Central Bedfordshire Dilemmas

I am writing to you about some concerns which have arisen which we at ERTA are of a view of what should be done and wish to make you aware of it.

1. Rookery Pit Waste and Recycling Centre. The approach to this has been wrong and lack-lustre - who is advising you/the responsible person on this project? Surely the centre, if it goes ahead should be rail-served off the Marston Vale railway from day one? This centre, to be viable, will seek regional audiences to bring in waste and take out tonnes of ash. The old County Minerals Plans of a decade or more ago, made it clear it desired to send more by rail but fell short in such aspiration by virtue of a. the rails were not there or joined up, b. the rail system does not lend itself to quick turn around and c. Costs and liabilities makes Councils afraid of debt, fear putting forward a rail plan. Meanwhile routes and options are compromised for other development pressures ending in a loss of potential reach and ranges. Government needs feedback. Has anyone contacted Rt. Hon Mr Chris Grayling M.P., Secretary of State for Transport to make a case for this centre to be rail connected from day one? 500 lorries a day on our roads will add to wear and tear costs, add to congestion potential, slow other road users down and generally cause an inconvenience. What the corridor needs is a rail-based plan to nurture recycling by rail, bulky things like cars, fridges, scrap metal and so forth and then the apparatus to on-site recycle and sell that material to those who can deploy it. With East-West Rail, the Marston Vale will be a regional link and because it has spare capacity and is off main lines, can offer more potentially. Are we picking up on this window to create jobs, sustainable jobs and boost the sustainable footprint of our operational needs?

2. Ampthill Station. Housing now goes up to the A507 bypass which has become a localised, speed check distributor artery with mini roundabouts inserted along it. The old myth that the old station was too far out of the town to be used, needs debunking in a development and car based societal revolution - welcome to the 21st century. Flitwick courts commuters off the M1, from Milton Keynes, Marston Vale and south of Wixams as well as Ampthill and Flitwick for example. It's catchment is thus up to 20 miles. If commuters can drive-time south, they save £'s on rail tickets and give themselves time to themselves. Fact is that the development around Flitwick has to be pitted against the growth of commuting demand and that modest provision will quickly be surpassed and reverting as now to parking on streets proliferatedly becomes a nuisance. Moreover the town hangs on one railway bridge over the railway and poor local roads including height-width restrictions along Froghall Road. A pedestrian crossing is needed from Flitwick Station footbridge to the Swan Pub across the road bridge to link with Dunstable Road and the row of shops opposite. The bus shelter for Ampthill needs sprucing up and made more visible, signposted from the station exits with RTI installed and a focus on Flitwick-Ampthill bus distributor services up until about 22:00 Monday-Saturday to enable rail-bus access minus the drive. 

What Ampthill would offer if:

a. Traffic relief to Flitwick

b. Access to it from the Stepplingley Road - creams off from A507, CentreParcs, M1, Milton Keynes and Marston Vale audiences heading to and from the London commute

c. Creates 00's more parking potentially for the next 10 years of growth. 

d. You're dealing with up to 20 mile catchment for any station with the aforementioned drive-south pull.

e. It could be made cycle/pedestrian safe with a crossing or footbridge across the A507 to Station Road for the town centre and a pedestrian/cycle access south of the industrial estate for access to Froghall Road, Redbourne and East Flitwick.

f. Relocation is required but could prove lucrative and spread jobs locally if handled sensitively in an incremental choice manner - decent planning and policies to trade-off land for access and rent variation. The station is in the interest of the greater good surely including business and domestic audiences?

g. The railway station would bring footfall and spend, sustaining small - medium business' and could provide overflow park and bus nurture to Ampthill, Maulden and Clophill but also Toddington-Ampthill-Bedford services and Centre Parcs/Ridgmont East-West Rail/Bus Station interchange links nurture.

A study should be commissioned to make the case for reopening and then policies created to, over a 10 year period, get the station firmly tabled and ideally underway in the Network Rail Stations Programmes - there is a small and competitive pot for grants to reopen stations now.

You have to understand, this option is far more advantageous than Wixams, which has a £16 million deficit in funding which should have been secured from the developers via Section 106 surely?

