Examination of Witnesses (Questions 191
- 199)
WEDNESDAY 26 JANUARY 2000
MR RICHARD
SMITH, MR
JON WILLIS,
DR DAVID
QUARMBY AND
MR IAN
BROWN
The Committee suspended from 17.14 to 17.20
for a division in the House
Chairman
191. Gentlemen, can I apologise to you on the
record for making you wait and I also apologise to you in advance
in case we get interrupted, again as we may very well do. Would
you please identify yourselves?
(Mr Smith) I am Richard Smith, Director of Transport
Strategy for London Transport.
(Mr Willis) I am Jon Willis, Project Development Manager
for London Transport.
(Dr Quarmby) David Quarmby, Chairman of the Docklands
Light Railway Limited.
(Mr Brown) Ian Brown, Chief Executive of the Docklands
Light Railway Limited.
192. Are there any general remarks either group
want to make?
(Mr Smith) I do not think so; you have seen our evidence.
193. In that case why does LT not currently
anticipate widespread introduction of light rapid transit systems
in London?
(Mr Smith) We see that there is a niche between the
underground, national rail (carriers of very high capacity) and
buses carrying the lower density, the main flows in London in
a sense, but there really is only a relatively small gap and you
have got to give the highway space to light rail and you have
got to have enough demand to justify it. We have done a large
number of studies. We looked at 65 areas, brought it down to nine,
and have ended up currently looking at four particular studies
trying to see whether there is a real cost benefit between bus
and light rail or guided bus and we ended up with four. I should
say that since we did that the world has moved on a bit in terms
of the degree to which government and local authorities are prepared
to give road space to public transport. If we did it again there
might be some more but it is on two hands rather than counting
into the twenties or thirties. It is a relatively modest but important
role.
194. This Committee last week had a joyous day
riding round, as you know, not only on DLR but on the Jubilee
Line and on the tram system in Croydon. It is very clear they
are all interrelated and the flow of people onto your system is
greatly assisted by a really efficient light rail system feeding
in at certainly points. Surely that is something which you have
taken account of?
(Mr Smith) Certainly we have, but we also believe
that if local authorities particularly are prepared to give that
level of priority we have to persuade them to give that level
of priority to buses and buses, too, will be rather better at
doing that job and the first step we have to look at is very high
priority bus services before we step to the relatively expensive
even for guided bus option.
195. What are the four areas you looking at
now if they are not secret?
(Mr Smith) Not at all, they are being publicly consulted
on. You will be aware from our evidence that we are about to start
running Millennium Transit between Charlton and the Dome and one
of our areas is an extension of that, the so-called Waterfront
Transit. The next is a Barking and Romford scheme. They all fulfil
slightly different roles. Very different from that is Cross River
Transit which links from across the Thames from Elephant and Castle
up to King's Cross. The final one is Uxbridge Road which is currently
a very high priority bus service, very much out the way of any
other rail service and very heavy flows for a much higher level
of priority light rail or guided bus.
196. I think my colleagues have got various
things they want to ask, but why was not Millennium Transit 1
not operating over an electronically-guided busway from the first
day of public service?
(Mr Smith) It is in any case a trial to demonstrate
the project and it is a very new technology. We are doing it to
make sure we understand it. There are still software elements
that have to be finally resolved and until we do that we clearly
cannot be running it over the guide way because we cannot operate
it unsafely.
Chairman: I suspect people will come back to
it again. Mr Stevenson?
Mr Stevenson
197. I understand that when the Docklands was
first considered, the options were boiled down to the light railway
or buses on a guided system. It is also my understanding that
the bus option was more attractive on a cost-benefit basis and
yet the light rail was chosen. Why was that?
(Mr Smith) Perhaps Mr Willis, who was involved at
the time, should answer that.
(Mr Willis) The Docklands Light Railway had a cost-benefit
ratio of 0.5:1. In other words, it was not justified in pure transport
terms. The busway option had a cost benefit ratio of about 1:1
so in other words it would have been justified on a conventional—
198. As a lay person that sounds a heck of a
difference.
(Mr Willis) It was a significant difference.
The argument then progressed as to what effect those two options
would have upon regeneration of the area and by this time the
Development Corporation were partners in deciding what transport
option should go through and an exercise was done to try and understand
what the difference would be in terms of development of the two
options and this was largely done by talking to developers, estate
agents, etcetera. It came up with the result that the DLR would
generate 9,000 more jobs than the bus option and as a result—
Chairman
199. You mean generally, not just in the DLR
system?
(Mr Willis) In the DLR system in the Isle of Dogs
and that was done in terms of looking at the different kinds of
development that would be generated by a rail scheme with a better,
faster connection to the central area than the bus option.
| 
