• 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...

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

): Is it financially driven from the point of view of modelling?

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

Yes, but you know the objection is predominantly at the southern end.

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

There is an undertaking that if there are unforeseen problems which arise following the opening of a bridge then TfL would be very receptive, I think, to addressing those as well, if they are a consequence of the bridge?

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

In terms of the quantum, I think there is about £6-7 million available for traffic calming and related measures within Bexley?

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

I understand. It is an issue I have flagged up on behalf of constituents and perhaps we can talk about it later.