3. Structural weakness:

Is it the case that Central Bedfordshire is too big and unwieldy and under-resourced? East Bedfordshire (principally the Sandy, Potton and Biggleswade area), Central Bedfordshire (Flitwick and Ampthill) and South Bedfordshire (Dunstable and Leighton Linslade) are 3 distinct areas, polulations and relationships to each other in goods and service and access terms. Buses across the area are scant, the recent diminutive regarding the No. 81 bus shows how the new order of unitary authority is not bringing planning and transport to the fore in championing or strength of resilience terms, rather the whole melt down shows weakness, incompetence and a lack of flare and marketing realisation. Smaller councils would have more localised focus with possibly a Bedfordshire West sub division centred on Cranfield and your share of the Marston Vale out as far as Aspley Heath. With the expansion and power magnet of Milton Keynes and the independence of Luton, small may be more robust than merger and inevitable 'one Borough shoe size fits all' budget-wise spread. Surely a consideration of what's to become of Bedfordshire and it's related councils and cover needs to be had and Government facilitated public balloting on any reforms ascertained?

We see development steadily eroding the old route of the Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge rail route - so how will it be done, if at all? Bypassing Bedford makes it Bletchley-Sandy-Cambridge. Cambridge end is blocked (Trumpington Meadows development), Shepreth and Shepreth Junction are 2 different places. Government says "austerity" yet can find money for £3.5 billion new East-West Road building - this in-spite and before the railway is delivered - what we are saying is "Give rail a chance"! We must save and conserve land. Development is getting precariously near the Greensands Ridge near Ampthill - it is not a path, it is a landstrip of linear value and must be a wide greenspace corridor. Likewise the restoration of the Round House at Brogborough should be done and ideally made into a proper heritage centre with scenic and panoramic view and picnic site akin to the Dunstable Downs, looking over what was the Bedford Vale. It could have footpath and cycle access to and from the Ridgmont Station/Interchange and should be co-marketed as such. That it is in such a perilous state shows a contempt for our diverse history and make up and is a missed opportunity.

I trust these comments will be taken into account in your deliberations please.

I attach a picture of the Round House which has 2 ringed iron-age ditches nearby apparently - are we missing a trick here?! Or is this a sign of what current Local Government status is heading towards - history repeating itself and back-water status? For more on our Ampthill project, please see our website: https://ertarail.com/ampthill/

If you support our calls for an Ampthill Station or any of the above, why note write a polite letter of text to Cllr Jamieson and give your support for ERTA's stance?

Contact: Cllr James Jamieson

Leader of the Council

Central Bedfordshire Council Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford, Bedfordshire, SG17 5TQ

Direct Dial: 0300 300 8532 |  Email: james.jamieson@centralbedfordshire.gov.uk | Twitter: @jgjamieson

Great Central Dossier

Great Central Dossier April 2017 by Richard Pill

The following questions come to mind:

Questions Associated Focus'

Why Reopen Benefits of Reopening

What Reopen Our Selection and Connections

How Reopen The challenges and costs in an economy of scale

State of Route now and going forward Blockages, Pinch Points and where realignments/new build is required

Links with Other Lines Identifying Gaps in the network

Capacity Creation Scope Existing trunking road and rail artery's

Passenger Use Core Trunking and multiple aspecting accessibility to core trunk route if available

Freight Use Now and generating new flows

Introduction.

The mooted reasons for closures were many and diverse and putting one's finger on an exact reason or justification is an elusive exercise as one delves into minutiae. The Great Central was a 20th century main line employing the most modern thinking and construction of it's time and was part of a dream to link the North of England and established cross country links with a southern portal to France and inter-continental flows of passenger and freight trunking. That ambition of model and design left a legacy of consistency in construction. The M1 heralded a change of Government policy and funding towards a road based main carrier and operations and the tossup was pitted that parallel routes are to be cut and so it was Midland Main Line v Great Central for closure.

