http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icbirmingham/sep2005/6/9/0002E99D-BF21-133A-BDC90C01AC1BF814.gif

London grabs Brum rail cash
By David Bell, Birmingham Mail


MILLIONS of pounds earmarked to rebuild Birmingham's dingy New Street Station has been moved to help London build for the OIympics, it was revealed today.

As a result of the cash grab, it could be another decade before work starts to redevelop the overcrowded main line station, labelled Britain's worst.

West Midlands MPs are being mobilised to spearhead protests against the spending freeze imposed on an image-improving project which has become Birmingham's top priority.

"We have been knocked by the Government because all the available capital is going to build Olympic facilities for London," said the city's deputy leader Paul Tilsley.

"Even if the decision was reversed now you are talking about a minimum of seven years to see the start of the reconstruction of New Street Station. The need for investment in this busy rail hub is desperate - it is a run-down and neglected facility which projects a bad image of the West Midlands in general and Birmingham in particular.


"Everybody in Birmingham recognises the importance of this New Street Station rebuild and hopefully as a result of the pressure it will climb up the ladder of Government priority."


The council itself has guaranteed £2.5 million extra this year to progress design work on the project in the hope of a Whitehall change of mind.


But new Government spending plans reveal it will not be until 2014 - long after the Olympics - that the bulk of the £130 million of public money allocated to the project will be spent. Another £51 million is not allocated until 2016.


"The dream of a rebuilt New Street Station is slipping," said Coun Tilsley. "I wish we were looking at a more simple solution, but it is now looking like a very long-term project for Birmingham."

Why am I not suprised?

The sooner we get a directly elected mayor, the better...

come on Lord!!!!!!!!! Digby

I said all this on the 6th July - the day Sammaranch said L..o..n..d..o..n. Every single spare dime will go to the Olympic infrastructure. Also, don't play the Lotto if you don't want to pay for the Olympics - they're putting the money in too. Sorry Londoners if you read this but it's totally correct and a bloody travesty.

Sign of things to come to come im afraid , Leeds Liverpool Manchester and many other cities will suffer the same in the coming years.

Fucking outrageous

Fucking pathetic - but SOOOOOOOOOO PREDICTABLE.

Makes you wish deep down in your heart that London NEVER won the fucking Olympics. Cos this is EXACTLY the sort of scenario we could have foreseen. Whilst we're at it (and Alistair Fucking Darling should take note) how about ripping up ALL the new tracks and signalling laid down in the West Midlands and North West of England over the last 15 years of Railtrack blunders - transport them ALL down to London, rip up all the existing station buildings too (including the present New Street) - and rebuild them all in London Stratford just for the the benefit of the Olympics. And whilst we're at it - dig up all the tarmac from all the motorways north of Watford Gap - old and new (onmcluding the M6 toll road) and re-lay them all in East London to serve the Londoners and everybody that will be descending on the capital for the 2012 celebrations. And freeze any further money for new schools, hospitals, community projects, housing schemes, training and leisure facilities...and use that dosh to generously supply London for the Olympics. Honestly, the sort of pathetic shortsightedness is verging on a huge national joke. I mean, how many more U-turns must we see from the fucking government or transport secretaries before the first word of any credibility concerning the New Street fiasco is made official? How many more? How fucking useless is this fucking government? Truly they are coming close to rivalling if not surpassing John Major's conservatives as the most pathetically inept and backward-looking bunch of wankers we have ever had the continuing misfortune to see in office. This is effectively another death knell for the city to bring its station up to the standards that every other fucking major city terminus in the UK has long enjoyed.

Maybe the only thing for it is for a terrorist bomb to hit New Street station - I know that sounds really sick but - seriously - think about it - it will be THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN SHAKE THE BASTARD GOVERNMENT OUT OF THEIR FUCKING COMPLACENCY AND REGIONAL FAVOURITISM TO GET OFF THEIR FUCKING ARSES AND ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING WITH REGARD TO INVESTING HUGE SUMS OF MUCH NEEDED CAPITAL TO REBUILDING THE STATION FROM SCRATCH. We all know how they only act in a knee-jerk way once the damage has been done - whichever way you look at it - the only way we will ever see the government and Network Rail spending a billion on rebuilding New Street is if somebody like Al Qaeda reduced it a smoking shattered ruin first - injuring/ killing loads of people in the process. That's how the government work - only acting when it's too late and AFTER the shit has hit the fan. This is fucking true - don't anyone try to deny it. :bash: :bleep: :bleep: :rant: :rant:

This news makes me so fucking angry. It's things like this that make me hate and resent London cos as ever it gets everything - even the money that is supposed to be rightfully allocated to other cities to help regenerate its key infrastructure projects. The way things are going the system in the Midlands will grind to a complete halt and no matter how many fucking amazing fast tilting bastard trains the Government wish to have in service, if they have to navigate the bottleneck that is the New Street area they will soon realise the sheer foolishness and gross stupidity of their lack of judgement and foresight. After all - it's all very well talking about making train journeys faster - but I take it the fucking powers that be conveniently overlook the GLARING fact that many cross country servivces have to - by sheer lack of choice - use New Street as a crucial connecting hub? How the fuck do they expect to have a fully reliable and fast modern network up and running by whatever pathetically over optimistic timescale they set out, when they conveniently overlook the strategic importance of the biggest/busiest interchange station right in the centre of the country - one which has been crying out desperately for a much deserved expansion and redevelopment? :evil: And one whose continual neglect and sidelining in this way in favour of other priorities will have grave consequences on the future of THE WHOLE RAIL NATIONAL NETWORK IN THAT THE EVER WORSENING DELAYS AND DISRUPTION WILL HAVE SERIOUS KNOCK-ON EFFECTS AND BE FELT IN ALL CORNERS OF THE COUNTRY thus completely rubbishing their ambitions to have the most modern and reliable railway in Europe in the next 10 years (what a fucking wanky naïve notion anyway!!). What a bunch of complete and utter incompetent, arrogant, hare-brained, pontificating, backpedalling, bullshitting tossers! :rant: :rant: :rant: :bash: :bash:

