BinB News | BinB Events Town Sites | Ascot | Bracknell | Henley | Maidenhead | Marlow | Newbury | Slough | Reading | Windsor | Wokingham
Crossrail Bill – Evidence to the Select Committee 5th July 2006 |
||||
CROSSRAIL BILL – EVIDENCE TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE
5th July 2006 MARTIN SALTER AND THE READING EVENING POST The following petition launched by myself and Reading Evening Post in August 2005 attracted the support of leading businesses in the Reading area including Microsoft, Foster Wheeler, Yell and MCI as well as from Reading Borough Council, the Reading Chamber of Commerce, Transport 2000 and around 250 smaller local business, residents and commuters. CROSSRAIL FOR READING A petition to Parliament on behalf of the businesses and residents of Reading. We the undersigned are concerned that the Crossrail Bill currently before Parliament includes provision for the western terminus to be located at Maidenhead rather than Reading and that no provision is made for a western rail link to Heathrow Airport. It is our view that these two measures would yield significant benefits to the Reading area and enable Crossrail to properly realise objectives to “connect the UK”. We also urge Parliament to ensure that the final Crossrail scheme does not impede the current high speed rail services into Paddington from Reading and the West. Crossrail is an ambitious £10bn plus, once in a lifetime public transport project. It has the potential to address a range of long-standing problems with the rail infrastructure both in and around London. However it is vital that Crossrail does not come to represent a series of missed opportunities due to poor planning or lack of vision and foresight. On behalf of the petitioners and my constituents and businesses in the Reading area I wish to make the following points: 1. That Crossrail must not be allowed to disrupt the existing high speed commuter services into Paddington nor should it be responsible for reducing freight transport by rail. 2. A western rail link into Heathrow airport is a vital component of any scheme. 3. If Crossrail is to be extended west of London and the above two issues are resolved then the obvious western terminus should be at Reading rather than Maidenhead as proposed. The Select Committee will have already heard from my colleague Dave Sutton, Leader of Reading Borough Council making similar representations on behalf of all the councils in the Thames Valley sub-region. There is cross-party and cross-district unanimity on this issue on this issue as shown by the contributions from Theresa May MP (Conservative – Maidenhead) on June 28th. I will also address certain inadequacies in the promoter’s response to the petition. 1. Disruption to existing services: The promoter’s response to concerns about the potential for Crossrail, operating as proposed on the existing relief line, to disrupt the H.S.T services into London Paddington is unconvincing to say the least. Crossrail is proposing a metro-style stopping service whilst the bulk of journeys into Paddington from the West on the H.S.T services taking around 30 mins non-stop from Reading. The majority of regular commuters avoid the stopping services which can take over an hour. I have been a regular commuter to Paddington four days a week for the last nine years and from personal experience I know how often the H.S.T services are forced onto the relief line as a result of engineering works or other factors. It is simply not sufficient for the promoters to state: “it is not the intention of Crossrail to cause displacement of any traffic from the existing relief lines to the main lines” If the H.S.T services are regularly using the relief lines then it follows that the introduction of further stopping services will inevitably lead to esxecerbrating the disruption to the H.S.T services which already occurs. I believe similar points will be made in respect of rail freight by other petitioners who will be giving evidence to you in due course. The promoters refer to the Timetable Working Group deliberations without citing any hard facts. The performance modelling simulations are clearly able to simulate some degree of “perturbed working”, but “major delays such as a train failure or infrastructure failure cannot be simulated without significant manual input at present”. Perhaps because of these limitations, the report of the Timetable Working Group (22 June 2006) includes some very lukewarm conclusions arising from its theoretical exercise. In relation to the Base Timetable, the Report states (at page 3 of 31): “On the GW, the Railsys performance modelling shows a small increase in delay and hence a small worsenment (sic) in PPM at Paddington for Heathrow Express services. Again, it is the view of the Group that this is a modelling deficiency rather than a true reflection of the performance to be expected from the Base Timetable” My concern, of course, is that it may prove to be a true reflection of adverse impact and not just a “modeling deficiency”. Current experience tells us that the practice is very different to the theory. Figures I obtained this week from First Great Western show that the number of customer journeys on high speed trains between Reading and Paddington for 2005-06 was 2.3 million, with a projected journey growth per annum of 6.6%. They also confirmed that 1 in 2 late evening trains are already redirected onto the slow lines as a result of engineering works alone. Quite clearly the existing infrastructure is already operating at or near to full capacity. The Committee will note that this petition has the strong support of major businesses in the Thames Valley. In fact, a recent transport submission by the Thames Valley Economic Partnership made clear that among the main reasons for businesses investing and remaining in the Thames Valley were the proximity to Heathrow Airport and the existing fast rail services to London. It is therefore essential that Crossrail improves rail travel into London and Heathrow rather than impedes the operation of the current services. If Crossrail is to extend beyond say, Ealing Broadway in London then consideration should be given to expanding existing track capacity in order to avoid disruption to the fast and semi-fast services into Paddington which are so important to the economic success of the Thames Valley. The remit of the Select Committee in hearing this Petition is to consider whether any such expansion could appropriately be dealt with by orders made under the Transport and Works Act 1992. The procedures under that Act are well understood and frequently applied – in the case of Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Order, applied as recently as February 2006. Given the pressure on Parliamentary time (which will be all too apparent to members of the Select Committee as its approaches day 50 of its deliberations) recommending the use of the Transport and Works Act procedures to address the concerns of Reading would be a very welcome step. 2. Western Rail Link to Heathrow: Given the closeness of Heathrow Airport to businesses in the Reading area approx. 