Examination of Witnesses (Questions 620
- 639)
620. Others will be giving evidence as to how
long that process may take. I said in opening, sir, you will recall,
on instructions, that it ought to be capable of being done within
a few months. Mr Weiss, I do not especially want you to comment
on that estimate of time unless you feel able to do so, but I
do want to ask you this. If there is no agreement at the end of
that period of a few months as to which option should be pursued,
would the Corporation favour asking the Committee to resolve the
resulting dispute?
(Mr Weiss) Yes, I think we are at a position
where we believe at present what is being put forward by the Promoter
does not appear to cope adequately for the future. Options are
to be presented with later Petitioners but certainly the present
situation we see does not fulfil both the reasonable expectation
and where certainly we see the employment growth likely to take
place in the City at a level that befits both the quality of service
to be provided by the rest of the railway or the quality of service
expected in the City of London.
621. It follows, I think, from the evidence
that you have given that nothing that the Corporation has put
forward by way of evidence to this Committee detracts in any way
at all from its essential enthusiastic support for the Crossrail
project?
(Mr Weiss) I should hope not, no. I beg forgiveness
of the Promoter if I unintentionally said so.
622. Mr Laurence: Thank you, Mr Weiss.
623. Sir Peter Soulsby: Mr Weiss, you
have clearly put forward the Corporation's project and you have
clearly explained your concerns about the perceived pedestrian
capacity of Liverpool Street. Can you clarify whether at this
stage the Corporation has considered the second alternative? You
mentioned the Central line ticket hall and the concourse. Have
you considered which of those alternatives you would prefer to
have in practice?
(Mr Weiss) We have, sir. It is either. There
is no stated preference. The answer which you are seeking, and
I think I gave it in the conclusion, is that the present scheme
seems to be under-provided. Extra provision is necessary, the
choice of which has yet to be tested.
Cross-examined by Ms Lieven
624. Good morning, Mr Weiss. Can I start with
the very last matter you have covered with Mr Laurence, the City's
enthusiasm for Crossrail? I just want to ask you about that in
the context of Mr Rees's evidence. Mr Rees placed great stress
on the danger that financial firms in the City would flee the
City for New York, Chicago or Frankfurt if there were problems
with public transport at Liverpool Street. Can we put those concerns
in context? You in your evidence in chief described Crossrail
as "this wonderful railway". Crossrail brings massively
increased capacity on rail networks to the City. It provides a
brand new ticket hall at Moorgate, it provides a brand new ticket
hall at what I would call Farringdon East, which lies just within
the City, so looking at it overall, but before we come to the
detail, there can be no doubt, can there, that Crossrail significantly
improves public transport to the City of London?
(Mr Weiss) If I might answer yes,
capacity increase, but where? I used to talk to the younger engineers
and say that one of the mysteries of transportation engineering
can be brushed aside. It is not as clever as you think. It is
exactly like plumbing. What is the point of a big pipe leading
into a small pipe because it is the small pipe which determines
capacity? We have exactly that situation with Liverpool Street.
What is the point of this big pipe of Crossrail bringing tens
of thousands of extra people into the system if they cannot get
out in the City, which is one of the places we see growth?
625. Can we then move on to effectively the
small pipe argument? The first area I want to cover with you is
problems at Liverpool Street at the moment. Can I ask you to have
a look at the Transport for London investment programme which
contains the congestion relief schemes in the current TfL five-year
investment programme?[1]
I am not going to read it all the way through that because it
would be exceedingly tedious, but what is clear from that page,
and I am sure it is a document you are familiar with in generality,
is that it is not at the moment a station which TfL places within
its congestion relief programme, is it?
(Mr Weiss) I would not find that
surprising. If I might qualify that, it is not a station owned
or operated by Transport for London. It is a station operated
by Network Rail. I do not see, unless there is a new partnership
arrangement coming into place, that Transport for London would
be putting such into their programme.
626. I am sorry, Mr Weiss. I do not think that
is a very good point. I have not copied the page but the top priority
for TfL in terms of congestion relief is actually Victoria. It
is within the TfL managed parts of the Network Rail/TfL network.
(Mr Weiss) Let us be very clear. That is the
Underground as against mainline rail.
627. Just focusing on the Underground, what
is plain from this page is that in terms of the Underground station
TfL does not presently see Liverpool Street as being a priority
in congestion relief?
(Mr Weiss) I was not party to how and why they
produced this priority list but that is as demonstrated there,
and one cannot argue against that.
628. In terms of how severe the problems are
at Liverpool Street at the moment, and we are talking now about
Liverpool Street, the London Underground station, because that
is what you are asking for further works to, you referred in evidence
in chief to closures of once a month. I think you have now been
sent the log book from Liverpool Street LUL operations and what
that shows is that the Underground station has only actually been
closed once since September 2005 and that was for five minutes
on 10 October.
(Mr Weiss) That is an interesting interpretation
because the log book which I have seen covering three months has
shown closures of something like 14 per month, all right, only
for a few minutes, most of them in ticket hall C, but what jumps
out at me immediately from such a process is that managed closures,
whatever the duration, having to take place shows a station under
stress.
629. Let us be clear about this. My instructions
are, and I will check the ticket hall C point, that certainly
in respect of ticket hall B it has been closed once since September
2005 for five minutes. Are you going to produce evidence that
that is not right?
(Mr Weiss) No, but, as we have heard in the
evidence given previously, all these ticket halls are inter-related.