I just hope Londoner's Council Taxes GO THROUGH THE FUCKING ROOF when they realise the expense that will inevitably arise from all this. I just hope to god that this happens - cos they deserve to see the full cost of this over glorified prestige bandwagon that the Government seem so keen on jumping on ....... then the shit will hit the fan and Joe Public will be making a nice big song and dance about it. So long as us northerners are kept out of it and don't have such gross indignities bestowed upon us. I mean, what is it that makes our authorities and powers that be go so ridiculously OVERBOARD whenever something as trifling and - let's face it - completely ephemeral - as the fucking Olympics comes along? How fucking futile and meaningless is this huge wasteful expenditure just for the benefit of a couple of weeks...and then it's all over. How fucking obscene is that? The cost to the taxpayer will be astronomical as it stands. But then, why does the world in general go doolally over such pathetically and ultimately worthless short-term ventures? What exactly do they think will happen as a result of being in the world spotlight just for a few weeks? That suddenly life is wonderful and everybody lives happily ever after again for the sake of a few dubious fucking track and field events? That there will be no more urban blight, poverty and crime and war and suffering and inequality cos the Olympics has put our country on the world map! BIG FUCKING DEAL!!! Like I said many times before - when it comes to sport the powers that be really do take leave of their senses and all logic, rationale and judgement goes sailing out the window..... It's a very curious trait that modern humanity seems to have that I cannot ever get my head around trying to understand. Why is sports such a big fucking deal? I mean, WHY??? Suddenly everything else seems to take a back seat and other more important things play second fiddle just to make way for this sort of tokenistic orgy of obscene self-aggrandisement and profligacy that isn't even a permanent attraction anyway. It makes me fucking sick to the back teeth.

:evil: :rant: :bash: :bash:

I said all this on the 6th July - the day Sammaranch said L..o..n..d..o..n. Every single spare dime will go to the Olympic infrastructure. Also, don't play the Lotto if you don't want to pay for the Olympics - they're putting the money in too. Sorry Londoners if you read this but it's totally correct and a bloody travesty.

actually specific lotto games are helping fund some of the games(e.g. going for gold)

^Whoop-di-fucking-doo :sleepy:

Double-Fuck the Olympics I say - we need to sort the fucking mess at Brum NS out, otherwise - I kid you not - IT WILL BE ARMA-FUCKING-GEDDON FOR THE WHOLE UK RAIL NETWORK - THAT IS NO LIE! :bash: :evil:

As I said on the Brum Transport thread. BCC shoud close New Street Station a couple of times (on safety grounds of course). The moment it stops trains leaving London due to the backlog, *ping* suddenly £120m is found.

Quite. I mean, once a complete blockade arises as a direct result of a shutdown of New Street station - if only for even a few hours every day, London more than any other place will soon feel the dire consequences - and when they realise that their own fucking economy (be it tourist, leisure, business, shopping, etc) is being threatened by people not being able to access the capital by all the rail routes which pass through the West Midlands area - not to mention the effects it would have on the roads (i.e. more traffic = even MORE congestion and lack of roadspace, thus tailbacks could stretch hundreds of miles on all main arterial routes as a result more people being forced onto the roads due to the situation at New Street), the fucking idiots that make the final decisions on where to allocate the much needed investment that has been promised for so long now might soon reconsider their priorities. Fuckheads. I mean, even a complete idiot can tell you that congestion at New Street directly has knock effects on virtually the whole nationwide network north south east and west (with the exception of the ECML, western lines from Paddington and all points south of the Capital of course) that ultimately serves London, so if other regions feel the effects of the congestion due to the lack of capacity there then surely that should shake the Government out of their prevailing ignorance and complacency.

Seriously I KNEW that this was going to happen - that headline (of this thread) was just inevitable anyway. I really don't know which of the two ongoing Brum sagas is frankly more exasperating - its bid to get its first skyscraper scheme up (Arena Central) or its much-needed redevelopment and complete rebuilding of New Street station. It really beggars belief that these two fiascos have been going on and on for the best part of a combined 25 years between them - without in so much as a concrete decision or indeed light at the end of the tunnel in sight...... :rant: :bleep:

cant the council and businesses raise any bulk of the capital? Surely Birmingham isnt as tongue tied as say Weymouth council?!

cant the council and businesses raise any bulk of the capital? Surely Birmingham isnt as tongue tied as say Weymouth council?!

It shouldnt be all down to Birmingham - the Goverment screws over this city in every way possible.

New Street is a must, and if its not redeveloped soon it will bring the UK rail network to a stand still before we know it.

Plus its got the added advantage that there planning twin residential towers for the site aswell ;)

well the estimated cost of the station is £350 million......... £100m from the council and £150m from local business......... but the governemnt are still needed for that extra £100m....without it, the work can not start

how about this as a protest.

puttin banner of protect across the bridges over the west coast mainline through the west mids (new street branch and lichfield branch). they would probably have to close the tracks whilst they be removed due to health and safety reason.......

