Bypass 2.0 now placed on hold - coup de grace please?!

With the Greater Manchester Transport Fund hitting the buffers, the good news today is that Bypass 2.0 has been named as one of the first schemes as part of that project to be placed on hold, according to the MEN.

We now all have to wait until the government's spending review in the autumn to discover if the axe is truly to fall. But it's interesting to contrast this news today with our blog three days ago that the old Bypass scheme still seems to be accruing more costs at an unprecedented rate.

New cost estimate for 'withdrawn' Mottram Bypass - £19.6 million

Our old friend John Hall has been doing some digging. He recently requested from the Highways Agency information about the total cost of the original Bypass scheme to date in a Freedom of Information request.

Now you may remember that we have covered pretty much every twist and turn of the issue of costs over the past 3 years. The last time we reported was in May last year, when the accumulated cost was £17,176,000, this figure having leapt up by £1,176,000 in less than 6 months.

In this context, the reply to John Hall's Freedom of Information request in somewhat staggering - the cost now stands at £19.6 million (or £19,600,000 in longhand), meaning that £2.4 million has been added to the costs in just over 12 months. Whether this is as a result of a re-audit of the accounts, or that the abandoned scheme is still accruing costs is unclear, but you may remember that in March 2009, 4NW allowed the Highways Agency £1.1 million over the next seven years towards 'ongoing administrative costs'. For 2009-2010, the HA were apportioned £100,000 for this.

So one way or the other, the costs the scheme seems to have accrued have already swallowed up more than double the next seven years money in 12 months.

Now think about this: the media and politicians keep telling us that there's no money left, and that we must all face cuts to jobs, wages, services etc. At the same time, executive pay is up, banks are still paying bonuses, there's loads of money for useless wars - and the Highways Agency are still swallowing horrendous amounts of money for an 'abandoned' road scheme. You couldn't make it up.

As one farce ends...

Yes, we're back! But before NMB addicts get rather too excited, it's only because there's something worth reporting. We're now as thoroughly accustomed to not blogging as we were previously to constantly blogging. So we're sure readers will appreciate how hard it has been to write the latest post with the usual wit and humour that they may have become accustomed to (not to mention the artwork).

And it has to be said that the news won't surprise those with their fingers on the pulse.

So the first non-surprise is that the Highways Agency have finally got around to ending the farce that is the Public Inquiry. Advertisements appeared in the press last Thursday 23rd July and on the Public Inquiry website later in the day.

Of immediate interest is the power relationship inherent in the notice: note here that the respective Secretaries of State have cancelled the Inquiry. No doubt at some point the Inspector John Watson will process the formalities, but it's not his decision to make, as has been very little in this whole charade.

But the main issue here is one of costs, as we've noted all along. Exactly 4 months elapsed between the Highways Agency announcing on 23rd March of this year that they intended to withdraw and their fulfilment of that intention last week. We've already commented upon the supposed reasons for this delay (legal wranglings), but in a time of financial hardship and cut-backs we have the spectacle of a government department dragging their feet and doubtless accruing huge costs.

How much? We'll take the last cost estimate as our guide - you'll remember we blogged about it at the time. Since the costs accrued between November 13th 2008 and April 30th 2009 equated to a daily rate of £7,041.92, at that rate of reckoning, the 122 days that have elapsed since the Highways Agency's announcement of their intention to withdraw and their taking action to do so have seen the accrual in costs of a further £859,114.24 of our money.

Perhaps at some point in the near future, we'll become aware of exactly how much how this PI has cost, of how much John Watson was paid for his 15 days of sitting (out of 757 days the PI was open). But that's for another time.

Finally, there is a delicious irony in the costs of this PI. It's frankly fucking hilarious, but you'll have to take our word for it until we report back next time with our second piece of news. Ta ta for now...

New bypass cost figures - going off the rails on a gravy train

Remember when we told you back in March that the deferral of the bypass funding would still entail costs of £1.1 million over the next 7 years?

