Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6080
- 6099)
6080. I do not know about that but there we
are. Certainly, if one looks at wider issues than costs, there
does not appear to be a tangible benefit to the residents of the
borough for whom I act when one peruses the various statistics
on certain matters including social exclusion, journey times and
the question of passenger growth. We have seen those matters in
our appendices. You do not take issue with them factually?
(Mr Berryman) I do not take issue with them.
I am not quite sure that I agree with you as regards the whole
borough. Clearly, Brentwood Station would get a significantly
enhanced and improved service. As you pointed out and as you do
not dispute, from Shenfield there is a fast line service which
gives a much quicker time into central London than a suburban,
metro-type train such as Crossrail ever could. You would not dispute
that because it is true. I think if you are taking the borough
as a whole, it is not true to say that there are not any benefits
because the Brentwood people do get benefits.
6081. I take the point but I want to understand
factually whether there are any issues. Our appendix 4.[44]
We have not got the statistics for Brentwood, but in terms of
Shenfield the savings in time are, I would suggest to you on the
basis of table 18.1, either non-existent or very small.
(Mr Berryman) I am not absolutely
sure that I can accept that. Certainly with regard to Heathrow—no,
I am not sure that I could accept that.
6082. Zero is very small, is it not?
(Mr Berryman) Zero is very small if that were
to be the actual time saving. My calculations would indicate bigger
time savings than that. However, one has to bear in mind that
there are a whole range of possibilities opened up by Crossrail.
So a passenger from, say, Shenfield going to Tottenham Court Road
could, if they wished, take a fast train to Stratford and change
onto Crossrail at that point. They would get a much quicker journey
than if they took a fast train into Liverpool Street, as now,
and then changed to the Underground. You have to be very careful
that you are actually comparing optimum with optimum.
6083. Absolutely. This would be the advantage
of a proper, reasoned comparison in the public domain so that
we could look at it. It has not been done.
(Mr Berryman) A comparison of timings?
6084. Yes.
(Mr Berryman) We have done quite a lot of comparisons
of timings. The whole business case is actually, as you may well
know, based on time savings which will be experienced by passengers.
We have a huge range of calculations that have been done for that.
6085. Appendix 3, in terms of access for those
(you talk about the wider area of Brentwood) who have not got
a car, shows that there is zero benefit for Brentwood and that,
really, the lion's share of the benefit lies inside the London
conurbation.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, I would not deny that the
lion's share of the benefit lies inside the conurbation because
that is where the lion's share of the people live. Inevitably
that is the case.
6086. Appendix 6, in terms of actually meeting
some form of unmet demand, or leading to a situation where there
is passenger growth at the end of the line at Shenfield, looking
at 18.44, that is almost statistically insignificant, at 3 per
cent, is it not?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, it is a very low number.
As has been pointed out by many speakers, Shenfield has a very
good fast line service and we would expect a significant proportion
of the people, most of them, would continue to use that fast line
service.
6087. So, in the round, Shenfield takes that
work in terms of the terminus for the benefits for London.
(Mr Berryman) I would say one could make that
argument, yes. I think Shenfield does get benefits but because
it is the terminus of the route (and, as I think Ms Lieven mentioned
yesterday, the same argument applies with any terminus of this
nature) the benefits are less than they would be the further you
get into town.
6088. Just so one takes stock of what we have
got, at the moment, in terms of those who live at Shenfield and
Brentwood, there is an existing, functioning metro service. I
think that provides some seven trains in terms of frequency. Is
the seven figure correct per hour?
(Mr Berryman) It is around that number.
6089. You postulate 12 trains per hour for Crossrail.
There is a fast service that you can take—have you taken
it—for about 16, 17 minutes to Stratford?
(Mr Berryman) I have used that, yes.
6090. It is very quick and effective, is it
not?
(Mr Berryman) It is a very good service indeed.
6091. Where you can join the Tube system and
you can get to Heathrow, you can shop in Bond Street, and you
can get to your work in Canary Wharf—you can do all that
with a 17-minute trip in on the fast service.
(Mr Berryman) You can get to Stratford in 17
minutes but that does not mean you can get to Canary Wharf or
any of those other places in that time. You have got to change;
some of the interchanges are not particularly brilliant. Getting
to Heathrow, in particular, involves a number of complex, long
walks, lots of steps to go up and down. Not easy. As a regular
rail user, I find the inconvenience of some interchanges quite
annoying. For instance, I use the Midland Mainline into St Pancreas
and I find the interchange from there to the Underground to be
particularly annoying.
6092. Chairman: So do I.
6093. Mr Stoker: Sir, trying to keep
the questions short, I will leave it there.
6094. Chairman: Mr Welfare, can I just,
before you start, point out that I am conscious of costs and charges
and time and effort, and really we do not have many more minutes
left before a vote at five o'clock, and then we can come back
at about a quarter-past five for a further 15 minutes, whatever
the case may be. If you feel that you can finish in that time
I wonder if you can indicate and try and be helpful to the Committee.
6095. Mr Welfare: Sir, I was not quite
sure I caught the last part of what you said. Were you saying
that to me that I did not think I could finish in that time?
6096. Chairman: I just need you to indicate
whether or not you think you are going to finish in such time.
6097. Mr Welfare: I think it possible
that my cross-examination of Mr Berryman, depending on his replies,
may be over by the time of the vote. I am conscious that Mr Berryman
is not the only witness we are due to hear in this final session
and there is then cross-examination of that further witness. There
are then closing submissions. I suspect it would be ambitious
to expect that to take place in a quarter-of-an-hour after you
return from the vote.
6098. Chairman: We will proceed.
6099. Ms Lieven: I am happy to indicate
that we think that in the last day-and-a-half the Committee has
heard a sufficient amount about the environmental impacts and
the impact on parking at Shenfield to understand the issues fully.
We are content not to call Mr Anderson on that basis. He is here
and if the Committee wish to hear from him he is available, but,
from our side, we think the issues have been thoroughly explored
by now and we are not sure the Committee will be assisted by hearing
any further evidence from Mr Anderson. I will leave that in the
Committee's hands.
44 Committee Ref: A69, Environmental Statement, Appendix
4, Table 18.1 Journey Time savings (Platform to Platform) to and
from Shenfield; and Table 18.2 Route Window NE17- Temporary impacts
(BRWDBO-14905-048). Back
| 
