Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1820
- 1839)
1820. Sir Peter Soulsby: I wonder if you could
just clarify what the Promoter's intentions are, and whether they
are able to give any commitment about removal of the use of that
space?
1821. Ms Lieven: The moving of the control
room as I understand it, absent Crossrail, is a matter for London
Underground and its PPP partner at Liverpool Street. I think there
is reference in the note to Infraco. I would be surprised if the
Secretary of State could give any undertaking as to it being moved;
but what I can do is seek further confirmation as to the plans
on it and the level of certainty that it will be moved. I would
need to take instructions on that.
1822. Sir Peter Soulsby: I raise that,
Chairman, because pedroute's evidence shows it as having been
removed. Clearly, were it not to have been removed at the time
of Crossrail it may make a significant difference to the way we
look at this.
1823. Ms Lieven: I am sorry, I may have
misunderstood the question. So far as Crossrail is concerned,
it is Crossrail's unequivocal intention that that station operation
room will be moved. I need to take instructions, but I suspect
we can give an undertaking that it will be moved. In reality,
my understanding is it will have been moved many years before.
I will take instructions on that point and come back to the Committee
either this afternoon or tomorrow with an express position on
that.
1824. Mr Laurence: Chairman, the main
issue that confronts this Committee can be described in a number
of ways, and in the course of what I have to say this morning
I will no doubt use several formulations, but it can only be put
like this: whether there is a sufficient problem with the Promoter's
proposed solution at Liverpool Street for this Committee to intervene
and require the Promoter to do something about it; and it has
principally been in connection with that first issue that you
have heard evidence over the past five or six days.
1825. We respectfully submit that the Committee
will not be assisted if I was to attempt a detailed review of
the evidence relevant to that first and principal issue in the
course of what I have to say, particularly as there is an equally
important further matter that I want to spend some time on after
my preliminary remarks on that first issue.
1826. The Promoter has chosen not to call any
rebuttal evidence in this case. A strange omission if his view
really is that there is no case to answer. Notes on this and so-called
position statements on that are no substitute, Chairman, for hard
evidence. The Promoter has plainly reflected on the evidence and,
we would respectfully suggest, has decided that he cannot realistically
hope to counter it in the usual way; that is to say, by calling
evidence of his own and subjecting his witnesses to cross-examination.
1827. The decision to drop from the scheme an
eastern ticket hall at Liverpool Street, the so-called arcade
side scheme, was, so the environmental statement tells us at page
241, because the predicted passenger flows did not warrant a new
ticket hall at the Liverpool Street end.
1828. The Promoter did not call evidence before
you to defend those predictions; neither did he contradict your
Petitioners' evidence that he no longer supported those predictions.
Your Petitioners gave evidence summarised in Mr Spencer's Table
30 which showed that the Promoter had amended his predictions
to produce a need for, on Mr Spencer's calculations, 18 plus five
equals 23 gates in ticket hall B when you made allowance for the
design year. The Promoter did not deny that his amended figure
for 2016 with Crossrail produced a need for 18 gates, two more
than there are now. Chairman, the common position reached was
that summarised in Table 30 at columns D and G, lines 9 and 17.
1829. There was no realistic answer to what
Mr Spencer had to say about that. The Promoter called no evidence
to support the view that his amended Crossrail passenger exit
flows, 67 per cent higher than his original ones, still did not
warrant a new ticket hall. He left you to infer from cross-examination
that that was his view. Chairman, that is in a way disgraceful
really. Surely the Committee is entitled to assume that the Promoter
would not have reached the decision to drop altogether an eastern
ticket hall if he had known what he now knows and what the Committee
now knows?
1830. What I am saying is this: the Crossrail
proposal was going to include a proper eastern ticket hall; without
notice, and very suddenly in February 2005, it was dropped. CLRL'S
demand matrixes of December 2004 had predicted 5,300 exiting Crossrail
passengers crossing Point M in the morning peak. In January of
this year, just before these committee proceedings began, a document
was produced entitled "Liverpool Street Station Demand and
Capacity", an extract from which Mr Weiss produced, which
showed the Promoter accepting on Mr Spencer's evidence that that
figure 5,300 Crossrail passengers passing Point M into the ticket
hall had been underestimated by the percentage I mentioned earlier,
67 per cent. The figures should have been 8,850, not 5,300.
1831. The point here is not to convince with
figures; if Mr Spencer has not already done that my advocacy is
hardly going to do so. The point is rather to demonstrate this:
the Crossrail passenger demand forecasts put forward by the Promoter,
on which he based his decision to drop the eastern ticket hall,
have been shown to be and accepted as being incorrect. The Promoter's
answer to that has in effect been "So what?" The answer
to "So what?" is, "So why haven't you reversed
your decision to drop an eastern ticket hall by agreeing to provide
one? The Committee was entitled to expect an answer to that question,
which went beyond a mere position statement.