...tracks are closed, trains in chaos, no live sare put at risk, and the governemnt soon get the message!!!!

no lives put at risk dangling a banner over power cables that are carrying about 17k Volts!!!

.....lol, ofcouse the people putting them up wouldnt be swinging over the cables.......

no lives put at risk dangling a banner over power cables that are carrying about 17k Volts!!!

Er...I think you'll find that the voltage is actually 25,000 Volts AC..... :yes:

how about this as a protest.



puttin banner of protect across the bridges over the west coast mainline through the west mids (new street branch and lichfield branch). they would probably have to close the tracks whilst they be removed due to health and safety reason.......



...tracks are closed, trains in chaos, no live sare put at risk, and the governemnt soon get the message!!!!

A nice dream for sure Woody - but, given the sickening prevailing apathy that 99% of the population have been infected with, who is going to be that moved into such drastic methods of direct action? :dunno:

If that's true - it's completely out of order.

I blame Zaha Hadid!

Slightly off topic but related, if this article is true and that transport funds are being diverted to London, is there any news about the Birmingham Tram extension. Is this still happening or has this gone into the long grass as well.

going for permission in the next 2 months i read......until the olympics, it had full backing for the governemnt who encouraged BCC to apply now

A nice dream for sure Woody - but, given the sickening prevailing apathy that 99% of the population have been infected with, who is going to be that moved into such drastic methods of direct action? :dunno:

well birmingham has a population of just under one million....that leaves about 1000 people willing.... and of those who are interested for the cause.......

but in all seriousness, this is a major thing if true.... and people should get behind the cause......letter yes, but disruption is the way forward

This should cheer Martin G up:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4692536.stm

:runaway:

what a fucking digrace

This should cheer Martin G up:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4692536.stm



:runaway:

Well, doesn't that sort of thing just further support my theory - no, scrub that - FIRM BELIEF - that 95% of railway investment is specifically allocated to LONDON PROJECTS AND FUCK EVERYWHERE ELSE??? I said this absolutely years ago - long before I even started posting on SSC - and it's a situation that even the most retarded and brain dead philistines could tell you - whenever London wants any cash for its rail investments - no matter how far down the pecking order of priority it happens to be - it IMMEDIATELY GETS IT - effectively leapfrogging over every other poor region that has been patiently queueing up for years - DECADES EVEN - for some investment cash.

The government/Network rail have NO FUCKING CREDIBILITY AT ALL ANYMORE regarding their arrogant/conceited attitude to sorting out the railways - that is the absolute fucking truth. They are fucking IDIOTS of the highest order. They really haven't got a fucking clue. It's always fucking LONDON LONDON LONDON LONDON LONDON first and fucking sod everyone else. Honestly the constant London-centric favouritism shown by the fucking government and transport secretary year in year out is nothing short of sickening. They really are taking the piss.

It really makes you fucking wonder if we will ever EVER get a properly integrated and reliable transport system / rail system if all they keep doing EVERY FUCKING OPPORTUNITY is to keep allocating the bulk of the money topping up the London network improvements such that very little is left for other regions.... This may also explain why that useless fucking u-turning specialist bell end Alistair TWATTING C**FACE FUCKWIT Darling is planning to close loads of branch / secondary lines and replace them with buses, thus doing a neat U-turn on the environmental issue too - so that the cash saved from these would be ploughed into London for the fucking 2012 Olympics. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY THE TRUTH - THERE IS NO OTHER WAY OF LOOKING AT IT - I MEAN, COME ON, IT'S FUCKING OBVIOUS WHY HE MADE THIS ANNOUNCEMENT AS A "MONEY SAVING" MEASURE - TO HIM IT'S SIMPLY MORE ECONOMICAL TO DEPRIVE THESE LINES OF ANY MORE CASH AND JUST RE-DIRECT IT TO WHERE IT MATTERS MOST - LONDON!!!!!. :rant: :rant: :evil:

I mean - how long has the double deck expansion proposal at St Pancras been on the drawing board for before the work commenced? - I bet it wasn't even three years!!! :evil: And yet it's almost finished! Compare that with the diabolical situation at Birmingham - they have been breaking their backs for decades now campaiging and pleading with the government / railtrack etc, for money to relieve the congestion at/redevelop New Street and here we are 20 years later and all we've managed to get is one poxy new platform indented into one of the existing ones to create a new bay - plus the usual pathetic desultory cosmetic flourishes like new signage and new light bulbs - WOW BIG FUCKING DEAL - IS THAT MONEY WELL SPENT? Meanwhile London comes up with every fucking ambitious proposal under the sun, and because it's London, it gets approved and started on - no matter how prohibitive the cost.

Put it this way - the money spent on the Channel Tunnel link and the Kings Cross/St Pancras overhauls would have also quite easily have paid for the quadrupling of the line between Wolverhampton, Brum and Coventry and also the complete rebuilding of New Street - along with new deep level underground platforms - with cash to spare. But, oh no, Network rail would rather prefer to defer the scheme on the grounds of being "too expensive" and instead look at new ways of addressing the problem - which is basically their way of saying "let's delay it as much as we can and see if people eventually lose interest, then we can instead use the cash that was set aside / promised for the project to be used on more London schemes that weren't quite as urgent anyway but we'll press ahead with regardless cos it's London you understand?"

They make me FUCKING SICK. And every new fucking bit of news that emerges from the mouth of the Transport secretary and his equally out-of-touch cronies - you can guarantee that it will be more of the same - all the fucking time - repeat to infinity.

