Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1500
1500. I go on to the issue of accessing other
stations both at Maryland and at Manor Park. Maryland is some
840 metres, which is the final figure, I think, which was arrived
at, in terms of its distance to Stratford. It is not on that basis
walkable and one is looking at bus access. Manor Park is 970 metres,
which was the evidence given by Mr West, again it is not walkable,
so it is something which has to be done by bus or by some other
means. One is looking at that particular issue as a result. My
Lords, it is always possible, when looking throughout the Crossrail
system, to say, "Well, we're in London. There is bus accessibility.
People should be then capable of using other stations and, since
they should be capable of using other stations, of accessing them
by bus because basically you can always access a bus in London".
That is the argument that could have led to no upgrading to many
of the stations, but that is not the approach Crossrail took.
It decided that many of those stations should be upgraded, so
the question of bus accessibility should not automatically lead
to a conclusion that, "Well, the upgrading should not occur".
The evidence, I suggest, indicates plainly that in respect both
of Manor Park and Maryland there is not going to be a seamless
journey, as Dr Maynard put it, by going to accessible stations.
At Manor Park, you heard the evidence from Mr West, and it was
not disputed, the degree to which the various bus stops are not
easily connected to the stations in question, and your Lordships
will bear in mind no doubt that, despite the fact that Ms Lieven
suggests, "Well, one is dealing with buses in London and
the people who take buses are used to the way buses work; they
get busy", whether or not people are used to it, the point
is that one needs to understand the degree to which the mobility-restricted
are going to face difficulties when using buses to get to accessible
stations, and I suggest that, given the way the buses operate,
given the way Mr West himself explained the position, there are
going to be disadvantages in doing so and significant ones.
1501. Looking at the destination of Stratford
to Maryland, it is an extremely busy station, and you have heard
the evidence from Mr Berryman this morning, and it is not going
to be an attractive place for the mobility-restricted, particularly
in accessing the system during the a.m. peak. If one is to look
at the question, whether those who are mobility-restricted should
be entitled to go to work in the a.m. peak is something that should
be taken into account. To say, "Well, they can go into the
non-peak hours and face a much less busy station" is a point
that has no relevance if one is looking at it in the employment
context. Again, looking at the question of taxis and car accessibility,
given Newham's levels of deprivation, that is not something that
sits well for the population within the wards surrounding Manor
Park and Maryland.
1502. I go on then to the question of costs
or feasibility. First, the works of both of the stations are feasible,
and that is Mr Berryman's evidence. Looking at the position in
respect of Manor Park, Manor Park is meant to cost £12 million.
The decision was reached that Forest Gate should be upgraded and
it was going to cost £12 million. It was going to cost £12
million and it was concluded that, given that there were some
5,000 people, 4.4 per cent of 5,000 people, if you recall the
figure, it was about 220 people, given that number of people accessing
in the three-hour peak, there should be £12 million spent
at that station. When one is looking at Manor Park with some 3,000
people, 4.4 per cent of 3,000 people is about 120, one is looking
at a difference of about 100 people in that three-hour peak, leading
to the conclusion that the £12 million should not be spent.
It is that degree of difference that is leading to a station not
being accessible when otherwise it would have been concluded that
it should be. Your Lordships will no doubt consider the extent
to which there is any logic in that. Indeed, it was part of Ms
Lieven's contentions that, when one was looking at that sort of
level of numbers, 46 I think she quoted, that was a very low number,
and I think "it was minuscule" were the words that she
1503. Your Lordships will also bear in mind
in terms of Manor Park no doubt the fact that, given the changes
that are occurring in the works at Manor Park, there is no need
to get rid of the loop. The loop was going to be closed and, as
a necessity, there was going to be the Goodmayes loop put in which
is going to cost £20 million. Now, on the basis that the
loop is now staying, it is no longer a necessity, that is clear.
Given that fact, and I do not go into the detail of it, but given
that fact, that £20 million, it has been concluded, should
be spent for some other reason. Now, if the £20 million should
be spent for some other reason, when one is looking at the £12
million at Manor Park, it is put into some sort of context. Crossrail
itself is willing to allocate funding when previously it had decided
not to and on the basis of something that, it seems, is not necessary,
or not simply seems, but is not necessary.
1504. In terms of the possessions and disruption
that would be caused by the works at Manor Park, if they came
forward, your Lordships heard Mr Berryman say that they could
be factored into the works that were already being undertaken
at Stratford, so, in those circumstances, it does not operate
as any sort of a barrier, I suggest, my Lords.
1505. Looking at the question of Maryland, that
is a lower amount of money and, taking the same basic assessment
that Mr Berryman undertook, the cost involved, some £4 million,
one is looking at 4.4 per cent of 2,000 and that is then to be
compared with, as I have said, Forest Gate and 5,000 people and
4.4 per cent of that for £12 million. They are effectively
the same in proportionate terms. Again, that is an indicator that
the conclusion would ultimately be reached, if one was applying
what Mr Berryman applied in the analysis, that Maryland should
be upgraded, and there is no reason not to do so.
1506. Moving on from the question of costs and
feasibility to whether or not there are any other ways that these
stations, despite their set of facts, could be upgraded, you heard
Mr Berryman's evidence today that he did not believe that, in
the foreseeable future, that really was a possibility, so this
is the way in which these stations are to be upgraded. As I have
said, just in order to summarise the position, what I submit is
that the policy approach is clear and there ought to be upgrading
of these stations to incorporate a new railway system. The criteria
that have been used to exclude them by Crossrail do not stand
up to any degree of scrutiny and, if one does apply what Mr Berryman
himself said was the approach that should be taken towards these
various stations, the conclusion ultimately has to be reached
that they should be upgraded, so the criteria are not ones that
justifiably can be used as a means of excluding the accessibility
of those stations.
1507. If I can finish in this way: one needs
to look at it not simply on that basis, but on the more personal
level. One needs to put oneself into the position of those who
are mobility-restricted and disabled and ask oneself the question:
has enough been done in these areas? Ultimately, the answer to
that, given the accessibility by bus, is that it has not and it
has not accorded with the way the Government itself has said it
should in its own policy documentation.
1508. My Lords, that is what I say by way of
closing, unless there are any other matters that your Lordships
wish to ask questions on.
1509. CHAIRMAN: No, I think we have no
other points, Mr Reed. Thank you very much indeed. I think we
will not start anything else this afternoon. We will, however,
have a Petition tomorrow morning at ten which may not last all
day, but in the meantime I will ask for the room to be cleared
so that my colleagues and I can discuss the Petition we have just
1510. MS LIEVEN: Certainly, my Lord.
Just in terms of tomorrow, the only Petition which is outstanding
is the Cyclists' Touring Club.
1511. CHAIRMAN: I gather they may not
take all day.
1512. MS LIEVEN: I would be surprised.
They certainly did not take anything like all day in the other
place, my Lord.
1513. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.