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
| 