Here's the final word - if anything - from their side of the argument: A double decked major railway station would be totally unjustified anywhere in the country - unless it happens to be London. OF COURSE! Of fucking course!!

:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:

why do people blame london for this. its not london's fault the govt has decided not to put up cash, its the fault of people who voted for the pricks

why do people blame london for this. its not london's fault the govt has decided not to put up cash, its the fault of people who voted for the pricks

That doesn't really wash though - ANY fucking government that has been voted into office since the war has tended to have London's interests more at heart - it's bloody obvious. You cannot deny that there has always been such a level of favouritism at the expense of other regions. Everything London wants - it usually always gets - Olympics, National Stadium, new rail projects, skyscrapers - everything. It might seem churlish to say it even now but I really do believe that in some respects we are becoming a one-city state. For every 20 new rail projects that the government are willing to allocate large amounts of cash for (and this has been always the case for as long as I can remember, not just now) - I'd say 15 of them end up for the benefit of London or the London area, leaving the remaining five to be fought for between the rest of the country.

Waterloo, Euston and Victoria as well, only a couple of BILLION for London.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9077-2025083,00.html

E&Y to control vast railway station facelift
Dominic O’Connell and Mark Kleinman


NETWORK RAIL has recruited Ernst & Young to run a multi-billion pound redevelopment of its largest stations, starting with London’s Euston and Victoria.
The government-backed rail group, owner and operator of Britain’s rail network and its major stations, appointed E&Y on Friday. The contract had been hotly contested by two of the accountancy group’s rivals, KPMG and Price Waterhouse Coopers. Insiders said that the project would involve redevelopment work potentially worth several billion pounds.



E&Y will have the job of encouraging private investment in stations in the next decade. Programmes will follow the example of Broadgate, the City office complex built above the tracks leading into Liverpool Street station.

Network Rail has already begun the development of two other London terminals, Paddington and King’s Cross. Euston and Victoria are next, with the former having already attracted 13 expressions of interest from development companies. The two have seen little development in 40 years. Euston is used by 50m passengers a year, and Victoria by 115m.

The 15 acres at Euston means the footprint of the eventual development will rival the size of Canary Wharf. But the need to maintain protected views from Primrose Hill to St Paul’s Cathedral means that the buildings will be about 4.3m sq ft in size, compared with Canary Wharf’s existing estate of some 6m sq ft.

At Victoria station, a development of just under 1m sq ft is envisaged.

The list of developers vying for a role in the programme is a roll-call of the great and good in British property. Stanhope has expressed its interest, as has Elliott Bernerd’s Chelsfield, along with Sir John Ritblat’s British Land and Delancey, his son Jamie’s property group.

After Euston and Victoria, Network Rail and E&Y are expected later this year to put out tenders for the redevelopment of Waterloo.

The winning developers are expected to set up joint ventures into which Network Rail will inject its property assets. A similar programme of development is planned for 50 large regional hubs, and some of Britain’s smaller stations.

Last week the Commons public accounts select committee issued a report condemning the state of Britain’s dilapidated railway stations.

“Far too many small and medium-sized stations are threatening places, with poorly lit, graffiti-covered passages and platforms, vandalised facilities and no staff on hand. A third of the larger stations in England and Wales have no waiting rooms and there are no lavatories at some 15%,” said Edward Leigh MP, the committee’s chairman.

The report said the structure of the industry since privatisation in 1996 had given little incentive to train companies to improve facilities, and that stations had suffered because different industry bodies were at loggerheads.

Network Rail is a not-for-profit company that replaced Railtrack after it collapsed into administration in 2001. It has raised finance for railway investment through a series of long-dated bond issues, with its borrowings ultimately guaranteed by the government. Work has recently begun on Network Rail’s financing for the five-year period from April 2009.

Rail experts predict that a likely cut in government funding will mean the closure of some branch lines and loss-making routes.

From Martin G:
That doesn't really wash though - ANY fucking government that has been voted into office since the war has tended to have London's interests more at heart - it's bloody obvious. You cannot deny that there has always been such a level of favouritism at the expense of other regions. Everything London wants - it usually always gets - Olympics, National Stadium, new rail projects, skyscrapers - everything. It might seem churlish to say it even now but I really do believe that in some respects we are becoming a one-city state. For every 20 new rail projects that the government are willing to allocate large amounts of cash for (and this has been always the case for as long as I can remember, not just now) - I'd say 15 of them end up for the benefit of London or the London area, leaving the remaining five to be fought for between the rest of the country. (My emphasis)

Regrettably and inequitably for everywhere in this country that is not London this trend seems to be accelerating. Can it be stopped or, more realistically, slowed down?

It seems to be a blanket cancellation of all government public transport projects from what I can see.

The London termini projects are privately funded and will add offices above them. They will do precious little to improve the transport side. They are office developments, not transport projects.

Government funded projects are also being cancelled in London. Take the newly built Thameslink station under St.Pancras. The space is there, but there are no platforms and the money is not there to pay for them any time soon. So even half built projects, desparetly close to being useful are being put on hold. Crossrail may be going through the motions, but there is no plan of how to pay for it. All we know is that most of the money will have to come from the private sector.

So neither major party supports public transport at even the basic level. Where do we go from here? Depressing stuff.

...and it looks to me like the spinners are trying the old divide and conquer routine. That is, get the North to blame the South and while arguing about taxes, spending and the price of a chip butty the spotlight is well and truly off the cause of the problem.