Closure came in 1966 and since then the line has deteriorated in various locations more severely than others but in it's wake has flung new growth onto existing infrastructure – roads primarily and rails secondarily. The point is that as the M1, West Coast Main Line and elsewhere sees growth, capacity constraints and conflicting issues, something has to give, some more capacity becomes necessary and be it land use, environmental, sustainable balance or sheer change of policy and funding back towards rail agendas – the need for more rail north-south remains tabled here and elsewhere and thus our call to have potentially interested and beneficiary parties look at what a new and select reopened Great Central could offer is ever becoming a more pertinent consideration because the alternative of congestion, pollution, wear and tear costs eroding local authority budgets and the sheer waste and environmental cost, makes a relative cost-gain trade off advantageous with the wider strategic benefits a rail access and capacity facility could offer and thus moves to nurture it incrementally and implement it in top-down demand and supply mechanisms becomes ever more relevant and meaningful to consider. This is what this dossier aims to bring to the fore.

Why Reopen Benefits of Reopening

What Reopen Our Selection and Connections

How Reopen The challenges and costs in an economy of scale

State of Route now and going forward Blockages, Pinch Points and where realignments/new build is required

Links with Other Lines Identifying Gaps in the network

Capacity Creation Scope Existing trunking road and rail artery's

Passenger Use Core Trunking and multiple aspecting accessibility to core trunk route if available

Freight Use Now and generating new flows

Why Reopen?

• Existing north-south arteries to and from London and the Southeast are congested and at capacity

• Existing railways to and from London terminate there, we need orbital access to Kent, South Coast and the Continent and vice versa with the rest of the United Kingdom

• Widening the M1 would blight many residential areas and be environmentally damaging.

• Land is becoming scarcer, more expensive and thus land-use stewardship and prudence is ever more required.

• New commuter routes could be established

• growth corridor could be realised sustainably

• There's a glaring gap and a big opportunity needing a backer

What Reopen?

• South of Leicester – East-West Rail and links to London, Southeast, South Coast and the Continent

• Former Great Central corridor recovery and return to rail use

• Realignments where blockages exist including new construction such as at Brackley and Rugby

• A twin track railway for passenger and freight use

• north of Rugby a dual solution needs greater evaluation as well as serving Leicester

• Connections with other lines and existing lines and services is critical to optimum operational demand-supply fostering

• Bringing Daventry, Brackley and Buckingham back onto the rails creates capacity elsewhere and links growth areas to the rail network currently disenfranchised.

How Reopen?

• Rebuild using old formation as a corridor basis for reconstruction

• realignments where blockages exist and major deviations such as at Brackley are required

• Integrating by a Parkway Station at Daventry and A43/Brackley and a new loop for integrating Buckingham

• A coming together from respecting angles, disciplines and customer basis' of Local Authorities, Rail Industry Players and Governmental Strategic Inclusion

• Whether HS2 or not, the wider connecting roles the corridor offers should not be under-estimated

• All beneficiaries have the onus to contribute in design, engineering, case making and courting the funding required.

• We have to see the case in a context of growth, congestion, capacity creation and demand-supply study and case making.

Links with other lines

• East-West Rail

• Grendon and Old Oak Common

• Oxford-Reading-Guildford-Horsham-Shoreham-Brighton

• Rugby-London West Coast relief

• Midland Main Line – Western Rail Network (Leicester-Oxford)

• Feeds into Leicester-Burton (freight diversionary route for more passenger capacity at Leicester.

• Spinal Freight route for re-railing more freight by rail creates road capacity/frees up congestion, bolsters business operational efficiency and competitiveness.

Capacity Creation Scope

• Relief to M1 end to end London-Leicester and beyond

• Interception with M1, M6 and A14 either at Lutterworth of within a nearby vicinity

• More freight by rail scope, including new flows and diversity nurture and development if initial start-up costs and infrastructure from wagons to depots can be funded and growth incrementally nurtured local-regional-trans-continental

• New commuter flows and sustainable community development growth fostering

• saving land for other uses which otherwise motorway development would swallow up

• If electrified can utilise spare and existing stock allocations/budgets and integrational trunking systems ensure costs on new rolling stock is mitigated.

• East Midlands-Heathrow-Continent potential 'not via London' frees up terminal capacity, M25 and orbital trunking and cuts emissions.

