Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11340
- 11359)
11340. What about the remainder of this section
of tunnels?
(Mr Zamit) Turning to the other end of
this short section of tunnels of less than half a kilometre in
length, in their letter to us dated 1 May, Crossrail quoted a
depth of tunnel at the south-eastern corner of Sussex Square of
24 metres below ground level. The difference between this and
17.5 or 15 metres under the ground level at Spring Street suggests
that the tunnels are relatively shallow in all this short section,
so the similar enhanced track form would be suitable for the whole
section. Other points relative to the detailed design are the
inhabited basements above the tunnels where they pass under Sussex
Gardens and that the block of flats also called `Sussex Square',
which is on the north side of the square, has piled foundations.
11341. Let us move on now to the other parts
of the synoptic table where I have already indicated that you
wish to give evidence. The first is the problem of overflow of
the taxi rank at times of over-supply of taxis which are for hire.
Could we please have Promoter's drawing 04-006 please.[14]
What do you have to say about this?
(Mr Zamit) Since this part of the exhibit also
refers to the so-called `triangle site', may I at the outset say
that we greatly welcome the late news, which your Lordships heard
at the site visit, that there is to be a new joint forum, consisting
of Crossrail, Network Rail, London Underground, Westminster City
Council and the site owners, to study, and plan for, the future
use of this site. In particular, we welcome the recent news conveyed
to us at our last meeting with Crossrail on 24 April, that London
Underground has funding for the much-needed upgrade of the station
at Paddington on the Hammersmith & City Line, and plans to
do this work between 2011 and 2013. We accept Crossrail's recent
assurance that it will be practical to do this work with the new
access ramp for taxis already in place alongside the Hammersmith
& City Line. Turning now to taxis, I will firstly describe
the present situation. As I have said before, taxis set down and
pick up in the station's Departures Road, along with other vehicles.
At times of heavy demand, taxis, which have set down, can move
forward to an adjacent pick-up point as no other taxis are waiting.
At other times, taxis, which have had to set down, must leave
Departures Road and join the back of the taxi rank which often
overflows on to two designated overflow paths on Bishop's Bridge,
the new bridge across the railway. The problem with this overflow
arises usually in the late morning or early afternoon. In all,
there is designated space for nearly 80 cabs. At times, however,
this is insufficient and the queue extends behind the designated
area, beyond the bus stop and right into Harrow Road, so the taxis
actually line up in Harrow Road waiting to get on to the bridge
and, on occasion, that causes problems with buses, the 18 bus,
going along Harrow Road, so there is an extensive queue for much
of the time waiting patiently to get into the station.
11342. What taxi-ranking will there be in the
new situation when taxi access has been transferred to a new location
on the site of the present Red Star parcels depot?
(Mr Zamit) The new access arrangements
are to be permanent, and we have been assured that they will not
be interrupted during the works to improve the Hammersmith &
City Line station or during later development of the triangle
site. The proposed new pick-up and set-down points are indicated
on the drawing. They separate licensed taxis from other vehicles
taking people and goods to and from the station. The new access
point will be closer than the present one to the strategic road
network. We have not seen a detailed drawing, but the indication
is that the double pick-up lane will be somewhat longer than at
present. If so, circulation at busy times could improve.
11343. What about the less busy times?
(Mr Zamit) Taxis which have set down must
still leave the set-down area and join the back of a queue. If
it is longer than the available space in the Red Star area, it
will extend, we have been told, to a designated part of the two
inbound lanes on the ramp. When it extends this far or further,
we hope that taxi drivers will go round the circulatory system
at the junction with Harrow Road rather than doing a U-turn on
the bridge, but we are not optimistic. We have been told that
the off-road ranking capacity, including the space on the ramp,
will be 79 taxis, the same as at present, which is an improvement
in that it is all off-road, but the overflow problem at times
is potentially the same as at present, it seems. We realise that
one cannot seek to legislate to remove this problem, but we do
ask that it should be revisited at the detailed design stage on
the basis that the general improvements to be brought about by
Crossrail should be used as an opportunity to address an existing
problem, such as this one. One possibility, albeit expensive,
would be to take up a little more land by making the access ramp
four lanes wide instead of three, so as to extend the queueing
space, coupled with the advantage of speeding up traffic flows
on the bridge by increasing the capacity of the junction between
the ramp and the bridge. Another suggestion is to create some
queueing space on the bridge by moving the bus stop and pedestrian
crossing from the east of the proposed entrance to the ramp to
the west of it.
11344. Thank you. Your Lordships may be glad
to hear that we are getting close to the end. May we now turn
to the removal of spoil by lorry to the railhead at Paddington
New Yard near to Westbourne Park Station which is on page 05-007
of the exhibit, or at least that is the textual part.
