Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7480
- 7499)
7480. MR CARRIER: Transport for London
originally estimated that there would be approximately 20 million
journeys across the Thames Gateway Bridge annually but this was
reduced to 18.3 million as a result of its revised traffic modelling.
Following on from the lead by my Lord Chairman, the source of
that figure is in Exhibit 13.[73]74
7481. In the Thames Gateway Bridge Inquiry Report
to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
and the Secretary of State for Transport, the inspector said:
"The case for the Thames Gateway Bridge has been assessed
without Crossrail, but sensitivity tests assuming that both the
Thames Gateway Bridge and Crossrail are built have also been covered
in the evidence in support of the Thames Gateway Bridge scheme.
Crossrail is presently planned to terminate at Abbey Wood Railway
Station. The GWT is also intended to terminate there. Abbey Wood
Station lies close to Harrow Manorway/Knee Hill corridor, where
there is concern amongst objectors as to the impact the Thames
Gateway Bridge scheme would have on congestion. I share the concern
of the objectors that there is no means of assessing the overall
effect of these different and separately considered elements of
what is put forward as a package of measures to improve accessibility
and public transport with a view to achieving regeneration."
Please see Exhibit 14 for that particular quote.[74]75
7482. The inspector also said: "The transport
assessment for Crossrail takes no account of the traffic arising
from the Thames Gateway Bridge that would use Harrow Manorway.
Without Crossrail, congestion in Harrow Manorway would increase
as a result of the scheme and its associated mitigation measures,
and the Crossrail transport assessment finds that Crossrail would
increase traffic further, there and on nearby roads. It seems
to me that this would worsen traffic conditions there to an extent
that has not so far been considered." Please see Exhibit
17 in that respect.[75]76
7483. In the fifth sentence of paragraph 8532
of the minutes of evidence of the Select Committee in the House
of Commons on the Crossrail Bill, Day 32, Tuesday 16 May 2006,
please see Exhibit 15.[76]77
Mr Elvin said in regard to entry 153, that was the one mentioned
earlier on, in the Register of Undertakings and Assurances: "Can
I make it clear that in offering that undertaking it is anticipated
that those discussions will be against the background of the transport
system as it is and with regard to other future developments in
the transport system, such as the Thames Gateway which only finished
at inquiry on 6 May. So it will be against the background of both
planned and existing highway measures".
7484. Notwithstanding the assurance given to
Bexley Council, please see Exhibit 16, in paragraph 15 of its
current Petition it is still seeking assurances that all three
schemes have been considered comprehensively, their cumulative
impacts as a whole modelled properly and that necessary works
to mitigate the combined impact have been or will be drawn up
as part of the Crossrail scheme.[77]78
I am conscious of the fact that it has been mentioned this very
day, or just before today, that further assurances have been given
to Bexley Council.
7485. Turning to paragraphs 5(5) and 5(6) of
my Petition and Exhibit 4, the report of Mouchel Parkman on the
Highway Impact of Crossrail, which was commissioned by Greenwich
Council to undertake an independent preliminary assessment to
establish what works to highways the Promoters should reasonably
be asked to underwrite, this report was firstly mentioned in the
second sentence of paragraph 7954 of the minutes of evidence of
the Select Committee in the House of Commons on the Crossrail
Bill, Day 30, Wednesday 10 May 2006. Please see Exhibit 18.[78]79
Mouchel Parkman now refers to itself as Mouchel.
7486. CHAIRMAN: So be it. You go ahead,
we understand.
7487. MR CARRIER: Mouchel's representative
was here today with Bexley Council. If Mouchel's website is to
be believed, Mouchel is one of the UK's largest providers of consulting
and business services in the highways sector. It works with local
and regional highways authorities throughout the UK and Ireland
to provide the planning, design, operations and maintenance services.
It has longstanding relationships with TfL and many London and
metropolitan boroughs, county councils and unitary councils up
and down the country, and also provides a combination of consultancy,
business and technological services in the rail sector, working
predominantly with Network Rail and London Underground.
