Examination of Witnesses (Questions 12860
- 12879)
12860. MR GOODMAN: Good morning. Can
we put that map up that we had earlier. We will deal with the
map shortly, but if you could just outline what your previous
involvement with Crossrail has been?
(Mr Schabas) I reviewed the Crossrail project
for the Department for Transport in 1993/1994 for a study that
was referred to in the Committee that ultimately rejected the
Bill. One of the things we did at the time was to look at alternatives,
including the northern route. We were invited by the Strategic
Rail Authority in 1999 to make suggestions for relieving congestion
on the main rail London terminals and I came up with the idea
that I guess they call the southern route along the river, suggesting
that the southern route would not affect any properties and would
serve a slightly different but probably almost as good or equally
good transport function. That was referred to; I think they call
it one of the main alternatives. Mr Berryman's initial response
was that they did not want to look at that; they did not have
time. That was in 2000. Then in 2001 I was retained by them for
eight or nine months while they produced plans. Then they got
a new Chief Executive in and summarily decided not to look at
alternatives any more. They told me the reason they rejected the
river route was because of environmental impacts of cofferdams
in the river and worksites in the royal parks. When I asked for
more information I was told in writing that they were not going
to give me any more because they did not want to engage in a long
conversation. I am sorry that I am deviating, but when I hear
what Ms Lieven says it sort of grinds a bit because I thought
the Aarhus Convention had been signed by 2002.
12861. Mr Schabas, can I ask you first of all
about the Cavendish Square route. Do you have that red dot, can
we make use of that. Can you explain what the Cavendish Square
route is?
(Mr Schabas) I have to say, I was not aware that they had
looked at a route through Cavendish Square. We asked for information
on it and were not given any, but I found out about this in the
last few months, that they did do work back in 2002 on it but
the work had not been released. This is Oxford Street, obviously
(indicating) a pretty busy road and you want to build a line from
Paddington, which is up to the top left, over to Tottenham Court
Road, which is over here to the right, and Crossrail goes south
of Oxford Street, the safeguarded route which dates from the 1988
Central London Rail Study, mostly, as I understand, because the
post office tunnel was along the north side of Oxford Street and
they wanted to miss it and they wanted to get under the royal
park so they could have a worksite, I guess, strangely. When they
revived the scheme in 2000 I said, "Why not run under the
river?" they said, "No, no, we're going to stick with
the one we've got because it's been safeguarded for 12 years and
it's all been figured out". Obviously it had not all been
figured out because lots of things keep coming up. When it was
suggested to me by the Mayfair residents, the point about at Wigmore
Street and Cavendish Square was, "Well, Cavendish Square
is a much better place for a worksite than Hanover Square".
I think anybody who can walk around both squares can see that
Hanover Square is surrounded by some quite historic buildings
and it has got beautiful trees in it and Cavendish Square was
blitzed, first in the war and then subsequently by the planners.
It has got an underground car park that fills the square. It does
not have any big trees. It is a bigger square. It is closer to
Euston Road and I think if I had to dig up one square or the other
for my worksite, I know which one on the face of it seems better.
The route that you would use along Cavendish Square along Wigmore
Street has much less housing. It does not have any of the social
housing that you have in Mayfair along the same route and I am
told there are a couple of thousand residents along here in social
housing (indicating). It is almost all commercial along there,
although Mr Blair has his place over here, so he might be affected.
In terms of transport, and I am a transport planner originally,
I find it bizarre to suggest that a change with the Victoria Line
would not be useful. I know from the plans of the original 1988
scheme, because I asked them this when I did the review in 1993
for the Department, I said, "Why don't you link into Victoria?"
and they said, "We've tried but it's so congested at the
south end of the Victoria Line platforms because that's where
they connect into the Central Line at Oxford Circus", but
you can go to Oxford Circus and you can see it. The south end
of the platforms is where the Victoria Line and the Bakerloo Line
and the Central Line meet. At the north end they do not meet and
it is less congested. If you had a station here, you could actually
straddle and connect into both Oxford Circus and Bond Street Station
because it is a very long station and I am intrigued to see this.
I asked this question too and now I am told that Mr Berryman can
speak to this and I would love to see the model because I think
probably what they have done is—
12862. Can I slow you down a bit because it
is difficult I am sure for the stenographer as well. Could you
clarify, is this a route which is being looked at by the Promoter?
(Mr Schabas) I was handed a document a few months ago that
says 2002 on it, so, yes, I believe they did look at it in 2002.
12863. We received a letter two days ago referring
to something called the Parsons Brinckerhoff report.
(Mr Schabas) Parsons Brinckerhoff were the engineers who
I know were retained because they worked with me on the river
route and it was presumably the same people who worked on Wigmore
Street but it was all kept secret at the time. They certainly
kept it secret from me.
12864. In terms of harm, what differences would
you identify between the Hanover Square route and the proposed
route?
(Mr Schabas) All I can say is what I would see from walking
around it. Obviously there is lots more work to do, but it is
a pretty good straight route, Wigmore Street, to tunnel under,
or at least one of the tunnels. Cavendish Square is a much better
place to dig up, much less of an environmental impact, I would
think, from excavating the square. Your worksite is already there.
The car park is a disaster, if you have been in it, so to demolish
the car park you have your shaft already there, so you would have
much less excavation, a much better place to load your trucks,
to take the concrete in and out. You know I am a director of GB
Railways and we haul building materials into London and most of
the concrete and aggregates to London come in from north of King's
Cross or behind Paddington, so all the trucks are going to be
going that way.
12865. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Mr
Schabas, are you suggesting that it should be re-routed?