(Mr Zamit) I will try and be brief about this. I think there
is a plan, 04-004.[15]
11345. Thank you.
(Mr Zamit) Yes, this matter concerns particularly
to our member in the north, Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale
Society. We accept reluctantly that lorries cannot turn left from
Harrow Road into Great Western Road when they are heading from
the railhead. If the left turn was allowed, there would be an
overload at this junction which would compromise safe pedestrian
crossing, nor is it suitable for heavy lorries to use Alfred Road,
which is where the new Westminster Academy and several large blocks
of flats are situated. The period during which spoil from the
Paddington area would be carried by lorries using the diversion
through the residential Chippenham Road and Elgin Avenue will
be limited because later on they will be carried by conveyor alongside
the railway. However, we have only recently realised in discussions
with Crossrail that the potential problem lies with a much longer
period during which spoil from Hanover Square and Tottenham Road
Station sites is carried by lorry to landfill and whether by rail
or not. We ask that overall the environmental consequences of
the possible alternative routes for lorries carrying spoil from
these sites should be considered at the detailed design stage
as well as the traffic implications.
11346. Thank you. Is there anything else you
would like to say bearing in mind what the Committee have already
learned this morning?
(Mr Zamit) Just a couple of points. On
the boundary of the Congestion Charge we welcome the assurance
from Crossrail to Westminster City Council in Crossrail's letter
to us on 1 May, this was the original assurance: "the Promoter
is willing to continue to review and discuss the findings of the
Transport for London study into the CC boundary with TfL. Westminster
City Council, and the relevant stakeholders (including PRACT)
in line with the requirements of the House of Commons ---"
11347. If I may interrupt there, what was shown
earlier just before we came on was this wording, but the words
"including PRACT" did not appear. I do not think we
need to take an issue on this because I think Westminster City
Council would treat us as a relevant stakeholder. It is the case
that the letter we received did include these words in brackets,
"including PRACT".
(Mr Zamit) We are not saying the Congestion
Charge boundary has to be moved. We want the Congestion Charge
boundary and the reason we want that is a direct result of the
construction of Crossrail during the construction of Crossrail
when there are going to be just two lanes open with only buses
going south to north. There are only two lanes open during construction
and that is the main arterial route from the free route of congestion
charging. You come off the A40, the Westway, and the traffic comes
off there, turns left into Bishop's Bridge Road, down Eastbourne
Terrace, and then into Praed Street and eventually Edgware Road
and Park Lane.
11348. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Would
either of those lanes be designated a bus lane or taxi lane?
(Mr Zamit) At the moment under the proposal
to keep the two lanes open during construction they are not designated
at all, so all the traffic that presently uses the free route
off the Westway under the present situation will be going down
a much reduced road. Of course, one has to bear in mind there
will not be the taxis because the taxis would have been relocated
to another permanent entrance and there is only one bus route.
When statistics are looked at and figures taken forward they may
well say that it can accommodate the free route, but they may
not and all we want to do is have an input. If it cannot be accommodated,
it has to be moved, going down probably Westbourne Terrace which
affects our members greatly: the amount of traffic, congestion
and pollution. Bearing in mind that one route of the buses, the
north to south, is going to be directed into Westbourne Terrace
all we are saying is because we know the feelings of our members
and we know the area well, we want to be involved in those discussions
rather than being given a decision by TfL that may be going to
consultation which they would have to do if they are going to
move. We would like to have an input. I think we are confident
Westminster Council will have a dialogue with us but I do not
think people have realised during construction the effect that
possibly could be had on the free route. After Crossrail has been
built and opened we have heard in my earlier evidence that it
is a much reduced road. It is intended that because of the location
of the station and Departures Road buses are going back on that
route, so after Crossrail is finished we revert back at the moment
to where we are of it being a free route and a bus route both
ways. Of course at the moment the taxis going off the new bridge
does not allow for private hire, minicabs or such, friends and
greeters or dropping people off. We are concerned on all these
issues, not only on our members but people coming to Paddington
to pick up their grandmother or whatever and we think it has to
have a dialogue with everyone to see the implications. That is
our concern. I will leave it at that. We do think it is a direct
result of the construction of this station at Paddington for Crossrail.
It will have a direct effect on the flow of traffic in the area.
