Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5640
- 5659)
5640. I started work with the Greater London
Council in June 1970, where I used a typing pool for advice. Leases
were prepared there on a basic word processor. By the time of
my early retirement from the Civil Service in March 2005, computers
were on every desk for advice to be prepared. Email facilities
and a virtual/electronic legal library was available and electronic
filing (that is a paperless society) had been introduced. Working
from home has never been easier.
5641. My mother's neighbour works part-time
in London but the rest of the week from home. This trend is borne
out by the use of the Hunter Avenue car park, as illustrated at
page 13 of the Promoter's response document where there is 100
per cent bookings of parking spaces, but some places still appear
to be available on any particular day.
5642. As regards location, last Thursday it
was reported that Gordon Brown proposes the relocation of more
civil servants to cheaper office accommodation out of London and
the Southeast. This appears to be a further trend affecting rail
passengers commuting into London. For example, I would ask Committee
members to consider where are your tax offices? What about the
location of the Patents Office and Companies House? If you own
property, where is it insured?
5643. Even in the past few years, such things
have changed, so by 2016 we may see a completely different travelling
picture and assumptions made now as regards commuter growth into
and across London may not be fulfilled, quite apart from the existing
Metro service being under-used by the time it reaches Shenfield.
5644. Value for money: at nearly one billion
pounds-plus your Petitioners still query whether the link from
Stratford to Shenfield really provides value for money when replacing
a good rail service directly into the City at Liverpool Street.
Perhaps the promoter can remind the Committee of the present number
of passengers using the Metro service from Shenfield and intermediate
stations and the anticipated increase in numbers with Crossrail.
Does this represent an adequate benefit? Can such benefits/increase
in capacity for these numbers not be provided by longer Metro
trains, for example? Will Crossrail passengers really want to
be diverted via Whitechapel or will they transfer and cause congestion
on fast trains.
5645. One billion pounds appears to represent
one-sixteenth of the whole cost of the project and is disproportionate
for the benefits envisaged.
5646. The Olympics: despite the promoter's response
in respect of the Olympics, the award of the Games will inevitably
restrict the availability of land at Stratford, which would otherwise
have been available for an alternative terminus and, more importantly,
will restrict the availability of finance for the Crossrail project.
This means that the timing for the Crossrail project, as regards
its extension to Shenfield, in particular, is completely wrong,
even if completion could have been achieved by 2012.
5647. Perhaps for these reasons the Promoter
should concentrate on new parts of the project which will provide
more benefit in the short time available.
5648. Consultation: the Promoter's response,
as regards consultation on pages 25 and 26 of its response document,
appears to be impressive, but it does not appear to respond directly
to the Petitioner's point as regards consultation with residents
from Shenfield or those directly affected.
5649. In addition, it is not clear to your Petitioners
as to what stage they could have objected to Shenfield as a terminus.
5650. Some comments on the Shenfield versus
Stratford issues: I will turn now to address some Shenfield versus
Stratford issues which we feel strongly about. In July 2005, there
was a debate on the Crossrail Bill, as a result of which at least
50 Petitioners in Brentwood expressed views against a terminus
at Shenfield. Your Petitioners are aware of more residents holding
a similar view who did not formally Petition. On that basis, there
is significant objections to a terminus at Shenfield and the Secretary
of State for Transport must have been aware of this level of concern
by the time of the debate on 12 January 2006.
5651. In the face of that opposition, it appears
to be perverse for him to stifle consideration by the Select Committee
of this issue and other alternatives, including the potential
upgrade of existing Metro service, if required in practice.
5652. Your Petitioners consider that this may
have been a breach of their human rights, for example, in respect
of a fair hearing of the relevant issues and respect for family
life which will be adversely affected by the Crossrail project,
although your Petitioners have not sought specific advice at this
stage.
5653. There also appears to have been an abuse
of parliamentary procedures insofar as the Secretary of State
for Transport was well aware of inferences arising from the debate
in July 2005, but allowed Petitioners to lodge Petitions and incur
expenditure, quite apart from time, as a result.
5654. Consequently, your Petitioners would ask
the Select Committee to seek the necessary power to amend the
Crossrail Bill so that the Select Committee can consider and make
recommendations as regards alternative arrangements for an appropriate
terminus, for example, at Stratford.
5655. Your Petitioners have read Information
Paper A7 and the Promoter's responses on the selection of Shenfield
as a terminus, but these appear to be one-sided only and appear
to ignore adverse factors, for example, other options have not
been considered. It is still not clear why existing services cannot
be upgraded with more carriages, if necessary. There will be a
loss of unified services from Shenfield without common tickets,
track changes between railway lines (in the event of signalling
or train breakdown). Where does freight service go? If Crossrail
operates continuously on the slow lines, will night use by freight
services increase?
5656. If the Crossrail project goes ahead, it
should be considered whether the proposed development at Shenfield,
in terms of new sidings and platform, is justified to accommodate
extra services, ie such an increase in services be provided further
up the line with commencement, say, at Ilford.
5657. Your Petitioners would make detailed points
in respect of the proposal for Hunter Avenue in Shenfield. Your
Petitioners query whether the Promoter has seriously considered
the risks and requirements at Shenfield.
5658. In paragraph 4 on page 9 of the Promoter's
response, mention is made of school children—from the school
in Alexander Lane—but no reference is made to the exit in
Oliver Road and the trail of children along Hunter Avenue.
5659. If Crossrail goes ahead with a terminus
at Shenfield, your Petitioners consider that the alternative siting
of new sidings would be preferable either between the main lines
and the South End Loop line or White Gates Industrial Site or
the field to the east of Alexander Lane.
| 
