Michael Bell wrote:

Guns or butter? Crossrail or cross-connections?

In the run-up to the first world war, Germans were asked to choose
between "Guns or butter", that is, between war and home comforts. They were
asked to choose guns, but at least they were told that they had a choice.
The people of London are now being asked to choose "guns" in the form of the
Crossrail project, without being told that "butter" is also a choice.

A very interesting analogy, but a very inaccurate one! Crossrail is
nothing like "guns" which only brought misery. If small improvements to
London's transport network are butter, Crossrail is pastry!

So far as I remember the Crossrail project was first mooted in the
70s, more or less as a drawing lines on a map exercise. It was justified
by saying that it would relieve congestion, though in fact all its length it
is paralleled by other routes, or simply takes them over.

What are you trying to say here? Of course Crossrail is parallelled by
other routes, but those other routes are congested. Building Crossrail
is an easy way to relieve congestion on those routes.

It is also said that it is essential to the development of London, and
here we are coming to the real truth. Most of the route mileage is outside
of London, so it can't be of any benefit to to Londoners.

Arguments that stupid are rare outside Crossrail Corporation!

Firstly, most of the new construction is under Central London. It is of
enormous benefit to London. Secondly, even if most of Crossrail were
outside of London, the benefits to London from the part inside it would
still be there. Thirdly, utilizing existing lines into neighbouring
counties would be both more useful for Londoners and more financially
viable than terminating the trains at the end of the new construction
and forcing all the passengers to change!

What it will do is bring more commuters into London, so overstuffing London,

In what way?

increasing congestion

Congestion of what?

and prices

Prices of what?

and forcing more to commute.

Enabling more people to commute and forcing them to are two completely
different things.

Not really for the benefit of Londoners! More for big business and the
CITY, to give London an even stronger grip on the South-East, as if it
needed it. Truly, guns! The current talk is fairly frank about that.

London is the reason for the success of the South East, and good
transport links are vital for the continued success of London. If you
don't like it, why don't you move up North?

There a trickle of mentions of Crossrail in the press to give the
impression that the project exists and is going to happen, but it is pie
in the sky because it is not value for money. So as not to formally abandon
the idea, the promoters don't mention the alternative, the butter, the home
comforts. That money and effort could be much better spent in another way,
obvious every day to travellers in London.

It would be far better to abolish Crossrail Corporation (the #1 enemy of
Crossrail) and make Crossrail value for money.

There are dozens of places in London where stations on different
routes are just too far apart for cross-connection, the result of the
railway politics of the 19th century and the bad planning of the 20th.

The kinds of places I am think of are :-

* The cross-over of the Northern Line and the North London Line. This would
mean building two new underground stations. Simple, but expensive!

Expensive but far from simple where the NLL is also in tunnel!

How many people do you think would use these new stations? Is it really
enough to justify the extra journey time for the rest of the users of
the Northern Line?

* Putney and East Putney stations. Both stations could demolished and a new
station built at the crossover, but it might be cheaper and better to link
the existing stations, for example with a rope-hanging cable car. Tricky but
cheap!

Not cheap at all, and whether the demand exists is doubtful.

* Create a new station on the nameless piece of land west of Old Oak
Common sidings. This would allow at least 4 routes to have interchange, and
more could be set up to call at this newly attractive interchange. By
building a platform over the lot, space could be created for housing and/or
shopping, so the cost could be offset or maybe even make a profit.

This idea may be viable. What is the status of that piece of land at the
moment?

This should be made the opportunity for some station rationalisation, for
example closing East Acton, very inappropriately sited in a residential
road. and opening a new station opposite Hammersmith Hospital; hospitals
are huge traffic generators. A major project!

Do you think the residents of East Acton should be compensated for the
loss of the tube station that was the reason for them buying houses
where they did?

To make this kind of cross-connection would allow much better use of
what there is, and make easy journeys which are now difficult. Truly home
comforts. Truly, butter!

What you're proposing is more fluff than butter! A few improvements to
interchange that (while nice for some people) would do nothing to reduce
overcrowding, and do little to speed up commuting.

Crossrail would slash over ten minutes (each way) off the commuting time
of tens of thousands of people every day. You could walk from Putney to
East Putney, or Camden Road to Camden Town, in about five minutes.

How can Ken Livinstone and the CITY justify spending money to bring
more people and activity into London when they haven't done their best for
those they already have.?

Would you rather those people and activity went to Frankfurt instead?