone throughout Tameside and Longendale.

Because a Bypass will now cost YOU far more than the £200 million anticipated, plus of course the absolutely disastrous failure to back up the road scheme with factual evidence (which cost TMBC Council Tax payers around the £1 million mark for absolutely nothing), then of course the £16 million plus which YOU have paid for the absolute trash presented by the Highways Agency as evidence, I wanted to know who are the members of the Highways Tender Selection Panel and their specific backgrounds. Who are the people who are determining how and to whom YOUR MONEY is being allocated?

Back came the reply that we have been unable to offer the details as yet because we are considering the ramifications that such information may not be in the Public Interest. But they promised to correspond further later on in April.

What absolute bloody arrogance and contempt to now try and stop the facts being given because the details may well be "NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST".

Well, as a member of the Public who is contributing to the Department of Transport/Highways Agency/TMBC road scheme already found to have cost £17 million for absolutely nothing, I bloody well want to know who these Panel Selection Members are!

Could this Panel consist of Councillors, plus maybe Highways Agency Staff who previously were employed by large road building Contractors?

Are you prepared to permit these nameless and faceless quango members to spend such huge amounts out of your purses, wallets, pockets etc, and then turn around to you and say we need to be anonymous because "we believe" its not in our interest to allow the people who are paying these numerous millions to know who we are?

Now, who the hell do you trust in this absolute and contrived dictatorial regime we have in the UK (NOT ONE AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED)?

Watch this space for the final response from the DfT/Highways Agency in April...

'Squire' Bywaters - meet Ned Ludd

Last week, the Glossop Chronicle covered another of our scoops. Yes, they had news that Stephen Greenhalgh has left the Highways Agency team in charge of the Bypass. and that Alex Bywaters has taken over.

The Chronicle has a most unlikely quote from a Highways Agency official, who states that Greenhalgh has been asked to take on other 'new schemes' in the Agency. We'll do our best to keep our eye on this, it should provide a laugh if nothing else.

But Bywaters has a pedigree. It seems he was leader of the 'North Team' which has presided over moves to widen the M1 motorway. This is a scheme that has met fierce resistance, with the police employing methods worthy of the Gestapo against those opposed to it. It's also been notorious as swallowing huge amounts of money - the Observer reported that the scheme was costing £21 million per mile last year (perhaps we need a new counter in the side column to illustrate how similarly expensive our bypass is?).

Regular readers know how much we love the contradictions that are often thrown up by the whole bypass issue. But here's one that relates specifically to Bywaters. We can reveal* that he is the 'squire' of a troupe of Morris Dancers called Slubbing Billys, based in West Yorkshire. The symbolism they use consciously references the huge social and economic upheavals brought about by the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th & early 19th centuries. The symbolism is that of the Luddites - too often portrayed as merely reactionary, anti-technologists. But enlightened radicals (and not necessarily those on the left) know they represented the militant wing of a popular struggle against early industrial capitalism. They - correctly - identified technology as having a far from 'neutral' role in industrial relations and the rise of capital. They were fighting to retain a degree of control over their living and working conditions, and by extension their lives - from relative autonomy to an utter dependence upon the mill owners (in such huge numbers that the British State employed more soldiers to fight them than Napoleon). Technology facilitated the capitalists' designs of comparative enslavement. Technology was not - and is not - neutral. And it remains a legitimate target.

So Bywaters belongs to a group that pay homage to Luddites, whilst working for the Highways Agency. The Car Industry is to modern capitalism what the spinning and weaving machines were to early industrial capitalism. No doubt that one has passed him by...

Our message to Bywaters is clear - now that Greenhalgh has gone, you're next. The folk of Lancashire will once again sing the achievements of General Ludd!

They said Ned Ludd was an idiot boy
That all he could do was wreck and destroy, and
He turned to his workmates and said: Death to Machines
They tread on our future and they stamp on our dreams...

* we have absolute verification of this fact, but you'll have to take our word for it for now...

Exit Kojak, sorry Stephen Greenhalgh...

News has reached us that the Highways Agency's North Team, in charge of the Longdendale Bypass, has a new leader.

Correspondence sent out to certain objectors today is signed off by one Alex Bywaters, as Project Leader MP North Team M2 Manchester - Stephen Greenhalgh's old job.

So did he fall or was he pushed? Unlike his doppelganger Kojak, he didn't exactly exude confidence at the Public Inquiry. He came across as a rather clammy, insecure individual lacking in confidence. He's clearly had to fall on his sword for what could be a number of reasons - perhaps to satiate Roy Oldham's impatience, clearing the decks for a different approach when the PI resumes? Perhaps to create the impression that the delays are to do with incompetence, rather than other 'grand designs', as we've suggested recently.

Maybe if he'd stuck a lollipop in his mouth and drawled 'who loves ya baby' at John Watson things might have been different?