Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6780 - 6799)

  6780. And that is the reason why a non-technical summary is also provided to ensure that those who are less familiar with wading through voluminous appendices know where to look for the information?
  (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is so.

  6781. And the only two alternatives that are identified are those which you have shown, and that is the original northern alignment promoted by the Residents' Association and the river route, the Superlink?
  (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct. Yes, those are the ones which we took forward in most detail. There is an issue here about how one does analyse alternatives. If you can see quickly that an alternative is not going anywhere you do not take it to the final degree of analysis. It does not make economic sense to do that.

  6782. That may be the case, Mr Berryman, but as Mr Schabas told us when he was involved with Channel Tunnel Rail Link, they looked at numerous alternatives including minor alternatives to see whether the best route could actually be put forward.
  (Mr Berryman) That is true.

  6783. And that is an exercise that you have not done, is it not, Mr Berryman?
  (Mr Berryman) No, that is not the case. We have looked at a very large number of alternative alignments. It happens that in the central section there is a limit to how many alternatives one can look at because the physicality of London means there are only a limited number of alternatives.

  6784. Have you looked at the Wigmore alignment which takes in Cavendish Square as part of your consideration?
  (Mr Berryman) We have not looked at that in the same detail as we looked at the other two, certainly.

  6785. That suggests that you have not considered the alternatives adequately, does it not?
  (Mr Berryman) Well, not to me, no, because the features of that alignment are substantially the same as the Baker Street alignment. It is probably slightly better in that it relieves the Victoria Line a little bit but not really significantly so.

  6786. The Wigmore alignment/the Wigmore shift, as Mr Wimbourne suggested this afternoon, would utilise Cavendish Square as a station?
  (Mr Berryman) It would, yes.

  6787. And where do I find in Chapter 6 any reference to Cavendish Square in that section as part of your consideration of alternatives?
  (Mr Berryman) You would not find it there, no. It is not there.

  6788. Or whether or not Cavendish Square would be a more suitable place for a work site than Hanover Square, for example, again another comparative exercise. We do not find it, do we, Mr Berryman?
  (Mr Berryman) No analysis has been done of Cavendish Square. A superficial analysis would indicate there would not be very much difference but certainly no analysis has been done.

  6789. No. Bearing in mind the environmental impacts that will take place finding the least worst option can be significant, can it not?
  (Mr Berryman) Indeed it can, that is what it is all about.

  6790. In terms of whether or not a scheme is going to have a heavier compensation bill to have to fund or not, for example?
  (Mr Berryman) Yes, but whichever option you take, if you take the Cavendish Square option you will still be affecting the same number of landowners albeit different ones than in the Mayfair option.

  6791. How do you know that, Mr Berryman?
  (Mr Berryman) Simply by looking at a plan of London.

  6792. With the greatest respect, you just told the Committee a few minutes ago that you have not actually looked into Cavendish Square so how can you express an informed view?
  (Mr Berryman) You can express an informed view simply by looking at an A-Z. You do not need to take it any further than that.

  6793. Not even a land ownership map the investigation of land registry titles, and things like that?
  (Mr Berryman) Generally speaking, the distribution of the different kinds of property across the area immediately to the north of Oxford Street and immediately to the south of Oxford Street is not much different.

  6794. I see. Of course, one of the benefits also of having an alignment north of Oxford Street is there are commercial opportunities, are there not, as well? You can link in other shops as they have done at Bond Street. Have you looked at that?
  (Mr Berryman) You certainly could do that if you came fairly close to Oxford Street. I do not think you could do it at Cavendish Square, you would be too far back. The answer is no. Our Bill is about promoting the railway. Any commercial opportunities which arise incidentally to that can be considered but we are specifically precluded from promoting matters relating to commercial development, as I think you know.

  6795. I see. Mr Berryman, the evidence to this Committee is that no commercial opportunities are being considered as part of the funding of the railway?
  (Mr Berryman) No, that is not what I said. I said we are only allowed to consider taking powers for building the railway. If there are commercial opportunities as a result of taking those powers, of course they will be considered, but that is different from what you just said.

  6796. Of course, commercial opportunities again are reflected in the extent to which a scheme is commercially attractive and capable of funding; agreed?
  (Mr Berryman) They are but they are a very minor consideration.

  6797. I will move to one other matter and that is operational issues. You were talking to the Committee about concerns about platform waiting and the potential for overcrowding. My understanding, and indeed it remained unchallenged when Mr Schabas raised it, is that only one in six trains is going to go to Heathrow. Is that right?
  (Mr Berryman) Only one in six trains is going to go to Heathrow, that is correct, yes.

  6798. So as five trains go by there will be a growing number of people on the platform waiting to go to Heathrow, will there not, by way of example?
  (Mr Berryman) There may be and that is probably not a very desirable feature of our scheme, but 10 of those 24 trains will be going to Ealing Broadway and other intermediate stations on the way, so most of the passengers for that branch will be able to get on the first train that comes along.

  6799. If so directed?
  (Mr Berryman) Yes, if so directed, but the majority of them will not be going to Heathrow. Perhaps it is worth just pointing out that the actual passenger numbers going to Heathrow will be relatively low for a railway of this type. The demand at Heathrow is really not enough to fill Crossrail trains on anything more than four trains an hour.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007