Passenger use

• South-West – East Midlands direct access 'not via London' and vice versa

• Second London-West and East Midlands artery, choice and competition

• More seats, more trains, new flows

• Multiple operators can utilise same tracks with core station calling on the trunking route

• HS2, if at all, does not have a station between Old Oak Common and Birmingham, which leaves a 120 gap with brownfield creation with M40 corridor which will spill onto existing other roads and rail services creating overcrowding and price managed controls with winners and losers

• Great Central with Stations for Daventry/Southam/A425 locational presence of scope, Brackley/A43 and Buckingham would mop up that growth and development and ease pressure elsewhere as a direct result of HS2 passing through areas without providing the means to access that transport corridor but it is not a neutral development, it is intrusive with ramifications on wider areas 20 miles either side surely in development prospecting terms, domestic or commercial speculation?

• Rugby-London commuting route and West Coast diversionary capable of semi-fast operations.

Freight use:

• London-West and East Midlands

• Southampton, West Country and South Coast/Chunnel -West Coast Main Line outside Rugby-Euston premium cordon

• generic line-side potential being curtain sided wagons for warehouses, pallet sized freight and casual regenerative from the corridor

• diversionary traffic

• extra capacity for new flows and double movements by rail currently on M1 and M40

Benefits of reopening

• More off roads and onto rail

• cuts emissions and pollution

• cuts congestion and aggregate savings collective and individual pockets

• new commuting corridor opened up and served sustainably

• more capacity elsewhere on and off rails

• land saved for sustainable, rail served development

• careful development crafted to optimise rail use

Our selection and connections

• Oxford and beyond-Rugby/Nuneaton and beyond/Leicester

• South Coast-Heathrow-West Coast/Midland Main Line

• East-West Rail-GC core trunking- East/West Midlands

• London -Leicester via alternative route

• Heathrow focused access/OCC and Reading/Thames basin

• West Country – East Midlands – North East diagonal cross-country core trunking

• HS2 back-feed line and link for routine stock and other operations off fast tracks

The challenges of costs in an economy of scale

• Less than HS specification

• 125 mph capability between Calvert and Rugby/Leicester

• Twin Track

• Loop for Buckingham

• Link to East-West Rail near Claydon

• Stations for Daventry, Brackley and Buckingham

• Capability for Piggbyback dedicated route from Chunnel-Guildford-Heathrow Tunnel-GC via OCC and Grendon link reinstated/new build

To ascertain/do/develop:

• State of Route now and going forward

• Blockages, Pinch Points and where realignments/new build is required

• Identifying gaps in the network

• Existing Trunk Road and Rail Arteries

• Core trunking and multiple aspecting accessibility to core trunk route if available

• Other options, but does it have to be either or?

