Examination of Witnesses (Questions 880
- 899)
880. The second matter I want to ask you about
is this: Ms Lieven tells you that her instructions are that you
can get 20 gates into the existing space where there are 16 gates.
We have no reason to doubt that is so. We also see, I think from
exhibit A which was up on the screen a moment ago which you put
in, that in the ticket hall there are what appear to be a number
of pillars. I see the screen is now showing the lower part of
that diagram. Let me just ask you firstly whether the angle at
which the existing 16 gates have been placed is a coincidence
or is there a particular reason for having three banks of gates
in the way that we see on the screen?
(Mr Weiss) I believe that not to be an accident.
If you have a concourse of this kind of shape and you want to
put your ticket gates in a line, you would get less in there than
if you staggered them, had them in echelon. That has been done,
and is self-evident from the drawing, but there is a limit to
where you can put them in echelon because of these pillars which
support the substantive structure above.
881. Assuming that it were possible to fit an
extra gate into each of the four sections that we see on the screen
making a total, therefore, of 20 gates rather than 16, what do
you say to the Committee is the relevance, if any, of the fact
that to the north and south of those gates there are the pillars
that we see on the diagram?
(Mr Weiss) Those pillars will add to obstruction
in the area. Under cross-examination from Ms Lieven on the pedroute—I
have not had the chance to read the description of the pedroute—I
am not too sure whether the presence of these physical obstructions
has had a material impact. I think that is something to come back
to if we see it as significant. Certainly nobody can walk through
a pillar, and in walking around a pillar this free flow, this
ease of movement, is going to be very different in a situation
where the pillar is there as against a theoretical situation where
the pillar is not. I know from using this ticket hall on occasion
that they do get in the way of people. They are also used to lean
against by a variety of people, to park luggage while they get
tickets. Those pillars cause blockages in their own right.
882. Mr Weiss, thank you. The third matter I
want to ask you about—I will avoid asking you to turn up
tables or numbers—is it is right to recall, is it not, the
projections as to the situation in 2016 with Crossrail that will
result in a need for 20 gates are based purely on the addition
of the 35% design year test, are they not?
(Mr Weiss) That is correct.
883. To take your own evidence as an example,
if the split which Crossrail envisage as between Moorgate and
Liverpool Street so far as concerns Crossrail passengers turned
out to be incorrect in the judgment of the Committee, you have
already said that there would need to be more than the 20 gates
illustrated on the relevant table, have you not?
(Mr Weiss) That is right.
884. If assumptions about future growth, about
which I do not think you have given any evidence in detail at
all really, but about which Mr Spencer will be speaking, the Committee
believes prove to be too conservative so far, that would be liable
to increase the requirement for gates too, would it not?
(Mr Weiss) Yes. In addition, something I did
raise—I am sorry to repeat again—all of these are
assuming average flows, uniform movement and everything else.
These surveys carried out have shown considerable fluctuations,
particularly on a Monday—these things are snapshots—with
an extra 26% of people coming through the gateline on a Monday.
In my view, the test should not stop at 35%, on top of that it
should add a reasonable measured fluctuation because we cannot
have this gateline failing every Monday because it has not been
taken into account.
885. Thank you. The fourth matter on which I
will venture just one question in the light of the guidance given
by Sir Peter earlier this morning, but it is a serious question,
is would the City be petitioning in this House if it genuinely
believed that the addition of a suitable enhanced eastern ticket
hall for Liverpool Street station would be liable to imperil the
whole project?
(Mr Weiss) No, it would not. It believes it
to be a reasonable, normal provision to take into account access
to, I think it is, the busiest station in terms of exits in the
morning peak of the railway to a standard that befits a 21st Century
provision.
886. Fifthly, Mr Weiss, this will be a matter
no doubt for submission in due course. While I was listening to
my learned friend, Ms Lieven, it did at one stage seem to me that
the line of her cross-examination was to suggest that what the
City was trying to do here was just to take advantage of the fact
that the City of London had shown extremely good growth over recent
years and was liable to do so in future and designed to improperly,
as I understood her questions, try to foist on CLRL—the
Promoter—the consequences of that success. Perhaps you would
just like to comment on that first of all to say whether you feel
I have fairly encapsulated what she was putting to you and, if
I have, what you want to say to the Committee about that.
