Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1420
- 1439)
1420. No, in favour of Moorgate: 55 per cent
to Moorgate, 45 to Liverpool street, on the basis of the figures
that were received just before the hearing started?
(Mr Spencer) The figures that I received.
1421. No, no, no. This is not a blame passing
exercise. I am saying that the exercise was only done later because
the city provided the employment forecast on 12 January to us.
Do you remember?
(Mr Spencer) We provided the City forecast.
1422. It does not matter. I am only trying to
explain?
1423. Sir Peter Soulsby: What he needs
to know is what Crossrail's prediction is of the split and what
Mr Spencer's prediction of the split is. What is Crossrail's?
1424. Mr Elvin: Fifty-five percent to
Moorgate, 45 percent to Liverpool Street?
1425. Sir Peter Soulsby: Mr Spencer,
you are suggesting to us that it would be different.
(Mr Spencer) I am, although what I have tested
specifically, because I have only tested the Liverpool Street
end, is 65 per cent at Liverpool Street.
1426. You have tested what would happen if 65
per cent of passengers used the Liverpool Street line.
(Mr Spencer) Correct, and our test, as I have
said, is specifically related to gateline capacity. It has subsequently
been put through pedroutes.
1427. Of course we will be coming back to the
question of walk times and these other issues, which will enable
us to make a view as to which is the more realistic.
(Mr Spencer) Absolutely. It is a combination
of the accessibility of the station location as well.
1428. I understand that. Mr Laurence.
1429. Mr Laurence: Yesterday Mr Elvin
rebuked me for rising effectively to complain that a relevant
document, namely the gateline standard telling you what you had
to do in certain scenarios if future demand figures were unavailable,
you had to add 120 per centhe rebuked me for suggesting
that it would be appropriate to put in front of the witness the
relevant passage from the relevant standard, and I, duly rebuked,
remained seated and said no more. I am getting up now because
I think it is only fair to the witness if the figures 55 and 45
per cent appear somewhere in written form that they should be
put in front of the witness so that he can see exactly what the
provenance is of those numbers. In trying to assist a moment ago,
I suggested to Mr Mould that one of our tables was possibly going
to be helpful in that regard. Mr Elvin heard my remark and said
those are your tables, not ours. My point is a simple one, sir.
If the Committee is to be assisted and if fairness to the witness
is to be maintained, if numbers are being quoted that are relevant
for him to comment on they should be put in front of him; that
is all.
1430. Sir Peter Soulsby: The Committee
is very clear what Mr Spencer's assumptions are and why his reasoning
has led him to adopt those particular assumptions. I think that
is all we need to know at this stage and I do not think we need
to go back at this stage to how Crossrail came to their different
assumptions. At the moment it is Mr Spencer's assumptions that
we are exploring. It has been pointed out to me that obviously
we would not want Mr Spencer cross-examined on the detailed Crossrail
assumptions. It is his assumptions we are exploring and we understand
that.
1431. Mr Elvin: The fact is that what
Crossrail have used is the Railplan, have they not?
(Mr Spencer) They certainly have.
1432. And what Crossrail have done is run the
new employment figures through Railplan.
(Mr Spencer) They have.
1433. I am afraid you will have to take it from
me on instructions but we cannot get to your figure of 65 per
cent for Liverpool Street. You have been told that, have you not?
(Mr Spencer) No, I have not been told that
because I was only told what the Liverpool Street prediction was.
I was not told what the Moorgate prediction was so I could not
know what the split was. The Railplan modelling for that that
has been done to date has only taken on board the first significant
part of our evidence, which is the employment rate. There are
other equally important aspects of the Railplan model which still
need to be amended and I would like to run through them quickly
so that the Committee understands that we have only got to stage
one here. If the origin pattern at Liverpool Street is so incorrect
what confidence can we have that Crossrail understands where these
people are coming from if it does not know where they are going
to? We had superior information, up to date information, which
could equally be put into the Railplan and I am confident that
that would provide a higher level of certainty that what Railplan
is saying is robust. I could not tell you what the outcome would
be. The other thing which I have said repeatedly in my evidence
is that what is required is a much more sophisticated understanding
and a micro model of what goes on at Liverpool Street station.
