Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20780
- 20799)
20780. Lady Bright: Do you need the qualifications
of the author?
20781. Mr Binley: We have a copy of everything,
I think.
20782. Ms Lieven: Mr Thornely-Taylor?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, I have studied the
letter and the predictions appear to be appropriate for the location
which we saw earlier on in the cross-sections, an example being
14-16 Westbourne Park Villas, and that was the exhibit number
17.[23]
The only problem with the numbers is that I think they all assume
the rail noise source is down at rail level. If you take into
account the fact that with high speed diesels the noise sources
falling to above ground level, the numbers come down a little
bit, particularly for the higher barrier. Let us, for other purposes,
assume they are broadly right for this cross-section. Here, of
course, we have the case where Crossrail is done in a cutting
and, however much one might wish for Westbourne Park Villas residents
the reduction in noise from the main line, it could not be said
that the Crossrail project there merited the introduction of a
noise barrier against the Network Rail traffic. The important
thing is the other exhibit number, 18, which represents the cross-section
for the terrace to the west, the short terrace that remains on
the north side of the road and immediately backs onto the railway.[24]
Even the noise barrier company we have just been hearing from
would say that above ground floor level there is no effect from
the three barrier heights that they have considered, because on
the upper floors of the houses, where we have heard people sleep,
they would simply be seeing all the trains over the top of the
noise barriers, and no noise reduction is possible there. In the
location where Crossrail is at grade and does contribute a small
amount, as was mentioned this morning, to the total railway noise
environment, that is the place where noise barriers would have
no effect at the floor levels concerned.
20783. Ms Lieven: Thank you, Mr Thornely-Taylor.
20784. Mr Binley: Lady Bright, would
you now like to cross-examine Mr Thornely-Taylor's evidence?
Cross-examined by Lady Bright
20785. Lady Bright: To pick up on what
you mentioned about the terrace on the north side of the few houses
there, they were not be included in this assessment because Crossrail
has already offered them insulation because they are way above
the trigger levels and they know that. Would it be right, Mr Thornely-Taylor,
to say that a sufficiently-detailed assessment to make sound predictions
has not yet been made and cannot yet be made because you cannot
feed in all the data you need for that site until you know what
is going to be there?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is not the reason.
A detailed noise prediction would be carried out if the Crossrail
project had an effect which merited the possible inclusion of
the noise barrier. It does not require a detailed study to see
that noise barriers would have no effect to the terrace to the
west, and Lady Bright appears to accept that. To the east where
the Crossrail alignment is diving down in the cutting the effect
does not merit looking in detail at the benefits of the noise
barriers, so while, indeed, if it were in somebody's powers to
put noise barriers against the existing Network Rail noise sources
that is something quite separate from the Crossrail process.
20786. You accept the only difference to the
west is only to the houses sitting on the tracks, I am referring
to, not the west end of Westbourne Park Villas, just to clarify.
Would you accept that the screaming 125s are being phased out,
and would you also accept that there is no point making the best
the enemy of the good?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) I too have read the announcements
that have been made about the phasing out of the high speed diesels
and I think it is quite possible by the time Crossrail comes into
operation they will be no more on that section of the track. There
is a general principle that one should not make the best the enemy
of the good. Unfortunately, we are offered neither good nor best
nor anything worth doing at all from the point of view of mitigating
the effect of the Crossrail project.
20787. Would you agree that your dismissal of
the efficacy of the noise barriers in this situation does not
stand up if the high speed diesels with the noise on the top are
no longer there?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Two things will happen.
The overall noise level goes down, so the severe effects that
we have heard in evidence of having high speed diesels going past
your window at night will be greatly improved. It is quite true
that then the remaining rail vehicles which operate on that end
of the track will probably still be diesel, but I have not seen
plans to rectify the main line. The formal method of prediction
always says when there is a diesel locomotive the source is four
metres above rail level, but I do accept that future cars on diesel
or mainline stock may well have lower noise levels. On the bottom,
things may get better, but the noise barrier company I think followed
the formal statutory calculation procedure—it is called
the "Calculation of Railway Lines"—published by
the Department for Transport and that tells you, whether you like
it or not, if it is a diesel locomotive the sources all need upgrading
so they would produce the same letter in the year 2012, or whenever
it happens to be, even if the high speed diesels have gone.
