Examination of Witnesses (Questions 14080
- 14099)
14080. Mr Wilson: Let me just touch on
the sort of areas that it would have been nice to have had the
Promoter's response then. With regard to document A1, which I
referred to in my remarks, I made my scepticism clear about whether
the judgments made based on that document, weighing up the benefits
of Maidenhead and Reading, were as they should have been. In the
response on page 4 of paragraph 2 the Promoter does make it absolutely
clear through inference that decisions being made to the west
of London are clearly based only on London's increasing population
and overcrowding. It seems to me that you could draw the inference
from that that the concerns of the people west of London are not
being taken seriously with regard to things like frequency of
trains, speed of trains and where the terminus point should be.
It seems that London does not seem to care too much what is happening
to the west of it so long as it get its Crossrail scheme across
London.
14081. Also in paragraph 4, I think that is
on page 5 of the response to me, it talks about the timetable
of the working group which has just published a report. I have
not seen that report because I believe it was fairly recent, but
it does describe the "emerging conclusion that Crossrail
services can be accommodated successfully with existing levels
of passenger and freight services without detriment to performance".
I am a little bit surprised that you would base an answer to my
Petition on an "emerging conclusion" that has not had
any testing in the fire of public opinion, local councils, and
rail groups and so forth. So it does strike me that that response
was not misleading but stretching the credibility of that response.
14082. It was also suggested that post Crossrail
it should be possible to have more trains on fast tracks. Yet
certainly all the councils within the Thames Valley region and
so-called experts do not necessarily agree with that line of thinking.
It would have been helpful to have had a much clearer answer from
the Promoter on that point.
14083. Also it would have been very helpful
in some of the responses to the information I have given to understand
why Reading suddenly changed from being the western terminus,
because for a long period of time Reading was the preferred terminus.
I just wonder was that solely made on cost grounds or were there
other reasons why the Promoter has come to the conclusion that
have not necessarily been given to me or other people in the area?
14084. I would also like to understand whether
there is any organisation within the Thames Valley region that
supports Maidenhead as the western terminus because, as far as
I know, not one organisation, council, business, Chamber of Commerce,
whatever it might be, supports Maidenhead as the western terminus.
Indeed, I went to a meeting with the Mayor of London yesterday
and the Mayor of London said in response to a question that he
would also prefer the western terminus to be at Reading and does
support the case for Reading. If the Mayor of London, who is providing
a third of the funds for the project, is supporting Reading as
the western terminus, if all the councils in the Thames Valley
are, if all the businesses in the Thames Valley are, if all the
residents' groups and all the politicians are, it does seem slightly
strange that only the Promoter seems to be convinced that Maidenhead
is the right terminus west of London.
14085. I would also have welcomed further evidence
of the financial and commercial modelling undertaken for Reading
and whether there was any work done on looking at the fast/semi-fast
French-style system that I described in my comments because I
do understand that just a single slow stopping metro service would
not serve Reading well, would not be commercially viable and would
not be welcomed by my constituents but a different form of service
that could serve both commuters and local stopping services would
be welcomed, I think.
14086. So, if I may, Chairman I will finish
there. There is a lot of information I hope and some open questions
that maybe could be responded to.
14087. Chairman: Mr Wilson, I think there
are quite a lot of questions there, a variety of questions, and
I wonder if we should hold back until after the next Petition
because I suspect some of the answers that are sought are going
to be repeated in the next Petition, so in the summing up to the
Petitions Mr Elvin will be able to address all that and then I
can make a judgment on that as to whether or not we need a note
from Mr Elvin to cover any of the points you have raised or the
next Petitioner may raise to clarify the position. Is that okay?
14088. Mr Wilson: That is fine.
14089. Mr Elvin: That will be fine. I
can answer the substance of those questions when convenient to
the Committee.
14090. Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. We will move on to the next Petitioner.
The Petition of Martin Salter MP and Reading
Evening Post.
The Petitioner appeared in person.
Mr Malcolm Dowden appeared as Agent.
14091. Mr Elvin: I see from the Petitioner's
notes that the main issues are disruption to existing services,
the western rail link to Heathrow, and the question of Reading.
Those are all issues we have covered and I do not say any more
about them at this stage.
14092. Martin Salter: Chairman, I have
with me our agent Malcolm Dowden. In August 2005, a petition was
launched by myself and the Reading Evening Post the local
evening newspaper in response to the news of the likelihood that
Crossrail, far from not even coming to Reading, would not be considered
by this Select Committee. Obviously the terms of reference have
changed and you are probably hearing more about Reading than you
ever wanted to. The case is strongly supported in the Reading
area by leading businesses, Microsoft, Foster Wheeler, Yell and
MCI, as well as Reading Borough Council, the Reading Chamber of
Commerce, Transport 2000 and, in a very short space of time, around
250 businesses, residents and commuters.
14093. Chairman: Can we list this as
A161.
14094. Martin Salter: The wording of
the petition is as follows: "We the undersigned are concerned
that the Crossrail Bill currently before Parliament includes provision
for the western terminus to be located at Maidenhead rather than
Reading and that no provision is made for a western rail link
to Heathrow Airport. It is our view that these two measures would
yield significant benefits to the Reading area and enable Crossrail
to properly realise its objectives, from the Crossrail publicity,
to `connect the UK'. We also urge Parliament to ensure that the
final Crossrail scheme does not impede the current high speed
rail services into Paddington from Reading and the West."
14095. Crossrail is undoubtedly an ambitious
£10 billion-plus scheme. It is a once in a lifetime public
transport project. Certainly for myself and many of my colleagues
it is matter of regret that in this country we seem to lack the
vision to take advantage of all the opportunities that a major
public infrastructure scheme like this will provide and it is
very disheartening to hear some of the excuses that are offered
for not providing much needed rail links into Heathrow Airport
or extending Crossrail to somewhere that does connect with the
rest of the UK. I am concerned, as are my constituents and businesses
in the Thames Valley—and bear in mind that Thames Valley
is the economic driver for the South East, which in itself is
one of the most dynamic regions in the UK economy—that Crossrail
in the end is not so pared down that it comes to represent a series
of missed opportunities due to poor planning, lack of vision or
foresight.
14096. As Mr Elvin rightly summarised, there
are three key points I wish to make in this submission. The first
point is that Crossrail must not be allowed to disrupt the existing
high speed commuter services into Paddington nor should it be
responsible for reducing freight transport by rail, and I understand
you will be having substantial evidence making similar points
to those I am about to make as to the capacity of the network
14097. Chairman: We heard that evidence
yesterday.
14098. Martin Salter: I apologise if
I repeat anything.
14099. The second point is on the need for a
rail link into Heathrow. On my third point, I am in agreement
with my colleagues Theresa May from Maidenhead and Rob Wilson
from Reading East, and of course with David Sutton, the leader
of Reading Borough Council, who spoke on behalf of all the councils
of different political persuasions in the Thames Valley region.
We argue that the case for Reading is the most unanswerable and
is certainly not answered by the Promoter's document.
| 
