Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


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 letters—and I hope I can find it very quickly but I think I am right and you did talk about this—I 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?


 
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