Examination of Witnesses (Questions 15080
- 15099)
15080. Does that deal with the question of temporary,
extra, additional road use, because that is precisely the sort
of matter in its implication which ought to be in an environmental
statement, is it not?
(Mr Berryman) Yes. The environmental
statement for that site covers a very substantial number of lorry
movements into and out of the site, some of which could be used
for providing aggregate. You need to bear in mind that, irrespective
of how it is served, there will be a batching plant on that site,
if nothing else, to serve the Crossrail ones. Crossrail will use
a phenomenal amount of concrete, as I am sure you realise.
15081. Mr Berryman, that may be so. My simple
point is you are now accepting that there will be some additional
road movements which are an environmental impact which has thus
far not appeared in the Environmental Statement?
(Mr Berryman) No, I am not
saying that. I am saying that there will be lorry movements required
for that. That will be within the total number of lorry movements
which are assessed in the environmental impact statement.
15082. This is something which is still to be
done, so to speak, this environmental statement?
(Mr Berryman) No, this was
in the original environmental impact statement.
15083. That does deal, does it not, with aggregates
coming to the site by road?
(Mr Berryman) No, it does
not. It does not deal with the concrete coming to the site by
road or how it deals with coming to the site by road. It just
deals with the total number of lorry movements into the site.
15084. Bow Midland East, I just want to be clear
on that. That is going for the Olympics and am I right in saying
that, therefore, can come out of the Bill and you can give the
undertaking we seek in respect of it?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, I think
so.
15085. You say you think so, these matters are
important to us. We do not want to know whether you "think"
you can give an undertaking. You do not need the land for Crossrail,
therefore it should not be in the Bill anymore, is that not right?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that
is right. Obviously there is an issue of timing, what happens
to the land after the Olympics is finished. If it is going to
be reinstated as a freight site it may be useful for us and for
your clients that we should have access to it, so I would like
to think about that issue a little bit more.
15086. One last matter which is on the timetabling
matter. So far as access and egress to the freight sites, I am
right, am I not, in saying that so far as the 2015 with-freight
growth position there has as yet been no modelling of access in
and out?
(Mr Berryman) As I just
said a few moments ago, yes, that is correct.
15087. So far as 2004, there has been limited
but not complete modelling of the in and out position?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, there
has been some modelling done on that. As I said earlier on, there
is a major problem with doing this sort of thing, particularly
for the 2015 timetable, because you just do not know exactly what
the freight timetable is going to look like in 2015.
15088. You may not know exactly but you can
make an attempt, you can use your best estimates, which is precisely
what traffic engineers do normally. It simply has not been done
for the 2015 with-growth, that we can agree on?
(Mr Berryman) No, we cannot
agree that. We have used our best estimate and we have identified
sufficient space for the timetable to allow.
15089. There has been no modelling of individual
movements into and out of the sites in the 2015 with-growth position,
has there?
(Mr Berryman) We can agree
on that.
15090. We can agree on that. Let us end on that
happy note of agreement. Thank you.
15091. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Ms Lieven?
15092. Ms Lieven: No re-examination,
sir.
The witness withdrew
15093. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you
very much. Would you like a second attempt?
15094. Ms Lieven: Yes. Sir, what I thought
I would do is do the closing by reference to EWS's request for
decision as an aide-memoire, EWS 40, page 96 of our exhibits,
and deal with the first 14 together which are site specifics.[108]
You have just heard Mr Berryman's evidence, I am certainly not
going to repeat that. The crucial point, sir, is that we are happy
to undertake that by the end of September we will have written
to EWS on each and every one of these sites, setting out precisely
what land we need, how long we need it for, whether temporary
or permanent, and a short justification for why we need it. That
will be done before the end of this Committee but, perhaps even
more importantly, before the House of Lords, so if EWS are still
not content and cannot enter into an agreement with us, then they
have the opportunity to come back on that. So far as I suspect
Mr George will say, "Well, that is all very well, but why
was it not done before?" we have had meetings with them,
we have set out in detail what we wanted. The suggestion that
this is all coming as a terrible surprise at the last minute really
is not accurate in my submission and it perhaps was not entirely
necessary to come here and fight through every site given the
tone of the meetings and the large element of agreement on the
substance of what was needed or otherwise. In my submission, sir,
it would be extremely dangerous to take land out of the Bill at
this stage before Mr Berryman has entirely satisfied himself as
to precisely what he needs and does not need. What is more, to
do something at this stage is likely to be unhealthy to EWS because
we would have to say that we needed more land until we were absolutely
certain by the end of September. So without going back through
each of the individual sites, I would suggest, sir, that they
would all be dealt with in that way together.