Government funded projects are also being cancelled in London. Take the newly built Thameslink station under St.Pancras. The space is there, but there are no platforms and the money is not there to pay for them any time soon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4692536.stm

Lets face it, with the Olympics in the back you can bet all government funding on capital projects are going to be geared to making sure London does a good job in front of the Global Eye: as such everything must be seen to work smoothly, including the much criticised transport infrastructure. And as such most major capital projects (Government or PFI) will be aimed at improving these areas and sod the periphery

Then again old Ken seems to be screwing local residents in London wanting an increase of up to 13% on council tax bills - some of it to pay for the Olympics! How democratic

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4689176.stm

Well rather Londoner's foot the bill for the Olympics than the rest of us - there'd be complete all out mutiny if our councils were suddenly told part of our annual extortionate increases (Stockport is planning a whopping 12.5% hike - utterly shocking or what?) were to fund the "UK" olympic bid. No fucking way - they can piss right off ! :evil:

well its even more important BCC gets it act together with trying to convince the Chinese Olympic team & media to stay in Birmingham during the 2012 games. This would be of huge benefit to the city on the global stage if we get it right; coupled with huge amounts of foreign money coming into the city in terms of tourism, business and hopefully new investment.

Add all this up and it could wipe out any potential cost Birmingham directly/indirectly pays towards the games via lost government revenue with capital projects such as NSS

er... council tax increases are nothing to do with this, councils are using the olympics as an excuse. stop blaming london. its the fucking politicans

I don't think this is London's fault....but that of national government. It is unfair to use London as a scapegoat when for years the network although extensive has been as massively underfunded as the complete network. You complain about New Street being bad....Victoria has to regularly close shop during rush hour because it gets so bad. The Victoria Line platforms at Victoria handle some 70mppa - thats more than Birmingham New Street and its not a nice place to be at rush hour.

That said I believe transport projects should be pushed through around the country. Be that tram projects, re-builds such as New Street and other projects to create a more cohesive and efficient national network.

The only way things will change is if Brummies are to come together and vent their anger at government instead of a futile effort at stabbing London...because Manchester did the same and it goes nowhere to actually helping the situation. At the same time you anger Londoners and those that are stuck in the same boat and it does not good whatsoever to anyone. So instead of going on about London and the Olympics, why not go to government and actually demand for suitable aid for projects like New Street to coincide with the Olympics. Its when you do this that the chances of success rapidly increase.

Er...I think you will find that I am not blaming London at all in my outbursts above but, if you bothered to properly read every single word of what I put up there, I actually aimed all my vitriol directly at the government and the transport secretary - for their shortsightedness and arrogance in constantly sidelining the needs of other important regional stations (such as BNS) to favour London projects - wasn't that what I was ranting to the dozen about all along???

And yes, I believe Brum has already put in a case for government cash to be allocated to solving the dreadful capacity problems at New Street - TIME AND TIME AGAIN - but have the government ever listened once and acted on their promises? Has the transport secretary ever listened once and acted on his promises? Have they fuck! It's forever stuck at amber and/or back to square one all the time isn't it? So what the hell does one have to do? Every single person in the West Midlands conurbation to write angry letters to them demanding why they haven't even now allocated much needed investment money to solving this fucking shambles once and for all - whilst other stations such as Leeds and Manchester Piccadilly - and now, Edinburgh Waverley - have already had the luxury of millions invested in improvements and redevelopment?

I wasn't aiming my post at you specifically, but more at the thread title, the original post and the following posts made by some forumers.

I should note that the Thameslink situation was (and until its finished) bad. Its meant to be a north-south line from Bedford to Brighton but is currently split in half because this station that the other article posted illustrates, has yet to be furnished....even though its been physically ready for a year nearly. Imagine having to get off at one end of New Street and walk to the other end to carry your journey on what would normally have been a through route, because essentially that is what is currently in operation. New Street sure is a dump - but at least it has through services.

People moan about Crossrail....but thats a project that should have started back in the 1930's! Crossrail is perhaps the longest going project in rail history anywhere in the world and we still don't have secure funding for that.....we are all in the same boat and we need to be rowing in the same direction, not against each other.

If I was a billionaire...I'd personally be financing and constructing Birmingham New Street as it is one of the horrors of Britain's railways, along with Euston.

Reason #1063 that power should be devolved to English regions. :yes:

Reason #1063 that power should be devolved to English regions. :yes:

Power of that magnitude, will never be devolved to us provincial bumpkins. We're just too stupid to take on such responsibilities.

guess thats the benefit the regions will get from the games then.......a lot more nothing than they expected

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4692536.stm
ouch! Where's the shoot-in-foot emoticon?

Still we shouldn't be fighting over scraps, there is not a single part of the UK that doesn't have pressing transport problems that are being ignored by the invisible minister at the invisible ministry.

No Bob, the difference is all of our needs are ignored, whilst only some of Londons are.

I challenge anyone to provide a quote similar to this from any non-London politician...

London mayor Ken Livingstone said: "We are delighted the government has stepped in and agreed to fund these works, which are vital to improving rail services in London.

"Not only will it deliver a modern, expanded and accessible station, it is a critical piece of the jigsaw in delivering our Olympic transport plans."

To be fair to London, you are all acting as if London and Londoners are some evil homogenous group that are wilfully trying to keep the regions down. This is clearly not true.