11349. MR WALTON: The next point as well?
(Mr Zamit) The diagram of Hyde Park site 001.[16]
11350. Number 1, please.
(Mr Zamit) Yes. Just briefly here. We are pleased now it
is a much reduced site and also the ventilation and access for
emergency services shafts are going to take a lot less time to
construct now but what we are saying is obviously we would like
to minimise the loss of trees and we think the Council and the
Friends of Hyde Park should be informed of any proposals there
in discussions with the Royal Parks. I do believe perhaps now
the Royal Parks have to seek permission from Westminster Council
for the felling or pruning of any trees. On this particular site
I think we have had an assurance from Crossrail that all the lorries
into this site, which is North Carriage Drive, which you would
have passed on the last leg of your coach tour, all the vehicles
in and out of that site will come in via Marble Arch gyratory
system not via where you stopped in Stanhope Terrace-Brooke Street
and I think we have agreement with them on that. The third point
I would like to make is on 04-005.[17]
This is a new document to us, it has our interest in. We have
this new drawing that shows the temporary bus routes and stops
and stands during construction as part of the Environmental Statement
where the buses have to go down Westbourne Terrace from north
to south. We need this dialogue and want to be involved in the
design of it because some of the properties in Westbourne Terrace
are large office blocks at the northern end more suitable for
bus stands and stops whereas further down it is very residential
and we are pleased to see that our suggestion for an additional
stop in Westbourne Terrace now appears to be shown on this latest
map at the northern end. We are pleased about that because we
have a lot of elderly people in Brewers Court which we made reference
to on your site visit. We are pleased about that. The last point
I would make is that we are very happy they have agreed to put
a canopy over Brewers Court to protect the residents, many of
whom are elderly, in Brewers Court from this service which is
24 hours a day, seven days a week operation and all we would ask
is we have yet to see any plans of the canopy and we assume whatever
is built will have to be approved by Westminster because Crossrail
has said it may be necessary that it has sides to it as well if
it is to meet the noise standard to protect the people in Brewers
Court. We have made some progress there and I am grateful they
are recognising that they have to protect these residents in the
adjacent block from any undue disturbance.
11351. It may be, Mr Zamit, that some of these
matters such as that you have just mentioned are covered in the
undertakings which have been agreed between Westminster City Council
and the Promoter but, my Lord, we are in the unfortunate situation
of hoping that these undertakings are fully satisfactory but we
do not know what they are. I apologise for some overlap or unnecessary
repetition.
(Mr Zamit) I was going to say, unfortunately,
those last minutes in the corridors outside in agreement with
Westminster we trust they have addressed many of the issues that
you have been patient enough to let us put our point across. If
there is anything else I can assist the Committee with or answer
any questions, I am happy to do so.
11352. MR WALTON: Would you remain where
you are because there may be questions.
11353. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, it would
be very helpful if you could go through these points and see to
what any extent there is anything we can do. A lot of them are
some way into the future.
Cross-examined by MS
LIEVEN
11354. MS LIEVEN: Indeed, my Lord. What
I was intending to do is to ask Mr Zamit a couple of questions,
but then to call Mr Berryman and go through with him where we
were on various points. I suspect that would be more efficient
than trying to deal with it by cross-examination.
11355. Mr Zamit, on the consultation point,
can I put up—I think it will have to be on the screen—the
letter that we wrote to you on 1 May which you have alluded to
but I do not think either of us has produced as an exhibit.[18]
This part of the letter is dealing with consultation and it refers,
first of all, to the Schedule 7 process and makes the point that
we are confident you will be consulted via Westminster on Schedule
7 applications and I think you agreed with that, you have every
confidence in Westminster City Council consulting you?
(Mr Zamit) Yes, I think they will consult with
us, but what we are trying to do is to have some input prior to
a final scheme being sent to us for consultation. It is my experience
in planning where the council have a deadline of eight weeks on
an ordinary scheme, 30 weeks for longer, that if we speak to the
applicant or the developer beforehand, you can save a lot of time,
otherwise it gets amended at the last minute or in planning it
gets withdrawn and resubmitted. Talking beforehand can save a
lot of time in discussion at the end. On some of the issues we
would like to have some involvement which we are hoping will come
through these regular meetings.
11356. I want to refine it down to where the
issues are. So far as the Schedule 7 process is concerned, you
have every confidence in Westminster. This is not the situation
we have with some local residents groups where there is a concern
as to whether or not the council will involve them. At that level
you are happy with the position and then we come on to the words
in italics which to some degree cover the concern that I think
remains outstanding. What we have said is: "we intend at
the appropriate stage in the design process to brief the Paddington
Liaison Panel on our plans at the detailed design stage. However,
the Community Relations Framework, as the title of the strategy
makes clear, is designed primarily to apply to construction. This
will be in addition to further information-sharing on design and
other developments through mechanisms such as information centres".
So far as your being involved is concerned, the panel will be
given information about the detailed design stage, particularly
relating to the construction phase and then there will be further
information provided through the information-sharing mechanisms
that we have set up along the route and that will cover both above
ground and below ground works. Is that your understanding of the
position?
(Mr Zamit) That is my understanding. I
have been to these liaison panels, I would not say it is chaotic
but so many people with so many different interests, if anything
there could be an argument that we have made this particular panel
too large. It includes the bridge and it includes all the issues
and there are so many people. On the night people are trying to
get a word in too late because they are still working on things.
