UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 235-iii

HOUSE OF COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

taken before the

COMMITTEE

on the

CROSSRAIL BILL

DAY SIXTY-SIX

Thursday 18 January 2007

Before:

Mr Alan Meale, in the Chair

Mr Brian Binley

Kelvin Hopkins

Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger

John Pugh

 

Ordered: Counsel and Parties be called in:

17971. CHAIRMAN: Good morning. First of all, we are going to hear from Paddington Churches Housing Association. Ms Lieven.

17972. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much, sir. Paddington Churches Housing Association are affected by the diversion of Ham and Wick sewer, which some Members of the Committee heard about the last session and the Members of the Committee who were here on Tuesday heard about in respect of Ms Jeffery and the Wheelers. If I can have put up exhibit 030, please. Paddington Churches own a site here (indicating) adjacent to the existing overland line. It lies directly on the route of the Ham and Wick sewer diversion, which is this south line here (indicating). They have planning permission to redevelop that site for housing - they are, of course, a housing association - and the concern is that in order for the sewer to be built underneath this new development two things need to happen: the piles from the existing building there (indicating) which is not, I believe, residential, have to be removed if there are any - there probably are - and the piles for the new development, the Paddington Churches Housing Development, have to be redesigned so as to avoid the line of the sewer. Mr Berryman, when he gives evidence, will put up a plan to show why they have to be redesigned. There is no technical issue here. Paddington Churches have, as I said a moment ago, got planning permission now for this redevelopment, and under the safeguarding provisions, Crossrail required conditions to be attached to that planning permission which would require, one, existing piles in the line of the sewer to be removed and, two, new piles to avoid the line of the sewer. Sir, Paddington Churches are concerned about the cost that will involve to them. Mr Berryman can speak briefly about how in other instances along the line people have had to redesign buildings in order to accommodate Crossrail and have had to bear the costs of that. That is a very brief outline. I hope the Committee understands the issue. I will hand over to Mr Bishop who is representing Paddington Churches this morning.

17973. MR BISHOP: Chairman, thank you very much. I have been instructed at somewhat short notice on behalf of Paddington Churches. I am Counsel and if I should have been robed, I apologise for not being. I am afraid I had a few hours accorded to me to get to grips with this matter. I have to deal with substance rather than style.

17974. CHAIRMAN: You still seem to be suitably attired for a barrister anyway!

17975. MR BISHOP: I do my best, sir. The Petition that we have submitted, you will see, has got various paragraphs, but I think now, in fact, we concern ourselves only with paragraph five, and that is the sewer line which has been referred to. The others issues which concern us have been resolved, apparently. Our concern is the cost of this. My instructions are that that is something in the region of £300,000. I have to concede to the Committee immediately that I have no evidence to put forward on that. Those are simply my instructions and from brief discussions I have had.

17976. There are other considerations. The National Compensation Code, it is agreed, does not apply in our case. Therefore, in a sense, if we are to get any sort of recompense in the future against the extra cost involved in redesigning our foundations, we have to throw ourselves on the mercy of this Committee. That is the basic position. I have to accept that when those who instruct me, ultimately Paddington Churches Housing Association, bought the land in question to redevelop it, it was subject to planning permission of which I have a copy. I do not know where it would come in any documentation in front of the Committee, if it does at all, but paragraphs 14 and 15 of the planning permission do say that "the building works shall not be commenced until detailed designs for the foundations, to take account of the diversion of the Ham and Wick sewers, have been agreed with Crossrail". It was bought, it would seem, subject to that in any event but, as I understand the position, the premises having been bought in April of 2006, there was then a notice to owners issued in May 2006 in relation to further amendments to the Crossrail Bill and those dealt specifically with the various sewers, including the claimed sewer. It may be that further detailed proposals in relation to those sewers were issued, or are now being considered, subsequent to the date on which Paddington Churches Housing Association acquired the land. In any event, we do say and point to the fact that we are absolutely in Crossrail's hands as to the design of these foundations because until it seems they are agreed with Crossrail then we cannot commence building work. I am unable to assist the Committee as to what stage those discussions have reached, but I think they must have reached a very advanced stage because, again, my instructions are we are shortly due to commence work. One can only assume that they have been largely resolved. Further on that point, I do refer to the response filed by the Promoter in relation to our Petition. In paragraph one of that, after referring to the diversion of the Ham and Wick Lane sewers, paragraph one ends with a sentence: "The method of construction will be determined during detailed design". Paragraph two refers to a meeting at which the possibility of designing a foundation of the redevelopment, such that they do not conflict was sewer tunnel drive, was discussed and considered to be achievable. At the end of that paragraph two it is CLRL's intention to continue to liaise with the development during detailed design with a view to agreeing the exact requirements. As I have said, sir, I am not sure whether that means now that everything has been settled or not, but I do point to the contingent nature of the remarks in paragraph two which seemed to indicate that there is always a likelihood of redesign on the complete design as the situation evolves, perhaps not so much on the ground as under the ground. In any event, sir, if that is so, then the Housing Association is still in the hands of Crossrail as to whatever demands it might make contingent on what it finds when investigations are made into deep piling and so forth or the nature of the ground itself perhaps.

17977. We are still in a situation of some uncertainty as to what expense is going to have to be gone to to satisfy Crossrail and therefore satisfy the planning permission so that this project can proceed. We are, as you know, a housing association, so we are a registered social landlord and also an industrial property society. This scheme at Wick Lane is for the provision of 146 units of affordable housing together with some commercial and amenity development as well, all funded by social housing grants, whether exactly 100 per cent, I am afraid I cannot say. The position finally would be, in our submission, if we are forced to go to extra expense of some degree or other, as it seems we are, then that, in effect, means the diversion of public money, which would otherwise go into the provision of social housing into what one might call "sewer-friendly foundations". Whilst the Crossrail project is obviously a worthy one, of public value as well, nevertheless it does, to an extent, potentially at least form a drain on the resources that the Housing Association is trying to provide social housing above ground, as it were. Sir, the figures I regret I am not in a position to be more precise, we do not come here seeking a particular cheque for a particular sum or a blank cheque for any sum. Sir, we can only ask that the Committee gives consideration to the Housing Association's position and ask that the Committee try and accommodate it in any final recommendations it might make. Those are my submissions. I regret they are somewhat slender, but I am afraid that is the position and all I can say without trying the Committee's patience too far.

