Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1180
- 1199)
1180. We then turn to the question "What
have Crossrail's designs assumed?" and again critical to
Lord Brooke's question yesterday, we have not assumed a particular
proportion of passengers with restricted mobility but lifts—and
I will just check with Mr Berryman in a moment but I think this
is universal, lifts—have been planned as 16-person lifts
wherever they are provided and in terms of any forecast capacity
that is a very generous figure, that is a big lift. The intent
is to err on the safe side.
1181. 2.2—a lift with what is called a
"plate" capacity of 16 persons could theoretically carry
320 passengers an hour. With a typical Crossrail lift cycle of
three minutes—in practice I think we all know from London
Underground the capacity is likely to be smaller than that, the
real capacity, you are not normally going to squeeze 16 people
in—even if the lift carried only eight people, then the
capacity would still be 160 passengers an hour, which is considerably
above any estimate of the likely level of passengers with restricted
mobility. So for the main traffic comprising the three-hour AM
peak, the six-hour inter-peak and the three-hour PM peak and a
three-hour evening period, you have a capacity of 160 an hour,
giving a total 15 hour capacity of 2,400 people. One can see that,
on any anticipated level of demand for PRMs, with a 16-person
lift, we have got capacity for 2,400 people during the 15 hours.
1182. Then the point at paragraph 3 is simply
to say that London Underground station planning guidance does
not give a figure for predicted levels of PRMs, so the fact that
we have not done it is entirely in accordance with the precedent
from London Underground, and of course London Underground or Transport
for London, their parent, are putting huge efforts into improving
step-free access and it has a major programme going on at the
moment, trying to get step-free access into existing stations.
1183. Then we come to the Crossrail business
case. The business case uses the results of a survey that I referred
to yesterday on the Tyne and Wear Metro. That is a fully accessible
system and that survey showed passenger usage by PRMs of 8.4 per
cent, and note that that was based on observation rather than
surveys, so, like anything, there is room for doubt in it, but
it was based on observation. An LUL survey from the mid-1990s
showed that 4 per cent of all passengers have restricted mobility,
subject to all the problems about definitions above, so making
the system fully accessible could add something in the region
of 4.4 per cent, so you have got the 4 per cent who are already
using the system, and Tyne and Wear suggests you might add on
to that something like 4.4 per cent, which is what I would describe
as `suppressed demand', and then that has to be reduced to reflect
the proportion of total step-free journeys, taking account of
interchange and non-step-free Crossrail stations. What we have
done in the business case is then to turn that into revenue through
all the complicated things that one does in a business case by
applying the average trip length and fare and the social benefit,
assuming a standard benefit:revenue relationship which gives a
good, high-level assessment of the benefits of step-free access
and, importantly again, it follows the general approach adopted
by LUL. Note, again an important point, particularly in the light
of the concerns the Committee has addressed about peak-time travel,
that the 4.4 per cent is an increase in traffic for all day, and
the proportion of that demand in the a.m. peak is much lower,
so 75 per cent of the Tyne and Wear PRM is in the inter-peak period.
I would suggest that that is for the very obvious reason that,
if you have got a pram or luggage or whatever or indeed you are
disabled, you are going to be likely to try to travel outside
the peak, as anybody like myself who has tried to struggle on
to a London Underground train with a pram in the peak would know;
it is not an easy thing to try and do.
1184. I have now been given a note that tells
me that the maths on the final page is right, so I can put up
the final page, so we come to the question of what figure should
be used, and we freely acknowledge in 5.1 that the Tyne and Wear
survey is a bit old now, so the rigour could be challenged. In
LUL's business case for step-free access, which is a programme
that they are undertaking at the moment and which was done in
September 2007, it assumes a current demand for passengers with
restricted mobility of 3.9 per cent and that splits into 2.3 per
cent with physical impairments plus adults with young children
and then 1.6 per cent encumbered, which is those figures there
(indicating), and then it also assumes a split for generated demand,
which is what I have called `suppressed demand', of 2.5 per cent
physically impaired and people with young children and 1.4 per
cent encumbered.
1185. Then, in 5.4, that comes to the maths
where the total mobility restricted proportion of all demand is
assumed by LUL for its business case to be 7.5 per cent. There
is an effort not to double-count, that is what those figures there
mean, and the LUL step-free access programme, because it does
not achieve, unsurprisingly, a fully accessible network, the results
are then factored down because in fact it is only getting up to,
and I think we saw the statistic yesterday, I cannot remember
if it was 13 per cent or 18 per cent of the total network. Therefore,
where that gets you is that LUL's approach and Crossrail's approach
are very similar and we have put that into a table at the bottom
where we have got the proportion of current demand, assumed to
be 4 per cent in the Crossrail business case, 3.9 per cent in
the LUL step-free access business case and then the proportion
of demand with a fully accessible system, Crossrail assumes 8.4
per cent, LUL assumes 7.5 per cent and that probably reflects
the fact that LUL is slotting into a system that is only going
to end up with under 20 per cent accessible, whereas Crossrail,
as we know in terms of the Crossrail network itself, ends up with
a 93 per cent accessible network, so the difference between the
figures there makes perfectly good sense. Now, Mr Berryman, I
went through all of that, but I do not know whether you have got
any comments on that or are you happy to leave it there?