7488. Bexley Council has advised me that this
report was prepared to support Greenwich's case for a station
at Woolwich and focuses on capacity restraints around the station.
Since that report a new Crossrail station at Woolwich has been
accepted and I have noted that in the fifth sentence of paragraph
7955 of the minutes of evidence of the Select Committee in the
House of Commons on the Crossrail Bill, Day 30, Wednesday 10 May.
7489. CHAIRMAN: You do not need to read
out all the references, just tell us what Mr Chard said.
7490. MR CARRIER: Mr Chard, Greenwich
Council's Principal Planner (Transport) said: "We also understand
the Promoters' estimate that, if a Woolwich station is included
in the project, then about 25 per cent of potential passengers
at Abbey Wood could transfer to Woolwich, and possibly it might
be more with appropriate highway management and new bus services.
The required highway works would then be less, hence one of the
financial benefits of a Woolwich Crossrail station would be cost
savings to the Promoters at Abbey Wood." The Promoter, in
its response to my Petition, has stated that Mouchel's report
was referred to but not used as evidence during the House of Commons
Select Committee and that the London Borough of Greenwich has
not adopted the report or its recommendations. As regards its
use as evidence a draft thereof was certainly the subject of cross-examination
by counsel for the Promoter as can be seen from paragraphs 7997
to 8017, inclusive of the Minutes of Evidence—
7491. CHAIRMAN: You do not need to read
out all the references, Mr Carrier.
7492. MR CARRIER: I am sorry, my Lord.
I confess that I do not know whether the Greenwich Council adopted
the report or its recommendations. I was, of course, heartened
to learn of the inclusion of Woolwich as a Crossrail station but
that good thing does not dispel my concerns regarding the transport
issues. I am not in a position to challenge Mr Chard's understanding
that the Promoter has estimated that 25 per cent of potential
passengers at Abbey Wood could transfer to Woolwich, and possibly
it might be more with appropriate highway management and new bus
services. However, unless the report of Mouchel is not considered
to reflect the true situation I am not convinced that a reduction
by one quarter or thereabouts can reverse the Greenwich Council's
view, nor Mouchel's, that the effect of a Crossrail station would
be to overload the adjacent highway network—please see the
fourth bullet point from the bottom of page 20 of that report.
7493. In response, also, the Promoter has said
that the overall level of mitigation required should be relatively
minor and it was not expected that mitigation measures will extend
to the major highway works, and, secondly, that the Promoter does
not agree that Crossrail will have a colossal traffic and environmental
impact on the road network and the provision of a station at Woolwich
would reduce its impacts even further.
7494. Though, in the Promoter's response, it
is stated: "Whilst the Promoter agrees that the cumulative
impacts of projects need to be understood and mitigated appropriately,
we believe that the potential measures required to mitigate Crossrail
impacts would not be of a sufficient scale to justify the delays
you propose." Unless I am interpreting the Promoter's response
incorrectly, it does not appear to address the cumulative impacts
of the three projects.
7495. I have cited in paragraph 5(5) of my Petition
the reason why the overall level of mitigation would not be relatively
minor. Then one only has to read the report of Mouchel and consider
the cumulative impacts of the projects that I have described in
order to come to the conclusion that the Promoter's view that
Crossrail will not have a colossal traffic and environmental impact
is not well founded.
7496. Adverting to paragraph 5(7) of my Petition,
Knee Hill can be identified on exhibit 9, the map of the area,
just below the red circle (it follows on from Harrow Manorway
after the roundabout).[79]80
As I have stated, Bostall Woods are in the London Borough of Greenwich.
Lesnes Abbey Woods are in the London Borough of Bexley. Exhibit
21, provided by the Woodland Trust, shows ancient woodland in
blue and brown and secondary woodland in green.[80]81
Both woods are part of a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature
Conservation (SMI 15) in the classification system devised by
the London Ecology Unit. The successor to that Unit is the Mayor's
Biodiversity Team.
