Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18080
- 18099)
18080. Chairman: I have had the great
pleasure of visiting Sydney and I have got experience of the bikerail
network there, but could you try and relate it to how Crossrail
would be affected as Sydney is not the same as London by any stretch
of the imagination. Neither is Crossrail applicable to most of
what Sydney has, it is different.
(Mr Holladay) I think it
is not so much in terms of the topography but more in the way
the catchment works. We are trying to use it as an illustration
of the way the catchment works. I noticed on the same page it
does mention the cycle carriage issue and it is illustrated in
that document that they suggest things like end of carriage and
flexible seating. One of the biggest problems we have in putting
cycles on certain trains now is there was never provision for
it in the first place, so it is considered to be an inconvenience
because it was badly designed for. Where it has been well designed
for it does not have the problems. Again, from Waterloo, there
is a particular train which is being withdrawn this February which
is the biggest bone of contention for delays due to cycles, largely
because in the redesign of the train they put the cycles in the
conductors office, so he has to open the door and has to put up
with bikes in his office which is a recipe for causing friction
and problems. What I would like to see in designs, and when I
try to work with operators, is to work it as a matter of principle
that the bike spaces are easy to access and do not delay the train
because they do not have to, and this is where I think our concerns
are in that respect.
18081. Mr Selway: If I might sum up the
point you were making there. Your objective in working with operators
and in making your comments on the Crossrail proposals is to attempt
to design out shortcomings as they might affect cyclists and so
obtain personal benefits for people who are using the train with
a bike but also public benefits, is that right?
(Mr Holladay) Yes, that
is very much the case. It is not good for cyclists to be seen
as the pariah who delays the train if the reason the train is
delayed is that they were not considered properly in the first
place. That is the way I see it. It is quite often you feel embarrassed
that you have got to go and find a member of staff to open the
door to let you off the train simply because they have designed
the train where they have to unlock the door to let you take your
bike off. This is the sort of thing we feel should be enshrined
in the way the project is planned and sorted out that it is accepted
that a carriage will be provided and access for bikes will be
provided for. How that is determined and how it is regulated may
be a matter for marketing, as I like to put it occasionally when
I am dealing with operators, and managing it by policing—which
is saying no to everything or "you cannot do this, you cannot
do that"—or you can manage it by pricing which is recognising
that a market exists and people will want to do these things.
You have to regulate it by a means of supply and demand. If someone
is absolutely desperate to catch the ferry by travelling across
London with a bicycle and the space is limited, they pay a premium,
whereas if you are travelling with a train which is probably only
about 30 per cent loaded and people want to go out for a weekend
cycle ride and they add another two or three per cent to the passenger
loading, you would be able to welcome them. We have a situation,
for example I travel regularly on the boat train to Ardrossan
through Glasgow and I would say on most days in the summer at
least ten per cent of the passengers on that train are travelling
with bicycles, far above the level of bicycle provision on the
train but fortunately the train is designed in such a way that
they can be accommodated. Ten per cent of passengers are travelling
simply because they can take the bikes.
18082. Thank you, Mr Holladay. I wonder as well
if I could point you in a somewhat different direction. One arises
from our former membership of Network Rail where you were our
nominated person, which means the person who attends the Network
Rail meetings and who speaks on our behalf, which gives you some
acquaintance with the approach of Network Rail to catering for
the passenger as a customer. You may agree with me that that fits
in with your description of how trains can be better designed
to prevent cyclists being a pariah. It is not simply cyclists
but others who benefit from the approach. Would it be possible
for you to explain the concept to the Committee?
(Mr Holladay) I am trying
to picture what the question actually is. Essentially, I can highlight
some trains which have been designed well whereby providing for
cycle access has indeed provided for better access for peak travelling
passengers. Obviously if you provide wide doorways and easy access
for cycles there are some trains operating out of Waterloo like
this at the moment, you also provide a wider doorway so that when
the rush-hour train comes in there is not a crowd of people trying
to shuffle through the doorway which is far too narrow but a much
easier way on and off the train. I think it extends beyond the
trains. I think we also have to consider the stations and their
access. We share a lot of benefit/gains with the disability lobby
in terms of having ramps and means of access which do not involve
stairs or similar.