(Mr Berryman) The only thing I would say is that experience
from the DLR is consistent with the fact that the mobility-impaired
passenger levels during the off-peak are much higher than they
are during the peak. There are a couple of reasons for that, as
Ms Lieven said. People do not try to get on a crowded train so
much and, secondly, people who are going to work in the rush hour
tend to be less encumbered than people who are doing other things.
1186. MS LIEVEN: Can I then have that
note handed round so that the Committee can peruse the figures
at their leisure. Those are all the questions I have for Mr Berryman.
1187. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Recognising
that there may be difficulties with lifts, do you close your mind
to doing other adjustments or simply say, "It is the lift
and everything that goes with it or, alternatively, we might have
a look at doing something short of a lift"?
(Mr Berryman) The answer to that question is yes, we do,
and in a number of stations out in the west, in particular, and
in some of the more rural locations we are not using lifts, we
are using ramps and that is primarily for the point I made earlier,
that there is more space around those stations to do that. A ramp
is actually quite space-consuming. They are quite long. The gradient
is relatively shallow and landings are required, but we are using
them, yes.
1188. I noticed that you observed that at Maryland
where the station went on to the main road, there is a taxi rank
there, you said.
(Mr Berryman) A taxi office.
1189. The one thing that I think we all noticed
when we were at Whitechapel last week were the number of women
struggling with their buggies and their children and other people
with luggage, how difficult it is for people. They will experience
the same difficulties at Maryland with the steps there, I presume,
and at Manor Park.
(Mr Berryman) They will, as they do now, but I think the
difference is that at Whitechapel people do not have too much
option because the stations on either side, which are Aldgate
East and the other one, also do not have step-free access, so
they do not have a realistic alternative to using Whitechapel
Station if they want to use the District Line.
1190. But you are doing something about Whitechapel
anyway, are you not?
(Mr Berryman) We are indeed, yes.
1191. Have you given any thought to doing something
half-way at these locations? You have talked all about the lifts.
(Mr Berryman) I am thinking off the top of my head now because
I am sure we have looked at it, but I cannot recall it. At Manor
Park, it certainly would be very, very difficult because the platforms
are narrow and finding space to bring down a ramp would be quite
difficult because, as the ramp approaches the ground level, it
takes part of the space up. It is not like a lift which is just
a vertical thing which takes its own footprint, whereas a ramp
takes a big footprint and, as it gets lower down, it is effectively
a solid thing, so I think at Manor Park it would not be practical
to do anything different. Maryland, I will be honest with you,
I have never really thought about it at Maryland.
1192. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Well,
I did when I looked at the picture.
1193. BARONESS FOOKES: I think, Mr Berryman,
you did indicate that this part of the railway line had been built
by an engineer who made everything as tight as possible for economic
reasons and, therefore, there is much less space in general terms
to play with.
(Mr Berryman) That is absolutely right, yes.
1194. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: But
not at the station level. That is down at platform level.
(Mr Berryman) No, no. The problem is that the ramp, if you
are going to make it useful, it has to go from the concourse to
the platform. That is where the big rise is, that is where the
big number of steps are.
1195. Yes, but there are also problems going
from the road into stations.
(Mr Berryman) There are also problems going from the road
into the stations. At Manor Park, now this is not a problem because
there is level access from the road.
1196. But not Maryland?
(Mr Berryman) At Maryland, we would propose a ramp from the
footpath up to the concourse, which I thought I had explained
in evidence.
1197. So you are proposing it?
(Mr Berryman) We would propose a ramp. If we were making
this PRM-accessible, we would be proposing a ramp from the footpath
to the concourse level. Currently, there are five or six steps
there.
1198. But is that contingent on your doing the
lifts as well?
(Mr Berryman) Well, yes, because, if you think about a person
making a journey, they have got to handle the steps from the concourse
down to the platform, so they should be able to handle the very
small flight of steps from the footway to the concourse.
1199. So there is no real half-way house on
these issues; it is either all or nothing?
(Mr Berryman) I think so, yes. What we have done, and it
is really in response to a question which was raised yesterday
by one of your Lordships, I cannot remember who now, I think it
was Lord James, about whether someone could change from one side
to the other at a station where there was only accessibility in
one direction, and the answer is yes. When a station is made accessible,
it means it is fully accessible and that all conceivable movements
can be made without steps.
|
