Examination of Witnesses (Questions 840
- 859)
840. Just applying Mr Rees' test, can we agree
that this is a station that is virtually unable to operate at
peak times at the moment?
(Mr Weiss) This is a station which I am familiar
with as a user but this is a station I am not familiar with as
an operator. It is a station which London Underground, as I believe,
has put as high if not the highest priority for improvement. I
do note that this is a station in yellow having to have a large
sum of money spent on it as a remedial—
841. Sir Peter Soulsby: I do not think
it is fair on this witness to expect him to comment in any detail
on something which is clearly well outside his area of responsibility.
I think it is interesting for the Committee to have this comparison
but that is probably as far as it is reasonable to take this.
842. Ms Lieven: I am quite happy to leave
it there.
843. Sir Peter Soulsby: Just for the
record I am told that this particular plan does have a number
already, it is SCN-20060124-002.
844. Ms Lieven: I am grateful, sir.
845. Sir Peter Soulsby: I think we have
understood the point that is being made, that there are congested
stations and it is possible to make comparisons with them.
846. Ms Lieven: Can we then come to the
last area, Mr Weiss, which is what should happen if the Committee
thinks there is some degree of congestion at Liverpool Street.
First of all, just go through, I do not understand the City now
to be arguing that Crossrail should revert to the arcade scheme
for a new ticket hall.
(Mr Weiss) We are not saying that it should
revert to the to the arcade scheme. What we are saying is that,
as we see it, there is insufficient space within the present design
of ticket hall B that dedicated provision be made to street level
for those people on Crossrail in particular wishing to come to
the City to work. In other words, rather than shuffle them through
the existing, as we see it by 2016 and certainly beyond, crowded
ticket hall which the Central line uses, some of the passengers
on the Circle line really do not want to go into the mainline
station concourse at Liverpool Street; they want to go to the
street. They can only do that by going through the Central line
concourse B, through the gateline into the mainline concourse
and mixing with all the people who come out of the mainline trains.
What we are seeing is a dedicated street exit.
847. The arcade scheme involved people going
into ticket hall B, did it not, and turning to the right to get
up into the arcade?
(Mr Weiss) It did partially, but going back
to the relationship between the arcade scheme, or ticket hall
A, which becomes the arcade scheme, or ticket hall B, where there
would be issues is imagine yourself coming up from Crossrail on
the escalator, you go along the passageway and you can only go
left out of ticket hall B if there was congestion at that gateline
within the mainline concourse. There was an option there of exiting
ticket hall A, now arcade scheme, but you could do that at the
moment and at the moment there are considerably less gates in
ticket hall A than there would have been in the arcade scheme.
848. Ms Lieven: Did you see the modelling
which showed that new arcade scheme?
849. Sir Peter Soulsby: Ms Lieven, I
am going to stop you again. I did ask Mr Weiss earlier on whether
the Corporation at this stage was putting forward an alternative
and he did respond very clearly that it was not. Indeed, he was
saying that there were alternatives available. I think at this
stage it would be much more useful for us to look at arguments
for and against the particular proposals put forward by the Promoter.
850. Ms Lieven: Sir, can I ask one question
about the Ove Arup scheme, if I may?
851. Sir Peter Soulsby: Yes, but do not
press it too long, please.
852. Ms Lieven: I will keep it to one.
Mr Weiss, my instructions are that the Ove Arup scheme, the alternative
ticket hall on Blomfield Street, would be highly likely to lead
to a closure of the Met and Circle lines for a period of weeks,
if not months, probably something in the region of two to three
months, and highly likely to lead to speed restrictions on Met
and Circle lines for a large number of weeks thereafter, talking
in the region of 40 weeks. I am not asking you to comment as to
whether that is right or not but, given the function that those
lines serve in bringing people to the City, presumably those kinds
of impacts are ones that the City Corporation would be concerned
about?
(Mr Weiss) I would like to comment on that.
The City of London Corporation takes a pragmatic medium and long-term
view. That is not a throwaway line. The Central line, or rather
the Waterloo and City line, which is a spur of the Central line
linking Waterloo station with Bank, will be closed for an improvement
of the line for a period of five months. I believe it starts in
April this year. Really it is the prime access to the City for
those coming from Surrey, Berkshire, the south west etc. The City
has considered this certainly in the circumstance of a very, very
heavily used piece of Underground infrastructure and is quite
prepared to take a five month closure so that the medium and long-term
picture is improved.
853. So far as the British Land proposal is
concerned, what cost estimate does the City understand that to
have?
(Mr Weiss) I have no knowledge of that, I think
it is better directed towards the Promoter of that particular
scheme.
854. Have you not asked that question at all?
(Mr Weiss) I am aware of it but it is not one
that I would like to answer with certainty.
855. Sir Peter Soulsby: Can you just
clarify that, you are asking the costs of what?
856. Ms Lieven: Of the British Land alternative
ticket hall, Sir. Let me explain why. I am not asking Mr Weiss
to cost it. My instructions are—it is in very broad terms
at this stage—it is likely to cost somewhere between £40
million and £80 million.
857. Sir Peter Soulsby: I think that
is perhaps something that may come out at a later stage. As has
been made clear, Mr Weiss is pointing out to us the difficulties
with the Promoter's scheme as it is proposed at the moment. I
do not think you need to go into the costs of alternatives, he
has made it quite clear he is not pressing any particular alternative,
he is just saying there are difficulties with the present proposal
and alternatives would be preferable.
(Mr Weiss) That is correct, Sir.
858. Sir Peter Soulsby: I think that
is as far as he needs to take his evidence at this stage.
859. Ms Lieven: All I want to put, Sir,
is obviously, given we are talking about substantial public expenditure,
it is sensible to look at whether there are other ways to overcome
the problem that you perceive in ticket hall B.
| 
