29/11/2005 10:03

Department for Transport (North West)


MERSEYTRAM - STATEMENT




The Government today announced that funding assurances sought from the Merseyside districts about Merseytram were not forthcoming and on that basis the scheme should not proceed.




The Government today announced that funding assurances sought from the Merseyside districts about Merseytram were not forthcoming and on that basis the scheme should not proceed.

Derek Twigg, Transport Minister today said:

"Our position has been consistent - the £170 million was available for Merseytram as long as we could be sure that the scheme would be delivered without any further requests for Government funding.

"We asked for assurances from the districts, as the ultimate funders of any overruns, that they would cover any additional costs.

"Having made clear our requirements in July, the councils have only offered a capped commitment. Above that they have asked us to rely on assurances from Merseytravel.

"This is not what we have asked for. Equally, Liverpool City Council has now provided legal advice saying that it would not be prudent to rely on Merseytravel assurances about the risk of cost overruns without a proper independent due diligence exercise. If they cannot rely on Merseytravel's guarantees, how can we?

"Therefore we cannot be confident that there will not be further requests for funding, and we have decided that the scheme should not proceed.

"The Government remains committed to investing in Merseyside. We have committed over £200 million to transport improvements in Merseyside over the last 5 years, and we intend to continue to support good value schemes in the area. If there are good value schemes that can be taken forward quickly to benefit Merseyside - we will look at them."

NOTES TO EDITORS

WRITTEN STATEMENT

MERSEYTRAM

On 13 June this year, I said that the £170 million Government funding that had originally been approved for Merseytram remained available if the scheme could be delivered at that cost.

Since then we have had regular discussions to secure the necessary funding commitments from the Merseyside districts, over which Merseytravel has powers to levy funds, to give confidence that the scheme would be delivered without further requests for Government funding. Unfortunately the required assurances have not been forthcoming. I have therefore decided that this scheme cannot proceed.

Merseytram Line 1 was given provisional approval in December 2002, at a public sector cost of £225 million, and with a cap of £170 million on central Government contributions. Costs subsequently increased, and Merseytravel advised the Department in May 2005 that the total public sector cost was £315 million - an increase of 40%. This was for a scheme that was smaller in scope than the one we had approved.

This led to my announcement on 13 June 2005 that the Government would not increase its contribution to the project. However, our position has remained clear that the previously committed £170 million was available if the scheme could be delivered at that cost.

Since June the Department's key concern has been to ensure that there would be no further requests for Government funding. To this end, the Department needed assurance that the districts, as the ultimate funders of any shortfalls, had properly considered the risks, and accepted the consequences of the Government's contribution being capped. This logically meant that there should be no cap on the contribution from local sources. We made clear in July 2005 that we would need written undertakings from the Merseyside districts to this effect.

Since then the Department has tried to help the authorities find a way forward. In September 2005 it became clear that not all of the Merseyside districts would be prepared to give such undertakings. We agreed to consider a proposition that Liverpool and Knowsley, as the principal beneficiaries of the project, would provide assurances that they between them would meet any cost overruns or funding gaps. We have also agreed to requests to extend the deadline for a decision.

We have also said that our requirements would be satisfied by an arrangement under which the two districts would enter a back-to-back agreement committing Merseytravel to take the risk above a certain level, as long as the districts' commitments to the Department were unconditional. This approach could address district concerns about the prudence or lawfulness of providing unconditional commitments to the Department, provided that they satisfied themselves that they could rely on the agreement with Merseytravel.

The Merseyside authorities have now had four months to deliver these commitments, but they have not been prepared to do so. What the districts have offered is a capped commitment, whereby Liverpool and Knowsley would bear costs up to £24 million. Above that level, they have asked us to rely on assurances from Merseytravel.

However, Liverpool City Council has recently received written legal advice that it would not be prudent or lawful for Liverpool to rely on Merseytravel assurances about the risk of cost overruns without a proper independent due diligence exercise.

If Liverpool's own legal advice is that it cannot currently rely on Merseytravel assurances, then clearly it is not reasonable to expect the Department to do so.

Liverpool's advice is consistent with our view that there is nothing inherently unlawful in an unconditional district undertaking. What is preventing the districts from providing the commitment letters we have requested is that they cannot be confident in Merseytravel's assurances.

Our requirements have been clear since July. We have now had months of discussion with Merseyside. They have had plenty of time to undertake the necessary due diligence work. However, it is unfortunately clear that the districts are not prepared to give us the assurances we need; so we cannot be confident that there will be no further requests for funding. I have therefore decided that the scheme cannot proceed.

I recognise that transport investment is needed in Merseyside to support future growth in the area. We have committed over £200 million to transport improvements in Merseyside over the last 5 years, and we intend to continue to support good value schemes in the area. The Department stands ready to work with Merseytravel and Merseyside authorities on a package of transport improvements for Merseyside, especially improved public transport in the areas that would have been served by Merseytram. Funding will be there for the right proposals.

ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT BY GNN NORTH WEST

Department for Transport Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR

Client ref DFT/NW/065/05

GNN ref 125223P

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Other information
MERSEYTRAM - STATEMENT




© Crown Copyright 2005

Bastards, I hope New Labour is reminded of this come the next election :(

just as expected really

Note the logic-chopping justifications and blame shifting in the final paragraphs.

The Government in their wisdom have killed Merseytram. They've been trying to for a few months now, having nailed the Leeds Tram and others during the same period.

Notice, the lack of a mention for the £170 million, they previously had promised was available for local transport in Merseyside whether the tram proceeded or not.

I cannot help think the fact Leeds and Liverpool are not pilot sites for the congestion takling schemes may have had a baring on them being dumped.

