Examination of Witnesses (Questions 226-239)
MR TIM
O'TOOLE, MR
HUGH SUMNER,
MR KEITH
MILLS AND
MR WILBEN
SHORT
26 OCTOBER 2005
Mr Short: Wilben Short, Head of
Transport at LOCOG, London 2012.
Mr Mills: Keith Mills. I am the
Chief Executive for London 2012 and LOCOG.
Mr O'Toole: I am Tim O'Toole.
I am the Managing Director of London Underground.
Mr Sumner: I am Hugh Sumner, Project
Director, Olympic Transport Strategy at Transport for London.
Q226 Chairman: Good morning to you, gentlemen.
I am grateful to you for waiting. We are looking forward to what
you have to say. For those of you who were in the room, I hope
you found that as useful as we did. It is always helpful to hear
other people's experiences. Can I ask you for the record to identify
yourselves, starting with my left?
Q227 Chairman: That all sounds tremendously
impressive. Can I ask all of you if you could detail what changed
between the first International Olympic Committee Report of 2004
and the follow-up report in June 2005 which convinced the IOC
under its transport to cope with the Olympics?
Mr Mills: Perhaps I can start.
It might be helpful for the Committee if I just explain our relative
roles. I am not a transport expert here. My colleagues here will
the answer the detailed questions. I am very happy to answer broad
Olympic-related questions that you might have. You are quite right,
we submitted to the IOC our initial submission in January 2004.
It had only very high level information in terms of transport
plans: the amount of space actually that we were allowed to detail
our transport plans was very limited. In addition to that, the
transport planning on Olympics that had taken place until that
date was still at a very high level, and so we had the opportunity,
following that initial submission, to go into substantially more
detail than was contained initially in our Candidature files that
were sent to the IOC in November 2004 and then even more detail
to the Evaluation Team that came to London in February 2005. So,
we were able to build on what was a very, very high level initial
submission and I think we were able to demonstrate to the IOC
in the process that we had come an enormously long way.
Q228 Chairman: Can I be sure I know what
exactly you are saying. You put in a broad brush thing saying
we have these facilities that would be available, but you did
not detail what they were. Did they then come back to you and
ask very searching questions about numbers, capacities, days,
all the things that make the system work?
Mr Mills: Yes, you are absolutely
right. There was an applicant questionnaire that was about half
an inch thick that detailed absolutely everything in the Games—the
budgets for the Games, environment, transport, security, venues—and
the information we obtained on transport was really at a very
high level. When the IOC came back to us in the following May
with their comments, they did comment on a number of issues. They
commented on the public transport capacity, which we had little
or no time to explain in any detail in the initial submission.
They made some observations about travel times. They have quite
a complex calculation of how long it takes to get from the Olympic
Village to different venues, and it was clear that some of our
venues were outside of the Olympic Park, and one of the comments
that was made was that they would like to see more concentration
of venues around the Olympic Village to reduce the travel times
of athletes. In response to that we brought the shooting venue
from Bisley, which is to the west of London, closer to the Olympic
Park at Woolwich, we brought the fencing out of Alexandra Palace
into the Olympic Park and we moved the mountain biking, again,
from West London to the Weald Park in East London, and by doing
that we were able to bring down the travel times for another large
number of athletes; so we altered our plans to respond to their
comments. Perhaps Hugh would like to comment in more detail.
Mr Sumner: I think so. Just to
extend what Keith was saying, this bringing of venues into the
Olympic Park and closer to the Olympic Pack has meant that over
50% of athletes will be able to live, train and compete within
the park. It also means that 80% of athletes will be within 20
minutes of their competition venue. We have to get them there
on time. I guess the other big difference between the pre-qualification
and time of the Evaluation Commission Report itself was the 2004
financial settlement for Transport for London. This was unprecedented
in terms of scale, some ten billion pounds, and of a duration
of five years, and what that meant was that Transport for London
were able to proceed with three extensions of the Docklands Light
Railway—plus a 50% capacity increase—and to move forward
with the East London line extensions; we were able to explain
very clearly the Olympic Javelin Rail Shuttle Service linking
the park with Central London and we were also able to demonstrate
the progress with Heathrow Terminal Five, which will be open in
some 900 days from now. Over and above that, when they actually
came to visit earlier this year in February, we were able to show
them the Olympic Park. Mr Sloman explained how in Sydney they
had a concentrated Olympic Park with one rail-line. We were able
to show nine rail lines in existence today and the tenth to be
opened in 2007; the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. We were able to
describe to them very clearly how we could provide direct rail
services with no interchange from over 309 stations across the
UK and how we would be able to deliver a train carrying spectators
every 13.87 seconds.
Q229 Chairman: 13.87.
