Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20680
- 20699)
20680. Ms Lieven: I have no questions.
20681. Mr Binley: Clearly, there is no
need for you to re-examine, is there? Thank you very much, Mrs
Hessenberg.
The witness withdrew
20682. Mr Binley: Do we have any other
witnesses to call?
20683. Lady Bright: No, we do not, unless
you wish to question anybody else from the street.
20684. Mr Binley: You will have the chance,
of course, to sum-up at the end of the process. Thank you. I am
going to call on Ms Lieven if she will be kind enough to present
her case.
20685. Ms Lieven: Certainly, sir. I am
going to call Mr Berryman first.
Mr Keith Berryman, recalled
Examined by Ms Lieven
20686. Mr Binley: I might say we do not
need further introductions.
20687. Ms Lieven: No, I do not think
Mr Berryman needs me very much, either. Just vaguely to keep the
evidence in order, can we deal with the footbridge first and then
the noise issue. Can you explain briefly what Crossrail is planning
for the footbridge? It might be useful to put up the photograph.[12]
(Mr Berryman) Basically, the footbridge
spans across the whole of the railway network near the approach
of Paddington Station, as everyone knows. What we need to do is
to put new tracks under this area here, to go down into the Crossrail
tunnels. Those tracks will be electrified and have overhead electrification.
What that means is that to do that we have to raise this end of
the bridge slightly by about 200mm.
20688. Is that there?
(Mr Berryman) That is just there, yes—your
hand is steadier than mine. So that span of the bridge has to
be raised by about 200mm. The southern span of the bridge, that
bit there which Ms Lieven is pointing to, was already raised by
British Railways when they built the Heathrow Express service,
because that line is electrified, as you know. What we are doing
is raising the rest of the bridge to make it level. That will
have the effect of making that part of the bridge DDA-compliant.
That is the only bit of work we need to do for the Crossrail works.
That is the bit we actually need to do.
20689. Can I stop you there, Mr Berryman? In
the photograph (I think it was one of the photographs with the
dog) you can see a little step in the middle of the bridge.[13]
That is being removed by our works.
(Mr Berryman) That will be removed.
My original intention was that we would just jack up this span—you
see the span between where the cameraman is and where the step
is, the original idea was to jack it up and put new bearings underneath
it—but my engineers are advising that it may need to be
replaced because of the state of it. But that is Network Rail's
property, that bridge. We have arranged with the Academy that
their walkway which links to the north end of the bridge will
actually be at that slightly higher level. So when the walkway
is initially built there will be a step down, you walk along the
north span of the bridge and there will be a step up. When we
have finished our works that section of the bridge will be raised
so it will be level all the way across. Then, at the request of
the Committee in your interim findings, we have agreed to make
this southern end of the bridge DDA-compliant as well. That is,
really, the works that we need to do to the bridge.
20690. Before we look at the southern end of
the bridge in detail, Lady Bright raised a concern right at the
beginning that our plans were changing and that the plans she
was sent sometime yesterday were sent with a health warning about
changes. Can you explain, first of all, in terms of the main works,
the works to the railway, what scope is there to change there?
(Mr Berryman) There is very little cope to
change, but I think what Lady Bright was being told was that it
is still subject to detailed design. Everything we do is subject
to detailed design. The exact railings, the curve, the exact kind
of transition curves, and so on, will be reviewed. Not the design
layout (we know where things are going to go) but there may be
movement—and we are talking about a few hundred millimetres;
we are not talking about big movement—and that is as far
as the railway works are concerned. As far as the footbridge is
concerned, and the works associated with that, of course, this
is subject to detailed planning in Schedule 7 of the Bill (I think
it is Schedule 7). That will be for Westminster City Council to
approve the plans that we put forward for those works.
20691. Can we then look in a little more detail
at the southern side of the footbridge and put up 005, please?[14]
Can you explain what Crossrail is currently envisaging and the
benefits and disbenefits?
(Mr Berryman) Yes. What we are
planning to do is replace the section of the bridge from here
southwards and put in a ramp which runs down like that—it
has got zigzags in it. The reason for the zigzags is to prevent
skateboarders and people with funny trainers rushing down and
bashing into people. It has been designed like that after consultation
with the Metropolitan Police and with British Transport Police
and with Westminster City Council. However, it could be changed;
it is not written in stone. I think the Petitioners have proposed
that we turn it 180o and bring it back to there, and that is certainly
something we can look at in detail. As I say, it is something
which requires input from various authorities particularly the
police, to make sure it is safe and it has been built in a manner
which is not going to be increasing the possibility of crime.
