Request ID: FOI-2336-2122 Date published: 09 May 2022
You asked
The questions below relate specifically to the glass floor/ceiling installed within the public realm of Tottenham Court Road, directly outside the Centre Point tower that provides a lightwell into the Crossrail station below (51.516139, -0.130006).
1) How many reports of pedestrian injuries have been logged as resulting from the glass floor becoming slippery?
2) When did Crossrail become aware of the need to make material changes to the public realm to remove the slip hazard? Please provide any surveys/reports.
3) Has Crossrail sought compensation for the failure to adequately specify an appropriate material given it was evident the surface would form a busy pedestrian pavement? If not, why?
4) What contractor was responsible for specifying the glass ceiling?
5) What other options (if any) were considered to mitigate the slip hazard once it was identified?
6) Does Crossrail consider the current solution to conform to its stated high standards of public realm?
We answered
Our Ref: FOI-2336-2122
Thank you for your request received on 15 January 2022 asking for information about Tottenham Court Road Station. I apologise for the delay in my response.
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm we do hold the information you require. You asked:
1) How many reports of pedestrian injuries have been logged as resulting from the glass floor becoming slippery?
There has been one reported incident on 1 November 2018 on the walkway/area between exits 2 and exit 4 of the station. The area was cordoned off as a result. The cause of the slip was later determined to be that the area was wet.
2) When did Crossrail become aware of the need to make material changes to the public realm to remove the slip hazard? Please provide any surveys/reports.
Please note that the upgrade of Tottenham Court Road was carried out as part of London Underground works, and not those associated with Crossrail. The main contractor Taylor Woodrow Bam Nuttall (TWBN) first advised TfL of concerns regarding meeting the contract specification slip resistance maintenance requirements for the glazed walkway in November 2013. An alternative method of maintenance was established by mid-2014 comprising of a temporary solution that could be put in place quickly, followed by the option of a treatment method or replacement of the glass. TfL provided comments on the alternative method.
In July 2018 TfL identified concerns regarding the maintenance of the slip resistance when the final supplied Operations and Maintenance (O&M) manual did not comply with the contract with regard to the design life advised for the slip resistance or address the comments raised in 2014. At this point TfL notified the contractor of a defect against the contract specification.
In August 2018 TWBN closed the defect by adding the alternative solutions (installing a barrier around the area, the use of anti-slip tape, and acid etching or mechanical abrasion such as nano-blasting) established in 2014 to the O&M manual, and by responding to the comments made on the original report of 2014. Slip resistance testing conducted by TWBN showed the slip resistance met specification at the handover of the assets.
3) Has Crossrail sought compensation for the failure to adequately specify an appropriate material given it was evident the surface would form a busy pedestrian pavement? If not, why?
Please note as stated above, this part of the station is the responsibility of London Underground and not Crossrail. We have not sought compensation regarding the glass walkway. If the material is found to have deteriorated outside of the contract specification then we will review grounds for bringing a claim.
4) What contractor was responsible for specifying the glass ceiling?
The original design was by the architect Stanton Williams and lead designer Halcrow who progressed the design to RIBA stage F including a specification for the glass walkway, suitable for tender of the main contractor works. The main contractor was appointed using this specification in 2009 and was a joint venture between Taylor Woodrow and Bam Nuttall (TWBN). They appointed the same lead designer Halcrow going forward. Due to the nature of the work, TWBN further employed two specialist designers, Se-Austria GmbH & Co and Ingenieurbüro Schuler für Bautechnik, and two design checkers, CH2MHill and Buro Happold. Note, Halcrow were acquired during this time and became part of CH2MHill.
5) What other options (if any) were considered to mitigate the slip hazard once it was identified?
The options considered by the designer and main contractor were:
• Installing a barrier around the area • The use of anti-slip tape • Acid etching or mechanical abrasion such as nano-blasting • Replacement of glass with new ceramic frit
6) Does Crossrail consider the current solution to conform to its stated high standards of public realm?
Please note as stated above, this part of the station is the responsibility of London Underground and not Crossrail. As stated above, we have a specified minimum slip resistance in accordance with TfL Standards. The current solution conforms to this requirement.
If this is not the information you are looking for please do not hesitate to contact me.
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal
Yours sincerely
Gemma Jacob Senior FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
