"David Fairthorne" wrote in message
ogers.com...

It's amazing how much costs have inflated during the past three years. I
wonder if benefits have inflated in proportion to costs. Perhaps it's time
they reworked the calculations leading to "the strategic choice".

So Wimbledon - Liverpool Street offered the greatest benefits of the three
routes, including the best impact on rail passengers, but they chose
Paddington - Liverpool Street instead because it was cheaper.

Yes, but also because it left the option open to build the Wimbledon -
Hackney route at a later date, which the Wimbledon - Liv St route buggered
up. And also because I get the feeling there's the political importance of
getting Heathrow connected to the City. I can understand why they chose the
original Crossrail route as the one to go for first. Having said that, the
speed at which that's progressing makes the case for Wimbledon - Liv St that
bit more tempting.

If only one route were to be built, there would have been a good case for
Wimbledon - Liverpool Street. It had the highest net present value (NPV),
as
opposed to the highest benefit/cost ratio.

From Wimbledon to Liverpool Street, the route via Victoria does have
advantages over the route via Waterloo.
1. It goes via Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road and Farringdon, right
through the centre. [p.11]
2. It relieves the Victoria line in addition to the Central line and the
SW
and NE suburban lines.
3. It avoids the problem of the portal to a viaduct, although it's longer,
having a portal at Raynes Park.
It doesn't go to Waterloo, but most passengers only go through Waterloo on
their way to other places.

I don't know why they had to go so far as Raynes Park for the SW portal.

Was it simply because it added extra capacity to the SWML in the most
congested bit...?

Angus