Liverpool: European Capital of Fucking up projects 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 & 2008. Come and look at the trophy in Liverpool Museum, it's ours for keeps!

Its very very disappointing, an integral part of infrastructure that was needed onto the scrapheap.

I still feel that someone like Paul McCartney could have contributed to this system to get it through, he would have made his money back eventually!

*sighs* stupid govt

R.I.P. Are we ever going to see any kind of funding commitment from this government for proper public transport schemes? No, it doesn't look like, it seems they'd much rather plough money into roads and air travel instead. Obviously the talk about sustainability is nothing more than that... talk.

Can we use this 'promised' (I use the term loosely during Blurts tenure) £170m towards paying off our public tunnel debt, thus eliminating a huge burden on local transport, or is that not LonMancentric enough?? :?

Can we use this 'promised' (I use the term loosely during Blurts tenure) £170m towards paying off our public tunnel debt, thus eliminating a huge burden on local transport, or is that not LonMancentric enough?? :?
As mentioned on the radio, the Government have also saved themselves the cost of lines 2 & 3, by rejecting line 1.

Darling will find any excuse not to release this £170M, keep the tunnels in debt, thus burdening the local transport dept, who will be unable to put forward any suitable plans, due to the quivering wreck of a state they find themselves in, thus relying on scrounging tactics for castoff peanut husks from the DfT. :bash:

This mess also brings up the problem of different local councils not pulling together, this was called Merseytram.

Yes, I beleive there is some nice street furniture they have got there eye on to compliment london's PT schemes in time for the olympics. The money had to be found from somewhere.

the money should now be invested on the Liverpool Underground, modernisation and perhaps a couple of new stations at Kings Dock and Liverpool One.

What the fuck did people expect from New Labour? More clowns, U-turns and ups and downs than you'll find in a theme park. They're fucking CLUELESS about public transport. End of story. Final.

Bitterly disapointed but must admit I have been expecting this for over a year.

Heard Councillor Brant on the Radio this evening, he's already started the damage limitation excerise, trying to turn it into all being the council's fault instead of the government shitting on Liverpool - after all he wants to take over Bob Warrings seat in West Derby at the next election, which of course would have been the prime benificiary of the tram.

Thats the problem, we have local Labour Councillors and MPs are more interested in scoring points against the Council instead of fighting for the city. If this was Manchester all parties would be working together to force the government to change their minds.

He did promise the money would still be available for other local transport schemes - lets hope he isn't using a political definition of local, i.e. crossrail or perhaps an olympic cycle track!

Forgot to mention, expect many months of legal disputes as Merseytravel sue the government for the £40 - £60 million the have already sunk into the tram system

I did say it would all fail or i would dance round Beetham Tower Like a magical fairy. I WON.
__________________

Oh no ofstead is in my school tomorrow so i cannot smoke aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrr poor me.

I did say it would all fail or i would dance round Beetham Tower Like a magical fairy. I WON.
__________________

Oh no ofstead is in my school tomorrow so i cannot smoke aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrr poor me.

Yes, I know you did, but a word to the wise..........it's good to express sadness as well as saying you were sadly correct. Imagine it like this. Your friends granny is ill, you can hear the "death rattle" in her voice and know she's going to die, but her family say it's just a bad cold. They think she has more years in her. Well she snuffs it, you were right. What would you say, "I told you so", or "sorry, that's really sad"....and maybe a few days later say "but that bad throat was really bad".....

The City lost, and it's sad that you were one of the people who were right in predicting that.

I did have a hin't of sadness espcellialy for the City centre loop

_____________________________
Oh no ofstead is in my school tomorrow so i cannot smoke aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrr poor me.

I did have a hin't of sadness espcellialy for the City centre loop

_____________________________
Oh no ofstead is in my school tomorrow so i cannot smoke aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrr poor me.

Sounds like you could do with a break from it. From your posts I'm assuming when you say "smoke" you mean fat, grassy smokes. Strong shit too, by the sounds of it.

No, just normal REGAL or L&B

HOW DARE YOU? insult me like that!

What do you mean 'by the sounds of it'?

Just kidding Odysea :laugh:

good. hahahaha, i thought people thought I might be like people from Kirkby
:eek2:

I won't Smoke (as in the REGAL or L&B types cigs) tomorrow.
But i may be temptemd by people on the bus arround me.
Goodnite
LiverOdysea

There is an easy way to stop people smoking on buses! Fit every bus with sprinkler systems... filled with petrol :)

I don't know how a school student can afford ciggies.
I was just about to suggest moving this to the Skybar- but it's a shit thread anyway.

Guten Nacht.

I said this would happen.



We'll see you in court, Mr Blair

MERSEYSIDE'S transport leaders are considering legal action after the Government scrapped the region's £500m trams scheme, the Daily Post can reveal.

Transport Secretary Alastair Darling yesterday refused to release the vital £170m Treasury funding in a blow which put the final nail in the coffin of the project.

The decision sparked a bitter row over who was responsible for the scheme's collapse, with the majority of the region's politicians laying the blame firmly at the Government's door.

Line One, seen as central to the city's regeneration, has already cost at least £35m of taxpayers' money with foundations currently being laid as part of Liverpool's Big Dig roadworks. Last night, the Daily Post learned Merseytravel was consulting lawyers to consider what action it can take against the Government.

One option could be to apply for a judicial review, meaning a judge would be asked to rule whether the Government had reneged on its agreement to provide the £170m, initially pledged in December, 2002.

Lawyers will also be asked if there is any way the £35m already spent on the route between Liverpool and Kirkby can be recovered, it is understood...

...If a judicial review went ahead, it is understood Mersey Passenger Transport Authority (MPTA) would insist that it has met all the original conditions set by the Government for the funding to be released.