Railplan is not a model which should be used to provide station
demand forecasts and that is in our evidence.
1434. Railplan is able to make strategic divisions
between passengers. It does the big picture such as the splits,
major destination share and those sorts of issues, precisely the
sort of issue we are looking at at the moment.
(Mr Spencer) No, I disagree. Railplan will
tell you how many passengers are going to be on Crossrail broadly
speaking and it will give you a broad indication of what their
requirements would be for ingress and egress from the individual
stations. When you ask Railplan to differentiate between Moorgate
and Liverpool Street a whole range of relevant bits of information
which are only superficially included within the Railplan model,
like walk times, like destinations, it is not going to provide
the correct answer. The only way to get the correct answer is
if you have sufficient detail to put into the model which is being
used. To do that Railplan can be made more detailed. It is a big
area.
1435. Mr Spencer, if you were being remotely
fair to Crossrail you would acknowledge that Railplan had taken
account of local constraints, observed flows and the specific
local circumstances. It says so in the Environmental Statement
and, of course, Crossrail has had the benefit of many years to
consider this specific issue. Perhaps we can look at the Environmental
Statement, and I will give the references for the record: volume
8a, paragraph 2.37, "Forecasts are always thoroughly checked
and where necessary adjusted. They draw on actual passenger accounts
that are available using a statistical goodness of fit technique
developed totally by London Underground and Transport for London",
and in the same volume, paragraph 3.24, "Modes of access
and egress also look at the local situation based on an assessment
of the local situation and reflecting the local issues and constraints".
It is not simply using the computer model without adjusting it
to have regard to the various sensitivities you mentioned. It
does do that and Crossrail has done that and has been looking
at this issue for a significant period of time. It has not taken
the rather simplistic approach which you appear to think is the
case. That is right, is it not?
(Mr Spencer) It is somewhere between the two,
I would say. The amount of time which existed between the publication
of the Railplan demand forecasts in December 2004 and the publication
of the Environmental Statement in February 2005 and the immense
complexity of the project would lead me to conclude that there
was not the opportunity to do any detailed post-model adjustment
of the demand forecasts. The employment data in the base is so
patently wrong that whatever adjustments and statistical goodness
of fit you do it is not going to rectify what is an enormous error
in the understanding of the employment distribution in the City
of London.
1436. Mr Spencer, we do not accept your characterisation.
Adjustments have been made and when the City produced the employment
forecasts they were fed into the model to produce the split that
I have put to you.
(Mr Spencer) My contention is that there is
a lot more work to be done.
1437. Let us just get this position clear. You
have not done any better modelling. You have used the same techniques
in your approach. We have not got a position where we have moved
on to some other method of forecasting. You have used the same
broad approach that has been adopted by Crossrail.
(Mr Spencer) As I said in my evidence yesterday,
it is the only show in town.
1438. Thank you. Coming back to the Moorgate/Liverpool
Street split, in terms of the question of the five minutes from
the platform or the three minutes, whatever the position is, and
we will give the note round when it is available, you suggest
that there is some degree of attraction in terms of shops for
those coming out of Crossrail.
(Mr Spencer) I think that is self-apparent
at Liverpool Street.
1439. Yes, and at Moorgate. At Liverpool Street,
which the Committee has seen, the Octagon Arcade has a Boots but
it has also got things which are perhaps less generally attractivepen
shops, glass shops, and I think you can buy scented candles if
you have an overwhelming desire for that. There is a Maxwell and
Kennedy specialist chocolate shop. Close to Moorgate on the other
hand I think there is not only a Boots in Moorfields; there is
a Dixons and there is a Marks & Spencer and a Gap close to
Moorgate Station, which is precisely the sort of thing people
are looking at on a more general basis rather than scented candles
and glass. Is that right?
(Mr Spencer) I do not know how to answer that
question.
|