Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8320
- 8339)
8320. Going back to the Montague Report, Montague
considered the incremental benefit-to-cost ratio of extending
the line from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet, and they were comparing
a route from Paddington, whether it went to Abbey Wood or Ebbsfleet.
The incremental benefit-to-cost ratio of extending to Ebbsfleet
was 3.21:1. To give you an idea of how beneficial that would be,
the whole scheme ratio calculated in October 2005 of the current
scheme is 1.80:1. The Montague Report did not allow the additional
cost of four tracking between Slade Green and Dartford.
8321. Bexley have carried out an indicative
exercise based on the Montague Report figures. If you turn on
to page 41, you will see the results of that exercise, which showed
a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.27:1.[13]
Since Mr Hardie produced that, the Promoter has come back with
some additional figures for the cost of the four tracking and
Mr Hardie has done a recalculation which he will present to you
in due course. That still shows, even if you take the Promoter's
figures, a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.08:1. It is still in the
high values.
8322. Sir Peter Soulsby: I think I am
right that these costs will be A89.
8323. Mr Cameron: Thank you for that
number, sir. On page 1 of that document you can see Crossrail's
costs and at page 3 Mr Hardie's revised workings.
8324. Not only is there a high value for money
but there will be substantial regeneration benefits for an area
of London and the South East which suffers from relatively high
levels of deprivation. By cutting the line at Abbey Wood, a substantial
proportion of the regeneration areas which would have been served
by Crossrail are deprived of the opportunity to benefit from that
service. In evidence, Mr Donovan from Bexley Council will explain
the consequences of the lost opportunity.
8325. As far as Abbey Wood Station is concerned,
Bexley shares Greenwich Council's concerns about the transport
implications of providing a terminus at Abbey Wood. The Promoter
has not carried out a full transport assessment of the implications.
It is Bexley's case that he should not only do so, but, in the
event that adverse consequences are identified, he should agree
to mitigate that adverse impact. Those measure are likely to include
provision to allow those with mobility impairments to cross the
railway; capacity improvements on the local road network; an extension
of the existing controlled parking zone; good pedestrian and cycle
access to the station; and adequate provision for bus access to
the station.
8326. To answer Mr Elvin's point, the reason
Bexley are not content to accept an undertaking to discuss these
matters is that Bexley will be very happy to discuss the matters—they
are very content with that element of the undertaking—but
they wish the Promoter to go further and to indicate in such an
undertaking that if, as a result of those discussions and that
work, it is found that there are adverse transport consequences,
the Promoter will take steps to mitigate those impacts. If such
an assessment is to be carried out, there is not a great point
in working out there is going to be a problem, unless you say,
"We will do something about it" and provide a solution.
That is the essence of the difference between us and the Promoter
on that issue.
8327. Could I add one thing in response to Mr
Elvin, he mentioned that one of the benefits of stopping at Abbey
Wood would be that one would not have the third rail system on
the North Kent Line. That, sir, is in fact a very important reason
for doing something about it now rather than leaving it until
later, because, if something is not done about it now, so that
when trains are ordered they have the dual power facility, it
is going to be difficult to achieve the extension later.
8328. Sir, I intend to call three witnesses:
Mr Hardie, whose exhibits you have, who is a transport planner;
Mr Donovan who deals with regeneration issues; and Mr Hawkins
who deals with traffic and transport.
8329. Unless there are any issues that need
to be dealt with before then, I would like to call Mr Hardie.
Mr Christopher Hardie, Sworn
Examined by Mr Cameron
8330. Mr Cameron: Mr Hardie, would you
like to tell the Committee who you are and what your job is.
(Mr Hardie) My name is Christopher
Hardie. I am a senior consultant with Mouchel Parkman Services
Limited and by profession I am a transport planner.
8331. Would you like to turn to your exhibits,
page 2, and explain the purpose of your evidence.[14]
(Mr Hardie) As Mr Cameron has
already said, there is a very strong regeneration case. The evidence
which I hope to lead you through later will also show there is
a strong transport business case for Crossrail to serve Ebbsfleet
and also that the benefits do significantly outweigh the costs.
