Examination of Witnesses (Questions 605
- 619)
605. Sir Peter Soulsby: Welcome to the
Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill in committee room 5 on
what many of us over the weeks may come to see as our second home.
I am taking the Chair today in the absence of the Chairman. It
would be helpful for the Committee to make two opening remarks.
Reflecting upon the evidence that we were receiving last week,
we have two comments. The first is to say that the Committee are
likely to be more interested in the impact of the increased pedestrian
traffic in Liverpool Street rather than the precise numbers of
those who might be passing through Liverpool Street, and I would
ask counsel for the Promoter and the Petitioners to bear that
in mind as they present their witnesses and evidence. Secondly,
again reflecting on the evidence last week, the Committee are
likely to be much more interested in the strength of the arguments
being put in front of us at this stage rather than a history of
how the positions being presented to us were arrived at. Again,
I would ask that counsel for the Promoter and the Petitioners
might bear that in mind as they present their evidence.
606. Sir Peter Soulsby: The third and
final point I make in opening is to suggest that the very helpful
models that have been prepared for us to aid our deliberations
might be more conveniently located out in the corridor. That is
not because we are not interested in them; quite the contrary,
because we do want to see them, but in this very crowded committee
room it is very difficult to get round to see them properly and
it would be easier for us to see them out there and, if necessary,
if points need to be made by reference to them, for us to go out
and have a look at them there. We can now return to the evidence
that we were receiving on Thursday of last week and can I on behalf
of the Committee, Mr Laurence, invite you to recommence.
607. Mr Laurence: Thank you very much,
sir. Mr Weiss, would you resume your place please?
Mr Joe Weiss, recalled
Re-examined by Mr Laurence.
608. Mr Laurence: Sir, you will be glad
to know that it is no longer the practice to spend 15 or 20 minutes
making elaborate corrections of the transcript. There are, however,
two corrections which I would like to draw to your attention from
the transcript of Mr Weiss's evidence last time. The first is
at paragraph 573 where, towards the end of his answer, Mr Weiss
is recorded as referring to a 16-year period when he plainly means
a 60-year period. The sentence should read: "If you know
exactly what is going to happen and, to be fair, who does between
2016 and the future, if you have a perfect and very good knowledge,
you can put an inspired guess but generally a 35% uplift is applied
to test the scheme for resilience, perhaps for a 60-year period."
That is the first of the two corrections that it is worth making.
The second is at paragraph 583 where Mr Weiss did refer to the
correct point, point P for Peter, but on the transcript we have
a reference to point B. In fact, it was my question where I am
sure I did refer to point P but we have a reference to B and so
the question should have read as follows: "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".
609. Mr Weiss, we were at the stage last Thursday
of looking at the events just as the Environmental Statement and
the Bill were about to be published in February 2005. In the light
of the guidance that the Chairman has just given this morning
I propose to take very quickly indeed the history of what occurred
round about that time. You have put in a bundle of documents to
remind the Committee which the Committee might like to refer to.
That is your exhibit K, and I am happy to hand in, sir, a typed
version of the index to that exhibit. Pages 15 and 16, Mr Weiss,
of that document are a note of a meeting at 50 Broadway, SW1,
and I think that is CLRL's offices, on 21 February, the date before
the Bill was published, That is nearly a year ago, is it not,
but can I just quickly ask you some things about the meeting that
took place on that day? First of all, the note which has been
handed in and is now part of your exhibit, had you seen that note
before Mr Elvin made it available the other day?
(Mr Weiss) No, I had not.
610. Secondly, do you recall the meeting nevertheless?
(Mr Weiss) Yes, I certainly recall the meeting.
611. Messrs Haste and Anderson and Mantey of
CLRL were there, were they not?
(Mr Weiss) That is right.
612. And you have now had a chance to read the
note?
(Mr Weiss) Yes. The Bill was deposited the
next day, I believe, 22 February. Therefore, the context of the
meeting was before one had any chance whatsoever to look through
40kg worth of documents.
613. It is right that you had not seen the Environmental
Statement until the following day?
(Mr Weiss) I had seen some of the documents
because they were put through beforehand but the sheer quantity—to
put it into context, it is 17,300 pages of written text.
