Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7080
- 7099)
7080. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and I am going to
come back to your proposed amendment a little bit later.
7081. MR CAMERON: If we go on, page 59
and following are Crossrail's reasons for not terminating at Ebbsfleet,
but terminating at Abbey Wood, and I think I can summarise that
by saying that service unreliability was the reason given.[37]38
If we go on to page 65, the solution for that is, to use the expression,
a four-track between Slade Green and Dartford.[38]39
7082. CHAIRMAN: I do not think we need
to go into this either because we cannot do anything about it,
you see, Mr Cameron.
7083. MR CAMERON: No, but the reason
for putting it in, if I can explain it, is to identify why the
Promoters say they have stopped at Abbey Wood and to identify
that the Promoters acknowledge that there is a solution.
7084. CHAIRMAN: I do not think there
is any dispute about it. It is timing and cost, is it not?
7085. MR CAMERON: It is. Can we then
go on to the cost point. If you go on to page 81, we have got
the cost:benefit analysis. I think these tables were produced
by somebody other than you. Is that right, Mr Donovan?
(Mr Donovan)
That is correct.
7086. But, because there is not a substantive
dispute as to this, you produced them?
(Mr Donovan) Yes.
7087. MR CAMERON: What I would like you
to go to first, without going through all these tables—
7088. CHAIRMAN: I do not think you need
go through all these tables, Mr Cameron. This would be a Transport
and Works Act Order and they will be relevant to that.
7089. MR CAMERON: My Lord, yes. It goes
to only one point which is the point made by Lord Young about
cost, that there is of course a relationship between benefit and
cost. Yes, it might cost £500 million or so at output values,
but one has to relate that to the benefits and that there is here
a positive benefit:cost ratio which exceeds that for the project
as a whole, and that is the point.
7090. CHAIRMAN: But you have not given
us the figures.
7091. MR CAMERON: We have, my Lord.
7092. CHAIRMAN: I do not think you have.
7093. MR CAMERON: Well, can I turn to
page 91 which is a summary table and this table indicates the
tables that precede it, so you have got the whole scheme at 1.41:1.[39]40
Then, at the time of the Montague Report, with Ebbsfleet, as set
out in the Montague Report, extending from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet,
that was without the four-tracking, the incremental benefit was
at a very high level of 3.21:1. Then a revised economic appraisal
of Crossrail. We put in the Woolwich point to give the Committee
an indication of the benefit:cost ratio for Woolwich if the station
was added, and then Bexley Council's assessment of incremental
benefit extending from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet, and the figures
are better than for the scheme as a whole, and the basis on which
we have arrived at those figures are on page 89.[40]41
They are different figures to the ones produced by the Promoters
in their exhibits because the Promoters figures are output values
so it is cost anticipated at the time they would be incurred,
whereas our figures here are net present values, but we have applied
net present values to cost and to benefits, and that is how the
benefit:cost ratio has been arrived at.
7094. CHAIRMAN: Mr Donovan, the Bexley
Council's assessment is based upon the extension of Crossrail
from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet when?
(Mr Donovan)
As part of the scheme—
7095. CHAIRMAN: No; when, please? When?
7096. MR CAMERON: Would you like me to
give the answer, because I have just asked the person who did
the calculation?
7097. CHAIRMAN: All right.
7098. MR CAMERON: It was calculated at
the time of opening, so it is not calculated at the time of promoting
a Transport and Works Act Order. The reason for that was it was
calculated for the proceedings before the other House and at that
stage we were asking for it to be added into the scheme at that
time, but because it is a net present value, if it goes further
forward in time or happens later, the net present value will reduce.
7099. CHAIRMAN: Yes. That is why I want
to know the timescale.
37 38 Committee Ref: A35, CLRL reason for terminating
at Abbey Wood (1) (BEXYLB-44_05A-059) Back
38
39 Committee Ref: A35, CLRL reason for terminating at Abbey Wood
(7) (BEXYLB-44_05A-065) Back
39
40 Committee Ref: A35, Comparison of Cost/Benefit Ratios (BEXYLB-44_05A-091) Back
40
41 Committee Ref: A35, The Business Case for Ebbsfleet (8) (BEXYLB-44_05A-089) Back
| 
