Examination of Witnesses (Questions 580
- 599)
580. Is that a special term you have used? Maybe
it is obvious.
(Mr Weiss): The scheme has to have the ability
to cope with not only the unknowns but some of the predictable
expectations of the future, namely more passengers and the need
of those passengers for gates.
581. Mr Weiss, you have taken us on a helter-skelter
tour into section 11 where there are some risk scenarios you want
to tell the Committee about. You have mentioned the one about
passengers coming from Stansted airport and so on and so forth.
Give yourself a moment just to scan section 11 of your proof,
have a sip of water and just see what else it is you would like
to tell the Committee about under that general heading, please.
(Mr Weiss): I do not think one can design a
ticket hall on the basis that future technology is going to sort
it all out, everyone is going to use a Super Oyster card or something.
We have to work from the premise that we have the technology and
the standards that apply in 2006. Given the potential overload
of this gateline and concourse that I have set out for you, what
might the reasonable railway operator do? Generally, the safety
rules, particularly with Underground stations, are you want to
get people up rather than in, and that happens at Victoria on
a regular basis where when there is an overloading to the access
to the Victoria line they close the gates there, sometimes the
gates to the entrance to the Victoria line but very often—I
put a phone call through—they say once a day sometimes between
the mainline concourse and the Underground concourse. This for
Ticket Hall B is likely to occur at point E on exhibit A.[10]
582. Point E on exhibit A.
(Mr Weiss): Point E on exhibit A. Today's flows
are some 22% less than as forecast by CLRL for 2016. This occurrence
takes place about once a month, so if Crossrail does not take
place I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that this occurrence
is likely to increase. How would you manage the station if you
did not have enough gates or enough space to cope with these flows?
You could turn off the escalators. Could we go to exhibit A. You
might turn off the escalators from Crossrail leading to point
M, which would not be very helpful to the City because then Crossrail
would not have a Liverpool Street exit. You might turn the escalators
off at P to allow Crossrail to come through but there is then
a tremendous risk of overloading the other exit from the Central
line. If you look at the isometric diagram at the top left, all
of the Central line exiting passengers would then have to go through
the relatively narrow passageways and exit via points F and G.
583. So you are postulating that passengers
entering the Central line would continue to be able to go down
the escalators at point P but those wishing to exit the Central
line would need to use the different exits on to the mainline
concourse shown at your points F and G?
(Mr Weiss): That is correct.
584. Why would that not work as a solution?
(Mr Weiss): At the moment in the morning peak
about a similar number go through concourse C, which are points
F and G to the concourse, as the eastern ticket hall which comes
through point E. One is intensifying the flow which by choice
the passengers—passengers here have a choice—have
decided to split between the two concourses in almost equal quantities.
It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. One now puts the stress on the
Central line concourse.
585. These are perhaps really questions for
cross-examination, but let me just ask you this: has anybody from
London Underground or anywhere else suggested to you that this
is something that they would or should or could do?
(Mr Weiss): Yes, in as much as the normal discussions
we have with London Underground about the operations of other
stations have raised questions of what happens if a station becomes
overloaded, what are your preferred scenarios? The preferred scenario,
which is quite commonsense for safety, is if you are running out
of capacity you stop people going in and encourage people to go
out. This was why I started from the premise that if one started
to get an overload at this ticket hall the natural reaction would
be to stop people coming in. I think we heard earlier on that
a significant number, almost half of the mainline passengers,
in the future expected to come to Liverpool Street station, not
from Crossrail but from mainline trains, seeking access to the
Underground. To deny them that point destroys Liverpool Street
as the important interchange it is.
586. Taking your conclusion at 11.15 on this
risk scenario and the following paragraphs, what is it that you
want to say to the Committee on this general subject?
(Mr Weiss): There are two points to highlight.
If the quantum of flows predicted by Crossrail are correct and
the design only just meets standards in 2016 the matter is significantly
worse if the flows are redistributed, as I have demonstrated by
taking account of where the jobs are. However, if the quantum
of flows on Crossrail are under-estimated, by then going forward
and applying a 35% resilience test we have a situation which is
considerably worse in the future beyond 2016.
587. Is there anything else under that section
that you would like to add, Mr Weiss?
(Mr Weiss): I am conscious of the fact that
the Committee are not London MPs. I do not know whether they have
ever experienced a closure in seeking the Underground, if I might
describe one to you.
Mr Liddell-Grainger: I think the Committee
have experienced it.
588. Mr Laurence: Have you had the experience
yourself, Mr Weiss?
(Mr Weiss): Yes, I have, at Victoria. I have
a season ticket which takes me either to the City or to Victoria.
It happens as a regular occurrence that one leaves the mainline
train seeking access to the Underground, you then have a grilled
gate pulled in front of you, you have a klaxon chucking out 85/90
decibels probably five feet above your head and bright lights.
What is frightening is that you have a constant stream of people
leaving trains packing in behind you, all anxious because they
are going to be late to work or missing appointments, and you
cannot turn around and go elsewhere. It is not a pleasant experience
and not one I personally would wish to see for any future scheme,
however mild the opportunity might be, and it is certainly one
that would detract from the City as a place to do business for
financial and international services and one that wishes to retain
its title as World City.
589. Before I ask you to come to your conclusions,
can I now invite you to step back a bit and deal with a topic
I said I would come to which is really the evolution of the Crossrail
Scheme. For that purpose we have produced a little bundle of documents
which we invite the Committee to add to their existing bundle
as new exhibit K. I have not got the index to that bundle, the
index that is being handed out is in my handwriting at the moment
but a typed copy will be produced tomorrow. (Same handed) I am
going to be asking you about this, if I may. Could you also have
your appendices A and B to hand in case you need to remind yourself
of particular dates that are material. Let us start with your
appendix A. Mr Weiss's appendix A is part of his proof of evidence
which is not before the Committee so you do not need to trouble
about it. Just give us the background starting in the 1990s if
you would please, Mr Weiss?