R.B. Pill

12-05-2017

Feedback welcome: richard.erta@gmail.com

Get Bedford Moving Flyer

The Daily Reality!
Picture above shows cars parked on the former Bedford-Hitchin railway trackbed and sidings sits the Bedford Hospital extended car park. This sea of cars x many car parks shows that we are clearly a nation wedded to the car for short and longer journeys. Whilst lines like Marston Vale (Bedford-Bletchley) may not be able to offer a switch, they can increase their market share. We have concerns that the East-West Rail is abandoning Rails East of Bedford via the old St John's and with development all the way along the line gradually eroding routes and realignment options, the plan for housing on the old St John's is a telling tale of woe, with Bedford being an addendum to Milton Keynes and the weakest link sadly. What this means is that as growth proliferates more traffic abounds demanding land for more parking, land which cannot be used for jobs or housing or indeed saving the countryside. Congestion emits harmful exhaust nitro and sulphur dioxide and it is not just London, it is a nationwide problem. The closures 50 years ago went too far, roads and rails are at capacity and how little beyond HS2 and the current air pollution climate case forcing the Government's hands, is public transport featuring in the current media and political debates at all levels. Yet transport and pollution affects all our lives and communities and is vital to get it right.
Join the
‘Get Bedford Moving Campaign’
part of the English Regional Transport Association (ERTA)
Local Contact: Membership Secretary and Bedford Area Rep: Mr Richard Pill (2015) 24c St Michael’s Road, Bedford, MK402LT E. richard.erta@gmail.com T. 01234 330090
ERTA on Google Plus/ERTA Voluntary Organisation: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ERTAVoluntaryTransport Blogspot: http://ertarailvolunteer.blogspot.co.uk Website: ertarail.com
Patrons: We welcome offers from qualified, well-connected and sympathetic individuals.
~ Making a contribution towards retention and improvement in better public transport. ~
English Regional Transport Association (ERTA)
~ A voluntary unincorporated membership based association seeking to restore strategic missing rail links and
improve the environment as a result. ~
2
Would you like to see (tick) …?
1. More and better rail links and services to a diversity of places? 
2. A rail link between Bedford and East Anglia? 
3. A Bedford-Northampton rail link? 
4. A Station at the Retail Park, Kempston with footbridge/cycle way over the railway line? 
5. Bus services reinstated to Black Tom, Tavistock Street, High Street and Prebend Street? 
6. Segregated cycle-pedestrian rights of way for safe walking and cycling off roads and pavements? 
7. Pedestrianisation (or partial) of the High Street and Midland Road (West) to create a safer, hassle free and more spacious shopping environment? 
If ‘yes’ then please join the English Regional Transport Association (ERTA) – a pro public transport voice for everyone!
1.  We have local meetings in the Bedford area on a regular basis
2.  We have delegated meetings with key officials and players to try and persuade them to take an interest in our campaign calls.
3.  The more local members we can recruit, the stronger our voice and the more powers that be may take notice and adopt our calls into their official policies and plans.
4.  All members get a newsletter and opportunities to get involved as volunteers – gain experience, add to your CV, meet new people and enjoy networking opportunities.
With your help, we can all make a difference and choose between a gridlocked, polluted air urban landscape or a town whereby people come by public transport, leave their cars at home and enjoy clean air and pleasant open spaces free of having to look over your shoulders!
__Fill In, Tear Off and Send with Your Subscription. Please help us recruit more members! __
Tick if a New Member: _____ Tick if renewing as an existing member: _____
Membership of ERTA costs £10 per annum. I/We wish to join _______
Name: __________________________ Address: ___________________________________________
Postcode: _______________ Tel/Mobile: __________________
Signed: ______________________ Dated: ____________________
Please send completed form to ERTA Membership:
ERTA, 24c St Michael’s Road, Bedford, MK40 2LT (01234 330090) E. richard.erta@gmail.com

Bedford Local Plan 2035 - housing without rail infrastructure?

Bedford Local Plan 2035

Simon Barber
to planningforthe., me

Simon Barber <simon4barber@gmail.com>
to:		planningforthefuture@bedford.gov.uk

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a member of the English Regional Transport Association (ERTA ),
which,as you may already know,is a voluntary membership-based, 
pro-public transport improvement association with its main projects initially 
in the Bedfordshire and surrounding regional areas but its remit has since 
increased since several of its projects have a nation-wide positive benefit and 
impact. The reason for writing is that I am responding to your consultation on
the Bedford Local Plan 2035 which was recently launched and apparently closes 
next month. I now have the following concerns:
Site 4(Bedford St.John's Old Station/Goods Yard) - 
The 32 dwellings proposed on that 
site should not go ahead since  ERTA wishes to re-instate the old station as 
part of the East - West Rail Link on the section between Bedford and Cambridge.
This section of the East - West Rail Link must be completed by 2035 at the 
latest and must also include Sandy(connection with East Coast main line).
Site 9(Land south of Cardington Road,Bedford) - This development should allow 
accessibility to Bedford St.John's station as mentioned above.
Sites 416/417(Lower Farm Road, Bromham -Oakley) - In conjunction with the 120 
dwellings and adjacent employment sites,the proposed rail station should be 
located to the north of that road to allow for a flyover needed for re-instating the old 
Bedford - Northampton railway where much of the old track-bed survives.
This track-bed should be protected to allow for the potential re-opening of that line 
that will bring enormous benefits to Bedford, including the reduction of weekday 
peak-hour traffic entering the town.Furthermore re-opening that line should 
be sooner rather than later and should also be included into the 
East - West Rail Link.
Site 640(Church End, Willington) and Site 687(Grange Estate, Willington) - 
Both these would sever the old trackbed and Sustrans cycle-way. 
A bridge cannot be built due to no island column being allowed for 
a rowing lake. The reality is that if there is a plan for a railway 
going forward we could say "contaminated soil can be removed by rail 
when the Bedford-Cambridge line gets rebuilt."  We must start 
putting the rail first and lake second. The lake and the surrounding 
land  proposed by Charles Wells for redevelopment is flood -plain. 
The path to Kempston gets perennially closed as flood water exceeds 
the path, and Charter Walk should be restored to the public as a 
right of way and also be made up for cycle access. Furthermore there 
are wildlife habitats currently with rushes and small ponds for 
spawning,and should your plans go ahead that habitat will be lost 
and/or compromised.  . Otherwise  we will not have a rail route 
into Bedford from the east by 2035,and we have had enough of Network 
Rail delaying the western  section of the  East - West Rail Link.


