Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8680 - 8699)

  8680. Chairman: We will go on to the case of Gareth Pearce.

  The Petition of Gareth Pearce

  The Petitioner appeared in person.

  8681. Chairman: Mr Elvin, would you like to make your submission?

  8682. Mr Elvin: I do not have much to say by way of introduction. Mr Pearce's petition effectively asks the Committee to recommend against Crossrail altogether and to prefer instead a monorail system which he is promoting. We simply say it is well beyond the sort of issue which Parliament has entrusted to the Committee and it is well beyond the principle of the Bill. We have not taken a lot of these points and we are happy for him to say what he likes to the Committee but it really does go beyond the scope of the Committee's deliberations. Thank you.

  8683. Chairman: Mr Pearce, can I just say at the outset that the Committee is entrusted and directed by Parliament itself to see this Bill through so we are in a difficult position, but you have every right to petition and you have asked for that opportunity, if you would like to make your case.

  8684. Mr Pearce: Yes, I should like to make my case. Before any public transport system is built and before any public body decides upon the technology appropriate to that transport system, due process of statutory selection has to identify the candidate technologies that would be appropriate to that kind of project. The Promoter correctly identifies that Mono Metro, which incidentally is not a monorail system actually, it has two tracks and not one—

  8685. Mr Elvin: I do apologise.

  8686. Mr Pearce: Thank you very much. The Promoter identifies that Mono Metro is a candidate technology but says it is not a candidate for this particular project. I would submit, in fact, that it is very much a candidate for this project. The 1999 White Paper that called for a new regional metro is not actually what Crossrail is. I would like to draw your attention to the last page of the document I have given you.[107]


  8687. Chairman: A99.

  8688. Mr Pearce: This is a scan of a 1994 map from London Regional Transport that sets out all the projects for London and here you find Crossrail in the same location as it is now. I would submit to the Committee that Crossrail is not a design response to the call for a new regional network, it is an old project that has been rolled out and is being steamrollered through government. There is a breach of due process here because the candidate technologies for this new regional metro have not been chosen. There are no statutory assessments that substantiate Crossrail as a 19th Century style railway. In that case, £300 million, which is what has been spent on Crossrail, has been illegally spent. Until the candidate technology is assessed following due process then we cannot proceed.

  8689. I would like to say that the Promoter's response constitutes elements of a statutory assessment of their own technology and I would submit that if a statutory assessment is made of Mono Metro then the equivalent response to those claims can be put to the Committee. None of the evidence that has been submitted to Government about Mono Metro by Transport for London or Crossrail is engineer expert evidence, it is all evidence that is biased opinion. This has come through the newspapers and the Chairman of Transport for London's rail division. Mr Ian Brown claims that Mono Metro is an "anorak's dream". Mr Livingstone has reported to the London Regional Assembly that Mono Metro has been assessed but when questioned and asked for copies of that assessment Mr Livingstone was either unwilling or unable to disclose that vital piece of information.

  8690. When Mr Richard Clements—I will not say whose constituent he is—wrote and asked for a copy of the statutory assessment to Mr Ian Brown, Mr Ian Brown wrote back saying that in fact Transport for London had never carried out any statutory assessment but they had delegated that task to Crossrail. With respect to the Committee, how on earth can a body like Transport for London, which has the responsibility for being impartial, delegate to a body that represents a railway company the statutory assessment of its main competitor.

  8691. I would like to set out some of the advantages of Mono Metro. First of all, it is railway technology, it is not new technology. There is a system that has been operating for over 100 years in Germany that uses a very similar system that is so similar, in fact, to Mono Metro that it does not constitute new technology. Mono Metro at the moment is going through a development process that will allow us to demonstrate the project within two years and within six years we could have a line between Hyde Park, Liverpool Street, Commercial Road, the Canary Wharf development and then up to Stratford and the Olympic Stadium operating before the Olympics opens in 2012.

  8692. Tracks transport developed in Wales 200 years ago as railways and that whole configuration represents a technology that was at that time quite advanced but we have moved on a long way from that point and we are at the point where we could implement a significantly cheaper technology, which is Mono Metro, which has greater benefits to London than Crossrail.

  8693. We have planned a 270 kilometre network and our partners have costed that project at about £8.4 billion. Our signalling partner, which is Alcatel, has calculated that we are able to move 20,000 passengers an hour in each direction whereas Crossrail claims 24,000 passengers an hour on 24 trains per hour through the tunnel but that was revised down by Sir Adrian Montague to 18 trains an hour. With respect, Mono Metro at the moment looks as if it can carry more passengers.

  8694. Another great advantage of Mono Metro is that we can route around the Isle of Dogs which is the Manhatten-ising part of London at present. It is the only Manhatten-ising part of Europe that follows the American urbanisation model. This model is part of the economic process of expansion and development. With respect, in order to put up new skyscrapers—and there is pressure from North American developers to put new skyscrapers up—we need to put more bums on seats and in order to do that we need to feed more passengers into the development zone as well as move them around the development zone. If we implement Crossrail they will emerge at a point where they will have to walk quite a long way to the Millennium Quarter and Wood Wharf but with Mono Metro we are able to drop people off at suitable points. In addition, we are also able to locate stations along the Commercial Road, for example, to cause and catalyse urban regeneration.

  8695. The negative comments that have been made about Mono Metro Limited have caused us a great deal of concern and problem. If we are not properly considered as a candidate technology then London will suffer because London needs a new regional metro and with respect, a single tunnel through from Paddington to Liverpool Street is not a regional metro. Even though you may grab rail lines either side and add to it, you are still reaching a very, very small part of the London region, it is a very narrow corridor. There are very few stations that can generate parts of the East End, for example, that need regeneration. Mono Metro is able to be used in phases and so we are able to quickly start getting revenue with which to amortise the cost of construction of the project whereas with Crossrail you have to wait until the entire project is complete before you are able to start reaping revenue and paying off the enormous costs.

  8696. Chairman: Can I just highlight one or two things. First of all, this Committee can only deal with the Crossrail Bill.

  8697. Mr Pearce: Yes, I understand that.

  8698. Chairman: We cannot change it for a monorail or what you are suggesting at all. In relation to Mr Livingstone and his pronouncement, and later TfL's contact with you, some of us on this Committee have tried to explain Mr Livingstone from one direction and another for a number of years and been unable to achieve that.

  8699. Mr Pearce: Yes.


107   Committee Ref: A99, Projected London Regional Transport Plan 1994 (SCN20060516-007). Back


 
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