Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11500
- 11519)
11500. MR WALTON: I must rest on that.
In other words, the true marginal cost is now substantially higher
than that which was contained in the Government's response of
October 2007 to the House of Commons Select Committee. Mr Thornely-Taylor,
it would be true I suppose that if the floating slab track was
put under predominantly residential properties only the cost would
be less than that?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor)
Yes. The length would be shorter, but the maintenance consequences
would be greater because there would be a greater requirement
for maintenance contractors to take down different components
for installing in different parts of the track, because clearly
floating slab track has its own design of bearings underneath
the concrete slab, has many more components, and the rail support
may or may not be the same as the rail support in the standard
sections. The thing which actually is undesirable is a highly
complex system with much more complex maintenance procedures.
11501. If the objective were to have floating
slab track or an enhanced track form underneath predominantly
residential areas there would be substantial sections, such a
where the tunnels run under Hyde Park or where they run under
the River Thames where there would be no requirement for it?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) I am not sure they
are substantial. The River Thames is certainly not a very long
length of tunnel. Hyde Park is not a particularly long length
of tunnel. I do not think there would be a very great reduction
in the total length of floating slab track.
11502. It is true, is it not, in the area under
the Commons decision, which Crossrail have accepted, where floating
slab track would be put in, the end of Spring Street nearest to
Paddington Station just three houses, there would be an overlap
of 50 metres, or something of that order?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes.
11503. It is also true, is it not, that those
houses happen to be right on top of the Circle Line?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) They do, that is
quite correct.
11504. So that it is not particularly useful
to spend money on floating slab track there. It would be better,
would it not, to spend the money on enhancing the track further
down the line?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is certainly better
to devote design effort to achieving the most efficient standard
track form so that for all except the difficult cases acceptable
groundborne noise levels will be achieved throughout without going
to the complexity of a floating slab system.
11505. MR WALTON: Thank you, Mr Thornely-Taylor.
Examined by THE
COMMITTEE
11506. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: I
just wanted to ensure I have got the right perspective on this.
Given our demonstration visit to the Chancery Court Hotel, given
we know about the groundborne noise with the standard form of
track, the fact that it is below residential housing does not
mean that they are going to get some inferior result, as far as
I understand it. What you were telling us was that if you take
into account the depth of the tunnel, the quality of the standard
form of track, and provided your rail maintenance is undertaken,
put it this way, given my experience of the Chancery Court Hotel
a deaf man would wish to hear it?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor)
You are absolutely right, my Lord, As I explained in the teach-in
on day one, by the standards applied to infrastructure projects
in general, airports and highways, the noise impact without floating
track slab for residential areas is well below generally accepted
standards for the environmental impact of major infrastructure
schemes.
11507. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, that is all
the evidence from Mr Taylor.
The witness withdrew
11508. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I do have
Mr Anderson available to answer questions about taxis if the Committee
want to hear them, or if Mr Walton has any questions. Equally
I do not want to prolong a warm afternoon merely for the excitement
of hearing about taxis at Paddington if the Committee—
11509. CHAIRMAN: It would be a pity if
he came for nothing. Is there anything you would like to ask him,
Mr Walton?
11510. MR WALTON: No, my Lord. Our point
is simply, we hoped, as the detailed design progresses, that the
possibility of improving the situation about the taxi rank should
be examined; and, as Mr Zamit said, an important ingredient there
is a good forecast. I was in the forecast business and there were
not very good ones a lot of the time. A forecast should be made
about the impact of Crossrail and of other developments upon the
demand for taxis at the time. At the moment we just say, "It's
the same as at present". That is, frankly, not quite good
enough. We hope that something a little more sophisticated can
be given.
11511. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to ask him
about it?
MR DAVID
ANDERSON, recalled Examined
by MR LIEVEN
11512. MS LIEVEN: Mr Anderson, I know
you have given evidence to this Committee before on traffic and
transport issues, so I will not introduce you again. I just want
to ask you about that one issue of taxis at Paddington. First
of all, obviously no prediction is perfect and we are talking
about ten years in the future but, on the basis of the assessments
that we have carried out so far, what do we predict will be the
effect on total taxi numbers of the Crossrail project?
(Mr Anderson)
The Crossrail project itself will result in a slight reduction
in taxi use for reasons already alluded to in proceedings earlier
today. Crossrail will take passengers closer to their destinations
in central London so, therefore, our expectation is that that
will reduce the number of people alighting at Paddington and jumping
into a cab.
11513. Have the taxi numbers and the provision
on the Red Star deck been agreed with BAA?
(Mr Anderson) Yes, they have.
11514. Just for those members of the Committee
who do not know, do BAA have a particular interest in taxis at
Paddington?
(Mr Anderson) They do, because clearly
one of the major users of taxi services at Paddington are passengers
alighting from the Heathrow Express service.
11515. When you reached your predicted levels
of taxis at Paddington did you take into account Terminal 5?
(Mr Anderson) Yes, we did.
11516. The only other issue about taxis is looking
at how they will be laid out on the new deck. I am looking for
the plan of the deck—006.[24]
Could you explain to us how it is intended that the new deck will
work?
(Mr Anderson) We can see the station here and
the existing Departures Road on this side where the taxis currently
are situated. In future taxis would approach the taxi ramp from
the east, from the Edgware Road/Westway area, coming down the
new ramp onto the deck. They could queue here for a while; if
they have passengers they will drop off here; and they will pick
up on this side. Then the intention is they would return by the
same route and at the top here it would be right-turn only. Taxis
would exit back in the direction they have approached. That is
how we expect the deck to work.
11517. In terms of getting taxis away from the
residential area of Bayswater and the Hyde Park Estate is the
Crossrail proposal an improvement on the existing situation?
(Mr Anderson) Clearly it is because, at
the moment, taxis will use the Departures Road and exit down here—so
they are much more likely to use the area to the south and the
west; whereas here they would directed back towards the city centre.
11518. MS LIEVEN: Thank you, that is
all, Mr Anderson. If you could just stay there.
Cross-examined
BY MR
WALTON
11519. MR WALTON: Mr Anderson, you do
appreciate, I suppose, that the concern we are raising is not
about the operation of pick-up and set-down at the new facility,
but the problem of the ranking capacity and the overflow from
that capacity. The predictions which you have made, the only ones
which I am familiar with, are those made for the Terminal 5 inquiry
which were forecasts for 2016 at a time when the Terminal was
expected to open in 2008. Have there been further predictions,
or more predictions for later years of what is going to happen?
(Mr Anderson)
I believe the predictions are for a later year than 2008. Clearly
the forecast year we use is 2016, as set out in the Environmental
Statement.
24 Committee Ref: A61, Paddington Station-Taxi Provision
(WESTCC-6_04-006) Back
| 