MR KEITH BERRYMAN, recalled

Examined by MS LIEVEN

17978. MS LIEVEN: Sir, can I proceed to call Mr Berryman. Mr Berryman, the Committee knows you well but perhaps for the benefit of Mr Bishop can you explain your position?

(Mr Berryman): I am the joint managing director of a company set up jointly by Department for Transport and Transport for London for the promotion of this project.

17979. I think you are an engineer by profession, are you?

(Mr Berryman): I am. I am a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers.

17980. Thank you very much. First of all, perhaps we can have put up the exhibit which shows the precise relationship between the sewer and the redevelopment? Can you explain why the existing piles have to be removed, or may have to be removed, and the new building might have to be slightly redesigned?

(Mr Berryman): Yes, as I think has been given in evidence previously, the sewer diversion for the Ham and Wick sewers needs to go under this building (indicating). You can see here (indicating) a plan of the intended development. You can see here there is a development of flats, a block here, a block here, (indicating) and a link block between them with a courtyard around. We have chosen this location as it appears to be the area where it will be easiest to reconfigure the piles to allow the tunnel to pass through. I should say at this point, there are two problems: the existing piles which may or may not be there, and the future piles which will be provided to support this building. We will not know where the existing piles are until the demolition of the existing building takes place by virtue of the fact that we have no piling records for the site. If it appears that by minor tweaking of the alignments we can avoid having to remove the existing piles, then we will do that. As we said in our Petition response, we are happy to work with the Petitioner to achieve that objective. We will also work with them to help minimise the redesign of piles that they may have to do in order to accommodate the tunnel going underneath. I think we made both of those points, as I think counsel for the Petitioner has just mentioned in his opening remarks.

17981. Is there any chance at all of redesigning the sewer so that there will be no impact on this building?

(Mr Berryman): Unfortunately not. The building, as you can see, is quite a long site. It goes virtually all the way from Wick Lane down to the next road, Fairfield Road. The sewer has to go somewhere in that area to avoid our tunnels.

17982. Are there other instances along the route where landowners have had to redesign buildings in order to accommodate Crossrail and have done so at their own expense?

(Mr Berryman): Yes, there are a number of such buildings where that has been done. Perhaps the most notable is the Paddington Central development which is immediately to the west of Paddington Station. I know it is a different scale of project but the builder of that scheme spent a very substantial amount of money in providing transport structures so that our tunnels could pass underneath easily. Of course it is a very high-rise building so that was an expensive operation. There is another example in Farringdon Road where a building was redesigned to make allowance for the tunnels to pass underneath. These were for the main running tunnels rather than for the sewer.

17983. Mr Bishop has mentioned, and members of Paddington Churches have mentioned at formal meetings, the potential cost of £300,000. Obviously the Committee are not here, and you are not a quantity surveyor, to assess the precise cost, but what would be your professional view of the likely order of magnitude of cost that we would be talking about here?

(Mr Berryman): I would be quite surprised if it was over £100,000. I have been surprised many times in my career, of course, but based on another similar example of the Farringdon Road site, the cost then was roughly £70,000 for doing that. I would need a bit of convincing that £300,000 was the right figure.

 

Cross-examined by MR BISHOP

17984. MR BISHOP: I have one or two questions, Mr Berryman. Presumably, from what you say, discussions have not ended, but will be ongoing because, until you get below ground, you do not know what you are going to find?

(Mr Berryman) Absolutely right, and we do have a certain amount of freedom of movement as to the exact location. We cannot put it completely outside the development site, but we can move it to some extent to try and minimise the impact on your clients.

17985. Do I understand you right when you suggest that you do not expect to find too much in the way of existing piling, but it is the newer, modern, deeper piling which is going to be of more significance?

(Mr Berryman) No, that is probably not true. We think the existing building is piled, but we do not know exactly where the piles are, we do not know what kind of piles they are and we do not know how deep they are, so we can only establish that when the building has been demolished, and I understand your clients are about to start work on that demolition.

17986. I mentioned the figure which had been given to me, the £300,000. Do you have any idea where that figure might have come from?

(Mr Berryman) I am afraid I do not, no. I really cannot comment further on it without seeing a breakdown. At first sight, it seems quite high to me.

17987. Leaving aside the question of the piling that has either got to be removed if it is old or put in particular places if it is new, are there any other significant design issues in relation to the foundations that are going to have to be taken into account?

(Mr Berryman) No, I do not think there should be. This is a sewer, not a railway, so issues of noise and such like do not arise here. It is a small-diameter tunnel as well, so issues of settlement are also trivial. I do not think there are any other issues which need to be taken into account.

17988. Have you any idea how long the situation is going to remain fluid, as it were, as to determining either what is going to have to be removed or where new pilings are going to have to be put in?

(Mr Berryman) I think that will be determined by your clients. As soon as the building is demolished and we can see where the piles are, what we would want, and seek, to do is to work with them to get the best fit between minimising the cost of the new foundations and minimising the cost of taking old foundations out, if needed. We are trying to maintain, and I think succeeding in maintaining, a regular dialogue and we will continue to do that until the building work starts.

17989. Just one final question, and perhaps a fundamental one: the cost of those works falls on Paddington Churches Housing Association, is that correct?

(Mr Berryman) The cost of the pile removals and the piling, I am afraid it does, yes.

17990. MR BISHOP: Yes, thank you.

17991. MS LIEVEN: I have no re-examination, sir.

 

The witness withdrew

17992. MS LIEVEN: I shall proceed to my closing, sir, which, as always, is going to be brief. I think the first point to emphasise is that the project will seek to minimise the impact on this building, and Mr Berryman has just given evidence about that. We are fully committed to talking to Paddington Churches and doing whatever we can in terms of design of the sewer and helping out with the design of their piles in order to minimise the interface and to minimise, therefore, the cost. Sir, that is an ongoing process and it may be almost wholly successful and it may be that there are no existing piles and that the cost of redesign is really very minimal, but we will do everything we can to assist with that process.

