Examination of Witnesses (Questions 13185
- 13199)
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in.
The Petition of the Corporation of London with
British Land.
Mr George Laurence appeared on behalf of the
Petitioner.
Ms Lieven and Mr Mould appeared on behalf of
the Promoter.
13185. Chairman: Good Morning. As usual
on days of hearings we will suspend for ten minutes around about
11.30 so that people might get a cup of tea of coffee. Today we
are going to hear from the Promoter's and the Corporation of London
and British Land's responses to the Committee's requests on Liverpool
Street Station. Ms Lieven?
13186. Ms Lieven: Sir, can I start by
saying that there is a certain symmetry today because we may remember
six months ago we started at Liverpool Street and today is the
last day that we are doing the route tour of Crossrail, the site
specific part, because next week we move on to railway and access
issues, and we are back at Liverpool Street. We have gone all
the way around London and come back.
13187. Sir, as you just mentioned, you did write
to us asking us to progress matters in respect of Liverpool Street,
and since then we have had many meetings with British Land and
the City. We have produced reports, and effectively we are here
today to explain how far we have got. I am going to make a relatively
short opening to explain where we have got to and what the options
that are being considered are. I am then going to call Mr Berryman
to explain the engineering issues which arise, and I am then going
to call Mr Anderson to explain the passenger and modelling issues.
13188. Can I say now, sir, so that everybody
on the Petitioner's side is conscious of this, we have learnt
much in the last six months about how to present this case and
we hope we are now doing it in a way which is more helpful to
the Committee than it was six months ago. I am not going to engage
in a lengthy cross-examination of Petitioner's evidence. What
we intend to do is put our case positively through our witnesses.
If there are any crucial issues which have not been explained,
I may cross-examine a little, but I can assure the Committee now
that we are not going to have the kind of lengthy trawl through
the evidence from our side that we had six months ago.
13189. Can I then start by putting up the axonometric
of Liverpool Street to remind the Committee; it is fresh again
in our minds, but possibly not in the Committee's.[1]
This is the Liverpool Street Station end of the Crossrail Liverpool
Street Station. You will remember there is a Moorgate end as well,
but it does not arise today. These are the Crossrail passages
down platforms down here, and for those passengers who want to
come up into Liverpool Street, they go up this escalator here
and then they come into this passageway where they come out past
the Central Line. That is the spot which became known as the "hole
in the wall", although it is not really a hole in the wall,
it is a spacious area, but for the benefit of memory at least,
it is the hole in the wall. Then you come through into ticket
hall B here. You will remember ticket hall A is over here.
13190. While we have this up, can I ask the
Committee to mentally note, for future reference, this area here.
This is an existing LUL sub-station which becomes relevant to
one of the options. Up here, of course, is the Network Rail concourse
which is, again, relevant in ways that we will see. It is the
box immediately to the north of the Crossrail passage. Mr Mould
explains it better than I do, as always.
13191. We have discussed a number of options
with the City and British Land and a lot of them have fallen by
the wayside. What we are left with is effectively five options.
If I can put up exhibit 001.[2]
There were five options, of which we say there are really only
two that Mr Berryman is prepared to recommend to the secretary
of State. I am going to take you through them in a minute, but
the reason I put them up now is to say the numbering is thoroughly
confusing, to be frank, because options have fallen away. You
do not need to worry about 1, 2 and 5, and you do not need to
worry about various As and Bs, those are all things which we have
looked at and nobody is progressing any further. Please do not
be concerned about the strange numbering.
13192. We say there are two which are realistic,
and I will explain precisely why in a minute, British Land may
have their own preferences and they will explain that.
13193. Before I come to describe the options,
we did make—this is both sides, there is no criticism here—a
heroic effort to agree a joint statement on the facts of these
options. We have come very close to agreeing it, but it is not
finally agreed. What I have had circulated to the Committee, and
perhaps we can flash it up for a moment, is the track-changed
version that was going backwards and forwards last night. I think
the key facts are agreed, and then, as always in these documents,
once you let lawyers loose they start fiddling over the details
of who prefers what, but this document sets out the basic facts
about the options, and the Committee, for that purpose, can use
it as an aide-memoire.
13194. Can I then turn to going through the
various options very briefly so the Committee has them in mind
before Mr Berryman gives evidence. If the Committee keeps this
summary sheet as an aide-memoire, because I have certainly
found it is difficult to pin the numbers down, that is the summary
sheet.
13195. Chairman: Can I say for the stenographer,
that is A148.[3]
13196. Ms Lieven: I am very grateful,
sir. If we can then turn on to exhibit number 9, what we see there
is option 3B.[4]
The infrastructure of ticket hall B has stayed exactly the same
inasmuch as the walls of the post office vault are exactly the
same and everything else there is exactly the same. What changes
is the configuration of the gateline here to fit in—on this
drawing—21 gates. It involves moving one shop unit here.
Mr Berryman will explain exactly the right place.
13197. All I want the Committee to understand
at this stage is that is option 3B. It focuses around changing
the gateline. Mr Anderson will explain that passenger modelling
shows that that option works not only at 2016, which the Committee
will remember is the design year, but at +35 per cent, which the
Committee will remember is the LUL increase to take into account
future growth.
13198. It works in 2016 and it works on a 60-year
planning horizon. I have a kind of catch phrase for it, "It
is cheap, it is simple, it is unexciting, but it does work".
That will be Mr Anderson's evidence.
13199. Can we then move on to exhibit 10.[5]
This is option 4C. This option, together with both of the option
5s, involves going into this area on the east, which is the existing
post office railway vaults, so it extends the ticket hall into
this area. Mr Berryman will explain his extreme reluctance to
do that work, and the engineering problems that arise. I am not
going to try and explain it because I will get it wrong, and I
do not want to even attempt to steal his thunder. This is the
issue on option 4C and 5A and 5B and the significant problems
that that raises. There are no modelling issues on this, Mr Anderson
can explain, it works, 2016 and +35 per cent.
1 Crossrail Ref: P2, Liverpool Street Station-3D Axonometric
View of Liverpool Street Ticket Hall (LONDLB-2604-023). Back
2
Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Ticket Hall Options-Cost
Estimate Summary Sheet (LONDLB-20504A-001). Back
3
Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station-East Ticket Hall
Options Back
4
Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station-Option 3B-Test
4, LUL MIP Addition-(21 Gate lines)-Ticket Hall Level (LONDLB-20504A-009). Back
5
Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station-Option 4C-Test
2, Eastern Ticket Office-Post Office vaults/shafts removed-LUL
MIP Addition (24 Gate lines)-Ticket Hall Level (LONDLB-20504A-010). Back
| 
