Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8160
- 8179)
8160. Mr Elvin: Because it has not. Because
the way, as Mr Anderson has explained, that the BCRs are done
for route sections and not for individual stations. That is the
way transport infrastructure is assessed; you do not take it station
by station, you take it a section at a time.
8161. Chairman: I am afraid I am going
to ask for some analysis of that because although I accept in
terms of the Bill we cannot alter the terms, but we could actually
either add stations or indeed change stations.
8162. Mr Elvin: Sir, I would ask you
to reflect on that particular request because, firstly, the exercise
has not been done and it would require an absolutely massive and
lengthy piece of work examining every station in the Bill. Secondly,
because BCR is only one of the many factors—and you have
seen the DFT Guidance—you would also have to know the basis
upon which the stations were selected, regardless of the BCR.
You would also effectively have to re-run the Montague exercise
which took—how long, Mr Anderson?
(Mr Anderson) It was many, many months.
8163. Mr Elvin: I am not trying to be
obstructive and I will provide as much assistance as possible.
8164. Kelvin Hopkins: If the exercise
was undertaken for a small number of comparable stations which
are entirely new and perhaps outside the centre—there are
not that many of them—that would be an easier exercise,
surely? You pointed out that many of the stations on the Essex
line already exist so it is rather pointless doing an exercise
there because it is not a fair comparison, but taking two or three
stations which are being entirely newly constructed, and doing
the exercise of comparison there, would be easier, surely?
8165. Mr Elvin: My recollection of the
approach is that you may find that the stations at the periphery
are in general cheaper than the stations in the strategic central
section because those in the central section require a greater
deal of intervention, they have more structure surrounding them
and you can just imagine the issues of Bond Street, Tottenham
Court Road, Liverpool Street and the like. It may not give you
the sort of comparison you need. I will take instructions on it
and if necessary I will come back to the Committee.
8166. Chairman: Mr Elvin, I would like
a detailed note—and it does not have to be a full Montague
re-run—at some time on the kind of things that were examined.
It is essentially because I do not really think it is good enough,
whenever we ask various reasons behind costings and economics,
just to be told by the witness—and indeed you said it yourself—that
the costs have not been challenged by, in this case, Greenwich.
They clearly do not have the expertise to do that. They are a
planning authority, yes, and yes they do have economists working
for them but they do not have the level of expertise, which Crossrail
would, to get the undertaking from analysis.
8167. Mr Elvin: Sir, with respect I do
not accept that because they have the ability to instruct national
names and they called DTZ and EDAW to give evidence to you at
this hearing.
8168. Chairman: I do understand that
but I do not think it is an answer just to say it is unchallenged—
8169. Mr Elvin: It is agreed.
8170. Chairman: It might not be an area
of their expertise and if they were simply to accept that it could
be very easy for any person planning such a project as this to
just keep putting up a whole range of arguments which they would
find unaffordable to challenge.
8171. Mr Elvin: I perfectly well understand
from that point of view, sir, but you are not dealing with a Petitioner
in that position. I entirely understand where you are coming from
in respect of that concern, but you are dealing with a London
authority—and you have only seen the tip of the iceberg,
there have been a vast amount of discussions, meetings and papers
going backwards and forwards, report and the like. This process
has been going on for many, many months. I am not shrinking from
it; we are going to provide you with the issues.
8172. Chairman: Mr Elvin, I understand
that. This is a very, very large project indeed with many billions
of pounds involved in it, but what we are saying is that we need
to look at a cost analysis for a station because we are accepting
some of the arguments that are being put forward as being valid,
but whether or not we rule in their favour is at some time in
the future in its own discussion. But if we think that some of
the arguments put forward are not valid and things that we should
look at, then therefore we want to examine as fully as we possibly
can any information that we can glean on the methodology of costs.
8173. Mr Elvin: Can I suggest this—sir,
and if it does not come up with what you need then no doubt you
will tell us—that if we provide a range of costs or a multiple
series of examples of costs of other stations on the route—and
I cannot give you the BCRs for the reasons I have indicated, they
have simply not been done—we can probably provide you with
a series of costs for a selection of stations, probably quite
a few stations if not most of them, fairly quickly, for other
stations within the scheme. Would that assist the process?
8174. Chairman: That would assist but
we may come back to it.
8175. Mr Elvin: I am just trying to produce
something (a) which will help you and (b) which is manageable
in the timescales involved, because I do not want to promise something
which we cannot manage. We will obviously give you the cost for
Woolwich but if we give you the costs for other stations as well
it may be possible to provide you with some additional information
on top of that and then perhaps the Committee can let us know
if you require anything else to assist in the process.
8176. Chairman: Mr Anderson, before you
leave your seat, you were tested a few times on that it was either
Woolwich or Abbey Wood. Of course, Abbey Wood is the terminus
and it is quite a different stop on the line. The thoughts are
that what had been proposed by Greenwich is not a terminus at
all, just a stop.
(Mr Anderson) Correct, yes.
8177. Mr Elvin: Of course, Abbey Wood
and Crossrail and the mainline coincide and, as we know, they
are an eight minute walk apart at Woolwich.
(Mr Anderson) Yes.
8178. So you could not have the terminus coinciding
with the mainline if you were looking for a direct interchange
with the North Kent line?
(Mr Anderson) No. I come back to what I said
earlier, that is the reason for going south of the river to connect
in with the national rail network.
8179. Mr Elvin: Sir, we will produce
that information and no doubt you will let us know if you want
more.
The witness withdrew
Mr Rob Colley, Sworn
Examined by Mr Elvin
| 