Well the Highways Agency have now topped that. Yesterday saw a reply in Parliament to this question placed by the Shadow Transport Minister, Robert Goodwill MP:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport with reference to the answer of 13 November 2008, Official Report, columns 1286-87W, on the Longdendale bypass, what costs have been incurred in connection with the A57/A628 Mottram to Tintwistle bypass since 13 November 2008.

Now you'll remember that 13th November 2008 was the last time Goodwill made enquiries about the cost of the scheme, which then stood at £16 million. The reply, forthcoming from Paul Clark MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, is gobsmacking:

For the period of 13 November 2008 to 30 April 2009, the A57/A628 Mottram to Tintwistle bypass scheme has incurred costs of approximately £1,176,000.

Working it out, that's 167 days (just under 6 months) - so the costs incurred since then have been £7,041.92 per day. And in the second part of his answer, Clark reveals what this has been spent on:

The costs include general project management, preparation for closure of the Public Inquiry, responding to general inquiries, project governance, staff costs, costs associated with the contract and finalising documents for the postponement of the project.

It seems to us that the phrase 'preparation for the closure of the Public Inquiry' is a bit of an abstract concept. After all, the Inspector has made it look like he has tried his best to bring the things to a close, and the Highways Agency have ignored it. Clearly the Gravy Train has no brakes, and the Government is in no mood to derail it. 

When one considers the announcements made in the Budget two weeks ago, and all the speculation regarding possible cuts to all kinds of budgets, it beggars belief that this road to nowhere is still trundling along, costing you and I nearly £300 for each hour that passes.

Over-budget

We had a very interesting & suitably ironic visit today - budget day - which we'd like to tell you about.

It was a fleeting visit from renowned accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC). They'd been searching the internet for the "public enquiry (sic) mottram" and landed on a blog item about the Public Inquiry.

Now this could be just a bored employee idling away some time at work, but then again, maybe someone has called the auditors in? One way or another, we'd love to find out exactly how much the Public Inquiry has cost, and how much our dear friend John Watson the Inspector has been paid for 15 days work. 

Watch this space.

"Scrapped" Bypass to cost £1.1 million over next 7 years...

...despite the fact it's been deferred. Yes, in their finalised funding advice (not the draft - opens PDF), 4NW has recommended that the Highways Agency should still be paid up until 2016, and we quote:

"The revised spend profile includes a nominal £100,000 per annum to cover ongoing Highways Agency administrative costs during the deferral period (page 14)"

That's £100,000 per annum between 2009/2010 - 2014/2015 and a final payment of £500,000 in 2015/2016 before the "deferred" funding comes on stream again (see the table on page 17). Even the most convinced pro-bypass individual must surely agree this is on a par with Fred Goodwin's pension arrangements in terms of an outrageous waste of money?

The scheme must be completely scrapped, and any further allocation of fund completely cancelled forthwith.

Bypass funding problems - latest media reports

The wider media is now catching hold of the 4NW funding decision.

Transport Xtra reports on the detail of the 4NW decision - that an option to delay 3 schemes was rejected in favour of rejecting the Bypass (the article is here for subscribers or you can view the page here courtesy of our cheeky free trial screengrab).

Meanwhile, the MEN are their offshoot Channel M have also been reporting. As usual, Channel M's reporters labour the 'misery' being experienced by those living next to a congested road - albeit a road with relatively light free-flowing traffic, stationary at one point because the vehicles  are at a red traffic light - but we're glad to see local Jenny Bostock talking some sense, alongside Emma from Save Swallows Wood. The same can't be said of Mike Flynn of Longdendale Siege - he and other road supporters have no arguments left, and his desire for a road and not transport solutions is more exposed than it has ever been (the video is embedded in this post - click here if you can't see it).

Tom Levitt - the bad egg is 'angry' and it's no yolk

Well, our exclusive from nearly 6 days ago has started to filter out to the wider world at last. First the Campaign for Better Transport proclaim "National Park saved from damaging road"*, and Tom Levitt, the Politician that wants to both celebrate and begin the destruction of said National Park, gets himself all steamed up in a new press release.