It could force the Government to pay the £170m if the review went in the authority's favour.

Merseytravel chairman Cllr Mark Dowd is expected to put any options for future action before a meeting of the MPTA board on Monday.

Both Cllr Dowd and Merseytravel chief executive Neil Scales were last night remaining tightlipped on their reaction to the Government's decision. A Merseytravel spokesperson said: "Merseytravel is considering a number of options but can make no comment in advance of a special meeting of the Passenger Transport Authority on Monday."

I did say it would all fail or i would dance round Beetham Tower Like a magical fairy. I won.

You are a :weirdo:

So what's the prospect of a judicial review?

Seems a bit of high risk strategy to me as it is hardly likely to endear our region to DfT - not that they were that endeared beforehand.

It all revolves around whether or not Merseytravel have a case. Reminds me of a line from the film 'All the President's Men' where the editor of the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee is considering publishing an article about Watergate: " We are about to accuse the top legal authority in the United States of America of being a liar - it would be nice if we're right".

So what is Merseytravel's case? I think there are a number of issues:

1. Did the DfT state that the £170 million would be index-linked?

2. At what stage in the negotiations were the DfT informed of the leaseback purchase of the trams? If this was 2 years ago, as people have claimed, why did they not inform Merseytravel that it would be unacceptable?

3. What is the difference between the leaseback arrangement adopted by the Docklands Light Railway and that proposed for Merseytravel? Why is one acceptable and the other not?

4. The DfT gave Merseytravel £4million to sustain the project prior to the General Election while delaying the decision until afterwards. At that time, where they aware of the proposed funding arrangement and, if so, why did they squander public money in this way knowing the project would be cancelled.

5. Liverpool and Knowsley councils maintain that they would not be within the law if they guaranteed to meet all cost overruns on the project. Is this the case?

6. Was the requirement for the councils to guarantee cost over-runs a requirement of the original agreement to provide funding or was it added on at a later stage as a further obstacle to the project going ahead? Has it been applied to other similar projects?

I'm sure there will be a number of other issues, so a judicial review might be quite an interesting process. Does anyone know how easy it would be to set up such a review and how long it would take to report?

So what's the prospect of a judicial review?


It all revolves around whether or not Merseytravel have a case.I'm sure there will be a number of other issues, so a judicial review might be quite an interesting process. Does anyone know how easy it would be to set up such a review and how long it would take to report?


Martin.
You have to ask what would be the purpose of such a review?
Would it be to regain the lost £30 million already spent or to defeat the governments case and build the tram system.
If Merseytravel actually won then what would be the cost of going ahead with it after months and months of inflation had accrued? :cheers:

Martin, good questions I don't know if we'll ever get truthful answers to them but for Q4. I would say one word VOTES, it may be an oversimplified and cynical response but I believe it to true anyway and at £4m it was probably cost effective to a Labour administration seeking a record 3rd term in office against a background of exposure over the Iraq conflict.

How far did they got with building the tram stop in "Liverpool 1"?

Wondering if it will sit there - a station with no trains, like Parkgate a port with no water, as a constant reminder that petty, small-minded arse-holes of politicians don't give a flying fuck about the public just about their own skins and I am including the Government, Liverpool city council and all of the others in this they're like a buch of children!

No stop was built, just a space between the ticket/information centre and the enclosed shelters. Perhaps they will use it for extra bus bays as the current station will be too small without the tram.

I would disagree with you, Louise Ellman, George Howarth and Mike Storey have kept the tram alive until now, this is purely down to Blair, Darling and Twigg.

Also I think if Merseytravel had listened to the Council and run the first line to the airport it would have been harder to turn down since the route was cheaper (much of it over existing rail lines) and would have been profitable to run.

I heard today that Tony Blair is talking about giving some of the rebate back to the EU so that the EU can pass it's budget - apperently the Hungarians have been complaining they will not be able to extend their underground with the money.

So basically boys and girls the money that should have gone to Liverpool's tram system is going on the Hungarian underground system :crazy:

Martin.
You have to ask what would be the purpose of such a review?
Would it be to regain the lost £30 million already spent or to defeat the governments case and build the tram system.
If Merseytravel actually won then what would be the cost of going ahead with it after months and months of inflation had accrued? :cheers:

Well, if we did manage to get the £30 million, it would be better than nothing. Of course, the aim would be to get the whole £170 million.

I'm not sure that a judicial review is a particularly long-winded process. It's not like a criminal trial. I think all it consists of is a judge going through the process and judging whether or not it has been carried out in accordance with the law. If the judgement went against the government, they could be forced to pay up or face a charge of 'malfeasance in public office' as the Railtrack shareholders charged the previous transport minister, Stephen Byers.

Makes you wonder if being appointed a transport minister is some sort of community service for ex-Oxbridge convicts.

Well, if we did manage to get the £30 million, it would be better than nothing. Of course, the aim would be to get the whole £170 million.


We should not be accepting dollar in the region of 30 million as a compromise. That 170m is ours and we deserve every last penny of it.

Really we deserve to get back the £30 million that has gone down the drain and the £170 million we where promised to spend on new schemes!

I would be happy just to get the new Mersey crossing approved, now that it looks like the £170m also may not be coming to Merseyside. Merseytrave need to ditch any hope/ideas for the trams and focus on alternatives quickly.

Headline News from this weeks Construction News:

Olympic Pool busts budget

Culture minister Tessa Jowell has rejected plans for London`s 2012 Olympic Aquatics Centre as cost has almost doubled from the budget of £75M.