17993. Next, Mr Berryman's view, and it can only be a very general view at this time, is that the cost will not be nearly as high as that which Paddington Churches are concerned about, the £300,000, which is quite important in terms of the scale of what we are talking about, but I would also emphasise two points.

17994. Firstly, if there is a cost, Mr Bishop told us that Paddington Churches Housing Association had bought this site, subject to planning permission, and that is extremely important in terms of financial impact because any professional valuer who advised them would have said that the value was diminished by having to comply with the conditions or was likely to be diminished and, therefore, the amount of money that Paddington Churches paid for this site would have taken into account the cost of complying with the conditions. Sir, instinctively, one has a good deal of sympathy with the idea that Paddington Churches, as a housing association, should not have to bear this cost, but if they were competently advised when they bought this property, given that they did so subject to planning permission, then they are not the ones bearing the cost; the people who bear the cost are the people who sold the land to them in the first place because the value would have been diminished. If the cost was not diminished, the price did not fall, then there must have been something wrong with the advice that Paddington Churches were getting, so I would suggest, sir, that that is a very important point in the underlying true merit of this case.

17995. Secondly, sir, and probably equally importantly, there are a number of people up and down the line who have had to incur increased costs in order to comply with the Crossrail safeguarding. Now, of course one might say, "Well, the Housing Association are in a bit of a different position because they are a housing association", but, on the other hand, the developers of Paddington Central are probably going to have to spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to redesign and nobody is compensating them for that. Complying with safeguarding is not a matter that one gets compensation for in this type of situation. Paddington Central is this very, very big development at Paddington Station where huge blocks with piles will have had to have been slightly redesigned. Sir, it is by no means a unique situation and, in my submission, it comes back to the fact that compensation does not cover it and all our submissions in the past remain about that. Thank you, sir.

17996. MR BISHOP: Sir, I think I have more or less shot my bolt at the outset, but, in reply to those points, I concede, as I did in opening, that we bought with the planning permission with the knowledge. I cannot say as to what financial adjustments or forecasts were made in that regard, and I have to concede that that must have been a factor and, if it was not, it should have been. I do not think we seek to hide that or back away from that, but my point is, looking at the way this is having to proceed and from what we hear from Mr Berryman, what we are presented with is an evolving situation and one which is not entirely predictable. As I said, we do not seek either particular sums of money or blank cheques. If one was seeking perhaps enormous costs in a court case, one might say that that should be the subject of a detailed assessment in due course, but we point, sir, to the fact that this an evolving situation with which we are confronted and in the final analysis we are in the hands of Crossrail as to what is acceptable and what has to be done or not. They will in a way set the budget for us to an extent and we can only ask, if it is found in due course that we face onerous obligations perhaps beyond what might reasonably have been expected, that some consideration can be given to recompensing the Association for that, given that it is particularly spending public money on providing social housing. Sir, I do not think I can assist the Committee any further.

17997. CHAIRMAN: You may be able to assist the Committee in a slight way if you could go back to your clients and ask them whether, when they bought the site, they did actually get this advice because, if they did not get this advice, they should have, as you rightly pointed out, and, therefore, they would have a claim against their advisers, so that may be a possibility. It would be helpful for the Committee to know, therefore, whether or not you did get that advice at the time of the purchase and, if you could be in correspondence with the Clerk, that would be most helpful.

17998. MR BISHOP: You are saying you would like a written response to that?

17999. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

18000. MR BISHOP: I will see that that is done, sir, yes.

18001. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Now we move on.

18002. MS LIEVEN: Now we move on to the opening on the additional provisions which some may feel is a little after the event given how long it is since we started the additional provisions.

18003. MR ELVIN: Sir, during the course of the Bill, three sets of additional provisions have been deposited with the Private Bill Office together with environmental statements for the additional provisions, called APESs, and they fall to be considered of course in accordance with the instructions of the House. AP1 was deposited on 18 January 2006, AP2 on 19 May 2006 and AP3 was deposited on 7 November 2006. Of course each of the APs requires your approval, although some of the items in AP3, as you will be aware already, sir, arise from the Committee's interim decisions given just before the summer.

18004. I have already explained to the Committee last Tuesday that we do not pursue the Barbican crossover, which is part of the APs, either as originally proposed or as proposed to be revised in AP2, and we ask the Committee to support the removal of the crossover from the Bill, and that point was dealt with again yesterday when the Barbican Residents' Association shortly presented its Petition to the Committee.

18005. Since the Committee has already heard the Petitions concerning AP1 and AP2, I do not propose to deal with them at any great length because the Committee will be familiar with many of the proposals which are contained in them, for example, the diversion of the Ham and Wick sewer and the Eleanor Street gypsy site, and many of those matters have already been dealt with by the Committee or resolved by agreement.

18006. I am going to touch on briefly, and spend a little bit more time on, AP3 which really is the new material which the Committee is about to start hearing. As I have said, you have had the various AP environmental statements which accompany the APs and they assess the likely significant effects of the additional provisions and revise the assessments of the effects previously made where they are altered or might be altered by the proposed additional provisions. There are also some supplementary environmental statements which provide additional information, for example, the recent SES which I am going to deal with at the end because there is something I need to tell you about that, which includes further material, including a comparative assessment of the shaft sites in the Spitalfields area which we agreed to carry out during the hearing of the Spitalfields Petitions last summer. Can I say, for the Committee's reference, that there is a ready reckoner, an easy reference point for all of the additional provisions in each of the non-technical summaries for the AP environmental statements. There is a table close to the front of each of the non-technical summaries which sets out the various additional provisions and summarises what they are, so there is an easy reference point in order that you can see, in very quick form, what is proposed. In the first AP non-technical summary, it is pages 4 to 8 of table 1, in the second it is table 1.1, pages 4 to 7, and in the third it is pages 4 to 11, table 1.1.