Firstly, to clarify what's happened, 4NW did indeed vote to drop the funding for the Bypass beyond the 2015/2016 funding period - but they decided to drop this scheme alone and not others. This scheme is clearly now recognised as a bad egg. Furthermore, a very expensive and unpopular bad egg. 

Much the same can be said of Tom Levitt, but his angry press release has meant that his mask has slipped, and it exposes the true reasons for this scheme plus the usual idiotic contradictions.

Firstly, the contradictions. At a time of economic crisis and recession turning into depression, Levitt chooses to berate the 4NW forum for not pushing the North West Region beyond the 35% they are already over budget. Or perhaps he feels that other schemes should suffer to enable the bypass? Does he think 4NW should have chosen to drop the Metrolink Renewals or Extensions? The Blackpool & Fleetwood Tramway upgrade? The Crewe Rail Gateway? Or Yellow School Buses? All public transport schemes a lot 'greener' than a proto-motorway which were also considered in the Regional Funding Allocation. 

But Levitt's press release also exposes the truth of what the Bypass actually represents; one key phrase - "It is a road of strategic importance which must be built". 

That's it there - never mind bollocks about relieving 3 villages of traffic congestion - it is of strategic importance. And the strategy is to enable goods and freight to travel more swiftly between the East and West ports along Trans-European routes and to Manchester Airport. Thanks for letting everyone finally know Tom!

The truth is that as well as being a bad egg, Levitt is a bad loser. 4NW weren't convinced by the arguments, or all the politicians throwing their weight around in the preceding months.

So what are Levitt & James Purnell to do now (the latter is so 'furious' about it that he hasn't even mentioned it on his website, unlike Tom)? Why, they're off the see the Transport Minister, huffing and puffing and throwing more weight around. Plus ça change...

*entry on 26th February

**UPDATE, 27/02/2009: The Buxton Advertiser has the first online copy, and yesterday's Glossop Chronicle has an extensive article which doesn't credit us with the scoop (quelle surprise!)

EXCLUSIVE - Longdendale Bypass funding cancelled - is this the end?

We have a massive exclusive for you here - according to the blog of Jim Dixon, Chief Executive of the Peak District National Park Authority, at a meeting of 4NW - presumably regarding the Regional Funding allocations we highlighted last month - the North West Local Authorities "agreed not to fund the Mottram, Hollingworth & Tintwistle Bypass in the regional budgets for 2012-2015".

This appears to be a massive blow to the plans for a bypass, and we'll be reporting in more depth as soon as more news emerges...

The North West can't afford a bypass...

At various points over the last few months, we've been harping on about how money (or more specifically the lack of it) may play a part in ending the proposals for the Bypass and Glossop Spur. Some campaigners believe that moment may now have arrived. 4NW (part of the North West Regional Development Agency) are consulting on the Regional Funding Allocation - i.e. how the money assigned to transport schemes in the North West will be allocated for the next few years. The consultation ends on 30th January (this Friday).

In their recent  report, 4NW admit the Regional Funding Allocation is now 35% over budget in terms of the schemes it wants to progress. The Government allows a 20% overspend (how ironic given the current state of the economy), but clearly the process is 15% over budget. Guess how much of the budget the Longdendale Bypass represents over the next 10 yearly spending periods? You guessed it, 15% (£242m of £1.5bn). And why not? After all, of late the government loves throwing public money at hopeless causes...

Furthermore, the report also tells us that 3 trunk road schemes represent 70% of the over-allocation. Their priorities are clear. Quelle surprise.

So is there any way they can be influenced to change their minds and throw it all at public transport? Some believe they can, and the CAMPAIGN group Save Swallows Wood have set up an online lobbying contraption that will allow you to ask 4NW to use their money for some other purpose. If you're more inclined to use snail mail, then they also provide a PDF pro-forma for you to do that. Fuller details of the whole shebang can be found on their special webpage (not special fried rice). Go on then, be off with you.

