Examination of Witnesses (Questions 12900
- 12919)
12900. Sir Peter Soulsby: Ms Lieven,
do you want to sum up?
12901. Ms Lieven: Sir, if I sum up, I
will say the same thing to the Committee which I think it has
now heard five times and I am sure the Committee would be delighted
to hear me again, but I do wonder whether it is going to assist.
I think Mrs May understands what our case is and I am not sure
she wants to hear me saying it all over again.
12902. Sir Peter Soulsby: In which case,
I think the Committee will allow you not to do it again.
12903. Ms Lieven: Perhaps I can just
say that the document we have put up is A6 and unfortunately the
heading in this case has been cut off.[7]
It is the reasons for not going to Ealing Broadway. It is the
same case Mr Berryman has just made, but set out and you can see
them there.
12904. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you very
much. Mrs May, would you like to summarise your case?
12905. Mrs May: Thank you very much,
Chairman. I will try not to be too lengthy in repeating the points
which I suspect the Committee has heard from others. I would just
make one point, picking up from Mr Berryman's last response to
a question from Mr Hopkins, which was that one of the reasons
for not going to Reading was that actually it was not attractive
to passengers there because they wanted to get fast and semi-fast
services into London and there was no point in them getting on
a Crossrail stopping service. It is exactly the same argument
for passengers in Maidenhead. There is very little reason for
somebody in Maidenhead getting on a Crossrail stopping service.
As I said earlier, Crossrail, I believe, could give very real
benefits to Maidenhead passengers if it were the case that it
was possible to have fast or semi-fast Crossrail trains to Paddington
and then through to the rest London without having to change trains.
12906. I believe that the Promoters have still
not properly looked at the alternatives to Guards Club Park bridge
and I hope that they will look again at the issue of barges or
alternative use of land because of the impact on the residents
in that particular area and the impact not just on the Guards
Club Park, but of course the footbridge over to the island which
is going to be significant and I am not sure of the benefit of
using a footbridge which can only accommodate a weight of 25 kilograms
when we are talking about materials of this sort.
12907. My overall points remain the same. I
believe that, as I say, the benefit of Crossrail will be if it
provides a fast and semi-fast service. I think that the obvious
route is to extend it to a western terminus at Reading, provide
semi-fast services stopping at Twyford, Maidenhead and probably
Slough as well into Paddington and then carrying on through London
as a real, genuine alternative service to passengers, my constituents,
which would benefit them significantly. As currently proposed,
I do not believe that the Crossrail scheme will bring benefits
to passengers in Maidenhead. It will certainly disadvantage significantly
my constituents in Twyford and it will have a significant impact
on Maidenhead town which I believe we should not go through without
getting benefit in terms of improved services. Thank you.
12908. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you very
much indeed. That concludes our consideration of your Petition.
We will move on to the other three that we have listed for this
morning.
The Petition of the Association of Councils
of the Thames Valley Region.
Mr Barry Deller appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.
12909. Mr Deller: Perhaps I could just
seek some clarification on procedure. I wish to make a short opening
statement, to call a witness and then to make some comments on
the timetabling issue.
12910. Sir Peter Soulsby: Yes, I see
no problem in doing it in the way in which you suggest. Ms Lieven,
is there anything you need to say in advance?
12911. Ms Lieven: I do not think so.
I have made some comments in opening already and I am happy to
leave it there.
12912. Sir Peter Soulsby: Mr Deller?
12913. Mr Deller: I am representing the
Association of the Councils of the Thames Valley Region, otherwise
known as ACTVaR. We wish to put to the Committee our concerns
about the impact of Crossrail services on existing and future
rail services from the Thames Valley into London. When we talk
about the Thames Valley, we are meaning all of Berkshire, Oxfordshire
and Buckinghamshire. We are the local government association covering
those three counties and we speak for the interests of those authorities
and the communities within this significant sub-region. On that
point, we are the fastest-growing sub-region in the country and
our economy requires fast, frequent and reliable rails services
to London. We are supporting the concept and objectives of the
Crossrail scheme, but in our Petition we raise related issues
relating to the genuine concerns we have on a number of fronts.
12914. On one of these, I might say, we do believe
the Promoter has pretty well dealt with and that is in respect
of rail access to Heathrow Airport, of where the trains are taken.
We were very concerned that Crossrail would dominate the rail
services into Heathrow to the detriment of other future services,
particularly Airtrack which we fully support. We are satisfied
with the statement from the Promoter in their response document,
but, generally speaking, Crossrail trains will go to Terminal
4 and Heathrow Express to Terminal 5, and there is a very clear
statement which we draw attention to from the Promoter that "this
would leave sufficient capacity at Terminal 5 to cater for a future
Airtrack service and would not prejudice the safeguarding for
that service". Therefore, in that respect, assuming that
those comments are actually delivered, then we would be assured
at least on that aspect of our concerns about Heathrow Airport.
12915. Our principal areas of main concern,
and these are very real issues for us, do of course in part relate
to the previous Petitioner's points, and this is the capacity
for the Great Western main line to accommodate our existing services
and the new Crossrail services.