18083. Chairman: So what you are saying
then is that you want us to look at the access to stations as
well as the trains, the rolling stock?
(Mr Holladay) I think you
need to consider that, yes.
18084. What you were suggesting earlier was
a specially designed carriage which basically had, in the same
way as a passenger doorway, a central locking system which opened
at stations automatically and locked during transit, especially
designed for cyclists to get on and off?
(Mr Holladay) Well, what
happens in the situation at the moment is that with a number of
operators the place where you place the bicycle actually happens
to be an area of the train which is normally isolated from the
public, so you do have to get it unlocked especially, but most
trains have a bit more of a commonsense situation whereby you
place the bicycle into an area which can be used by other passengers.
There are lots of opportunities to work with flexible space whereby
it is available for bicycles principally, but, if you had a crowded
train, and you might still restrict the carriage of bicycles at
certain times of day, that space is then available for seated
and standing passengers. The indication from SouthWest Trains
was that they actually reduced the number of seats after the complaints
of passengers because the arrangement of seats, which sought to
provide as many seats as possible on the train, did not actually
suit the passengers and it just got in the way of moving around
the train because people just did not use the seats so closely
spaced, so the idea for the trains to be far more flexible in
their use is one which appeals not just to us as cyclists, but,
for example, to airport passengers travelling. If you have ever
travelled on a Thameslink train which is substituted for the Gatwick
Express or similar, you would find that it was a commuter train
which was then crowded up with people with huge flight luggage
and it does not work because there is no flexibility in the train
to say that at one time it is used for commuters and at another
time you can fold a few seats out of the way and take people with
lots of luggage. We see this in a lot of situations, that the
system is being considered as a single-focus system, but unfortunately
we have an operation where I think in London we use twice as many
trains to move the peak-hour traffic as we do during the day and
during the day we have those trains running around almost empty,
whereas the potential for other traffic to use them is great.
18085. Mr Selway: The other direction
I have in mind to ask you about this point was also to do with
station design, but to do with parking at stations and land costs.
I hope that the direction my mind is moving in is relatively clear
because there are, I think, are there not, distinct benefits to
the operator, the station provider, if someone comes to the station
on a bike rather than a car which they leave behind?
(Mr Holladay) I think you
have a very true point there. It also ties in with dispersal,
that the ability to park at least ten bikes in one car parking
space means that you can potentially bring in ten people, whereas
with a car you only bring in 1.2 on average, so that is an immediate
start point. The convenience offered to the passenger of being
able to place that cycle parking close to the train is very, very
highly regarded. You will find that cyclists will always park
as close to the station as they can and it makes that seamless
transfer possible. Also with the cost of parking, most ground-based
car parks at stations cannot be expanded on further and a lot
of stations are now going for the multi-storey option. Typically,
a multi-storey space is going to cost around £12,000 to build
and the ultimate one is the one at Heathrow which was costing
£32,000 per space to fit a new car park in at Heathrow Central,
but, if we carry on trying to provide car parking at stations
to people arriving by car, it is going to become a big expense
unless we try and get more land and quite a lot of sites just
do not have the land, so it is very important, I think, to plan
the land and that the land required for cycle parking is designed
in properly. It needs to be close to the trains because people
will not use it if it is not close and it needs to be secure and
seen to be secure. All the evidence at existing stations is in
the way people are parking bikes already. At Waterloo and Euston,
often the places are where people roll up to the station and their
bikes are fully visible to everybody coming to and from the station,
so you have the cab row at Waterloo full of bikes and the colonnade
at Euston with bike racks full of bikes, so there is clear evidence
that that is what people are looking for the provision of and
that is what we feel should be engaged in the designs of the Crossrail
stations because there will be this demand.
18086. Chairman: Could you just explain
to me what the great need is at a place like Heathrow Central
at Heathrow Airport for cyclists other than for people who work
in the immediate area where they live which is not great, is it?