20692. The principal concern of the Petitioners
appears to be the width of the main span of the railway going
across the active Network Rail track. Can you explain why Crossrail
is not planning to replace the entire footbridge?
(Mr Berryman) Well, replacing the entire footbridge
would be a very, very big job. The footbridge is not ours, of
course, it is Network Rail's (as has already been mentioned several
times) and it would involve putting new foundations in the permanent
way as well as erecting new bridge spans. It would be quite a
substantial piece of work. The existing span, the central span,
is only very marginally below the 2-metre width which is required
by the guidelines and it just does not seem to be justified, from
a cost-benefit point of view, and it is certainly not justified
from Crossrail's point of view because, as I said earlier, this
is nothing to do with us, we are just doing it because you have
asked us to, basically.
20693. Mr Binley: Out of the goodness
of your heart. I understand that.
20694. Ms Lieven: With the goodness of
our heart prompted by the appropriate response—
20695. Mrs James: Being a good neighbour!
20696. Ms Lieven: You have talked about
cost and it not ultimately being our responsibility. What about
disruption to the railway? Would there be implications on that?
(Mr Berryman) I was using cost as shorthand
for the generalised issues of how it would need to be done. I
feel bound to say this bridge has been controversial for many
years. It has been a source of a very long-running—I think
one could call it—dispute between Westminster City Council
and the railway authorities. It certainly goes back to British
Railways' days, and whether it goes back to the Great Western
Railway days or not I do not know, but it certainly goes back
quite a long way. This has been a bone of contention locally for
many, many years.
20697. So far as the width of the existing footbridge
is concerned, it might be helpful if you just put up the Department
for Transport Inclusive Mobility document, first of all, exhibit
page 6, please, which, just so the Committee can see, is the place
where it refers to the wheelchair users' width of the 95th percentile
slightly over 700mm. Then if we go on to the following exhibit
page, page 8, and expand 3.1, please, on widths.[15]
That says: "A clear width of 2000mm allows two wheelchairs
to pass one another comfortably. This should be regarded as the
maximum under normal circumstances. Where this is not possible
because of physical constraints 1500mm could be regarded as the
minimum acceptable under most circumstances, giving sufficient
space for a wheelchair user and a walker to pass one another."
The absolute minimum is 1000mm. Just applying that to the circumstance
of this, the retained portions of this bridge, in your view is
there adequate width being left, taking into account, in particular,
Mrs James' point that we are not just talking about two wheelchairs,
but probably the more common situation of one person with a double-buggy
and one person with a lot of shopping, or crutches, or something
such as that?
(Mr Berryman) We know that the
majority of the bridge is 1.8 metres wide—one of my staff
has actually measured it. The reason I was tugging on your gown
earlier was because I could not actually swear that the whole
bridge is 1.8 metres, because he did not go along and measure
every section. The vast majority is certainly 1.8. There may be
short sections which are slightly less. We do not think there
are but it is possible. Now, 1.8 metres is 8 inches less than
the 2 metres suggested here, and that is enough to allow—sorry
to mix my units.
20698. You are showing your age, I am afraid!
(Mr Berryman) That will be enough to allow
two wheelchairs to pass, perhaps not comfortably but certainly
to pass.
20699. I do not know what your experience is
of double-buggies.
(Mr Berryman) I have managed to avoid double-buggies
myself, at least so far. My recollection is that they are usually
narrow enough to fit through a doorway, an ordinary household
doorway, and that would be a similar width to a wheelchair. That
is the major design factor for a wheelchair width: that they can
fit through doorways.
12 Crossrail Ref: P152, Westbourne Park-Footbridge
(WESTCC-AP2-10-04-014). Back
13
Committee Ref: A236, Alternative view of footbridge at Westbourne
Park (WESTCC-AP2-10-05-021). Back
14
Crossrail Ref: P152, Westbourne Park Passage Footbridge reconstruction
of south span to provide step free access-Option 5 (WESTCC-AP2-10-04-005). Back
15
Crossrail Ref: P152, Inclusive Mobility, 3.1 Widths, Department
for Transport, www.dft.gov.uk (WESTCC-AP2-10-04-008). Back
| 
