Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8060
- 8079)
8060. Mr Elvin: If convenient, as I said,
I am going to call two witnesses. First of all, I am going to
call Mr Anderson, who is already well known to the Committee so
introductions are not necessary. Mr Anderson, can I deal with
some matters relating to Woolwich first, and then we will deal
even more Abbey Wood given the position we reached this morning.
The position appears to be largely common with Helen Bowkett,
who gave evidence yesterday for Greenwich. That is to say the
benefit cost ratio, a factor which, again, is relied upon, is
only one of the elements required to be taken into account when
the Department for Transport is assessing whether or not to proceed
with some infrastructure. What I would like to understand from
you, Mr Anderson, is what elements are also significant in the
context of assessing Woolwich?
(Mr Anderson) It was clear from the Buchanan
Report, which we commissioned, that the other important category
is East Greenwich, and that covers both integration with policies
but also issues such as transport interchange.
8061. Can I ask you briefly for a view on the
interchange issue so far as integration is concerned?
(Mr Anderson) It is clear from what we have
heard so far that Woolwich would not provide any significant interchange
with other railways, but then it would not be intending to. The
important thing about the south-east branch of Crossrail is that
it connects into the National Rail networks in the south-east
and it does that at Abbey Wood. At Abbey Wood we can provide a
very high quality interchange. That simply is not possible at
Woolwich, so we get the benefits from South-East Greenwich by
the connection at Abbey Wood.
8062. How easy is the interchange at Abbey Wood?
(Mr Anderson) I think there was a figure in
our exhibits which demonstrates that if you are travelling on
a train from North Kent you will simply alight at Abbey Wood,
walk across the platform and you would be able to board a Crossrail
train.
8063. In terms of the economic issues, we have
the letter from the Minister which deals with that, so I do not
need to ask you any questions. However, can I—indeed, it
would not be appropriate for me to do so—ask you about the
benefit cost ratio range? What the Department has agreed is that
the BCR for Greenwich lies within a range, the lower end of which
is two and the upper end of which is four. What factors influence
a judgment on the value for money issue in terms of the BCR?
(Mr Anderson) I think there are three things
one needs to consider. First of all, the scale of growth, and
various scenarios have been tested, secondly, there is location
for growth and, thirdly, the timing of the growth. Across the
three tests that we have reported on, it is clear there are different
assumptions on those, with the exception of timing. On the scale
of growth, clearly EDAW is one end of the range—and we have
heard that the assumptions there are to try and maximize the re-development
potential in the areas around the station—at the bottom
end of the range we have the London Town forecasts and then in
the middle of the range we have a high growth test that we did
based on our understanding of the emerging development assumptions
in the Woolwich area.
8064. In terms of the forecasting in the appraisals
that were used to test the Crossrail stations generally, what
approach was adopted, in terms of the forecasts that were adopted,
and which set of figures were taken?
(Mr Anderson) They are all based on the London
plan.
8065. Mr James referred, in re-examination yesterday,
to individual assessments at stations with development potential
and the like, does that have any significance as to whether or
not there was a level playing field for the assessment of the
other stations?
(Mr Anderson) Clearly, I think the proposition
of a station at Woolwich has been subject to very intensive scrutiny.
Very largely we have further work in terms of where development
might be located. We have not done that for the other stations,
it is fair to say.
8066. Can I ask you this question, the cost
of a Crossrail station at Woolwich would be of the order of £260
million. Can you give the Committee an idea of how that compares
with other stations within the proposal of the Bill scheme?
(Mr Anderson) It would be on a par with the
Central London stations which are similarly located deep beneath
the ground, and obviously that gives rise to greater significant
costs. They will be significantly greater than the cost of rebuilding
other stations at town centres in London on the surface sections
of the railway.
8067. For example, would you be able to give
the comparative costs of Ealing, which is another town centre
station which lies outside the Central area?
(Mr Anderson) Yes, with Ealing the station
building is being rebuilt and the scale of cost would be in the
order of £50 million.
8068. Can I then turn to the question of the
omission of Woolwich in the process? I asked some questions of
Mr McCollum yesterday, can I get from you your knowledge of the
situation. We know Woolwich has never been in the Bill, was it
in the benchmark scheme or in the business case which was tested
by Montague?
