Examination of Witnesses (Questions 13200
- 13219)
13200. Sir Peter Soulsby: Can I interject
for a moment, all of these are assuming the relocation of the
station control?
13201. Ms Lieven: Sir, can I come to
that when there is a specific issue about that. I am going deal
with it, if I may, at that point because it arises on all the
options.
13202. The next one is option 5A, which is exhibit
12.[6]
Again, it is the same work on the vault, so it is exactly the
same issue there, but 5A involves building escalators from the
London Underground ticket hall directly up to the street. The
additional issue there is the construction problems of doing that
in an operational ticket hall within the same construction process
as you are doing the work in the post office vaults as well.
13203. 5B, which I think is 13, is the same
work in the ticket hall as 4C, so you go into the post office
vaults but instead of putting escalators into the London Underground
ticket hall, you add two escalators onto the existing Network
Rail escalators.[7]
13204. This is a photomontage which is too good
because for ages I kept looking at it and thinking it was the
existing, but it is not, two escalators. You can see at the top
of the photomontage the barrier which has not been taken out.
That is where the two new escalators would be inserted into the
Network Rail ticket hall. Again, all the same problems as 4C,
but then there are particular issues about those escalators.
13205. Can I then turn to option 7A, which the
Committee was referred to in passing as a possibility at the last
set of hearings on this but not in any detail, and that is exhibit
14.[8]
If the Committee thinks back to when I was showing the axonometric
and the LUL sub-station, this is the Crossrail passage coming
up from low level this is the Central Line, and that is the breakthrough
into the existing infrastructure. Along the Crossrail passageway
we would break through a wall into the existing sub-station and
put a free-standing ticket hall up to surface level there. It
is completely off line from ticket hall B, but the good bit is
that it is built within existing infrastructure. It involves moving
the infrastructure, and Mr Berryman can explain where that would
go and how much of a problem it may be, or not be as the case
may be, and this involves coming up to street level in front of
the UBS building, which British Land is the freeholder of. One
can see the building line up here. The Committee may remember,
although they may not, that we walked along past that building
on a site visit. It was the very 1980s, slightly fortress-like
building, with quite an extensive forecourt. There are specific
advantages to that, which Mr Anderson can take you through.
13206. Can I then say a word so everybody is
clear about how we have tested the options. We have tested them
all through two computer models, Pedroute, which the Committee
saw before, and Legion, which is a model that allows one to watch
the movements of the individual passengers, and it, therefore,
as Mr Anderson will explain, has some benefits over Pedroute.
When Mr Anderson gives evidence, we have agreed with the clerk
that we will suspend sitting for a short period so that you can
see the movie clips of the relevant bits of the Legion modelling.
It is a very good graphic way of explaining what is going on and,
also, I have to say, is quite fun, which cheers things up a bit
occasionally. The Committee will see that when Mr Anderson gives
evidence.
13207. I really want to avoid getting back into
all the passenger numbers today, but the Committee may recall
the British Land figure of 42,000, which we say is a high base
because it is 40 per cent above the observed level in 2001. We
took that as the base for 2016 and we added 35 per cent. There
is a dispute with British Land about whether we should have added
another 15 per cent. Mr Anderson will explain to you briefly why
we feel that is just too far. I will leave that for him.
13208. Another issue as to the testing that
went on, I anticipate British Land will say that option 3 does
not meet certain LUL station planning guidance in terms of the
static calculation for the number of gates. The Committee will
remember they heard an awful lot about that the last time. Mr
Berryman can explain where static calculations come into the analysis,
but we do have a note from LUL, which I think would be helpful
to point the Committee to at this stage. I understand it has been
ingested, but I do not have a number for it. Sorry, I do, it will
be A149.[9]
This deals with two matters. First of all, demand estimation,
I do not want to read through all of this, but if we can look
at paragraphs 4 and 5: "A key issue for Liverpool Street
is the split of Crossrail entries and exits between Liverpool
Street and Moorgate. The project team have allocated traffic by
using small disaggregated zones and choosing the station entrance
with the shortest route". This approach gives a reasonably
accurate allocation between the stations. You will remember a
huge amount of time was spent on that in January.
13209. "There are, in theory, a number
of other factors which can affect the accuracy of the forecasts.
