Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7960
- 7979)
7960. So it is a main route from Abbey Wood
Station, full-stop. Would you read on, please?
(Mr Chard) Therefore, further highway works
will be required to increase capacity to accommodate any traffic
generated by a Crossrail station at Abbey Wood. The cost of those
works is a cost of the project and an absolute requirement, whether
they are funded from Crossrail budget or not. If highway access
to the station were not improved then highway congestion would
diminish the efficiency and value of the station for any passengers
needed to access by car or bus. It would also have a substantial
adverse impact on the quality of life of local residents. The
council strongly supports policies to maximise public transport
use and that includes supporting access to stations by bus in
preference to cars, where that is feasible. However, for a station
in outer London or beyond, which is not in a town centre, it is
unrealistic to assume (as the Promoters have done) that nearly
all access to the station can be by walking, cycle and bus. A
more realistic and pragmatic approach suggests that, even with
an extended controlled parking zone, car access cannot be reduced
to insignificant levels. An interim assessment for London Borough
of Greenwich for new highway works and for bus priority measures
and congestion relief works has been undertaken by consultants
Mouchel Parkman. We seek an assurance from the Promoters that
in the absence of any Crossrail station they will work with the
local authorities to refine those estimates and will, in any event,
guarantee the funding for the design and construction of the necessary
highway works. With a Crossrail station at Woolwich the problem
of Abbey Wood becomes less severe. It can be assumed that about
25 per cent of potential passengers at Abbey Wood might choose,
or could be persuaded to use Woolwich instead. It would also affect
the modal split of passengers accessing Crossrail stations in
the borough. Walk-mode share and bus-mode share would both increase,
while car-mode share would reduce significantly. That is because
as a town centre Woolwich will always be much better served by
feeder bus services. For example, some potential rail passengers
in the Wickham area, who can only realistically get to Abbey Wood
Station by car, can even now easily get to Woolwich stations by
bus.
7961. Could you just say where Wickham is in
terms of directions from Abbey Wood?
(Mr Chard) It is southeast. I can—
7962. Just a broad indication.
(Mr Chard) Sorry, Wickham is southwest from
Abbey Wood.
7963. If we can go to section 7, Woolwich Station
access issues, I think we can omit paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 from
the oral reading. Could you start at 7.3, please?
(Mr Chard) Unlike Abbey Wood Woolwich is a
town centre and a hub of the bus network. It is very well served
by buses already and further improvements will be necessary in
any event. In the town centre there is a controlled parking zone
and all parking (except at Network Rail car park) is charged by
the hour. Compared to Abbey Wood a higher mode share for buses
and a lower mode share for car access to the station is realistically
achievable.
7964. In paragraph 7.4 and the first 60 per
cent of paragraph 7.5 you deal with future works. I think it is
appropriate to note the last three sentences in paragraph 7.5,
which relate to those possible future works.
(Mr Chard) However, in nearly all cases those
works—that is the works at Woolwich—are required before
2016 with or without a Crossrail station. Therefore, the cost
of the works apart from bus stops in Plumstead Road are not attributable
to Crossrail project. This compares favourably with Abbey Wood.
7965. Section 8 deals with deferred construction
of a Woolwich Crossrail station. Would you read that, please?
(Mr Chard) In February 2005 the Secretary of
State for Transport issued safeguarding directions for Crossrail.
Sheet numbers 33 and 34 of the plans attached to the directions
cover the area of Woolwich town centre and show an area of surface
interest which we are advised was included to allow for the possibility
of a Crossrail station at Woolwich.
7966. If we move to paragraph 8.3 and if you
would read that, please?
(Mr Chard) The council and the Promoters are
agreed that there is no technical reason why a Woolwich station
could not be built later, but we are also agreed that it cannot
be done at any reasonable cost, as recorded in the minutes of
the meeting of 4 April 2006. Detailed costs for construction after
the railway is open have not been prepared by the Promoters, as
far as we are aware, nor by any of the other parties that have
commented on possible later construction. It has been suggested
to the Promoters that such construction might involve: temporary
closure of the railway for an extended period; more expensive
working methods; compensation to the train operating company;
and loss of potential cost savings at Abbey Wood. In the Promoter's
Response to the council's Petition it is stated on page 12: "The
Promoter does not consider that there is a strong enough case
for building a station at Woolwich in view of the cost of doing
so." While we completely disagree with that statement we
can agree that there appears to be no reasonable case for building
a station at Woolwich with the very much higher costs which would
be involved if construction were to be undertaken while the railway
is operational. Subject to further investigation cost alone is
likely to be a good enough reason to dismiss the possibility of
later construction, but it may not be the most important reason.
The benefits would be greatly reduced, not just because the benefits
would be deferred but also some benefits would be lost forever.
New opportunity costs not related to construction are also likely.
