Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8500
- 8519)
8500. So if those two figures are comparable,
and we do not know whether that is a weighted or unweighted figure
in Mr Anderson's letter, the difference is 19,250 jobs anticipated
in regeneration areas in 2003, now 2,900, so crude mathematics
show the effect of cutting the line at Abbey Wood is 16,350 jobs
no longer coming forward. Have I understood that correctly?
(Mr Donovan) That seems to be the logic.
8501. If we also have Mr Anderson's letter to
hand, he deals with absolute increases in population and employment
catchments with Crossrail percentage increases. At table two we
have the percentage increases. Can we go back to your slide 42,
just to give us some idea of the effect of stopping at Abbey Wood,
and can we take Belvedere and the increase in population catchment
within 45 minutes travel time. What was the proportionate increase
predicted when the line was going to Ebbsfleet?
(Mr Donovan) 76 per cent.
8502. And now with it stopping at Abbey Wood?
(Mr Donovan) 23 per cent.
8503. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt you at slide
44. Can we go back to slide 45, please, and what does that show?[90]
(Mr Donovan) This is just looking
at Crossrail's own business case and making the point that one
of the critical elements in any sustainable regeneration is the
people who are benefiting from new jobs are the unemployed or
people who previously had poor access to jobs. They have had a
look at that and that shows if you look in Belvedere particularly
a very high percentage of the jobs would be occupied by the unemployed
and the economically inactive, that is 67 per cent there, the
highlighted figure, which relates to the 1,529. That would be
on the weighted figure that we looked at previously. It is a lower
figure in Swanscombe/Ebbsfleet of 3 per cent, which I think reflects
the idea of that area being a very significant housing growth
area.
8504. So having got as an indicator the 16,350
job figure in mind, lost opportunity, can I ask you to go to slide
46 and the consequences of not extending to Ebbsfleet.[91]
(Mr Donovan) First, I will reiterate
the point that there would be a considerable potential loss in
new jobs. Secondly, the overall regeneration of Thames Gateway
will not have the benefit from this very important transport improvement.
It is likely, for the reasons I was explaining earlier, to undermine
some of the aims of the Sustainable Communities Plan in relating
jobs and where people live. It is not addressing identified business
concerns and the particular congestion that exists in the road
network in this area. Two-thirds of the jobs in regeneration areas
are identified as being created by Crossrail, which was what we
were just talking about. Loss of opportunity to better public
transport access to 20,000 new jobs at Ebbsfleet from South East
London. Emphasising that point, also the direct link between generating
Royal Docks and generating Ebbsfleet would be lost. Housing opportunities
enhanced by increased accessibility being reduce. Shall I move
on to overall?
8505. Yes, please.
(Mr Donovan) Failure to support Crossrail will
result in the loss of the benefits identified in Crossrail's own
2003 business case.
8506. Is there anything else you would wish
to add before you are cross-examined?
(Mr Donovan) Just to emphasise the point that
this was seen, and is seen, as a tremendous opportunity. We are
not against Crossrail, we are saying "Crossrail, more please"
for the reasons we have set out.
8507. Mr Cameron: Thank you.
8508. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you, Mr
Cameron. Mr Elvin?
Cross-examined by Mr Elvin
8509. Mr Elvin: I hesitate to characterise
you as the Oliver Twist of the Crossrail project asking for some
more.
(Mr Donovan) Yes. He got it in the end.
8510. Only after a long delay. On a more serious
note, on the estimates of employment, of housing and regeneration,
there is no great difference between us in principle that extending
Crossrail to Ebbsfleet would have beneficial effects for the areas
you have identified and for your borough.
(Mr Donovan) Right.
8511. It certainly passed Montague and, as you
know, was taken out of the scheme before the Bill for reasons
unconnected with regeneration. I am not going to spend very long
with you, you will be relieved to hear. I just want to question
a couple of small points to put the matter in context for the
Committee. You have already seen and referred to the letter from
Mr Anderson. There will be regeneration benefits to Bexley, albeit
somewhere in the order of 12 per cent of what they would be if
there was an extension to Ebbsfleet, which will arise from the
direct connection into Crossrail at Abbey Wood.
(Mr Donovan) Yes.
8512. It is not as if it is an all or nothing
scenario because the interchange to Crossrail at Abbey Wood is
about two and a half minutes across the platform, is it not?
(Mr Donovan) Yes. May I just add to that. We
are pleased you have come to Abbey Wood but we have got a really
significant need to uplift and improve regeneration in this part
of the corridor down to Dartford where public transport accessibility
is relatively poor. I think it is that lost opportunity that we
are emphasising. Of course, you are right, there will be benefits
from it coming from Abbey Wood that will benefit Bexley.
8513. We are not suggesting that Ebbsfleet is
precluded in the future, just not as part of the Bill, as you
understand.
(Mr Donovan) As I understand, yes.
8514. You are also aware that there will be
significant saving times—I put this to Mr Hardie earlier—just
as a result of the extension to Abbey Wood. Journeys from Abbey
Wood into the Isle of Dogs and even so far as Paddington will
be halved over what they currently are.
(Mr Donovan) I have no problem with that. The
only thing I would add is what was not picked up in that discussion
was the added time if you are at Belvedere and Erith waiting for
a train there.
8515. The fact is that whatever the system is,
depending when you turn up at the station, you are going to have
to wait for a train. It is not introducing some new obstacle to
travellers on the network, is it?
(Mr Donovan) No, but it is the difference between
an overground type system with all of the perceptions there and
a metro underground type system where you do not have to plan
your journey in the sense you can turn up and there will be a
train in the very foreseeable future. I take your point about
interchange but in a sense when you get into Central London obviously
there will be a lot of interchanging and this is quite an early
interchange on the journey for the people of north Kent and Bexley.
8516. Can I just ask you this: you put forward
some figures about transfer from road to public transport and
the relative high reliance on the use of the car. One of the factors
which will influence people's decisions in any event will be the
improved journey times from Abbey Wood.
(Mr Donovan) Yes.
8517. And the fact that the interchange at Abbey
Wood will be very simple, will it not?
(Mr Donovan) The rail interchange will be very
simple.
8518. I speak from a degree of experience but
I am not giving evidence so I am going to ask you the question.
The journey to and from your borough by car into South London
and Central London is a pretty difficult one, it is a very congested,
heavily trafficked route, is it not?
(Mr Donovan) That would be more than reasonable.
8519. I did not think you were going to disagree.
Therefore, the improved journey time from Abbey Wood, the halving
of journey times on the train, will be a considerable incentive
in any event to cause people to move from a heavily congested
road network to the rail?
(Mr Donovan) Yes. The point I would make there
is that is absolutely right but that is only one of the journeys
in the sense that if we are going to be successful where we are
we want to bring people outwards from London as well.
90 Committee Ref: A90, Take up of Employment by the
Unemployed (BEXYLB-32005C-045). Back
91
Committee Ref: A90, Consequences of not extending to Ebbsfleet
(BEXYLB-32005C-046). Back
| 