18007. AP1, as the Committee may recall, included a number of features, and I will touch on them very briefly. There were proposed amendments to the proposals at Paddington Station to improve circulation between the temporary taxi facility and the platforms to avoid conflicting movements. At Whitechapel Station, there was an enlarged western ticket hall, a new pedestrian plaza at Fulbourne Street and the replacement of two outer bridges carrying the District Line over the ELR with footbridges. There were amendments to the conveyor at the Isle of Dogs Station and there were temporary diversion works proposed at Romford depot (west). At the Blackwall Way and Limmo Peninsula shaft, proposals are made for the additional temporary mooring to improve barge access and to remove the jetty from the Limmo Peninsula. At Manor Wharf, an alternative site layout is proposed to avoid conflict with proposed new energy from waste facilities.

18008. AP2 included the following: a revised scheme at the Westbourne Park sidings at the Royal Oak portal to enable the reinstated plant to continue to operate at its current capacity; at Farringdon Station and Liverpool Street Station, of course the crossover was proposed to be revised to bring it under the Barbican, but, as the Committee already know, we seek the Committee's agreement not to pursue it and not to include it within the Bill. As I mentioned on Tuesday, the access point at Finsbury Circus worksite has also been amended and that is required in any event with the agreement of the City of London in order to reduce the impact of the access on the trees at Finsbury Circus, and there is also an alternative route for the sewer diversion which runs through the middle of Moorgate. As you also are aware, at Eleanor Street, the Mile End Park and Eleanor Street shafts have been revised because of the impact on the gypsy/travellers' site, and you are also aware of the proposals to divert the Ham and Wick sewer. There are also amended construction methods for Dog Kennel Bridge and Chequer Bridge on the west of the line, details of which of course are all set out and, I think, are now agreed.

18009. Turning in more detail to AP3, which the Committee has yet to hear, perhaps I could ask for document AP3A, which is the environmental statement, the overall key map to be put up. There are various amendment proposals in fact along the route in most parts of it. I will deal with the central area first.

18010. The first proposal I intend to refer to is the Royal Oak portal where a new ramp is to be constructed from Westbourne Park Villas to the southern span of the footbridge, following the Committee's recommendation, and there is a photograph on page 13 of the AP3ES. The reversing facility has been moved further north to avoid greater independence between the existing operational railway and Crossrail.

18011. Moving a little further east to Paddington Station, page 25 please, Eastbourne Terrace is to be lowered, so Chiltern Street needs to be regraded which removes the need for stairs and lifts between Eastbourne Terrace and Departures Road. There is a relocation proposed west of the station entrance and certain aboveground structures are to be relocated.

18012. More significantly, at Bond Street Station, which is page 37, what is proposed is an additional London Underground station entrance and ticket hall which is proposed to be located at 354-358 Oxford Street. The Committee can see, I hope, that that is outlined in white with an arrow pointing at it, the building that requires to be removed, along with a series of underground passenger escalators and lifts which will increase capacity and reduce predicted congestion in the interchange concourse on London Underground. In fact we have an axonometric from AP3A, map C-45 and you can see in red the additional congestion relief infrastructure which will create greater capacity within Bond Street.

18013. Moving then to Tottenham Court Road Station, page 55, there is a revised construction methodology requiring an additional building to be demolished and we can see the revised extension of the demolition in a sort of beige line extending out to Denmark Place. The building to be demolished is 138-146 Charing Cross Road. The eastern entrance to Centrepoint has been revised to enable it to be used as the main entrance during the construction period and, if you look at map C-52, that shows the extent of the revised demolition. It shows the extent of the demolition now proposed and that will assist in the creation of the new plaza to the west of Centrepoint and the new traffic system which we have put up as map C-5viii from SES3A. You can see there that the proposed arrangement is that there will be a plaza concourse to the east of Centrepoint with station entrances both north and south and the realignment of the highways proposed and the new development which will take place along the southern side of the plaza. I was going to point out where the Petitioner this afternoon was going to be, but, since they have withdrawn, I do not need to, but they were about where the words "St Giles High Street" are.

18014. Jumping a mile or two to Farringdon Station, page 75, this is the Fox and Knot Street Site. In accordance with the Committee's views, the shaft has been located further to the east enabling 38 Charterhouse Street to be retained, although numbers 40 to 42 still need to be demolished.

18015. Moving to Liverpool Street, again following the Committee's recommendations, an additional Crossrail ticket hall, which is referred to as the Broadgate ticket hall, is to be provided. Ms Lieven is pointing to the proposed entrance which is in front of the British Land site. The AP will also include the provision of extra ticket gates in ticket hall B as to which you heard much evidence just over a year ago.

18016. At Whitechapel the issue of the school and access to the staff car park has been restricted and an additional access is to be provided from Tradewell * Close. You can see there is an arrow as Ms Lieven is pointing out.

18017. Without a picture, the Stepney Green shafts are proposed to be amended allowing vertical limits for the westbound tunnels to be raised which will allow the shaft structures and the caverns for the tunnels to be constructed under better geological conditions and therefore reducing the construction risks.

18018. The Isle of Dogs Station - map C11/4 from AP3A - what is proposed there is a revised station design with two ticket halls giving improved links to the north and the south sides of the dock. We can see the entrances now proposed. The construction methodology for the station has been revised to avoid extensive piling works within the dock which would have significantly affected neighbouring properties through construction noise, so that reduces the impact.

18019. Pudding Mill Lane - map C13-2 from AP3A - the worksite has had to be reconfigured and an additional worksite provide between Cook's Road and River Lea to accommodate the loss of the Bow Midland Yard (East) worksite. The new area is the purple hatch that Ms Lieven is pointing to. The site that has had to be lost to accommodate the Olympics is the roughly triangular patch just to the east of the River Lea. Between there and the dotted lines further along you can see the words "Bow Midland Yard" at the top. That has been removed to accommodate the Olympics. The site has been reconfigured and the purple area has been included so that will avoid any conflict with the proposed Olympics which of course the Committee will recall the Bill was deposited before the successful Olympic bid was awarded to London.

18020. We can deal briefly with Maidenhead Station. The access has been revised to allow a new housing development to proceed unhindered. At West Drayton Station there are works which are proposed in the event that the alternative depot strategy, which I will come on to in a moment, is rejected by the Committee. Those works are only required in the event that the depot strategy which is now proposed is not accepted.

