Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


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 step-free 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.



 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008