Crossrail funding approved
 

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/

Crossrail funding approved
 

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

Crossrail funding approved
 

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

Crossrail funding approved
 

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.

Crossrail funding approved
 

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.

Crossrail funding approved
 

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:

Crossrail funding approved
 

"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

Crossrail funding approved
 

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?

Crossrail funding approved
 

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

--

Crossrail funding approved
 

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/

Crossrail funding approved
 

Michael Bell writes
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!
[...]
It all looks possible, and VERY worthwhile.

And where is the extra capacity to shift all those extra passengers
going to be found?

--
Dave

Crossrail funding approved
 

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:13:55 +0100 in uk.transport.london, Michael
Bell tapped out on the keyboard:

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

There's enormous potential for interchanges in South London - Penge,
Brockley, and where the SE lines to Victoria cross over the lines to
Waterloo spring to mind.

--
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/

Crossrail funding approved
 

"Bob Adams" wrote in message
...
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.

What's it used for these days?

Crossrail funding approved
 

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.


In the 19th century the railway companies made a plan to
have a huge central London station, but Parliament stepped in and
forced them to stop at the edge of the city centre and join them
all using the circel line. It would be a very different London
today if that had not happened. Would it have been better? An
interesting question!.

Michael Bell

--

Crossrail funding approved
 

In article , Dave
wrote:
Michael Bell writes
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!
[...]
It all looks possible, and VERY worthwhile.

And where is the extra capacity to shift all those extra passengers
going to be found?



************************************************


With an improvement like this, I should think that most of the
increase in traffic will be outside the peak, because :-

* People make the work journey they have to make, no matter
how inconvenient.

* If they can make their work journey shorter by using one
of the links I propose, then they will cut out rail miles.

* Mostly the current layout does not hinder journeys into
and out of the city centre, this reform will make it easier to move
jobs out of the city centre.

BUT :-

* Out of peak hours people's journeys are mostly not into
and out of the city centre, they are cross-suburban, and the links I
propose will these journeys very much more convenient.

Michael Bell

--

Crossrail funding approved
 

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:21:26 +0100 CJG wrote:
}
} By the way what has happened to the Dome?
}
} A tragic waste of something new and different which people didn't really
} understand because it wasn't square with windows, a door and chimney
} pot?

But it _has_ got a chimney pot!

To the left of the pic on
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...ur/default.stm

} I think its going to be turned into a sports ground or Wembley Arena
} type place.

That's one of several suggestions - and a good one. But no one so far
has the money for it.

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/

Crossrail funding approved
 

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:10:25 +0100 John Youles wrote:
} 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.

How about a deep tube that just connected the larger termini leaving
intermediate traffic to the existing Circle?

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/

Crossrail funding approved
 

In message , Steve Moore
writes
What's it used for these days?

One weekend soon its being used for a music festival to promote racial
equality. Free entry. Just turn up.
--
CJG

Crossrail funding approved
 

On 14 Jul 2003 14:15:59 -0700, (nmtop40) wrote:

[crossrail]

presumably this is the E/W line through the middle of London.
But is it really really necessary?

Yes I think it is necessary because the areas it will serve are already
on lines at maximum capacity with a forecast for more usage growth.
Unless you propose to move development (and existing businesses) out of
central london permanently then people need to be able to travel there
in large and increasing numbers.

We are still debating the value of 1 line when Paris has 5 and Berlin
has completely renovated its own version - the S Bahn. Try using the
Paris RER in the rush hour and then try to imagine how a bad a state the
Metro would be in if it was trying to carry even 50% of the RER
passengers. It would not work and London will not work unless we adopt
the same "can do and must do" philosophy that the French seem to have
towards public transport investment.

On top of Crossrail you need to have a strategy for each main line out
of London that will expand capacity as well as improving interchange to
other lines that intersect with them. We fleetingly had the prospect of
the line upgrade option until the SRA decided it had no money, didn't
want 20 year franchises and somehow thought squeezing more and more out
of the current capacity is a viable long term option.

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

I agree with the orbital line idea in addition to Crossrail and I think
it could be done relatively cheaply if people employed some imagination
as to the execution of the concept.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Crossrail funding approved
 

In article , Paul Corfield
writes
On 14 Jul 2003 14:15:59 -0700, (nmtop40) wrote:

[crossrail]


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

I agree with the orbital line idea in addition to Crossrail and I think
it could be done relatively cheaply if people employed some imagination
as to the execution of the concept.
People in favour of crossrail often quote people wanting to travel from
the GE lines to Paddington - but how many want to? Surely lots want to
travel from GE to Waterloo/Victoria - I do quite often, and others want
to go to go from Marylebone to London Bridge.