(Mr Holladay) At Heathrow
there is a bicycle user group and a certain amount of cycling
goes on. It is very convenient on a large site like that, particularly
on the internal road network, to get around by bike because you
do not have to find a space to park at either end of your journey
and the journey lengths are the sort which are very quick to make
by bike and you do not have to go and retrieve your bike, park
it somewhere and go back to the place you are working, but you
can virtually take it door to door, so internally there is a lot.
I suspect, as you say, quite rightly, that there are not a lot
of people who actually cycle into Heathrow, the central area,
to work, but I am essentially using it as an illustration. It
is an illustration of how, if we go down the car parking route,
particularly in some of the central London locations, if you are
talking of providing car parking, you are talking of phenomenal
cost and you need to find somewhere to provide the alternatives
and make sure they are provided.
18087. This is a point of the design of carriages
and so on, that it could be multi-use?
(Mr Holladay) It could quite
easily be multi-use. There is very little to prevent it in that
way and we have over the years with people come up with designs
which actually economise on space quite effectively.
18088. Mr Selway: I know you have had
lengthy discussions with the Promoters in respect of Farringdon
Station and I understand that members of the Committee have received
a communication from the local Member in relation to it. As Farringdon
is an important interchange station for through-journeys, I wonder
if you would like to make some comments on the situation at that
station in particular.
18089. Chairman: Can I just say that
we have a dilemma in that we have people who have already got
commitments to be elsewhere and we also have a difficulty with
the stenographers who have been here all day. I really do need
you to get to your point and make it because, otherwise, we are
going to run out of time and you will have to make this tortuous
journey yet again.
18090. Mr Selway: That I appreciate and
I appreciate the forbearance of your Committee in allowing us
to appear so late in the day, as it were. This is, I think, my
final area which appears to need or which may require further
elucidation. Are you able to assist the Committee, Mr Holladay?
(Mr Holladay) You are talking
about Farringdon and their plans for major pedestrianisation outside
the station. I know the area very well as I often use Old Street
and Farringdon Road as a gradient-free route. There are some routes
over to Mount Pleasant which are more steeply inclined and one
of the things about cycling is that you try to pick the most flat
routes through, but equally if we are going to access this station,
the way that most cycles access the station is to ride up to it.
You can attempt pedestrianisation, but it becomes: do you police
or manage? Quite often you will have seen pedestrianisation schemes
which have been originally rigorously pedestrianised and then
they have reverted much more to a managed situation where people
will cycle through it because it is a connection route which works
for cycling and it is managed by making sure that their speeds
are regulated and it is a fine route to go through, so I think
we are quite concerned that blanket pedestrianisation will be
in force which will inconvenience cyclists in the wider City,
their main routes, and also be very difficult to police because
it just will not work. It is like vandals are very difficult to
police because nobody observes them and to have that sort of blanket
restriction will be quite difficult to enforce, so I think we
would like to see something again on the access side to ensure
that cycle access to Farringdon, again from all points of the
compass, is sensible and delivers cyclists to places to park their
bikes or places to transfer to the trains in the appropriate manner.
18091. Mr Selway: It may be that Ms Lieven
has questions which she may wish to put to you.
18092. Ms Lieven: Sir, I am very conscious
of the time and I am very conscious of the desirability of finishing
this Petition today. What I would suggest, if the Committee considers
this acceptable, is that I will not cross-examine and I will not
call Mr Anderson, but I will deal with the points in closing,
if that is acceptable to the Committee. It will involve looking
at a couple of documents in closing which I would not normally
do, but if I call Mr Anderson and close then we would be going
on for another 15 or 20 minutes.
18093. Chairman: I fully agree with that
course.
18094. Ms Lieven: I have no questions.
18095. Chairman: Thank you, Mr Holladay.
The witness withdrew
18096. Ms Lieven: Sir, if I can move
directly to closing and deal firstly with the issue of the carriage
of cycles on Crossrail. If I can have put up our exhibit 35204-002,
which is a letter dated 17 October 2006 to Mr Selway, this is
our undertaking in respect of the carriage of cycles to the CTC.[21]
If we focus on the one-but-penultimate paragraph: "We are
therefore prepared to undertake that CLRL will continue discussions
with the CTC exploring the use of cycle carriage within the central
London area with consideration that ultimate responsibility for
the final cycle carriage policy is that of the train operating
company."
