|
|
 |
| |
Mayor Ken Livingstone in Moorgate where Crossrail construction started in 2002 |
High cost of Crossrail will fall on taxpayers who won’t benefit
Gordon Brown has given the project to build an east-west rail link under central London the green light, but, says Marina Morrison, the bill is unlawful and the scheme is flawed
THE Residents Society of Mayfair and St James’s is supportive of public transport schemes provided they are lawful, give value for taxpayers’ money and do not cause unnecessary harm. The present Crossrail scheme fails on all these counts.
Crossrail is presently estimated at £17 billion and yet BAA, Canary Wharf and the City Corporation are offering to contribute less than a billion. Oddly, the Government claims the rest of the money will come from fares, a levy on London business rates but gives no details and makes no mention of the burden of taxpayers.
However, Crossrail fares will only raise £200 million a year and the proposed business contribution is ring-fenced and time-sensitive.
Gordon Brown has made no announcements to afford taxpayers the same protection as business, so will taxpayers be left underwriting the scheme (the actual cost of which is estimated and unknown), servicing the debt and paying the operational costs?
It would appear that the government has nominated UK taxpayers to subsidise and underwrite the present Crossrail scheme, which primarily benefits the City and Canary Wharf. There is no announcement that Londoners will benefit from the property uplift in Canary Wharf and the Corporation of London in Central London as a result of Crossrail. Yet ordinary taxpayers are expected to subsidise the scheme.
Furthermore, independent analysts express doubts about the cost and economic viability of the Crossrail project.
To this end, on April 25 we asked the Treasury numerous questions about Crossrail under the Freedom of Information Act, so that they could be analysed independently. The Society has received no response and the government seem reluctant to answer these questions. Crossrail appear to be short on facts.
Indeed, the Parliamentary petition hearings have shown that when we ask for evidence or substantiation of claims of benefits and harm arising from the project, it is absent.
The Society asked government about the financial structuring of Crossrail and why taxpayers, Londoners and Tube passengers have not been consulted or protected from having to pay increased fares and taxes for the Crossrail scheme. You will not be surprised to hear that we have not received a response to these specific questions. But the government should take note that Londoners and UK taxpayers have not been consulted about whether they wish to subsidise a £17 billion scheme, which some say could cost as much as £30 billion.
A residents’ group in Spitalfields, the Woodseer and Hanbury Residents Association has disclosed a legal opinion, which says the Crossrail Bill is unlawful in its present form. The Society believe the Crossrail scheme is flawed, unlawful and destroys historic parts of London unnecessarily while simultaneously protecting development sites.
Soon MPs will be asked to vote on Crossrail at the Third Reading without having information on what Crossrail will cost, if it is lawful, the taxpayers’ burden and the environmental harm it will cause.
The Society is concerned that the Prime Minister is so keen to back the project that he has made an announcement to fund it when there is a question mark over its lawfulness.
We hope MPs will demand full information about the environmental harm and cost before voting in favour of the Crossrail Bill.
|
 |
|
| |
| Your comments: |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
