Examination of Witnesses (Questions 480
- 499)
480. MS LIEVEN: These are as they will
stay in the present circumstances. I put it like that because
accessibility for people with restricted mobility is a very high
priority for the Department for Transport and it has got a scheme
called `Access for All' and that is gradually upgrading stations
across the UK. Now, it may well be that, as a number of stations
are, as it were, done under that scheme, stations such as Langley
necessarily go higher up the priority list. There is no question
at stations like Langley that we are not doing anything to stop
accessibility in the future, so you could call it `passive provision',
but, as we are not doing anything on that side of the track, we
have not chosen to call it that.
481. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: The final
bit then of this question is this: that, if one is going from
Langley or wishes to get off at Langley but is handicapped or
disadvantaged by the fact that there is no access to a platform
where they can get off because it is only on one side, would they
then go on to West Drayton, which appears to be the next one that
they go to, or would it be Iver?
482. MS LIEVEN: West Drayton .
483. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: When they
get to any other station where they want to change platforms,
is there anything which would not be reported as a problem if
we were looking solely at the straightforward access on a single
route so that it is completely step-free on the eastbound, say,
but, if you wanted to change from the eastbound to the westbound
platform, are there any little problems that have crept in whereby
there are some steps which have been left because it was not assumed
that it was a problem as there was free access, so there is nothing
which presents an extra hazard there?
484. MS LIEVEN: Nothing at all, my Lord.
Where it says `step-free' it means step-free, fully accessible
for people who cannot manage steps. The fact that there is a full
green dot at West Drayton means full accessibility.
485. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: I was
just concerned that there might have been some forgotten steps
left in the transfer from one platform to another which would
be self-defeating to have to go back a station.
486. MS LIEVEN: No, absolutely not. I
do not know whether it would be helpful for me to very briefly
outline what are the reasons why we are not upgrading Maryland
and Manor Park. I appreciate this is going to go slightly beyond
the absolutely objective and factual, but it may be helpful for
the Committee if I, in three or four sentences, outline our position
before you hear Newham's case so that you can understand where
Mr Berryman's evidence is going to be coming from. It is one of
the slightly odd things about this process, that, unless I do
that now, the Committee is not going to know until it hears Mr
Berryman, but I am entirely in your Lordships' hands as to whether
that would be helpful or not.
487. LORD SNAPE: Before you do, Ms Lieven,
may I just ask a couple of questions? Am I to understand from
what you said earlier that Maryland Station was included, if I
can put it this way, as an afterthought and it was not in the
original proposals for the Crossrail scheme?
488. MS LIEVEN: Stopping at Maryland
Station was not in the original proposal because of the length
of platforms, yes. It has always been on the route.
489. LORD SNAPE: I understand that. Was
Maryland included as a result of the original Petition from Newham
Council and was it accepted then by the Promoters initially or
at the insistence of the Committee in the other place?
490. MS LIEVEN: No, it was not at the
insistence of the Committee; it never got to the Committee. Newham
lobbied and then ultimately petitioned on the issue and we looked
at it carefully. We were initially concerned that Her Majesty's
Railway Inspectorate would not be content for a new scheme, such
as Crossrail, to have selective door opening. As Mr Berryman can
explain, selective door opening is effectively essential at Maryland
because to extend the platforms at Maryland would be enormously
difficult. It would involve the cutting out of embankments, closing
strategic roads, all sorts of problems, so it was the concern
that we would not be allowed to do, if I can use the acronym,
SDO that meant originally we were not going to stop, but it was
not at the insistence of the Committee because the issue never
got to the Committee.
491. LORD SNAPE: Lastly on this particular
point, why then did the Promoters accept the case for Maryland,
given the fact that stopping trains on a new railway within 600
or 800 metres is regarded in railway circles as a bit of an operating
problem? Two stations within such a short distance actually has
some impact on the overall rail capacity because of starting and
stopping. Why were the Promoters so keen to accept Maryland?