While I am not suggesting that transport issues are bad in the regions I think everyone would have to admit that London too suffered from years of neglect when it came to transport. The Tube for example was starved of cash for the best part of 30 years. Speak to tubeman to hear about the daily delays from out-of-date technology and congestion which to be honest there are laws against it for animals transport. Try being on the Tube in summer when temperatures top 30 degrees.

It must also be pointed out that most of the transport projects in London are being funded by debt and fares. For example a single Zone 1 ticket now costs £3 a daily travelcard costs nearly £5, London has THE most expensive underground network in the world.

London like the rest of the country has hardly received ANY money from the Labour government for transport. The CTRL and Croydon trams were all commissioned by the Tories, as was Sheffiled Supertram, Manchester Metrolink and Nottingham trams.

Ken has put up council tax on top of the borough increases every year, as well as fares every year and the GLA is now in debt up to its eyeballs.

I do sympathise with the provincial cities though as its clear they would benefit from city wide government. Remember also though the GLA doesn't really have a great deal of power, the government still has to approve all debt and transport projects. And we can see the lip-service they have paid to Crossrail while not putting forward ANY money for it.

I know it can seem like London gets everything but conceivably you would all support a Manchester or Brummie Olympic bid but the IOC repeatedly said if we want the olympics to come to the UK, the only city they would want is London.

I know people don't like to admit it but London is our capital city after all, do you think the French complain that Paris got the Stade De France, the way we complain that London got the National Stadium?

We should be proud that we pulled off getting the olympics when we suffer from the national disease of 'we can never do anything right'. I want everyone to be proud that we got the olympics, but remember that again the government only supported it if it would pay an minimum amount out of taxpayers money, its being financed by the lottery, London councill tax, sponsorship and the London development agency.

But I'll repeat again, i do fully support transport projects in the whole country. It is something we ALL suffer from and the Labour government has neglected since it came to power.

From pricemazda:
I know people don't like to admit it but London is our capital city after all, do you think the French complain that Paris got the Stade De France, the way we complain that London got the National Stadium?

You bet your ass they do! French people outside Paris are just as pissed off with how the capital sucks up most of the goodies as anyone on the forums over here is pissed off with London getting more than its fair share.

To be fair to London, you are all acting as if London and Londoners are some evil homogenous group that are wilfully trying to keep the regions down. This is clearly not true.

While I am not suggesting that transport issues are bad in the regions I think everyone would have to admit that London too suffered from years of neglect when it came to transport. The Tube for example was starved of cash for the best part of 30 years. Speak to tubeman to hear about the daily delays from out-of-date technology and congestion which to be honest there are laws against it for animals transport. Try being on the Tube in summer when temperatures top 30 degrees.

It must also be pointed out that most of the transport projects in London are being funded by debt and fares. For example a single Zone 1 ticket now costs £3 a daily travelcard costs nearly £5, London has THE most expensive underground network in the world.

London like the rest of the country has hardly received ANY money from the Labour government for transport. The CTRL and Croydon trams were all commissioned by the Tories, as was Sheffiled Supertram, Manchester Metrolink and Nottingham trams.

Ken has put up council tax on top of the borough increases every year, as well as fares every year and the GLA is now in debt up to its eyeballs.

I do sympathise with the provincial cities though as its clear they would benefit from city wide government. Remember also though the GLA doesn't really have a great deal of power, the government still has to approve all debt and transport projects. And we can see the lip-service they have paid to Crossrail while not putting forward ANY money for it.

I know it can seem like London gets everything but conceivably you would all support a Manchester or Brummie Olympic bid but the IOC repeatedly said if we want the olympics to come to the UK, the only city they would want is London.

I know people don't like to admit it but London is our capital city after all, do you think the French complain that Paris got the Stade De France, the way we complain that London got the National Stadium?

We should be proud that we pulled off getting the olympics when we suffer from the national disease of 'we can never do anything right'. I want everyone to be proud that we got the olympics, but remember that again the government only supported it if it would pay an minimum amount out of taxpayers money, its being financed by the lottery, London councill tax, sponsorship and the London development agency.

But I'll repeat again, i do fully support transport projects in the whole country. It is something we ALL suffer from and the Labour government has neglected since it came to power.

You have some good points Pricemazda, and we all know it isn't "London" that creates this unfairness - London and Londoners have their wants and needs and it is the people that allocate funding etc that are responsible.

The statement "While I am not suggesting that transport issues are bad in the regions I think everyone would have to admit that London too suffered from years of neglect when it came to transport. The Tube for example was starved of cash for the best part of 30 years." is unfair though because I think this typifies the London-centric attitudes that prevail (not that I am suggesting you meant it in the way I am portraying). The Tube may be starved of cash but at least you have a half-decent public transport system. In the many of the UK's large cities, we simply do not have one. The buses are dirty and graffitied and cannot carry the volume, commuter trains are packed and have to share lines with Intercity (and there aren't enough lines in the first place) and many cities do not have trams. Therefore we drive, and it takes people over an hour to get home even though they live a few miles away. Transport in the regions, I would say, is much worse than London. London has much better infrastructure and has a critical mass of population that makes mass transit a viable alternative. Many of the London issues are capacity-related.

As for the Olympics - I am delighted that London won (and even more delighted that we beat the Frogs ;) ) BUT I do not want to see projects cancelled because of a financial black hole. The Olympic vilage should rightly be funded by London as it will reap the benefits, but the upgrade to infrastructure etc should not be done at the expense of other projects around the country. The Olympics should be on top of what we are doing, not instead of.