1832. When you look at the position statement,
you will see several examples of what happens when a document
is put before the Committee, author not attributed, which contains
evidential matters that are highly contentious but are not subject
to cross-examination.
1833. If I may, Chairman, I would just, taking
this as briefly as I may, give you a few examples of what I am
talking about.
1834. Without, I hope, breaking the direction
of Sir Peter sitting as Chairman, not to trouble the Committee
too much with precise numbers, there is a reference in, I think
it was, document A16,[6]
exhibits 11 to 21, which the Promoter discusses at paragraph 3.3
of the position statement. That, sir, for the record, reads: "The
Promoter has placed before the Committee a series of pedroute
modelling results for ticket hall B at Liverpool Street, exhibits
11 to 21. These pedroute results assess the morning peak operating
conditions in ticket hall B at Liverpool Street Underground Station
at 2016, both without and with Crossrail, under a realistic range
of passenger growth assumptions, including an allowance for long-term
future growth in accordance with paragraph 3.1 above." That
is the opening of that paragraph.
1835. These exhibits referred to in that position
statement, says the Promoter at 3.3, assess the morning peak operating
conditions in ticket hall B at Liverpool Street Underground at
2016, both without and with Crossrail, under what the paper calls
a realistic range of passenger growth assumptions, including an
allowance for long-term future growth". Sir, I ask forensically,
who says they were realistic? Where was our opportunity to cross-examine
the witness who claimed that they were realistic? The results
are said to show that the impact of Crossrail will not be to worsen
expected morning peak operating conditions in ticket hall B in
2016 or the longer term but, on the contrary, are likely slightly
to improve congestion in ticket hall B because Crossrail will
offer some relief to the Central line and the subsurface lines.
1836. The document then goes on to criticise
in detail the assumptions made by SDG. In particular, sir, firstly,
the assumption in test three of an overall market share of 20
per cent instead of 13.3 per cent and the assumption that a further
4,610 passengers would interchange from national rail to Crossrail
through ticket hall B in the peak. Sir, of the first of the assumptions
that I have just mentioned the position paper asserts there is
no explanation before the Committee for the significantly higher
figure asserted by British Land SDG". But there is and there
was. Mr Spencer's judgment, asserted by him in the teeth of a
vigorous cross-examination from Mr Elvin (the references you will
find at Day Six, pages 14 and 15, paragraphs 1449 to 1458). Sir,
I ask again, very courteously, I hope, but forensically, where
was our comparable opportunity to cross-examine the Promoter on
his opposing judgment?
1837. The second assumption is criticised on
the basis that the Promoter considers "the additional adjustment
to be unrealistic." That is Mr Spencer's test four. Oh? Mr
Spencer did not consider it unrealistic and appeared before you
to defend it. Where was the Promoter's witness? When Mr Elvin
said, at question 1466 on Day Six, referring to test four, and
I quote: "In other words, the Committee can apply their own
judgment and decide whether you are right or not", I respectfully
suggest he should, in fairness, have added "taking care to
disregard entirely the various bits of evidence I gave as counsel
in the course of my cross-examination."
1838. Sir, my second example again involves
the position statement. After describing the problems with the
Petitioner's Eldon Street proposal, paragraph 5.3 of the position
statement asserts as follows: it described various problems in
paragraph 5.1 including, under the heading "Tunnels clearances;
impediment of traffic and pedestrians during construction; permanent
spatial problems at ground level; major utility services disruption
and disruption to sewers", and it then went on, at 5.3 in
my punctuation, to make two points. Firstly, "although many
of these problems might be overcome if there were no alternative,
the cost and disruption involved cannot be justified when alternative
significantly lower cost and less disruptive options are available."
Secondly, "in any event, it is said, the need for this new
entrance is strongly disputed."
1839. At the final page of the statement, the
maker of the statement goes on, 6.1: "The number of gates
in the LUL ticket hall B could be increased (a) in the existing
configuration by replacing existing gates with slim line gates,
(b) by reconfiguring the existing gateline and using slim line
gates this could include using the mezzanine area of the north-west
corner of the ticket hall (see LUL note)." 6.2 refers to
a greater use of ticket hall C facilitated by management controls
and signage, and so on. Sir, we regard that paragraph 5.3, from
which I have quoted, I hope fairly, as particularly objectionable.
6 Committee Ref: A16, Exhibits to the Proof of Evidence
of Mr Tim Spencer, Steer Davies Gleave. Back
|
