Crossrail was never important enough to attract Boris's attention

The Mayor of London is worried that government the government isn’t committed to Crossrail. This is absurd on two important levels. First: it’s absolutely committed, and there’s no reason to conclude otherwise. The Crossrail Bill is making good progress through Parliament and should get Royal Assent soon.

Second, and more importantly, Boris never supported Crossrail as an MP.

According to The Public Whip, Boris didn’t vote on the Crossrail Bill when it was first presented to the Commons in July 2005. And on the many occasions since, where I have had to pilot the Bill through its Commons stages - at two “additional provisions” debates, public bill committee sessions and Report and Third reading - Boris didn’t turn up. Not once. Never, on a single occasion in the Commons, did Bojo ever express an opinion, or vote one way or the other, on the most important infrastructure project that London has seen for generations.

Perhaps he was too busy to concern himself with such trivialities. Whatever the reason, it undermines his claim that he had a long-term ambition to be Mayor of London. Boris is not stupid; he would have known that a strong commitment to Crossrail could only have helped his mayoral bid. The fact that he never showed an interest in such an important project confirms he had no notion at all of standing before ‘Dave’ went on bended knee.

Visit Tom's blog.

 





Display: Sort:

Re: Crossrail was never important enou (#1)

Presumably this was a whipped vote so Johnson was following the party whip? Or was absent with agreement? I dont think we should read too much into his not voting for it as an opposition MP.

Also I dont think the Tories or him knew that he would be Mayoral candidate until fairly recently.

Crossrail presumably brings benefits to his Henley constituents many of whom would have cause to travel to Docklands.

Of perhaps greater benefit to the citizens of London will be the Kings Cross to Brixton and Peckham tram which as I understand it Johnson has not indicated wholehearted support for

Re: Crossrail was never important enou (#2)

It's nice to see Tom finally focussing on our party's real enemy for a change!

Boris and Crossrail (#3)

I should declare an interest in that I worked closely with the Crossrail team a couple of years ago.

While I am keen to see all sorts of transport investment, the scale of Crossrail and the benefits to London and to Britain are of an order greater than those provided by a metropolitan tram service.

Crossrail's an underground metro link from Paddington to Liverpool street, with a branch to the Isle of dogs and into Kent and another to Heathrow.

The trains that already run from Maidenhead and Shenfield together with those from the Canary Wharf/Kent branch, will run into Paddington and Liverpool Street, but instead of stopping, resetting and going back the way they came, having to clear the area before another train can come, they will instead run straight through London and out the other side.

It will then be possible to run a tube-frequency service on those train lines.

Crossrail will add 200m annual passenger journeys of capacity to the London Transport network, connecting Kent and Essex to Heathrow and the western dormitory towns to Canary Wharf and the City of London. 80,000 jobs will be created on the Isle of Dogs alone.

Not only will Crossrail help London compete with other major world cities but it is estimated that it will add £20bn to UK GDP.

Crossrail is overwhelmingly good for London, Britain and Henley and yes, Boris should have taken an interest.

Re: Boris and Crossrail (#4)

You should declare an interest?  What about Tom!

Well, at least Crossrail might mean a bit more electrification* for the Great Western Railway, I mean, heaven forbid that we send the wires all the way to Fishguard, far too bold for New Labour (and far too expensive in the privatised railway).

*apologies for the e-word, I know it stings.

Re: Crossrail - our support (#5)

Actually, Tom, I read somewhere that the problem with Crossrail was that the Tube upgrade might cost more than expected, and that this is where the funding issue for Crossrail would come from.  Are we committed to any filling funding gap in this 'tube upgrade overspend' scenario?  Or is that story wrong?

Re: Crossrail (#6)

i'm generally supportive of Crossrail, but could we redirect money from the money Crossrail would create, to replace our Victorian railways, with new rails?