Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence

Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1360 - 1379)

  1360. MR REED: My Lord, I think an attempt is being made to marry up the plan that was produced by the Promoters yesterday and that plan that we have provided in order to see whether there has been a change to the boundaries. Mr Berryman, can we look at the next criterion as was identified in your Information Paper E5, the distance to other accessible stations. Can we just be clear please that, in terms of the criterion, such as it was, which was taken into account in reaching the conclusion to upgrade, that was a criterion based on distance to the nearest accessible station?
  (Mr Berryman) Not really, no. It says "distance" there, but I think, as we have explained in evidence so far, we took into account not just the distance, but the ease of travel. For example, if you take some other examples on the route, the Custom House one would be a good one which is also in the borough, the distance to the nearest station from Custom House is irrelevant because, to get to the nearest station, you have to go by some very circuitous route because there is no existing route at present, so, although we have said "distance" in this paper, I think perhaps we should have rather more fully said "distance and accessibility" rather than just "distance".

  1361. Yes, you may well have thought that was a good idea, but of course in your official response as well to our Petition, you have also reiterated that the decision was made on the basis of distance. You know that.
  (Mr Berryman) I am sure that is true, yes. That was almost certainly copied from this Information Paper.

  1362. Both of which indicate that the sole criterion or at least the main criterion that you took into account was distance, not accessibility, do they not?
  (Mr Berryman) They do say that and that is perhaps a little bit misleading.

  1363. Can we carry on then to some particular matters relating to the question of accessibility, and the evidence that you have provided today indicates certain catchment areas. Can we turn to your slides please and look at number 14 where we will see a Manor Park catchment plan.[33] In terms of that plan, such as it shows the situation, we can note that the pink areas are those that were identified in the travel survey as places that people would come from to access Manor Park Station, yes?

  (Mr Berryman) That is right, yes.

  1364. The point was made yesterday in opening, was it not, by Ms Lieven that the catchments for Stratford and Forest Gate overlap with the catchments of Manor Park and Maryland? Do you remember that?
  (Mr Berryman) The catchments for—

  1365. Do you remember that being said?
  (Mr Berryman) No, I do not remember those exact words. Can I tell you what I do remember which was very similar, but not quite the same?

  1366. All right.
  (Mr Berryman) It was said that the catchments for Stratford and Forest Gate overlap with the catchment for Maryland.

  1367. I see, so do you restrict it to that point, namely overlapping with Maryland?
  (Mr Berryman) Yes, I do, and I think, if you were to look at the Forest Gate catchment and Ilford catchment and Stratford, you would find that all of these catchments tend to overlap.

  1368. Do you have that evidence, Mr Berryman?
  (Mr Berryman) We do not have it with us now. We do have it back at the office.

  1369. Yes, but what we do have as evidence before the Select Committee is an identification that the two catchments that you did identify do not fully overlap with the Manor Park catchment. That is correct, is it not?
  (Mr Berryman) That is correct, yes.

  1370. So, to that extent, Manor Park is dealing with separate catchments, separate needs, if you like, from those provided at both Forest Gate and Stratford?
  (Mr Berryman) Yes, I would not dispute that.

  1371. Just looking, in any event, at the survey that this information is derived from, can I be clear with you that it was a 2001 assessment?
  (Mr Berryman) Yes.

  1372. In terms of the types of surveyed people, it was dealing with people who were using the transport system in the a.m. peak?
  (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct, yes.

  1373. That peak, is that a three-hour peak or a one-hour peak?
  (Mr Berryman) I believe it is a three-hour peak.

  1374. So, to that extent, it does not deal with the position in the off-peak?
  (Mr Berryman) No, that is true.

  1375. It also does not deal with other trips that might be taken outside what is usually undertaken in a peak, namely work trips?
  (Mr Berryman) It does deal with work trips, that is specifically what it is designed to address.

  1376. Just look please to the north of Manor Park again. We had some evidence earlier on about the cemeteries. Of course there will be people accessing those areas, will there not?
  (Mr Berryman) There will be, but there will be fewer people than if that area was full of houses.

  1377. You do not dispute the fact that it is not, as it were, empty of occupation by people who are coming from Manor Park Station?
  (Mr Berryman) I am almost tempted to make a joke, but I will not! There will be people who visit that cemetery from time to time, yes.

  1378. The people who may be visiting those cemeteries, can you express any likelihood of those people visiting who may be infirm because of their partners dying and being in the cemetery?
  (Mr Berryman) Yes, there may be some people who are infirm.

  1379. In any event, as we can see in the catchment plan, there are a number of estates to the north lying north of the cemetery—
  (Mr Berryman) Do you mean here (indicating)?

33   Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park Station-AM Peak Access Catchment Plot-2001 LATS Data (NEWMLB-53_04-014) Back

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