Michael Bell wrote:
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?

I don't understand; what's your issue with this discussion?

[snip]

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.

Crossrail *is* basically a local scheme and hence achieves the
objectives of additional capacity creation (both to accommodate growth
in travel in the future, and to increase the reliability of the existing
services now) and Tube congestion relief. What's the problem with that?

The other remaining approaches are to either do nothing (with travel
growth therefore being constrained by capacity, damaging London's status
amongst rival cities abroad) or to charge higher fares to discourage use
(which is politically unacceptable and would also damage London's status
and economy).

Growth in travel is occurring across the country, not just in London.
Crossrail is one way to accommodate some of that growth in London; other
cities have their own schemes to accommodate growth. The objective isn't
to increase the dominance of London in the UK, although that may be a
side-effect if other cities' transport plans fall by the wayside for
whatever reason. The primary objective is to sustain the growth and
status of London in the world. Secondary objectives are social inclusion
and modal shift to public transport.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London