Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21360
- 21379)
21360. Chairman: I realise what you are
trying to do, we are too. It is ground we have already been over.
Proceed for the time being.
21361. Mr Levaggi: Mr Winbourne, have
you any further comments to make in relation to Tottenham Court
Road and Farringdon?
(Mr Winbourne) Simply that there will be a
cost increase by bringing St Pancras Station but the rest of the
cost will be vastly reduced and I think that will balance out.
The cost of Farringdon Station will come in at nil and possibly
with a bonus because of the way it will be done. I cannot recall,
sir, forgive me, but I do not think I have made this point in
evidence before for various reasons. If I am repeating myself
I do apologise, but the way it would be built would be this: you
would drop down the Metropolitan/Circle Line—you get two
for one—and then you have Crossrail and the Thameslink with
cross-platform interchange at Farringdon on top of it so you finish
up with a win-win situation from the engineering point of view.
It is the less costly line that goes deeper and, of course, you
have to close down to do it, there is no doubt about it, but you
can do it all by cut-and-cover. That is the point.
21362. Chairman: Talking about win-win,
we have to go and vote. We will be back in ten or 15 minutes.
The Committee suspended for a division
in the House from 3:15pm to 3:25pm.
21363. Chairman: We shall resume.
21364. Mr Levaggi: Mr Winbourne, moving
to paragraph nine, Liverpool Street, what do you say about Liverpool
Street?[18]
(Mr Winbourne) I am very much
on AP3 here. The Select Committee itself was concerned about overcrowding
at Liverpool Street and asked for improved arrangements, which
AP3 is supposed to meet and of course does at a cost, I would
say at a very considerable cost. What you are looking at is a
station which already was likely to cost about £1 billion
because of the serious engineering underneath Liverpool Street
going to Moorgate and under Finsbury Circus Gardens. Prime cost,
if I can use that expression for the purpose of this explanation,
therefore is about £1 billion before you start with the extras,
which have been agreed with British Land. I do not disagree with
them doing that if you are starting from the position of the £1
billion platforms. What I respectfully draw your attention to
is this, that my proposed platforms are at the other end of Liverpool
Street Station, they are not a million miles away. If I may refer
you again to the meeting that we had on 13 December 2001, the
very point of overcrowding was made by myself and Dr Ronald West,
now deceased, an eminent rail engineer.
21365. Chairman: In relation to the Liverpool
Street Station, I will just remind you, the Promoters came to
the Committee and put forward a far cheaper scheme. It was the
Committee that went back and gave a decision at an earlier point
which considered an expansion and gave instructions to the Promoter
of what that expansion should include, so if anyone is to blame
for overspending in relation to Liverpool Street it is the Members
of the Committee.
(Mr Winbourne) I am not questioning who did
what, Sir, please, and I am not questioning the good faith of
the Committee, not at all.
21366. Mr Levaggi: Or of the Promoters.
(Mr Winbourne) Or the Promoters in the situation
which you put them in on this issue. I am simply saying we arrive
at a position where there is a very, very high cost indeed.
21367. Chairman: I think you have made
that point and you have made it thoroughly and we are aware of
that. What I need to know is can you tell us what you want us
to do? We accept some of the arguments that you have been putting
forward, the financial ones and in relation to the routing to
Kings Cross-St Pancras and we understand that, although we still
do think that one of your arguments is realignment, for whatever
reason, but, nevertheless, we have allowed you to go on with your
argument. What we want to know now is what you want us to do in
relation to AP3? Are you just going to give us a financial critique
all the way through or are you going to tell us what you want?
21368. Mr Levaggi: Sir, in my submission,
the financial critique is essential. This is an incredibly expensive
project, these projects always are. It is perhaps a truism to
say that, nevertheless, it is an incredibly expensive project.
I think on the Promoter's own case, it is something like £7.9
billion. The Petitioners' concern is that this is done in the
most cost-effective way with the least disturbance as possible.
The Petitioners ideally would like there to be a proper assessment,
maybe by way of a further environmental assessment, of the true
cost of this as compared with other possibilities.
21369. Chairman: Your case is that you
want a new financial calculation on the whole remit of Crossrail,
in particular up to AP3?