12916. At this point I would like to call my
witness, Councillor David Sutton, who is Chair of our Association
and, also, Leader of Reading Borough Council, to inform the Committee
of the overall position of ACTVaR on Crossrail, to confirm the
unanimous position of local politicians on this scheme and to
outline the issues on which we remain to be satisfied.
Councillor David Sutton, Sworn
Examined by Mr Deller
12917. Sir Peter Soulsby: Do you intend
to question Mr Sutton or just to enable him to make a statement?
12918. Mr Deller: In effect, if he can
outline for us the position of the Association, the position of
the local authorities in the area and the issues on which we remain
to be satisfied.
(Mr Sutton) I just want to start by emphasising
that every single council in the Thames Valley, every council
in Berkshire, every council in Oxfordshire, every council in Buckinghamshire,
is represented and is participant in these views, so I am speaking
on behalf of all of those councils. Their unanimous view is one
of general support for the principle of Crossrail but a deep and
continuing concern about the detail of this scheme and its adverse
effects on public transport in the Thames Valley, principally
because this scheme takes inadequate account of the critical role
of Reading station as the hub station serving the entire Thames
Valley. As ACTVaR has discussed this scheme, over the last two
years and more, we have identified the four principal areas of
concern which are brought out in our Petition. Those four areas
of concern relate to, firstly, connectivity to Heathrow, secondly,
the principle of the slow, stopping service as opposed to the
semi-fast, which you have just heard discussed, thirdly, the impact
on existing services into Paddington, and, fourthly, the choice
of Maidenhead as the western terminus—again, about which
you have heard quite a bit but I would like to add a perspective
on that. In respect of connectivity to Heathrow, as has been said,
the question of keeping options open for future links to Heathrow
has been covered by the Promoter's response, although you will
hear next week from my friend Martin Salter, MP, about the strong
desirability of a western link into Heathrow as part of Crossrail,
but I will not refer to that today. Similarly, in respect of the
slow, stopping service, although this is a point that is very
strongly felt by ACTVaR councils I feel that Mrs May has made
all the points that you need to hear this morning. So I will focus
instead on the interlocking issues of the impact on existing services
into Paddington and the choice of Maidenhead as the western terminus.
I want to be clear that it is the unanimous view of every council
in the Thames Valley, including the Royal Borough of Windsor and
Maidenhead, that the choice of Maidenhead as a western terminus
is arbitrary and makes no sense except in financial terms. The
argument seems to be: "It is not a very good solution but
it is all that we can afford". That is not, really, a sufficient
justification for choosing a terminus on such an important scheme.
As far as we are concerned, the choice of Maidenhead as a western
terminus is potentially positively harmful to the Thames Valley
in terms of connectivity. The Promoter's paper says that the proposed
Crossrail services will "subsume or alter existing local
services", but of course that only applies to services east
of Maidenhead. By adding a Maidenhead mini-hub to the existing
Reading main hub Crossrail, as proposed, would oblige many local
Thames Valley travellers who presently change at Reading—Reading
being the network hub—to change again at Maidenhead. So
on a journey such as Basingstoke to Slough or Woking to Langley,
any existing service that comes into Reading where people change
and then run on to other local destinations on the western line,
the Maidenhead additional mini-hub will be a positive nuisance,
disincentive and extra change for those travellers, and I believe
they would probably take their cars and cease to use the railways,
rather than changing twice. The proposed Crossrail service might
improve some local services east of Maidenhead, although Mrs May
has argued very strongly the case in respect of the semi-fast,
but it would certainly worsen local services to the west of Maidenhead
within the Thames Valley. Because that west of Maidenhead area
includes the Reading hub, that means that most of the station
points within the wider Thames Valley would experience a worsening
of connectivity and service, and that is the principal reason
why every council in the Thames Valley is opposing the present
scheme. We believe that the only sensible western terminus for
Crossrail is Reading, and we believe that that is demonstrated
by the fact that an extension to Reading is being allowed for.
It is a recognition that that is the logical ultimate terminus
but we believe that, in the meantime, the interim Maidenhead solution,
has a potential negative effect. If the Reading terminus is not
practicable for financial reasons then we believe that either
the western terminus should be in west London—the Ealing
Broadway solution you have discussed—or there should be
extra tracking on the line into Paddington to ensure that existing
Reading to Paddington local services are not adversely affected,
or both. An interim Maidenhead western terminus, as proposed,
makes no sense in terms of connectivity, it potential worsens
the existing local services and is potentially a backwards move
for public transport in the Thames Valley. So we find ourselves
in a position where a scheme which we would really like to support—our
position is actually very similar to Mrs May's—we have to
oppose because in its present form it has so many negative aspects
for all those councils whom I am here to represent.
12919. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you,
Mr Sutton. Mr Deller, do you have any questions? Of course, Ms
Lieven, if you wish to—
7 Crossrail Information Paper A6-Selection Of Western
Termini, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk Back
|