In LUL's judgment these are second order compared to the factors
already considered. Given that the 35 per cent covers the very
large uncertainties around long-term growth, statistically these
second order effects are virtually absorbed within the 35 per
cent contingency. LUL are therefore content with the demand forecasts
for Liverpool Station used for testing the design". That
is their position on that.
13210. If we can go over the page to passenger
flow modelling, they say a number of options are being considered
and then end: "One of them, option 3, revises gateline within
the existing ticket hall. This has been modelled using Pedroute
and Legion. Both models show that even with 35 per cent growth
from 2016, the gateline will handle the peak 15 minutes flow,
albeit with short periods of queuing, following the arrival of
trains, particularly the Metropolitan/Circle platforms. The peak
15 minute queue at the gateline is only 15 seconds at the +35
per cent. The modelling has assumed the full complement of gates.
Should a gate be out of action, LUL, as operator, would ensure
that the number of existing gates would be maintained and an entry
gate sacrificed. If this leads to excessive queuing on the entry
side, LUL would encourage incoming Central Line passengers to
use ticket hall C".
13211. This is the point about the SPSG, the
guidance: "The number of gates would fall potentially slightly
below standard in the very long run. Should the addition of further
gates require a major step-up in construction costs, it would
not be unreasonable for the Promoter of Crossrail to seek a concession
against the standard. This would be on the basis that a safe work-around
could be demonstrated which has only minor impacts on customers'
journey experience or LUL's operating costs relative to the extra
construction costs. The standards are designed to give a first
order calculation of space and gateline requirements to ensure
safe and customer convenience but economically efficient solutions.
Detailed modelling and design may demonstrate solutions that are
more efficient than the raw standards would indicate". That
is the LUL on that.
13212. Can I then turn to the station operations
room briefly and put up exhibit 15.[10]
At this point, sir, I have to make an apology because, albeit
inadvertently, I think I may have somewhat misled the Committee
at day 8, paragraph 2170, for which I can only apologise. I did
say that Crossrail would remove the station operations room. Strictly
speaking, that is true, but I should have made clear to the Committee,
what was not clear at the time, that the station operations room
is here and behind it are a number of structural elements. Mr
Berryman can explain this in detail but, in effect, we have to
keep a structure here because it is keeping up the ceiling above.
We can remove a part of the station operations room. This shows
the part, and I think Mr Chapman is suggesting for British Land
that we could remove more, and I think that is right. This is
a conservative analysis of how much we could remove. We cannot
remove the whole lot, there has to be a fairly solid wall behind
here to keep the ceiling up. Mr Anderson can explain how in terms
of passenger movements that is not a problem, but I am sorry that
I suggested to the Committee, albeit implicitly, that the whole
thing could go last time.
13213. Can I then finally turn to the Promoter's
preference on all this. I would normally do that in closing, but
I think it might help the Committee, Mr Laurence and his clients,
to understand exactly where we are on this. Our position is that
based on expert advice from Mr Anderson and his team and Mr Berryman,
option 3B performs perfectly satisfactorily at both 2016 and at
+35 per cent, so it operates satisfactorily on a 60-year design
period. We do not see any need to do anymore than that, and that
is our clearly preferred option.
13214. If, because we have to take this into
account—we want to give the Committee as much helpful guidance
as we can—the Committee are not satisfied with that, then
we say there are two further stages that need to be gone through.
If any further expansion of ticket hall capacity is required,
then the Promoter, on the absolutely clear engineering advice
of Mr Berryman, has an unequivocal preference for option 7 over
any of the other options that have been considered, obviously
other than 3B. That option 7 has clear engineering advantages
over going into the post office vaults and thus has a significantly
lower engineering risk, as well as passenger benefits.
13215. Mr Anderson will show you the passenger
benefit figures. It is really important to emphasise at this stage—we
have drawn up cost figures—that the preference for option
7 over options 4, 5A and 5B are not cost-driven, they are engineering-driven
and passenger-benefit- driven. We are not asking the Committee
to say, "You might save £3 million by doing it this
way rather than that way", we simply say that option 7 is
the best option in engineering and passenger terms over 4 and
5.
13216. The Promoter's view is that if, and,
of course, we do not accept this, the Committee think there are
any problems with option 3B, that is extending the gateline, then
they on any analysis will only arise well into the future and,
indeed, may never arise. There are a lot of unpredictables in
all this about economic growth and so on. Therefore, it is quite
unnecessary to require us to do option 3 and option 7 now—I
should explain, if you do option 7 then you would almost certainly
expand the gateline at some point in ticket hall B as well—and
to require us to do both will simply waste money at this stage.