Ms Jowell said " In our bid we pledged that the centre would cost £75M and that is precisely what it will do, with appropriate allowance for inflation

Well thats good news for Londons Olympic venues, NOW IF THE SAME RULES APPLIED TO MERSEYTRAM, it would also be good news for Liverpool.
I wonder if Merseytravel are aware of these double standards ?

i hope merseytravel are aware of this

I was just thinking today that the precedent set by the DfT response to Merseytram should be applied to other projects. For example London Crossrail, a snip at £20 billion. However, there must be no allowance for inflation and Ken Livingstone must agree to cover any costs over budget out of GLA funds. I'm sure he will be delighted.

I just wonder what would have happened if the Government had said any of the following:

"Sorry chaps, we never really wanted to fund it, but thought we would, but then we changed our mind"; or

"Sorry, we need the cash for the Olympics - we hoped Paris would win, but the French bastards lost - so now we are short of cash"

or something like that. The thing I think very hard to stomach is the mendacity of this. Government changed its mind, but wasn't prepared to tell the truth. I find that upsetting. But, please be honest - how would you react to being told straight that the Government needs the money for the Olympics?

The government are not going to tell the truth, who ever they are because we dont let them tell the truth, by the fact they would be voted out because of it, only to allow the next lot in to do the same, but we wont vote for them because they are worse than the current lot :) . Also the Olympics are a project which is certain to go ahead, and a major re-generation of rundown East London, so it has to be paid for, along with Hospitals, Schools, E.U. funding, Nuclear power, Pensions, Unemployment, Defence and defence projects (how many billions are they over budjet by).

It's just annoying that the Government applies different rules to projects in London as opposed to say Liverpool. i.e. leasing and inflation. Will be interesting to see if Olympics projcts are controlled as tightly as Merseytram, i hope they are.

It's a good point to hear Tessa Jowell has let it be known the Aquatics center project will be controlled to it's original £75m budget.

It was on the politics show today, sadly not the national one just the local one.

Mersey Tram are talking about suiing the Government for lieing to them.

I sat their watching it and thought what ever happens people must stop voting Labour and vote either Lib Dem or Tory, but don't vote Labour and keep the lieing sods in power.

Shouldn't you be watching Brum television as opposed to Manc television, what with you living in Stoke and all? :?

It's just annoying that the Government applies different rules to projects in London as opposed to say Liverpool. i.e. leasing and inflation. Will be interesting to see if Olympics projcts are controlled as tightly as Merseytram, i hope they are.

The Olympics will get all the cash it needs, as Britain does not want to be seen as the first nation to have to cancel the Games because it wasn't ready on time.

Remember the Millennium Dome? The Jubilee line had to be up and running by 31st. December 1999 to take New Year revellers there. The unions took London Transport to the cleaners and the project went £1.6 billion over budget. (Three 3 line Merseytrams plus change).

"I would be happy just to get the new Mersey crossing approved, now that it looks like the £170m also may not be coming to Merseyside. Merseytrave need to ditch any hope/ideas for the trams and focus on alternatives quickly."

Did anyone else notice the irony of the graphic that North West news has of the new Mersey crossing - it has a tram going accross the bridge.............

I would prefer the second mersey crossing to be south of the current bridge so that it directly linked JLA to the Wirral and beyond. I think the money should stay within Liverpool in order to further develop its transport infrastructure.

http://www.wimp.com/tram/

Responding to the recent decision by the Government to refuse funding for new tram schemes in Leeds, Merseyside and South Hampshire, Cllr Mark Dowd, Chair of the PTA special interest group (which brings together leading councillors from all seven of the UK’s PTAs), said:

‘The Government has said that it is not ‘anti-tram’ and that ‘the benefits of light rail are not in doubt.’ We share that view. Light rail and modern trams remain the right solution on some of our busiest urban corridors. They have a proven record of attracting motorists out of their cars and of shaping and stimulating urban regeneration. That’s why light rail is a key element in the transport strategies of successful cities across Europe and the rest of the World.’

‘However, after recent decisions we need to find a new way of developing and approving tram schemes, and we need the Government to be clearer and more consistent about what quality of public transport provision it wants to see - and is prepared to contribute to. It is a colossal waste of both professional and financial resources to spend upwards of ten years appraising and re-appraising schemes in exactly the way specified by the DfT, only to see them scrapped at the eleventh hour. The damage caused goes much wider than the loss of the scheme itself – wider transport and regeneration strategies have been based on the assumption that earlier Government approval for tram schemes means that those schemes will happen. Scrapping tram schemes at such a late stage leaves a big tear in the canvas of urban renewal. There is no adequate ‘Plan B’.’

‘The recent traumas over light rail schemes in our major cities have been an unhappy experience for everyone involved. Private sector confidence in financing and supplying the light rail sector is also damaged. To prevent a reoccurrence we hope we can now sit down with Government to find a way of ensuring that more UK cities can still benefit from light rail and modern trams through a faster, more affordable and more stable procurement and approval process.’

Oh and by the way, Crossrail has just got another £100million bringing the total of our, sorry, government spending to £280 million - and it hasn't even got the go-ahead yet.

Well it is Christmas.

So Merseytravel has served it's writ for £50 million against the UK government in respect of the tram fiasco.

What's the end game though? Get the spent money back? Get the 'promised' £170 million? Government win and another £2/3 million goes on to the debt?

The government have taken the piss on this one, it's buttons in the grand scheme of things and once again they've shown contempt for the people of Liverpool. Scousers won't vote tory and quite rightly so, but fewer and fewer are voting Labour. To the tories the city has been a lost cause for a generation, for Labour it's a nailed on vote - we don't matter in UK politics any more.

Maybe it isn't a court case that's needed here but a bloody nose at the ballot box. The loss of just one Merseyside MP for the Labour party would send shockwaves through the government.

START FIGHTING OUR CORNER OR TAKE A WALK

The threat in Liverpool doesn't come from the Tories though,

It doesn't have to, vote against your standing MP with his/her closest rival.