And we complain about Wembley because the whole thing is a farcical fiasco mired in corruption and run by idiots. The FA stole money from Sport England for a multi-purpose stadium that can only host football and rugby (and that is why it is NOT the National Stadium, it is the National Football Stadium), and the country generally wanted the stadium to be elsewhere.

Oh, and the French do complain about Paris getting everything... :)

But you are right - we all have our transport problems and it is not London's fault that things get done there and not elsewhere. Who can blame you? :cheers1:

I think that Darling is the worst minister in the government, he is virtually invisible hoping to keep transport off the agenda. Take the Tube PPP, which is a stupid system that has not delivered on improvements and is stupidly expensive. The government refuses to accept any of the risk in transport projects and this is why costs spiral out of control whether on crossrail or metrolink extensions or Leeds trams.

I do agree with you that the Olympics should be in addition to other projects. It is a sorry state of affairs that transport improvements in London can only be achieved by having the government suffienctly embarassed into providing legislative support for projects (note they have provided very little cash, as I said previously most improvements are being funded by extortionate fares and debt) crossrail being a case in point. The new Moorhouse building for example they built in one half of a Liverpool St station for crossrail, with the government asking the city and canary wharf group to fund large portions of it, but as yet no government funding has been forthcoming. Crossrail will never happen in my view.

But, London already contributes over £20 billion a year in more in taxes than is spent in London. You only have to go to London schools where parents can't even get their kids into thei 5th and 6th choice schools and send their kids to other boroughs for schools. So I do not agree that London gets more than its fair share. London already contains 6 of the poorest 10 districts in the whole of the UK, so while London has immense wealth it is not across the board. And the Olympics will do alot to help the age old neglect of east London. The Tube largely serves the affluent north and west London, and South and east london have got nothing. But i think its right that when we live in ONE country the richest parts should help the poorest, unfortunately Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales receive most help while English regions receive virtually nothing. We desperately need to work out a new Barnett Formula.

I think the solution for our cities is to give back city wide government that London has so clearly benefitted from. The government devolved power to the English region most likely to vote yes in, as seen in the north east where the crappy proposals were rightly rejected. If they had given the North East assembly more power i think people would have voted yes. We need to allow all parts of the UK to take these decisions for themselves. But remember alot of this is about the Public Sector borrowing requirement, which the markets take a rather dim view of, so shifting debt to other public bodies would increase this national debt level and mean interest rates would have to go up to service this debt.

I also don't agree that the National football stadium should have gone anywhere else given the history and world wide fame of Wembley. Can you imagine the FA announcing that Wembley would no longer be the home of English football?

I also think the logic is flawed that moving it to Birmingham was the right solution, do we seriously suggest that the Monarchy should move to the midlands so it can be more accesible to the wider country? How about moving Downing St to Leeds? We have a Capital city for a reason.

I think its a scandal we have not had a major new motorway built by the government, or new trainline. Remember the new freight line? The government rejected it, or how they are now going to move rail subsidies from trains to buses and closing urban and rural routes, shifting traffic onto the roads.

The governments transport policy is focused on managing demand rather than increasing supply. Hence increased rail fares, or road pricing.

I just wish the public got angry about transport instead of the resigned acceptance of a crappy infrastructure.

BTW, in France their cities actually have a lot of independence, so hence why large french cities have trams and undergrounds, but the french government also has a large motorway building programme (Milau viaduct) and the TGVs connecting all of France. The UK government could never be that forward thinking.

We should turn on each other, as this allows the government to get off scott free. By turning on London or fighting for scraps means there isn't a coherent campaign on transport. London should be an ally not a enemy.

As I said on the Brum Transport thread. BCC shoud close New Street Station a couple of times (on safety grounds of course). The moment it stops trains leaving London due to the backlog, *ping* suddenly £120m is found.

I have shared this opinion for some time, a couple of years back I wrote to the Department of transport and the Prime Minister regarding these issues, the problem that used to infuriate me when commuting from Thame Bridge to City centre was that every morning there would be a full platform of people waiting to get onto an already full train coming from North Mids, often to our amazement a train with a single carriage would arrive at rush hour, stop open its doors with a load of irate squashed in passengers looking out at us who would be looking in and shaking our heads, I had several warnings from work for time keeping due to this but amazingly there isn't even a direct bus route from where I lived (Charlemont Farm). Then even more frustrating was having to wait outside new street for Virgin inter city trains to use Brum as their national cross roads while all local services seemed to take second slot. You can guarantee though, if we closed New Street on safety a few times the government would suddenly find the money to build a new super station in Rugby :)

Here was my first response from the Direct Communications Unit, 10 Downing street 2003:

-----------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Thing,

The Prime Minister has asked me to thank you on his behalf for your recent letter and to say that the views you have expressed have been carefully noted.
He would also like to reply personally, but, as you will appreciate, he receives many thousands of letters each week and this is not possible.
The subject you raise is the responsibility of the Department for Transport. Mr Blair has asked that your letter be forwarded to that department, so that they, too, are aware of your views and can reply to the detailed points you raise.
Yours sincerely
Delvene Jayasundara

------------------------------------------------

Then from Department for Transport 2003...

-------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Thing,

Light Rail

Thank you for your letter of 21st July which has been passed to me for reply. Please accept my delay in responding.

The Government has made a commitment in its Ten Year Plan (Transport 2010: The Ten Year Plan - July 2000) to reduce congestion, improve public transport, have cleaner air and a safer environment for walking and cycling.