18021. The new depot strategy involves relocating the proposed Crossrail network from Romford in the east and the Committee will be aware there have been petitions regarding the loss of playing fields and the impact of the depot. What AP3 now proposes is to relocate the depot to the west just north of Wormwood Scrubs at Old Oak Common depot. The depot buildings and the ancillary works and the sidings will be placed at Old Oak Common and you can see it there. They are currently occupied by EWS and the Heathrow Express and it would propose to replace Romford. Buildings currently located on the site of the proposed new sidings will of course need to be demolished and track-work leading to the depot would be revised. Where it says Great Western main line you can see there are sidings and a depot on the other side. That is called the North Pole. I am not sure whether it is called that because it is north of Wormwood Scrubs or because of the pub which is located on the road, but that is where currently it is proposed to relocate EWS from this side of the Great Western main line to that side to accommodate the Crossrail network. There are still discussions, however, with regard to the EWS relocation. That, we would put to the Committee, is a satisfactory alternative site for the depot which will overcome the strategic problems of the playing fields and the impact at Romford by utilising an existing depot with consequently lesser impact.

18022. Next is 7 King's Station, which is Ilford depot - page 197 of AP3/ES - which is part of the revised depot strategy as well. What is proposed, if the Committee are satisfied that the alternative depot strategy should be followed, is this will allow for stabling to be constructed at an existing depot site. Two existing buildings in the Ilford depot would be demolished and replaced by 11 sidings and ancillary works.

18023. Turning to Good Mayes Station and Gidea Park Station, additional amendments are proposed to allow for greater PRM accessibility, including revised ticket halls and step-free access platforms.

18024. Romford Depot (West) - these are proposals, as with West Drayton, which only arise if the Committee rejects the alternative depot strategy. There are proposals to try and mitigate the impacts of Romford, if the Committee considered the depot ought to remain there, despite the alternative strategy. Those proposals will reduce the loss of playfields during construction and would reduce the impact, although we will still be asking the Committee to recommend and endorse the wholesale removal of the depot to West London rather than the east.

18025. Page 243 - Blackwall Way and Limmo Peninsula shafts - what are proposed there in fact is to replace the barge loading facility from the Limmo Peninsula at Instone Wharf which you can see marked in white on the photograph. That will ensure easier access and improve the handling of excavated material.

18026. Finally in terms of pictures, page 262, this is Clacton, which I do not think we have been to so far along the course of the Bill. This again is part of the revised depot strategy it may surprise you to hear. The alternative depot strategy includes a proposal to reopen Clacton Depot temporarily to commission and test the new Crossrail rolling stock. Because of the decision to relocate Romford, if the Committee so endorses the decision, additional commissioning and test facilities would need to be provided. We have had to split up the function a little in order to make sure that we can accommodate the relocation of the depot. That is proposed at Clacton and because of the greater length of the Crossrail trains some alterations to the existing maintenance shed will be necessary to accommodate those trains. There are also other provisions within AP3 which I am not going to deal with in any detail. Amendments to the Stockley Flyover, limited deviation. Revised works site and access at Hanwell Station and a revision to the Arsenal Way shaft to enable one of the businesses to remain operational.

18027. I hope that is not a too rapid a canter through the main proposals from AP3, but it at least gives the Committee a flavour of the main items and, as the Committee will have seen, they include a good deal of alterations in order to give effect to the Committee's decisions.

18028. The final matter I want to touch on is SES/3, which was deposited in November, and contains some updated environmental information, including particularly the comparison between Hanbury Street and Woodseer Street which we promised. Since the publication of SES/3 last November, it became clear this week that some corrections need to be made to a fairly small number of paragraphs - in the order of four or five - relating to the noise impacts on the proposed Hanbury Street shaft. It is right that the corrections should be made so that there is accuracy in the environmental statement, but I can assure the Committee that they do not lead to different conclusions in terms of the noise impact of the Hanbury Street shaft when one takes into account the revised possibilities in mitigation, nor does it lead to a different conclusion to the comparative exercise between the Hanbury Street site and the Woodseer Street site. If you remember, although a detailed noise comparison was not available when the Committee heard the Spitalfields Petitioners last summer, Mr Thornley-Taylor said in his view it was likely that, at least in noise terms, the two locations would come out broadly comparable. That was not the point - as Mr Berryman made clear to you and will make clear to you again if necessary - which led to the choice of Hanbury Street over Woodseer Street. The assessment in SES/3 leads to the conclusion that Mr Thornley-Taylor's prediction was right that, in noise terms, the two are broadly comparable in their impact. The point of a decision arises on other grounds, not on noise grounds.

18029. Accordingly, what we propose to do is to make available the corrected text to the AP3 Petitioners from Spitalfields who are appearing on 30 January. We will make the corrections available to them this week which will be in good time hopefully for their appearance on 30 January and we will also publicise the amendments to SES/3 as soon as we reasonably can. I can assure the Committee from what I am being told over the last few days that the changes will involve no Bill amendments; they will involve no requirement of petitioning. They will open the possibility to those reading the amendments that they may wish to make representations, which is a separate process from petitioning, which would then be presented by the Secretary of State to the House at third reading along with any other representations which do not arise in the context of bill petitions. Although those corrections have to be made, we hope that they should not give rise to any great difficulties. I simply say them for the record so that everybody knows that we need to make them and it may well be publicised to the AP3 Petitioners before the end of this week.

18030. Sir, unless there are any matters that the Committee would like further information on, that concludes my run through the AP's.

18031. CHAIRMAN: I am grateful.

18032. MS LIEVEN: The only other matter today is the cyclists, Mr Selway and Mr Harrison. I do not know if the Committee knows that they are finding it difficult to get here this morning. I believe they can come at half past two.

18033. CHAIRMAN: We have a witness here but we have not got the representative. I think it is probably correct that we need to suspend until two thirty and then come back and hear their case then. The last we heard from them was that five or six emails have been received. He has left Birmingham and he will be here as soon as he can.

 

Adjourned until 2.30 pm

 

The Petition of Michael Andrew Harrison, Arnold David Moxon and

Gordon Gemmell Selway

 

MR GORDON GEMMELL SELWAY appeared on behalf of the Petitioners.

