Crossrailresidentsandpetitioners’s Weblog

Many ordinary Londoners and residents do not support the £16bn+ Crossrail scheme for the City despite the mainstream press reports. The Coalition, a London-wide group, supports public transport schemes provided they benefit Londoners, are value for money and do not cause unnecessary harm. Crossrail fails on all these counts. The irony is most of London does not appear to want Crossrail. Most residents living in Hyde Park, Mayfair, Spitalfields, Shenfield and Whitechapel certainly do not want the present route but are being forced to have Crossrail because of the planners. They do not want the Crossrail route because it is expensive, causes unnecessary harm and goes to areas which do not need or want it. A survey by YouGovStone Poll for the Evening Standard revealed that 47 per cent of Londoners are concerned about the tube where as only 3 per cent even mentioned Crossrail. The defeated ex-Mayor Ken Livingstone featured Crossrail as a major part of his campaign and lost. Sadly it has become clear that Boris Johnson will not review the due diligence or the route despite having taken charge of the project. The City and Canary Wharf want the present Crossrail scheme because they are the primary beneficiaries and are receiving a massive subsidy from Government for the privilege of having nominated the taxpayer to pay for Crossrail.

The petitioning process recommended by the Government was more about intimidation than scrutiny of Crossrail or its environmental harm.  As a result, most homeowners still do not know what kind of harm their houses will suffer but do know Crossrail are trying to limit their liability while tunnelling under the most sensitive parts of London. Some of the studies that were actually carried out proved to be inadequate. Instead some petitioners, particularly those representing the East End were intimidated, bullied and shouted down by chairs Alan Meale MP and Viscount Colville of Culross. The Lords Committee failed to scrutinise the selection of the route and were not able to assess environmental harm because actual information was not to be made available until after the Bill. The Lords instead supported the removal of statutory rights such as allowing people to sue for intolerable noise levels. One woman by the name of Baroness Fookes actually suggested that people should call the Police knowing full well that she was granting permission to cause the nuisance under the Act by her support.

Crossrail will only alleviate congestion on the central line which in case it escaped the City already exists as a line so it would be cheaper to just build extensions were it not for the development interests. Reputable experts do not believe that the present Crossrail route is right for London. Rail planner Michael Schabas, who was retained by Crossrail and has a successful track record of delivering the much lauded Jubilee Line and Channel Tunnel Rail Link rejected Crossrail’s claim that they “systematically and carefully look at all these alternatives.” Instead, he said, “to me is exactly what has not been done in going through these points, and when I read this not only has it not been done but it is laughable.” Unfortunately, Mr Schabas was denied the opportunity to give full evidence on Crossrail’s refusal to consider alternative routes in public by the Parliamentary Crossrail Committee chair Labour MP Alan Meale twice and faced unwarranted accusations by Lord Viscount of Colville who refused to consider the production of contradictory information. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmcross/uc235-vi/uc23502.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmcross/uc235-xvi/uc23502.htm

The Government refuses to reveal the actual cost to be borne by taxpayers before getting it through Parliament. Independent experts believe Crossrail could cost over £30 billion in total and is likely to be another Millennium Dome Olympic fiasco. The City and Canary Wharf expect UK taxpayers to underwrite not only the cost of Crossrail but also the operational costs, the debt service interest and over runs even though they are the primary beneficiaries. The City claim to be successful wealth generators, if this is the case, why are taxpayers being asked to subsidise their transport schemes? We note any contribution from business is set to be ring-fenced and time sensitive but no such protections are afforded to taxpayers. Residents in both the East and West of London are concerned about the implications for taxpayers and have expressed concerns why the Committee has taken no action in relation to evidence that the Crossrail team did not look at alternatives routes. The present Crossrail route harms historic residential areas while protecting development sites.

We agree with shadow transport secretary Chris Grayling’s aide Campbell Storey, on the matter of the Crossrail Bill in its present form, who is quoted by Transport secretary Douglas Alexander as saying: “Funding, publicly our position is: we don’t think the Government is serious about this. Privately: it is the wrong project (bad route, too expensive) and we wouldn’t want to be associated with it.” Indeed, Mr Grayling says: “There are problems with the route and with the costings.” The Crossrail Bill will soon have a third reading. To-date, the Crossrail Bill has been allowed to become a Bill without evidence of the lawfulness, funding or viability of the project.

Londoners need a tube network and have never asked for Crossrail. Those who want Crossrail should pay for the privilege.

THE CROSSRAIL BILL AND THE HEARINGS

The Crossrail Bill hearing was heard on Tuesday 22 July 2008 at the House of Lords Crossrail Committee. Viscount Colville suddenly developed an interest in communities and addressing concerns about Crossrail’s impacts but this was far from the case when petitioners were being heard.