(Mr Weiss): Certainly. In the 1990s the east-west
safeguarding directions and route of Crossrail was defined pretty
much the same as it is. Particularly for Liverpool Street it determined
quite positively the need for a two concourse station. The concourse
at the Liverpool Street end was known then as the Arcade site.
The Arcade site was intended to be a new construction above the
sub-surface lines. This is the commercial area to the south of
Liverpool Street and to the east of Blomfield Street. I think
you went through it on your walk this morning. If you go to exhibit
A again, the isometric.
590. Mrs James: Is that the Metropolitan
Arcade?
(Mr Weiss): That is the Metropolitan line,
yes. The whole area was to be demolished, a cap put over the operating
railway lines and then a double exit dedicated to the street exit
station would be provided there both for the Metropolitan and
Circle lines and the future Crossrail.
591. Mr Laurence: If we then take the
next part of the chronology. That was in the early 1990s. Did
anything else material happen? I genuinely do not know the answer
to this question myself. Did anything else material happen after
the Crossrail Bill was dismissed by the Opposed Bill Committee
in 1994?
(Mr Weiss): Not really with regard to the type
and size of station needed at Liverpool Street, in other words
a two concourse station.
592. There came a time when the project was,
as it were, revived again sometime just after the Millennium.
When was that approximately?
(Mr Weiss): The Strategic Rail Authority did
some tests on Crossrail, detailed design, economic and patronage,
operating and which railway lines and which routes might be used.
Essentially with the creation of the Greater London Authority
the Promoter for Crossrail then was a joint company of equal influence
called the Fifty-Fifty Deadlock Company of Transport for London
and the Strategic Rail Authority. Design started moving into details
and discussions up to and through 2003 and 2004 have always included
a two concourse station at Liverpool Street.
593. Let us just go back to the first of those
two dates, 2003. That is because at your new exhibit K we have
a note of a meeting on 3 December 2003 made by somebody from Crossrail,
have we not?
(Mr Weiss): Yes. They very kindly raised the
fact that the City has been talking positively of this project
with the Promoter for a number of years. I think the point was
made that in 2003 Richard Davies, who was the design manager for
this part of Crossrail—if we look at 2.6, the underlined
text there—"Richard Davies advised that the Arcade
ticket hall did not currently appear to be justified in terms
of the business case." If I may, I would like to just comment.
That was an old Crossrail scheme. To be very clear about that,
that Crossrail scheme followed different routes to the west. It
went to Richmond and to Twickenham, it did not go to some of the
places it does at the moment. We were discussing a project which
was different from the one on the table today.
594. Jumping ahead in your exhibit K to page
three, at the bottom of the page encircled, what do we have there?
(Mr Weiss): The Secretary of State for Transport
put in Adrian Montague to produce a report called the Montague
Report to examine Crossrail and report back to the Secretary of
State as soon as possible.
595. I have put in my manuscript index here
that this was a ministerial statement in July 2004. I based that
on the date stamp at the top of page three. Do you know was it,
in fact, July 2004?
(Mr Weiss): From my notes, Alastair Darling,
Secretary of State, made this statement on 20 July 2004.
596. I see the date July 2004 in the bottom
right-hand corner of page eight, so the index is right. What is
material about this statement? Which paragraph do the Committee
want to look at?
(Mr Weiss): If we look in paragraph 10 there
is the business about he sees a particular weakness in that scheme
about the Richmond-Kingston branch and has suggested a change
which duly took place. The comment on the previous submission
mentioned a weakness of the business case. If you are strengthening
the business case by taking out a weak element, by inference that
must change any views regarding interests in the business case
at the eastern ticket hall at Liverpool Street.
597. At all events, if we turn on to page nine
and also have your exhibit G to hand at tab 22.[11]
(Mr Weiss): If I can draw the
Committee's attention first of all to table 22, exhibit G. The
second round of consultation was carried out by the Promoter in
September and October of 2004. What was handed out to the public
and others—I count myself in the others as a stakeholder
from a local authority—was an artist's impression of this
Arcade Ticket Hall. The lower picture gives an impression of the
scale and size, and number of ticket gates, which in August 2004
the Promoter thought as necessary for this station. This was further
detailed on page nine of exhibit K, you will see the same outside
view. At the bottom schematic it very clearly shows just about
where the nine is circled, "Liverpool Street Eastern Ticket
Hall at Street Level".
598. Is there some text also on this page nine
that you would draw the Committee's attention to?
(Mr Weiss): Yes, if I could. It is three paragraphs
in: "At the eastern end, a new ticket hall would be built
over the London Underground Circle line platforms replacing the
Liverpool Street Arcade at street level."
599. Then it goes on: "This new ticket
hall would replace the London Underground ticket hall currently
on the corner of Old Broad Street and Liverpool Street".
(Mr Weiss): That is correct. In the autumn
of 2004 to me, and I think to the public, there appeared the Promoter's
firm intention to provide a dedicated eastern ticket hall at Liverpool
Street.
10 Committee Ref: A2, Liverpool Street Station Plans-Exhibit
A (LONDLB-26-003). Back
11
Committee Ref: A2, Proposed Eastern Ticket Hall (Arcade Site)
(LONDLB-26-059). Back
| 
