Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21380
- 21399)
21380. Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. Could we just have that map back up? I am trying to be
helpful, but Mr Levaggi, could you explain to me why that is not
a different route?[19]
21381. Mr Levaggi: Sir, you are looking
at the rather obvious large bulge at the top, which makes it look
as if it is a different route, but one has to address where the
stations are.
21382. Chairman: It is a different place
on the map because it comes from a different position. It is a
different route.
21383. Mr Levaggi: Sir, in my submission,
once again, the stations have perhaps been set, but how you get
between station and station has not been set. The location of
the stations, we say, is—
21384. Chairman: I understand how you
trying to hang in there, at the moment, but it does not relate
to AP3 and it was not included in the Petition.
21385. Mr Levaggi: Sir, it was included
in the Petition because the concern we raise in paragraphs 8,
9 and 10 is one on costs. Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the Petition
are drafted in a general way, that is accepted, but it relates
to costs. We say, on the Promoter's own case, this is half a billion
pounds.[20]
21386. Chairman: I fully understand that.
Can I just say I have already accepted that you have made a legal
argument to us on the matter of costs, but it was not included
in your Petition and AP3, and the matters are not related to matters
connected with Mayfair. Will you explain to me how that is in
relation to AP3?
21387. Mr Levaggi: Sir, it does relate
to the Petitioners. I would say the issue of costs relates to
any inhabitant of London—and, arguably, the country. So
it is from that perspective—
21388. Chairman: I accept you have made
a case in respect of that. What I am saying is this is a new route.
It is a different alignment entirely. It is very clear from your
own mouth that it is a different route. The station is a different
station and it does not apply to the matters which we are dealing
with in this hearing, other than the broad brush approach you
put down in relation to the cross-examination. What I am perfectly
willing to do is to stick with that argument, which you can go
on making, but I really do not want to revisit—we have already
revisited it in previous hearings—the whole of this realignment.
We are dealing now only with matters absolutely applicable to
AP3, and I am not really willing to go back to this. Members have
made it clear to me in the short recess we have had that they
do not want to revisit it either. If you want to keep on on financial
costings you are perfectly able to do so, but as I say, we have
heard the arguments.
21389. Mr Levaggi: Can I make one very
short final submission? It is almost impossible to discuss the
issue of costs unless one does it in a comparative way. In relation
to any valuation issue before any court one has to look at comparative
evidence. It is an essential point of any valuation process. I
am buying a property and a survey comes back and throws something
else up which adds to the cost of my purchase. I am bound to look
at comparative properties to see whether or not it is still a
good idea for me to complete this transaction. All we are saying,
sir, in relation to the costings of AP3, the current alignment,
the current Bill, is that to have any proper understanding of
whether or not this is a good idea, from the point of view of
the public purse, etc, to some extent one does have to consider
comparatives.
21390. Chairman: I am grateful for that.
As I say, we have heard your argument on the financial aspects
of it and take note of that. Are you going to proceed any farther?
21391. Mr Levaggi: Sir, we are almost
there, actually. We were just finishing off paragraph 9, which
is Liverpool Street.
(Mr Winbourne) Yes. Can I say, before you go
ahead, if the Chairman will allow, it is a different route—inserting
your words, sir, not accepting my view—it looks longer at
that point, but if you look at the pink on my plan they are routing—and
there is a long working tunnel as well which is not shown on theirs,
which goes out to Allen Gardens ending in the East End—if
you take the entirety of their route, it is, give or take, nearly
twice as long in colouring terms overall; it is nearly twice the
tunnel across London that I am suggesting. I am suggesting half;
what is more, probably cut-and-cover for a lot of it. Now, that
is an enormous difference in savings terms. Since you accepted
the savings point I did want to make that point. That is the purpose
of this plan; it shows existing railway stock in terms of track;
it shows a recycling of a bit of the Docklands Railway, which
has taken heavy rail tracks since 1967 and, for peanuts, can be
put back to heavy rail—that is the point—and that
is what the light blue on the plan shows, and I do not think the
Committee has had put before it a proper plan of London railways
before, sir.
21392. Chairman: Can I just remind you
that in relation to this route we have had evidence on that and
I think you are aware of that and you have referred to Mr Schabas'
evidence earlier on. Indeed, Mr Schabas himself referred to some
aspects, so we have heard this in much earlier sessions and we
have dealt with it.
21393. Mr Levaggi: Perhaps, in conclusion,
sir, in relation to paragraphs 11 to 15, do you have any particular
points you would like to make, Mr Winbourne?[21]
(Mr Winbourne) Keeping it as short
as possible, Stratford station, no change. As far as I am concerned,
a perfectly good station—no arguments—except that
I have heard arguments and I have been present when Shenfield
people said you did not need to go to Shenfield. I am inclined
to agree with them—I would go to Barking. These are locations
which Crossrail has considered in the past and chopped and changed.
