Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1260
- 1279)
1260. Tell me: did you do any tests to assess
whether or not these two stations that we are looking at today
accorded with that assumption or not?
(Mr Berryman) No. It would be difficult—or, in my view,
impossible—to do such a test because you cannot get a direct
correlation between people who would use the network and any other
measure which is available to us from public record.
1261. Is your position that in terms of the
details provided by the Council, the mobility allowance figure,
and the extent to which that shows Newham higher than London or,
indeed, the UK, that that does not have any merit at all as indicating
the difference in the Newham wards that we are looking at and
other Crossrail stations?
(Mr Berryman) No, I would not say it does not have any merit,
but I would say that the task of translating those numbers into
people who would use the railway, if these facilities were provided,
is almost impossible. I have members of my own family who receive
Disability Living Allowance, and one of them is quite ambulant,
another one could not possibly make a journey anywhere. You would
have to go around and look at each individual case; it is just
completely beyond the bounds of possibility.
1262. What it is doing is simply showing the
comparison between the UK, or London, and the Newham Borough.
So, just as you have taken a proportionate approach, surely the
same is equally permissible in the way that the Council has done
it?
(Mr Berryman) You probably could argue that way, yes.
1263. That is probably because I am right, is
it not?
(Mr Berryman) I still would say to you there may not be,
and probably is not, a direct correlation between those figures,
but it would certainly be an approach that could be used, yes.
1264. You gave some evidence earlier on about
how it was that you reached the conclusion as to the projected
numbers that would be using the particular stations. If their
Lordships could turn to 019, this is, of course, the second of
the criteria that was used to assess those existing stations.[29]
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
1265. You said that this was the result of a
sophisticated model.
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
1266. Tell me, in terms of the way this sophisticated
model was produced, did you have a hand in that?
(Mr Berryman) No. This model is (I have forgotten the name
of it; someone might be able to remind me) actually held by Transport
for London. It is a very comprehensive model of the London Transport
network, which includes the Tube, the mainline railway, the buses,
walking distances—it is a very fine-grain model. It takes
into account proposed developments in the future and proposed
levels of population at various locations. It has been used successfully
for planning all the major infrastructure projects in London over
the last 15 or 20 years (it is regularly updated, of course),
and it has proved to be remarkably accurate. On two projects which
I have been involved in, the Docklands Light Railway and the Jubilee
Line, it has proved to give a very good appreciation of what the
end use would be. That is the model that we have used again on
this project.
1267. Is it Railplan? Is that this particular
modelling system? Do you know?
(Mr Berryman) No, it is not Railplan. Railplan is one which
is used to model the Underground, I think. I am getting a nod.
Railplan is the Underground model. There is another one which
is used for mainline railways—we will not go there because
I have forgotten the name of the model.
1268. MS LIEVEN: I can give the name,
if it is helpful, my Lord.
(Mr Berryman) However, these are very complex, sophisticated
things which take several days of computer time to run each time
they are run.
1269. MR REED: Let us look at some of
those figures, please, in the context of Manor Park. We can see
that Manor Park is higher placed in terms of numbers for the AM
peak 3-hour passenger forecast—higher than a number of those
that are going to be upgraded. Yes.
(Mr Berryman) That is right, yes.
1270. Some five others. Costs aside, that would
be an indicator that one should be upgrading Manor Park.
(Mr Berryman) If you completely ignore cost you should be
upgrading all the stations, not just some of them.
1271. Would you answer my question, please,
Mr Berryman?
(Mr Berryman) I am sorry, I thought I was answering the question.
1272. I will ask it again. Costs aside, that
is an indicator that you should be upgrading Manor Park.
(Mr Berryman) If cost is ignored then you would be upgrading
Manor Park, but as I said a moment ago, if costs were ignored
you would be upgrading everything.
1273. That is on the basis not of the passenger
numbers that are shown there but the proportion of passenger numbers,
made of the 4.4 per cent of the total. Yes?
(Mr Berryman) No, that is—
1274. Those are people who are going to be using
step-free access.
(Mr Berryman) That is the total number of passengers using
a station. So if you take the 4.4 per cent of 2,000—I think
you calculated it this morning.
1275. Yes, I think we were at cross purposes.
My question to you was this: the importance of passenger numbers
is not those figures there but 4.4 per cent of those figures,
because those are the people who are going to be benefiting from
step-free access.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right.
1276. So in terms of understanding numbers,
we need to look at what you have done, the 4.4 per cent, of those
figures. Yes?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
1277. Let us just understand Manor Park. Manor
Park, I think you said earlier on, had 2,700 passengers indicated
on that graph.
(Mr Berryman) In total, yes.
1278. So 4.4 per cent of 2,700 is 118. Is that
right?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, sounds right.
1279. There we have the number that is predicted.
Forest Gate is shown on this graph as having, I thought it was
about 5,000, but it may be short of 5,000.
(Mr Berryman) It is about 5,000.
29 Crossrail Ref: P8, 2016 AM Peak 3 Hour Passenger
Forecast (Excluding internal interchange movements (NEWMLB-53_04-019) Back
| 
