Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18700
- 18719)
18700. If you could go to plan 5.[31]
This shows alignment A and alignment B. Alignment A is the one
that predates the one that Mr Elvin was talking about and it goes
down Princelet Street, not Hanbury Street, but you can see the
Hanbury Street shaft marked at the end. The southern route is
route B, and you can see the box at the end which is the station
box. It has been swung round.
18701. This is a composite drawing.[32]
We have transposed the line B on to the drawing of line A, which
was the one which was the chosen route. Line B, which is shown
there, was dismissed because it was concerned about the Heron
Tower, which is the building on the lower left-hand side of the
drawing, which you can maybe see just outside Liverpool Street,
which was going to be a 50-storey development. The other reason
that it was concerned about it and they dismissed it was because
it did go under—this line is the one that does go under
Cutlers Gardens, that they are all going on about—this one
does go under Cutlers Gardens, but at that time they felt that
the whole of Cutlers Gardens was, in fact, piled. Now they are
admitting that the southern half of Cutlers Gardens is not piled
because it is a listed building and it was before piles were invented.
18702. So you can see the southerly alignment
is possible from Liverpool Street to Whitechapel almost going
down Whitechapel Road, as the Committee said, and it does not
have three swings and a roundabout on it; it is almost in a straight
line. It is a viable route, but it has never, ever been considered
because that development by Liverpool Street Station, which in
fact did not have planning permission—that 50-storey tower
block—until July 2002, whereas this report was February
2002. It was decided that it would avoid all this and we would
take route A. We have taken route A ever since.
18703. What I am trying to say to the Committee—I
know it is terrible—is that there is a perfectly viable
southerly alignment, that in fact the people before Crossrail
came up with. It is not severely obstructed with buildings. If
you can get the Jubilee Line between Big Ben and Portcullis House,
you can certainly get these lines through and along Whitechapel
to a Whitechapel Station position that would be far better for
everybody concerned, including the station.
18704. These lines have never been looked at.
There has never been any analysis done by Crossrail at all of
any southern alignment, and that is what we are saying to you;
we agree with you, we were exceedingly pleased when you asked
them to consider this. We think that what they have done in coming
up with a diagram, with no report behind it whatsoever, is an
absolute snub, not just to you but to us as well. We feel that
this analysis should be done properly; it should be looked at
because it could be a lot better for them, but they are not prepared
to do it. The only way that we can get them to do it is to ask
you to ask them to do it. I have drawn on here, you can see, halfway
along the line, off Whitechapel Road, there is a building, which
is called Black Lion House, I think. It is a government building—even
better—they might pay you some money for it. There could
be site access from it. I am sure there are lots of options along
here, but what we are saying is the southerly alignments have
never been looked at, ever, and we think that they should be looked
at before you decide that what they are proposing is good for
us. That is what we are really asking you to do. In fact, if I
just show you my next drawings—
18705. Chairman: Are there many more
drawings?
18706. Ms Jordon: Two more. This is just
to show you that, in fact, it is not a figment of one's imagination.
Seven.[33]
This I will show to you. This was the first ever southerly route
considered and it was considered by the other people that sat
in your position. It was considered by Crossrail when it was being
considered in 1994 and, believe it or not, I, too, was there then.
When we were having a portal in Allen Gardens, the Committee did
go back and have a look at taking a tunnel further out and not
coming out at Allen Gardens. This route was dismissed because
it was felt it was too expensive, too time-consuming and it was
suggested that the portal be in Allen Gardens. I will say to you
that the red line on this drawing was done in 1994 and, in fact,
is route B alignment, as near as dammit. It was suggested the
location be in Green Dragon Yard. Green Dragon Yard has now got
a housing development on it, but Black Lion Square has a car park
and a building at the front that I am sure could be opened up
and lorries got in Whitechapel Road—and none of the disruption
and the absolute aggravation and the difficulties that are now
facing us with this hole in Hanbury Street could be avoided.
18707. My last drawing, which is a photograph,
thanks to Tower Hamlets Council and its considerations of Whitechapel—number
eight.[34]
Obviously, you must realise we are having to take one line and
try and be as true as possible to this, but you can see where
that red circle is, the white area is, in fact, a development
that happened on Green Dragon Yard, and that was an opportunity
missed, but there is a yard next door to it that is not missed,
and the road, which I know is Whitechapel, this does exactly what
you, the Committee, asked these people to do.