18034. CHAIRMAN: Welcome.

18035. MR SELWAY: Thank you, sir.

18036. CHAIRMAN: Congratulations.

18037. MR SELWAY: Thank you. Oddly enough, it is not because of the weather; it is because of privatisation.

18038. CHAIRMAN: I am not entirely under sympathetic to what you are talking about but I think we will leave it there.

18039. MS LIEVEN: Can I make a very brief opening, sir?

18040. As you know, these Petitioners represent the National Council of the Cycling Touring Club and are concerned about the provision of bicycles in relation to Crossrail.

18041. As I understand it, the principal concern still outstanding is the carriage of bicycles on the Crossrail service. The final policy on the carriage of cycles, as we have explained, will be decided by the Franchising Authority and the Train Operating Company, not by us, and we are wholly committed to continuing to talk to the CTT about that policy and the policy may vary. It may depend on local conditions and it may vary between hours.

18042. It is right to say that it certainly will at least take into account the London Underground policy on cycles which, in essence, is that cycles cannot be carried in the deep parts of the tube at any time and cannot be carried anywhere at peak hours, so they can be carried on the subsurface and surface level tubes outside peak hours. We are not saying that will necessarily be our policy but obviously it is likely to inform our policy, but we are very much still in discussion and will continue to be in discussion with the CTC ‑‑ not just about bicycle carriage policy but also about matters such as where cycle racks go and detailed design issues such as that in the appropriate time in the project.

18043. I am not going to say any more now, sir. I have Mr Anderson here to give evidence if the Committee feels that is necessary later.

18044. CHAIRMAN: Mr Selway?

18045. MR SELWAY: I have a small problem immediately which I must apologise for. I need to switch on my notebook and it will make a noise, and I must apologise for that happening first. I cannot find the device I need to make it not make a noise, but there we are.

18046. CHAIRMAN: We may just have a small problem also. The stenographers need to hear you, so if you could just lift your voice it would be helpful.

18047. MR SELWAY: I am deaf, I have to be careful, and I am not sure whether my hearing aids are working, and when my hearing aids are not working I find it difficult to tell how loudly I am speaking.

18048. CHAIRMAN: You are not having a very good day!

18049. MR SELWAY: No. I will not go into the technical reasons for it, but it does make life difficult. You may or may not be able to help me, or the Clerk may be able to help me on it. Are there induction loops?

18050. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and they are on.

18051. MR SELWAY: In which case I will switch on the induction loop and see if that helps.

18052. CHAIRMAN: I think we will just have to get on and try and help each other.

18053. MR SELWAY: Thank you, sir.

18054. With all respect to what counsel for the Promoters has said, the point about carriage is one of the core points of our concern, as is indicated in the skeleton argument, if I may call it that, that we have supplied and which I hope hon Members have copies of.

18055. CHAIRMAN: We have. (Exhibit A199 marked.)

18056. MR SELWAY: There are a considerable number of issues which flow from our concern about carriage, both about access to stations all along the route and about the application of best practice, because this is not a here‑today‑gone‑tomorrow undertaking, it is a piece of infrastructure work, the effects of the decisions of which will be with us for decades to come. There are still shortcomings on these deep level tube lines for people like me who have some mobility difficulties which were built 100 years ago and have not yet been resolved, so I am thinking about it in those time scales and that takes us to the over‑arching concern that we mention in our skeleton argument, which has to do with climate change and how best to reduce the carbon dioxide output from travel and using Crossrail when it is in place.

18057. One of the most simple and effective ways of doing it, sir, is making it much more bicycle friendly, both on the surface sections and on the subsurface, the deep level section across central London.

18058. We have also supplied copies of the Best Practice Guide covering the issues that arise (Exhibit A198 marked) and material which, for the purpose of the original session, which did not go ahead on October 24, we supplied URLs for in relation to the carriage of bicycles on deep level tubes in various cities in North America. (Exhibit A197 marked.)

18059. As far as I can tell, those set out the broad picture of the case we are trying to make out to you, sir, and to the Promoters, which is in effect that measures could be taken in respect of their proposals to make them better and more consistent with policy than they are at the moment. That is the core of what we have to say and we have supplied the material in the hope that it will assist hon Members to determine whether that is a reasonable possibility.

18060. I would add in connection with the point that these are matters for the franchisees and the Franchising Authority, and my colleagues and predecessors, I think 16 or 17 years ago, were able to obtain the insertion of a clause in the Channel Tunnel Bill to ensure that bicycles would be carried through the Tunnel, so in some respects there is a precedent, if need be, for the case that we are putting being turned into some form of statutory provision.

18061. CHAIRMAN: We will read all the documentation that you have given us and we will consider all the evidence put before us, and we will at a later point, as a Committee in full and in private, discuss these and come to what we believe will be reasonable decisions on the matter, to present back to Parliament for it to decide. I can give you the assurance we will consider all the evidence that you have put forward.

18062. MR SELWAY: That I understand, sir.

18063. One reason for maintaining our objection was, if there were any opportunity for questions to be put, that we might be able to assist on elucidating the material that we have put in. I know it is a very short time between it being made available to you this morning ‑‑

18064. CHAIRMAN: It is really the other way round. It is not for you to question us; it is for us to question you.

18065. MR SELWAY: That is what I meant, sir.

18066. CHAIRMAN: The way to proceed, if you want to elucidate some ‑‑

18067. MR SELWAY: You misunderstand me, sir, I am sorry. I meant that you could ask me questions.

18068. CHAIRMAN: I think the best way of proceeding is this. You have a witness who has been here all day who has very kindly stayed, so if you would like to call your witness and ask him some questions Members may feel that they want to ask questions on some of the responses that he gives, and take into consideration some of the questions that you ask.

18069. MR SELWAY: That was my intention, sir, if you are happy for me to do that.

 

MR ANDY HOLLADAY, Sworn.

Examined by MR SELWAY

18070. MR SELWAY: Mr Holladay, would you kindly tell the Members of the Committee who you are, what your position is, and what your experience is, relevant to the Crossrail Bill?