Therefore, if the Committee do have a concern about ticket hall
B capacity, beyond option 3B well into the future, then what we
would ask is you indicate that in your report and require a commitment,
which we would work out, as to how that issue would be dealt with
if and when the problem arises. There is really no case to require
us to do option 7 now. I felt it was helpful to go through those
stages now so the Committee and Mr Laurence are under no misunderstanding.
13217. Sir, I am sorry to have gone on a little
bit. Unless there are any questions to me, at this stage, I will
proceed directly to call Mr Berryman.
Mr Keith Berryman, recalled
Examined by Ms Lieven
13218. Ms Lieven: If we can go directly
to option 3B.[11]
Can you explain what it entails and what its benefits are?
(Mr Berryman) Option 3B is the
one which is already on the screen. It involves no structural
alterations to the ticket hall to what is holding it up. It would
require the installation of new gates and limited building works
associated with that, and the shop units just here would need
to be removed. The works of a relatively minor nature can be undertaken
during night shifts or with the changeover of the position of
the gatelines probably during the holiday period, at Christmas
or Easter or something of that sort. It is worth mentioning, as
Ms Lieven drew attention to it, that the Station Planning:
Standards and Guidelines—a document produced by London
Underground which is used for planning of all the elements of
the station, the gatelines, the escalators, ticket halls and other
things—unfortunately was written by engineers and planners
and not by lawyers, so it does not necessarily meet the exacting
standards which you would expect of a document which was written
by lawyers and a certain amount of interpretation of this document
is required. However, if you use the formula to get in, you get
to what we call the static figure for the facilities that are
required, but that does not fully take into account passenger
behaviour. It is important to undertake dynamic analysis to test
the result of the static calculation. I think this will be referred
to later when my colleague Mr Anderson gives evidence on this
point. This is a very good example, because the number of gates
in this gateline is lower than could be achieved by putting a
zig-zag gateline in. The static calculations would have indicated
that a zig-zag line with more gates in it would have worked better
but the modelling that we have done in the dynamic analysis indicates
that having a straight gateline and an unobstructed route gives
you a much better throughput than the alternative.
13219. Could we now look at option 4C, please.[12]
(Mr Berryman) Option 4C involves
removing the vault structure above the Post Office railway shafts.
These shafts go down to the Post Office railway and we need to
remove the head of those shafts. When we spoke about them in February,
we felt it would be a fairly simple matter to cap the shafts off.
Since then, we have had discussions with the Post Office and have
been able to go down there and inspect the area and the Post Office
still wish to maintain access to those shafts. In slide 5 we see
the existing arrangements for the shaft and the ticket hall.[13]
The shafts come up into the vaults at this level, and the street
level is above. Can we put up slide 8, please.[14]
6 Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station-Option
5A-Test 2, Ticket Hall Level-Additional Escalators (24 Gate lines)
(LONDLB-20504A-012). Back
7
Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station-Option 5B-National
Rail Concourse-Photomontage of Additional 2 Escalators added to
Existing 2-way bank (LONDLB-20504A-013). Back
8
Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station-Option 7A-Test
2, Substation Ticket Hall Options-Western Escalators (24 Gate
lines) Ticket Hall Level (LONDLB-20504A-014). Back
9
Committee Ref: A149, Liverpool Street Station-Demand Estimation
and Passenger Flow Modelling-LUL Commentary on approach of Crossrail
Project (SCN-20060629-002 to -004). Back
10
Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station-Option 7A-Test
2, Substation Ticket Hall Options-Western Escalators (24 Gate
lines) Ticket Hall Level (LONDLB-20504A-014). Back
11
Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station-Option 3B-Test
4, LUL MIP Addition-(21 Gate lines)-Ticket Hall Level (LONDLB-20504A-009). Back
12
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
13
Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station: Ticket Hall B
Post Office Vaults-Existing Condition Section AA through vaults
(LONDLB-20504A-005). Back
14
Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station: Ticket Hall B
Post Office Vaults-Proposed Extension of Ticket Hall Concourse
Section AA through vaults (LONDLB-20504A-008). Back
|
