Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7920
- 7939)
7920. Mr Chard, would you return to your proof
now. I think we had got to the word "Subsequently" about
a third of the way down page 8.
(Mr Chard) Subsequently a limited number of
modelling runs were undertaken to give comparisons to other major
town centres to be served by Crossrail stations. Some more detailed
information is provided in Appendix 1 to this proof. Compared
to many parts of London, and using the GLA measures, the current
2006 accessibility of the borough is not good, partly, but not
entirely, due to the lack of London Underground services. Last
summer, in evidence to the Thames Gateway Bridge Public Inquiry,
the TfL witness, Professor Rosewell, gave evidence to show that,
compared to all other London boroughs, Greenwich has below average
accessibility. With both the Docklands Light Railway in Woolwich
and the Thames Gateway Bridge open, the accessibility of the borough
would be close to the London average. The conclusions for Capita
Symonds' analysis are that significant additional changes to accessibility
can be achieved by Crossrail stations at Abbey Wood and Woolwich.
The accessibility changes indicated are very large, especially
for Woolwich, and, on this scale, are a rare event in urban development
anywhere. In this case, the very large changes occur because Crossrail
removes the barrier effect of the River Thames. There are three
main components to the accessibility changes: firstly, direct
access to central and west London with no interchange time—
7921. Could you just pause there? How important
do you think the absence or presence of interchange is to journeys?
(Mr Chard) I think it is quite important. In
my work, I come from Woolwich to central London very often and
I do not like ever to arrive late and I find I have to allow more
than a theoretical time because the time for interchange is unpredictable
to a degree and also the reliability of the rail lines you use
at present is also a factor to be considered.
7922. Can you read on? I think you had reached
the top of page 9.
(Mr Chard) The second thing is faster line
speeds than other lines to central London and, thirdly, a new
route and new stations which reduce the travel distances for many
trips. The likely effects of the accessibility changes would be:
firstly, a rapid increase in commuting, especially from Woolwich;
secondly, a boost to regeneration and development; thirdly, increasing
wealth and reduced deprivation; and, fourthly, significant local
private investment and a reduced need for public money. Not building
a Woolwich station would be a major lost opportunity. There would
be no gain from all the benefits which would arise from the very
large changes to accessibility that the station could deliver.
7923. I wonder if you could now move to your
Appendix 1. There is one matter which is not actually in your
proof, but I think it is worth pointing out. It is Appendix 1
which is at tab 5, the first document there and it is the third
page of this Appendix. I do not have the Promoters' numbering,
but it is paragraph 4.3.[3]
Appendix 1, "Changes to Accessibility" and actually
I can see that it is numbered `340'. Could you please read the
first three sentences of paragraph 4.3 please?
(Mr Chard) "The model scenarios
indicate that if Woolwich station is not built, Abbey Wood would
have better accessibility than Woolwich. The implications of that
are that, for some types of development, investment near Abbey
Wood would be more attractive. It would undermine the town centre
function of Woolwich."
7924. Then I need not get you to read the whole
of the rest of that paragraph, but, in essence, you say that would
be contrary to government advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note
13, PPG13. Could you return to your proof please? You had just
reached the end of that section, so could you deal with the bus
catchment areas for Woolwich and Abbey Wood, your section 4.
(Mr Chard) A Crossrail station at Woolwich
would attract more passengers than many other stations in outer
London because it can be very well served by feeder bus services.
The Council has employed Capita Symonds to consider issues of
bus accessibility using their ACCESSION model which contains all
current 2006 bus timetables in London. With advice from Capita
Symonds and local knowledge, it is assumed that rail commuters
from a Woolwich station would not be prepared to accept the bus
journey of more than 20 minutes or an average walk time of more
than about ten minutes. Then, for example, a journey to work at
Canary Wharf might take up to 20 minutes on the bus, ten minutes
for interchange, ten minutes for train ride and a further ten
minutes walking at either end, or about one hour maximum in total.
Longer journeys to the station seem unlikely, unless they can
be undertaken by car at speeds in excess of the buses. The output
from the ACCESSION model is shown in a plan for Woolwich and a
plan for Abbey Wood.
7925. Petitioner's slide 1 please.[4]
(Mr Chard) For Woolwich, the green
area is the area within which it is possible to get to the centre
of Woolwich in 20 minutes or less. The station access in the green
area would mostly be by bus, but in the red area a walk of ten
minutes or less is an alternative.