7497. Exhibit 22 is an email dated 13 March
from the Mayor's Principal Policy Officer (Biodiversity) to me,
attached to which is a map showing the current boundary of the
SMI and a copy of the current site description from its database.[81]82
In the Thames Gateway Bridge Inquiry Report the Inspector said:
"I have indicated above my concern that Knee Hill is not
really suitable to take additional traffic. I accept that TfL
would be able to limit total traffic over the bridge by tolling,
but I cannot see that they would be able to influence by tolling
what route was taken by traffic which had crossed the bridge.
It remains a matter of concern to me that additional traffic would
use Knee Hill if the bridge were built. Having said that, if Knee
Hill were not widened, then I do not consider that the additional
traffic from the proposal would do any substantial damage to the
SMI. If Knee Hill were to be widened, it clearly would."[82]83
7498. The Inspector also said: "I conclude
that, so long as Knee Hill is not widened, the extent to which
the scheme would be likely to have an impact on the local flora
and fauna and conservation sites is limited. It would be much
more substantial if Knee Hill needed to be widened."[83]84
I understand that, at this point in time, Knee Hill does not feature
in any way whatsoever in the Promoter's plans for the development
of the road network in the local area. Of course, no one knows
yet what proposals will be promulgated when there is available
a full Transport Impact Assessment with reliable assumptions and
traffic figures.
7499. In paragraph 5(4) of my Petition I said
that the traffic and environmental impacts of the Thames Gateway
Bridge and Crossrail on the London Borough of Bexley are as great
if not greater than any authority. That statement derives from
a number of sources which I shall now mention: in paragraph 7.39
of a report on the Thames Gateway Bridge to the Greenwich Council's
Planning Board on 14 December 2004 there is a view expressed by
the Bexley Council that traffic and environmental impacts on Bexley
are as great if not greater than any other authority.[84]85
In paragraph 11—
73 74 Committee Ref: A38, Para. 9.82, The Thames Gateway
Bridge Inquiry (BEXYLB-4_05-064) Back
74
75 Committee Ref: A38, Para. 9.123 & 9.124, The Thames Gateway
Bridge Inquiry (BEXYLB-4_05-065) Back
75
76 Committee Ref: A38, Para. 9.183, The Thames Gateway Bridge
Inquiry (BEXYLB-4_05-068) Back
76
77 Oral evidence taken before the House of Commons Select Committee
on the Crossrail Bill on 16 May 2006, HC (2006-07) 235-III, Para
8532 [Mr Elvin] (BEXYLB-4_05-066) Back
77
78 Committee Ref: A38, Crossrail Register of Undertakings and
Assurances No. 153 (BEXYLB-4_05-067) Back
78
79 Oral evidence taken before the House of Commons Select Committee
on the Crossrail Bill on 10 May 2006, HC (2006-07) 235-III, Paras
7954, 7955, 7957 (BEXYLB-4_05-069, -071, and -073) Back
79
80 Committee Ref: A38, Multimap of Abbey Wood (BEXYLB-4_05-060) Back
80
81 Committee Ref: A38, Woodland Trust map of Abbey Wood (BEXYLB-4_05-077) Back
81
82 Committee Ref: A38, Correspondence from the Mayor's Principal
Policy Officer (Biodiversity) to Mr Roy Carrier, 13 March 2008
(BEXYLB-4_05-078) Back
82
83 Committee Ref: A38, Para. 9.250, The Thames Gateway Bridge
Inquiry (BEXYLB-4_05-081) Back
83
84 Committee Ref: A38, Para. 9.256, The Thames Gateway Bridge
Inquiry (BEXYLB-4_05-082) Back
84
85 Committee Ref: A38, Para. 7.39, A Report on the Thames Gateway
Bridge, Greenwich Council Planning Board, 14 December 2004 (BEXYLB-4_05-083) Back
| 