18708. I am not a railway engineer—although
I am beginning to think I should join them after this exercise—but
I can see opportunities; I can see from all the reports that have
been done, when I really look at them and I go back, that there
are southerly route alignments that are perfectly feasible, but
there is no analysis done of them; there is nothing that has been
brought to you to say "Having considered three or four options
that are valid and looked one against the other, we feel that
the route going through Hanbury Street is the best"—none
of this has been done. You have been given one option and one
option only, and we want you to say to Crossrail that we want
these southerly routes looked at properly before you decide on
destroying our community. I know you do not think it is going
to do it, but we believe it will do that to us; it will destroy
our economy, it will destroy our homes, it will certainly destroy
the kids' sleep and their opportunities at school. We do not want
this to happen. There are ways of stopping it. This can be put
on routes and in areas where those destructions will not happen,
and we want Crossrail to do this properly.
18709. Chairman: Thank you very much
for that gazetteer of history of Crossrail. Very, very interesting.
Mr Elvin?
18710. Mr Elvin: I think I can be short.
Firstly, the issue of alignment was not the subject of a request
by the Committee. We said we would produce in the SES some additional
information which we have done, and we produced the plan, just
to remind you, which shows a number of possible alignments that
were considered, and you will see they correspond reasonably well
to a number of the historic plans that Ms Jordan has showed you.[35]
18711. You will bear in mind, of course, one
of the reasons for the alignment is not only do you have the constraints
of, probably, the deep pile foundations of Cutlers Garden. I have
to accept they are not measured but they are based on estimates
of construction methodology, and what is known about them, but
without intrusive works it is rather difficult to tell.
18712. You also have Christ Church up here,
which is probably one of the most important listed buildings in
East London which we have to miss as you know. So those matters
have been considered. If nothing else, Ms Jordan's tour through
some of the historic reports on Crossrail shows you that the alignments
have been considered from a very early stage. One of the plans
you were shown was a plan produced three months into the new iteration
of the project in March 2001.
18713. Just to show you Mr Berryman was not
talking through his hat when he told you that many man years have
been spent looking at alignments. This is another section from
the report which Ms Jordan has provided us, dated March 2001.[36]
It goes with the plans which show you A, B and C. Just to show
you the matter has been under active consideration for six or
seven years, you see the first words are (para. 3.2): "Three
alternative alignments, A, B and C, have been considered",
and it goes on to deal with them. As for the Heron Tower, it may
have been only a glint in the City of London's eye at the time
but it is now under construction.
18714. Sir, these issues, I am afraid, have
been looked at and in enormous detail. Ms Jordan has been supplied
with six heavy reports which are not the full set but they show
the iterations that have been looked at. The issue is as Mr Berryman
described to the Committee back in June, an issue which has been
looked at at great length over many years and there are practical
constraints of alignments due to foundations, trying to do the
best to avoid important buildings, and the like, and achieve an
alignment which will allow, as you will recall, a proper interchange
at Whitechapel so that it can interchange with among others the
East London Line and the London Underground.
18715. Final point: so far as the original Crossrail
was concerned in the early 1990s, no station was proposed at Whitechapel.
There was no constraint to have to achieve an alignment that would
link with Whitechapel and provide interchange services because
there was no station proposed. I do not propose to say any more
than that, unless the Committee requires further assistance.
18716. Ms Jordon: Could I just come back
on that?
18717. Chairman: It is now back to you
to sum-up.
18718. Ms Jordon: I will comment on those
things, but the comment you have just made about the alignments
B and C being considered and dismissed, in fact, that particular
sheet was from a summary of previous documents having been looked
at. So, in fact, it was summarising what was said not by Mott
MacDonald but by the 2001 report, which predated what Mott MacDonald
considered, alignments B and C were never considered by Mott MacDonald.
18719. Mr Elvin: I am sorry, Ms Jordan.
Can I say, I am taking this from the later report which says (p.
4, section 3) "This option has been developed by the Crossrail
Safeguarding Team in response to the Client Brief and alignment
and a portal have been developed."
31 Committee Ref: A212, Liverpool Street Station-
Composite drawing of Alternative Alignments (SCN-20070130-023). Back
32
Committee Ref: A212, Eastern Portal-Pudding Mill Lane option-alignments
(SCN-20070130-024). Back
33
Committee Ref: A212, Aerial photograph of the Whitechapel area
with proposed Crossrail route (SCN-20070130-025). Back
34
Crossrail Ref: P136, Supplementary Environmental Statement 3,
Revised Tunnelling Strategy, Southern Alignment-Route Options,
Map RTS C8(iv), billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-SES3RTS-007). Back
35
Crossrail Ref: P136, Supplementary Environmental Statement 3,
Revised Tunnelling Strategy, Southern Alignment-Route Options,
Map RTS C8(iv), billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-SES3RTS-007). Back
36
Crossrail Ref: P136, CrossRail Eastern Portal-Bow Triangle Option,
CrossRail Tunnel Alignments between Liverpool Street and Bow Triangle
(SCN-20070130-026). Back
|
