Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Questions over Government’s commitment to active travel after "best and final offer" to repair Queensbury Tunnel

Bradford Council given four days to decide whether to accept funding that would not even cover tunnel’s repair

A campaign group in West Yorkshire has questioned the Government’s commitment to cycling investment after the Department for Transport (DfT) offered only a fraction of the funding needed to construct a greenway between two of the county’s biggest population centres via a 1.4-mile long disused railway tunnel.

The Queensbury Tunnel was closed more than 60 years ago and is currently managed by Highways England on behalf of the DfT.

Highways England wants to fill the tunnel at an estimated cost of £7m. Meanwhile, the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) has proposed a “high quality cycling route” that would link Bradford with Halifax and applied for £23m to carry out the project.

The Queensbury Tunnel Society (QTS), which has campaigned for the route for the last seven years, believes it would offer a realistic long-term alternative to steep, congested roads for the 14,300 commuters who travel daily between the two areas.

An assessment of the greenway’s likely value, recently released by Bradford Council, concluded that it would return £5.60 in social and economic benefits for every £1 invested – a figure that increases further when leisure and tourism is also factored in.

Despite this, the DfT recently sent Bradford Council a “best and final offer” of £4m and gave it just four days to respond.

The deadline has now passed, although discussions continue.

In an open letter to Transport Minister Grant Shapps, who publicly backed a plan to reopen the disused tunnel in March, the leader of the QTS, Norah McWilliam, said: “The ‘best and final offer’ to Bradford Council for the transfer of Queensbury Tunnel into its ownership, which came from your office last week, has caused deep dismay and bewilderment to the thousands of people and the local and national organisations who, since your statement earlier this year, had been expecting something a good deal more positive.

“In March you described the tunnel as an asset and stated that you would ‘work with local leaders and the Combined Authority to come up with a better solution’ than the official objective of partially filling it in, which you had ‘specifically prevented’.

“On this basis we believed that you fully appreciated the importance of Queensbury Tunnel as a strategic connector between Bradford District and Calderdale, and its potential to create economic, health, social and environmental benefits for our region.”

She continued: “Since March you have announced a £2 billion investment in walking and cycling to build on the huge upturn in active travel seen during the coronavirus outbreak. Yet it seems that you have failed to recognise that the £7 million project to abandon Queensbury Tunnel, which is still been progressed by Highways England, would prevent any direct future link between the emerging cycle network in Calderdale and those around Leeds/Bradford.

“Giving Bradford Council four days to decide whether it can accept an offer for the tunnel which would not even pay for its repair does not sit comfortably with your previous statements. Moreover, given the value, iconic nature and deliverability of the proposed Bradford-Halifax Greenway, your offer calls into question the Government’s commitment to active travel and its intention to ‘level up infrastructure and regenerate local economies’ as you announced on 23rd May.”

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

14 comments

Avatar
Achtervolger | 4 years ago
4 likes

This really is an extraordinary situation isn't it. I read a bit more into it and the stellar sounding Queensbury Tunnel Society have been campaigning for the cycleway for seven years. There's a chang.org petition you can sign; the page also includes a link to Highways England's proposal for abandonment. If you go to this page you can register that you object (by going to the 'comments' tab). It would seem to be the least we can do.

https://www.change.org/p/securing-a-beneficial-future-for-queensbury-tunnel

There's also an interesting article from a local paper giving more information:

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/18545573.queensbury-tunnel-c...

 

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Achtervolger | 4 years ago
1 like

Many thanks for the links, and it seems to have worked, signings are going up rapidly.

Don't forget to share it on social media so that lots more people see it and sign.

Avatar
Gus T | 4 years ago
0 likes

But if they accept the money won't Highways England have to restore the tunnel to the state it was before they tried to destroy it?

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Gus T | 4 years ago
0 likes

Gus T wrote:

But if they accept the money won't Highways England have to restore the tunnel to the state it was before they tried to destroy it?

I don't think government departments work that way.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Gus T | 4 years ago
0 likes

Gus T wrote:

But if they accept the money won't Highways England have to restore the tunnel to the state it was before they tried to destroy it?

You might want to revise view "Yes Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister"

Avatar
Grahamd | 4 years ago
2 likes

The amount required appears somewhat modest when you consider how much Jenrick was willing to help a tory donor save.

Avatar
ktache replied to Grahamd | 4 years ago
3 likes

And only for a 12  £12K "donation", bloody cheap them tories.

Do you think if the QTS bung them £20K they £23M to do the tunnel will appear?

Avatar
brooksby | 4 years ago
6 likes

If they're willing to spend £7m to just fill it in - effectively just burning a few suitcases of £50 notes - then how on earth can they justify only offering £4m toward to costs of actually doing something productive with the tunnel?

Even if they wouldn't offer the whole amount (even though they would if, you know, "cars") I'd expect a minimum amount of £7m to be offered (ie. the amount they're willing to torch to fill the tunnel in).

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 4 years ago
7 likes

A return on investment of £5.60 per £1 spent and instead the DfT wants to lose £7m and get nothing in return. Yep, that seems entirely logical.

Avatar
Nick T replied to hawkinspeter | 4 years ago
6 likes

One or two of their pals have a construction company who eill gladly take on the £7m tunnel filling contract, but there's a chance it might run a bit over budget 

Avatar
Richard_pics replied to Nick T | 4 years ago
1 like

One or two of their pals have a construction company who eill gladly take on the £7m tunnel filling contract, but there's a chance it might run a bit over budget 

[/quote]

 

That doesnt sound likely! 

Avatar
Nick T replied to Richard_pics | 4 years ago
3 likes

Had a little google and appears they've already spent ~£3m having AMCOGiffen fill in parts of the infrastructure, what a coincidence that there's only £4m left to offer the council 

Avatar
0-0 | 4 years ago
6 likes

It's a shame the tunnel can't be moved to London.
Then I'm sure unlimited cash would be splurged on it.
Finally the tunnel could be moved back up North.

Typical Tory Cu(14th letter)ts.

£7m to fill a hole? WTF.

Avatar
eburtthebike | 4 years ago
8 likes

The difference between the speeches and reality could hardly be better illustrated.  The same minister who was waxing so lyrical about cycling only yesterday and who says he supports this project is the same one who refuses to fund it.  I wonder which project has the greatest cost:benefit ratio?  This one or the £1.4bn road junction?

I'm afraid Shapps is no different to the rest of Boris the Liar's cabinet; not to be trusted with a whelk stall.

I sincerely hope that all the people who live in the affected areas are giving their MPs hell.

Latest Comments