Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7580
- 7599)
7580. In that case the Abbey Wood area would
be relevant.
(Mr Anderson) Do you mean via the Thames
Gateway Bridge?
7581. CHAIRMAN: The traffic would go
past Abbey Wood, or could do.
7582. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: But Ebbsfleet
is such an attractive transit point for anybody coming out of
Kent and, as this Bridge will create, out of south Essex as well
that you are creating a movement of two new sources of traffic
which I do not think are in your calculation.
(Mr Anderson)
My Lord, I will have to check on that specific point. Certainly
the provision of CTRL was in our overall assessment.
7583. MS LIEVEN: Just to try and understand
how this is likely to work, in terms of traffic from north of
the river that wanted to get on to CTRL International, would it
be more sensible for them to go across Thames Gateway Bridge and
fight their way down through south-east London or would they be
more likely simply to go to Stratford?
(Mr Anderson) They could go to Stratford. If they were further
east and they wanted to drive they could use the Dartford Crossing,
of course.
7584. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: If I
was still living in Blackheath it would be a no-brainer. I would
go straight down the A2 and off to Ebbsfleet, park the car there
and to hell with it, and that is what I think everybody else coming
out of south London will do.
7585. MS LIEVEN: Just to take that particular
traffic movement, if you lived in Blackheath and you drove down
the A2, would you have any material impact on traffic around Abbey
Wood?
(Mr Anderson) No. As I said, if previously
some people were accessing Abbey Wood itself to get into central
London and now decided to drive to Ebbsfleet there might be a
minor reduction, but I would not regard it as significant.
7586. MS LIEVEN: We will produce a short
note on this, my Lords.
7587. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
7588. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: In
your previous experience with BAA you will know that projected
growth is in the order of about 45 per cent through to about 2020
of the amount of traffic being handled in this area. What is the
projected growth in traffic on a year-by-year basis from now through
to 2017 in this area? Presumably you will have taken that into
account?
(Mr Anderson)
Yes, in terms of the background road traffic the assumption we
had I think was 11 per cent, and that is what we assumed prior
to the addition of Crossrail.
7589. That is 11 per cent over a period of nine
years?
(Mr Anderson) Yes.
7590. I was amazed when you said you did not
think it would have any real impact, unless I misheard, on the
surrounding area. Surely it must increase the number of people?
If we get more people going into the station to travel it must
increase the number of people who are migrating there, accepting
some will be on buses, but I would have thought there would be
a growth in cars as people drop off.
(Mr Anderson) Yes. Notwithstanding the
assessment, there will be a significant increase in that type
of movement. What we said through the undertakings is that we
will look at the appropriate measures needed to accommodate that
traffic, both at the station itself and, possibly, in the local
area. That is really the work we will now do in the context of
the undertaking.
7591. Probably for the benefit of the Petitioner,
additionally what kind of work would you be doing then, beyond
just in the station?
(Mr Anderson) I think it would be minor
highway improvements. By that I mean looking at the operation
of junctions, possibly some remarking of junction approaches—the
sorts of things that we generally see on urban roads throughout
London.
7592. When would you be doing that kind of work?
It will be well on.
(Mr Anderson) It would be well on. As
counsel has already indicated, given that the opening date is
2017 and the nature of the works we are talking about probably
would not have a long lead time, there is plenty of time to implement
those prior to the operation of Crossrail.
7593. Of course, traffic management policies
can change substantially between now and then. If we had, for
example, road charging, that could completely transform what was
happening, could it not? This is all academic then.
(Mr Anderson) Absolutely. I think all
the more reason to work closely with the two boroughs, and indeed
TfL, in developing the proposals.
7594. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Thank
you.
7595. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, you said you
would give us a note, and I think that would be very helpful,
and Mr Carrier ought to have it. It will take account, I think,
of what you did originally, what is being added by the Gateway
Bridge, what is being added by the tramway (no doubt traffic growth
is built into it anyway but just check that) and Lord James's
point about people who might be heading for Ebbsfleet to get on
to the Eurostar.
7596. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, can I make
it clear, what we can do is provide a note that covers the degree
to which we took into account the Thames Gateway Bridge and the
tramway, and a brief summary of the assumptions that were made
about those projects. We cannot provide a note as to what the
impact of those projects will be, because that is precisely the
work that we are going to undertake over the next few months and
years with the boroughs. We can give you a factual note on what
assumptions we took into account in the work that went into the
Environmental Statement. We cannot, as it were, give the answers
to the work we are going to do with Bexley because that is in
the future.
7597. CHAIRMAN: No, but you may be able
to make assumptions about the new additions.
7598. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I would resist
very strongly trying to do that in relation to those other projects.
Take the example of the bridge, which I know more about. The traffic
assumptions about the bridge are hotly contested between TfL,
who are the Promoters, and the objectors, and they are highly,
as I understand it (and I should say I am not instructed on the
bridge I am just taking this from the Inspector's report), sensitive
to issues around tolling, for instance, and what levels of toll
will be set. I do not think it is at all appropriate that we get
into that debate because it is a matter that is before the Secretary
of State and before an independent Inspector. What we can do is
set out a factual document that explains on what basis we have
drawn up our figures and what kind of things we believe we will
be discussing with the two highway authorities in question. However,
to get into a speculation as to what the traffic may be from both
the bridge and the Transit would, in my submission, be a highly
dangerous place to go, and quite unnecessary given that this is
exactly what is intended to be covered by the undertaking.
7599. CHAIRMAN: Yes. You start off with
the Environmental Statement and then you add to it, without quantifying
"since when the following matters have arisen which will
have to be taken into account in their traffic effect". Is
that right?
| 
