Examination of Witnesses (Questions 13500
- 13519)
13500. Ms Lieven: Yes. That is fine.
Could I then deal with Sir Peter's question about gate numbers
to use up the bit of time before lunch. Mr Anderson, I think you
are in a position to explain the different gate numbers for the
different options and how they relate to the modelling.
(Mr Anderson) Yes. I will give you the numbers
we have assumed in the modelling we are about to see. For option
3 it is 21: 11 gates into the ticket hall and 10 gates out. For
option 4 and the two option 5s it is similar. We have 24 gates:
11 in and 13 outbound. A combination of option 3 and option 7
together would give you 33 gates: 18 outbound and 15 inbound.
13501. Chairman: We will adjourn now
and resume at 12.30.
After the short adjournment
The Legion model CD was shown
13502. Ms Lieven: Mr Anderson, that has
dealt with how the various options performed. Can you tell us
what you perceive the benefits of the various options to be in
passenger terms.
(Mr Anderson) There were two types of benefit:
firstly relief in congestion that could occur around the gateline
in ticket hall B—and I think all the options do that to
a degree. Our calculations, which I think we put in an exhibit,
suggest the relief there was broadly similar throughout the options.
There is then a second category of option which is for those options
to provide a direct access to street level. There is a journey
time saving in addition to the saving of queuing at the gateline.
That is option 5A and option 7, which give a more direct route
to street. We have, indicatively, taking those time savings and
using rather more economic parameters, converted them into pound
notes. Exhibit 4 shows that.[40]
The congestion relief benefits tend to be similar: the more gates
you put in, the more relief you get. Option 4 will perform better
than option 3 and the figures indicate that. We get of the order
of £30 million of benefits throughout each of the options
for congestion relief. With 5A we see a quite significant increase
and with option 7 a significant increase. Those increases are
down to the more direct route that people can take to street level
with those options, because they have, in the case of 5A, new
escalators directly from the old ticket hall, and in the case
of option 7 from the new ticket hall up to Liverpool Street itself.
Those will broadly be the benefits for the various options. It
seems that we get good congestion relief benefits from option
3. We get a little bit more with option 4 and probably a bit more
with option 7. The big difference comes with option 5A and option
7 in terms of journey time savings.
13503. Finally, can you conclude on your view,
primarily, of option 3 in passenger terms.
(Mr Anderson) Option 3 provides significant
relief to the gateline in ticket hall B and the benefits are the
indicative benefits that are shown there. It does that quite satisfactorily
in 2016 and for the period into the future. I think we saw on
the animation that we get some queues at the very busiest times
in the 2076 case but overall we have an acceptable solution there
in terms of relieving the gateline.
13504. Ms Lieven: Thank you very much.
I have no further questions of Mr Anderson.
Cross-examined by Mr Laurence
13505. Mr Laurence: Good afternoon, Mr
Anderson. Was there a reason why you did not show option 4C.
(Mr Anderson) There is no reason at all, other
than time and illustration.
13506. Ms Lieven: Sir, I am sorry, I
should have made clear. We do not argue that option 4C does not
perform plus 35 per cent, so we did not see any need to show it.
We were not asked in advance to show it, but we can do so if anybody
wants us to.
(Mr Anderson) It is available if the Committee
would like to see it.
13507. Chairman: If we are provided with
a CD, then it may be put together with that so that we can view
it.
13508. Ms Lieven: Certainly, sir.
13509. Mr Laurence: I do not think we
knew until this morning that it was going to be shown at all.
13510. Chairman: Until this morning,
we did not realise we were going to have two packs or that the
letter had not arrived. It happens.
13511. Mr Laurence: Mr Anderson, I would
like to check one or two things with you and then go into one
or two things in a little more detail. Do you accept, with Mr
Berryman, that if there is to be amendment to the Bill—and
I appreciate that you contend there need not be an amendment to
the Bill—now is the time to make that amendment? In other
words, before the summer recess is when you will want to know
what the Committee's decision is.
(Mr Anderson) Yes.
13512. If 3B is rejected by the Committee, we
are necessarily into considering either 3B with 7 at some later
stage—which of course is suggested—or some other alternative
altogether.
(Mr Anderson) Yes. I think Mr Berryman gave
the answers to those questions.
13513. If 3B plus 7 later is rejected by the
Committee, the contest, as you see it, is between 4C and 7A. Is
that right?
(Mr Anderson) I am not sure I have looked at
it in those terms.
13514. Would you mind doing so now, to assist
the Committee.
(Mr Anderson) I can only really advise on the
passenger modelling of benefits associated with those various
options and that is the information we have on the chart there.
It would suggest in passenger terms that some of the other options
are better than 4C.
13515. Although the decision will be taken by
somebody other than yourself, your present inclination would be
to say that in the scenario that I have just put to you it is
7 that there will be promoted now rather than 4C. 7A rather than
4C.
(Mr Anderson) If there is a choice between
those two, obviously in passenger benefit terms that has to be
my preference.
13516. Are you giving that evidence on the footing,
as I think you confirmed, that 3B would be done in any event or
that 7A would be done independently of 3B?
(Mr Anderson) My view is that option 3 is worth
doing first and should be done first, and indeed that is our position.
If you did option 7 alone, in passenger modelling terms, by the
time you get to 2,076 and you add 35 per cent, you would probably
have to do something in the existing ticket hall anyway, so my
preference would be 3 first.
13517. You did not quite follow what I was putting
to you. If we are into a scenario where the Committee is, in effect,
being asked to decide between 4C and 7A—make that assumption
in our favour—are you saying to the Committee that if you
were driven to that position you would want to do 3B at the same
time as doing 7A or whether under those circumstances you would
do just 7A at the beginning and something like 3B later?
(Mr Anderson) It would be the other way around.
We would not necessarily do them at the same time. I would obviously
defer to Mr Berryman in relation to phasing works of that sort.
My preference would be for 3 because of the benefits that brings
with relatively little disruption.
13518. I know that is your preference, but,
if the Committee take the view that is a solution that is ruled
out, 3B now with something like 7 later, and want something definitely
more radical, such as 4C and 8A—which is what we are asking
for—and it may be that you have not thought about this,
and I am not meaning to be unfair to you—in that event,
the additional provision you would be promoting would be 7A on
the evidence you have been giving. Would you be doing 3B as well
at that time or not? I think you modelled it on the footing that
it would be 7A and 3B together.
(Mr Anderson) Yes, I am saying that you would
not necessarily need to do them at the same time.
13519. If you were compelled to do 7A at the
beginning, would you do 3B at the beginning as well or not?
(Mr Anderson) I am not sure I could make a
decision on that right now. I think that would be a matter for
discussion with London Underground and others.
40 Crossrail Ref: P104, Indicative Passenger Benefits
(LONDLB-20504A-004). Back
| 