(Mr Holladay): My name is Dave Holladay. I have worked in the transport industry for over thirty years, some of it as a British Rail management trainee. I then joined British as a manager. I have since worked for CTC as their specialist in public transport and integrated transport, and I have from time to time worked with rail operators to design equipment for conveying bicycles on trains, so I have a moderate amount of experience on the issues. I have also worked on cycle parking and access to stations and other premises.

18071. Thank you. You have looked at the Crossrail proposals and you would, I think, agree with me that they are somewhat lacking when it comes to making best use of the opportunities that a combination of the use of a bicycle and rail travel can bring.

(Mr Holladay): There are a number of aspects to this. There are the existing customers who are already using the system who demonstrate quite clearly that it works, and this is where our concern principally over travel to Paddington and Liverpool Street exists in quite substantial numbers already. Some people leave bikes at those stations; others bring bikes on the trains; and there is additionally the connectivity of being able to travel through London with a bike on the underground network by changing. To say that bicycles could be left at either end is something that could be possible for the commuter, who was making regular journeys and can plan these things, but people, for example, like tourists travelling out to Harwich for the boat or something like that, people with a specific disability that requires them to ride an adapted bike may wish to take their bike with them and adapt it accordingly, so the ability to take a bicycle of some kind under certain conditions on through trains is something we want to see as a core principle. This has already been proposed on an international basis before the European Parliament, that passengers would be able to take bikes, or that provision would be there for them to take bikes on all the trains. By painting that out of the picture you leave yourself with a difficult thing to rectify.

18072. Thank you. I wonder as well if you could explain how the combination of bike and train increases the business case, not just for commuters, in relation to a project such as Crossrail.

(Mr Holladay): There are both internal and external issues here. Basically the Bicycle Study, which I think you probably have in the bikerail report, notes potentially 60 per cent of households within a 15‑minute bike ride of a station in the existing network compared to only 19 per cent with a 15‑minute walk, so immediately you increase the convenience of being able to access the system. This means that the system becomes accessible with low impact as well. Instead of having to build large car parks at every station because people perceive they have to drive, a lot more people will be able to come by alternative means and freedom of choice, I think, is quite important, to make sure you can still preserve that freedom of choice. It may be that the freedom of choice is forcing people because they can no longer afford to make short journeys by car; I am not sure what the future holds there. In terms of the external issues, Crossrail will be generating a lot of trips which deposit people for onward travel, and that onward travel has an impact also. I have in mind particularly some of the inner London stations, where you will be putting additional passengers into the Underground, the bus or the taxi networks, and to some extent the effect we see at stations like Waterloo is that passengers are realising that you arrive at Waterloo with an uncertainty as to whether the Underground system is going to be working, but if you have a bike with you you have a guarantee that your connection is there for onward travel. That is the personal side of it, but to the Underground network you are offering a way of decanting a percentage of passengers who will otherwise be poured into the system, so you are offering an additional mode of transport to disperse the people from the station. Off peak as well there are considerable benefits where, for example, at weekends public transport services may be less frequent than they are during weekdays, or not available, so for people who are travelling to outer stations, the option is there of actually taking a bike along with them and cycling that bit when they would otherwise have caught a bus route because there is no weekend bus, so it gives you that immense flexibility. I notice it myself particularly with shift workers. I travel on trains very early in the morning and very late at night and you tend to bump into a lot of shift workers who take their bikes on the trains because there is no bus to get them back from the station late at night, or to the station to make their shift, so the ability to have that flexibility in the system is very important.

18073. You also mentioned benefits to the disabled. Now, I understand that Crossrail will take disabled travellers in wheelchairs. It may be helpful to the Committee to explain the situation of why people who might otherwise have to use a wheelchair are, in fact, able to ride a bike. I am sure in this country at least it seems paradoxical.

(Mr Holladay): I would draw the Committee's attention to a submission we made for the Disabled Persons' Transport Advisory Committee programme for 2007‑2010 in which we gathered details of people using bicycles as mobility aids. When I say "bicycles", probably the more accurate term is "cycles" as mobility aids, because there are people who have balance or motor problems who obviously cannot cope with riding on two wheels, so they ride on three.

18074. CHAIRMAN: Is there a possibility that you would be able to forward that documentation on to us?

(Mr Holladay): Yes. Basically we have over the past two or three years at CTC gathered information from a lot of people who have a disability who want to take their adapted bicycle with them on the train because it makes a phenomenal difference to their ability to move around independently. For example, there are people who are registered as blind but they can ride a bicycle, and that means if they get to an end station and they want to get to a place which is not served by a bus service they are totally dependent on having a driver and a vehicle supplied for them, whereas with a bicycle they maintain that independent mobility which is a very dignified means of getting about. There are people with severe spinal injuries who also cannot walk more than five yards but they can cycle five to ten miles in great comfort. It becomes almost a mobility aid issue but for some people who can use a bike it transform their lives. As such, obviously the use of the bike on the train forms an equivalent for them driving a car. We know two blind people who use a tandem, two brothers, who run their business by using their tandem and the train to get around to visit customers. They cannot drive so between them they can manage the tandem and the train to cover the distances. As such they have become very skilled negotiators with the train operators.

18075. I was wondering as well if you could assist the Committee by explaining the benefits that come from the much greater area covered by stations where access is achieved by cycle rather than on foot, and how that may compare with, for example, bus access and car access and what the implications are for station design.

(Mr Holladay): I think we are getting examples in stations like particularly at Waterloo. I cite Waterloo because we have been working with the management there on this issue because they see the parked bicycles. I do not know if any of the Committee go through Waterloo but you will see at night parked bicycles tied on every lamp-post, bollard and spare space. When you create a station, which as Waterloo does, carries four times more passengers than Heathrow through that space, one of the key ingredients is dispersal and collection because railways, as public transport, are a consolidated means of transport. It is economic and sensible to bring your passengers into a station which is convenient to stop at. With Crossrail you have a limited number of stations through Central London because you need to have a particular service pattern, you do not want to have a station with a density that you have on some of the Underground routes. The ability to consolidate passengers and also disperse them from those stations with a minimum impact to all four points of the compass in the most economically practically way is where the bicycle ties in with pedestrianised access but the bicycle gives a benefit that you can extend that access over an area at least 16 times greater because you can travel about four times as far on a bicycle in the same time as you can walking. That obviously affects the stations. If you want to turn to the Melbourne map. The bike rail one is Sydney. You can see the effect of the catchment areas a cycle to station against a walk to station and how the corridor of catchment grows quite neatly in that respect. Of course it is fairly cheap to ride. To build a road in from every point of the compass is costly on land and resources, whereas to build a walking and cycling route takes a lot less resources to do. In terms of dispersal, next to pedestrians going out of a place, getting cyclists through a corridor, you can get a lot of them moving very, very quickly. We do not have figures for places like Waterloo because nobody has bothered to look at them. That is where we feel very frustrated by the existing network. They do not realise what they are sitting on.

