Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8140 - 8159)

  8140. In terms of the appraisal of the benefits of Crossrail you have already said that BCRs were not done for individual stations. How does the appraisal process for a major infrastructure project like this look at the value for money issue? How are the regeneration issues looked at?
  (Mr Anderson) The value for money issue is looked at through the benefit cost ratio benefit of the project as a whole.

  8141. Yes, but how is the project divided up for that purpose?
  (Mr Anderson) It will be divided up into the various sections, and I think Montague went through a number of these sections individually and reported on the value for money that would be attracted by each of them. There is then a further analysis on the regeneration and jobs effects and they would all come together in the appraisal.

  8142. Why are stations not appraised individually?
  (Mr Anderson) Clearly a station on its own is of little use; it is part of an integrated network and it tends to be those self-contained sections of the network and the project that we appraise. That is the approach that we took and it is the approach that Montague took as well.

  8143. So focusing on Woolwich, in terms of its BCR, would that be consistent with the appraisal which Montague carried out for the project as a whole?
  (Mr Anderson) Yes, I believe it would.

  8144. What I would like to ask you about, again with the intention of giving the Committee a further insight into the assessment process, is the question that you mentioned of linking into the network. How important—let us take two stations as an example, let us take Whitechapel and Bond Street—for example is Whitechapel in terms of interchange and why?
  (Mr Anderson) I think Whitechapel is probably one of the most important stations on the Crossrail network in terms of interchange. I think that is illustrated by the transport map that we were looking at earlier. It provides connections into the District Line, the Metropolitan Line and, importantly, the newly extended East London line. Certainly the forecast that we prepared for the railway indicated that there would be a very high desire to change to and from Crossrail at that location. For example, if you were travelling from the east of Crossrail and wanted to go to the south of the City you might change at Whitechapel rather than go to Liverpool Street. Similarly if you are travelling from south of the river on the extended East London line you can change at Whitechapel to join Crossrail to access Liverpool Street and the surrounding area.

  8145. In terms of that integration approach, how would Woolwich compare?
  (Mr Anderson) Clearly Woolwich does not provide an interchange.

  8146. Can I ask about Bond Street as another potential comparison? What would happen, for example, if Bond Street were taken out of the Crossrail programme? It is a cost at a significant level—similar, you said earlier. Why can you not just take Bond Street out? What significance would that have?
  (Mr Anderson) I think this is something that I have discussed with the Committee on a previous occasion, I think when we were looking at the Mayfair area. Clearly Bond Street is the principle West End destination for Crossrail, so it is serving that very high value, high employment area in the West End. Clearly also it does provide significant interchange. We know that one of the things that Crossrail does for the transport network is to meet the Central Line, clearly by serving Bond Street. So we can serve directly and more quickly the area around Bond Street. Additionally, if Bond Street was not there we would immediately get a larger load on the GLC stations, particularly Tottenham Court Road, which is something that we would have to look at very carefully.

  8147. The Committee raised with you what about the possibility of reducing the service on the Great Eastern side—that is the Metro service from Shenfield. In terms of the stations that are being served on the Great Eastern line, to what extent is it necessary to intervene greatly in the existing stations in order to accommodate Crossrail?
  (Mr Anderson) We do need to rebuild parts of the station to accommodate the line that would arise from Crossrail. There are several locations where that is necessary.

  8148. In comparative terms with a build such as Woolwich, how do the Great Eastern stations compare?
  (Mr Anderson) Clearly it is much smaller as they are all above ground.

  8149. Can I ask you a point that Mr Hopkins raised with you on the costs of the Woolwich station? Have those costs been analysed critically to drive them down from previous estimates?
  (Mr Anderson) Yes, I have indicated that they have; that is the case.

  8150. I appreciate that the Committee wants to see how it is broken down, and we will provide that breakdown to the Committee—and I appreciate that it does not bind the Committee in any way—but those driven down costs were discussed with Greenwich and are not disputed?
  (Mr Anderson) That is correct.

  8151. So that the Committee will have this when they look at those costs, have those costs had the input of technical experts, quantity surveyors and the like, so that we have a reasonable degree of assurance as to their scope?
  (Mr Anderson) Yes, clearly they have; they were prepared by our quantity surveyor advisers.

  8152. Have Greenwich checked the costs, so far as you are aware?
  (Mr Anderson) I am not aware of that. We did put the costs to them and did discuss them at a meeting and they indicated that they would not seek to challenge them.

  8153. Do you have any view as to whether there is any real likelihood of driving down those costs significantly any further?
  (Mr Anderson) I think that is unlikely. Clearly we have been through the exercise once and we have driven down quite a saving. Of course I will need to speak to colleagues about this, but the advice we have is that there is not much more scope to reduce costs at all

  8154. Can I come back to some points that Mr Jones raised with you, and that is the London Plan and the fact that it is out of date and the like? Does that mean that it is a legitimate comparison to look at Greenwich's own figures for Woolwich and compare them with the Crossrail figures for employment and residential growth at the other stations?
  (Mr Anderson) Not necessarily because we have used the London Plan assumptions for the rest of the network and the rest of the appraisal.

  8155. If you updated the appraisals for the whole of the network which is proposed in the build scheme would it necessarily come out with the same figures to compare with the EDAW figures for Greenwich?
  (Mr Anderson) Not necessarily. Clearly that would be a very, very extensive exercise for the whole loop; but it would likely lead to a different conclusion perhaps at some locations.

  8156. Mr Elvin: We will provide the breakdown in costs that the Committee requests. It is readily available because, as I say, it has already been given to Greenwich. Would a one-sheet breakdown suffice for your purposes, sir?

  8157. Chairman: That would be helpful, Mr Elvin. I would also like it if you would give us a value for money breakdown on all the stations on the route.

  8158. Mr Elvin: It cannot be done.

  8159. Chairman: Why not?


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007