At least that's what the Evening Standard headline said. I only had time
to skim the first couple of pars and the only other point I saw was that
it was unlikely to be complete in time for a possible Olympics in 2012
in part because enabling legislation was unlikely before next year.

Matthew
--
Il est important d'être un homme ou une femme en colère; le jour où nous
quitte la colère, ou le désir, c'est cuit. - Barbara

http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/

In message , Matthew
Malthouse writes
At least that's what the Evening Standard headline said. I only had
time to skim the first couple of pars and the only other point I saw
was that it was unlikely to be complete in time for a possible Olympics
in 2012 in part because enabling legislation was unlikely before next year

Actually the Government has said "Hmmmm Crossrail.... that's a good
idea." They aren't willing to pay for it. Its going to be up to private
finance to fund 90% of the project. It won't be till November 2004 that
the legislation will be in place. And then they have to try and decide
on the right route.

--
CJG

In article , James Farrar
writes
Matthew Malthouse wrote:
At least that's what the Evening Standard headline said. I only had time
to skim the first couple of pars and the only other point I saw was that
it was unlikely to be complete in time for a possible Olympics in 2012
in part because enabling legislation was unlikely before next year.

They're not going to bother putting the legislation through before next
November. Then they'll have about a 5 year public enquiry, if past
things are anything to go by.

Which means that the current Labour government will bemoan the future
Tory one for not delivering something which they only just started
before leaving office and then, probably, failed to fund adequately and
grossly underestimated the cost of!

By the way what has happened to the Dome?
--
John

In article ,
says...
At least that's what the Evening Standard headline said. I only had time
to skim the first couple of pars and the only other point I saw was that
it was unlikely to be complete in time for a possible Olympics in 2012
in part because enabling legislation was unlikely before next year.


The funding is far from approved.

The minister agreed with the scheme in principle, but said it would go
ahead only if the private sector paid a substantial sum toward it.

Matthew Malthouse wrote in message ...
At least that's what the Evening Standard headline said. I only had time
to skim the first couple of pars and the only other point I saw was that
it was unlikely to be complete in time for a possible Olympics in 2012
in part because enabling legislation was unlikely before next year.

Matthew

presumably this is the E/W line through the middle of London.

But is it really really necessary?

It's a connecting line around London we need, not more lines going
through the middle of it.

In message , John
writes
By the way what has happened to the Dome?

It is still there and continues to be as popular as it ever was.

--
Bob Adams. email to:

"nmtop40" wrote in message
m...
Matthew Malthouse wrote in message
...
At least that's what the Evening Standard headline said. I only had
time
to skim the first couple of pars and the only other point I saw was that
it was unlikely to be complete in time for a possible Olympics in 2012
in part because enabling legislation was unlikely before next year.

Matthew

presumably this is the E/W line through the middle of London.

But is it really really necessary?

Yes. I believe the last study showed an extremely favourable ratio of
benefits to costs, despite the costs being £10bn (give or take).
Travel in London is forecast to grow. The Underground is running to
capacity; the London rail termini are also operating to capacity (isn't
London Bridge working to 110% capacity?). Crossrail will relieve passenger
flows through crowded stations and free up capacity on lines into termini in
order to boost services. Running a line across London promotes growth. Vital
for the London economy, etc etc. See www.crossrail.co.uk, or Google for
various reports into it which prove it is necessary to sustain growth.

It's a connecting line around London we need, not more lines going
through the middle of it.

The first steps towards this are being taken with the East London Line
extensions, which are designed to begin to provide orbital connections
inside London, as a precursor to an Orbirail franchise. However orbital
lines further out are much more difficult to justify economically. Despite
being overcrowded, the M25 doesn't mean a given orbital route will function,
because the M25 has spread out origins and destinations of travel, making it
difficult to ease the problem with public transport.

The Orbirail study pointed out that Crossrail may help with some orbital
journeys since it will provide a direct link between locations that people
wouldn't have otherwise considered a cross London rail journey for. Heathrow
to Brentwood is an example.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7

nmtop40 wrote:

It's a connecting line around London we need, not more lines going
through the middle of it.

Can you point me to the traffic survey that came to this conclusion?
(The bit about not needing more lines through the middle)

It wasn't just guesswork, was it?

In article , david stevenson
wrote:
nmtop40 wrote:

It's a connecting line around London we need, not more lines going
through the middle of it.

Can you point me to the traffic survey that came to this conclusion?
(The bit about not needing more lines through the middle)

It wasn't just guesswork, was it?


My thought exactly. I fear it wasn't even guesswork. I fear it
was people who looked at a map and drew lines on it and said "wouldn't
it be nice...." (like Hollywood films of WWII generals, planning their
strategy by stabbing at maps with their cigars. Real generals were
more professional) and that's the crossrail plan. I hear that a
Parliamentary committee judged that Crossrail was "poor value for
money"

I have seen commentators criticise national railway projects,
such as the West Coast Modernisation, as "a black hole", and I thought
it was shamefully obvious that this was a narrow London interest which
thought that money was only well spent in London, and wanted West
Coast modernisation to be stopped, so that the money could be diverted
to the likes of Crossrail.

Rather than very expensively create NEW, it might be much
better value to make best use of what ALREADY IS. Things like create
interchange at the dozens of places in London where lines cross
without any interchange at all or stations just too far apart to be
really "the same place" the remnant of the railway politics of the
19th century. Places like :-

* The crossing of the North London line with the Northern
line. A pair of underground stations to be dug out. Simple
but expensive!

* Putney and East Putney. Join them with a Birmingham
airport-type shuttle? That cost £10M for 1Km, (wow!) and the trackbed
was already in existence.

* At the crossing of more routes than I can list just
west of Old Oak Common depot, roof over the whole area with a
concrete slab, build flats, offices, etc on top of it, which
could be sold for a tidy sum, and connecting stations beneath it.

It all looks possible, and VERY worthwhile.

Michael Bell

--

On 14 Jul 2003 14:15:59 -0700 in uk.transport.london,
(nmtop40) tapped out on the keyboard:

Matthew Malthouse wrote in message ...
At least that's what the Evening Standard headline said. I only had time
to skim the first couple of pars and the only other point I saw was that
it was unlikely to be complete in time for a possible Olympics in 2012
in part because enabling legislation was unlikely before next year.

Matthew

presumably this is the E/W line through the middle of London.

But is it really really necessary?

It's a connecting line around London we need, not more lines going
through the middle of it.

I disagree completely. A major reason why rail is not used more in
this country is that journeys via London are a complete pain in the
neck. For example I am travelling from Norwich to Torquay shortly
which entails dragging luggage from Liverpool Street to Paddington.
The ideal, which will never happen, is a megastation in the middle of
London where all the inter-city services connect.

--
John Youles Norwich England UK
j dot y.o.u.l.e.s at n.t.l.w.o.r.l.d dot c.o.m
http://www.ukip.org/