I also have several other reasons for not supporting the Rowing Lake 
proposal.
1. There is apparently already a good rowing 'lake' in the town, 
plus the river.
2. There will be less space for the rowers as compared to the river.
3. Apparently there could be a potentially better site for a lake at 
Stewartby or East Bedfordshire.
4. The Rowing Lake will be a major traffic generator, bringing more 
congestion and mayhem on the roads which we could do without.
Furthermore,going back to rail proposals,ERTA calls for  new stations at Kempston 
Retail Park(which suffers severe traffic congestion) on the Marston 
Vale line,which will be incorporated in to the East - West Rail Link 
and also Wixams on the Thameslink/Midland Main Line to serve the 
adjacent new housing developments and will also relieve congestion 
at Bedford Midland Road,including its car park.Network Rail must 
also be flexible on level crossings and bridge adaptations.
I would finally like to add that the proposed Oxford - Cambridge 
Expressway will bring no benefit at all to Bedford .This new road 
would affect  Green Belt areas,and it would also be an incentive to 
build more housing and will not solve traffic congestion at all,and 
in fact,the road will bring in more traffic which is already 
increasing with the significant housing growth in between these two towns.
This increase in traffic will in turn increase CO2 emissions and 
also air pollution(a serious health emergency), both with which 
the Government is pitifully complacent.
ERTA website: https://ertarail.com/
Yours faithfully,
Simon Barber
Email address: simon4barber@gmail.com

Speed up delivery of local rail links not speed up speed!

Rail Magazine has both a Heathrow rail link from the south article and extension of Borders Rail to Carlisle = good = rail/less road reliance. However it seems we have a media blackout beyond local letters pages and that every rail scheme except what we want is being pursued the length of the country. I will write in to the Bedford Local Plan as an individual, the central issue is loads of houses urban and rural, throwing loads of cars onto existing roads, urban congestion/sky high parking demand/cost and trade offs and didley rail agenda - the railway needs to be done and dusted by 2035 and it will only, if done, be started by then, let me spell out:

1. Oxford-Bedford 2024, that's 40 miles ish of wire brushed relaid track on an existing rail course with stations and some form of rolling stock = 2 trains per hour hardly intensive - X5 timetable should be the normative template from day one - contrast HS2 120 OOC-B'ham 2026 - just 2 years after opens. In short Oxford-Bedford should be do-able much earlier especially now we have a bypass of Network Rail to do the works - so why the delay? Technicals and legals must be pitted with HS2 the same but more and yet it is to be done and dusted asap in relative terms. Plus we're getting a new £3.5 billion road - not needed - the aim should be to take volume-capacity via the rail corridor incrementally to X5 + x8 X5's to a train-load x 4 per hour = modal shift (passenger and freight). Something is deeply wrong I feel, but am on the outside looking in and even a planner said at the Harpur Centre "some of our questions are not being answered".

2. Bedford-Cambridge. My view is Bedford-Sandy is enough minimally and the Ickleford curve for a start to be opened same time as 2024 Oxford-Bedford for a basic through route/relieve into, across and out of London freight + passenger services:

a. Stevenage - Bedford (Thameslink integration/stock use)

b. Bedford-Cambridge (new)

c. Peterborough-Bedford (Thameslink/stock use)

Then 2024 do across to Shepreth to relieve Hitchin-Royston

Then look at options for bypassing Cambridge (freight). Having visited Trumpington Meadows and seen the curtain of housing across the trackbed going in, compulsory purchase and returning to rail looks a bridge too far!

