• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 15 March 2006

It is not in the findings then.

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 15 March 2006

They are providing very good value for money, are they not?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 15 March 2006

Perhaps we could deal with this quite briefly. Just to give perhaps a slightly different perspective on this, those of us who represent the north side of the Thames tend to have fewer problems with the Thames Gateway Bridge than those on the south side. I think that is understandable, although the fact is that there is a fear that the bridge will be used for massive tidal flows of commuter traffic, which is what the charging is there for. That is a problem with the Blackwall Tunnel. Would you confirm that the Thames Gateway Bridge is part of a...

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 15 March 2006

): I fully understand that you cannot pre-empt every single issue, but surely TfL should be able to remember the price of their own Congestion Charge, which they set, when they are giving evidence to a public inquiry? You say that is a complete red herring, but the traffic modelling figures for Bexley have shown already that very small changes in assumptions can lead to very significant effects. Consequently, are you going to run that modelling again based on the correct price for Congestion Charging rather than the £5 assumption that you made?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 March 2006

): I am grateful for that. Perhaps we can talk about the detail later. The other thing I wanted to raise was that one thing that changed in TfL's stance during the inquiry was to reduce the area of the discounted toll within Bexley to make it much smaller. However, a lot of my constituents say that given that their main concern is traffic coming from the north of the river to the south, they find it difficult to work out how reducing the amount of discount that is available to us living here on the receiving end is going...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 March 2006

I understand that but the point I am making is that the residents are concerned that whilst tackling that issue, their concern is the volume of traffic that comes off the bridge and goes through their area.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 March 2006

As you know, I have an interest in this as the Assembly Member for Bexley. I understand your point about the difficulty of going into too much detail, and I do not ask you to do that, but just in general terms: Would it not as a matter of principle have made for a better running of the TfL case at the inquiry if an agreement had been reached with Bexley and Greenwich, the adjoining boroughs, in advance as to what mitigation measures could be put forward to the inspector to prevent rat-running, particularly through Bexleyheath with vehicles coming off...

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 15 March 2006

I fully understand the position you are in at the moment with the public inquiry, but that inquiry had to be suspended because the traffic counts in Bexley on which TfL's modelling was based turned out to flawed. As you say, they had to be revised, and then recently it emerged that TfL's new traffic model continued to assume that the Congestion Charge would only be £5 when in fact it had gone up to £8 and you had forgotten to include that in your modelling. Your regeneration evidence says that the bridge will create jobs, yet the traffic model...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 15 March 2006

It is clearly for the inspector to decide whether the inquiry adjourns or not and you are not in a position to tell him what to do. It seems to me, as I am being optimistic given your new sunny outlook, that what you said in response to Bob Neill [AM]'s question, namely that it is a good idea to try to get objectors, as it were, on board if possible, that perhaps the opportunity of any adjournment should be taken to get to the bottom of the objections and try to resolve them.

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 15 March 2006

I was planning to follow the same line of questioning as Bob [Neill, AM], so I welcome what you said, that as a general principle it is a good idea to try to reach out to opponents and get them onboard early in the process, if it can be done. Therefore, it was perhaps regrettable that the original proposal only went through the TfL board, if my memory serves me right, on the casting vote of the Chair, which means that right from the outset this was, as it were, a divisive proposal. I do not expect you to comment...