If I may address the reasons for CLRL deciding to terminate at
Abbey Wood, I think it is to demonstrate that we accept there
is a capacity constraint but that the solution is available, feasible
and can be implemented, and that by doing so the expected unreliability
to both the Crossrail services and the associated services in
the North Kent area would also be relieved, and also to ask that
the south-eastern branch be included as phase 1 of the project.
I think Mr Cameron has already covered the point about the mechanism
for doing so.
8332. You say that the south-eastern branch
would be phase 1 of the project. I think the note says that it
should be included in phase 1.
(Mr Hardie) Yes.
8333. What is the reason for that request?
(Mr Hardie) Partly because the transport case
is itself very strong, and the benefits, because they are good,
should be made available to the Borough of Bexley as soon as possible.
I think also because of the fact that the implementation team
will already have been established: it will be a rather more ready
project team available, with a good understanding of the project
that will be able to take it forward, rather than if there is
some sort of break and there is a dissolution of the project team,
when some sort of inertia would set in and then it would be that
much more difficult to get it going again.
8334. I am not going to ask you to go through
the options. I have already done that. Would you turn to page
8, please.[15]
What do we find on page 8?
(Mr Hardie) In the original Crossrail
Environmental Statement a number of corridors for Crossrail were
identified. They were rather widespread in the choice of destinations
that they might serve. This is showing the corridor we are particularly
interested in, Corridor D, which took the line from Liverpool
Street to Whitechapel to the Isle of Dogs and then south of the
Thames into North Kent via Abbey Wood and then on to Ebbsfleet.
8335. On page 9—and the Committee have
already seen Figure 6.3—the line to Ebbsfleet is shown.[16]
If you go to page 10, how many stations would there have been
in Bexley and Kent under that scheme?[17]
(Mr Hardie) There would have been
nine stations.
8336. If we turn to page 11, the current position.[18]
(Mr Hardie) As the Bill is currently
promoted, there would be one station.
8337. Would you turn on to page 12.[19]
I think here you have a series of slides in which you examine
Crossrail's reasons for dropping the line to Ebbsfleet.
(Mr Hardie) Yes, I have sought
here to extract from a number of different documents produced
by the Promoter that there is a consistency in stating that the
reason for terminating at Abbey Wood rather than continuing to
Ebbsfleet was the unacceptable risk by virtue of mixing the services
along the North Kent Line.
8338. At page 12, paragraph 6.3.45, Mr Elvin
has already referred to that. At page 13 is the Promoter's Information
Paper A5.[20]
You have highlighted paragraphs 3.2 to 3.4. Paragraph 4.1 reads:
"The decision to terminate Crossrail trains on the south-east
corridor at Abbey Wood rather than Ebbsfleet taken in November
2004 was based on the need to ensure a reliable train service
throughout the Crossrail network and especially in the tunnel
between Whitechapel and Paddington."—so that is the
reason given.
(Mr Hardie) Yes.
8339. At page 14 you highlight paragraphs 3.2
to 3.4 because they were rather difficult to read on page 13.[21]
(Mr Hardie) Yes.
13 Committee Ref: A89, The Business Case for Ebbsfleet
(9) (BEXYLB-32005A-041). Back
14
Committee Ref: A88, Purpose of Evidence (BEXYLB-32005A-002). Back
15
Committee Ref: A88, Table 6.3 Description of Eastern Corridor
Options (BEXYLB-32005A-008). Back
16
Committee Ref: A88, CLRL Corridor D, Crossrail Environmental
Statement, p124, Fig 6.3 Eastern Route Options (BEXYLB-32005A-009). Back
17
Committee Ref: A88, Safeguarded South-East Alignment (BEXYLB-32005A-010). Back
18
Committee Ref: A88, Crossrail Line 1-Bill Scheme (BEXYLB-32005A-011). Back
19
Committee Ref: A88, CLRL reason for terminating at Abbey Wood
(1) Environmental Statement Volume 1, Ch 6, p126 (BEXYLB-32005A-012). Back
20
Committee Ref: A88, CLRL Reasons for Terminating at Abbey Wood
(2) Crossrail Information Paper A5 Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet (BEXYLB-32005A-013). Back
21
Committee Ref: A88, CLRL Reasons for Terminating at Abbey Wood
(3) Crossrail Information Paper A5 Paras 3.2-3.4 (BEXYLB-32005A-014). Back
| 
