Michael Bell:
We're agreed on that. And you agree, as at least some of the
publicity
for
Crossrail concedes, that it is not to serve existing traffic better,
but to
pull in NEW traffic.


Me:
I've not seen that in anything I've read - it's more that the demand
is
expected to grow, and as it is the transport system can't cope with
it,
so new infrastructure needs to be built to cope with it.


Michael Bell again:
It's plainly the IMPLICATION of so much publicity.

But implications aren't statements.

See also the above comment
of population projections for London. In "Britain's Railways"
Directory for
2004 in the section on Crossrail it says

"Crossrail will support London's role in the UK economy
.....[ie,
increase London's share of the National Cake ]

That's not exactly an unbiased reading of that, isn't it? "Support" to
me means "allow to continue in its current position", not "build it up
further". That's a very specific interpretation - it doesn't say that
at all to me.


The key benefits are :-
* The transport capacity to cope with London's forecast
population
and economic growth

The population growth is pretty much going to happen, and can't be
stopped by abandoning Crossrail. Economic growth doesn't refer to
London's share of the national pie, but the same economic growth that
most places should be going through whenever possible.

* Increased rail capacity into London [ Note. NOT WITHIN
London ]

Yes, from the suburbs! Without wanting to get back into the London/not
London debate again, most of the stops served by Crossrail are suburban
ones. Only a few in Essex and Berkshire lie outside greater London.

I think you're bringing your existing ideas to bear on what you're
reading there.

Jonn