For example, without an immediate prospect of a Crossrail station
developers will still develop their sites but, as EDAW and DTZ
reports confirm, that development would be significantly less
value than the likely development with a Crossrail station. Once
built the development cannot be changed, so the opportunity and
the benefits it would bring would be lost forever. Also the over
station development site, worth millions of pounds, would be blighted
by safeguarding and would probably remain undeveloped. A Crossrail
station built later would have a benefit cost ratio much inferior
to the benefit cost ratio for a station built with the rest of
the railway. In all probability it would be poor value for money
and would therefore fail to get funding clearance from either
the Department for Transport or TfL because the business case
would be so poor. I am aware of only one analogous case. The DLR
underground station at the Cutty Sark in Greenwich was designed
with passive provision for extension. However, when detailed plans
were prepared to upgrade the line and the stations from two-car
trains to three-car trains it was discovered that extending the
platforms underground would be very expensive. It would have required
risky and costly engineering work as well as temporary closure
of the line and large revenue losses to the operating franchisee.
It was decided that station platform extension underground would
be too costly to justify; so Cutty Sark is now the only station
on the line proposed to have short platforms and selective door
opening. In conclusion, if a Crossrail station is not built at
the same time as the rest of the railway it is almost certain
it would never be built.
7967. If we move on now—we do not need
to go to the undertakings, they are in the text—you deal
with construction working hours, and I do not ask you to read
this section, but perhaps you could read the first sentence at
paragraph 9.7?
(Mr Chard) The council therefore seeks an amendment
to Schedule 7 of the Bill to allow local planning authorities
to control working hours for planning and highway reasons. Apart
from the example given there may be other instances, as yet unforeseen,
where it may be necessary for the Nominated Undertaker and a Local
Planning Authority to agree limited extended hours for planning
and highway management reasons.
7968. In section 10 you deal with disruption
to the North Kent Line services and there is an undertaking proposed
there. Section 11, planning permission for station buildings.
Apart from just flagging up the third sentence in 11.5, "The
council only seeks a planning application in respect of the station
building because it is a public building and not for other parts
of the station," I do not think it is necessary to read that,
and there is an undertaking there. Section 12 has been resolved
but it might be very convenient to move to Petitioner slide 12,
so that the Committee is informed how it has been resolved. As
far as that is concerned would you just confirm that the council
is content if clause C at the bottom and the paragraph that follows
clause C are removed, and that clauses A and B, although slightly
reworded, are not changed in substance, and that the introductory
sentence remains unaltered?
(Mr Chard) Yes, that is correct.
7969. Other Petition clauses in your section
13, if you could just move to Ebbsfleet so that the council's
position in respect of that is clear. It is on page 30 and would
you read paragraph 13.9, please?
(Mr Chard) While recognising the potential
benefits of an extension the council would not wish to support
a change to the Bill for an Ebbsfleet extension if it would increase
the cost of the Crossrail project. A note sent to the Promoters
is in the appendix to this proof.
7970. Mr Jones: Thank you, Mr Chard;
would you wait there, please?
Cross-examined by Mr Taylor
7971. Mr Taylor: Mr Chard, I want to
begin by asking you some questions about accessibility changes,
just very briefly, and you address those in paragraph 3.7 of your
proof at page 301.[10]
You have explained here that current accessibility in the borough
is not good, but you point out in the last sentence that: "With
both a Docklands Light Railway in a station in Woolwich and Thames
Gateway Bridge open the accessibility of the borough would be
close to the London average."
(Mr Chard) Yes.
7972. If we add Crossrail as proposed in the
Bill with the station at Abbey Wood to that average situation
that would make accessibility for the borough above average for
London, would it not?
(Mr Chard) Slightly, yes. Because Abbey Wood
is very marginal to the borough, it is on the boundary.
7973. If we add again the Greenwich Waterfront
Transit Scheme that also would increase the available public transport
in the borough yet further, would it not?
(Mr Chard) By a miniscule amount, yes, because
to some extent it just replaces bus services.
7974. I see. A lot of the questions I have for
you this morning relate to the issues surrounding traffic at Abbey
Wood, and that is going to be the main focus of the questions
that I have. Just to set the context for all of that, can you
confirm that it is national planning policy to encourage a move
to more sustainable forms of transport?
(Mr Chard) Yes, it is.
7975. Indeed, the council is subject to provisions
of the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997.
(Mr Chard) Yes, we are.
7976. Which requires it to look at ways of reducing
traffic in the interior?
(Mr Chard) Yes.
7977. And the council is in the process, as
I understand it, of formulating its Unitary Development Plan and
within that development it explains that the council does not
support road schemes that would lead to a generalised increase
in road capacity within the borough.
(Mr Chard) That is correct, but with certain
caveats.
7978. I have an additional set of documents
that were produced this morning, with an extract from policy M13
of the draft UDP, and in particular paragraph 7.30, which is on
page 4.[11]
7.30 begins: "The council does not support road schemes that
lead to a generalised increase in road capacity, especially if
they could be used for a more radial car-based community."
(Mr Chard) Yes.
7979. So within the borough's policy and within
the context of national policy, in essence the way forward is
to use the available road space more effectively for public transport?
(Mr Chard) Yes, we do seek to do that.
10 Committee Ref: A84, Accessibility Changes, Para
3.7 (GRCHLB-3605-301). Back
11
Crossrail Ref: P78, Highway and traffic issues, Para 7.29 (SCN20060510-001). Back
|
