Examination of Witnesses (Questions 880
- 899)
880. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, if I could intervene
very briefly, at 004, which is up on the screen, you will see
the bus routes super-imposed on the street plan for Maryland,
and at 005 we have done the same exercise for Manor Park, precisely
because the Transport for London diagrammatic bus plans are useful
when you stand at a bus-stop but not terribly useful when you
are sitting in a Committee.[56]
So we have, I hope, done the exercise at 004 and 005 so that your
Lordships can see the reality of the buses. The frequency is set
out in the little boxes. It is probably easier to read on the
screens in front of you, but we have got the frequency for the
Manor Park buses there on the box and on 004 we have marked the
frequency next to the bus routes, again, in little boxes.[57]
I hope that meets the concerns.
881. CHAIRMAN: That is very helpful.
The hypothesis is that people are not going to go to Maryland
or Manor Park, they are going to have to go, instead, to Forest
Gate or Stratford from wherever it is that they live. This is
the whole point of this Petition, as I understand it. That is,
perhaps, a more useful plan for your purposes, is it, than anything
that you have produced?
882. MR REED: Mr West?
(Mr West) The only point I would add, my Lord Chairman, if
that assists in your deliberations, is you made reference to East
Ham and West Ham.
883. CHAIRMAN: I simply looked at that
on your map.
(Mr West) Yes. East Ham has a large population and, as it
happens, the most convenient bus route and most frequent bus route
to East Ham to serve Crossrail would actually serve Manor Park
Station, because the buses run north to south. So if you are living
in the East Ham area and you wish to get to your most convenient
local station, that would be Manor Park. Effectively, Manor Park
becomes a more important station vis-a"-vis the local population
of East Ham and even more important if we are talking about people
of restricted movement living in the East Ham area. The journey
time to Stratford from East Ham is considerably longer because
both the routes that link Stratford with East Ham take a circuitous
journey to actually get to Stratford. I do not know if that is
helpful at all.
884. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
885. MR REED: Mr West, can I ask you,
please, to move on. We will look at the question of the feasibility
of the works that are currently proposed, shortly. Before doing
so, since we are dealing with the accessibility to Forest Gate,
Maryland, Stratford and Manor Park, could you turn on to 010,
which I hope you will find is a catchment plan for the am peak
2001—it says LATS data. Is that the London Area Transport
Strategy?
(Mr West) London Area Transport Survey, I think.
886. It is coming up as 013 on the screen.[58]
Looking at the catchment plans, generally, there are some three
of them. Are there any comments you want to make on what those
are showing?
(Mr West) The only comment I would make, my
Lord Chairman, is that the catchment area really relates to able-bodied
people and their walk routes to the nearest station.
887. What is the significance of that as information
in respect of those with restricted mobility?
(Mr West) I think it would be a lot harder
for those persons to get to their local station, unless it was
accessible.
888. Then moving on, please, to the last page,
which is 019, which is headed "2016 AM Peak 3 Hour Passenger
Forecast (Excluding internal interchange movements)", do
you want to comment on this table at all, Mr West?[59]
(Mr West) The only point I would make, my Lord,
is that it shows the station at Burnham, which is shown to be
"made to be accessible" and it seems from the data that
Burnham has a lower patronage than, for instance, Maryland. I
think West Ealing and Acton mainline seem to have very slightly
increased, or similar patterns of, patronage than Maryland.
889. What about Manor Park?
(Mr West) Manor Park itself has a considerably higher level
of patronage than, certainly, stations at Brentwood, Acton mainline
and West Ealing, yet Manor Park is not proposed as a station where
works to improve accessibility are proposed.
890. Thank you very much. Can we go back now,
please, to 007, which I hope is plans for Manor Park. I think
it is 010.[60]
Looking at the proposed details for the provision of PRM lifts
without platform extensions, this is showing the situation as
one would have to build it out in the event that lifts were proposed,
and this is a new provision in light of the fact that what is
currently proposed is now somewhat different from what you previously
understood to be the case. Is that right, Mr West?
