Cambridge Guided Busway - ongoing discussion and updates (merged topic)

[whole diary]

[grahame]

But what most puzzled me was the need for the hugely expensive guidance system ...

Perhaps a hugely expensive guided system opens the door for an even more hugely inflated raft of outside funding.

[grahame]

From Cambridge News

Calls for major changes to 'dangerous' stretch of guided busway that's '8 times worse than the A14'

Many say the speed limit should be reduced to 20mph after cyclist Steve Moir was killed along the busway earlier this year

[TonyK]

From Cambridge News

Calls for major changes to 'dangerous' stretch of guided busway that's '8 times worse than the A14'

Many say the speed limit should be reduced to 20mph after cyclist Steve Moir was killed along the busway earlier this year

That is the second fatal accident on the busway since it opened in 2011. There have also been other serious incidents.

[CyclingSid]

In Reply #200 on: November 07, 2018, 08:28:08 am I used the Where's the Path app. If you have used the App before or intend to please note this announcement:

Google have recently ended free use of their mapping services by
medium volume websites. Their huge price hike for such sites means
that after ten years or so, Where's the path will probably have to close.
For now, it is running on limited daily quotas so may fail on you from
time to time. I doubt there is anything you or I can do about it.
Thanks for all your support over the years. Bill Chadwick Dec 2018

I am not sure how many other apps/sites will be affected. Hopefully not things like the National Library of Scotland map archive.

[Red Squirrel]

...I am not sure how many other apps/sites will be affected. Hopefully not things like the National Library of Scotland map archive.

Google are clearly trying to squeeze a bit more revenue out of their mapping service, but they can't charge you to look at anyone else's maps - so the NLS map archive should be safe!

Typically it affects websites that show a Google Maps view on their 'where to find us' page; they have had to register with Google who then monitor usage and start to charge once the map is accessed a certain number of times.

[Oxonhutch]

I think the part of the NLS georeferenced maps section is the transparency slide bar between the old map on displace and a real world image underneath.  There is a lot of cloud and other dark patches on the NLS satellite imagery so maybe it is from a non-Google source.

[Red Squirrel]

NLS gives you lots of choices for the background map - ESRI, Bing, MapTiler, OpenStreetMap, OS^▸ (Ordnance Survey) OpenData, Stamen, Open TopoMap... but not Google!

[Oxonhutch]

NLS gives you lots of choices for the background map - ESRI, Bing, MapTiler, OpenStreetMap, OS^▸ (Ordnance Survey) OpenData, Stamen, Open TopoMap... but not Google!

Just seen that option now. Every day's a school day - thanks!

[CyclingSid]

Did a cycle ride down the Gosport - Fareham Busway yesterday to see what progress on the extension.

They have cleared the trees from the end of the existing busway. Intrigued to see that there was still a single rail track amongst the remains of the vegetation. Also a set of buffers at the end of the track, presumably all left from when it was finally used to supply the RNAD Bedenham. Also a sign has appeared at the Fareham end announcing to intention to extend that end, which is part of the Fareham development plan.

No sight of any plant or anything, so presumably awaiting the next phase in spring.

[CyclingSid]

An update on the extension for the Fareham - Gosport busway. The first part of the extension (Fareham end) has been cleared and is now a clear view through. More of the old track is visible. Further on they have cleared a "busway width" on the exiting cycle route. Southern Gas Networks are also working there on a new large bore main, hope the two organisations are communicating.

[grahame]

From Transport Extra

Cambridgshire County Council has submitted a court claim against BAM Nuttall, the contractor who built the Cambridgeshire guided busway, for the cost of repairing defects to the infrastructure.

The busway between St Ives  and Cambridge opened in 2011 but the concrete track has been blighted with problems. The council says  vertical and horizontal steps developed at the joints between the precast track sections; the foundations of the guideway moved differentially; and slivers of the concrete broke off at numerous locations.

In August 2017 Cambridgeshire estimated that the repairs were likely to cost at least £36.5m and take three years to complete (LTT 18 Aug 17). The council said at the time that BAM was refusing to accept liability for the defects.

[eightf48544]

Has anyone totted up the total cost of the busway?

You could probably have had a high speed rail link for the price.

[TonyK]

Has anyone totted up the total cost of the busway?

You could probably have had a high speed rail link for the price.

The original cost was supposed to be £116.2 million, £92.5 million of which was to come from central government. As with Bristol's MetroBust, the government contribution was fixed, leaving Cambridgeshire with a mere £23.7 million to pay. The cost of reopening the railway had been put at £48 million. The final cost was at least £180 million, giving CCC a bill of almost £90 million. None of the businesses who had undertaken to contribute to the cost actually did so.

