Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6100
- 6119)
6100. Chairman: Mr Stoker, what about
yourself? How long do you think you will be summing-up, bearing
in mind we have heard quite a lot of detail?
6101. Mr Stoker: It is a question of
how long do you want me to be! Certainly on the basis that, at
the moment, it is simply my witness on parking, and I note what
has been said by my learned friend, five to 10 minutes, perhaps,
in overall terms.
6102. Chairman: Then I am content. Mr
Welfare, if you could cross-examine and then we will move on to
summing-up in the time, if possible.
6103. Mr Welfare: I will see what I can
do, sir.
Cross-examined by Mr Welfare
6104. Mr Welfare: Do I take it, from
the general layout of the room, that Mr Berryman is in the unfortunate
position of hearing me from behind him?
(Mr Berryman) Indeed.
6105. I do apologise. Mr Berryman, you told
the Committee just now that (and I do not want to put words in
your mouth) one of the main benefits of the scheme was that people
in Shenfield could catch a fast train to Stratford and change
on to Crossrail and go into the centre of London.
(Mr Berryman) I did not say that was one of
the main benefits. I said that was one of the options which would
be open to them.
6106. The point I simply make to you is that
that is an option that would be open to them were Crossrail built
without the extension to Shenfield.
(Mr Berryman) Indeed it would, yes, that is
true.
6107. Therefore it says nothing in support of
the argument that Crossrail should be built out to Shenfield.
(Mr Berryman) No, it does not. We were not
talking about that at the time, of course, we were talking about
the journey opportunities from Shenfield which would be opened
up by Crossrail in all aspects of the scheme.
6108. There is no argument, therefore, that
if you built the Crossrail scheme across and underneath the centre
of London the people of Shenfield could get to it via the fast
link that they already have. That says nothing about the question
before us at the moment. I am grateful for your acknowledgement
of that. You accepted what my learned friend Mr Stoker said that,
to some extent, document A7, the explanation of the argument for
Shenfield, is an explanation after the event. So it is fair comment
that that is the case. You said it was a common-sense test that
a visual inspection by an engineer would demonstrate—I think
you were referring to the lack of space at Stratford.
(Mr Berryman) At Stratford and at Romford,
and the other place we looked at was Ilford. I think we had a
look at Gidea Park as well.
6109. I want to come back to Stratford in just
a second. You said it was a long-standing assumption. You used
the phrase several times "high level".
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
6110. That the thing had been looked at at a
high level, it had been reviewed at a high level recently and,
indeed, you said that high level does not look at cost.
(Mr Berryman) Except in the broadest terms.
When you are looking at a high level, you are looking at something
"Is it going to cost £100 million or £1 billion?".
6111. Would another word for "high level"
be "strategic"?
(Mr Berryman) "Strategic" would be
another word, yes.
6112. Perhaps from those sorts of comments,
Mr Berryman, you will recognise that the view of the residents
of Shenfield is that there really are not any significant benefits
to them from the terminus and, as my learned friend Mr Stoker
put to you, there has been no analysis which actually demonstrates
the high level conclusions, as you put it, you have come to.
(Mr Berryman) You would have to ask them as
to whether they felt there were any benefits or not. We certainly
feel that there are benefits.
6113. No, I am asking you to recognise that
that is their view, as demonstrated—
(Mr Berryman) As demonstrated by their Petitions,
I certainly recognise that is the view of the Petitioners, yes.
That does not necessarily man everyone who lives in Shenfield
feels that way.
6114. No, but all the views that have come to
this Committee are—
(Mr Berryman) Perhaps that is because all the
views that have come to this Committee are the Petitioners'.
6115. The Committee has to take what is put
in front of it. You have not disputed the argument that there
is no significant benefit in terms of travel where you have already
got a fast line on you doorstep which takes you to the places
where this service can be joined most conveniently. You agreed
with my learned friend Mr Stoker—and he gave an opportunity
to update this letter from December of last year when it was written—that
there has been no feasibility study of the eastern route of Crossrail
west of Shenfield.
(Mr Berryman) Crossrail west of Shenfield?
6116. Yes.
(Mr Berryman) You mean for a shorter termination
point?
6117. Yes.
(Mr Berryman) There have been, as I said, strategic
(as you prefer to use) reviews done of whether that is still the
appropriate thing to do.
6118. Yes, but the letter is clear and you have
accepted that things have not changed; there has been no feasibility
study.
(Mr Berryman) There has been no formal feasibility
study. As I said earlier on, a strategic review, or a high level
review, indicated that these options just did not look at all
viable.
6119. In document A7 the figure given for an
Underground stop at Stratford is in the range of £300-400
million.[45]
I think you mentioned that figure this afternoon.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, I think that
is probably a low-side estimate because it ignores the fact that
the running tunnels would be longer (they would have to be extended
from Pudding Mill Lane to Stratford) and it ignores the over-run
tunnels which would required. Since the Moorgate accident about
25 years ago any Underground station where trains terminate has
to have quite long over-run tunnels, and they would have to have
a means of escape from the end of those tunnels. It ignores the
surface works which would be required on Stratford Station itself,
which has already got substandard platform—
45 Crossrail Information Paper A7, Para 5.3, Great
Eastern Electric Lines Options (LINEWD-IPA7-004; SCN20060329-002). Back
| 
