Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7460
7460. CHAIRMAN: There was great objection
to that, and this is the alternative route.
7461. MS LIEVEN: I think in broad terms,
my Lord, and I have to say I can only speak in broad terms, that
follows my understanding. There is a strong justification for
the Thames Gateway Bridge in terms of the Thames Gateway proposals,
so it may be that this bridge is more focused around the regeneration
of the south side of the Thames rather than being seen so much
as a strategic route.
7462. CHAIRMAN: One thing is for sure,
you cannot rely on the North Woolwich Ferry.
7463. MS LIEVEN: I certainly would not
choose to do so, no.
7464. CHAIRMAN: I am sure you can rely
on it but it is not very quick.
7465. MS LIEVEN: No. I suspect you also
do not want to rely all the time on the Blackwall Tunnel. My Lord,
that is just a little bit of background. Can I say I do have a
transport witness here in the form of Mr Anderson, who gave extensive
evidence in the House of Commons. It probably will not be necessary
to hear from him.
7466. CHAIRMAN: Let us hear from you,
Mr Carrier, because that is the setting and I think we now understand
what it is all about.
7467. MR CARRIER: Thank you, my Lord.
My Lady, my Lords, first I must apologise for a typing error in
my Petition. There are two paragraphs numbered 5(15). The second
of these two paragraphs should, of course, be numbered 5(16).
7468. CHAIRMAN: I think we will forgive
7469. MR CARRIER: It gets worse, I am
afraid. In regard to paragraph 5(5) of my Petition I made an erroneous
and misleading statement. I said that if the Thames Gateway Bridge
were to go ahead there should be added £14.5 million in respect
of works within the London Borough of Bexley, plus a contingency
sum of £6.2 million. What I should have said was that if
the Thames Gateway Bridge were to go ahead, Transport for London
would provide £1.83 million for mitigation in Harrow Manorway
and £14.5 million (to meet the costs of surveys, monitoring
and highway and traffic mitigation measures agreed to be necessary)
for measures elsewhere which it could foresee then would or might
become necessary. Recognising the uncertainty, Transport for London
included a contingency of between £5.6 million and £6.7
million in this figure for measures arising from the scheme that
they had not foreseen. Falsely, I in effect said that the £14.5
million had been set aside in respect of works within the London
Borough of Bexley. I must apologise again and appreciate that
such carelessness can only undermine my credibility. The precise
position is set out in paragraph 9.325 of the Thames Gateway Bridge
inspector's report, Exhibit 35.68
My Lord, there are a number of exhibits and from my lack of experience
in this I do not know how long you want to look at the exhibits
or shall I continue?
7470. CHAIRMAN: We have not had a chance
even to look at them. If you want us to have a look, perhaps it
would be easier to draw our attention to particular bits and leave
us to read the whole thing because that might take a while.
7471. MR CARRIER: Thank you, my Lord.
That summarises the position. I should have said that 14.5 million
had been set aside in respect of works within the London Borough
of Bexley. That sets out the correct position.
7472. The purpose of my Petition is to object
to the fact that proposals for the development of the road network
in the local area appear to be non-existent. In case it may be
helpful, Exhibit 9 is a map of that area.
7473. CHAIRMAN: Tell me again the paragraph
of the inspector's report you are referring to?
7474. MR CARRIER: Paragraph 9.325. Exhibit
9 is a map of that area. Another one came up on the screen and
I thought my exhibit was wrong. The red circle denotes Abbey Wood
Station, which I understand will be in operation by 2017 if the
Bill receives Royal Assent.69
Exhibit 10 shows respectively an overview and an area overview.
The location of Abbey Wood Station is shown by a red circle.70
7475. As I have stated in my Petition, there
are two other public transport projects scheduled to take place
in the local area. One is the Greenwich Waterfront Transit. Transport
for London is planning to run a bus-based rapid transit system
between Abbey Wood and Greenwich town centre via Woolwich and
North Greenwich (the O2). The Greenwich Council has approved in
principle Phase 1 of the route: a main route between Abbey Wood
Station and Woolwich, also an interim route running on existing
roads to North Greenwich.
7476. Much of the route will benefit from new
dedicated bus lanes and priority over general traffic. The service
will interchange with London Underground, DLR and National Rail.
TfL ran a public consultation on Phase 1 from 12 November until
11 January 2008. The first service from North Greenwich Station
to Abbey Wood would start in 2011. TfL does not have funding for
other sections of the route yet. Exhibit 11 is a map of the GWT.71
7477. The other public transport project is
the Thames Gateway Bridge. The proposed new bridge will provide
a new crossing of the River Thames between Beckton and Thamesmead,
with a view to reducing the barrier to the movement of people
and goods that is formed by the river. The project seeks to improve
accessibility to and within the Thames Gateway area in order to
support the regeneration of East London. It would provide a four
lane dual carriageway road (with two lanes in each direction)
for general highway traffic between the A13/A406 junction at Beckton
and the A2016 in Thamesmead. In addition, there would be two segregated
public transport lanes across the Thames Gateway Bridge and on
sections of the approach roads to the north and south, and pedestrian
and cycle routes would also be provided. Exhibit 26 is a map which
identifies the route of the Thames Gateway Bridge with a black
The Committee has already seen another map provided by Transport
for London of the bridge.
7478. The total project funding requirement
is estimated to be around £641 million. For the source of
that figure, please see Exhibit 12.73
7479. CHAIRMAN: We can read that.
67 68 Committee Ref: A38, Para. 9.325, The Thames Gateway
Bridge Inquiry (BEXYLB-4_05-100) Back
69 Committee Ref: A38, Multimap of Abbey Wood (BEXYLB-4_05-060) Back
70 Committee Ref: A38, Multimap overview and area overview of
Abbey Wood (BEXYLB-4_05-061) Back
71 Committee Ref: A38, Greenwich Waterfront Transit Map (BEXYLB-4_05-062) Back
72 Committee Ref: A38, Indicative map of the Thames Gateway Bridge
73 Committee Ref: A38, Para. 3.1.4, Funding Proof of Evidence,
The Thames Gateway Bridge Inquiry (BEXYLB-4_05-063) Back