(Mr Weiss) I think the evidence given by Mr
Peter Rees was very clear that we, the City of London Corporation,
are not planning for or scheming for growth at the expense of
anybody. The Mayor of London's strategy both for transport and
planning—respectively he has produced the Mayor's Transport
Strategy and the London Plan—very clearly lay out preferred
scenarios for the future. Those preferred scenarios for employment
are very clear that they seek to achieve substantive growth, and
there are figures in a variety of tables, predominantly in the
financial and business services sectors. There is only one place
in London really where there is the greatest concentration in
terms of hundreds of thousands of people in the financial and
business service sectors, and that is the City. That has got to
be the first place where such growth takes place. Also, as we
heard, Docklands is where these concentrations occur. Those are
two of the areas to be linked by Crossrail. Crossrail, in meeting
its stated objectives, is serving that growth.
887. The last matter I would like to ask you
about is simply this: again, it is perhaps as much a matter for
comment as a question for the witness, Sir, but perhaps you will
allow me to put it. Plainly, anybody concerned to try and solve
this problem would want, if they possibly could, to see whether
there were ways of solving it, short of spending what Ms Lieven
told the Committee could involve, say, £40 million to £80
million putting in place the Ove Arup scheme, and I have no doubt
a very substantial sum of money if the ticket hall had to be massively
enlarged. Plainly one would want to see whether there were cheaper
effective alternatives to that, and that is why Ms Lieven was
asking you, I suspect, about matters such as whether the problem
could be solved with different signage, a different layout and,
in the last analysis, taking measures at the station itself to
try to guide people in the direction that you want. My question
is simply to ask you in relation to those matters—I know
you have been talking to London Underground very briefly in recent
days—have you had the impression that these proposed ways
of addressing the problem have been discussed in any detail with
London Underground over the months that have preceded the decision
not to have a dedicated eastern ticket hall at Liverpool Street
for Crossrail?
(Mr Weiss) No, Sir. It would have been comforting
were somebody from London Underground to perhaps put in writing
or have a particular meeting to say, "We, London Underground,
the owners of ticket hall B, have a position with regard to it".
This is complicated by the bureaucracy of the Promoter. London
Underground is part of the—I think the expression is—GLA
family who own Transport for London who are a co-Promoter and,
therefore, have a conflict of interest. I am sorry if it is a
bit convoluted. London Underground, as I view it, are deemed to
be the Promoter, albeit indirectly. The issue is, is Liverpool
Street station at the moment operating all hunky dory and there
are no problems with heaps of resilience? We have had a discussion,
we have had difference of viewpoints but certainly the operational
logs, which very kindly have been sent to me showing three months,
have shown that even now there are significant numbers of closures,
not in ticket hall B but in ticket hall C. It was attributed by
Ms Lieven to be as a result of the Central line. We have a station
now with today's flows, 26, and there are ten years to go yet
where some 14 times or so each and every month intervention has
to take place because of issues in the existing design, in other
words whether it is perturbations, whether it is size, management
action has to take place to make the station operate in a safe
and proper manner. To finally answer your question, I do not believe
any of these compromises by better signposting, entry only, exit
only, a variety of scenarios, is a solution to a new railway to
serve the busiest railway station in the UK and take it forward
without such compromises in the 21st Century.
888. Mr Laurence: Mr Weiss, thank you.
I have deliberately left eight minutes in case the Committee had
any final questions for the witness before one o'clock. Those
are my questions for you in re-examination.
889. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you very
much indeed, Mr Laurence. I have a couple of remarks.
Examined by The Committee
890. Kelvin Hopkins: The difference of
view between you and Ms Lieven about the number of stoppages,
number of perturbations or whatever, was not quite resolved in
your conversations. That is one point. The other is on the 35%
estimate on top, there are still only one or two possible hotspots
at the peak hours, which suggests there is a bit more scope than
you suggest and it is not quite as difficult as you would suggest.