21370. Mr Levaggi: Sir, it surprises
me that this sort of assessment is not continuously done in relation
to this sort of project. When smaller transactions take place,
perhaps with private clients and that sort of thing, there is
a continuous assessment of the cost of the transaction, there
should be. If costs go up, and we say the AP3 has created further
costs, and we say those costs are significant, surely there should
be a reassessment. There should always be a reassessment.
21371. Chairman: Let me get this correct,
what you are asking for then is a reappraisal, a re-evaluation
of the cost of Crossrail in relation particularly to AP3?
21372. Mr Levaggi: That is correct, yes.
Whereas the Promoters might say—I will not put words in
their mouth—some of this has been set in principle, we would
submit that even though it is set in principle, that should not
stop the Committee considering whether or not this is really the
most cost-effective approach, particularly when the cost on the
Promoter's own case amounts to half billion pounds. Sir, it is
perhaps a cheap point to make, but there have been previous projects
like this, for example the Jubilee Line Extension which was originally
costed at something like £2 billion and came in at something
like £4 billion, and it is perhaps a cheap point to mention
Euro Tunnel which was originally costed at £4.9 billion and
came in at something like £8.8 and is still in debt, something
to the tune of £6.6 million. These points might be cheap
points and they are not points for you to make any ruling in relation
to. All we are saying is we would urge the Committee to look at
AP3 prudently and with prudence, we would say, this should result
in a proper continuous assessment of whether these costs are necessary
costs and whether or not there should be a complete reassessment
of the whole thing.
21373. Chairman: That is clarity because
we have got where you want us to go, I just find it difficult
to understand why we are going station by station, area by area,
building by building. We accept the argument, you have made us
very well aware of it, is that the only area you want to visit
or do you want to amend the Bill or do you want to set AP3 aside
or what?
21374. Mr Levaggi: Sir, in my submission,
one has to go through this station by station. To some extent,
the point has been made that you have been directed by the House
to include the stations, they have been set, and let us say it
is accepted that those stations are set in stone, fine, but even
if the stations are set in stone, we want to be able to persuade
on a station-by-station basis that a financial assessment should
still be made as to whether or not this route through these stations
could be done in a better more cost-effective way and that is
the point we are trying to make.
21375. Chairman: The line of route has
been set, we have been given that and we have been given the stations
on that. If there is any variation of that, it is slight.
21376. Mr Levaggi: Sir, my learned friend,
David Elvin, wrote to you and very helpfully, in my view, set
up the direction, so this is the basis of what has been set for
you to consider. It is set out to you in the letter dated 23 February.
You have seen this and you have responded to it but for ease of
reference, let me read to you the direction: "In applying
the practice of the House, the Select Committee treat the principle
of the Bill as including ... ... .the provision of intermediate
stations at Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon,
Liverpool Street, Whitechapel, the Isle of Dogs and Custom House".
Sir, this is the extent of the direction to you. We have quite
carefully tried to keep to that direction with our submissions.
I do not believe Mr Winbourne has suggested that any of those
stations listed in that line should be changed or altered in position.
21377. Ms Lieven: Is it helpful for me
to interject?
21378. Chairman: Yes.
21379. Ms Lieven: I was only going to
say that in my submission it is self-evident that what is happening
here is the Promotion of an alternative alignment. As Mr Elvin
said in the letter which has just been referred to, that alternative
alignment involves not just a completely new route all the way
from Paddington past Liverpool Street, it is a different route,
it is outside the limits of deviation and it is a fundamentally
different route because it is running north of Oxford Street.
It also involves what is a new station at Wigmore Street, and
a new station at Tottenham Court Road because although it still
would have the name Tottenham Court Road, it is in a completely
different location way to the north, so it is obvious it is an
alternative alignment and it is obvious that it goes to the principle
of the Bill. Further, Sir, there is the minor point which I did
point out the last time, but at the risk of being boring I will
point it out again, none of this is raised in the Petition and
none of it involves a direct effect upon the residents of Mayfair.
In my submission, the Committee would be perfectly justified in
simply saying that they have heard most of this material before,
they believe it goes to the principle of the Bill and they are
not going to hear it anymore.
18 Committee Ref: A230, Revised `Planning Balance
Sheet' covering broad brush comparisons between Crossrail and
CNIR to include engineering costs, environmental, valuation, compensation
and disturbance issues following AP3 (WESTCC-AP3-27-05-047). Back
|