Mr Sumner: Seconds.
Q230 Chairman: Yes. Of course we all
think in terms of 13.87. Do carry on.
Mr Sumner: But it gives us an
unrivalled capacity, it gives us the capacity to move some 240,000
people per hour to the park, and that is important to the IOC
in their decision-making because they want full stadia and they
want people to use public transport, and that is what we can give
them.
Chairman: Yes, we may have some questions
for you about some of the details of that. Mrs Ellman?
Q231 Mrs Ellman: Are there any milestones
that you have to show the International Olympic Committee in terms
of new infrastructure?
Mr Sumner: As part of the bid
we have to submit various guarantees. There are key guarantees
underlying section 14 of the bid, which is the transport section,
and that defines very clearly what infrastructure from a transport
perspective needs to be delivered by when. Those guarantees were
signed by the Secretary of State for Transport on behalf of Mainline
Rail and roads and by the Commissioner for Transport for London
for the schemes that are being delivered by Transport for London.
The IOC will monitor delivery of those schemes against those scheduled
milestones.
Q232 Mrs Ellman: Could you let the Committee
have a note of the detail of this.
Mr Sumner: We can furnish the
key dates. The thing that we are live to, though, is that most
of the infrastructure is already well underway, so for example
the first stage of the Jubilee Line upgrade starts next January
with a 17% increase. There are various Docklands Light Rail schemes
coming through to 2009-2010. Almost all the heavy infrastructure
from a transport perspective will be completed by the end of 2010,
and that echoes Jim Sloman's comments earlier, the need to get
your infrastructure in place as fast as possible and give yourself
a clear 18-month lead into the Games when you can run the test
and trial operation. We have learnt from Sydney's experience.
Q233 Mrs Ellman: Do you intend to complete
phase two of the East London Line extension?
Mr Sumner: Phase one of the East
London Line extension will be completed by 2010. Phase two will
depend upon the funding settlement for Transport for London. It
is unlikely that phase two of the East London Line extension will
be completed prior to the Games, but that is not necessary for
Games time, rather it is necessary for the long-term future of
London.
Q234 Mrs Ellman: So that was not a commitment?
Mr Sumner: No, no commitment was
given to the IOC to complete phase two of the East London Line
extension prior to the Games.
Q235 Mr Leech: On that point, what difference
would it make in terms of improving transport to the Games if
we were able to get this done in time?
Mr Sumner: It would not make a
huge amount of difference because the advantage of the East London
Line (ELL) extension south is that it would take people from the
south of London up and then across to the Olympic Park, and that
is its primary use. The North London Line itself is being upgraded
as part of the Olympic transport plan and that will increase services
swinging around the north of London and will take customers directly
to the Olympic Park. It is a four-fold increase in capacity on
the North London Line. Therefore, the slight ELL legs west and
north west will not make a huge amount of difference in terms
of spectator transport capacity.
Q236 Mrs Ellman: In evidence to us, London
& Continental Railways do not seem very interested in fulfilling
the commitments they gave to provide the travelator or similar
mechanism between Stratford Regional and Stratford International
Stations. What is your view of that?
Mr Sumner: For Games time the
travelator is not really germane because the majority of spectators
using Stratford International will be either walking directly
into the Park through the security gates or they will be accessing
onto the Docklands Light Railway extension which will take them
to venues in the south such as Excel or the shooting at Woolwich
Arsenal. So in that sense it is not relevant for Games operation
time.
Q237 Mrs Ellman: They have suggested
that the Docklands Light Railway link would be a substitute.
Mr Sumner: That is a matter for
them and the London Borough of Newham in terms of the long-term
development of the area. From the Games' transport perspective
the travelator is not germane or relevant.
Q238 Mrs Ellman: I think it will be an
issue in terms of planning approvals but that is something else.
The candidate file stresses that more than $30 billion will be
spent on London's transportation system before 2012 but the schemes
listed in table 14.1 add to up $11.5 billion. Could you explain
that discrepancy?
Mr Sumner: The $30 billion is
from a standard Department for Transport report as the projected
forward spending on transport within London, excluding mainline
rail and excluding the Channel Tunnel Rail Link over the period
through to 2012. Table 14.1 in section 14 of the candidate file
only details those schemes that are most relevant to Games operation
and movement of spectators to competition venues and therefore
it does not pick up many of the schemes that are happening elsewhere
within London between now and the Games. For example, it does
not mention West London Tram.
Q239 Mrs Ellman: So the commitment stays?
Mr Sumner: The commitment remains
the same and table 14.1 will be delivered. With regard to the
generalities of the £17 billion (or $30 billion). That is
a matter you may wish to ask the Department for Transport about.
| 
