Examination of Witnesses (Questions 19080
- 19099)
19080. Then we go to HAV14.[23]
Is this another Crossrail document?
(Mr Thomas) That is correct,
yes.
19081. This shows, does it, the walk times using
the ramp?
(Mr Thomas) That is correct. On the bottom
edge of the slide you can see the starting off point from the
bus station, which is over on the far right-hand side of the slide,
and this indicates—because the ramp is effectively in two
stages, it is not a single ramp, it is a two-way ramp—the
estimated time would be one minute 18 seconds for passengers to
get from the bus station dropping off point, if you like, to the
entrance at mezzanine level into the station. They would then
have some further time before they actually got upstairs or up
the ramp onto the platforms. The slide also shows, I think, that
there would be a three minute wait time on average for passengers
to be allowed through the door, if that door arrangement was maintained.
Again, we feel that is not the most optimum use of the ramp arrangement;
and we feel it has got scope for improvement.
19082. Who would be able to use, on that basis,
that prospective ramp?
(Mr Thomas) We would say the ramp in that sense
could be used by all in the community, and especially if the ramp
had at its head a ticket line or a gateline arrangement then it
would be available for people who have season tickets, Oyster
cards and so forth. We feel it would be a considerable improvement
over the current arrangements.
19083. Then I think you have concluded this
series of slides at HAV16 with the undertakings accepted by the
select committee?[24]
(Mr Thomas) That is correct,
yes.
19084. Which have been seen. Just summarise
if you would for the Committee the difficulties which you presently
see in what is being canvassed by Crossrail?
(Mr Thomas) In the first instance, and a basic
point, we feel they have not explored the opportunity to cut through
from the south side at ground floor level. That would be our first
choice option. We have seen no evidence to indicate why that is
not a feasible proposition. Frankly, we find that surprising given
the major engineering works they are doing elsewhere on the scheme
throughout London. If that is not possible—and at this stage
what we are saying is we would like to see the investigations
and if it is not possible then we need to move on to another solution—then
we would look at a ramp on the south side of the station with
a package of measures to make it accessible to all in the community,
with improved ticketing and gateline facilities so that people
could go directly through to the platform from the mezzanine level.
19085. One final matter if I may, Mr Thomas.
Reference was made by Mr Mould to a 50 metre point in terms of
the station and movement of the station. Can you help the Committee
about that, as to whether that was being canvassed on the previous
occasion?
(Mr Thomas) I do not believe it was, no. I
interpreted Mr Mould's comment about the 50 metres as the extra
distance that passengers approaching from the south would have
to travel from a closed-off station entrance to effectively the
new entrance of the station. In fact it is only part of the story,
because if they use the entrance Crossrail is proposing they then
have to double-back on themselves before they go through the ticket
line, or the gateline, which is more or less in the position of
the current station entrance. The distance in fact is nearer 100
metres rather than 50 metres.
19086. Mr Straker: Thank you very much,
Mr Thomas.
Cross-examined by Mr Mould
19087. Mr Mould: Mr Thomas, good morning
to you. On that last point, you heard what I said to the Committee
in opening reminding the Committee of Mr Berryman's willingness
to examine the design of the foyer for the proposed station entrance
to see whether one could reduce the walking distance and, therefore,
the time taken to get from the south area of the bus station into
the station and up on to the platforms. What I indicated was that
we certainly saw an opportunity to revisit the detailed design
of the new station ticket hall in this area so as to provide access
directly into the unpaved concourse area here and so avoid the
need for people to have to go up here and double-back on themselves,
the point you made a minute ago. Is that correct?
(Mr Thomas) Correct.
19088. That in itself is something you would
welcome, I think?
(Mr Thomas) It is self-evident from the slide
that if you punched a hole through immediately from where your
pointer is now that is a shorter distance for passengers than
having to walk right the way across to the right of the slide
and then double-back on themselves. I think it is also self-evident
from the slide that immediately away from the station you can
see the pedestrian environment, the pavement area, is actually
beginning to narrow and is considerably narrower there than it
is in fact under the existing station arrangements.
19089. In relation to that point we have made
it clear to you, have we not, that we would be very happy to work
with you as the local planning authority, on looking at ways of
improving the urban realm in this area so as to improve that journey
for pedestrians?
