Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7560
- 7579)
7560. If we could go to 107, it shows slightly
better the relationship between the existing stations, the DLR
and Crossrail—I will come back to this when asking questions
of one of the witnesses.[13]
What it shows is the relationship of the proposed stations and
what we will draw attention to in due course is the lack of real
interchange between a Crossrail station, given the location of
the tunnels, and the other stations both existing, the Woolwich
Arsenal station and the DLR station which is proposed and the
Committee will see the relationship between the DLR and the main
line station is much closer and much better than that with a location
for a Crossrail station.
7561. There is no dispute between the London
Borough of Greenwich and the Secretary of State that a Crossrail
station at Woolwich would have some regeneration benefits. Woolwich
is an area targeted in policy terms for regeneration and growth,
there is no issue between us on that, and Crossrail would, to
an extent at least, facilitate that process. There is also no
issue between the Secretary of State and the London Borough of
Greenwich that a new station would cost in the order of £260
million to £270 million. It is also not in dispute that in
terms of technical assessments of a benefits cost ratio, the benefits
cost ratio would be at or in excess of two but, as you will hear
from witnesses and our submissions in due course, we say that
is not the end of the matter.
7562. Our position is this: firstly, our position
on the regeneration benefits is that although we accept there
are regeneration benefits if a station were put in Woolwich, Greenwich
overstates the case for the effect of Crossrail and under-plays
the regeneration which can take place without Woolwich station,
particularly bearing in mind the transport infrastructure which
is already proposed, that is to say the DLR and the Greenwich
waterfront transit. Perhaps the Committee can be shown our exhibit
12 and this is a futuristic public transport map and expanded
tube map showing what the situation might be in the future for
the various schemes now under construction and proposed came about,
it is a map produced by the Mayor.[14]
Could we focus in, please, on Woolwich, the bottom right hand
corner.
7563. At the moment, of course, Woolwich is
only connected by the main line station and 'bus routes You will
see from here that the DLR proposal, which is under construction
and which, as I say, will be opening about 2009, will connect
Woolwich Arsenal with the DLR system and you see that this will
create a crossing of the Thames which is a significant venture
and, secondly, that the brown dotted line is the Greenwich waterfront
transit which will also provide connections within the area of
Greenwich and the peninsula and provide connections throughout
the borough and to the Jubilee line in North Greenwich. Crossrail
you can see in purple does not propose under the Bill scheme to
stop at Greenwich, but goes through from Custom House to Abbey
Wood.
7564. The Secretary of State's position, therefore,
is that there are important infrastructure improvements already
in the pipeline for Woolwich which will provide significant changes
in terms of regeneration and that Crossrail should not be over-stated
in terms of its regenerative effect and, in any event, the approach
which has been taken by Greenwich is to overstate the growth both
in population and in economic terms well above the projections
which are used London-wide by the GLA. Perhaps I can just illustrate
that very briefly with one bar chart and could you go to our exhibit
18, please?[15]
This just shows you the comparative position as to what has been
estimated.
7565. As the Committee will know, forecasting
for future growth and employment, population, growth and the like
is always a difficult question of judgment. What we have produced
in the bar chart gives you a ready comparison between a number
of scenarios. This is for the borough as a whole. You will see
on the left hand side the current London plan showing population
and employment The Crossrail High Growth Scenario you will see
next. You will then see the greatest extent in terms of population
forecasting is the data that EDAW has prepared for the London
Borough of Greenwich. That even outstrips the latest forecasts
from the GLA which were published last year in the Housing Capacity
Study. Greenwich is starting from a base in the presentation of
its case which is well in excess of the Crossrail High Growth
Scenario and the GLA's latest forecasts.
7566. Can we then, please, go back to page 17?[16]
If one looks at the immediate catchment of the proposed Woolwich
station that effectively is more exaggerated because Greenwich
see the majority of the growth targeted in the area of the station
and you see there it is the same four groups of columns. You see
the same disparity between the EDAW Greenwich data and the GLA
and Crossrail High Growth Forecasts is exaggerated because the
greater proportion of population growth is estimated or forecast
by Greenwich for the station catchment. We say there is an imbalance
between the forecasting that Greenwich is using and the that which
the GLA is using based on its most recent data; that is a matter,
no doubt, which witnesses will cover.
7567. Finally, and most importantly, the position
so far as the Secretary of State is concerned on all of this is
a very simple one. Apart from the issues I have mentioned, the
simple position of the Secretary of State is that Crossrail is
already a very expensive project. Efforts are being made to drive
down the cost of the project to make it more affordable. The project
simply cannot afford another station as expensive as Woolwich
however well it performs in terms of benefit cost ratio, the extra
£260 million to £270 million is simply, I am afraid,
going in the wrong direction so far as cost is concerned and that
point is made very clear in an exchange of correspondence recently
which is in our exhibits.