Are they fair points?
(Mr Weiss) I accept your observations.
We would like to be encouraged to see that there is a solution
to this. I am one of these people who like to see outcomes: how
can we make it work. We have yet to see something that has made
it work. We have not seen the gateline, we have not seen what
happens if this expanding gateline takes place. Remember, I would
like to add the measured perturbation, which is the Monday mornings
on top of the 35%, which is not unreasonable, if it works under
that scenario it would be comforting to know that this situation
will seemingly it take forward in the future. As regards the cost
of putting it through, I am not too sure of the figure that was
put forward for the British Land proposal but I would suggest
very strongly that it is but a fraction of what was saved by abandoning
the arcade ticket hall.
891. Ms Lieven: Sir, can I raise a point
in relation to Mr Hopkins' question? We could put in a note on
closures of the LUL station. The reason it was not resolved is
that it cannot really be resolved as you have not got the documents
in front of you. We could quite easily get a note from LUL setting
out the factual position on closures. I was also wondering whether
it would be helpful to have a note from LUL on proposals for the
station's operations room. I do not understand it to be solely
about Crossrail. If it would be helpful we could deal with that
by way of a written note.
892. Sir Peter Soulsby: I think it would
be very helpful to have a note about the current number of causes
of perturbations and stoppages within the Liverpool Street complex
and also to have, as you suggest, from LUL, or whatever source
is appropriate, a clear note about their intentions with regard
to the operations room, indeed the Promoter's intentions with
regard to the operations room. I think it would also be very helpful
to have some further exploration of the issues raised about the
physical capacity to get 20 gates in and the effect of having
the pillars there. It would be useful to have an illustration
of how that might be resolved if it can be.
893. Ms Lieven: I have got that on my
list anyway. Certainly I will do that.
894. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I have two
points. If there is to be a control centre, the idea is that the
control centre is somewhere in that concourse, is that correct?
(Mr Weiss) That is my understanding.
895. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Where would
you suggest it would go?
(Mr Weiss) I am afraid I cannot answer that.
896. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Fine, that
was what I expected the answer to be. The second is on the design
of the actual concourse itself, have you looked at whether there
is any capacity to expand the corridors, the main ticket hall
itself? Is it all concrete, is it all support? Do you have any
idea on that?
(Mr Weiss) I can surmise but it is not based
on anything other than a broad understanding.
897. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I understand
that.
(Mr Weiss) I believe there may well be scope
to enlarge the ticket hall, by that I mean in width, so we can
get more gatelines in and so forth. It would require extensive
investigation. You have got the Great Eastern Hotel on one side
and the approach steps and the bus station on the other. It might
not be rocket science but certainly it is an option that was not
tested by the Promoter. I have a reference, but I do not think
we need to go into it. They tested three options: keep the ticket
hall; do nothing; or join through. It was an option that was not
tested which might well bear merit.
898. Sir Peter Soulsby: All we can do
at this stage is note that you have not been party to any exploration
of that and I think it is for the Promoter to demonstrate whether
that has been explored and whether any of those approaches might
be realistic.
899. Mr Laurence: Sir, may I just remind
you that in my opening I drew attention to the fact that on 22
December Mr Ben Wilson of CLRL wrote to Mr Chapman of Ove Arup
producing in draft a critique, a quite detailed critique, of the
Ove Arup scheme and indicated that in early January we would have
the benefit of his company's reflections on possible alternative
solutions to the problem. For reasons that I frankly just do not
understand, we understand that is not being done any longer but
it seems to us, with respect, that it is highly desirable that
it should be, no doubt without prejudice to the contention of
the Promoter that it is not necessary. The sooner, if the Committee
feels able to do so, it gives a steer to that process being resumed
in order that we can get to the stage of making a proper comparison
between the realistic alternatives, the better for the entire
project, we say.
|