7926. Just dealing with the housing estates
surrounding Woolwich which we mentioned yesterday, are they within
the green and the red areas or not?
(Mr Chard) Yes, they are.
7927. Could you read paragraph 4.5 please.
(Mr Chard) At the time of the 2001 Census,
the resident population within the Woolwich 20-minute isochron
area was about 60,000. There is obviously a relationship between
this population and the potential numbers of passengers using
a Woolwich station. In general, the higher the population, the
higher the number of passengers. Higher passenger numbers can
be anticipated where residential densities are high and where
there is a high density of bus routes. Compared to some other
Crossrail stations, a station at Woolwich is attractive and would,
other things being equal, attract many passengers.
7928. Petitioner's slide 2 please.[5]
(Mr Chard) For the Abbey Wood
plan, the green area within the 20-minute isochron is smaller.
It had a resident population of about 44,000 in 2001 or about
27 per cent less than Woolwich. Also, for many parts of the Abbey
Wood catchment area, the bus services are less frequent than in
the Woolwich area. More than four times as many buses per hour
arrive in Woolwich town centre compared to Abbey Wood. Therefore,
other things being equal, we would expect more than 27 per cent
more passengers at a Woolwich Crossrail station than an Abbey
Wood Crossrail station. It has not been possible within the time
and budget constraints to undertake comparison studies at other
Crossrail stations, but it is obvious, even from a limited examination,
that some will not get a lot of passengers because they contain
significant areas of non-residential land or residential land
with low population densities. Some are also poorly served by
existing bus services. It is important to consider how the catchment
areas of the two stations might change after station opening.
In terms of the bus network, our analysis of the development of
bus services to serve North Greenwich station suggests that the
number of buses serving the Woolwich catchment area might treble
or quadruple within 15 years of station opening. It is anticipated
that it will generally be possible to maintain average bus operating
speeds, even in the peak period, by the introduction of additional
bus priority measures. With more frequent bus services and more
bus priority measures, bus access to central Woolwich and bus
access to the stations will improve even if no new routes are
introduced. However, in addition to the intensification of existing
routes, there is some scope to introduce new routes and that would
increase the area which is accessible to the station within 20
minutes by bus. The population living within the Woolwich 20-minute
catchment area will also increase very significantly by 2031.
Based on the GLA forecasts of population growth for local areas,
that increase is estimated to be between 30 and 40 per cent for
the Woolwich catchment area south of the river. Taken together
with the extension of the catchment area achieved by new or faster
bus routes, the 2031 population is likely to be about 100,000
compared to 60,000 in 2001, which is an increase of 66 per cent.
For Abbey Wood, the equivalent changes are less certain. Even
if the bus services at Abbey Wood were quadrupled, the numbers
of buses serving the station would be much less than at Woolwich
and, in the absence of significant new highway works for bus priority,
the reliability would be likely to deteriorate. Unlike Woolwich,
the demand for bus services would not be throughout the day, but
very much concentrated in the peak commuter travel times. That
has raised doubts about London Transport's future commitment to
provide those services because they might well not be judged to
be value for money if the buses have low occupancy for much of
the day. There is scope, at least in theory, to expand the catchment
area at Abbey Wood by introducing new bus routes, but again frequency,
reliability and viability are all issues which create uncertainties
for any estimate of future bus access to Abbey Wood. As at Woolwich,
there will be an increase in population in the catchment area
between 2001 and 2031. In fact, the increase between 2001 and
2006 has already been considerable. The estimated 2031 population
is likely to be between 60,000 and 80,000 or 20 to 40 per cent
less than Woolwich. A Woolwich Crossrail station is likely to
have higher passenger numbers than Abbey Wood because it would
be at a hub of the bus network. It would have more frequent and
more reliable bus services to serve the station and would have
a higher resident population within a short, convenient bus journey
to the station.
7929. I would like you now to move to certain
documents, apart from your proof, supplied by the Promoters and,
first of all, Promoters' page 12 please.[6]
Perhaps we could take the map as a whole first of all. There we
see something which, at first glance, is a very familiar shape,
a London public transport map. When we look at it in a bit more
detail, we have the Greenwich Waterfront Transit. First of all,
on the whole of that map, how many bus-based routes are there?
(Mr Chard) I believe there are
two.
7930. And they are?
(Mr Chard) The Greenwich Waterfront Transit
and the East London Transit.
