Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 3160 - 3179)

  3160. What is the component of that £7 million? How much of that is residential?
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Most of it is non-residential. I explained yesterday that there is a central section which is very densely populated with buildings with a particular sensitivity: recording studios, concert halls and the like, so the greater part is non-residential.

  3161. For churches and the like?
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) All of the buildings that are in IPD10 in that table, which I have looked at and you can see on page 2 of D10.[11]


  3162. What is the figure for residential buildings in the additional cost?

  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It would be possible to let the Committee have a copy of the document which I gave to Mr Methold on which he has based his estimates. That does identify the buildings within the route windows between Paddington and Liverpool Street.

  3163. Were those the 210 sheets you gave him on Friday night?
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is correct.

  3164. I am sure the Committee will welcome that.
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) There is a summary on two sheets.

  3165. Tell us how many residential dwellings are included in the extra cost at six?
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I do not know that because these buildings have been in my database since the first Crossrail scheme, some have changed use and some I do not have an identification of on their list, they are on the list because of piled foundations or deep basements. It is of no actual relevance to the costing what the occupancy of the building is, all we need to do is look at the building according to its classification in table one in D10.

  3166. So your advice to the Committee and us from quarter to 10 to 10 o'clock this morning is that the extra cost is 6.3 million?
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I explained this morning that the best way of looking at the comparative increase that would result from substituting another type of undertaking was best done by taking those requirements that we know about and looking at that in proportional terms. It is then reasonable to say when we look at the larger figure which has been allowed for costing the whole project purposes the proportional increase may be of the same order.

  3167. You have, after how many years working on this— How many years have you been working on this, Mr Thornely-Taylor?
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Probably 15.

  3168. Fifteen. After 15 years is this the first exercise you have laid before anybody as to the detail of FST?
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I have not even done the detail because, as I have explained once or twice, we do not know what will be the final position as regards building foundations and changes of use and all the matters which will come to light during the detailed design phase.

  3169. We will have that in mind and proceed. First I want to set the matrix so that we can agree it so the Committee understands. 24 trains an hour, agreed?
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I will just make sure I do not give any misleading information. During the night it is 16 trains per hour.

  3170. Generally 24 trains an hour, 16 at night.
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I believe we are concerned with sleep disturbance, I think we should concentrate on that.

  3171. Is the answer yes to that?
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) The answer is no, it is 16 trains per hour at night.

  3172. How many trains are there in the day?
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) In some parts of the day it is 20 and in some parts of the day it is 24.

  3173. Exactly. Then we come to night, and we have agreed at night it is 16. Tunnels, 80km per hour, is that right?
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) There is a speed profile which varies almost continuously between stations. For most of the tunnels there is a speed limit of 80 and there are sections where 80 is the speed.

  3174. The noise we are talking about is low frequency, correct?
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) No. I have spent some time this morning distinguishing between low frequency and looking at the Camden exhibit.

  3175. Can I just keep this short. Is it your case to the Committee that the noise we are concerned about is not low frequency noise?
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Sir, shall I go over it again?

  3176. Yes or no and then add to that, please. Yes or no?
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I would have to say that the case for the Committee is that Crossrail noise is likely to be concentrated around the 50-63 hertz part of the spectrum. That is not low frequency in the context in which we have been talking about it, which would be noise from combustion equipment, low speed reciprocating air compressors and that sort of thing. In the specific case of the report of the WHO authors I think I must answer Mr Clarkson no. You will hear a low rumble, a distant low rumble, should you visit a site where you can hear this noise.

  3177. So this case is being promoted upon the basis, is it, Mr Thornely-Taylor, and this will be remembered and quoted in the future, that groundborne noise is not low frequency?
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) No.

  3178. It is not?
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I hope people will read the transcript and take into account the—I hope—helpful and reasonably detailed explanation I have given as to what the frequency aspects of this are.

  3179. Next, groundborne noise can reach the ear without passing through the air, correct?
  (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I think you are probably referring to the fact that you can sometimes hear noise in bed that is coming up through the bed and through the pillow.


11   Crossrail Ref: P44, Information Paper D10, Groundborne Noise And Vibration, p2. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007