We'll be interested to see if hope triumphs over experience.

EXCLUSIVE: Public Inquiry costs now stand at £16 million

**UPDATE: the MEN, and both the Glossop & Tameside Advertiser as well as the Glossop Chronicle are now carrying this story**

We report on an interesting question raised in Parliament on Thursday. Robert Goodwill MP  - the Shadow Transport Minister - asked the following:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Longdendale bypass public inquiry commenced; for how many days the inquiry has sat; and what the estimated cost is of the Longdendale bypass public inquiry process

The answer (from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Paul Clark MP PPS and not the DfT which seems odd, presumably Adonis has better things to do) told us the dates and times most of us anoraks know, but then tagged the costs of the Public Inquiry on the end - and they apparently now stand at £16 million. You may remember that we covered a similar line of questioning from Goodwill in Parliament in May with the total then standing at £15 million, and so it seems 6 months later, the PI (such as it exists and does anything useful) has eaten up another £1 million of taxpayer's money. That's £39,000 per week.

Now this has the unfortunate effect of putting our Bypass cost counter (which you'll find at the top of the left-hand column) more than a little ahead of the official information, but we still stand by our line that until we have a proper breakdown, it will remain unadjusted.

Either way, that's still a hell of a lot of money for absolutely bugger all. And it's only going to get ever more expensive...

Roadbuilding in a time of Global Economic Crisis

Although we've written before of the likely effects of the Credit Crunch on the Bypass, you may have noticed that that term has now (thankfully) become passé. The media has now started to use the much more realistic term 'Global Financial Crisis' (in our view soon to be a 'Global Economic Crisis'). The past 3 weeks has seen an incredible drama unfold around the world as the consequences of a dash for growth based largely upon credit start to hit home. 

These are fascinating times, which doubtless leave those that believed in the 'final victory' of Capitalism going back to the drawing board, if not question everything they have based their lives upon. But trying to make this blog relate in some way to the Longdendale Bypass, the future of this road is now surely even less certain than ever before, and we'd like you to ponder some of our thoughts at this time:

1) If the Car Industry and Road Building is as central to Capitalism as we believe, will keeping the construction projects going be the way to Economic recovery or do the huge amounts of public money being thrown at the banks and the money markets put an end to such Government spending for the foreseeable future?

2) Conversely, in the same context, what is the financial justification for continuing with the Longdendale Bypass and the Public Inquiry? If the costs have escalated to £315 million, and the Highways Agency costing model is based on the price of Oil being $20 a barrel, who is the Government kidding that it can continue with this project?

In the last 3 weeks, hundreds of billions of pounds of Taxpayer's money has been thrown at the Banks, and it doesn't seem to be working, the crash is continuing day by day.

For everyone concerned with what the future holds - and what it should hold - whether you work for the Highways Agency, whether you are in favour or against the Bypass - when will the penny drop?

The Longdendale Bypass & the Credit Crunch - is this the end of the road?

Today is somewhat of a watershed for this blog, because we finally got ourselves in newsprint. Yes, the MEN even asked us for a quote! The story was the one we broke nearly 2 weeks ago, about the massive projected cost increase of the Bypass.

But it's also bad news for other areas - the Government has approved the Cheshire (A34) bypass, and has pretty much underwritten it by pouring in £48 million (94%) of the total £51 million needed for the scheme. One can't imagine the government throwing £295 million at the Longdendale Bypass, and indeed, they have no intention of doing so.

So with an ever-widening 'funding gap' (between what Central Government will throw in and what the North West Local Authorities must find themselves) , the longer this whole thing plays out the better the chance this scheme - and others - will never see the light of day. In the coming months, expect to see the Longdendale Overlord Roy Oldham scuttling around government ministers and laying down the law at the North West Regional Assembly to get his pet project through.