(Mr West) Yes, that is right, my Lords. The
first I saw of these plans was, literally, five minutes before
the proceedings began this morning.
891. Is that the first time you saw these plans,
Mr West?
(Mr West) Yes, it is. To be correct, I actually received
these electronically yesterday but, I have to say, with little
explanation.
892. In terms of your understanding of what
is now proposed for Manor Park, when did you learn of that?
(Mr West) Five-to-ten this morning.
893. Have you seen any documentation dealing
with that revised layout?
(Mr West) I have not.
894. So what do you understand now to be the
current proposal for Manor Park?
(Mr West) Well, from a cursory look at these plans and bearing
in mind that they have only been discussed in this place this
morning, clearly, Newham is getting a worse deal, if you like,
in that the opportunity is not being taken to substantially improve
the passenger environment with wider platforms, and the opportunity
is not being taken to demolish the staircase to platform one which,
in itself, would greatly assist in the provision of an accessible
lift on the platform. Insofar as the central platforms are concerned,
I do not see any major change there, but certainly so far as the
access to platform one is concerned, the westbound platform, the
most southerly platform, then these proposals are not as good
as the previous proposals.
895. Going on to Maryland, do you understand
anything as yet of what is currently being proposed for Maryland?
(Mr West) Interestingly, my interpretation
of this drawing shows the possible provision of lift access at
Maryland Station, which is obviously something that we would heartily
welcome and which is central to our case.
896. In terms of where the lift provision is
proposed, is that in an existing building or a new building?
(Mr West) As I understand it from these
drawings and my knowledge of the station, the lifts would be provided
within the existing structure of the station, simply by sinking
a shaft from the main structural buildings.
897. In terms of what is being shown here, do
you have any knowledge as to whether or not the works themselves
that are proposed are within the limits of deviation of the works
proposed under the Bill?
(Mr West) Having looked at these plans,
given that the lifts themselves are shown within the boundaries
of the operating railway—
898. I think we have a plan coming round that
might be able to assist in respect of those two stations, to show
the limits of deviation.[61]
Just briefly take us through what this is showing.
(Mr West) Having seen these drawings, my Lords,
it does seem pretty clear to me that insofar as the physical works
for the construction of the lifts are concerned and, indeed, the
ramp, these works are clearly within the limits of deviation.
The only matter which would not be is the suggested use of a temporary
worksite on Manbey Park Road just south of the westbound platform,
which is a public highway, the responsibility of the London Borough
of Newham, and I do not see any instances in which the Council
would reasonably prevent those works from being carried out.
899. That is Maryland. Any different position
in terms of Manor Park, over the page?[62]
(Mr West) In terms of Manor Park, again, the
structural elements of the station and the construction of the
lifts seem to be shown to be within the hatched red line within
the limits of deviation. Again, the only temporary worksites which
would be required would be on Manor Park Road, and, again, as
I stated for Maryland, it is a Newham public highway and I do
not see a scenario where the Council would unreasonably withhold
any consents for temporary access, or temporary closure of those
roads.
56 Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park-Local bus services
(NEWMLB-53_04-005) Back
57
Crossrail Ref: P8, Maryland Station-Local bus services providing
direct links to Stratford Station (NEWMLB-53_04-004) Back
58
Crossrail Ref: P8, Forest Gate Station-AM Peak Access Catchment
Plot-2001 LATS Data (NEWMLB-53_04-013) Back
59
Crossrail Ref: P8, 2016 AM Peak 3 Hour Passenger Forecast (Excluding
internal interchange movements (NEWMLB-53_04-019) Back
60
Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park Station-Proposed details for the
provision of PRM lifts without platform extensions (NEWMLB-53_04-010) Back
61
Crossrail Ref: P8, Maryland Station-Proposed details for the
provision of PRM lifts (SCN-20080226-012) Back
62
Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park Station-Proposed details for the
provision of PRM lifts without platform extensions (SCN-20080226-013) Back
| 
