Something which had escaped my attention and which not much fuss seems
to have been made of - the Crossrail Select Committee made a statement
on its preliminary findings having considered petitions related to the
Crossrail Bill, and the main issue is that they are requiring CLRL to
add a station at Woolwich to the Bill.

From http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/060725.pdf :

The major issue arising from Petitions in the Greenwich area was the
need for a station at Woolwich. We will refer to this issue in detail
in our report. At this time 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. We would also ask the Promoters to
work with the local Council to ensure that the Crossrail station is
fully integrated into the local transport infrastructure.

A point to note is that a Woolwich Crossrail station would not be
underneath Woolwich Arsenal station; the tunnel places it under the
Royal Arsenal site to the north, making integration more complicated
(probably easy enough for Greenwich Waterfront Transit, but not so for
the DLR).

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:

Something which had escaped my attention and which not much fuss seems
to have been made of - the Crossrail Select Committee made a statement
on its preliminary findings having considered petitions related to the
Crossrail Bill, and the main issue is that they are requiring CLRL to
add a station at Woolwich to the Bill.

That sounds like a really good idea IMO, thanks for spotting that Dave.
I dare say there hasn't been any chat about it here as utl doesn't have
any contributors from down Woolwich way.


From http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/060725.pdf :

The major issue arising from Petitions in the Greenwich area was the
need for a station at Woolwich. We will refer to this issue in detail
in our report. At this time 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. We would also ask the Promoters to
work with the local Council to ensure that the Crossrail station is
fully integrated into the local transport infrastructure.

All of which sounds like a strong and well reasoned argument for
including a Crossrail station in Woolwich. As stated it does have some
very poor areas, and whilst transport connections don't solve such
issues, they can help a lot.


A point to note is that a Woolwich Crossrail station would not be
underneath Woolwich Arsenal station; the tunnel places it under the
Royal Arsenal site to the north, making integration more complicated
(probably easy enough for Greenwich Waterfront Transit, but not so for
the DLR).

The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully
integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially
appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR
lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically
achievable. However integration with the "local transport
infrastructure" can mean a good modern bus interchange (ala North
Greenwich or Canada Water) with a good selection of feeder bus routes,
along with the proposed Waterfront Transit. And just because it
wouldn't be a super-interchange doesn't mean it wouldn't be worthwhile.

I hope this will be seriously considered by the Crossrail team and
Crossrail's stakeholders. The proposal strengthens the regeneration
angle of Crossrail, and whilst it'd increase the cost I'd say it could
also boost the political support that Crossrail requires to get the
green light.

Mizter T wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

Something which had escaped my attention and which not much fuss seems
to have been made of - the Crossrail Select Committee made a statement
on its preliminary findings having considered petitions related to the
Crossrail Bill, and the main issue is that they are requiring CLRL to
add a station at Woolwich to the Bill.

That sounds like a really good idea IMO, thanks for spotting that Dave.
I dare say there hasn't been any chat about it here as utl doesn't have
any contributors from down Woolwich way.

There was an article about this in the South London Press the other
day:

http://tinyurl.com/ofgac

If a station is built at Woolwich, what will happen to the proposed
Abbey Wood station? Would it remain, or would the two stations be
considered too close together?

Patrick

wrote:
There was an article about this in the South London Press the other
day:

http://tinyurl.com/ofgac

Thanks for the link. The SLP will champion this I'm sure.


If a station is built at Woolwich, what will happen to the proposed
Abbey Wood station? Would it remain, or would the two stations be
considered too close together?

It would be in addition to Abbey Wood. The location of Abbey Wood means
it can serve the significant population of Thamesmead well.

On 31 Jul 2006 15:38:23 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully
integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially
appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR
lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically
achievable.

Or worthwhile, really. The only useful interchange it would create
would be eastbound SET to westbound Crossrail, and even that's not a
very useful one.

asdf wrote:

On 31 Jul 2006 15:38:23 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully
integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially
appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR
lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically
achievable.

Or worthwhile, really. The only useful interchange it would create
would be eastbound SET to westbound Crossrail, and even that's not a
very useful one.


It would serve the area though. From the little I've read thus far I
feel very favourable to the idea. As I said in my first post, it
doesn't have to be a super-interchange to be worthwhile.

On 1 Aug 2006 03:06:21 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully
integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially
appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR
lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically
achievable.

Or worthwhile, really. The only useful interchange it would create
would be eastbound SET to westbound Crossrail, and even that's not a
very useful one.

It would serve the area though. From the little I've read thus far I
feel very favourable to the idea. As I said in my first post, it
doesn't have to be a super-interchange to be worthwhile.

Indeed - I was trying to say that there's not much point making it an
interchange with SET/DLR if it would mean a large increase in cost.

asdf wrote:

On 1 Aug 2006 03:06:21 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully
integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially
appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR
lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically
achievable.

Or worthwhile, really. The only useful interchange it would create
would be eastbound SET to westbound Crossrail, and even that's not a
very useful one.

It would serve the area though. From the little I've read thus far I
feel very favourable to the idea. As I said in my first post, it
doesn't have to be a super-interchange to be worthwhile.

Indeed - I was trying to say that there's not much point making it an
interchange with SET/DLR if it would mean a large increase in cost.


OK I misunderstood you. Yes I agree with that - from the little
knowledge I have of Crossrail I understand the route of the tunnel in
Woolwich has been decided. I'm sure an argument along the lines of
"well the tunnel hasn't been built yet so the route can obviously be
changed" will come up, which is of course true, but I presume it'd make
it much more expensive, as a central Woolwich interchange isn't on the
right alignment.

Anyway interchange with the SET lines could be made at Abbey Wood, and
interchange with the DLR would be possible at Custom House - or if
people wanted the City Airport branch they could walk between the
Crossrail and Woolwich Arsenal stations. I don't know exactly where the
Crossrail station would be but it seems it wouldn't be far away - a
mile at the very most, probably more like half a mile.

asdf wrote:
On 31 Jul 2006 15:38:23 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully
integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially
appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR
lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically
achievable.

Or worthwhile, really. The only useful interchange it would create
would be eastbound SET to westbound Crossrail, and even that's not a
very useful one.

If it were feasible, a DLR interchange could be useful for people
travelling from the west to London City Airport - but not necessary, as
there will be direct (albeit slower) alternatives via either Stratford
or Isle of Dogs - Poplar.

A Greenwich Waterfront stop will be the most useful interchange, as it
will feed in passengers well from both east and west. A bus station
would be better, but I don't know whether that would fit into the
surrounding development.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:

asdf wrote:
On 31 Jul 2006 15:38:23 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully
integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially
appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR
lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically
achievable.

Or worthwhile, really. The only useful interchange it would create
would be eastbound SET to westbound Crossrail, and even that's not a
very useful one.

If it were feasible, a DLR interchange could be useful for people
travelling from the west to London City Airport - but not necessary, as
there will be direct (albeit slower) alternatives via either Stratford
or Isle of Dogs - Poplar.

Or a bus route could be altered or created to include a section from
Custom House over the Connaught Bridge to City Airport.