Would it help you, sir, if we referred to our original exhibit
A, which was tab 16?[2]
630. Sir Peter Soulsby: If you could
get up on the screen it would be very helpful.
(Mr Weiss) We need to look at tab 16, the top
left hand corner, the isometric. If you go to the top left hand
corner, the exit from the Central line, you have a choice of two
options. You have two escalators feeding to the top ticket hall,
which is ticket hall C, and one escalator bank, leading to ticket
hall B. Any closure, any blockage, any constriction at ticket
hall C under managed circumstances would translate normally to
excess or increased demand at ticket hall B so, despite B having
fewer closures, the effect on B is still associated with C having
to close under today's patronage levels.
631. Ms Lieven: Can you understand why
there is any station management going on at Liverpool Street?
That is because when there are problems on the Central line, say,
that there is supposed to be a two-minute service and there is
some problem and the service stops for maybe five or ten minutes,
you cannot have too many people on the platforms of the Central
line, can you, because it all becomes unsafe? What happens in
those circumstances is that people are stopped from going down
the Central line escalators, whether it be ticket hall B or C?
(Mr Weiss) Yes, I think I referred to that
in my evidence.
632. Ms Lieven: And that is what is happening
when ticket hall C people are prevented from going through the
gates. It is because they are not being allowed on to the platforms
for safety reasons. It is nothing to do with congestion in ticket
hall C or indeed ticket hall B. It is to do with the safety on
Central line platforms.
(Mr Weiss) I have noted what you said.
633. That is a matter, problems on the Central
line, as to whether or not there is a two-minute service or a
five-minute service, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Crossrail,
has it?
(Mr Weiss) I disagree with that. If you go
back to the flows involved, and I am sorry, Chairman, but it means
going to the table of flows which you said you did not like, I
will not go into the detail but the exit flows, the number of
people wishing to leave these same Central line trains, will pass
through the same congested ticket hall that people are going to
is considerably larger than the number entering.
634. If you just stick to the question, Mr Weiss,
what the material from London Underground shows is that people
are being stopped from going down the escalators at both tickets
hall B and C because of what are known in the trade as perturbations
on the Central line.
(Mr Weiss) Yes.
635. Those perturbations on the Central line
are not affected by Crossrail in one way or the other, are they?
Crossrail is completely separate from the Central line?
(Mr Weiss) We have a situation in which you
are suggesting that a perturbation on the Central line, because
of the shared access at ticket hall B, would then, following your
logic, also prevent access to Crossrail for the tens of thousands
of people wishing to change onto either the Underground or Crossrail
from mainline trains, so yes, were these self-same ticket halls
closed for the Central line it would affect access to Crossrail
as well.
636. Mr Weiss, the Committee saw on the morning
site visit what was happening, which was people being stopped
from going down the Central line escalators. That is the normal
station management measure at Liverpool Street when there are
problems on the Central line, is it not?
(Mr Weiss) Yes. If we go back to the exhibit
there, they would have been stopped at point M, which is where
the Crossrail connection is due to join through. Because of the
operating vagaries of the Central line the access to Crossrail
for anybody wishing to enter or leave Crossrail—and the
important thing for us is leave—to enter the City would
be blocked by a swelling mass of people who are being denied access
to the Central line, not something I think we would positively
wish to see for the start of the new railway.
637. But, Mr Weiss, I would suggest to you again
that is not a very good point because we know from the bottom
plan in exhibit A that what that does not show is that the station's
operation room, which possibly Mr Bennett will be able to point
out, the oval shape, is being removed, so even if there were people
stopped at the top of the Central line escalators there would
be plenty of room for people to go round and go down the Crossrail
passage, would there not?
(Mr Weiss) I cannot even make comment on that.
What is shown there is what is existing. What was proposed, which,
I will be completely open about, was quite difficult to find,
was a series of broken lines around some of those areas. We have
a new, multi-billion pound railway. I think you are suggesting
to me that people wishing to leave this railway to enter the City,
this prime employment location, have to find their way through
a large mass of people in a space perhaps a little bit bigger
than existing but they still have to find their way through a
football crowd type of space because the rate at which these people
are leaving the mainline trains and coming through is quite significant.
638. We will come to the detail of what is called
the pedroute modelling a bit later but are you contesting that
the station operation room is going to be moved? You have seen
it on the plans, have you not?
(Mr Weiss) I have seen it on a plan marked
"Draft" which was sent to me. The plan was not part
of the Environmental Statement. I have it in front of me. It is
in a broken line; therefore I presume it to be removed. I have
searched the text. I have found one reference to it—and
I am searching for the right word that was used in the text; I
think the word was "modified" or "adjustment to"—in
volume 2, paragraph 8.9.19, and the bullet point I will quote:
"The existing London Underground Liverpool Street ticket
hall will be reconfigured". I presume you mean by that "reconfigured".
Yes, it might be reconfigured but you still bring our Crossrail
people in and out through a lot of people being denied access
to the Central line in this reconfigured area. It is not free-flow.
This is people wanting to go into the street.
639. Mr Weiss, I really do not want to waste
time on matters which should not be in issue. Can you accept that
that station operations room is going to be removed, yes or no?
(Mr Weiss) If you say it I will accept it.
1 Committee Ref: P11, Five Year Investment Programme,
Transport for London. Back
2
Committee Ref: A2, Liverpool Street Station Plans-Exhibit A (LONDLB-26-003). Back
|
