Proceeding contribution from Andrew Rosindell (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 July 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Crossrail Bill.
Crossrail Bill
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The deeper and more detailed our analysis of these problems, the clearer it becomes that there are great flaws in what is proposed. If Crossrail is intended to serve the London borough of Havering, I suggest that it has been wrongly routed. To serve its remit of opening up communities, it should serve the area further south where the bulk of regeneration of the Thames Gateway will take place. Finally, Crossrail is described as an east-west rail link, but why not think of it as a west-east rail link? It could make more sense to build it that way round now that we have secured our bid to host the 2012 Olympic games. As Lord Coe has said in many of his presentations, the Olympic site is already served by nine railways, and the Olympic Javelin will provide a fast shuttle to Kings Cross. Rather than disrupt rail services in the critical period before the Olympics, why do we not concentrate on getting the Heathrow and Abbey Wood branches up and running? That will reduce the initial costs of the scheme, while the Shenfield branch can be added later, if required. On behalf of my constituents in Romford, I ask the Government and all right hon. and hon. Members to put themselves in the position of the residents who will suffer so much hardship from the construction work if the scheme goes ahead on their doorstep. That is not just nimbyism, but a collection of serious concerns about the quality of life of thousands of people. The point of scrutinising legislation in this place is surely to modify Bills. What the constituents of Romford and the Crossrail action group are proposing is minor in the grand scheme of Crossrail, but in the lives of real people, due to be seriously undermined, it is vital. I urge the Government to request the Select Committee to review the proposals for the eastern section of the line, especially the depot in Romford and the sidings at Gidea Park, and more generally, whether it really makes sense to incorporate the Shenfield line in the Crossrail scheme. Why not simply use some of the money to upgrade the existing line to Liverpool Street? I look forward to imparting more detailed evidence to members of the Committee, but if any Members want to learn more about the proposals that affect my constituency, they are welcome to access the Crossrail action group website at www.romfordcag.co.uk. I conclude by urging the Government to listen to the residents of Romford and to the Crossrail action group, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that their environment and community can be treasured for generations to come.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 436 c1189-90
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Compulsory purchase Construction Elizabeth line Crossrail Finance Land Greater London Freight Franchises Heathrow Airport Powers Property transfer Planning Olympic Games Railway stations Railways Parliamentary procedure Railway network Passengers Underground railways Office of Rail Regulation Commuters Paddington Station Reading Station Petitions
- Legislation
- Crossrail Bill 2004/05 to 2005-06 to 2006-07 to 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:41:45 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_264549
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_264549
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_264549