Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7560
- 7579)
7560. CHAIRMAN: Now everybody wants to
join in! Lord Young?
7561. MS LIEVEN: Can I point one matter
out through Mr Anderson, before we have any more questions? Mr
Anderson, I think the Committee has not to a great extent had
to look at these documents in detail but is it right that, before
we deposited the Bill, we submitted a large Environmental Statement
including two, I think, volumes of detailed traffic studies?
(Mr Anderson) That is correct. In fact,
it is four volumes, Volumes 8A, B, C, and D. What was called the
Transport Impact Assessment was submitted as part of the Environmental
Statement. There is a specific section on Abbey Wood station in
that document.
7562. BARONESS FOOKES: But you will understand
that that probably needs to be translated so that ordinary people
like Mr Carrier and me can understand it.
(Mr Anderson)
I appreciate that.
7563. CHAIRMAN: Also it would not have
taken account of the tramway or the bridge?
(Mr Anderson)
That is correct, and that is part of the reason why we have resulted
in the undertaking we now have before us, because we recognise
we need to take that work forward in conjunction with those other
projects.
7564. MS LIEVEN: Can I put up the human
part of the Environmental Statement?
7565. CHAIRMAN: Of course.
7566. MS LIEVEN: The way the Environmental
Statement worked, Mr Anderson, is that we have the detailed traffic
impact volumes, then we have that information fed into conclusions
in the Environmental Statement, and then there is also a non-technical
summary of the Environmental Statement that just sets out the
significant impact, is that right?
(Mr Anderson) Yes.
7567. What I am putting up is the page on Abbey
Wood on the permanent residual impacts on traffic and transport
so this is not the construction phase, this is the permanent impact
and the Abbey Wood section, and the heading a little bit earlier
is "Traffic and transport", and the first paragraph,
11.12.64, is about the passenger benefits, the second paragraph,
11.12.65, is about car parking, and what is the conclusion on
any other traffic and transport impacts?[4]
7568. CHAIRMAN: No, that paragraph shows
that there is going to be a substantial loss of parking spaces.
7569. MS LIEVEN: Yes, paragraph 11.12.65
is about car parking and there will be a significant loss of car
parking, but in respect of Mr Carrier's concerns that means there
will be less cars driving to park because there will be less spaces,
but then does the Environmental Statement record any significant
impact as far as the road network is concerned as a result of
Crossrail?
(Mr Anderson) No, it does not.
7570. MS LIEVEN: We can give the Committee
all the background on that if the Committee want it, but I have
gone straight to the conclusions, and I interrupted Lord Young,
I am very sorry.
7571. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: Lady
Fookes took my two-wheeled question and got there ahead of me;
as a cyclist I was interested to know not just that you are making
provision but safe provision. The other point that interests me
is we always assume a negative impact rather than a positive one
and I presume, because this is a better service, we will have
some positive impact in as much that people deciding to drive
here might not, and will use Crossrail. Can you give some estimate
of the positive benefits, not discounting the importance of assessing
what are the negative ones? I want to get a feel for the situation
in the round.
(Mr Anderson)
Yes. Although we recognise there will be local impact that might
be adverse and we have to try and deal with that, we need to put
that in the context overall that Crossrail does bring significant
benefits to those who will use it, and paragraph 11.12.64 sets
out what those benefits will be for users of Crossrail at Abbey
Wood. Generally across London we are looking at a reduction of
car use as people will transfer to the new Crossrail service,
and in some Crossrail corridors we would expect that to be as
much as 3 or 4 per cent. Generally we are looking at 1-2 per cent
reduction in car use across the Crossrail route.
7572. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: Thank
you.
7573. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Mr Anderson,
I am puzzled and perplexed by the absence of something that nobody
has said a word about so far, and that is that since St Pancras
opened and the new routings applied for the Eurostar, everything
coming out of St Pancras stops at Ebbsfleet, or seems to, and
Ebbsfleet is becoming the new Ashford as was. Now, I have used
Ashford extensively for my departures to the Continent for a long
time and I know the huge amount of early morning and all-day traffic
which crowds into the car parks there. If Ebbsfleet is now replacing
Ashford as the north Kent pick-up point for the Eurostar, how
on earth is all that traffic going to jam into Ebbsfleet? It does
not seem to have been added into the dialogues we are having at
the moment. That is the factor which is not included in this.
We are talking about the effect of Crossrail traffic but you already
have the Ashford transfer to Ebbsfleet traffic there. Nobody is
talking about this and the impact seems huge.
(Mr Anderson)
I would need to check whether we had taken specific account of
that in the assessment. We were certainly cognisant at the time
the assessment was prepared of the likely improvements arising
from CTRL. I would need to check whether we took any specific
account of the extra road traffic on our assessment. What I would
say is I would expect people who wanted to access Crossrail at
Abbey Wood travelling from the east, from the Ebbsfleet direction,
and I think this was touched on yesterday, to use a rail service
principally to do that rather than to try and drive further into
the urban area.
7574. With respect, that is fudging the issue
we are talking about this morning, because we are talking about
the concentrations of traffic created by Crossrail and, therefore,
we have to assume that the assessments you are giving relate to
Crossrail in isolation, and my point is that you start at the
disadvantage of already having imposed the Ashford traffic into
Ebbsfleet because there is nowhere else for it to go. That is
the mid Kent and south of London traffic which does not want to
go into St Pancras and which is trying to go there; it is huge
at Ashford and will be huge at Ebbsfleet. There is no room for
anything else, is my point, and I think you have a problem that
nobody has looked at.
(Mr Anderson) All I can offer to do is
perhaps check what we assumed in our assessment.
7575. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: It is
a very big question and I am not prepared to let it go without
getting a proper answer to it, and I do not think I have heard
one.
7576. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Presumably
the same applies to Maidenhead, as well.
7577. MS LIEVEN: Before you answer, can
we establish one point, because the Committee may not be as familiar
with the geography of south London and Kent as Lord James.[5]
We can see Abbey Wood and where the Thames Gateway Bridge will
be, if it is built. Ebbsfleet is well off the map, relatively
close to the M25. Is that your understanding?
(Mr Anderson) Yes.
7578. From your experience, as a traffic engineer,
can you see any reason why there would be a material impact on
traffic in the vicinity of Abbey Wood relating to Crossrail—and
I do not know how big the car parks are at Ebbsfleet but assume
they are large to serve the CTRL International—as a result
of traffic going to CTRL International?
(Mr Anderson) I cannot see that it would
be significant. There may be some impact in terms of a reduction
if some passengers are currently using the north Kent lines to
access London and are now deciding to go via St Pancras to access
their destination.
7579. CHAIRMAN: May it not have come
from the other side of the river across the new Bridge?
(Mr Anderson)
To access Ebbsfleet? It is possible, yes.
4 Committee Ref: A38, Crossrail Environmental Statement,
Volume 3 Paras. 11.12.64-65 (LINEWD-ES14-138) Back
5
London A-Z Street Atlas (SCN-20080402-004) Back
| 