But there is a wider context to all of this. As the costs increase paper outlines, road construction price inflation has doubled since the previous estimates, no doubt largely due to the price of crude oil and inflation generally - old costing models no longer stack up, hence the huge cost rises when these are rationalised. Is it any wonder that Road Construction firms are moving to merge to weather the bad times, not to mention diversify*.

And another way of looking at this is in the context of the much vaunted (but plainly fucked) Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) bid in Greater Manchester - the projected maximum cost of the Bypass is 10% of the money in the TIF. The Longdendale Bypass plan is 5.7 km long - apparently, 'transforming public transport in Manchester' (their words, not ours) is only worth 57 km of roads like the bypass - or 3 years of UK funding for the Iraq war (it's a good job we don't think the TIF bid is the holy grail which will deliver the North West from climate change, like Liberal Bourgeois Greens do - clearly, crumbs for the masters table will suffice for some).

Finally, the top of this blog has the latest New Report from Channel M. At one point, the reporter, Richard 'monkeys might fly out of my' Butt, states that he can understand why people 'have been campaigning so hard and so long' for the road - making his point against a backdrop of freely-flowing traffic. Clearly, there's no need to get hold of Mike Flynn to wring a quote out of - he does the job himself.

*Carillion - the contractors for the bypass - bought Alfred McAlpine in December 2007. McAlpine had the contract for maintaining Sainsbury's supermarkets. What a coincidence then that Sainsbury's have now plainly stated their intentions to build a Large Superstore in Glossop...

'Hyder Consulting Crap'

...not our words, but those of a recent visitor to the blog who had been searching the internet, presumably for people with no good words to say about the Management Consultants employed to work on the bypass. How apt then that they landed here.

The searcher was using a computer belonging to Cantillon Capital Management, who are listed as as Independent Financial Advisers. Perhaps they'd just seen the new costings for the bypass (which we exclusively revealed last week - yet to be taken up by the press, though we did tell them).

One's thing's for sure - Hyder Consulting don't need financial advice - under the official figures, along with Carillion, they've so far been paid £9.5 million for producing an error-strewn, crappy scheme.

EXCLUSIVE: Bypass costs rise by between 20% - 70%

We have an exclusive here for you today: hot on the heels of the recent announcement that the Glossop Spur costs have risen by 54%, the Highways Agency has revealed that the cost of building the A628 Bypass have risen significantly.

This document outlines cost estimates on all major road schemes. The A628 Bypass comes in at between £223 million (minimum) and £315 million (maximum). This is an increase of between 21% to 71% on the costs increases announced in March 2007 in the Nichols Report (£184 million), and an increase of between 200% to 283% on the figures from 2003 (£90 million).

It's clear these costs are on a huge escalator, and cannot prove sustainable.

EXCLUSIVE: Glossop Spur costs rise by 54%

Exclusive news courtesy of the Campaign for Better Transport and trailed in today's Guardian. The cost of road schemes are going through the roof, and the Longdendale Bypass - or in this case the Glossop Spur is no exception.

If you read page 3 of this table (opens PDF), you'll see that the original estimated cost of the Glossop Spur was £7.18 million. That's now risen to £11.07 million - a 54% increase since December 2000.

However, worryingly for Roy Oldham and Tameside MBC, the currently agreed Department for Transport contribution remains at £7.18 million.

How will Roy & Co. find the money in these times of Financial crisis?

Deal, or no deal?

The ongoing issue of the costs of the Longdendale Bypass was raised in the House of Commons yesterday.

Answering questions on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport Ruth Kelly, the Parliamentary Under Secretary Tom Harris revealed the following (emphasis added):

The A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass public inquiry started in June 2007. Since award of contract in August 2004 the scheme has incurred costs of £15,000,000. This includes design costs for the scheme, publication of draft orders, preparation and publication of the environmental statement, traffic modelling, legal costs, Highways Agency staff costs and the public inquiry. The specific costs for the public inquiry itself are not recorded separately.

