DfT Plan to Demolish Disused Bridges and Tunnels

[RT4038]

Reopened lines need to have a good business case to underpin the decision to proceed in the first place, which suggests they won’t be a “socio-economic drain”.

Exactly, and that is likely to be a very small number of lines. It is not sensible to be maintaining swathes of redundant infrastructure all over the country in case one of them happens to be one of those very small number. Of course it will depend on cost of maintaining vs. cost of demolition etc, and any obvious cases of re-opening should be assessed sympathetically.

And how exactly would a reopened railway contribute “no revenue”, unless it was proposed for it to be free to use?

Unless it has a very good business case (and thereby restricted to a very small number of lines) then the revenue will probably struggle to cover the operating costs and there will be precious little for maintenance (which would have to be covered by subsidy). Re-opening lines with likely good business cases are going to use a tiny amount of current redundant infrastructure.

Not that I am suggesting that former rail infrastructure should be needlessly demolished/infilled etc. If it genuinely is cheaper to maintain rather than demolish (and there is no other use for the infrastructure footprint, such as road improvements, development etc) why would you do that ? (apart from the liability to do the maintenance, and at some point major work is likely to be required.)

 

[Mark J]

Do you have any actual evidence to back up this incredibly sweeping statement (other than your apparent personal dislike of railways, and of public subsidy being used for anything other than roads)?

Reopened lines need to have a good business case to underpin the decision to proceed in the first place, which suggests they won’t be a “socio-economic drain”. And how exactly would a reopened railway contribute “no revenue”, unless it was proposed for it to be free to use?

It is not just reopening lines for rail traffic.

If Highways England continue bunging up bridges with concrete, this also impacts on the likes of Sustrans too. They may wish to reopen a line as a walking/cycle route, which is then made even more expensive by having to remove concrete bungs from over bridges.

Regarding my earlier comment. The UK population has grown substantially since the 1960's. Some towns (and areas) that were 'not worthy' of keeping a rail connection back then, are now due to the large increases in population some of these areas have seen.

For example, if Highways England started bunging up bridges on routes to areas such as Daventry and Portishead, then there is little hope these routes would ever reopen. Even though the areas could desperately do with a modern day rail service.

 

[Falcon1200]

They may wish to reopen a line as a walking/cycle route, which is then made even more expensive by having to remove concrete bungs from over bridges.

Bridge infill does not have to be removed, the path can simply cross the road on the level, which then also provides an access point to the path which might not otherwise be provided.

 

[DelW]

Had Highways England applied for planning permission for the infilling (and that of a number of other similar examples), that process would have given an appropriate forum for discussion of possible future reuse, and an opportunity for interested parties to put their cases forward. In the light of that, permission might or might not have been granted.

Instead, HE chose to avoid that scrutiny by deliberately misusing powers they had been granted for short-term emergency works, to carry out changes that they intended to be permanent. They were caught out, and the planning authority was absolutely right to insist HE must comply with the conditions of the powers they'd used and remove the infill within the maximum 12 months allowed by those. Quangos should never be allowed to operate as if they're above the law, and this case should be a useful reminder to them of that fact.

 

[HSTEd]

Had Highways England applied for planning permission for the infilling (and that of a number of other similar examples), that process would have given an appropriate forum for discussion of possible future reuse, and an opportunity for interested parties to put their cases forward. In the light of that, permission might or might not have been granted.

I think it is highly doubtful permission would be granted, no matter how little reasonable chance of reuse exists.
Councils are hardly renowned for sensible behaviour in such situations, permission would likely have been refused.

 

[DelW]

I think it is highly doubtful permission would be granted, no matter how little reasonable chance of reuse exists.
Councils are hardly renowned for sensible behaviour in such situations, permission would likely have been refused.

That may be true, but it doesn't mean that HE should be allowed to flout the planning laws that apply to the rest of us (or are supposed to anyway ).

 

[zwk500]

I think it is highly doubtful permission would be granted, no matter how little reasonable chance of reuse exists.
Councils are hardly renowned for sensible behaviour in such situations, permission would likely have been refused.

All the more reason to go through the process - demonstrating that it is unreasonable will add to calls for the badly-needed reform. Whereas just going ahead and dumping stuff leads to costly remediation work for no benefit.

 

[Mark J]

Had Highways England applied for planning permission for the infilling (and that of a number of other similar examples), that process would have given an appropriate forum for discussion of possible future reuse, and an opportunity for interested parties to put their cases forward. In the light of that, permission might or might not have been granted.

Instead, HE chose to avoid that scrutiny by deliberately misusing powers they had been granted for short-term emergency works, to carry out changes that they intended to be permanent. They were caught out, and the planning authority was absolutely right to insist HE must comply with the conditions of the powers they'd used and remove the infill within the maximum 12 months allowed by those. Quangos should never be allowed to operate as if they're above the law, and this case should be a useful reminder to them of that fact.

100% agree with this post.

 

[Ediswan]

Bridge infill does not have to be removed, the path can simply cross the road on the level, which then also provides an access point to the path which might not otherwise be provided.

If the land is available for suitably shallow gradient ramps, and a safe crossing can be provided.

There is an example on the Cole Green Way to the west of Hertford. I'm not sure whether the bridge if infilled, or if there is some other obstruction.