Our politicians have been shite for years, this lot are the bottom of a well scrapped barrel.

Frank Sidebottom, MP for Bootle....

Merseytram legal action launched
Artist's impression of Merseytram
The Merseytram was intended to open by 2008
Merseytravel has begun legal action against the government in a last attempt to save the Merseytram project.

The passenger transport authority is hoping a judge will order the government to hand over the £170m it originally pledged towards the scheme.

Transport Minister Derek Twigg said last month the money would not be released because local councils had not agreed to fund any shortfall.

Lawyers have lodged four main charges in the case against the government.

These include a claim that it breached a commitment made in 2002 that £170m would be available for the scheme if certain conditions were met.


Even at this late stage we would ask the government to reverse its decision and let us proceed with this important project for Merseyside
Merseytravel chairman Mark Dowd

Merseytravel chairman, Councillor Mark Dowd, said: "I regret having to take this action when we have worked constructively with the department for many years and delivered real transport benefits across Merseyside, in accordance with government policy.

"However, the government has left us with no choice, unless we are to accept that the investment which we and our partners have put into the project has been lost, due to the government going back on its commitments.

"Our barristers have informed us that our case is strong and even at this late stage we would ask the government to reverse its decision and let us proceed with this important project for Merseyside, without the need for court action."

Recoup money

Merseytravel expects the hearing to take place early in the new year.

Construction could start in March, with completion in 2009, if the judicial review is successful.

If the government's decision is upheld, Merseytravel wants to recoup money it has invested in the project over the last six years.

It had been hoped the first tram line from Liverpool city centre to Kirkby would be in place in time for Liverpool's year as European Capital of Culture in 2008.

The estimated cost was £300m, but the government refused to release its lump sum after Liverpool and Knowsley Councils said they would only fund £24m of any budget overrun.

Toot, toot!

Radio Merseyside News.

A high court judge has given the go-ahead for Merseytravel to take the Govt to court over funding for Merseytram. The trial will be end of Jan 2006, with possibility of Tram construction starting in March 2006 if Merseytravel succeeds in the court case in getting the govt to release the funding.

Very long article in this months 'Tramways and Urban Transit' about the situation Liverpool finds itself in, discussing how this 'fiasco' as the magazine describes it happened, and the possibility of legal action.

Won't bother you with the how did we get here part, since we all know that, but reading very much between the lines, I suspect that the PTE are quite confident about getting the £35m back - not so sure about the chances of getting the £170m though.

Did they point the finger at any particular city group with regards to being the main cause of rejection...or did they lay the blame at the foot of dept of transport (what ever current guise it is in)

The whole tone of the magazine this month is extremely anti-DfT, however, they say in the article about Merseytram the only party to come out looking good if Knowsley Council (is that were Kirby is???), saying Liverpool fannied about too much, and may not have been 100% behind the project all the way through it's progress.

I'd say they were saying 33% Liverpool's fault and 67% DfT - basically Liverpool gave the DfT an easy 'out' for the project.

Will re-read the article this week and post the highlights.

Surprisingly (for me) it has a go at Neil Scales - I always thought he played it well, but they accuse him of being a bit of a gambler - e.g. buying all the rails, that have cost the project lots of money.

Double standards from the DfT when it comes to roads verses decent local public transport, just recieved this email...

I make the increase in cost of this road project, over 3 years to be 64%
(against a national average for trunk roads of 53% and local roads of 42%)
- and it will go ahead. South Hampshire's cost overun was 26% and
Liverpool's 40% (figures from Hansard 30 Nov 2005)

http://tinyurl.com/7rw5s

£11.6M ROUTE TO EASE TRAFFIC
Be
<http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=133965&command=dis
playContent&sourceNode=133948&contentPK=13766500&moduleName=InternalSearch&f
ormname=sidebarsearch#commentform> the first reader to comment on this story

DAVID MARLEY

12:00 - 03 January 2006

An £11.6m road scheme will ease traffic congestion on a major Notts commuter
route.

The project includes a 1.2-mile new route between Victoria Road, in
Netherfield, and the A612 Burton Road.

A bus lane will improve journeys for commuters. Work should start in
February and take a year.

Coun Stella Smedley, cabinet member for environment at Notts County Council,
said the government decision to fund the new road was "fantastic news" for
Gedling residents and commuters.

"The scheme will be a boost to public transport," she said. "There are
considerable congestion problems and this will go a long way to solving
them."

A bus lane created on the A612 is expected to save passengers around ten
minutes on journeys. It is estimated about 30,000 vehicles travel along
Burton Road each day, passing Carlton le Willows School.

The new road is expected to cut this to 3,000 vehicles a day, bringing
safety benefits.

But the development has proved controversial with Carlton Town football
club, which will lose its main pitch to make way for the road.

Club chief executive Mick Garton said he was against the development, but
the club had reached a deal with the county council.

"We have never been happy with it, but there comes a point when it's a
battle you're not going to win," he said. "We have to make the best of it.
The council has agreed to pay for three new all-weather five-a-side pitches.
It will also pay for the floodlights, changing rooms and clubhouse to be
moved."

But Mr Garton said the club was still left having to raise around £50,000 to
move the seated stand.

Janice Ryan, 59, whose house in Stoke Lane will back on to the new road,
said: "I am unhappy, It's going to knock £40,000 off the value of my house.
I'll be worried about my grandchildren playing in the garden."

The scheme is being paid for through the Local Transport funding process,
with the Department for Transport providing almost £7.5m.

Gedling MP Vernon Coaker said: "It's a very good scheme that should make a
big difference.

"It will ease a bottleneck, encourage more people on to public transport and
make the road safer for pupils."

