In article , Dave Arquati
wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:
[snip]
, Dave Arquati wrote
[snip]
John wrote:

Why do people write all this? There is gricerly interest, and there is
technical interest, and there is constructive interest (how could it be done
better?), and too little, there is POLITICAL interest - what is the
objective?

[snip]

I'm amazed the King's Cross debacle hasn't become a political hot
potato. The media don't seem to have picked up on it at all, given that
the station box construction has caused huge inconvenience for everyone
using King's Cross.

I also worry that this clash between Ken's London centric view and the
possibly far more beneficial regional form of rail scheme is not good
for the nation as a whole. Ken has access to government cash - at the
moment - because he delivered the London Mayoralty for Labour. He cannot
milk that forever - especially if Gordon Brown ever becomes Labour
leader. The current apparent largesse for London is a short term payoff
- I simply don't see it being maintained.

Understandable. Obviously Ken has to represent the interest of
Londoners, but in the case of Thameslink, a regional scheme is much more
favourable, given that the current level of service to inner suburban
stations seems to be considered an over-provision.

[snip]

That leaves the main objectives of these RER-style schemes to be
additional capacity creation and Tube congestion relief, which seem more
suited to more local schemes.

Yes, so despite the public talk about Crossrail (in either of its
versions) being to make travelling conditions for Londoners easier, the REAL
objective is to bring more workers in to feed the "City" and increase the
dominance of London in the UK as a whole. I always thought so. If you LOOK at
the plans, it always seemed plain.

[snip]

Michael Bell
--