15095. So far as the strategic freight site
issue is concerned, I dealt with that in opening. I think Mr Elvin
touched on it last week. We can see no case for providing compensatory
land to EWS—it would not be to EWS—it would be compensatory
land to Network Rail in terms of strategic freight sites; Network
Rail have not asked for it. There is nothing in the Railways Act
or any other legislation which would suggest that is something
we should do. Sir, I rely, as on many occasions, on the general
railway processes for that.
15096. I turn then to paragraph 15 which is
access and a request for an undertaking that we give reasonable
notice to EWS for any plan of interruptions.[109]
That matter is dealt with through the rules of the road. If there
were going to be interruptions by Crossrail construction, then
that is dealt with under the industry process of rules of the
road and, in my submission, there is no need to do any more.
15097. Then capacity, paragraphs 16 to 17. As
the Committee well know by now, the intention is that capacity
and timetabling will be dealt with through Network Rail and the
ORR and through agreeing an access option that meets the Petitioner's
concern that the timetabling work and the option access should
be set by an independent third party, it meets their concerns
that it be done under normal railway processes and it involves
the further work that they are so concerned is taking place. If
the access option is satisfactorily completed, then the Secretary
of State will reconsider the railway clauses; if it is not, then
it is a matter that can come back to the House of Lords. In my
submission, it is both premature and a waste of time for the Committee
to get into lots of hypothetical situations at this stage.
15098. Paragraph 18, capacity enhancements.
Mr Berryman has just given evidence on this. We are not prepared
to commit to build all the enhancements when further design work
may show some of them are unnecessary. We can commit to construct
the dive under at Acton because we are absolutely certain that
is necessary as long as freight traffic remains at roughly the
levels of the present day. Interestingly, Mr Smith himself said
that until the timetabling work was completed, one could not know
what infrastructure was needed, and that is precisely our point.
There is some inconsistency, I would suggest, with EWS arguing
that there is a need for more timetabling work before they can
understand the impact on freight but at the same time trying to
force Crossrail to commit to doing infrastructure work that may
not be necessary. As far as capacity on the Great Western is concerned—it
is worth touching on this—Mr Knapman's evidence on the importance
of rail-worn aggregates in the West Country is entirely accepted.
There is absolutely no intention to decrease freight capacity,
quite the contrary. There have been a few things said by EWS witnesses
that really just do not seem to have taken on board the reality
of the situation at all. There is no intention nor any likelihood
of there being a massive modal shift from rail to HGV, nor is
there any intention, as Mr Knapman seemed to suggest, to use his
words, "to banish freight from the Great Western". As
Mr Berryman said, we would not be spending a billion pounds on
freight enhancements if that was the intention. Finally, sir,
on Great Western, you will remember that the timetable working
group, at page seven, said there was sufficient capacity for growth
on the Great Western.
15099. Paragraph 19 deals with the further afield
enhancements, that is, in effect, Gospel Oak, Barking and Felixstowe
to Nuneaton. That is a topic that Mr Elvin will return to next
week when Mr Barrett is recalled for Tarmac, so I am not going
to say much about it. All I would say at this stage is we accept
that there are issues about capacity at Forest Gate in 2015, but
it is our case that is largely, if not wholly, unrelated to the
Crossrail project, so that is a matter that the Committee will
hear more about later.
108 Committee Ref: A168, Requests for Decision (LINEWD-19605-096). Back
109
Committee Ref: A168, Requests for Decision, Property and Capacity
(LINEWD-19605-099). Back
| 