The scheme's cost has increased since it was first accepted in December 2002
at just over £7m.

Long may it continue......90 per cent of all passenger journeys are by car and 90 per cent of business freight goes by road. That's the reality in this free society and democratically elected politicians are doing their job by providing taxpayers money for 'sensible' road improvements.

What we don't need is hard earned wealth/cash sprayed around on fantasy projects that do very little to solve congestion problems.

You have a point there, but I think the main problem is the perception that roads are assets, to 'investeed' in, whilst gov sees Public transport as having to be 'subsidised'...surely both are investment opportunities?

We have motor-WAYS
and we have rail-WAYS.so why the difference in perception

Long may it continue......90 per cent of all passenger journeys are by car and 90 per cent of business freight goes by road. That's the reality in this free society and democratically elected politicians are doing their job by providing taxpayers money for 'sensible' road improvements.

What we don't need is hard earned wealth/cash sprayed around on fantasy projects that do very little to solve congestion problems.

And this sums up the attitude of too many in this country. That being most of us choose to drive anyway so to hell with public transport. Our roads are congested enough as it is and it's not going to get better. The reason so many people drive to work or the shops, is because the alternatives are not very efficient and have been underinvested in for years due to privatisation. Tony's right with regards to the government and local council's differing attitudes towards private vehicle owners and public transport, the former requiring investment and the latter needing to be subsidised, usually with the assumption that only the old and the very poor rely upon it, hence why Merseytram's Line1 had to go to Kirkby to be seen as justifyable, despite Kirkby having a rather decent Merseyrail connecton. We need to start looking after our environment. That being making our cities safer & cleaner. A reduction in cars and an increase in things such as electric buses and trams would go some way to rectify that. Assuming everyone drives or should drive is an ignorant and defeatist point of view. Public transport is not good enough in this country and cities such as Liverpool deserve better.

Long may it continue......90 per cent of all passenger journeys are by car and 90 per cent of business freight goes by road. That's the reality in this free society and democratically elected politicians are doing their job by providing taxpayers money for 'sensible' road improvements.

What we don't need is hard earned wealth/cash sprayed around on fantasy projects that do very little to solve congestion problems.



Such an enlightened point of view.

So the 25% of the population that cannot afford to own a car and the 50% of women who do not hold a driving license, should just put up with a crap public transport system we have in this country.

You talk about democracy - well the vast majority of the public in Manchester want and are demanding tram expansion, as was shown at the last election when the biggest swing against a labour MP was in Withington - a constituency that has not got it's trams yet.

You talk about expensive 'fantasy' projects, well, believe it or not, other countries seem to be able to quite efficiently get these things built for a fraction of the cost, and in a fraction of the time.

If these are so worthless why, amongst many other cities, has Dublin built 3 lines in the last 5 years, and plans to have another 6 lines by the end of the decade?

What the people of Merseytravel, the people of Leeds and the people of Manchester want(ed) was to be treated equally with other countries and other forms of transport.

There is no reason whatsoever that our systems have to cost so much, most of the reasons are down to incompetence by the DfT.

There are three things that the DfT do that adversely affect the price - very significantly, that make our systems more expensive than abroad, they being...

risk - we are far too keen to get the private sector to bare ALL the risk, in doing so, this forces the price right up, if the fare revenue doesn't meet expectations than they get landed with a loss making scheme. Therefore, no matter how well planned etc the scheme has been, the private sector always factors in the worst case scenario - this need not be the case, and is not the case in other countries.

procurment methods - as happened in Liverpool, the way the government is totally inflexible towards inivative methods of proicuring the infrastructure adds to costs - see Madrid recently got 15% discount on the trams as they ordered 300 odd along with a German city (whose name I forget).

delays - the DfT take AGES and I mean ages when deciding these schemes, all this time money is being wasted, for example, Leeds spent £40m in getting turned down, that money would have been enough for Liverpool to having proceeded. Not only that, but each bidding consortia in Leeds, Portsmouth, Liverpool and Manchester (prior to current re-bidding) have spent a bloody fortune on their consultants etc, they need to recoupe that money, and as such that will be included in their following bids - including a 'rsik' factor that the bid they are currently going for will not be allocated to anyone either, but simply scrapped. You'll find that in countries such as Ireland and Spain, they go from idea through planning and into construction in no time. Lyon had 3 lines proposed in 2000, the same time Manchester got initial funding for phase 3. Lyon now has 3 lines built and another 5 on the way - Manchester is still trying to get funding for phase 3 - all those consultants have been being paid for the last 6 years.



Finally, if you really think they are fantasy and we should concentrate on the car, bear in mind, the Americans - the most car friendly country in the world, who have a president who is in the pockets of the oil companies are now building dozens of these tram lines since they now see the sense in having good quality public transport - for god's sake, the bloody yanks are going to have better local public transport in their medium sized cities than us soon!!!

It's worth pointing out, both Liverpool and Leeds tram schemes were not cancelled due to the cost of digging up roads and laying of the tracks, as far as I am aware, the government was quite happy with that side of things, the price hikes that got both these schemes cancelled was the potential liabilities of the consortia running the systems for the next 30 odd years.

If we ran a public transport system as they do in the rest of the developed world that didn't have to both cover it's running costs as well as it's construction costs, then this risk would not have been a risk, and as such, the price would have been a fraction (I seem to remember about 50% lower, but may be wrong) and both systems would now be being constructed.

We are shite at public transport - and getting worse.

Out of interest Jets - what do you plan to do when oil starts to get harder and harder to get out of the ground and the price starts going much higher?

We aren't far from that now, and unless we start getting alternatives to the car built soon, we could end up being right in the shit, with all the other countries in the world miles ahead of us.

