Examination of Witnesses (Questions 12820
- 12839)
12820. The next three Petitioners, the Association
of Councils of the Thames Valley Region, East of England Regional
Assembly, and Jean Lambert, MEP—I am not sure if Ms Lambert
is here but we believe she is coming—raise two sets of issues.
One is specific issues about, for instance, going to Reading,
where again I will call Mr Berryman so that he can be asked questions.
They do also raise issues about timetabling and access to the
lines. Those are issues that we are intending to deal with next
week. We can have a triumphant moment tomorrow when we come to
the end of the site specific part of Crossrail and we move on
next week—at least we can feel we are getting somewhere—to
the generality of rail access issues and freight.
12821. Mr Elvin is coming in on Tuesday to give
you an opening on the Railway Act 1993 and rail access issues,
so I would buy your tickets now! Mr Mould and I were discussing
going to Rio de Janeiro this morning! We are calling Robert Watson,
who is the Chairman of the independent Crossrail Timetable Working
Group, to explain the work which is being done on timetabling
and for operators to get access to the lines. I do not want to
steal their thunder nor am I capable of doing so this week. I
have explained to the representatives of the first two Petitioners,
Thames Valley and East of England, that I do not intend to respond
on those big picture issues this week. Of course, everything that
we say next week will be recorded on the transcript and, indeed,
if they raise issues which were not going to be dealt with already
next week, we will deal with them next week and make sure that
they are written to about any relevant points. I hope that is
a sensible way to deal with it.
12822. So far as the specific issues, shall
we go to Stansted, are concerned, I will call Mr Berryman to deal
with that. I hope that gives an overview of how I intend to deal
with this morning, and I hope that is acceptable.
12823. Sir Peter Soulsby: It seems very
helpful. Thank you very much indeed.
12824. Ms Lieven: In those circumstances,
I will hand straight over to Mrs May to explain her points.
12825. Sir Peter Soulsby: Welcome to
the Committee.
12826. Mrs May: Thank you very much indeed,
Chairman. I have prepared a brief response to the Promoter's response
to my Petition, and perhaps it might be helpful if I go through
those specific points.
12827. Sir Peter Soulsby: It probably
would. Is it in written form?
12828. Mrs May: It is and I can provide
a copy to the clerk.
12829. Sir Peter Soulsby: That would
be very helpful.
12830. Mrs May: As Ms Lieven indicated
there are three key issues, in fact there are two other issues
I would like to address. One is the question as to why Maidenhead
should be the western terminus and why not Reading, the second
is the impact on services for both Maidenhead and Twyford stations,
both of which are in my constituency, Twyford being the station
between Reading and Maidenhead, the use of Guards Club Park and
Island, the impact on the Brunel Bridge and a general comment
about Maidenhead itself.
12831. Sir Peter Soulsby: Just to re-emphasise
a point, we did have considerable evidence on this yesterday,
I am not suggesting that should inhibit you in any way or in what
you are going to say but I am just making you aware of it.
12832. Mrs May: Indeed, Chairman, and
I suspect that what I have to say is very similar to what has
been said by others, and, indeed, I hope the Committee would take
a clear message from that the Civic Society, Thames Reach Residents
Association, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and I
are all making very similar points about the impact on Maidenhead.
Would you like me to go through this?
12833. Sir Peter Soulsby: I do not think
you need to go through every single paragraph and every word for
it to be part of the record, perhaps just a summary would be helpful.
12834. Mrs May: The first question is
why should the western terminus be at Maidenhead? I think the
Promoter's response is very disappointing in this. It is quite
clear that Maidenhead appears to be the default option after all
other options have been considered. There is no independent research
that proves that Maidenhead is the best option for the western
terminus.
12835. Reference is made to the need to address
strategic objectives, which includes promoting economic growth
in the Greater Western corridor by providing additional capacity,
but, of course, for Maidenhead there will be no additional capacity
provided as a result of Crossrail. It will take over existing
capacity and provide a reduced level of service which I will go
on to.
12836. The Promoter's response also refers to
the fact that terminating at Maidenhead would not prohibit an
extension to Reading in the future. I would argue that frankly
why are they suggesting that there should be an extension to Reading
in the future if they are appearing at this stage to say that
Reading should be ruled out as western terminus. They cannot have
it both ways, either it is a good place for the terminus for Crossrail
to go to or it is not. Reference is made to the cost of works
at Reading station, but, of course, there has been for some time
on the list of schemes for Network Rail improving capacity at
Reading station, and that is needed regardless of whether or not
Crossrail goes ahead. There is no evidence as to why Maidenhead
should be the western terminus. Maidenhead Station is a small
site and although it could accommodate the works as proposed it
would have an impact on the rest of the town, and if economic
growth and additional capacity is the aim then I argue that it
would be much better for it to go to Reading which is an area
of considerable economic growth and it already is a transport
hub for other good transport links elsewhere.
12837. Terminating at Maidenhead reduces the
service to Maidenhead passengers. It means that the service would
be a slow stopping service. The benefit of Maidenhead today is
that people are able to get fast and semi-fast services into Paddington.
12838. The potential benefit of Crossrail is
that they could get on a fast or semi-fast service at Maidenhead,
go to Paddington in 25 minutes and then be able to stay on the
train to go through to the rest of London. What is being proposed
is a slow stopping service which would be at least 41 minutes,
that is the figure that Crossrail have identified. The length
of time that it would take to get into Paddington would be a considerable
increase. We already have many people locally concerned at any
suggestion of increasing the length of time that it takes for
their trains to get into Paddington. One of the reasons they live
in Maidenhead is because of the fast service into Paddington.
This would destroy that fast service, it would mean that Maidenhead,
a key station on the Great Western line, would become the end
of an underground line which is an entirely different approach.
12839. The Promoter's response makes very little
mention of the impact on Twyford. I am concerned about Twyford,
it is in my constituency between Reading and Maidenhead. Again,
it is a key station on the Greater Western line at the moment.
What the Promoters say is that a residual service would operate
out of Reading to stop at Twyford. This would significantly reduce
again the level of service to Twyford passengers. It is a busy
commuter station and this would have a significant impact on it.
Again, one of the reasons many people live there is because it
is a good service with good rail links. These will disappear under
Crossrail and Twyford would be very badly hit by the Crossrail
proposals.
| 
