Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Crossrail | Overspend triggers MPs’ demands for greater clarity


Just as Crossrail’s fortunes looked like changing, the most damning of assessments has been laid at its door.

Crossrail bosses had reason to be relatively upbeat this month as plans for an extension to Ebbsfleet were buoyed by the release of almost £5M in government cash for the route’s development, and Transport for London tied up a deal to sell and lease back Crossrail trains, freeing up £1bn in transport cash.

But if Crossrail has taught us anything, it is to remain pessimistic.

A report by the House of Commons public accounts committee has accused bosses at the Department for Transport (DfT) and Crossrail Ltd of having a “laissez-fair” attitude to the project’s overspend and demanded they reveal exactly how an additional £2.8bn of funding will be used to complete the line.

The committee also revealed that it was “sceptical” that the project will be delivered by the revised 2020 completion date and added that it was “not convinced […] that the additional £2.8bn of funding provided will be enough”.

In July 2018 the government announced an additional £590M of funding for the programme. After further cost increases and delays, in December 2018 the government announced £2.15bn of additional funding, bringing the total budget to £17.6bn.

Consequently, the committee has demanded to see exactly how the extra funding will be spent to ensure the project remains “value for money”.

The committee also criticises the DfT and Crossrail Ltd for failing to take responsibility for “the costs of this project [being] allowed to spiral out of control”, as well as slamming both for being “unable to identify the root causes of the programme unravelling so quickly and so disastrously”. 

Like what you’ve read? To receive New Civil Engineer’s daily and weekly newsletters click here.


Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.