Transport Briefing
Quote
Crossrail rethinks Liverpool St but not Woolwich
Filed 11/10/06

Cross London Rail Links, the joint venture between the Department for
Transport and Transport for London promoting the London Crossrail
scheme, is refusing to add a new station at Woolwich to the project
specification, despite admitting there is a "strong case" for the
proposal.

Earlier this year the House of Commons Crossrail Bill Select Committee
called for a station at Woolwich to be added to plans for the
cross-London rail link. The committee's report said: "We wish to state
that we have carefully examined all the evidence put before us and we
are clearly convinced of the essential need for a Crossrail station in
Woolwich, an area which includes some of the poorest wards in the
United Kingdom. We noted that the Promoter's calculations of cost of
this station showed that it would provide exceptional value for money
and we require the Promoters to bring forward the necessary additional
provision to add this to the Bill."

However, in its response to the Select Committee's interim decision,
CLRL says that a station at Woolwich would be unaffordable and it will
not accept the committee's decision: "As the Promoter has made clear,
the key issue is affordability. The challenge in funding Crossrail is
huge and the Promoter is engaged in an intensive value management
process to bear down heavily on the cost of the project. The revised
tunnelling and depot strategies are a result of that process and will
yield substantial savings. The Promoter believes it is vital to
continue to develop a Crossrail project that can be delivered in order
to secure the benefits that it will bring. The Promoter does not
believe that adding £200m to the cost of Crossrail can be justified
and cannot therefore accept the Committee's decision."

According to CLRL, a key reason why the station would be expensive to
build is the depth of the running tunnels. A shallower station would be
possible if the running tunnels in that area were nearer to the
surface. It says this appears, in principle, to be feasible although
much more detailed work would be needed to understand the wider
environmental consequences. The cost of a shallower station is
estimated by CLRL to be around £200m.

However, it has agreed to change the project specification in response
to capacity concerns at Liverpool Street Station. The Select Committee
said it was "sympathetic to the argument for enhancing ticket hall
facilities at Liverpool Street Station" and has "decided to ask the
Promoters to amend the Bill to enable options 3c and 7b with the
extended gate line, removing the necessary retail units, to come
forward as an integral part of the Crossrail project at Liverpool
Street station".

CLRL has accepted the Committee's decision and will bring forward an
additional provision to enable options 3c and 7b. This modification is
expected to be added to the project plans in November, once an
instruction to the Select Committee relating to their consideration has
been given by the House of Commons.
Unquote

This should have Nick Rainsford throbbing with rage. IMHO if there is
not the possibilty of a station at Woolwich then there is little point
to entire south eastern arm of Crossrail - it doesnt go to Ebbsfleet -
it doesn't go to Woolwich. Even if for "affordability reasons " the
station was not opened with the rest of the line the idea of digging
tunnels too deep for an eventual station at Woolwich is shortdighted.
If Crossrail wants to save money why not abandon the branch from
Airport Junction to Maidenhead. Having noted the Select Committee's
endorsement of Woolwich on the basis of its sound business case the
Crossrail response seems perverse. Would anyone care to offer odds that
Crossrail is destined to crash and burn?

Bob wrote:

The committee's report said: "We wish to state
that we have carefully examined all the evidence put before us and we
are clearly convinced of the essential need for a Crossrail station in
Woolwich, an area which includes some of the poorest wards in the
United Kingdom.

Is there any evidence that bringing a railway to a poor area causes the poor
people to become rich, or do they just become unable to afford the rent and
so move elsewhere?

John Rowland wrote:

Is there any evidence that bringing a railway to a poor area causes the poor
people to become rich, or do they just become unable to afford the rent and
so move elsewhere?

http://www.socialexclusionunit.gov.u...doc.asp?id=228

Rich and poor are relative conditions. Bringing transport to a deprived
area reduces social exclusion in the first instance - see the above
ODPM report summary. Economic benefits flow into the area thereafter.
Poor people become richer.

Bob wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Is there any evidence that bringing a railway to a poor area causes
the poor people to become rich, or do they just become unable to
afford the rent and so move elsewhere?

http://www.socialexclusionunit.gov.u...doc.asp?id=228

I see no evidence, merely a description of intended policies.

Rich and poor are relative conditions. Bringing transport to a
deprived area reduces social exclusion in the first instance - see
the above ODPM report summary. Economic benefits flow into the area
thereafter. Poor people become richer.

Evidence?

John Rowland wrote:
Bob wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Is there any evidence that bringing a railway to a poor area causes
the poor people to become rich, or do they just become unable to
afford the rent and so move elsewhere?

http://www.socialexclusionunit.gov.u...doc.asp?id=228

I see no evidence, merely a description of intended policies.

Rich and poor are relative conditions. Bringing transport to a
deprived area reduces social exclusion in the first instance - see
the above ODPM report summary. Economic benefits flow into the area
thereafter. Poor people become richer.

Evidence?

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/...ary-impact.pdf

If you are particularly interested in this topic it is worthwhile going
beyond the summary to the full working papers.

However

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/to... il_route.php


seems to indicate that the Woolwich decision stems from the DfT and not
the Crossrail organisation.

Bob wrote:

Cross London Rail Links, the joint venture between the Department for
Transport and Transport for London promoting the London Crossrail
scheme, is refusing to add a new station at Woolwich to the project
specification, despite admitting there is a "strong case" for the
proposal.

Earlier this year the House of Commons Crossrail Bill Select Committee
called for a station at Woolwich to be added to plans for the
cross-London rail link. The committee's report said: "We wish to state
that we have carefully examined all the evidence put before us and we
are clearly convinced of the essential need for a Crossrail station in
Woolwich, an area which includes some of the poorest wards in the
United Kingdom. We noted that the Promoter's calculations of cost of
this station showed that it would provide exceptional value for money
and we require the Promoters to bring forward the necessary additional
provision to add this to the Bill."

However, in its response to the Select Committee's interim decision,
CLRL says that a station at Woolwich would be unaffordable and it will
not accept the committee's decision: "As the Promoter has made clear,
the key issue is affordability. The challenge in funding Crossrail is
huge and the Promoter is engaged in an intensive value management
process to bear down heavily on the cost of the project. The revised
tunnelling and depot strategies are a result of that process and will
yield substantial savings. The Promoter believes it is vital to
continue to develop a Crossrail project that can be delivered in order
to secure the benefits that it will bring. The Promoter does not
believe that adding £200m to the cost of Crossrail can be justified
and cannot therefore accept the Committee's decision."

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HC1597.pdf

The select committee is unhappy with the DfT response and has issued a
report expressing their views robustly.