492. MS LIEVEN: Well, my Lord, with respect,
that is a very good question which Mr Berryman is better qualified
to answer than I am. I think the Promoters found themselves in
a difficult place. Newham petitioned very hard for us to stop
and argued strongly that it was in the interests of the local
community and regeneration to stop at Maryland, and my recollection
is that there were quite considerable proposals for new development
at Maryland and, in those circumstances, we decided it was appropriate
to stop. Mr Berryman can give further evidence as to the balance
that was struck there, but of course your Lordship is quite right,
that stopping at a relatively little-used station is actually
of significant disbenefit to all the people who are stuck on the
train while it stops.
493. LORD SNAPE: Lastly, on this particular
point, is it then an accurate, albeit somewhat cynical, way of
looking at Newham's case that, having petitioned for this station
to be included in the Crossrail services, they have then said,
"But it's not disability accessible, so you have got to spend
lots of money to make sure that it is"?
494. MS LIEVEN: It is certainly one interpretation
one could put on the position. To be fair to Newham, they have
always made it clear that they are keen to see full accessibility
at both of these stations, but it is true to say that there has
been a bit of a war of attrition on Maryland and I think the Promoters'
view would be that, when we agreed to stop at Maryland, we did
not believe we were going to have to do quite a lot of work at
it.
495. LORD SNAPE: Having said that was
my last question, it does lead me to another one. Had you known
what you know now, would you perhaps have been less enthusiastic
about accepting the case for Maryland?
496. MS LIEVEN: I think we might have
been less enthusiastic, my Lord, yes. Would it be helpful if I
very briefly outlined the issues at the two stations?
497. CHAIRMAN: Please.
498. MS LIEVEN: Perhaps we could put
up the plan, first of all, of Manor Park please because the issues
are slightly different at the two stations.[10]
At Manor Park, the issues are really engineering ones. This is
an exhibit we have produced to show what we would need to do to
make provision for lifts at the station, which is of course the
way that accessibility is given at stations such as this. At Manor
Park at the moment, there is a walkway, a large concrete structure,
which goes over the platforms. It will be Mr Berryman's evidence
that, in order to make provision for lifts at this station, that
walkway would have to be completely demolished and rebuilt in
order to find the space to put the lifts in, and he will describe
it in more detail, and it is his professional view that it would
be, even in those circumstances, extremely difficult to get the
lifts in.
499. The other factor your Lordships should
be aware of here is that there is a loop, a railway loop running
to the south. Now, under the original scheme, it was proposed
to close that loop because that was the only way that we could
extend the platforms to allow for the platforms to be the 200
metres required for Crossrail. When HMRI agreed to selective door
opening at Maryland, what the project decided to do was also to
have selective door opening at Manor Park and, by doing that,
it meant that we could keep the freight loop. The Committee will
know, perhaps Lord Snape in particular, that there are huge benefits
in keeping the freight loop, benefits to freight in particular,
and the freight Petitioners have petitioned hard to keep freight
loops and indeed to build new ones, but also benefits to other
rail users because it allows a more flexible operation on the
railway, so, if there is some problem on the slow line, you can
push people on to the loop. The current scheme is that we do not
extend the platforms, we maintain the freight loop and we have
selective door opening at Manor Park. If we were to have PRM and
lifts were to be installed, then it would be, as I say, a major
engineering operation to remove this structure and rebuild it
and then to get lifts in and all that would be extremely expensive
by anybody's normal standards, something in the region of £12
million. Mr Berryman will go through this in more detail, but,
if we put up the plan of Manor Park, the map at 014, one can see
that just to the south of Manor Park is Romford Road which has
buses going up and down between Ilford and Stratford and most
of the catchment of Manor Park lies to the south because one can
see that to the north there is a very large cemetery, Wanstead
flats and another large park, so most of the catchment lies to
the south within easy distance of buses to Ilford and Stratford.[11]
The judgment that the project reached was that, in those circumstances,
given the engineering difficulties, the costs and the easy accessibility,
it was very poor value for money to provide lifts at Manor Park.
10 Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park Station-Proposed
details for the provision of PRM lifts without platform extensions
(NEWMLB-53_04-010) Back
11
Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park Station-AM Peak Access Catchment
Plot-2001 LATS Data (NEWMLB-53_04-014) Back
|