18076. I was wondering whether Ms Jones was hoping to put something up on the screen for you?

(Mr Holladay): Can we have the Melbourne exhibit?

18077. MS LIEVEN: Yes, that is it there.

18078. CHAIRMAN: Do Members of the Committee have this document?

18079. MR SELWAY: They do, sir. I think you would agree, Mr Holladay, when you look at the map, which is figure 5A, the blue circles which represent the standard assumed walking distance within 750 metres of station is in fact quite a generous walking distance. I understand planners frequently work in this country on a 500 metre distance from stations. You have an isolated set of areas served upon foot, especially in the outer areas, but you see continuous belts at the outer ends of the trips, apart from the gap between Heathcore and Waterfall, and that in the city centre you see the whole area is covered. Would you agree with me on that?

(Mr Holladay): Yes, I would agree with that. I am also looking at the speeds to check that the seven and a half minutes is recognized as being the time it takes to walk 750 metres and 7 and half minutes at 2.25 kilometres of cycling which seems to tie in. Although you would not be hanging about walking 750 metres in two and half minutes, it is very much walking as transport at that speed, it is about six kilometres an hour, is it not?

18080. CHAIRMAN: I have had the great pleasure of visiting Sydney and I have got experience of the biketrail 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 is does mention the cycle carriages 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 short-comings 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 it 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. 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 of ultimate responsibility for the final cycle carriage policy is that of 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 on off peaks. 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 and 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 E2 on cycle carriage and cycle parking. 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.

18100. In paragraph 2.2 we make specific statements about stands under cover, good lighting and the following features as close as possible to a station entrance: safe and direct access to the local road and cycle network, open and visible allowing natural surveillance, and well signposted. We very much have all the CTC points in mind and they are set out there.

18101. As far as the design of train is concerned, if I can ask the Committee to look at E2 at paragraph 4.2: "Crossrail trains are likely to include areas of flexible space within each train. This would be prioritised for the use of wheelchair users. However, it would combine wheelchair space with the capacity to carry prams, bikes and other oversize luggage and standing passengers. Restrictions are likely to be required on the carriage of tandems and tricycles depending on the final configuration of rolling stock."

18102. The undertaking which I referred to first is intended to cover the design of the trains as well, so we will consult with the CTC on the design of the train to try to do what we can for cycle users. Obviously we have to balance the needs of all the different users, but we are clearly committed to taking into account the needs of cyclists.

18103. Before I finish and leave E2, can the Committee note that the first sentence of paragraph 4.1 is one of the sections that needs to be changed because we are no longer saying that we will necessarily be consistent with LUL policy; we have given an undertaking to CTC that we will talk to them and we may, when it comes to it, adopt the policy slightly differently from LUL.

18104. Sir, that was a phenomenally fast canter through the cycling issues but I think it has dealt with the principal issues that the CTC has raised. We have dealt with this very quickly but it is a very important issue. We are very conscious that cycling is increasing rapidly and is a very important matter as far as climate change policy is concerned. If the Committee does have any concerns, I am very happy to deal with them now or if it wants to come back later and ask any questions.

18105. CHAIRMAN: For the record could you tell us (1) what are the projected numbers for the use of Crossrail, and (2) what periods of time would be the peak times and what would be the throughput peak times in terms of individuals who are going through? If we could have a note of that?

18106. MS LIEVEN: I can give you those figures now. The peak times for LUL at 7.30 to 9.30 in the morning and 1600 to 1900 in the afternoons Mondays to Fridays. A good example of time that will be very busy for Crossrail is Saturday afternoons but it is not a peak hour for LUL's purposes. So far as the numbers are concerned, the 2016 forecast - Mr Anderson will tell me precisely what this is for - is approximately 380,000 Crossrail boarders per day.

18107. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr Selway?

18108. MR SELWAY: Sir, I am very grateful to my learned friend for her canter and for her references to the contents of E2. I think the differences between the CTC and the promoters at the moment are matters of degree and how fast we foresee it may be possible that circumstances change. Ms Lieven mentions that cycle use certainly in London is increasing markedly and it may be that in the lifetime of the figures that she refers to the increase may continue and we may see very different patterns of travel. The problem then is how far those patterns are held back from maintaining their greatest public benefit by the decisions that we make now.

18109. Sir, we agree that you have sufficient information to understand our position and to come to a conclusion yourselves. I would say that we intend to work very closely with Crossrail to see how far we can resolve the differences that there are between us and, if we cannot do so completely, then at least do so in an amicable fashion.

18110. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Selway.

18111. MS LIEVEN: Sir, I need to say something about Spitalfields. I was not here yesterday but I believe that Mr Elvin made reference to a short report that was being written to the Committee to explain issues around the Spitalfields Monitoring Body Liaison Panel. If I can inform the Committee and therefore it can be placed on record that that document has now been sent to yourselves and to the Petitioners who have complained in their petitions about what has happened.

18112. CHAIRMAN: For the record can I list that as A200.

18113. MS LIEVEN: We will obviously be coming back to that in two weeks' time.

18114. CHAIRMAN: The Committee is very grateful that we have got that today to give sufficient time to the Petitioners to read it before their appearance on 30 January. Mr Selway and Mr Holladay, thank you for all the efforts that you have put in today. We are most grateful. Thank you for all the additional information that you have provided. The Committee, I can assure you, will take these matters into consideration. We wish you a less arduous journey home.

18115. That is the end of today's meeting. The next meeting will take place next week on Thursday at 10 am.