Morning:
3°c
£16billion Crossrail plan clears Commons
Jason Beattie, Chief Political Correspondent14.12.07
The Bill paving the way for the Crossrail project has finally cleared the Commons after nearly three years of debate.
The £16billion scheme, the largest civil engineering project since the Channel Tunnel, will provide a new rail route to the heart of the capital.
It will ease congestion, create thousands of jobs and provide a multimillion pound boost to the economy, ministers have promised.
When up and running, Crossrail will provide 24 trains per hour, straight into the centre of London from the east and west, improving rail links to the West End, the City and Docklands.
The Crossrail Bill gained an unopposed third reading last night and now goes to the Lords.
During debate, junior transport minister Tom Harris said the scheme would have an enormous effect on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, provide a huge boost to the economy and preserve London's role as the business capital of Europe. He said: "It will provide London and the South-East with a world class railway."
He estimated that 200 million passengers per year would use the service. Cash generated from it could benefit the UK economy in excess of £20billion.
Tory Stephen Hammond described the programme as "a scheme of international importance to London".
Liberal Democrat spokeswoman Susan Kramer said Crossrail "would be absolutely crucial to making sure that London continues its economic vibrancy".
Reader views (9)
According to Business Online, Crossrail will cost £17bn by 2007 instead of the previous projections of £10bn. This is the cost of 34 new state-of-the-art hospitals or 340 new schools. What could we do with £17bn, well more cycling in London sounds far better than a railway that will deliver benefits to the City and Canary Wharf with Heathrow but little else for other Londoners. Crossrail will only ease congestion on the central line but not one MP stood up during the Third Reading to ask where is the actual evidence about the cost, value for money and the harm relating to the Crossrail project. Instead, we have ex-Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander quoting the private email of Chris Gayling’s aid Campbell Storey ostensibly saying: "Funding, publicly our position is: we don't think the Government is serious about this. [Crossrail] Privately: it is the wrong project (bad route, too expensive) and we wouldn't want to be associated with it." The problem is that MPs have invited the beneficiaries to board the Crossrail Gravy Train and will be associated with this Millennium Dome of transport schemes.
- Coalition Of Petitioners And Residents, London
£17 billion pound budget, like other major projects will this need a big contingency fund? Have the Government said how the current budget or the inevitable over-runs will be funded?
- Grant Stretch, Guildford, Surrey
Deliver in what sense? Cost per passenger per mile? Not in London. Can you point me to any studies on the economics to prove your point?
Some 480,000 cyclists commute in London every day. Very few go on the pavement and there are even fewer accidents. Be wary of using ad hominem arguments.
- Duncan, London
Where will the rolling stock be made?
- David Nigel Braham, Milan Italy
Unopposed hardly.
The Crossrail Coalition of Residents and Petitioners (The Coalition) was set up because of London-wide concerns about the £17bn Crossrail Bill being unlawful, poor value for money and unnecessary harmful. The Coalition has disclosed a letter to the Department for Transport (DfT) and MPs with a legal opinion, which says petitioners should have been consulted prior to the Third Reading. The opinion says that the Crossrail Bill is unlawful in its present form. The principle of the Hybrid Bill can be revisited at the Third Reading. The arbitrary consultation deadline of August 8th 2007 will now have to be extended by the DfT.
The DfT has been aware of concerns that Crossrail Bill process did not comply with the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive but failed to act.
- Crosssrail Coalition Of Petitioners And Residents, London-wide
George, an anecdotal comment about a silly person on a bike (who was clearly NOT on a cycle route) contributes nothing to the debate about the provision of proper cycling facilities in London. I commute by bicycle from Kew to Moorgate frequently and if I judged all motorists and pedestrians by the behaviour of some I encounter daily I would have to condemn all road building and pavements. I saw a motorist accelerate, half in the cycle lane, knocking an old gentleman on a bike today.
So, "Motorists might start to get a better deal if they were less arrogant, obeyed traffic signals, and kept off the cycle lane. And why are they always in a hurry?" You see what I mean?
- Malcolm, Richmond, UK
Great News. Roll on through trains from the Shenfield line to stations west of Liverpool Street.
- Alan Griffiths, Forest Gate, London, UK
Sorry, Duncan, but rail will always deliver more than cycles. And always will.
Cyclist might start to get a better deal if they were less arrogant, obeyed traffic signals, and kept off the pavement. And why are they always in a hurry?
Two days ago I saw a young girl carrying a coffee hit by a stupid cyclist who, to cut by a red light, mounted the pavement, rounded the corner and SPLAT!. Luckily she was uninjured but her clothes were a mess.
Why do it?
- George Mckenzie, Leicester
£16,000 million for Cross Rail versus £3.5 million for London cycle routes - not very balanced. How about a few Cross Cycle schemes for commuters in which roads are actually reclaimed for cycle commuters. East-West, North-South and the diagonals. As your Andrew Neather points out, "Surveys suggest around a quarter of Londoners would cycle if it were easier". Cross Cycle would deliver more, pound for pound, than Cross Rail.
- Duncan, London
