This brings us to the issue of the application of the Bill to extensions. Our amendment requiring the Government to seek permission under the Transport and Works Act to extend the line to Reading after a certain period was not accepted as drafted, and we accepted that because we do not wish to delay the Bill. However, everybody who knows anything about railways regards Maidenhead as a ridiculous place at which to terminate Crossrail. I have said before that it must have one of the highest rates of employment in the country. It would mean creating a train crew depot, a stabling point and all sorts of things on extremely valuable land with the prospect of it being almost impossible to get staff, whereas going to Reading, which has already been catered for in the plans for rebuilding Reading station, makes for a much more suitable terminus. I am not seeking for any reference to that in the Bill, but rather to know the Government’s intentions. There is also a strong conflict between people who want to see Crossrail as a metro service calling at all stations between Maidenhead and the other end in Essex—
Crossrail Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bradshaw
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 26 June 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Crossrail Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
702 c706GC Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-09-19 11:26:58 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_487453
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_487453
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_487453