P.S. If you think I'm talking shite about the price of oil rising, have a look at what is happening with gas between Ukraine and Russia.

We rely heavily on other countries for oil - in a very unstable part of the world - it is far from impossible that a similar situation could arise with oil, which would force the price of the stuff sky high.

The 'perfect' world of publc transport, created by beurocrats, in the heads of beaurocrats.A plan which only works when tram tracks impede private traffic, traffic signals have been 'fixed' against general traffic, the riff raff have been ushered onto Merseytravels cattle trucks and the whole thing has been subsidised with zillions of pounds.

We need a balanced transport policy which faces reality, life as it is, not in the minds of road traffic engineer fascists.

The underlying problem is that public transport has to continue to run faster and faster just to keep up with the car which gets more recyclable, quieter, cleaner, safer, more reliable, cheaper to run, using less resources and generally environmentally friendlier with each decade that passes. That's the overwhelming reality and one billion here and there on Merseytram isn't going to change a thing.

What is going on in the US, Spain, France, Germany, S Korea, Switzerland, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Australia.... (the list is endless), why are they ALL investing heavily in TRAMS all over their countries if they are such a bad idea.

Challenge for you, find a list of the richest countries in the world, and find which is the highest place one, apart from the UK that doesn't currently have a tram system under construction, then explain to me how they are all getting the balance wrong, but we are getting it right.

Their is a general consensus globally that you should invest a similar amount on roads as you do in public transport, most countries have a quite near 50 / 50 split.

Guess which country has the largest split? Not the US by the way.

You talk about a balance in transport, we have the most unbalanced policy towards transport anywhere in the world.

The underlying problem is that public transport has to continue to run faster and faster just to keep up with the car which gets more recyclable, quieter, cleaner, safer, more reliable, cheaper to run, using less resources and generally environmentally friendlier with each decade that passes. That's the overwhelming reality and one billion here and there on Merseytram isn't going to change a thing.

The underlying problem is that people like yourself do not have a grasp of the real costs of provision of your 'democratic' private transport.

Do you seriously believe that public transport has to keep up with cars with respect to safety,environmental friendliness etc? Trains, trams and buses are many times safer than private cars (don't forget that pedestrians are the main victims of car accidents). They also last much longer and are used more efficiently (cars spend most of their lives in car parks or garages). Electric traction produces no pollutants in the city street and power station pollutants are much more easily managed.

By the way, Merseytram 3 line route would have cost £500 million, not 'billions here and there' and would have changed a great deal.

Private transport encourages urban sprawl and generates additional traffic so that investment in new road construction does not solve the congestion problem.

It would be interesting to compare the amount of time people spend travelling today to, say 20 or 30 years ago when car ownership was less.

There are other less obvious benefits to public transport. Public transport tends to promote social cohesion by the mere fact that it is public. When you refer to public transport users as 'riff raff' you are showing how the idea that the use of the private car promotes greater status has been implanted in you by car advertisements.

The car is the enemy of the city, the less dependency we have on it the better.

I find it infuriating when car users complain that public transport 'gets priority'. Particularly on a morning when I'm being held up on the bus because it's pulled in to let passengers alight and twenty cars have failed to stop to let it pull out (an offense that would cause you to fail your driving test).

Buses, trams, trains hold more people. How many cars have just one person in at 8.30am on a Monday morning? I'm sorry, but the fifty and myself on the number 14 <i>are</i> more important than you.

Of course, I was referring to public transport users(that means virtually all of us), ironically, as 'riff raff'. The awfulness of this debate is that many pubic transport zealots only wish that that geanie should go back in its bottle, anything to turn the clock back. An incredibly reactionary attitude where the hoi polloi need to be put back in their boxes(unfortunately in this case, not the private sort called cars).

The car has been an incredibly liberating fact for millions of ordinary people. The 'value added' of it and most road transport has been a major driver of our increased standard of living. That's not a cliche statement. In the living memory of my parents, there were many kids in this city who didn't have shoes, never mind a decent regular meal.

Thanks, but no thanks. I don't want to turn the clock back. I want a mobile, wealthy city where public transport takes a part in a bigger democratic picture.

It is not so much the car itself, as the types of planning and land use we have been following that makes its use essential...for even the most mundane of tasks, that is the fundamental problem.

In Germany and Italy for example they haven't ripped thier cities apart to accomodate cars, at the same time making them essential. People there have more cars than us per head....they just need to use them less because their neighbourhoods (with their attendant economic and social structures) are still intact.

You'll notice that my over-riding request from government is not to pay the higher costs that trams cost to construct in this coutry, but rather manage the projects similarly to how they are abroad, which would make them cheap and affordable.

Of course, I was referring to public transport users(that means virtually all of us), ironically, as 'riff raff'. The awfulness of this debate is that many pubic transport zealots only wish that that geanie should go back in its bottle, anything to turn the clock back. An incredibly reactionary attitude where the hoi polloi need to be put back in their boxes(unfortunately in this case, not the private sort called cars).

The car has been an incredibly liberating fact for millions of ordinary people. The 'value added' of it and most road transport has been a major driver of our increased standard of living. That's not a cliche statement. In the living memory of my parents, there were many kids in this city who didn't have shoes, never mind a decent regular meal.

Thanks, but no thanks. I don't want to turn the clock back. I want a mobile, wealthy city where public transport takes a part in a bigger democratic picture.

Believe it or not, public transport can also be a liberating fact for millions of people. It allows people who do not have access to cars the freedom to move around.

If all private transport were to be banned in Liverpool, (and I am not advocating this for one minute), most people would still be able to travel. On the other hand, if all public transport were to be banned, about half the public would not be able to travel at all and the half that could would find their journeys congested due to increased road traffic.