The House of Lords Crossrail Committee gave various reasons for rejecting pleas for protection by residents. The Chair Viscount Colville said matters had not been requested earlier (they had, in the Commons and since), matters were not in a digestible form (they were but just ignored), petitioners were not presenting evidence by expensive experts (experts who had been used had faced suspended hearings and accused of libel by Alan Meale MP). All of this was despite hearing that the expert evidence presented by Crossrail in itself was contradictory and based on assumptions not proofs of evidence. Residents received no response after a final letter asking for undertakings was sent which pointed this out. A letter of how petitioners requesting undertakings were treated can be read below. Mr Colville did not want to allow London residents to have any of the following:

independent legal advice or monitoring

allowing Crossrail to remove statutory noise protections

leaving residents to protect buildings through a costly negligence case

refusing to give teeth to a Community Liaison Panel (CLP) it was so toothless that groups were not being given information and Crossrail were inviting groups and people that were not even affected by the scheme

one peer, some lady called Baroness Fookes suggested people should call the Police even though the Bill would make any action by Crossrail lawful

Colville seems to have forgotten what actually happened and is now saying:

“In Select Committee we discussed the involvement of local groups, which would discuss all the time how people would be affected as these matters proceeded, particularly during construction, which is what my noble friend Lord Low was talking about. That will be one of the most critical issues. Some local groups will be there, and are there already. I only hope that the Government and the promoters of this legislation will encourage other areas to set up functioning local groups to do exactly the sort of thing that my noble friend has been talking about: give notice of what is going to happen, and advise on how to get around obstacles and all the other problems that might arise from a temporary construction that may not be all that temporary. If the Government give a little encouragement to the setting-up and maintenance of local groups that involve themselves in these issues, it might almost be a better answer for my noble friend than anything in his amendment. is now referring to addressing concerns and including communities affected by Crossrail. But during petition hearings, Viscount Colville Ross did not want to give residents access to independent legal advice and certainly did not want to offer them legal protection from harm but did want them to attend meetings about Crossrail. Residents who were refused were accused of numerous things even though attending meeting did not allow you access to full information or have a say in reducing harm from works.”

Mr Colville did not want to suggest that Crossrail give what are called undertakings, which are legally binding and unenforceable.

THE CROSSRAIL BILL AND THE HEARINGS

The Crossrail Bill hearing was heard on Tuesday 22 July 2008 at the House of Lords Crossrail Committee. Viscount Colville suddenly developed an interest in communities and addressing concerns about Crossrail’s impacts but this was far from the case when petitioners were being heard.

The House of Lords Crossrail Committee gave various reasons for rejecting pleas for protection by residents. The Chair Viscount Colville said matters had not been requested earlier (they had, in the Commons and since), matters were not in a digestible form (they were but just ignored), petitioners were not presenting evidence by expensive experts (experts who had been used had faced suspended hearings and accused of libel by Alan Meale MP). All of this was despite hearing that the expert evidence presented by Crossrail in itself was contradictory and based on assumptions not proofs of evidence. Residents received no response after a final letter asking for undertakings was sent which pointed this out. A letter of how petitioners requesting undertakings were treated can be read below. Mr Colville did not want to allow London residents to have any of the following:

independent legal advice or monitoring

allowing Crossrail to remove statutory noise protections

leaving residents to protect buildings through a costly negligence case

refusing to give teeth to a Community Liaison Panel (CLP) it was so toothless that groups were not being given information and Crossrail were inviting groups and people that were not even affected by the scheme

one peer, some lady called Baroness Fookes suggested people should call the Police even though the Bill would make any action by Crossrail lawful

Colville seems to have forgotten what actually happened and is now saying:

“In Select Committee we discussed the involvement of local groups, which would discuss all the time how people would be affected as these matters proceeded, particularly during construction, which is what my noble friend Lord Low was talking about. That will be one of the most critical issues. Some local groups will be there, and are there already. I only hope that the Government and the promoters of this legislation will encourage other areas to set up functioning local groups to do exactly the sort of thing that my noble friend has been talking about: give notice of what is going to happen, and advise on how to get around obstacles and all the other problems that might arise from a temporary construction that may not be all that temporary. If the Government give a little encouragement to the setting-up and maintenance of local groups that involve themselves in these issues, it might almost be a better answer for my noble friend than anything in his amendment. is now referring to addressing concerns and including communities affected by Crossrail. But during petition hearings, Viscount Colville Ross did not want to give residents access to independent legal advice and certainly did not want to offer them legal protection from harm but did want them to attend meetings about Crossrail. Residents who were refused were accused of numerous things even though attending meeting did not allow you access to full information or have a say in reducing harm from works.”

Mr Colville did not want to suggest that Crossrail give what are called undertakings, which are legally binding and enforceable by law.