20788. Do you recall saying in your evidence,
and there was a great deal of discussion and questions from the
Committee, on 27 June that there was a great deal that could be
done to improve the noise environment there if Crossrail had the
power to deal with Network Rail's noise?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, I have not said that
I disagree with the letter from the noise barrier company. It
is possible to reduce the noise from the main line in that area.
20789. But you did come up, indeed, with some
very helpful suggestions of other things that could be done if
we were dealing with Network Rail and not Crossrail last year,
you recall that I am sure?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, there are other issues.
We heard evidence about noise from the Heathrow Express coming
over there and there may be some form of mitigating that, I do
not know. It is not within Crossrail's power or the area for which
we are concerned for these purposes.
20790. Lady Bright: Again, we wish to
make the point we will be dealing with Network Rail on Network
Rail's property and we will come to that. Thank you.
20791. Mr Binley: Thank you very much,
Lady Bright. Ms Lieven, would you like to re-examine?
Re-examined by Ms Lieven
20792. Ms Lieven: There are two little
points of fact to cover, Mr Thornely-Taylor. First of all, if
we could put up the photograph 001 to explain the position to
the Committee.[25]
I am going to lead you on this, Mr Thornely-Taylor, as a matter
of fact. We have got the footbridge there and the farm is over
here. I think it is correct that these are the properties you
were talking about, which have been retained and are on the north
of Westbourne Park Villas and I think it is right that Crossrail
starts going down into cutting just to the west of the footbridge.
Is that right?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Approximately
there, yes.
20793. Ms Lieven: The only other thing
which we should have picked up earlier is we heard that the Heathrow
Express continues to go across jointed track; as far as Crossrail
is concerned will it be a continuous welded track in this location?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) I understand it will be.
The witness withdrew
20794. Mr Binley: Do you have any other
witnesses?
20795. Ms Lieven: No, sir, I cannot think
of any other witnesses that would be relevant.
20796. Mr Binley: We are not encouraging
you!
20797. Ms Lieven: Just checking.
20798. Mr Binley: Would you like to proceed
to your final statement then?
20799. Ms Lieven: Yes, and I will keep
it short. The first issue is the footbridge, sir, and the simple
point to emphasise is that we are making it DDA compliant, we
are providing disabled access on the south side which means that
anybody with mobility impairment problems will be able to get
across that bridge where they cannot do at the moment and where
it is important to emphasise neither Westminster City Council
nor the Academy have seen fit to upgrade the south side of the
bridge. We have heard a great deal from Lady Bright and Mr Kelly
about the real need to upgrade this bridge is for the academy
students, but the Academy has not felt that need. It is prepared
to live with the situation where the north side is DDA compliant
and the south side on any analysis will not be DDA compliant for
a number of years until Crossrail comes along, so, sir, it is
difficult to see that the need is quite so great for the Academy,
as has been suggested. The point to emphasise is that once Crossrail
comes along it will be a fully-compliant DDA bridge. As far as
the width across it is concerned, that width is acceptable within
the Department for Transport's standards; it is not ideal but
it is expressly acknowledged in that document I showed you earlier
to be an acceptable width. It is plain, sir, that there is sufficient
space for, for example, two wheelchairs to pass on the vast majority
of the bridge. There is plenty of space for a wheelchair and a
double-buggy, say, to pass. So one does have to approach this
with just a touch of reality; the number of times when two wheelchairs
need to get past each other, or indeed a double-buggy and a wheelchair,
is not going to be a huge number. So the fact that one may have
to wait for a few seconds for the other to manoeuvre past is,
in my submission, not really a tremendously great disadvantage.
23 Committee Ref: P152, Cross sections-Westbourne
Park Villas (14/16) Existing and Future (SCN-20070314-002). Back
24
Committee Ref: P152, Cross sections-Westbourne Park Villas (93/95)
Existing and Future (SCN-20070314-003). Back
25
Crossrail Ref: P152, Aerial view of Westbourne Park (WESTCC-AP2-10-04-001). Back
|