You are quite correct to say that the car has been a liberating fact for millions of people but what you don't appreciate is the fact that it has also taken away people's liberty.

Cars clog up streets and restrict peoples freedom of movement, they create pollution that is believed to contribute to record levels of asthma as well as global warming. They create a demand for ever more road widening and building that destroys homes, agricultural land and spoils the countryside.

There is also an appallingly high death and injury toll as a result of car use with around 3,500 people killed every year in road accidents and a huge number seriously injured. Rail accidents, though receiving far greater publicity, account for around ten deaths in an average year.

Remember also that the chances of being involved in a rail accident if you do not travel by train or trespass on railways is almost non-existent. However, people who do not choose to use cars are more at risk from road accidents than those who do.

Not as liberating as you thought.

In fact, some years ago, a transport expert came up with an interesting theory. If you wish to increase the speed of road transport in any commuter corridor, the best way to do that is by increasing the speed of trains in the same corridor.

The logic was that trains have far higher capacity than private cars. Increasing the speed of trains attracts more commuters from cars and removes a corresponding number of cars from the road. Consequently, the road is less congested and traffic moves at higher speeds. The higher speed traffic encourages more people to use their cars so eventually road congestion returns but overall speed by both modes is increased.

On the other hand, road widening increases capacity and speed in the short term but attracts sufficient passengers from the train back into their cars to completely fill the additional capacity in a much shorter period of time.

Cities all over the world are seeing the benefits of investing in high quality public transport. Los Angeles is a good example.

If you look at silent films, you see the early 20c streetcars that were a feature of the city in its early days. In fact, LA had one of the finest public transport networks of any city.

In the post Second World War years, the road lobby formed of automobile manufacturers, highway constructors and oil companies bought up and closed these streetcar lines and a programme of road construction made LA the automobile capital of the world.

Not only did this car dependency cause the famous choking smogs that blanketed the city (you first encountered it 60 miles from the centre), but also ensured that the city sprawled ever outward to accommodate the huge parking lots and freeways required by the motor car.

People who lived in poor neighbourhoods and did not have access to a car were isolated and that factor is often blamed for the huge increase in crime and violence that the city experienced.

Now, Los Angeles is seeing the error of its ways and is pouring large amounts of money into creating new rapid transit lines. Lets hope that British cities learn from this example.

It is not a question of banning the car it is of giving people a cleaner, safer, cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternative.

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=17340888%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=fury%2dover%2dnew%2dtram%2dcash%2dsnub-name_page.html

Fury over new tram cash snub Jul 6 2006

By Ian Hernon, Liverpool Echo

FURIOUS MPs today slammed the government for giving cash to Manchester's trams after ditching the Merseyside scheme.

Transport bosses had previously rejected plans to extend the Metrolink system to Oldham and Rochdale.

But today they completed a U-turn and approved the three-year £520m scheme.

The decision infuriated MPs already angered by the decision to ditch Merseytram when costs rose to £230m.

They will now press new Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander for a rethink.

Riverside MP Louise Ellman, of the transport select committee, said: "There is a compelling case for Metrolink, but the Merseytram case was equally compelling.

"Both are extremely important for regeneration across the north west and it was deeply disappointing that Merseytram was cancelled through a combination of local authority delay and a government change of heart."

Walton's Peter Kilfoyle said: "You can't have one rule for Metrolink and another for Merseytram. We will now be pressing for a rethink and a new regime in the city council might prove more helpful.

"Merseytram is vitally important because it would connect outer areas of high unemployment with city centre areas of high job growth."

But transport minister Gillian Merron insisted: "We are investing record amounts in transport, putting right decades of underinvestment."

Schemes given the go-ahead over the next three years, for which no funding figures are yet available, include the Hall Lane bypass, Edge Lane eastern approaches improvements and the A58 Blackbrook diversion at St Helens.

The new Mersey crossing upriver from Widnes has been approved for 2009-16.

But no approval has yet been given for improved access to the Port of Liverpool, the Bidston Moss viaduct at junction 1 of the M53 in Wirral or the Thornton to Switch Island link in Sefton.

What a fucking joke that is, giving even more money to Manchester's tram system while we are stuck with nothing >(

No offence to anyone here, but living in Manchester and having absolutely no direct rail link into thew centre of Manchester (I live in Chorlton), I have the inconvenience of either having to take a bus (the worst case of public transport known to man) or taxi into Manchester. My mother and father still live in Liverpool (Aigburth), which has excellent links into the city & wherever I lived in Liverpool, I was able to get the train into the city thanks to good old Merseyrail (which I believe is looking at expanding its netweok in the future).
Merseytram's route proposals were going to places that already have a decent rail link into Liverpool (Kirkby & also out towards Prescot). Did anybody think to perhaps take the routes to places where there weren't any rail links?
My overall point being, Liverpool has a far better rail nework that that of Manchester and although I thought the Merseytram decision to be a bad one (get people from using their cars & onto public transport, etc), you should think of yourselevs as being far better off than us here in Manc, who have to put up with bussing it everywhere and paying a fortune for the privilage...

Merseyrail is a terrific asset for Liverpool and I agree sending the trams to places already served by MEL would seem rather pointless.

Merseytram's route proposals were going to places that already have a decent rail link into Liverpool (Kirkby & also out towards Prescot). Did anybody think to perhaps take the routes to places where there weren't any rail links?

Living in Manc must have dulled your local travel awareness around Liverpool.

Of course the beginning of the tram Line 1, Liverpool City Centre, and the end, Kirkby, have already rail connections.

But the route taking it through Islington, Shiel Road, Tuebrook, West Derby, Norris Green, Croxteth and Gillmoss all have one thing in common and that is they are all miles away from ANY rail station.