"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
In article , Colin
wrote:

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
I have been told that a parliamentary commsission judged that
Crossrail was poor value for money. Can anybody confirm this?

--


Michael Bell

That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was
killed
off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back
yard'
and anti-subsidy agenda.

Things have somewhat progressed since then.

Colin

Saying that they don't want it in their back yard is quite a different
thing from saying that it is "poor value for money". Saying that it is
"poor value for money" at least accepts the idea that it can be right
to spend money, but that the money might be better spent on other
things, eg making better use of what's already there by creating
interchange where routes cross over each other without interchange,
there must be several dozen such sites in London. And there must be
many other serious contenders for available funds. AS REPORTED TO ME,
the judgement was made that Crossrail did not rank high against such
competitors even within London. So why is there such a push for it?



--

Michael

Because the people with the money want it to happen:

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/our_s...onse_09_02.pdf

Quote: "The construction of Crossrail is vital for the future success of
London as a world-class city."

And what is the point of 'better interchanges' if the lines themselves are
choked full of people at rush hour and it is impossible to squeeze more
trains down them? What were these competitors you quote anyway and did they
ever happen?

Colin