They keep moving the goalposts in these outer routes. The difference
is I would go to Stansted, and that is why I am showing the route
in green via Lea Bridge out to Stansted. That is the only reason
for it. It is accessible from Stratford. Number 12: that is the
only place where I have trouble with the intermediate station
point, and I plead guilty to that, sir, because I would branch
off to Whitechapel as distinct from the word strictly intermediate.
I am not trying to suggest it is. The reason is because of the
huge saving of tunnelling disruption and everything else in the
East End which was thrown out on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link
and is still in on Crossrail. That is number 12. I do say to go
to Whitechapel simply go underneath the East London Line. If you
want to go on from there you can. On the Whitechapel/Crossrail
station, I think it was Mr Schabas who said to me it was about
£400 million. I pointed out that the station under Vallance
Road—or the platforms under Vallance Road, because I am
doing my own case an injustice, the station entrance is all staying
in the same place—the platforms under Vallance Road would
not be a problem, and what is more there are artefacts in St Mary's.
Every rail buff knows of them, a closed down station in 1939;
there is a curve that goes south-east and you could, in fact,
improve on Whitechapel station by doing that. Number 14, Whitechapel
to Canary Wharf. This is really the kingpin on the cost. It is
unnecessary miles and miles of expensive and disruptive tunnelling
under the East End, which was rejected for the Channel Tunnel
Rail Link, and that is why the route was moved to go under the
North London railway to get to St Pancras. The previous Select
Committee—I think it was actually changed before they got
in front of the Select Committee procedure because they could
see trouble coming, but it was thrown out because of an outcry
in the East End. We have here virtually a recycling of that cast
route at an enormous cost, which can be dealt with much more simply
by using the assets which the railway industry has and which the
Mayor of London and DLR have by simply recycling the heavy rail
route to Poplar/Canary Wharf which could have been used for the
Docklands Light Railway since 1967. If you revert back to heavy
rail or share it with the Tube—you can have joint working,
there are various ways in which it can be done—you would
have more than one line to Canary Wharf and it would cost tuppence
ha'penny compared to what they are proposing to spend. The track
bed is there, it is in use for the DLR, and that is what the Victorians
would have done in a trice, if they had been given the choice.
They chopped and changed their railways all the time; they were
not frightened of doing so. Last, but by no means least, the only
point I would make is there has been some controversy in the papers
and so on about the Woolwich station. I believe that it has been
caused by the taking of the position of the Woolwich station for
the Docklands Light Railway. I think that is what has caused the
extra cost. I am not absolutely sure of this but I do refer back
to what I have said before in evidence, it is in that meeting
of December 2001: if you put four tracks under the river at Woolwich,
not two, the same route as theirs—there is no argument about
routing here—you have got a proper railway right across
the east side of London. You can have passengers, freight, fast
and slow. That is the end of the submission, sir.
21394. Ms Lieven: I am certainly not
going to cross-examine, sir, no. Nor is Mr Mould, in case you
were wondering!
21395. Chairman: Thank you, Mr Winbourne.
(Mr Winbourne) They did not cross-examine me
for either point.
21396. Chairman: It is their prerogative.
The witness withdrew
21397. Ms Lieven: Sir, I was not intending
to call Mr Berryman, unless you feel the need, for this reason:
as I have already submitted, this case goes to the alternative
alignment, which is, in my submission, contrary to the principle
of the Bill. The issues raised are about the cost estimate. The
point that Mr Levaggi did not seem to understand is that the cost
estimate is a public document; it is in the public domain, produced
by the Secretary of State to Parliament, and we find it impossible
to see how that can properly form the ground for a Petition because,
in effect, what is being said is that any council taxpayer in
London can petition against the Bill on the grounds that they
might have to pay the costs of Crossrail, or some proportion of
it. Sir, it is well-established that that type of interest does
not give rise to a Petition; a Petitioner has to be directly affected
by a proposal. We are not suggesting the Residents' Association
of Mayfair are not directly affected but that there has not been
a single word today about the direct impact on them; it has all
been about the alternative alignment. So, in my submission, the
Committee just does not have to worry about the alternative alignment,
and the cost of it, at all.
21398. So far as the detailed points on each
station are concerned, on every single station that is raised
in this document of Mr Winbourne's the Committee has heard evidence.
It has heard our justification for why we are proposing the stations
where they are. Now, sir, I could call Mr Berryman either just
to deal with the Wigmore Street alignment or to go through each
station and justify each station again, but I simply cannot see
that that is going to assist the Committee in its deliberations.
21399. Chairman: We have already had
that.
19 Committee Ref: A230, Crossrail Northern Interchange
Route (`CNIR')-Central London Core Section (Diagram Map B) (WESTCC-AP3-27-05-049). Back
20
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
21
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-AP3-27-05-048). Back
|
