Examination of Witnesses (Questions 660
- 679)
660. As we clarified earlier on, you no doubt
disagreed with those parts that you felt you ought to disagree
with?
(Dr Maynard) Correct, I would have disagreed
with parts I felt I should disagree with.
661. And those criteria you do not disagree
with? Is that right?
(Dr Maynard) No, I do not.
662. The first of those criteria that I want
to deal with is the last of those criteria, the non-key criteria,
as you put it, Dr Maynard, of the numbers of disabled in the population
surrounding the station. You of course in your presentation referred
to people with reduced mobility, did you not?
(Dr Maynard) Restricted.
663. Forgive me, restricted mobility, but not
simply the disabled. Is that fair?
(Dr Maynard) Yes, that is correct.
664. So to the extent that a criterion did not
take into account those other forms of mobility-restricted people,
that would be a defective analysis. Is that fair?
(Dr Maynard) Hang on a second, let me
get my brain around that. Inasmuch as what, sorry?
665. To the extent that other mobility-restricted
people were not taken into account in understanding the incidence
of those types of people in and about an area, that would be a
defective criterion for deciding whether to upgrade a station?
(Dr Maynard) No, I do not agree with that.
666. I do not understand then why that is the
case, so perhaps you could explain, Dr Maynard.
(Dr Maynard) I do not agree with that
because actually the issues for disabled people, as you yourself
earlier got me to agree to, are much greater in relation to access
than the issue for other people with restricted mobility. It is
important to consider everyone who has restricted mobility because
it is about making more inclusive provision for everybody, yes,
absolutely, but, if you are looking for criteria for determining
whether you need to upgrade a station, for example, then actually
disabled people's needs are more stringent, generally speaking,
than others' needs and also they are less temporary. For example,
if you are a disabled person, you are pretty much likely to be
always a disabled person, failing a miracle, whereas, if you are
a woman with small children, those small children will grow up.
667. As I understood it, Dr Maynard, when you
were giving your presentation as to how it was that the various
Crossrail stations were accessible, you were looking at it in
the light of people with reduced mobility, not simply those who
are disabled.
(Dr Maynard) Absolutely correct.
668. So what I do not understand is why then,
if you are looking at criteria to decide whether to make a station
fully accessible, you do not take into account the people with
reduced mobility which was the subject matter of your presentation,
Dr Maynard.
(Dr Maynard) I am sorry, but you do. You
take them into account in relation to the distance of the nearest
accessible station. That criterion takes into account the needs
of people with restricted mobility.
669. Forgive me, but the criterion dealing with
the incidence of disabled, that takes into account people with
reduced mobility?
(Dr Maynard) No, the distance to the nearest
accessible station.
670. In that case, we are at cross purposes,
Dr Maynard, because I was asking you about the incidence of disability
in the population surrounding the station.
(Dr Maynard) Yes, I know and what you
said to me was that, because there is this criterion which is
about the incidence of disability in the population, that meant
that the needs of people with restricted mobility are not taken
into account, full stop, in looking at whether or not a station
should be upgraded in relation to step-free access. Well, that
is flawed logic. If you take one criterion and you say, "This
doesn't account for people with restricted mobility. Therefore,
in these four criteria, you haven't accounted for people with
restricted mobility", yes, you have, you have accounted for
them in criterion three.
671. You see, that is not the question I asked
you. I simply asked you whether or not it was right in terms of
that criterion to be restricted simply to the disabled.
(Dr Maynard) I think that is fine for
the reasons that I outlined.
672. Next, in terms of the distance to upgraded
stations, if it were simply done on the basis of distance rather
than ease of accessibility as a criterion, that would be a flawed
criterion for deciding whether to upgrade a station. Is that fair?
(Dr Maynard) Yes, and I think actually
I would agree with you on that one.
673. So, if we can just look again please at
2.3, we can see that the criterion was the distance to the nearest
accessible station.
(Dr Maynard) Yes, that is true.
674. And that is a flawed criterion, is it not?
(Dr Maynard) It is if in this paragraph
you mean distance as the crow flies, then that would be a flawed
criterion. If you mean distance as the road goes, then that would
be less flawed, but still not as good as journey time.
675. That passage is clear, is it not, as to
what criterion was taken into account?
(Dr Maynard) Yes, well, it is not clear
in that it does not say whether it is as the crow flies or road
actually.
676. There was one other point I wanted to ask
you on the question of numbers of disabled within the vicinity
of a station. Have you seen any figures put before this Committee
as to what numbers there are within, and about, either Maryland
or Manor Park?
(Dr Maynard) No.
677. Turning then to the question of projected
numbers, that is the first of the criteria at 2.3, can I understand
with you this: that the analysis that has been undertaken, as
we understand it, is looking at passenger numbers, that is to
say, non-mobility-restricted passengers? Is that right?
(Dr Maynard) No, I do not think so.
678. What do you understand the position to
be of projected passenger numbers of those who are of restricted
mobility?
(Dr Maynard) I understand that the projected
passenger numbers are just projected passenger numbers.
679. Of all passengers?
(Dr Maynard) Of all passengers, and I
believe that there is a number or a percentage for specific people
with mobility impairments.
| 
