Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1740
- 1759)
1740. For example, an expensive element of doing
this might be the escalators up to street level shown half way
up ticket hall B on the left.
(Mr Chapman) Not very. An escalator I believe
is about just over £1 million. It is an element of cost.
It might be £5 million.
1741. The escalators are beyond the gateline,
are they not?
(Mr Chapman) Correct.
1742. The assessments of capacity that SDG have
been looking at relate, as Mr Spencer made clear yesterday, to
gateline calculations.
(Mr Chapman) Mr Spencer has made many calculations
some of which relate to the gateline. Overall, he is talking about
the capacity of the station, not the capacity of the gateline.
1743. We have seen where the pedroute showed
issues. It may or may not be necessary to have escalators there.
(Mr Chapman) The flows are substantially more,
an extra 9,200 people coming off Crossrail wanting to go to street.
That is an escalator full purely from Crossrail in the year it
opens, not allowing for future growth. Connectivity between ticket
hall B and the street is a major element of concern in terms of
capacity of the station.
1744. You disowned giving evidence on capacity
right at the beginning because you did not want to go into the
figures. I am not going to pick up capacity issues with you. The
Committee has had the evidence from SDG on capacity so you will
forgive me if I park that question and say it is a matter for
submission based on the evidence. The escalators are one element.
There may be a number of variations to the remodelling of the
structure of the ticket hall on the right hand side, may there
not?
(Mr Chapman) Correct.
1745. I do not think there is any issue between
us. Those are vaults under the street, under the Post Office shafts,
and they are empty?
(Mr Chapman) I do not know if they are empty.
I have never seen them.
1746. If works were to be done to ticket hall
B, whenever they were done they would cause disruption at least
in part to the passengers coming through the ticket hall.
(Mr Chapman) That solution does not require
a lot of disruption because a lot of the work can be done behind
walls that are currently walls.
1747. The only effect Crossrail at the moment
has on ticket hall B is when the breakthrough of the wall comes
at point M.
(Mr Chapman) The effect of Crossrail is to
funnel—
1748. I am talking about construction works.
The only physical works that impinge on ticket hall B at the moment
are coming through at point M.
(Mr Chapman) Yes. Crossrail powers will stop
at point M because it is not part of the power sought for Crossrail.
1749. I am looking at the question about whether
future works are necessarily going to be more expensive and more
disruptive if they are done at the same time or in the future.
Works to option six are effectively going to be the same whether
or not they are done as part of the Crossrail works or whether
they are reserved to see whether they are needed at some stage
in the future. The disruption will be the same whether they are
done with Crossrail or later. They can be done, as you suggest,
behind walls. There is no reason why the cost should be any different.
They are independent works of Crossrail.
(Mr Chapman) Not quite. I understand where
you are coming from but in terms of the residents of the area
two major phases of construction in the area they would view as
two major phases of disruption in the area.
1750. I suggest the extent of disruption is
not going to be major in that sense. We are dealing with works
to the ticket hall possibly, though not necessarily creating a
separate entrance up to street level. That does not need to be
included. The extent of disruption does not have to be that great.
(Mr Chapman) At the moment, without knowing
what is proposed, how it would be done and what the issues are,
I suspect you might be right but I do not know. There is a lot
of work to be done over the Post Office shafts.
Re-examined by Mr
Laurence
1751. Mr Laurence: You have said several
times that you have not had the benefit of seeing any plans that
enable you to comment comprehensively on option six.
(Mr Chapman) That is correct.
We wanted to show something of how we felt it would work, just
to make sure it would work, and help the Committee, but it is
our guess of what is required.
1752. If the Promoters, no doubt reluctantly,
made the assumption that the kind of demand which Mr Spencer has
spoken about and which has motivated you in preparing option one
was something that they should have underlying the preparation
of plans for option six, how long would it take them to prepare
some plans that would enable you to comment more comprehensively
than you have been able to do?
(Mr Chapman) It depends how much information
is already in their possession. If they have already started talking
to the Post Office to get proper, accurate plans of the shafts,
it may be relatively rapid.
1753. If they have not? Still just a matter
of weeks, presumably?
(Mr Chapman) I have done buildings over the
Post Office railway before and they are well equipped normally
to provide information so I would hope the information could be
gained quite quickly.
1754. If necessary, through the Committee, a
steer was given to the Promoters to get on with the preparation
of plans that gave some flesh to the option six idea, is that
something which would enable you to prepare a more detailed appraisal
of option six than you have so far been able to do?
(Mr Chapman) Absolutely, yes.
1755. As a result of Mr Elvin's cross-examination
this afternoon, it seemed to me he was trying to persuade you
that on reflection you should abandon option one because of the
disruption in Eldon Street and so on. On reflection, are you prepared
to abandon option one at this stage?
(Mr Chapman) Mr Elvin very perceptively identified
some of the major issues but they are issues that we have been
through, understand and have discussed with CLRL's consultants,
so I did not learn anything new.
1756. In so far as the Secretary of State's
proposed undertaking, ex hypothesi, involves the abandonment
now of option one, what comment have you on the proposed undertaking?
(Mr Chapman) Personally, I would only abandon
option one or even Mr Elvin's option two if I knew that option
six worked, if option six is proven to work and to provide the
capacity that might happen. There are advantages to option one,
I fully acknowledge, but I would only abandon an option that I
know will work if I knew the other option would work.
1757. Sir, are you going to say something about
when we are coming back?
1758. Sir Peter Soulsby: Yes, at 10 on
Tuesday, with the expectation that we will be hearing your closing
submissions.
1759. Mr Laurence: On this case?
| 