(Mr Schabas) I am told that that is not allowed, so I am
not suggesting that.
12866. What are you telling us then?
(Mr Schabas) If they did their job, and I think they should
have looked at this alternative and not dismissed it, they would
have arrived at a different conclusion. I think the suggestion
is it is now too late because it would delay the project a year
and it would probably mean £100 million. Assuming Crossrail
is worth building, then it is worth building now and not waiting
five years, then it is a cost in delay, so you are not going to
change the route. In terms of the compensation, the people in
Mayfair are being wronged, the residents along here, not because
there is a pressing public issue, because if the job had been
done properly, in fact it would not even have gone there. They
are being screwed because of a mistake. You cannot fix the mistake
now by changing the route. Personally, I think it is never too
late, but Parliament said it is too late because Parliament had
a two hour debate in Second Reading and decided the biggest project
in London, which I find a little bizarre too but I am told how
it works there. If that is the case, it still seems to me that
the Mayfair residents are being damaged completely unfairly.
12867. It is conceivable we could find a third
one, could we not, that would be equal?
(Mr Schabas) I did the alternative analysis on the Channel
Tunnel Rail Link and you can never think up all the alternatives,
we know that. What you are supposed to do is have a reasonable
crack at identifying them and then identify the ones that look
like they are goers and then evaluate them systematically—I
think they have said this—comparatively and report for environmental
assessment, they did not.
12868. Lord James is very good at asking the
unasked question!
(Mr Schabas) I never head about Anthrax. When I said in 1999
"Go under the river", all I said was, "I don't
know what's under the river, but there's bound to be a lot less
trouble going on under the river than going under all these other
properties". The anthrax at Charterhouse Square is new to
me and I guess it is new to them too. The guys in 1988 who picked
this route, I am sure they never knew about it. They did it in
eight weeks and they would admit it to you that they did. They
picked this route in eight weeks. It was a quick £50,000
study in 1988. Paul Channon wanted the study to know how we could
solve London's transport problems and he wanted it by the end
of the summer, so that is what they did. They did not look at
any of this stuff, but they did look at Wigmore Street and Cavendish
Square because they gave us a document finally. They finally gave
it to us this year. They did it six years ago. Maybe they should
have burned the documents—Nixon would have done that! He
did not, he would not have burned it either, that is the trouble!
They should have burned the document but they did do it, they
did look at it. Therefore, they should have looked at it properly
because what the paper says is why they rejected it. It says they
rejected it because it would only be £10 million cheaper.
That is funny. So it is cheaper, only £10 million cheaper
and there would be longer walks to Bond Street Station. What it
does not say is, "Well, yeah, but there would be shorter
walks possibly to Oxford Circus" and it says nothing about
environmental impacts, nothing about construction access, constructability.
You know the trees at Hanover Square, those are beautiful trees
and they are going to get killed because somebody back in 2002
said, "I can't be bothered looking at alternatives".
12869. I think there are some disputes about
that.
(Mr Schabas) Before they go, because in a way I would like
to have heard Mr Berryman first, I know that if you plug in an
Oxford Circus interchange in a transport model and you put in
a long travelator connection to Crossrail, very few people will
use it. The Victoria Line is one of those lines: with every other
station on it, you can get a train either to Liverpool Street
or Moorgate. It is the busiest line in London, but if you are
at Seven Sisters and you want to go to Heathrow and you plug in
their peak hour transport model, it will tell you to take the
train to Liverpool Street and then change there, but most people
do not go to Heathrow in the peak hour, they go in off peak, but
they do not model the off peak, at least I do not believe they
did; they take the peak model and then they scale it. It misrepresents
how people would travel.
12870. But this is not being built for the majority
of people travelling out to Heathrow. It is being built to relieve
congestion on the underground in Central London primarily.
(Mr Schabas) It is being built for all kinds of reasons.
12871. But that is a big one.
(Mr Schabas) It is one of the big ones, but going to Heathrow
is a pretty important one too. What I am saying is if you are
trying to design the best station here, you would build a link
into Oxford Circus if you could, that is a no-brainer. Anybody
looking at the tube map says that. It is not difficult. They are
doing it at Whitechapel which does nothing to relieve congestion
or anything else as far as I can tell. There is no cost-benefit
case for it. I asked for it and they said, "We didn't do
one", so you are spending £300 million just because
the Mayor wants it.
12872. CHAIRMAN: Mr Schabas, I do not
want to stop you, but we are getting very seriously into the alternative
routes. That is not what you are trying to say, you are trying
to say, I think, there should be an assessment.
12873. MR GOODMAN: That is the legal
submission. The factual submission I was seeking to establish
was simply that there is some reasonable evidential basis upon
which to make that submission. I am not saying there should be
an assessment of any conceivable alternative route that we pluck
out of the air, and so that is why I was calling the evidence
upon that subject, but that is the only evidence I wanted to call.
12874. CHAIRMAN: Let us stick to the
fairly narrow point.
12875. MR GOODMAN: The evidence that
I wanted to call has been given and, unless you have any further
questions, I have nothing more to say at this stage.
12876. CHAIRMAN: It is coffee time. We
will come back at a quarter to 12.
After a short break.
12877. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, have you
got any questions?
Cross-examined by MS
LIEVEN
12878. MS LIEVEN: I have got a very few
questions, my Lord. Good morning, Mr Schabas. First of all, it
is right, is it not, that you gave evidence in the House of Commons
on alternatives?
(Mr Schabas) Yes.
12879. And the House of Commons, in their report,
did not make any recommendations in respect of that part of your
evidence, did they?
(Mr Schabas) I was not even aware of the Cavendish Square
alternative at the time because it had not been disclosed.
|