7931. We can see the Greenwich Waterfront Transit
going through Woolwich- North Greenwich and possibly Greenwich
to east London, starting at Galleon's Reach and going northwards.
Is that the total number of bus-ways one would have by that time?
(Mr Chard) Those are the two bus-way projects
which are being promoted in London by Transport for London. They
are intended to be partly segregated and partly on the highway
in mixed traffic. There are obviously a lot of bus lanes and there
are the equivalents of bus-ways to reach Heathrow Airport on the
M4 and also on the Heathrow access road.
7932. In terms of capacity, how would the capacity
of the Greenwich Waterfront Transit compare with the capacity
of Crossrail?
(Mr Chard) It would be very small and the line
speed would be slower.
7933. Let us take it one at a time, first of
all, capacity and speed. What are we talking about in the Greenwich
Waterfront Transit?
(Mr Chard) We are talking about starting at
ten buses an hour, I believe.
7934. So in terms of capacity we are talking
about buses, ten an hour, and in terms of Crossrail of course
we are talking about trains.
(Mr Chard) Yes. A Crossrail train has, I believe,
something between an 800- and 1,000-person capacity compared to
something between 50 and just over 100 for a bus, depending on
the type of bus.
7935. And in terms of speed?
(Mr Chard) The line speed of Crossrail is faster.
7936. And in terms of access to central London?
(Mr Chard) The bus-ways are designed as local
transport services within the Thames Gateway and Crossrail is
a strategic cross-London route.
7937. Unless there is anything else you want
to deal with on that particular slide, can we move to the next
Petitioner's slide, page 13, which is an extract from the UDP?[7]
Perhaps we could go to the top half of that please, the policy
and the first bit of supporting text. How does the Petitioner's
objection relate to Policy SM1 and the objectives of government
guidance referred to in paragraph 7.6?
(Mr Chard) Greenwich Council's
policy, Policy SM1, in our draft UDP is very much in line with
government policy and guidance in PPG13. We are a borough which
very much favours the development of public transport.
7938. I wonder if you would move now please
to page 14 and that is the draft Local Implementation Plan and
perhaps begin with the top half of the page please.[8]
This is obviously a draft. We can see mention of SELTRANS, the
South-East London Transport Strategy, in paragraph 3.2.5. Could
you move down to the second indent of that please, Mr Chard, "Improved
accessibility for all to town centres and employment centres,
bus and tram stops and railway stations". How does Abbey
Wood compare with Woolwich in terms of being a town centre and
an employment centre?
(Mr Chard) Abbey Wood is not a
town centre, as defined in our Unitary Development Plan, so this
policy does not apply to Abbey Wood. It does apply of course to
Woolwich which is the largest town centre in the borough.
7939. Can we move a little bit down that page
please so that we get the whole of 3.2.6? There we see on the
second indent at 3.2.6 a reference to a reduction in the use of
the private car. How does providing a station at Woolwich compared
with only providing a station at Abbey Wood relate to the policy
of reducing the use of the private car?
(Mr Chard) We have had a number of new stations
open in our borough in recent years and new railway lines, but,
in looking at the data since those railway lines and stations
have opened, our assessment is that we do get a road traffic reduction
in parallel to very large increases in the number of people who
travel by public transport on the new Docklands Light Railway
and the JLE. The proportion of people who travel on the new railway
lines is obviously related to the number of stations which they
have available to them within a convenient distance, so it is
my view that adding a Woolwich station will attract more passengers
to Crossrail and that will have an effect in terms of a reduction
in the use of private cars. That appears to happen whenever you
introduce railways and public transport of a large capacity in
this area of London.
3 Committee Ref: A84, Findings of the Study: Changes
to Accessibility, Para 4.3 (GRCHLB-3605-340). Back
4
Committee Ref: A84, Woolwich: 10 and 20 minutes bus journey times
(GRCHLB-3605-325). Back
5
Committee Ref: A84, Abbey Wood: 10 and 20 minutes bus journey
times (GRCHLB-3605-326). Back
6
Crossrail Ref: P77, Putting Transport on the Map (GRCHLB-3604-012). Back
7
Crossrail Ref: P77, London Borough of Greenwich Unitary Development
Plans 2004: Second Draft-Policy SM1 (GRCHLB-3604-013). Back
8
Crossrail Ref: P77, London Borough of Greenwich Draft Consultation
Local Implementation Plan, July 2005 (GRCHLB-3604-014). Back
|
