Several hundred of you will recently have received a letter from the Transport Minister following our lobbying campaign which demonstrated deep concern about the proposed abandonment of Queensbury Tunnel.

The letter presents a skewed, one-dimensional view in support of the government’s decision to waste £7.5M on a partial infilling scheme, misrepresenting evidence and making ten specific claims that distort reality:

Claim 1: “It is no longer safe to enter the tunnel.”

Reality: This conclusion is based on a perceived localised issue that is highly unusual, highly unlikely and has not been investigated. National Highways’ response raises concerns around the company’s asset management regime.

Claim 2: “The southern entrance is flooded.”

Reality: There is nothing inevitable about the flooding. The water could be pumped away as it was between 2016 and 2018. However, NH is unwilling to negotiate with the landowner who forfeited a lease after NH failed to pay the rent for three consecutive years.

Claim 3: There is only a “single point of entry/exit”.

Reality: This is untrue - emergency egress is available via No.4 Shaft. Many disused railway tunnels are still inspected despite having only one point of entry/exit due to historic infilling. Entry into Rhondda Tunnel is only possible via shafts at either end.

Claim 4: There has been “a build-up of noxious gases”.

Reality: There were historic issues around low levels of oxygen, but recent inspections have provided no evidence of toxic gases or low oxygen levels due to changes in the security arrangements at the north portal.

Claim 5: There is a “risk of falling debris”.

Reality: This is true of every structure, but that doesn’t make it likely or that a fall would coincide with the presence of a person.

Claim 6: “The Sustrans report…made clear that the range of Benefit Cost Ratio’s (BCRs) for all routes was narrow and that potential usage was not significantly different between the tunnel and non-tunnel [surface] routes.”

Reality: Whilst true, this statement neglects to make clear that the benefits of the tunnel route are assessed as significantly greater and would benefit many more people than the surface route. Furthermore, according to Sustrans, the surface route is only “valuable for the purposes of comparison but would in practice be a highly compromised solution”, with “significant delivery challenges” and uncertainties caused by unrecorded mine workings. The only viable route for a Bradford-Halifax greenway is via the tunnel.

Claim 7: “costs to make the tunnel safe for a greenway would be in the region of £30M”.

Reality: This figure reflects a gold-plated remediation scheme developed by National Highways who want to abandon the tunnel. In 2018, Bradford Council commissioned AECOM to investigate the structure’s condition and develop a suitable repair scheme. This work resulted in a proposal costing £6.9M, or £9.1M accounting for inflation. As some of the required works have already been carried out, the likely cost would be lower.

Claim 8: “further costs required to develop the rest of the route [bring] the total to circa £66m”.

Reality: This claim is acutely misleading. It refers to a 28-mile network of active travel routes across west Bradford, north Halifax and Keighley. Developing the “rest of the [tunnel] route” would actually cost £1.9M, according to Sustrans.

Claim 9: It will cost “£7.5m to carry out the essential safety works [abandonment]”.

Reality: This figure relates to a cut-down scheme which excludes works that National Highways has previously said are necessary to prevent “substantial settlement in the ground at surface level”. The scheme for which planning permission has been applied would cost an estimated £12.5M.

Claim 10: The work involves “stabilising the shafts”.

Reality: The shafts were stabilised as part of the £7.3M works undertaken in 2018-21 using tipped stone (No.2 Shaft), a grout plug (No.3 Shaft) and reinforced sprayed concrete (Nos. 4, 6 & 8 Shafts). There is no evidence to suggest the shafts present any meaningful risk to public safety.

We’ve written back to the Minister, setting the record straight and requesting a meeting. If you’d like to read our letter - with its supporting evidence - a PDF can be downloaded from our website:

http://www.queensburytunnel.org.uk/reports/LightwoodLetter1(Redacted).pdf

Thank you for your continued support.