Naturally, we're slightly suspicious about such a nice round figure like that. But if we accept that it's accurate, then it means that £1.2 million has been spent in the last 7 months. It's also way behind our counter which you'll find at the top of this blog, which was based upon the cost accruals in the latest period for which data was available. We may have to adjust it, as we promised we would, but in the meantime, we'll prefer to await the release of proper fully-documented information.

There's not really much else left to say that hasn't been said before, so perhaps we should await the obligatory press articles which will follow, much as Roy Oldham awaits the call from the banker...

No deal methinks.

Exclusive - Longdendale Siege's new fundraising drive

Word has reached us that the Longdendale Siege Committee are getting very worried about the PI delays. So much so, they have decided to do what they can to raise money in case the government decide the scheme is too costly.

In what must be a clear indication of discontent within their ranks, an anonymous source inside Siege has emailed us a copy of a press release sent out last night which reveals the plan. You have read it here first (click on the thumbnail below to get to the larger image). We'll see how this one runs...

Glossop Spur costs & Tory opportunism

Today's Manchester Evening News has a story which is well-known in anti-bypass circles, but perhaps less so more widely: namely, that Tameside Council's costs for the Glossop Spur have reached £800,000. There are two aspects of this we would like to concentrate on in this post.

Firstly, that this is in fact old news, to us at least. Indeed, our fellow campaigner John Hall submitted a Freedom of Information nearly 2 years ago and received a response indicating that the projected costs to March 2007 would be approximately £836,000. Given the hiccups with the Public Inquiry, the costs must surely be far more by now.

Perhaps it's time we rigged up another cost-counter for the Glossop Spur?

The second aspect is the fact that this article is effectively a press release for Tameside Tories. All you need to know about this lot is summed up by these words in the article:

"Councillor Bell said while the Tory group supports the proposal..."

We'd have to assume they do because there's been no opposition from them. It's hard to imagine what points they are trying to score here. Would they have done anything differently from the Labour Party? If they are committed to it, then surely that means they support it to the end - there's no implication that they would pull the scheme because of costs. This is simply a party political matter for this lot.

And who can be surprised? The 1990s Tory road policy got a bloody good hiding from environmental direct action campaigners, to the extent that most of the schemes were shelved by Labour upon coming to power in 1997. That's how unpopular they were, and still are. Why should anyone think this lot would be any different from Labour, should they come to power?

Time for a quote from Thatcher in 1990:

"We are not going to do away with the great car economy."

Any argument that advocates 'changed priorities' as a way to transport and ecological salvation really does not understand the central relationship of the car industry to modern capitalism. The answer lies without politics and capitalism, not within.

Roy Oldham's money shot

Trench warfare continues. Roy Oldham is clearly worried that he'll be pushing up daisies by the time work starts on the bypass.

So today, he has launched an offensive in the Manchester Evening News with the publication of this article.

If you don't want to read this crap, the gist of it is that the delays in the Public Inquiry (PI) are 'holding back business' (heaven forfend!).

In a world where the most important of all considerations is economic, the mask has slipped for Oldham: he loves money, as do his cronies. Those who live in the area - and who don't easily have the wool pulled over their eyes - are experiencing the 'economic prosperity' this bypass will bring, but not in an economic way. Go to Tintwistle and look across to Hadfield - straight at those awful grey sheds - Rossington Park and Bridge Mills. Go into Glossop and take a look at all the 'same as everywhere else' chain stores. The economic prosperity they bring (and who they bring it to) is debateable - what is sure is that they bring spiritual and environmental poverty to the people who have to live there.

The message of the filthy lucre-crew is clear - tell the government to wind up the PI, or to ignore it. We need a bypass to extend the M67 and bring more lorries through, and to build more warehouses in, the area.

What the hell has this got to do with 'relieving 3 villages of traffic'?

We plan to release more and more info over the coming weeks that will fully demonstrate Roy Oldham's love of money, much of it you will not have heard of before.