3. Oakley and Sharnbrook and Wymington are needed MML/electrification which should also have a plan for making consistent 9'6 freight clearance for London-Bedford-Northampton-DIRFT container relief to West Coast = more trains for MK Central.

4. Ampthill and Wixams needed - they serve different catchments and demand centres. Flitwick has poor road system, overload from Olney, MK, M1 and Marston growth areas and south of Wixams infill - Ampthill with western Steppingley access could mop up these wider commuter/growth catchments. Bedford-Olney-Northampton would stem it further out.

5. Retail Interchange Kempston - 19, 000 population Kempston, 000's of cars to Retail Park/parking demand and long queues per day - the station informs more footfall and spend, alternate access and town centre may also benefit indirectly.

6. New Bedford Midland with Midland Road pedestrian isle for town gateway access 'clean and green' Bedford, not congestion, fumes, smoking on narrow pavements and high volume everything 'harmogenised' without cohesion = relative chaos in growth context.

7. Tracks into and through Bedford from St John's need sorting with 3rd under A428 Bromham Road which needs widened bridge span or third span inserting, can be done I believe.

In sum, Olney is easier than Cambridge now for recovery/reopening purposes. We do need a Cambridge rail link but ideas of going via Twinwoods, St Neots, Cambourne and new towns to Chesterton seem daft as you still need - at great cost and upheaval to get to the Newmarket lines for the East and you are entering Cambridge from the north and West?

I feel Bedford is the junior to Milton Keynes is it all, the Consortium seem MK centric than shared coexistence focus inclusive? It should all be done by 2026 if HS2 can, so should these. Otherwise it is going to be gridlock, congestion, fumes and parking issues galore. Bad for business and the environment but where does the supreme buck stop to address? Dft, Parliament, The Monarch?!

Tailbacks down St Cuthberts from Lurke Street Lidls are becoming more common-place. Could a Lidals be allocated to Goldington/Brickhill to spread the load and give more options off the radial road system and/or bypass? There is a plot of land on corner of Caxton Road/Goldington Road corner - near Hatters, likewise field off Cleat Hill/Woodlands with a through bus lane for Grant Palmer to serve? Personally I know many middle class people prefer Lidls to some other supermarket chains and as many new houses will be semi's more Lidls seems logical to avoid town centre proliferation of tailbacks? Plus safer walking and cycling options.

Finally, the path from Newnham Rail Bridge - Beach Pool-Tesco needs drop down kerbs, widening for cycle-pedestrian access share, more litter bins and cycle racks. Path to Tesco is a dumping ground for fly tipping and rats are in the bushes having regular food deposited. Is it time to ask Mr Tesco to work on a joint improvement plan?

Northampton town centre and Bedford have common issues and only the rail link can properly address them going forward.

With all the housing promoted in the new Bedford Local Plan 2035, it will all be heading to urban areas for work, education and commuting, will demand land take for more parking and put pressure on families as travelling to and from venues takes longer and commuting ever more for the £'s to make the costs-incomes meet.

We need an inquiry as to:

1. Why is East-West Rail taking so long to deliver

2. Why the defined route to Cambridge is not being done with more haste and land protected amidst development growth

3. Why Bedford-Cambridge via Shepreth is not being done at one and the same time as Oxford-Bedford so 2024 is a 'finishing date' than 'start up date'?

4. There is no excuse not to speed up as we have a mechanism from Chris Grayling, Secretary of State for bypassing Network Rail schedules.

Likewise Bedford-Northampton should be being pursued alongside East-West as integral to it and also the benefits in cutting emissions of a Luton/Airport-Coventry arc via Bedford and Northampton spinal core missing link agenda. 

Everyone is seemingly sworn to silence including local media and that is not in the public interest. The public want the railways restored and our elected representatives must put grist to the mill to find means and ways for delivery sooner than later - our town centre economies depend on such for sustainability. To just crest of the wave 'let the market decide' is akin to putting a bet on the horses - flimsy prospects - only sustained effort and push can inform delivery vehicles are found to deliver what we need in a timely manner. There seems no excuse.

Hope of interest,

Richard Pill