18097. Sir, as I said in opening, it is not
ultimately a matter for us as a promoter, but we are committed
and we have publicly undertaken to continue discussions with the
CTC. As I said in opening, it is likely that the policy will be
guided by LUL policy but we are not saying it will necessarily
be exactly the same. If I can break down that policy very briefly,
as I said to you in opening, bikes are not allowed on the deep
tube network of LUL. There are very obvious problems with congestion
for anybody who uses the deep tube in having bicycles getting
on and off trains, getting on and off escalators or lifts. It
is important to record that so far as the central section of Crossrail
is concerned, the deep tube between Paddington to the west and
Whitechapel, Isle of Dogs, to the east, that it is predicted to
be busy even off-peak. If one thinks of something like the Central
Line at the moment on off peak, that is the kind of guide to what
we are expecting on Crossrail. We are not talking about empty
carriages and you can see the problems with allowing bikes on
that. We are not saying necessarily, but it is likely that that
will be the case. Peak times throughout the Crossrail network—the
point is even more obvious to anybody who uses any part of the
tube—the idea of people trying to get on with bikes in peak
hours is a very, very problematic one. As far as the off-peak
service section is concerned, LUL policy is that bikes are welcome
and it is likely to be that our policy will be the same. That
is the carriage itself. Folding bicycles are likely to be welcome
at any time. That is certainly LUL policy and there is no reason
to believe that Crossrail will be any different.
18098. So far as a few specific points are concerned
at Paddington and Liverpool Street, the Committee will understand
there is a specific problem there because at the moment they are
served by surface level trains coming in and the policy with surface
level trains is one thing, but when Crossrail comes along a number
of services will swap to Crossrail and of course the Crossrail
trains will be coming in at deep level at Liverpool Street and
Paddington. However, it is important to note that there is a very
easy interchange at both Ealing Broadway and Stratford by which
people can get off Crossrail and either just walk across a platform
or stand on the same platform and get the next surface level train
into the main line station. Although there will be some disadvantage,
it will be pretty minimal at that point.
18099. So far as the design of the station is
concerned, I would ask the Committee to note a document we have
not looked at before, which is Information Paper E2 on cycle carriage
and cycle parking.[22]
Some parts of this document need to be updated and will be changed,
but if I can ask the Committee to look at paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2
of this document in respect of cycle parking facilities: "It
is expected that a high proportion of passengers will use bicycles
to reach the rail network by 2013." We acknowledge many of
the points that Mr Selway has made. Clearly it is beneficial to
encourage as many people as possible to cycle to their home station
rather than using the car and better for everybody that that happens.
"In many cases additional cycle parking facilities will be
installed at Crossrail stations before Crossrail is operational.
Crossrail would seek to provide additional cycle parking where
Crossrail services lead to a significant increase in passenger
demand." Our stations are being designed with that in mind.
Bear in mind that that is a great deal easier on the outer limbs.
At somewhere like Bond Street it is very difficult to provide
cycle parking, but taking the example of Farringdon, which was
specifically referred to, where the proposal is to pedestrianise
Cowcross Street outside the Crossrail station. If you remember
at the moment it is a very narrow, very busy street with very
poor provision for pedestrians. The scheme involves pedestrianisation.
The detailed design of how that is done, what provision is made
for cycles, both in terms of whether a cycle track is allowed
through, but also in terms of cycle parking, is ultimately a matter
for the London Borough of Islington. We will in any event work
with them and with the CTC to provide the best possible provision
for bicycles as well as passengers and pedestrians. That is one
example of putting what we say in E2 into action.
21 Crossrail Ref: P134, Correspondence from CLRL to
Mr Gordon Selway, National Council of the Cyclists' Touring Club
(CTC), 17 October 2006 (LINEWD-35204-002). Back
22
Crossrail Information Paper E2-Cycle Carriage and Cycle Parking,
billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-IPE2-001 and -002). Back
|
