Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8080
- 8099)
8080. The probability is that it will be higher
than 2:1, will it not?
(Mr Anderson) It is likely to be higher, yes.
8081. Your figures were worked out before the
very large increase in housing for the Thames Gateway which occurred
only within the last two or three years.
(Mr Anderson) I am sorry, which figures are
you referring to there?
8082. The figures which you have used to work
out a cost benefit ration of 2:1.
(Mr Anderson) The figures we used for that
were based on the London Plan which is an extra 800,000 in the
population and 600,000 extra jobs.
8083. In terms of a level playing field, many
boroughs covered by the London Plan have not great changes in
their housing requirements since then, but the Thames Gateway
Bridge has had very great changes since then, has it not?
(Mr Anderson) Did you say the Thames Gateway
Bridge?
8084. The Thames Gateway, I beg your pardon.
(Mr Anderson) Clearly, yes, there have been
developments in the thinking there.
8085. To rely on the London Plan, which everyone
knows will not provide the housing figures for this part of London
because it is out of date because of the latest Thames Gateway
figures--- Indeed, progression of the Thames Gateway figures will
give a low benefit cost ratio, will it not?
(Mr Anderson) I have already indicated how
I would expect it to be higher than the 2:1, but in terms of what
the position is going to be, I think we need to weigh the review
of the London Plan, which is starting now and is one of the reasons
that we have some interim advice forecasts from the GLA. I think
we need to weigh the outcome of the review of those forecasts
and the revisions to the London Plan to fully answer that answer.
8086. If we go down those indents that we can
see on the screen, am I right that the only one which the Promoters
say is not satisfied for Woolwich is affordability? Am I right
that you agree that every other indent is satisfied?
(Mr Anderson) It is a question of degree, is
it not, as to how far the others are satisfied or not satisfied?
I would not want to say they are all 100 per cent satisfied. Also,
we are sending information in the form of the various tables that
we have already seen and that is put forward to those making the
decision. I assume they make that decision, as it says at the
top there, "Ministers make the decision on the basis of the
information put to them".
8087. Apart from affordability, do you say that
any one of those indents is not satisfied?
(Mr Anderson) I do not think it is a simple
yes or no answer, it is largely a question of degree and things
to be weighed in the balance. Clearly that is what ministers do.
8088. Did you say that any one of those, apart
from affordability, Woolwich does not score well?
(Mr Anderson) I am not sure they would score
particularly well on practicality and deliverability. I think
the difficulty of providing a station at that location is one
of the reasons why we have the higher costs.
8089. You have got a station box within your
own design, you have got to design for a station there. Outside
the affordability element, what is impractical or not deliverable
about it?
(Mr Anderson) It helps for the construction
of places within the project.
8090. That is an affordability point.
(Mr Anderson) That really depends on how you
interpret practicality and deliverability.
8091. You gave evidence that the cost of the
station would be similar to other stations below ground. Which
other stations have had a benefit cost ratio calculated together
with low ground stations.
(Mr Anderson) I have not prepared a BCR for
any of them.
8092. Just for example, picking one out of thin
air, we know what the position is for Woolwich but we have no
idea what it is for Bond Street.
(Mr Anderson) We know what the cost of Bond
Street is.
8093. For the benefit of construction?
(Mr Anderson) No, we have not prepared a benefit
cost ratio for that individual station, and I would not necessarily
expect us to.
8094. As your evidence established, the Montague
review did not consider Woolwich, it was not put to him and therefore
did not reject it, did it?
(Mr Anderson) I think the Montague Review did
refer to the fact that further work was ongoing and whether a
Woolwich station should be added.
8095. And did not reject it?
(Mr Anderson) It did not reject it, no.
8096. It did not pass any adverse comment on
it?
(Mr Anderson) No, I think it was mutual on
the matter.
8097. Thank you, Mr Anderson.
Examined by the Committee
8098. Chairman: Mr Anderson, quite a
few Members have indicated that they want to ask questions, but
there are a couple of questions I want to ask you. Sticking with
this question of value for money. Were there any other stations
which have been agreed that offer less value for money?
(Mr Anderson) The appraisal was not built up
in that way, if I can explain that. The way we build up an appraisal
is largely the way the Montague did it during the Crossrail review.
What we are looking for is to divide sections of the routes which
are operationally self-contained and then we will seek to add
to that. This is the way Montague built up the review of the business
case so one could identify a core railway which is the central
section. Of course we do look at the performance of the individual
station, particularly in the way they perform operationally. What
we do not do there is just simply take out one station and work
out the benefits or disbenefits.
8099. The reason I ask that is because one of
the key planks of your argument and evidence today is that it
was high cost and that was the major reason for not including
the station. If the argument is, "Is it not value for money",
could we not look at another part of the route being cut for the
same reason. Also, bearing in mind there are other things included,
like why we should be doing these sorts of things, particularly
in an area of deprivation like Woolwich. If that is part of the
purpose of delivering the railway like this and it fits all the
criteria, why should we not look at that for trains that go out
to Abbey Wood? If you are looking at value for money and costs,
you have got to give a reason why something else was not cut rather
than Woolwich?
(Mr Anderson) I think it is very difficult
to trade-off individual stations against each other. The approach
Montague took was to work out the value for money of individual
sections, some of which were subsequently not included in the
Hybrid Bill at the time the review was undertaken, there was a
route to Kingston, for example. Montague presented the benefit
cost ratio for that route and it was subsequently not included
in the Bill for a variety of reasons. I do not think it is simply
the case that we trade-off the value for money with one section
against the other.
| 