7568. If we could go, please, first to page
143 of our exhibits.[17]
You will see there a letter from Mr Raynsford to Mr Twigg, the
Minister, raising the cost benefit issue and drawing attention
to the fact. He says that Woolwich demonstrates a better cost
ratio than the Crossrail scheme as a whole and he sends some information
to the Minister.
7569. If we also look at the previous page,
page 142, letter sent on 2 May in which Mr Raynsford sends the
EDAW report which is in evidence by Greenwich so we have not included
it, it is already before the Committee if the Committee wishes
to look at it and again raising the importance of the regeneration
issue before the Minister.[18]
7570. Then, finally, at pages 144 to 145 the
Minister's response and there you will see that Mr Twigg writes
to Mr Raynsford last Friday and you will see from the first main
paragraph that there have been discussions: "I have to inform
you our position remains that a station in Woolwich should not
be added to the scope of the Crossrail project. I know this will
come as a disappointment to you and other supporters of Woolwich's
inclusion, but this would add a significant additional cost".[19]
Records the fact there is no real disagreement over the costs.
"It is a very substantial amount of money and it is important
to ensure that Crossrail is affordable, that is why, under the
leadership of Doug Oakervee, CLRL are re-examining all elements
of the project in detail to find ways to drive down the cost to
more affordable levels".
7571. He deals then with the question of the
cost benefit ratio and he notes at the bottom of that page: "While
a benefit cost ratio is a building bock in any value for money
assessment, it is important to stress that the value for money
of a scheme is only one part of any appraisal method and does
not provide a simple answer as to whether a scheme, in whole or
in part, should be built". Then over the page it is for Greenwich
to put its case to the Committee, but the Government considers
that it is not a good use of limited resources and do not want
to add to the costs of the project. The letter was copied to the
Mayor and to Mr Hendy.
7572. Sir, the Secretary of State's position
is clear, yes, there are benefits for a station at Woolwich, those
benefits should not be overstated because there are already improvements
in Woolwich, but the base position of the Secretary of State is
simply that the cost is too great to add to the project.
7573. Sir, that is our position and I hope it
helps to clarify that at the outset, because although there are
some questions to be asked during the course of Greenwich's evidence,
we have had disclosure of a substantial amount of material from
them that we are going to present to the Committee. It is a matter
of degree only, the real issue which the Secretary of State puts
before the Committee is that this is not a project which can afford
to have additional major components added to it.
7574. Chairman: Mr Jones, would you like
to start your case.
7575. Mr Jones: I will, thank you, Sir.
There is an opening in fact prepared before that letter that you
have just been taken to was delivered to me that is being circulated
and an electronic version can be e-mailed to an appropriate address.
7576. Chairman: For the record if we
could have this down as A83.[20]
7577. Mr Jones: Thank you, Sir. Sir,
as you will realise, the London Borough of Greenwich is in south-east
London. Its petition is mainly concerned with the south-eastern
section of Crossrail. Its area contains areas of social deprivation,
particularly in the Woolwich/Thamesmead area which Crossrail would
go beneath.
7578. Greenwich's petition raises a number of
issues. One matter is, however, of overwhelming concern to the
Council, to its members, and to the residents and businesses of
the Borough, that is the need for a station in Woolwich.
7579. May I depart from my text there just to
refer very briefly to a matter to which Mr Elvin mentioned in
opening. The interesting transport map that he took you to at
page 12 which has been provided by the Promoters might give an
unduly rosy picture of the likely position in the vicinity of
Woolwich.[21]
You have there a familiar transport map showing underground and
overground rail service and also showing two of the various 'bus
ways there will be in London, Greenwich waterside transit and
east London transit, but not other bus ways The result is a skewing
of the impression that is created. If one removes the 'bus ways
of Greenwich Waterway transit which is a browny/orange colour
in the south-east and east London transit a light blue, one gains
a fair comparison across the whole of London than that particular
diagram shows.
13 Crossrail Ref: Crossrail Ref: P77, Proposed Woolwich
Station, walk times between stations-plan (GRCHLB-3604-107). Back
14
Crossrail Ref: P77, Putting Transport on the Map (GRCHLB-3604-012). Back
15
Crossrail Ref: P77, Population and Employment Growth 2001 to
2016: London Borough of Greenwich (GRCHLB-3604-018). Back
16
Crossrail Ref: P77, Population and Employment Growth 2001 to
2016: Woolwich Station Catchment (GRCHLB-3604-017). Back
17
Crossrail Ref: P77, Correspondence from Mr Nick Raynsford, MP
to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, 6
April 2006 (GRCHLB-3604-143). Back
18
Crossrail Ref: P77, Correspondence from Mr Nick Raynsford, MP
to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, 2
May 2006 (GRCHLB-3604-142). Back
19
Crossrail Ref: P77, Correspondence from the Parliamentary Under
Secretary of State for Transport to Mr Nick Raynsford, MP, 5 May
2006 (GRCHLB-3604-142). Back
20
Committee Ref: A83, London Borough of Greenwich Opening Statement. Back
21
Crossrail Ref: P77, Putting Transport on the Map (GRCHLB-3604-012). Back
| 
