Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7980
- 7999)
7980. In essence that means by improving the
service provided by buses.
(Mr Chard) That is one of the things, yes.
7981. It would not be consistent with that policy
picture, would it, to provide additional highway capacity to relieve
congestion to general traffic?
(Mr Chard) Two key words in this are "generally"
and "radial car-based community". What we are trying
to achieve here is getting people on to public transport, which
is a slightly different matter.
7982. But providing more road capacity for people
to ride around in their private cars would not be consistent with
that objective, would it Mr Chard?
(Mr Chard) It depends what the net effect is.
If we discouraging people from driving all the way into central
London or into inner London by allowing them to drive a shorter
distance and then doing most of the journey by train then the
net effect is to reduce road traffic.
7983. If you are trying to encourage people
to take the bus to the train station, if you were to provide an
increase in road capacity that would mitigate away from that objective,
would it not?
(Mr Chard) We entirely support encouraging
people to use buses but in outer London and in the rest of the
UK encouraging people to use buses and not to use their car is
a difficult task and we have to be pragmatic and realistic about
what is achievable.
7984. Encouraging people to drive to a station
rather than to take the bus to the station would be contrary to
national and local policy, would it not?
(Mr Chard) Yes, it would.
7985. So if we are looking at the highways in
relation to the Abbey Wood Station, if Crossrail were to lead
to an increase in general road traffic the policy would be not
to provide additional highway capacity to cater for that traffic,
would it not?
(Mr Chard) I do not know where we will eventually
get to. I think it depends on how the transport assessment finally
evolves. I do not think we have reached that stage yet.
7986. I will put the question again. It is a
hypothetically based question: if Crossrail were to lead to an
increase in general road traffic the policy would indicate that
we should not provide additional highway capacity to cater for
that additional road traffic. That must be right, must it not?
(Mr Chard) Are you taking that particular stage
on Crossrail or not? You said Crossrail; are you talking about
Abbey Wood Station?
7987. Yes, or indeed anywhere.
(Mr Chard) The important thing is that we maximise
the use of public transport, that is one of the council's objectives.
If maximising public transport involves changes to the highway
then that may have to be done.
7988. I am trying to establish a simple point
with you, Mr Chard. The real question here is not whether Crossrail
should provide additional capacity for general traffic, but whether
Crossrail can impact upon the provision of buses. That is the
central issue in relation to Abbey Wood Station, is it not?
(Mr Chard) Yes, there is a need to accommodate
buses and give them priority on the highway network; we agree
that buses should have priority.
7989. In order to examine what the potential
impacts of Crossrail would be at Abbey Wood and on the local highway
network around the station obviously we have to have regard to
some forecasting, unfortunately.
(Mr Chard) Yes.
7990. You have been in discussions with the
Promoter about the way to carry out that forecast, and as a result
of those discussions a detailed report was produced in January
of this year by Halcrow. You are aware of that report?
(Mr Chard) Yes.
7991. As I understand it that went some way
to meet your concerns but there are two central aspects of that
work about which you have concerns. Firstly, the assessment year
that has been adopted, that Halcrow modelled to 2016 and you,
I believe, advocated an assessment year of 2031.
(Mr Chard) Yes.
7992. The second aspect is the mode split that
has been assumed, that is to say the proportion of people travelling
by whichever transport mode, albeit walking, cycling, buses or
private car.
(Mr Chard) Yes.
7993. In your evidence at page 306, paragraph
5.4 you set out the point relating to the assessment year of 2031
and you, as I understand it, have produced your own forecast for
the number of passengers in 2031 in paragraph 5.7 on page 306,
and you estimate between 20 million and 30 million passengers
per annum are likely to wish to use Abbey Wood Station.[12]
(Mr Chard) We got no 2031 forecast
from the Promoter so we had to think what it might be, and we
did some calculations based on what is actually happening and
what is forecast to happen at North Greenwich. I do not particularly
think that this is the best estimate that we will eventually get
to. We do not have access to the models which the Promoters have
and I think we want to work with them to try and improve this
estimate.
7994. I do not accept that the 2031 forecast
has not been produced—and we will come to the Promoter's
2031 forecast in a moment. The evidence you have set out and given
this morning to the Committee in relation to the likely impact
of Crossrail on Abbey Wood in 2031, as I understand it, is based
upon forecasts of between 20 million and 30 million passengers
per annum. That is right, is it not?
(Mr Chard) Based on, sorry?
7995. On forecasts of between 20 and 30 million
passengers per annum?
(Mr Chard) We have discussed this with our
consultants, Mouchel Parkman, who also act for a number of other
Petitioners and that is the number that is in their draft report,
which I understand has been given to the Promoters. I would repeat
that I think that we all have to consider this number further
and work on it towards an agreed figure.
7996. Based upon those forecasts, in paragraph
5.8 at the bottom of page 306, you identify the demand of between
90 and 160 buses in each direction in the peak hour in 2031.
(Mr Chard) We gave good information on the
relationship at North Greenwich between the number of buses which
serve the station and the number of passengers that go through
the station over the last six years. So we have simply applied
similar ratios to Abbey Wood.
7997. I will come to that later. On the next
page, 307, you indicated in your evidence, which I think we received
on Thursday, that the council have appointed consultants Mouchel
Parkman to undertake an independent preliminary assessment of
what works the Promoters should be asked to underwrite.[13]
(Mr Chard) Yes.
7998. That was received on Thursday and that
was the first indication that the Promoters received that you
had commissioned work; is that right?
(Mr Chard) I am not sure when they became aware
that we had consultants working on this.
7999. The Promoters then wrote and asked you
to provide a copy of the assessment that Mouchel Parkman had undertaken,
did they not?
(Mr Chard) They did.
12 Committee Ref: A84, Transport Assessments, Para
5.4 to 5.8 (GRCHLB-3605-306). Back
13
Committee Ref: A84, Transport Assessments, Para 5.9 (GRCHLB-3605-307). Back
| 
