I thought the County had settled their dispute with the contractors, and
decided that lumbering local taxpayers with a £50m over-run for a
project we were promised would not cost us a penny (because the original
£100m estimated cost was largely covered by a central government grant)
was closure o the project.

But now it appears (I'll post a source when one appears that's not
infested with clickbait) they've set aside another £3m to pursue legal
action against the contractor for faults which are apparently going to
cost another £87m** to put right.

** some false precision here perhaps.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> But now it appears (I'll post a source when one appears that's not
> infested with clickbait) they've set aside another £3m to pursue legal
> action against the contractor for faults which are apparently going to
> cost another £87m** to put right.

https://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/local-council/council-locked-in-court-battle-over-guided-bus-8780032
doesn't look very clickbaity with my adblocker turned off

> ** some false precision here perhaps.

Well, the ham sandwich did cost £86.4m...*

Theo

* https://www.noguidedbus.com/mcs.html

In message <awE*8ZZJy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 22:42:56 on Thu,
24 Mar 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> But now it appears (I'll post a source when one appears that's not
>> infested with clickbait) they've set aside another £3m to pursue legal
>> action against the contractor for faults which are apparently going to
>> cost another £87m** to put right.
>
>https://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/local-council/council-locked-in-court
>-battle-over-guided-bus-8780032

>doesn't look very clickbaity with my adblocker turned off

I get most of the second screen having Tax refund and Hearing aid
adverts, and the pattern repeats all the way through. Dietary advice,
furniture, mobility scooters, it's endless.

>> ** some false precision here perhaps.
>
>Well, the ham sandwich did cost £86.4m...*

An interesting co-incidence, or has someone got confused? The 86.4m
was the original price for the BAM-Nuttall part of the project (the
additional 30m-odd of the budgeted 116m included works on road sections
away from the concrete busway - although I never did understand if the
buses themselves were in the budget or not).

>Theo
>
>* https://www.noguidedbus.com/mcs.html

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <awE*8ZZJy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 22:42:56 on Thu,
> 24 Mar 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
> >
> >Well, the ham sandwich did cost £86.4m...*
>
> An interesting co-incidence, or has someone got confused? The 86.4m
> was the original price for the BAM-Nuttall part of the project (the
> additional 30m-odd of the budgeted 116m included works on road sections
> away from the concrete busway - although I never did understand if the
> buses themselves were in the budget or not).

The £86.4m was the original cost of the guideway sections when the project
was first announced, which then crept up to £116m by the time of the
planning inquiry. It appears a different £84m was the contract with BAM
Nuttall - there were other parts to the project eg park and ride sites

The on-road sections were not
part of the original project: the County Council was trying to apply the
'boiling frogs' approach and not present the whole scheme in one go, but get
the guideway done and then gradually push through on-road sections when the
busway was in place. What improvements there are have been done out of the
roads budget or on GCP funding.

I don't think the buses were part of the cost, because they're regular
vehicles operated by Stagecoach et al. To be allowed to run services on the
busway the operators had to agree to a certain specification (leather seats,
USB sockets blah blah) but sourcing the vehicles was up to them - at the end
of the day they're regular buses with guidewheels fitted. As time has gone
on the busway vehicles have been rotated and some of the original ones find
themselves on non-busway services. I'm not sure whether they were bought or
leased - suspect Stagecoach would buy its vehicles, but maybe Whippet
leases?

Seems like we aren't much further forward than we were in 2012:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120919223829/https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Guided-bus-will-not-deliver-any-benefits-campaigners-claim-05082011.htm

Theo

In message <cwE*QbcKy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 16:24:26 on Sun,
27 Mar 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <awE*8ZZJy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 22:42:56 on Thu,
>> 24 Mar 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> >
>> >Well, the ham sandwich did cost £86.4m...*
>>
>> An interesting co-incidence, or has someone got confused? The 86.4m
>> was the original price for the BAM-Nuttall part of the project (the
>> additional 30m-odd of the budgeted 116m included works on road sections
>> away from the concrete busway - although I never did understand if the
>> buses themselves were in the budget or not).
>
>The £86.4m was the original cost of the guideway sections when the project
>was first announced, which then crept up to £116m by the time of the
>planning inquiry. It appears a different £84m was the contract with BAM
>Nuttall - there were other parts to the project eg park and ride sites

I was presuming the park and ride sites were also part of the BAM
Nuttall contract, which would mean those sums don't add up, but if they
were constructed independently (but nevertheless count as "part of the
guideway sections") it could. Was part of the cost increase the decision
to do the southern section at the same time?

I recall the railway cutting at the Trumpington end (BAM's work, or
not?) was more complicated than first thought.

>The on-road sections were not part of the original project: the County
>Council was trying to apply the 'boiling frogs' approach and not
>present the whole scheme in one go, but get the guideway done and then
>gradually push through on-road sections when the busway was in place.

That was exposed as a ruse when they insisted that most of the on-road
bus stops had to be completed before buses could run at all, when part
of the original proposition was that being more or less ordinary buses
they could use ordinary bus stops.

> What improvements there are have been done out of the roads budget or
>on GCP funding.
>
>I don't think the buses were part of the cost, because they're regular
>vehicles operated by Stagecoach et al. To be allowed to run services on the
>busway the operators had to agree to a certain specification (leather seats,
>USB sockets blah blah) but sourcing the vehicles was up to them - at the end
>of the day they're regular buses with guidewheels fitted. As time has gone
>on the busway vehicles have been rotated and some of the original ones find
>themselves on non-busway services. I'm not sure whether they were bought or
>leased - suspect Stagecoach would buy its vehicles, but maybe Whippet
>leases?

Yes, I think that's the outcome, but often the cost of the vehicles is
taken into account in the cost/benefit analysis of projects like this,
because they still get reflected in things like the fares.

Another two projects where this might be the case are Crossrail
and HS2, although I understand that in the former TfL has done a
sale and leaseback of the trains to underwrite the escalating cost
of the infrastructure.

>Seems like we aren't much further forward than we were in 2012:
>https://web.archive.org/web/20120919223829/https://www.cambridge-news.co
>.uk/Home/Guided-bus-will-not-deliver-any-benefits-campaigners-claim-0508
>2011.htm

Part of the problem is that Northstowe is running about ten years
behind, and that was the main traffic source/sink envisaged (although
the southern section is now quite busy). Meanwhile, although also very
late, the A14 upgrade has somewhat leap-frogged it.

Although in the intervening 15yrs people are beginning to go off cars as
a way to commute anyway.
--
Roland Perry