Proceeding contribution from Christopher Chope (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 17 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill.
Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill
Absolutely, they have failed, and sooner rather than later, more and more people are going to realise the extent of that failure. I shall quote briefly paragraph 5(4) of the Strategic Rail Authority final report dated 11 July 2005:"““Waterloo domestic station is one of the largest and busiest stations in London. Its 19 platforms are intensively used, particularly those serving the Main Line, Suburban and Windsor Lines destinations.""The Waterloo area is currently a limited destination in itself, and most passengers arriving at Waterloo interchange onto other lines…Passenger circulation is a particular issue both in the main concourse and for interchange. Network Rail believe that the station is approaching the limit of its safe passenger handling capacity and that works will be required to increase passenger capacity if passenger numbers increase significantly. It is expected that at current rates of growth (and without any changes to Waterloo International), capacity will be reached by 2011.””" That is three years before the Minister says that the platforms at the former international station will be open. That information was available to the Government—I accept that it was not available to him, because he has become a Minister only recently—in July 2005. It is clear today that in the intervening period the Government have done absolutely nothing to address the issue. When my constituents find in 2011 that they cannot get into Waterloo because of passenger congestion, what will I say to them? I will say that there was an opportunity to increase capacity, but the Government declined to take it. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) referred to Crossrail. That is an incredibly expensive project. For a much smaller investment, the lives of tens of thousands of commuters into Waterloo could be completely transformed, with quicker, more reliable and more comfortable services, safer platforms and more circulation space for passengers. This has been a disappointing debate, because I had hoped that we would get a clearer picture from the Government, and that the impression I had before the debate that the Government did not have a clue where they were going with Waterloo international would be removed by the Minister's remarks. I am afraid that that feeling has been confirmed by the Minister's remarks, so the only way we have of showing our disapproval of the Government's laid-back attitude on this matter is to divide the House. The best thing to divide on would be amendment No. 4, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 470 c1148-9
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Assets Channel tunnel High Speed 1 line Fees and charges High speed trains Railway stations Railways Railway network St Pancras Station Office of Rail Regulation Waterloo Station
- Legislation
- Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:18:01 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_435975
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_435975
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_435975