Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180
- 190)
WEDNESDAY 26 JANUARY 2000
MR CHRIS
MULLIGAN, MR
NEIL SCALES,
MR ROB
DONALD, MR
ROY WICKS
AND MR
BILL SCOTT
180. Do we need a common approach to funding?
What are the benefits of that sort of deal?
(Mr Mulligan) I think that the system that is being
used in France where there is a levy made on frontages and so
on is a system that is worth investigating. At the moment if you
take Oldham/Rochdale, which is a very, very heavily developed
line, there will be development gain as a consequence of the conversion
but if it is going to happen anyway to that degree the frontages
will benefit anyway.
181. The difficulty will be getting the quid
pro quo. Can you tell us about long-term effects using proposals
made by the utility companies on the cost of diverting their utilities?
(Mr Donald) Yes. We were very disappointed, chair,
in the reduction from an 18 per cent contribution to a seven and
a half per cent contribution to the works that are required there
to divert utilities for light rail projects. The reasons for that
were quite simple. In our experience the utilities gained at least
18 per cent of the cost in terms of the betterment, the fact that
we have to dig them up and they were able to improve the cables
and the piping.
182. Did you get consulted by the Treasury?
(Mr Donald) We got consulted and indeed it was a long-running
discussion.
183. But you did not persuade them?
(Mr Donald) We did not persuade them and to put salt
on the wound we have not had an explanation from the Government
as to how they arrived at the seven and a half per cent figure
and why they went that way.
184. That is something that needs to be pursued.
(Mr Donald) It increases the costs obviously of light
rail projects particularly those light rail projects that run
on the highway.
(Mr Mulligan) £5 million is the expected bill
on us in the contract.
185. Is that in your evidence?
(Mr Mulligan) Yes it is, but I will give you a note.
186. How significant is the impact of proposals
to charge for the Railways Inspectorate?
(Mr Scott) Light rail and heavy rail are already paying
charges to the Railways Inspectorate for approval of new works
and approval of safety cases, but I am not aware of any further
intention to apply charges to light rail.
187. But there is a suggestion that it should
be done on a different basis which might increase the overall
cost.
(Mr Scott) I am not aware of it because the charges
for the safety case and new works only came in last October.
188. So already there is a built-in—
(Mr Scott) That was after consultation with the Health
and Safety Executive and they implemented those charges last October.
189. Quality Contracts, gentlemen? Necessary?
(Mr Donald) I think we covered that in the answer
to Miss McIntosh's questions. We do want to see integration and
it can clearly be guaranteed through a Quality Contract arrangement.
Quality partnerships does require obviously willing partners in
there and, as I said earlier, there may situations in light rail
where the proper commercial reaction of a bus company is actually
to compete rather than integrate with light rail. I think the
jury is still out as to whether statutorily underpinned quality
partnerships can play a part.
190. What about track sharing? Although it would
appear to be very attractive for some point of views, what is
it going to do if you are faced with a capacity problem?
(Mr Scott) The capacity problem has largely been overcome
by the improvements in signalling. For our own scheme in Tyne
and Wear, the intention is to share heavy rail with light rail
and freight and passenger will be operating on our route.
Chairman: Safety implementation on the trams
and light rail and new signalling should deal with capacity problems.
That is very helpful. Gentlemen, you have all been very useful.
Thank you very much.
| 
