Examination of Witnesses (Questions 19140
- 19159)
19140. Not on breaking through an access which
is already there.
(Mr Berryman) You mean here?
19141. Yes.
(Mr Berryman) I must admit we have not given
that any serious consideration because of the geometrical problems.
19142. But the danger, which you expressed,
of not breaking through the arches is not apparent with that section
there because there is already an access.
(Mr Berryman) That goes behind that. This bridge
here, sir, in Victorian times was an arch bridge and this was
the abutment for it. That passage goes behind the abutment.
19143. If there is already an access there that
could be widened to enable people on that side of the line to
get through to the main foyer.
(Mr Berryman) Sir, if you start from there
and you go up the ramp and back here and get into the station
there, your walking distance, if we do make a new entrance here,
will not be that much different and the point about this whole
thing is that the station is not up to standard.
19144. What about if you do not go right the
way to the top, you just go to the entrance where the access is
now, where the blue dotted line ends after the arches? What happens
if you make the entrance there, then you do not have all that
walking up and down ramps?
(Mr Berryman) That is at a different level.
This passageway across here is at a different height than the
street below so you have to get up the ramp to get—
19145. I am putting to you in the same way as
you have a ramp up there now, which goes to the end, could you
not enable that or access that there now? (Mr Berryman)
Sir, that is the point of the AP, we are proposing to build a
new ramp up there.
19146. Last question in relation to this. You
are an engineer; do you really think it is a solution that we
should in a modern age in the future when a state-of-the-art railway
is going to be produced that disabled people should still have
to ring a bell and wait for two or three minutes in the hope that
somebody will come down and open the door?
(Mr Berryman) I did not really
want to get into this, but the travel timings that we produced
demonstrated that the travel time, despite appearances to the
contrary, to go around here into this foyer and up these lifts
to the station platform would be quicker than doing that simply
because the vertical rise of the lift is taken care of much more
quickly.
19147. That is not answering the question. Do
you think it is still a solution that in the future when this
railway is built somebody who is disabled has to ring a bell to
get access to a station?
(Mr Berryman) I do not think it is desirable,
sir. I must emphasise that we do not envisage this is the main
access for PRM people. We are putting in lifts all over the place
to provide that access in a much more satisfactory way. My personal
preference would not be to have this ramp at all because I agree
with you, it is not satisfactory.
19148. Chairman: Thank you. Mr Straker?
19149. Mr Straker: Thank you very much.
If I may, just one or two—
19150. Chairman: How long do you think
you will be?
19151. Mr Straker: Five or ten minutes,
sir.
19152. Chairman: I think what we will
do is give Mr Berryman a chance to recover and have a cup of coffee.
After a short break
19153. Chairman: Mr Mould?
19154. Mr Mould: Before Mr Straker stands
up, I wonder if I can mention something to the Committee. I am
grateful for the time given to quickly have a chat with Mr Berryman.
What we would propose, in the light of the concerns you have raised
about the potential to use this passageway here to provide a secondary
access into the station from the ramp that we have indicated we
will provide as an AP, is we should go away and quickly examine
the operational and engineering feasibility of widening this passageway
in order to enable a secondary access to the station to be provided
from this point where the proposed new ramp will come up. We will
prepare a report in relation to that issue dealing with those
matters, provide that to the Petitioner within seven days with
a view, if we need to, to returning before you briefly in 14 days'
time to report back to you on the fruits of that further work.
Is that convenient?
19155. Chairman: That is an excellent
suggestion, as long as you take into account two other things:
that you would liaise with the authority concerned and; secondly,
you would also look at other ways as a solution to disabled access?
19156. Mr Mould: I think that would be
embraced within the operational feasibility aspect of it. So far
as the agent is concerned, the idea is we get the report done,
we provide it to them, and there will be an opportunity to liaise
in relation to its finding thereafter.
19157. Chairman: Mr Straker, do you want
to respond to that?
19158. Mr Straker: Plainly, it is an
advance, if I may say so, on the situation we have got to at the
moment. We would suggest that it ought, and sensibly ought, to
cast its view slightly further than merely that because at the
moment, as we know, there is no report merely on the question
of pedestrian access from the bus station side, so it would appear
somewhat peculiar in a sense that its point of focus is, very
sensibly, as you have indicated, that passageway, but why can
it not possibly go slightly further than merely that, that would
be the question I would raise rhetorically at this stage?
19159. Chairman: I think that is an entirely
sensible way to approach it. Might I suggest, Mr Mould, that you
go away and perhaps take a little longer than seven days and have
a look at further options that there might be for pedestrian access
into this station?
| 