(Mr Thomas) We would be happy to work with
the Promoter to do that, but we would be looking to find an optimal
solution and, as I say, so far we have had no suggestion from
Crossrail about working with us to try and identify ways forward
on this.
19090. We can leave it this way, I think I can
say without any fear of overstepping the mark, that we would also,
in principle, be looking to work to secure the optimal solution.
Of course, what is optimal is always what is ultimately realistic,
is it not?
(Mr Thomas) That is correct. We would not disagree
at all about that.
19091. Good. So that is that point. The other
matter which you have raised is you returned to the point you
have made in Committee previously about punching a new southern
entrance to the station through this area, I think, yes?
(Mr Thomas) That is the basis of our contention.
That needs to be investigated to see whether it is possible.
19092. You said there simply had not been any evidence
in relation to that?
(Mr Thomas) I am not aware of
any being made available to us or discussed.
19093. I want to be clear what the Committee
has been told about that. Can we remind the Committee of the evidence
on that. It is day 26, please, page 25, paragraph 7390, this is
the cross-examination of Mr Berryman on a previous occasion by
Mr Straker.[25]
You see that there has been reference to a report which had looked
at the engineering challenges of opening out the station in the
area that I have just shown you on that computer-generated image,
do you see?
(Mr Thomas) Yes.
19094. Mr Straker then moved on to a link with
a rather different point: " ... there has not been",
he said, "has there, any report on the question as to whether
there could merely be a pedestrian link?" and that is what
you mentioned a minute ago?
(Mr Thomas) Correct.
19095. Mr Berryman said: "There has been
no specific report on that point. We have had internal workshops
on that, but the difficulty is, apart from the construction difficulty
of breaking into a very massive Victorian brick structure, which
is not really a very tasty thing to do from an engineering point
of view, that any such passageway would discharge into the paid
side of the station and that has practical and operational problems."
7391 Mr Straker: "The practical problem is that you do not
want people to go into the paid side if they have no tickets?"
Mr Berryman: "That is indeed the problem." 7392 Mr Straker:
"So one puts in a ticket barrier to ensure that only people
with tickets go through." Mr Berryman: "Yes, but ticket
barriers are not allowed to be unsupervised, so when you put a
ticket barrier in, you finish up with a suite of offices and things
of that sort on the south side, but that is not really the main
objection. The main objection is the difficulty of putting a structure
through that very heavy brick abutment structure which is certainly
in excess of a metre thick brickwork. It is Victorian and the
structural integrity of it would be something which would be certainly
very much influenced by this kind of opening being made in it
and we would not wish to undertake that." 19096. Then the
point is made again: 7393 Mr Straker: "But the structural
integrity of it for the purpose of putting a pedestrian route
through has not been investigated, has it?" Mr Berryman:
"There has not been a specific study done of that, but of
course we have on our team of advisers many experienced engineers
who are able to look at these things by inspection almost and
say, `No, it does not really work...", and so it went on
and really the same exchange was repeated towards the bottom of
the page. It is fair to say, is it not, that the Committee had
evidence from Mr Berryman in relation to the engineering difficulties
that would arise from the proposal that you now reiterate to the
Committee today. Can I ask you this: in the light of what was
said by Mr Berryman then and in the light of the concern voiced
by Mr Straker, that there was, as he put it, no formal report
in relation to that has the Council since then commissioned any
engineering advice of its own in relation to the feasibility of
undertaking that work or not?
(Mr Thomas) You have raised a number of points
there.
19097. Can you answer that question?
(Mr Thomas) Yes, I can certainly. The Council
has not commissioned any work to look at that, but I certainly
disagree with the idea that Mr Berryman has produced evidence
to indicate that there are difficulties or not difficulties.
19098. Mr Mould: I am going to leave
that for the Committee to judge. Thank you very much indeed.
19099. Chairman: Mr Straker?
23 Committee Ref: A218, Proposed Romford Station Walk
Times from Bus Stop to Platfoms (using compliant ramp) (HAVLB-AP3-31-05-014). Back
24
Committee Ref: A218, Undertakings accepted by the Select Committee-Romford
Station (HAVLB-AP3-31-05-016). Back
25
Para 7390 Back
| 