(Mr Anderson) No, it was not. The business
case we submitted to governance in the middle of 2003 did not
include the station of Woolwich. Where Woolwich may have featured
was in much earlier consultation on the very wide range of options
for Crossrail which were in documents back in 2002.
8069. Was it considered in the Montague options?
Montague considered a whole variety of options?
(Mr Anderson) No.
8070. In very brief terms, why, so far
as you are aware, was it excluded?
(Mr Anderson) The principal reason was the
capital cost of the scheme, which was regarded as very high.
8071. Can I ask you about the comparison that
was made between the growth to be expected in Woolwich and the
growth which has taken place in the North Greenwich Peninsula,
which is the area around the Dome? Mr McCollum was drawing some
comparisons yesterday, and I asked him some questions about that.
Can you give your own view as briefly as possible, please?
(Mr Anderson) In terms of the future, our forecasting
has assumed very significant growth, well over 150 per cent, a
lesser level of growth in the Woolwich area, about half of that.
8072. In terms of the Abbey Wood area, how comparable
are the two?
(Mr Anderson) They are not really comparable
at all because Abbey Wood is a largely residential area, so we
would not expect to get the development-driven growth in Abbey
Wood that we might do at either Woolwich or indeed the Peninsula.
We get much lower levels of growth, something in the order of
20 to 30 per cent.
8073. Can I turn to Abbey Wood. In the light
Mr Chard's agreement that we continue discussions regarding the
infrastructure of the highways and public transport issues, I
am only going to ask you a question relating to Mr Chard's contention
that Greenwich should have greater powers over planning at Abbey
wood. What is yours' and CLRL`s views about that?
(Mr Anderson) I am not sure that the position
is very different to that of our normal Transport and Works Act
order process. My understanding is that the regime contained within
the Bill gives control over those matters which are also subject
to controls under the TWA process.
8074. For example, can you tell the Committee
what happened with the DLR at Woolwich? What level of control
was given to the planning authority once the TWA order had been
granted?
(Mr Anderson) I think there was a very similar
level of control on the sorts of issues that would be subject
to further detailed consideration on the size and location of
the facility within the order specified in the TWA order?
8075. So far as the consequences, if Greenwich
were to be given greater powers over planning, it is a station
which lies across two administrative areas, would you have any
concerns if they were given greater control and, if so, what would
they be?
(Mr Anderson) I am not sure why we should veer
to this location compared to many other locations on the railway.
Abbey Wood is an important part of the project. It is one of the
termini, so it is quite important that we are able to deliver
that in accordance with the programme for the rest of the scheme.
It seems to me that a twin-track process in terms of approval
could lead to some delay.
8076. Thank you?
Cross-examination by Mr Jones
8077. Mr Jones: Dealing with that last
matter first. Abbey wood is, of course, one of only two new over-ground
stations in the project, is it not?
(Mr Anderson) I am not sure I would agree with
that. Clearly we are rebuilding existing stations on the city
line at many locations. There are several locations on the Great
Eastern, indeed we have heard recently evidence on the situation
of Romford, so there are quite significant rebuilding of stations
taking place elsewhere.
8078. Moving on to another question. At the
very beginning of your cross-examination you were asked about
the Department for Transport tests in the context of benefit cost
ratio. You started talking about whether this was an interchange
or not. I was slightly surprised, I thought you would go to page
19 of your evidence which does set out the Department's test.[18]
Can we move to page 19 of the Promoter's documents. If we can
focus on the centre of the page, please. This is one of your documents,
or the Promoter's documents, and there we see the basis for ministerial
decisions. We see value for money. Essentially the test for value
for money is assessed in benefit cost ratio, is it not?
(Mr Anderson) That is correct.
8079. We know the benefit cost ratio is at the
very least 2:1 and therefore it is a high benefit cost ratio come
what may?
(Mr Anderson) Yes, in terms of the DfT guidance.
18 Crossrail Ref: P77, Department for Transport Guidance
on Value for Money, www.dft.gov.uk (GRCHLB-3604-019). Back
| 