I commute to Kings Cross from the GE - it would probably ease my travel
a bit, but I am not convinced by the plan - given the number of people
or orbit the M25 I can see advantages in an orbital line linking key
interchanges.

--
John

Crossrail funding approved
 

In article , John Youles
URL:mailto:mines.a.pint@localhost wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:12:07 +0100 in uk.transport.london, Michael
Bell tapped out on the keyboard:


In the 19th century the railway companies made a plan to
have a huge central London station, but Parliament stepped in and
forced them to stop at the edge of the city centre and join them
all using the circle line. It would be a very different London
today if that had not happened. Would it have been better? An
interesting question!.

Michael Bell

Fascinating ! Would you happen to know any books, websites etc. on
the subject please ?

John

I'm afraid I don't know of any books about it that would be
likely to be available today, I learned of it from a history book when
I was at school. A long time ago! You might find references you could
follow up in histories of the Circle line - the Circle line was the
alternative to the Grand Central station - presumably the New York
station of that name was the sucessful implementation of that idea in
New York?

One of Colin Buchanan's books refers to a quite separate idea
of about 1900, put forwards by entrepreneurs, to create two
cross-routes, one East-West, the other North-South, with an overhead
railway for express traffic, a surface tramway underneath it (this
was 1900!) for short-distance traffic and massive property development
along the route, this is where they would recoup their investment. It
was to be simply chopped through the existing built-up area. Once
again Parliament wouldn't allow it, but it may also be that the
promoters didn't have the necessary money. Once again, it would
have made London into a completely different place. To think about
it is almost like a Sci-fi alternative future story. But we live
in the boring old world we have drifted into rather than the
exciting world we might have got into by planning and vision!

Michael Bell

Crossrail funding approved
 

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:53:51 +0100 in uk.transport.london, Michael Bell
tapped out on the keyboard:

In article , John Youles
URL:mailto:mines.a.pint@localhost wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:12:07 +0100 in uk.transport.london, Michael
Bell tapped out on the keyboard:


In the 19th century the railway companies made a plan to
have a huge central London station, but Parliament stepped in and
forced them to stop at the edge of the city centre and join them
all using the circle line. It would be a very different London
today if that had not happened. Would it have been better? An
interesting question!.

Michael Bell

Fascinating ! Would you happen to know any books, websites etc. on
the subject please ?

John

I'm afraid I don't know of any books about it that would be
likely to be available today, I learned of it from a history book when
I was at school. A long time ago! You might find references you could
follow up in histories of the Circle line - the Circle line was the
alternative to the Grand Central station - presumably the New York
station of that name was the sucessful implementation of that idea in
New York?

One of Colin Buchanan's books refers to a quite separate idea
of about 1900, put forwards by entrepreneurs, to create two
cross-routes, one East-West, the other North-South, with an overhead
railway for express traffic, a surface tramway underneath it (this
was 1900!) for short-distance traffic and massive property development
along the route, this is where they would recoup their investment. It
was to be simply chopped through the existing built-up area. Once
again Parliament wouldn't allow it, but it may also be that the
promoters didn't have the necessary money. Once again, it would
have made London into a completely different place. To think about
it is almost like a Sci-fi alternative future story. But we live
in the boring old world we have drifted into rather than the
exciting world we might have got into by planning and vision!

Michael Bell

Thanks, Michael, I'll keep a look out.

--
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/

Crossrail funding approved
 

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:42:41 +0100, John wrote:

In article , Paul Corfield
writes
On 14 Jul 2003 14:15:59 -0700, (nmtop40) wrote:

[crossrail]

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

I agree with the orbital line idea in addition to Crossrail and I think
it could be done relatively cheaply if people employed some imagination
as to the execution of the concept.

People in favour of crossrail often quote people wanting to travel from
the GE lines to Paddington - but how many want to? Surely lots want to
travel from GE to Waterloo/Victoria - I do quite often, and others want
to go to go from Marylebone to London Bridge.

But that is not the whole story is it. Crossrail will relieve a lot of
other lines as well as provide very quick links across the centre. If
you live in Ilford and want to go to Oxford St you currently get a GE
train and then a tube. In future one train to TCR that is much faster
overall as the line speed will be far higher than the Tube.

Let's say you want to go Romford to Gatwick. In future one fast train to
Farringdon then one fast Thameslink to Gatwick. There are a myriad of
options opened up with Crossrail. I think people need to use the RER in
Paris to see how good a concept it is in comparison to the Metro (which
is good at what it does too but it is comparatively slow and nearly
always requires one change to get anywhere).

