Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7460 - 7479)

  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 you that!

  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.[67]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.[68]69 Exhibit 10 shows respectively an overview and an area overview. The location of Abbey Wood Station is shown by a red circle.[69]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.[70]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 broken line.[71]72 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.[72]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

68   69 Committee Ref: A38, Multimap of Abbey Wood (BEXYLB-4_05-060) Back

69   70 Committee Ref: A38, Multimap overview and area overview of Abbey Wood (BEXYLB-4_05-061) Back

70   71 Committee Ref: A38, Greenwich Waterfront Transit Map (BEXYLB-4_05-062) Back

71   72 Committee Ref: A38, Indicative map of the Thames Gateway Bridge (BEXYLB-4_05-085) Back

72   73 Committee Ref: A38, Para. 3.1.4, Funding Proof of Evidence, The Thames Gateway Bridge Inquiry (BEXYLB-4_05-063) Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008