20 miles) the current public transport links are somewhat farcical. The choices are a Rail-Air link bus from Reading Station which provides a good service outside of the morning and evening peaks for holiday makers but sits in the same horrendous traffic jams on the M4/A4 corridor as all other traffic. The existing bus priority measures in the M4 do not start until just east of the airport motorway junction. The service is therefore not widely used by business travelers or commuters. First Great Western have provided me with the following figures on the Rail Air link. The number of customer journeys on the Reading/Railair link to Heathrow were 127,400 in 2003/4, and 158,000 in 2004/05, while from Heathrow there were 36,800 journeys in 2003/04 and 61,600 in 2005/06. There is a projected growth per annum of 5.8%. There is no direct rail link to LHR from the West. Rail passengers have to travel 40 miles into Paddington and then take the Heathrow Express 20 miles along the route they have just travelled! The letter (in this week’s Exhibits Pack) dated 28 June 2006 from Anthony Ferguson of the DfT Crossrail Bill Division to Mike Noakes of BAA Plc strongly suggests that this would not materially improve under Crossrail, as the Crossrail service would merely “subsume the Heathrow Connect Service”. It seems that real improvement would have to wait for Airtrack or some other future scheme. The Crossrail proposal for a change at Hayes and Harlington looks like taking even longer in time although it would be a little shorter in distance. We also now have the proposal from Airtrack to provide a 48 minute service from Reading to Heathrow via Egham and Staines. This could see Airtrack trains from the west and Heathrow Express or Crossrail services from the east terminating at the same point but facing opposite direction without the ability to provide a more efficient circular service. The promoter accepts that a western Heathrow rail link “may ultimately be beneficial” but rejects the proposal without any good reason other than costs. If this vital opportunity is not to be lost then the Heathrow rail link must be addressed. 3. Reading versus Maidenhead: Reading Station is the second busiest rail interchange outside of London. The station is due to be upgraded in the near future and proposals were published this week in Network Rails’ 10 year business plan. The original Crossrail proposals boasted of “Crossing the Capital – Connecting the U.K: and it is a simple fact that virtually nowhere connects with Maidenhead. By contrast Reading Station is used by services from Gatwick, Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton, Cornwall, Devon, Bristol, Wales, Herefordshire, Worcester, Birmingham, and cross-country services to Manchester and the North. It is simply absurd for Crossrail to terminate a few miles short of this important rail interchange if it is to come West of London. The business community in the Reading area is strongly in favour of an extended Crossrail scheme coming to reading. Geoff Poland, President of Reading Chamber of Commerce said at the launch of the petition: “Reading is the pre-eminent business centre in Berkshire, home to numerous multi-national companies, many if which are located here because of our geographical position. The opportunity to both foster and develop that essential growth is a key component of a Crossrail bid. Already Reading station is one of the largest outside of London with traffic volumes such that the infrastructure is unable to support. A decision to upgrade the station has been discussed for a considerable time and to support the economic development and early decision incorporating Crossrail is vital. The opportunity for Reading to be incorporated into the capital and Heathrow and links beyond is essential given the town’s pre-eminent economic situation”. Richard Duggleby of Yell who have their HQ in Reading added further support saying: “if you can add to that by providing a direct link to Heathrow and providing a cross-rail link that would take people into London and on the other side, it would make Reading even more of a business centre. It would add to the strength Reading already has in the south-east.” The case for Reading as a Western terminus fro Crossrail is overwhelming and the promoters have simply side-stepped the issue in their response citing the need for the upgrade of Reading Station which is already in the pipeline. Other Issues: The petition also seeks a recommendation from the Select Committee that the Transport and Works Act would be an appropriate means to approve any future phase of Crossrail (or any other major transport scheme) which might include a terminus at Reading and a Western rail link to LHR. Quite clearly the Hybrid Bill process is lengthy and cumbersome and therefore not an ideal method of taking forward extensions to an existing public transport project the principles of which have already been agreed by Parliament. Summary and Conclusion The promoter has failed to make the case for Maidenhead as an appropriate western terminus for Crossrail; has failed to properly address the concerns over disruption to the existing fast and semi-fast services into London from Reading and the West and has currently no plans to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the scheme to deliver a western rail link into Heathrow Airport. The original 1992 case that Crossrail should terminate at Reading is still valid but only if these issues can be resolved.
|
||||
