Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1240
 1259)
1240. So there was no particular benchmark,
and when you say you have to draw the line somewhere that was
a decision reached by you, is that right?
(Mr Berryman) By myself and my team, yes, that is right,
it was, but of course, as I said earlier on, we did rank the stations
in terms of the number of passengers compared to the costs. Could
I just go back to the transcript you are talking about here? This
was an issue about Hanwell station which is in west London, which
is another station where we are not providing stepfree access,
and unfortunately for Ms Skelton we are taking her garden, or
we were going to take her garden, and she was not going to get
accessibility because she is in a wheelchair. Fortunately, because
of selective door opening, which we investigated as a result of
Newham's original Petition, we have been able to reduce the works
required at Hanwell so she will not lose her garden now. She still
will not be able to use the railway from her immediate station
because she is in a wheelchair, but at least she will not lose
her garden.
1241. Can we go on to the application of the
criteria you have set out and look at it in the context of Manor
Park? We have agreed that in terms of the incidence of disabled
in the population that was one of the criteria taken into account.
Indeed, Dr Maynard said yesterday, I think, that it was an important
criterion.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, it is important
but it is very difficult to assess.
1242. But, of course, you did assess it because
you told us, in Information Paper E5, that you did.
(Mr Berryman) That is right. I think it is fair to say that
the assessment there was found to be quite difficult and we, eventually,
just focused on special circumstances where we knew there were
particular issues about PRM access or particular reasons—for
example, the hospital at Paddington, the hospital at Whitechapel,
and things of that sort. It did prove to be almost impossible
to get a realistic measure of how many people in an area would
be able to use the railway if it was made accessible in this way.
1243. You provided no figures to explain the
incidence of disability within and about the stations concerned,
did you?
(Mr Berryman) No, that is right.
1244. Until today.
(Mr Berryman) You provided those, in fact, I think.
1245. No, no, in terms of the position with
respect to both disabled and mobility restricted—
(Mr Berryman) I am sorry. You mean the numbers who would
use the MIP facilities.
1246. If I could finish my question.
(Mr Berryman) I am sorry.
1247. You gave that paper today and you produced
a figure for mobility restricted and disabled.
(Mr Berryman) That is right.
1248. That is the one that you applied, we have
assumed, when reaching your conclusions. Is that right?
(Mr Berryman) We applied that to the overall business case
for the project, yes—4.4 per cent, I think, is the figure,
from memory.
1249. What figure did you use, then, in the
application of the criterion that we have just looked at in Information
Paper E5?
(Mr Berryman) We did not use a figure in that way at all;
what we took was the total number of passengers and assumed a
fixed percentage in each location would be PRMs.
1250. Right. So there was a fixed percentage
applied. This fixed percentage—what was it?
(Mr Berryman) It was not applied in that way. We made the
assumption that the total number of PRM passengers in a station,
unless there are special circumstances, would be a fixed proportion
of the total number of passengers using the station. We then made
a ratio between that total number of passengers and the costs
of providing PRM access. Then we used that ratio to rank the stations
as to which would be the sensible ones to do, in terms of getting
most value for the money that was being spent on them. So the
actual number of people who would use the PRM facilities was not
calculated, except for the whole railway. We are dealing with
relatively small numbers at some of these stations, and it is
very difficult to produce any meaningful figures because the whole
basis of statistical analysis is it is done with big numbers and
it is spread over a lot of people.
1251. Can I read to you, again, what you say,
in fact, in Information Paper E5? "The Promoter has also
taken into account the incidence of disability in the population
surrounding the station".
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
1252. I have asked you what was the level that
you used.
(Mr Berryman) As I have just explained, we assumed that there
would be a fixed percentage of mobility impaired passengers.
1253. That is throughout the Crossrail line?
(Mr Berryman) Except for three or four special locations
where we knew, for one reason or another, there would be more.
1254. That fixed proportion: is that the 4.4
per cent that you produced today?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
1255. This is a criterion used to judge whether
or not you upgrade a station. Correct?
(Mr Berryman) Whether or not we put PRM access in, because
in most cases that is the only thing we are doing to the station.
1256. That is why I referred to it in the way
that I did. That is what it is used to reach a decision on. Correct?
(Mr Berryman) That is correct.
1257. Of course, if you apply a fixed proportion
for every station that you deal with, then you are not ever going
to have any different result in relation to any particular station,
are you, because you are always applying the same percentage,
whether or not it accords with reality?
(Mr Berryman) You would have different results insofar as
busier stations will show more benefit from that.
1258. Busier stations would show more benefit?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
1259. What you have assumed is that 4.4 per
cent is always going to be the case, irrespective of the particular
location.
(Mr Berryman) In general, yes.