I commute to Kings Cross from the GE - it would probably ease my travel
a bit, but I am not convinced by the plan - given the number of people
or orbit the M25 I can see advantages in an orbital line linking key
interchanges.

so in future you get one direct train to Farringdon and then Thameslink
or a Tube one stop. Sounds fine and dandy to me (assuming it all works,
of course).

I'd like to see Thameslink 2050 (!) built, Crossrail 1 then something
doing KX- Victoria (Crossrail 2) and then Waterloo / Vauxhall - Euston
preferably linking into Holborn / Aldwych. The only really difficult
option would be whether we could create a London version of Chatelet Les
Halles (Paris) with (nearly) all the lines linked or whether you'd have
a couple of big Central London interchange stations.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Crossrail funding approved
 

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:42:41 +0100, John wrote:

In article , Paul Corfield
writes
On 14 Jul 2003 14:15:59 -0700, (nmtop40) wrote:

[crossrail]

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

I agree with the orbital line idea in addition to Crossrail and I think
it could be done relatively cheaply if people employed some imagination
as to the execution of the concept.

People in favour of crossrail often quote people wanting to travel from
the GE lines to Paddington - but how many want to? Surely lots want to
travel from GE to Waterloo/Victoria - I do quite often, and others want
to go to go from Marylebone to London Bridge.

(snip)

I commute to Kings Cross from the GE - it would probably ease my travel
a bit, but I am not convinced by the plan - given the number of people
or orbit the M25 I can see advantages in an orbital line linking key
interchanges.

so in future you get one direct train to Farringdon and then Thameslink
or a Tube one stop. Sounds fine and dandy to me (assuming it all works,
of course).

I'd like to see Thameslink 2050 (!) built, Crossrail 1 then something
doing KX- Victoria (Crossrail 2) and then Waterloo / Vauxhall - Euston
preferably linking into Holborn / Aldwych. The only really difficult
option would be whether we could create a London version of Chatelet Les
Halles (Paris) with (nearly) all the lines linked or whether you'd have
a couple of big Central London interchange stations.

The problem already with that is that Crossrail 2 is currently proposed to
run Victoria - TCR - KX... so you already have three interchange stations
(KX, Farringdon, TCR) in a triangle for TL2K/XR1/XR2. Crossrail 2 could be
changed at this early stage but it wouldn't be sensible to run it via
Farringdon just for ease of use. I'm not sure of my Paris geography - does
it have several main centres like London's West End, City & Canary Wharf -
or just one main one at Chatelet?

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7

Crossrail funding approved
 

In article , John Youles
writes
In the 19th century the railway companies made a plan to
have a huge central London station, but Parliament stepped in and
forced them to stop at the edge of the city centre and join them
all using the circel line. It would be a very different London
today if that had not happened. Would it have been better? An
interesting question!.

Fascinating ! Would you happen to know any books, websites etc. on
the subject please ?

The above isn't quite right though it grasps many of the essentials.

There were many proposals for a central London interchange/terminus.
However, Parliament refused to allow railways to enter from the north
nearer than the "New Road", which is why Paddington, Euston, King's
Cross, St.Pancras, and Liverpool Street are where they are. The lines
from the south were given more leeway.

The Metropolitan was conceived as a way to link all these stations and
lines, at the same time carrying passenger and goods trains from the
first four to the City. The Euston link never happened, but the others
all did. Permission was granted to link the LC&DR in from Blackfriars as
well, forming what is now Thameslink.

The District (and later the Inner Circle) was based on a later proposal
to extend the Metropolitan south from Paddington and then east along the
north bank of the Thames to Liverpool Street to link the southern
termini into the Metropolitan (though with no connecting tracks).

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

Crossrail funding approved
 

In article ,
(Michael Bell) wrote:

One of Colin Buchanan's books refers to a quite separate idea
of about 1900, put forwards by entrepreneurs, to create two
cross-routes, one East-West, the other North-South, with an overhead
railway for express traffic, a surface tramway underneath it (this
was 1900!) for short-distance traffic and massive property development
along the route, this is where they would recoup their investment. It
was to be simply chopped through the existing built-up area. Once
again Parliament wouldn't allow it, but it may also be that the
promoters didn't have the necessary money. Once again, it would
have made London into a completely different place. To think about
it is almost like a Sci-fi alternative future story. But we live
in the boring old world we have drifted into rather than the
exciting world we might have got into by planning and vision!

Arguably the Kingsway scheme of the LCC was a partial implementation of
these ideas. It had major redevelopment, a new street and a tram tunnel.

--
Colin Rosenstiel