Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1200
- 1219)
1200. Can I suggest that you go and get a piece
of luggage and a buggy and you go to Maryland and see whether
you can get from the road into the station and then down to the
platform and do the reverse and see whether in fact it is not
easier, if in fact you only have to do half of it.
(Mr Berryman) I was actually at Maryland on Sunday, so I
have it fresh in my mind. Of course it is more inconvenient to
carry a piece of luggage up the four, five or six steps onto the
concourse, but that is very small compared to the difficulty of
getting up and down the stairs from the station. I am afraid,
one of the points I was going to make earlier was that we are
becoming a nation of luggage-carriers. I do not know if you have
noticed, but on the Underground I notice all the time now that
nearly everybody seems to have a substantial piece of luggage
with them, and the Underground is not step-free.
1201. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Yet!
1202. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, is this a
good moment for us to adjourn for a short time?
1203. MS LIEVEN: Yes, absolutely, my
Lord.
1204. CHAIRMAN: We will come back at
12 o'clock.
After a short break
1205. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, do you have
anything further for Mr Berryman?
1206. MS LIEVEN: No, my Lord.
1207. CHAIRMAN: Very well, Mr Reed. All
the other Petitioners today have settled and that gives you more
time than might otherwise have been the case, but it does not
give you unlimited time.
1208. MR REED: I will certainly be guided
by your Lordship as to whether or not any of my questions do not
assist your Lordships, in which case I will move on, so that will
hopefully shorten matters.
Cross-examined by MR
REED
1209. MR REED: Mr Berryman, can I ask
you please to take up Information Paper E5, if you will.[25]
There we see the criteria, which we looked at yesterday with Dr
Maynard, in relation to whether a decision or how a decision should
be reached to upgrade an existing station, do we not?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
1210. The criteria, just looking in a little
more detail from yesterday: the first is predicted passenger numbers
at the station; the second is the capital cost to upgrade to step-free
and the distance to the nearest accessible station, two separate
issues; and then the Promoters have also taken into account the
incidence of disability in the population surrounding the station.
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
1211. I have assumed, Mr Berryman, that you
have had a hand in the production of this document as well.
(Mr Berryman) It has been prepared under my supervision,
although I did not personally write it.
1212. The last of those criteria is a criterion
that you agreed with, namely the incidence of disability in the
population surround the station.
(Mr Berryman) In general terms, yes.
1213. Because what I want to be clear with you
about is that, when looking at those four criteria, each one has
importance.
(Mr Berryman) That is right.
1214. Just to be clear as to what has actually
been done in respect of the decision to upgrade or not upgrade
a particular station, there has been no cost-benefit analysis,
correct?
(Mr Berryman) There has not been a conventional cost-benefit
analysis. What there has been is a comparison of the ratio of
costs to the number of people that we think would benefit from
a particular facility. If you did, as I think Dr Maynard explained
yesterday, a conventional cost-benefit analysis on any of these
PRM accessibility numbers, it would unfortunately prove to be
quite negative and would indicate that nothing should be done
at all. For that reason, conventional cost-benefit analysis is
not normally done on this kind of facility; it is more of a valued
judgment of what is the appropriate way of dealing with it.
1215. I understand, because we had a note a
little while ago that told us, that there was a business case
undertaken by Crossrail, and we have seen the reference, 5.5 on
the third page?[26]
(Mr Berryman) That is right.
1216. Now did I understand you correctly, when
you answered me firstly, that there was a specific assessment
done as to whether to upgrade any particular existing station?
Did I understand that correctly?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right, yes.
1217. Do I understand it correctly, then, that
there was an analysis based on what has been phrased a "business
case" to reach a decision as to whether to upgrade?
(Mr Berryman) No, not on an individual station basis. As
I say, there is no business case in the conventional sense for
upgrading stations to provide PRM accessibility. A conventional
business case relies on the income supporting the investment,
and clearly the investment that is required in some cases is very
much larger than the income could support from those passengers.
As I said earlier on, it is based on more of a valued judgment
as to how important it is to deal with all sectors of the community
and be inclusive for everyone, and then making the best use of
funds that we can within those parameters.
1218. Could you turn to the second page of the
document that we had earlier on, 4.3, "What does the Crossrail
business case assume?" 4.3 says, after dealing with the proportion
of total step free journeys, "This is turned into revenue
by applying the average trip length and fare and the social benefits
are derived from assuming a standard benefit:revenue relationship."[27]
Is that what was undertaken to reach a conclusion as to whether
to upgrade a particular station or not?
(Mr Berryman) No, it was not. What that is related
to is the overall business case for the Crossrail project. Obviously
we want to make sure we have mobilised all the business benefits
so, even though those benefits might not be sufficient to justify
investment in a particular piece of kit, we do need to know what
they are so they can be put into the equation of the overall project.
If I take you away, perhaps, from the specific examples of Manor
Park and Maryland, in some of the Underground stations the additional
costs of providing step-free access can be very substantial, they
are an integral and intrinsic part of the scheme, so when we are
analysing the whole scheme we need to look at the whole benefits
they bring, even though we know they are insufficient to justify
the works on an individual basis that we are providing.
1219. We looked earlier on at Information Paper
E5; you took into account certain criteria when reaching the conclusion
as to whether to upgrade an existing station, that is right, is
it not?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
25 Crossrail Information Paper E5-Provisions for People
with Reduced Mobility, p1,billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-IPE5-002) Back
26
Crossrail Ref P12, Passengers with Restricted Mobility, 26 February
2008 (SCN-20080227-012) Back
27
Crossrail Ref P12, Passengers with Restricted Mobility, 26 February
2008 (SCN-20080227-011) Back
| 
