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
| 