614. You make reference to that. Taking it very
shortly indeed, did you fully appreciate in February 2005 that
the original proposal for an eastern ticket hall at Liverpool
Street for Crossrail had been dropped?
(Mr Weiss) Sort of. That is a qualified answer.
Something as major as this one would have considered would have
been discussed or at least explained in advance. Under page 16
of this exhibit K, paragraph 1.14, I am attributed as saying I
was pleased the arcade was no longer included, et cetera. I think
the context of that discussion is the fact that the earlier proposals
had put forward a construction site totally across the face of
both Liverpool Street station and the south side of Broadgate,
namely, going from Bishopsgate in the east to Blomfield Street
in the west. The Bill proposals had halved that site. The western
side only, from Great Broad Street, which is where the Metropolitan
Arcade comes out, west to Blomfield Street, as far as the City
was concerned was a good thing, namely, that the potential for
severance from all these people we described at the last meeting
would be considerably reduced.
615. Jumping ahead, just tell the Committee
as briefly as you may when it was in 2005 that the Corporation
began to be actively and acutely concerned with the issue that
we are here about today.
(Mr Weiss) It was July 2005 when British Land
drew to our attention areas which we as a local authority would
not normally get involved with, that is, the actual workings within
the railway itself, namely, that the shared ticket hall, ticket
hall B, seemed to be operationally close to what might be considered
a tight situation. I then contacted Cross London Rail Links, who
were helpful, but it was not until the end of August that any
flows were given to us describing what happened within the station.
From then onward, sir, we looked in considerable detail, raised
concerns and then attempted to have discussions with the Promoter
to perhaps reinstate an eastern ticket hall or have an enlarged
or better position. I am afraid it did not reach conclusion, which
is why we are here today.
616. I would now like to ask you to turn to
your conclusions please, paragraph 12 of your proof. You have
given evidence, have you not, that as you see things in 2016 the
existing eastern concourse at Liverpool Street will be under strain?
(Mr Weiss) That is correct.
617. In a nutshell, what is it that you ask
the Committee to direct the Promoter to do by way a response given
that Crossrail might by then be operational?
(Mr Weiss) Given that the vast majority of
people that are exiting the station at Liverpool Street by all
modes are seeking a walk-to destination in the City, in other
words, we see them as City employees, we believe that there should
not be a situation in the very near future after opening of the
project that this facility is in any way substandard. We believe
that the operational capability of the shared ticket hall is at
or close to its limit in 2016. We have heard that the situation
with growth pushes it into a very much tighter risky scenario.
Currently Liverpool Street station, both Underground and mainline,
is operating as a very tight scenario with twice the visitors
as a place like Heathrow airport in a confined space. Everything
has to work to the optimum to ensure that disruptions do not occur.
The efficiency of the City of London as the world's leading business
and financial centre we would expect to be mirrored in the provision
for a new railway such as Crossrail. To conclude, we would therefore
seek that the provision at Liverpool Street be done to a standard
that permits both foreseen and to a degree the unforeseen growth
situations that are likely to occur at this mainline railway station
from the outset. Whether it is through an expanded existing facility,
the Central line ticket hall, or through the creation of a dedicated
second concourse, upon the location of which we have no particular
preferences, we do not mind. What we would wish to see is from
the outset this project provided adequacy.
618. You have said in the course of your evidence
that you believe that the Corporation and British Land should
be involved in the process of deciding what the best solution
is for Liverpool Street. Is that right?
(Mr Weiss) That is right. I think it is fair
for me to say that as a local authority officer one has to get
political permissions but the Corporation is a very strong supporter
of this project. We want to work positively with the Promoter
to seek the right location, whether it is public highway, whether
it is for the acquisition of buildings or for whatever management
is needed to ensure, for example, if we have to close a street
or make a one-way system, that a solution can be obtained within
the public realm or shared public realm and using private sites.
619. If the Committee were to be satisfied on
the capacity case which is being put forward by the Petitioners,
and were to direct the Promoter to take appropriate action, you
recognise, I think, that that action might require yet further
evaluation of the figures to take place as well as further work
to take place on which is the best option?
(Mr Weiss) That is right.
|
