Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6800
- 6819)
6800. Again, that is further work you have undertaken,
is it?
(Mr Berryman) It is indeed. We have done a
very considerable amount of work on this.
6801. So in terms of the modelling exercise,
in terms of passenger origin and destination there is survey material,
is there, that is available to be inspected?
(Mr Berryman) There is a huge amount of back-up
material to this Environmental Statement which I think is available
in the form of CDs and the like.
6802. So amongst that will be of course such
matters as construction disruption as well, would there?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, indeed.
6803. I see and that is all available, is it?
(Mr Berryman) That is all available, yes.
6804. And where does one find it, Mr Berryman?
(Mr Berryman) I cannot tell you off the top
of my head. I was not expecting to give evidence this afternoon.
6805. Well, you have that pleasure.
(Mr Berryman) But we will certainly write to
you and tell you where it is.
6806. Mr Pugh-Smith: That will be very
helpful to know because again, as I say, the Environmental Assessment
does lead one up a few cul-de-sacs in that regard. Thank you very
much.
Examined by the Committee
6807. Chairman: Mr Berryman, can I bring
you back to the Environmental Statement and what you said in relation
to the alignment proposed by the previous witness, the loop line
from Bond Street up to King's Cross-Euston-St Pancras. You said
that would alleviate the Victoria Line. I am not sure because,
as you know, the Euston-St Pancras-King's Cross loop has the Piccadilly,
the District, the Circle and the Victoria Line, and it strikes
me that the outer alignment would distribute more people on to
those already overcrowded lines significantly?
(Mr Berryman) Yes without doing a proper analysis,
it is hard to say, but it kind of follows the desire of some people
to go down towards that part of the West End. I would expect it
to be a second order effect and not to be hugely significant.
6808. The reason I am asking that is because
one of the arguments that has been put is that people would use
predominantly Crossrail trying to get into this inner circle of
Bond Street or through to the City itself. It would strike me
that if Crossrail went on that loop it would become a distribution
point on those lines which are already there in existence and
that would be considerable.
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
6809. One other thing, you did say that, all
told, you had examined a couple of dozen different alignments.
(Mr Berryman) Mainly in outer parts of London.
6810. Could we get some sort of list of the
ones that have been carried out, either briefly or in depth?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
6811. Chairman: Thank you very much.
6812. Mr Binley: I have six questions
and I apologise for that again but you will know that the third
reading has not taken place and we have got a lot of work to do
collectively as Members of Parliament. My first question is with
regard to pressure on a specific route. It was told to us that
on 16/02/02 that Mr Schabas was told "they do not want any
delays because of Government pressure". Thereafter, it was
told to us that Mr Montague said in October 2004, "I really
have no locus to consider alternatives". My concern about
all of this is that here we are with a massive scheme, one of
the biggest Parliament has ever dealt with, which will create
immense disruption over a long period of time. My concern is that
there was a route which had to have quite a bit of work done on
it and that there was pressure to stay with that route because
that would be more cost effective at this time. Am I right in
thinking that or can you tell me why that is not the case?
(Mr Berryman) I have never picked that up.
When we did the east/west study we looked at three really fundamental
alternatives and each of those alternatives had a sub-variant.
The three that we looked at were something along the present line
that we have got, something along the 1980s preserved line; something
which went into the centre of London and then turned south west
and went down towards Clapham Junction and that area; and something
which went from Clapham Junction up to the north east, up to Hackney
and that way, and a combination of the two, so any permutation
of two out of four branches.
6813. My question was about pressure. If we
have got two statements, one in 2001 and one in 2004, which suggest
first of all that there was Government pressure and secondly that
there was no alternative to the line, how do you interpret that
if you do not interpret it as pressure?
(Mr Berryman) Going into Adrian Montague's
review, as I understand it, and I think I can understand it correctly,
his brief was to see if the scheme that we brought forward was
viable. He was specifically not there to examine alternatives,
he was just looking at is it worth Government proceeding to the
next stage. The earlier one, I am not quite sure where that came
from in because I know Mr Schabas' evidence but I cannot remember
the context.
6814. My question is a rather subjective question,
I recognise that, and I understand why you would not have the
information. My second question is with regard to the cost of
alternatives in that you made a specific statement to Mr Schabas
in your letter of 30 September 2002: "On this basis we have
arrived at a projected cost of £18 billion or approximately
three times the cost." I reckon that takes into account all
of the additions that Mr Schabas said. Thereafter, you recently
said that the difference in the central part of Crossrail is not
very great and, in fact, the scheme Mr Schabas has put forward
today on behalf of the Mayfair residents might be cheaper.
(Mr Berryman) Indeed, particularly if you miss
the station out.
6815. Can you tell me then why when he asked
for a breakdown of estimates and so forth in your letter of 16
October 2002 you really did not give a very fulsome answer to
costs of alternatives, did you? You did not even suggest that
papers were available that he could look at, or whatever?
(Mr Berryman) That is correct.
6816. If I got that answer as a politician I
would be a bit suspicious. Why did you not give him more information
than you gave in this rather evasive answer dated 16 October 2002?
(Mr Berryman) Mr Schabas is rather a persistent
correspondent, as I think you have probably guessed.
6817. Is there anything wrong with that?
(Mr Berryman) Rightly or wrongly, I was just
trying to close the discussion down.
6818. Would it not have been easier to close
it down by saying "Here are the figures"?
(Mr Berryman) It would not have closed it down;
he would have come back and argued.
6819. My third question is the evidence relating
to catchment and the fare box income and that is specifically
relating to the situation of Liverpool Street because you state
in one of your lettersand I hope I can find it very quickly
but I think I am right and you did talk about thisI wanted
to know how much you were referring to Liverpool Street when you
answered this letter on 13/09/02 because I got the impression
that when we were arguing that there would be more pressure on
Liverpool Street your arguments were couched in the vein that
there would not be that much more pressure on Liverpool Street.
(Mr Berryman) Can you refresh my memory on
what I said?
|