It is not easy to achieve. It is too large a group to get down
not just detail, but to find out what is going on in each aspect.
By nine o'clock people are pretty tired and still waiting to speak.
At the moment it is not the best location for these meetings and
I just feel it is going to have to be split into much smaller
groups looking at particular issues. The people on the bridge,
as you said was spoken about a lot in this House, there is a lot
of talk about this bridge in every single meeting.
11357. You are talking about the footbridge?
(Mr Zamit) It can dominate a meeting and
other issues do not get talked about.
11358. I understand all that and I will call
Mr Berryman in a moment to set out our position, but presumably
you can understand that we are building a railway (and I cannot,
for the moment, remember how long it is) which is many miles long
that goes through many residential communities and there has to
be some limit on how many meetings we have at each location and
with how many people in order to make the whole thing buildable.
Presumably you can see that.
(Mr Zamit) I can appreciate that. I do
not know how many miles long it is but I can tell you how many
years people have been talking about it, and it keeps changing
every time. If it is just telling us what is going on, then I
do not feel that we have an involvement, and I do believe that
PRACT is attempting to bring together a very large number—thousands—of
people—under one roof rather than each individual group
wanting to get involved. I think they have certainly got to make
changes to the liaison panel. When I have seen other information
centres I have been to, exhibits in Porchester Hall, you cannot
ask detailed questions and I raised a couple of points and they
could not be answered on the day. They are interesting for passengers
going through Paddington and the public just popping in, but I
do not think they are an opportunity to get into any real detail,
that is all. As I said before, in one month we were presented
with two different schemes, and it seems to me that they are listening
to us when we put points forward in that early design stage they
are being taken on board. Our concerns and views on Eastbourne
Terrace, the reduced width with the spine, was taken on board
and we asked them to take into account the dropping of the road—the
advantages to us in having a level surface with the Departures
Road. So they are listening and we have had this opportunity to
talk to them now because we are in front of you today, but there
have been frenzied to-ings and fro-ings in all parties—and
much of it is coming in late—but I just feel we have got
a lot to offer.
11359. There is just one other thing I want
to touch on with you, which is the design of the taxi pick-up
and drop-off. Can we put up 6-04-006?[19]
I think you made this point in your evidence but I just want to
be absolutely clear on it. If we focus in on the bottom right
drawing, under the existing situation at Departures Road, if a
taxi drops somebody off it then has to go all the way down to
the end of Departures Road, U-turn, back up Eastbourne Terrace,
back round to the roundabout and then back in again in order to
join the queue to pick somebody up. So you have got this very
complicated manoeuvre for the taxi to do both things. Under the
new scheme on the Red Star deck taxis are intended to be able
to set down and then immediately pick up on the same manoeuvre.
That should be a significant advantage under the new scheme, should
it not?
(Mr Zamit) Yes. That is exactly what we said.
The present scheme is a long way round. You actually can, legally,
under the present scheme, do a U-turn on the bridge to join the
rank, if it is not that long. You only have to go down to the
gyratory system if the rank is completely full up. There are two
U-turn provisions, and the new system is better. I do not think
any of us know what the demand on taxis or people dropping off
is going to be in the future, because Crossrail, in theory, will
enable people to go all the way east. So it will not be the major
hub now, Paddington, where it is very difficult to get a taxi.
We do not know the effect on numbers of passengers not only with
Terminal 5 coming on board but, perhaps, another runway. So it
is difficult, in the future, to see—I do not know if figures
have been produced—what the likely impact is on the number
of taxis. All we know on the present day is that 79 spaces is
insufficient to have a proper system working. You have heard me
talk about the problems it is causing in Harrow Road. So if demand
for taxis goes up we have still only got 79 spaces being allocated,
and that is probably all you have to provide—you are losing
79 and you are providing 79. We are just asking that it is explored
on the measures we have indicated—that that should be tried
and be improved for a new station. If there was a big demand from
Crossrail at Paddington there will be even more taxis queuing
up.
14 Committee Ref: A61, Paddington Station-Taxi Provision
(WESTCC-6_04-006) Back
15
Committee Ref: A61, Paddington Station area-Lorry routes (WESTCC-6_04-004) Back
16
Committee Ref: A61, Hyde Park shaft-worksite layout (WESTCC-6_04-001) Back
17
Committee Ref: A61, Paddington Station-Proposed Temporary Bus
Routes, Stops and Stands during construction (as per Environmental
Statement) (WESTCC-6_04-005) Back
18
Crossrail Ref: P77, Correspondence from CLRL to PRACT, 1 May
2008 (SCN-20080506-003) Back
19
Committee Ref: A61, Paddington Station-Taxi Provision (WESTCC-6_04-006) Back
|
