Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1280 - 1299)

  1280. So 4.4 per cent of 5,000 is 220.
  (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right.

  1281. The difference between having an upgraded station at the cost of £12 million, or not, is something in the region of about 110 people. Is that right? In the 3-hour forecast. Is that right?
  (Mr Berryman) If you calculate it in that way, it is, yes.

  1282. That is the calculation that you did. You said so earlier on; you did a general analysis of what the cost was and what the benefit was.
  (Mr Berryman) I think you are missing a fundamental point here.

  1283. Am I?
  (Mr Berryman) I really did not want to get into the way these models work, but I will do if you wish. What this model assumes is that people making a decision on how to travel make the most rational decision for them, and the rationality of that decision is based on the idea that everybody is equally able and can get around in the same way. The kind of people who will use PRM access, whether they are people who are handicapped or people who are encumbered with heavy luggage, may make a different decision to that decision which assumes a rational decision based on absolute ability to use any route. So a lot of the people who may have used Manor Park on this analysis, in real life, more than likely, would not use Manor Park, they would instead use, as we have described, the bus routes which go and take them directly to Stratford Station. So modelling always has limits because it is based on rational choices that equally able people would make. Although it is good enough to get a very good idea of how things work, it does not necessarily give you the answer to plus-100 people or minus-100 people.

  1284. CHAIRMAN: Mr Reed, I am sorry. You have to realise that slide 019 relates to the peak 3-hour period.

  1285. MR REED: Indeed.

  1286. CHAIRMAN: Therefore, you must take account of what you are being told by way of an answer as to the decisions of people travelling in that period.

  1287. MR REED: Indeed, my Lord. Whilst that may be right for Manor Park, it would equally be right for, say, Forest Gate in an un-upgraded situation
  (Mr Berryman) Yes, it would. Again, if you missed out both Forest Gate and Manor Park you are getting quite a long gap where there is no station with PRM access. The next station on the line is Ilford, which is quite a good way away. I think it might be worth mentioning that Custom House, which is in your client's borough, also gets PRM access, and that will be quite an expensive job as well.

  1288. Tell me this, Mr Berryman: this analysis, in terms of the forecast, is presumably the forecast with upgraded stations at each of those locations. Is that right? It is the works you intended to do, in short.
  (Mr Berryman) No, it would just assume that the trains that stopped there would have a certain capacity.

  1289. It does what, I am sorry?
  (Mr Berryman) It would just assume that, as I say, it is based on rational decisions of an able-bodied person, so it does not necessarily take into account the works which are done at the station; it just takes into account the fact that trains stop there and that buses and whatever else will deliver people to those stations.

  1290. What I wanted to know was, is there a factor in this model that takes into account the relative attractiveness given its upgraded nature, or not?
  (Mr Berryman) No, there is not.

  1291. So it is equally the same for all. Is that right?
  (Mr Berryman) That is correct.

  1292. Can we go on then to the question of the capital cost at Manor Park? The cost that you have given it is some £12 million.
  (Mr Berryman) That is right, yes.

  1293. That is £12 million for the upgraded works. You are now proposing certain works for Manor Park which are different from that which were previously proposed. Yes?
  (Mr Berryman) We are not now proposing to extend the platform, yes, that is correct.

  1294. Can you tell me, please, when those changes were formulated? I do not mind a rough date.
  (Mr Berryman) It was a couple of years ago. It would be two years ago, I should think. It would be about the time when we were discussing selective door opening with your client.

  1295. Two years ago. Are you sure about that?
  (Mr Berryman) No, I am not sure. I am just trying to think. It was about the time we were discussing selective door opening with your client and we had subsequent discussions with the Railway Inspector, and we took on—

  1296. That was last year, was it not, Mr Berryman?
  (Mr Berryman) Yes, it would be just over a year ago, actually, not two years ago. At that time, once we had realised that selective door opening would be permitted, we looked again at other alternatives and we have now got several stations with selective door opening, where we will not be extending the platforms.

  1297. When did the change actually happen in terms of the—
  (Mr Berryman) I cannot give you the exact date, I am afraid, but it would be, as you say, probably just over a year ago.

  1298. It was as a result of the position you took on Maryland on selective door opening and that being approved by the Inspectorate. Is that right?
  (Mr Berryman) That is right. It is not actually approved by the Inspectorate, it is approved subject to the safety case, which we fully expect to get.

  1299. I am sorry "it is approved subject to the safety case"?
  (Mr Berryman) Yes. I do not know how familiar you are with railway legislation but on each piece of railway you have what is called an Infrastructure Manager—I think this is the Railway Act 2002?



 
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