Writing to the editor, Lindford resident Michael Huber said that despite all the progress made in the regeneration of the town, there “remains a black hole at the heart of the plans for Whitehill Bordon”.
“There is still no proper plan to improve access to the town, despite around £500,000 spent on consultancy fees, which only resulted in preventing a rail link,” he added.
Originally, he said that the county council was “seemingly very supportive of a rail link to serve the much-expanded town”, bearing in mind “that even then road access was poor and at peak times running a capacity”.
However, once the county council published Governance for Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) studies, it was concluded that there would be a poor “cost benefit” for providing a rail link from Bordon. Essentially, the council said, it would not be used enough to justify the millions it would cost to develop.
But Mr Huber, who has written to the Bordon Herald a number of times on the issue, recently repeated his criticism of the decision, adding that “the bizarre reasoning and conclusions could best be explained by either gross incompetence or the following of a hidden agenda”.
“The only part making sense was the obvious choice of Bentley to make the link to the rail network,” he added. “Normally one would attach a town to an existing rail network by a branch line, and that was what happened previously here and could easily have been done again.
“Instead, specious arguments were used to rubbish any mode of branch line working, with the main argument against being that passengers would so resent the need for a change at Bentley that few would travel and it would not be cost effective.
“In years to come this will be seen as the defining issue regarding the future of the town.”
He urged people to question politicians and candidates on the issue of rail provision locally.
Retired civil servant Peter Desmond-Thomas also wrote to the Bordon Herald and the county council regarding its position.
“I entirely agree with the assumption that, without a rail link of some kind, Bordon’s resurrection as a successful ‘eco’ or ‘green’ town is an oxymoron,” he said.
“Moreover, ‘white elephant’ as an epithet comes to mind.
“It is apparent to me that a proper cost-benefit analysis must be deficient, and the required environmental-impact assessment must have been disregarded.
“The answer is, I submit, a light rail connection.
“This is a viable alternative to a heavy (standard) rail connection, giving greater track flexibility (with capability for sharp curves), and is much cheaper than meeting heavy rail infrastructure standards, together with a lighter health and safety regime.”
A Hampshire County Council spokesman explained the council’s stance and the reasoning for this issue lying dead in the water.
“The county council followed the prescribed process of GRIP studies for evaluating potential rail-investment projects,” he said.
“These studies have variously shown a relatively poor cost benefit for both heavy rail services and an ultra-light rail alternative.
“Studies, which took place between 2010 and 2012, were undertaken as part of exploratory work supporting the designation of the eco-town but the outcome showed that the benefits delivered, relative to the costs involved, were significantly under the levels required to justify further work on the project.
“In the meantime, working with the Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership, the county council has made significant investment in infrastructure projects to help support the regeneration of Whitehill and Bordon.”