Cambridgeshire CC launched a legal action against BAM Nuttall for £60 million, budgeting £6,5 million for legal fees. BAM Nuttall counter-sued for £43 million. Part of the action concerned a cost of £21 million for replacing defective parts of the busway, which had been open for under 2 years, which they said was a result of construction defects and BAM Nuttall said was fair wear and tear. CCC scored a Pyrrhic victory on the steps of the court, cutting the £43 million counter claim to £800,000. Legal and professional charges put the total cost at over £150 million, £26 million of which came from the council budget. Other necessary transport projects had to be cancelled to pay the tab. Conservatively, the total cost  so far has been about £250 million to build a crumbling busway in place of a railway that would have cost half that, even with traditional runaway railway costs. Fair enough, the railway didn't run into the city centre or science park. The latter got its own railway station in 2017 on the Fen line, Cambridge North, which connects to the busway.

The auguries are not good for Cambridgeshire CC. Based on the first court case, I would expect BAM Nuttall to defend the case robustly. If the repair cost was estimated at "at least £36.5 million" three years ago, it is anybody's guess what they will be now with inflation and further deterioration. BAM Nuttall probably have better legal resources than CCC.

Worryingly for the people of Bristol and surrounding areas, the Cambridgeshire Busway was the often-cited exemplar for MetroBust. There are, apparently, issues with the busway there. At least it is short and pointless, rather than crucial, and having been unused for a lot of the time since it was built, it shouldn't have had the same wear and tear.

[CyclingSid]

A further update on the Gosport - Fareham Busway, yesterday(18/7/20).

The starting section from the existing busway appears to have been dugout to full depth for the preparation of the pavement. In the middle section (to where the existing cycle path crosses it) all the former rails appear to have been removed and excavation to partial depth. The last section surveyed and marked out to the junction with the Rowner Road (which I still can't visualise).

[eightonedee]

The original cost was supposed to be £116.2 million, £92.5 million of which was to come from central government. As with Bristol's MetroBust, the government contribution was fixed, leaving Cambridgeshire with a mere £23.7 million to pay. The cost of reopening the railway had been put at £48 million. The final cost was at least £180 million, giving CCC a bill of almost £90 million. None of the businesses who had undertaken to contribute to the cost actually did so.

Cambridgeshire CC launched a legal action against BAM Nuttall for £60 million, budgeting £6,5 million for legal fees. BAM Nuttall counter-sued for £43 million. Part of the action concerned a cost of £21 million for replacing defective parts of the busway, which had been open for under 2 years, which they said was a result of construction defects and BAM Nuttall said was fair wear and tear. CCC scored a Pyrrhic victory on the steps of the court, cutting the £43 million counter claim to £800,000. Legal and professional charges put the total cost at over £150 million, £26 million of which came from the council budget. Other necessary transport projects had to be cancelled to pay the tab. Conservatively, the total cost  so far has been about £250 million to build a crumbling busway in place of a railway that would have cost half that, even with traditional runaway railway costs. Fair enough, the railway didn't run into the city centre or science park. The latter got its own railway station in 2017 on the Fen line, Cambridge North, which connects to the busway.

Two contributions -

Firstly, I was told some years ago that the crucial factor behind this being promoted as a guided busway rather than reopening the St Ives to Cambridge branch as a railway was the cost of repairing the bridge over the Great Ouse at St Ives and upgrading it to current railway standards. My source was involved with the project for a government agency, and someone I would regard as reliable. Do those costs now stack up? Too late to do anything about it now!

Secondly, (admitting that this might be nonsense coming from a non-engineer), my limited knowledge of railway infrastructure and formations is that embankments are not entirely stable structures, but subject to subsidence and movement and therefore need constant vigilance and periodic work to adjust for this. If you are running rails on ballast I have always assumed that minor movement is dealt with by tamping and tinkering with the ballast. Presumably if instead you have laid concrete busway sections on the formation they will either start to come out of alignment or crack, unless the formation was entirely reconstructed to modern motorway standards (and we all know of dips in well used motorways where movement has clearly occurred). I don't know the extent of reconstruction of the earthworks, but entirely rebuilding them strikes me as a very expensive alternative to rebuilding one bridge. Was this a mis-calculation that you could just lay concrete busway sections on an old railway formation without proper consideration of its suitability to support them? Anyone know if this is entirely uninformed speculation on my part?

Apologies in advance if this  has all been aired earlier on this thread before I joined the forum.