Examination of Witnesses (Questions 640
- 659)
640. Can we move on please to what you said
in your presentation and could you turn up please slide number
10 in your presentation, just to understand where you come from
in respect of the policy approach that should be taken by Crossrail,
and you say it in terms, "inclusion is fundamental".[28]
(Dr Maynard) Yes, it is.
641. To the extent that inclusion is fundamental,
tell me, the provision of no accessibility at two of the stations
within Newham, is that inclusion?
(Dr Maynard) It is, provided that the alternatives are inclusive
and that the information that is provided to people means that
they readily understand that those are what their options are.
A lot of access is about understanding what you can and what you
cannot do. You can have the most accessible place in the universe
and it is actually not inclusive because the information that
you are provided with does not make it very effective.
642. Can I ask you please now to take up Information
Paper E5.[29]
I hope that the Committee have a copy of that. Can I ask you to
turn to page 1 in that document. Did you have any part in the
production of this document?
(Dr Maynard) I reviewed this document.
643. And again no doubt indicated what you disagreed
with?
(Dr Maynard) Indeed.
644. Looking at the criteria that have been
applied to existing stations, those are identified in paragraph
2.3, are they not?
(Dr Maynard) Yes.
645. We were told this morning by Ms Lieven
that there were three criteria for inclusion. Do you recall that?
(Dr Maynard) Yes.
646. Let's go through 2.3: "Existing stations
have been selected for upgrading based on the projected passenger
numbers at the station, the capital cost to upgrade to step-free
and the distance to the nearest accessible station. The Promoter
has also taken into account the incidence of disability in the
population surrounding the station", so in fact there are
four criteria. Is that right?
(Dr Maynard) Yes, if you consider the
last to be one of the key criteria. It depends. There are three
key criteria and Crossrail also took into account another one.
647. I see, so that is not a key criterion,
the incidence of disability within, and about, the area of a station,
is it?
(Dr Maynard) I would have said no, it
was not a key criterion because of the distance to the nearest
accessible station because what you are doing is you are accounting
for that in there.
648. Is that not a relevant issue going to the
question of the importance of accessing a particular station,
the number of disabled people that may be in the population surrounding
that station?
(Dr Maynard) It is an important issue.
If the nearest accessible station is near enough, then it is not
a key issue. Since you are being quite specific about this, I
shall be quite specific about this, so where you have got the
two stations which are 600 metres apart, actually that is quite
close to the nearest accessible station, so you could argue that
the incidence of disability is the same for both those stations.
649. Yes, I was going to deal with that point
a little later on, but the position of the Promoter in respect
of distance is actually 700 metres, not 600 metres. Were you aware
of that, Dr Maynard?
(Dr Maynard) I am sorry, but 600 metres
was used this morning and I have not personally been out and measured
it. It is detail.
650. It is detail, I see. Let's return though
to this document please. I want you to look, if you will, at the
middle of paragraph 2.5 which deals with the interchanges between
existing railways, London Underground and Crossrail. Do you see
that it deals with that?
(Dr Maynard) Yes.
651. It says, "In some cases, therefore,
severe engineering constraints or obstructions, and the very significant
disruption to existing services that would result during construction,
mean that it is not practicable to provide step-free interchange
with existing railway and London Underground services". We
can see it being dealt with at the beginning of 2.5 where it says,
"Step-free access between Crossrail platforms will be provided
where reasonably practicable", so what is meant by Crossrail
in respect of `reasonably practicable' is whether there are engineering
difficulties preventing that particular upgrade. Do you see that?
(Dr Maynard) I think that is possibly
slightly distorting it. I think yes, severe engineering difficulties
is one of the issues that needs to be taken into account and could
be the absolute barrier. It depends on the nature of the station.
652. Do you see any other criteria taken into
account in paragraph 2.5?
(Dr Maynard) No, I do not.
653. So, if that is the approach of Crossrail
as to what is to be meant by `reasonably practicable', when we
go back to where we were a little while ago at the beginning of
January 2006, Crossrail then said, "Well, we will do upgrades
where reasonably practicable". Do you recall that?
(Dr Maynard) Yes, I do.
654. But now they do not refer to `reasonably
practicable', but what they refer to in Information Paper E5 is
a set of criteria, a set of hurdles which have to be got over,
do they not?
(Dr Maynard) A set of criteria, yes. You
can call them `hurdles' if you like, but I think that is a particularly
snarled word though.
655. But what it is, is a more stringent set
of matters to take into account rather than the simple one of
reasonably practicable in the way in which we looked at it.
(Dr Maynard) `Reasonably practicable'
is actually a completely meaningless statement, unless it has
criteria attached to it, so what Crossrail has done is it has
tried to define what `reasonably practicable' means.
656. Yes, and it did do that, did it not, in
Information Paper E5 because we saw that it was referable to engineering
matters, not to any other criteria. Do you see that?
(Dr Maynard) Yes, that is your interpretation
of it.
657. And you disagree with that interpretation,
do you?
(Dr Maynard) I think you have to look
at it in the context of this whole section 2 which is called "Access
to Crossrail platforms" and what you have got is sub-paragraphs
within this and, when you are writing a section, you do not necessarily
keep repeating the information from the previous paragraphs in
every subsequent paragraph.
658. Can we look please just at those criteria
in a little detail. It may be that you cannot help me on this,
in which case I will ask the questions of Mr Berryman. Tell me,
in terms of the criteria in 2.3, were you involved in their production?
(Dr Maynard) I would have had input.
659. So you had input into what is there stated?
Is that right?
(Dr Maynard) Yes.
28 Crossrail Ref: P8, Crossrail's Approach (LINEWD-XR4-010) Back
29
Crossrail Information Paper E5-Provisions for People with Reduced
Mobility, p1, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-IPE5-002) Back
| 