We are working in partnership with local authorities, as part of the Local Transport Plan (LTP) process, to take forward transport schemes to deliver the best public transport solution in local areas. However, it is for the local authorities to put forward and prioritise projects for funding and therefore you may wish to approach your local authority directly to discuss your ideas.

We have taken note of your views and appreciate the time and effort you have given this.
Yours Sincerely
Vida Browne - Campbell

-------------------------------------------------------

then also from Dept For Transport 2003.........

-----------------------

Dear Mr Thing,

Thank you for your letter of 19th July about lack of investment into Birmingham New Street Station. Your letter has been passed for me to reply as this division deals with railway policy issues.

The strategic rail authority (SRA) has so far invested £2 million in developing solutions to passenger overcrowding at New Street Station with Network Rail. The SRA led discussions on the issue at a working seminar in June and is now consulting with stakeholders on how to take this forward. This has led to a very positive approach to development, led by Birmingham City Council with the support of the SRA. New Street Station is part of the fabric of the city and its development is clearly linked with that of the City centre; it is appropriate, therefore, that the City Council should be taking the lead in this matter. A partnership, to be chaired by Sir Albert Bore, Leader of the City Council, is being established and the SRA will be playing a full and active roll in it.

New Street Station has had to close once due to overcrowding, when the motor show coincided with a half term holiday, resulting in abnormally excessive crowds. The station is not closed on a regular basis. The SRA believes that the increased frequency of Virgin Cross Country trains as well as services on the main line to London will help to reduce the risk of temporary closures by clearing passengers more quickly from the station. In the longer term the SRA recognises the need for increased capacity at New Street, and this issue underlines the work with the City Council to find solutions to the problem.

I hope that this clarifies the situation.
Yours sincerely,

Farhat Naheed.

--------------------------------

Since these letters I have given up on local rail and decided to drive everywhere, I used to use rail transport regularly and actually quite enjoyed the break from being behind the wheel but the delays and cancellations on the main Hereford line were so diabolical it really was as if everyone had just given up caring and accepted things were shit, well that ain't good enough when you are relying on public transport to get you to your destination on time you can't afford an hour or two's delay, there is actually not much difference time wise in getting from Hereford to Manchester or London as there is travelling to Birmingham which is ludicrous considering the close proximity of Brum to Hereford. There really is little point in having the line between Hereford and the West Mids at all any more and I honestly do not say that lightly. :bash:

Thanks for that EK (or Mr Thing :lol: )

It shows what cretins work for the DfT too. "The SRA believes that the increased frequency of Virgin Cross Country trains as well as services on the main line to London will help to reduce the risk of temporary closures by clearing passengers more quickly from the station." Rubbish. Increased frequency will encourage more users so the station will get busier, and what happens when there is a problem such as broken down train? You have MORE trains waiting behind it! :bash:

Pricemazda, when Birmingham bid for the 1992 Olympics in the mid 1980's, at that moment in time the IOC did not say it would only support a bid from London, else the City of Birmingham would not have committed political suicide by wasting millions of pounds of local tax payers money!! The IOC has since said it would only support a London bid from these islands, so since that statement no other British city would bother bidding for it. What a shame we weren't a bit more like Germany, where at least 6 of it's cities, such as Munich, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne & Dresden could all conceivably bid for an Olympic games!!!

The olympics has moved up a gear now with Sydney, Athens and Beijing and given the competition for 2012, to have had Birmingham as our candidate might have look strange against New York, Paris, Madrid and Moscow.

FLD - Germany is not like the UK or France though in having a very large capital city much bigger than the second, third... cites. Germany has many cities over a million, several over 2 and Berlin is 4 million max. Germany is more of a collection of states which are far more independent to each other.

I think other parts of the UK other than London and Scotland need elected regional assemblies which can take on their own debt. Scotland hasn't got the large scale transport projects London may be talking about (and it is still talking), but it is getting transport investment with new rail lines being built to the airports and Edinburgh 3 route tram is likely to go ahead.

But even that would not be ideal either. Why should regional assemblies get into debt and raise fairs so much? In my mind one of the principle responsibilites of a government is to provide the infrastructure for the economy to flourish. It's a admin task in effect and they're not playing the role. John Prescott had the right idea. He put all sorts of tranpsort and environment projects in motion across the country.

The olympics has moved up a gear now with Sydney, Athens and Beijing and given the competition for 2012, to have had Birmingham as our candidate might have look strange against New York, Paris, Madrid and Moscow.
:bash:

The olympics has moved up a gear now with Sydney, Athens and Beijing and given the competition for 2012, to have had Birmingham as our candidate might have look strange against New York, Paris, Madrid and Moscow.Even the cities that didn't make the short-list for 2012 were formidable competitors. Istanbul and Rio de Janiero could both host an inspirational Olympics in my opinion.

Monkey - correct me if I'm wrong, but when Manchester came third behind Sydney and Bejing for the 2000 Olympics, they beat Berlin into 4th and the formidable competitor Istanbul into 5th.

But I agree with the general jist - there will always be at least 1 city more glamourous in the pot than Manchester/Brum/Glasgow/anywhere but London.

To be fair to London, you are all acting as if London and Londoners are some evil homogenous group that are wilfully trying to keep the regions down. This is clearly not true.Speak for yourself. It's definitely true of me. I don't mind Brummies or Scousers so much but Manchester should be liquidated. ;)

Monkey - correct me if I'm wrong, but when Manchester came third behind Sydney and Bejing for the 2000 Olympics, they beat Berlin into 4th and the formidable competitor Istanbul into 5th.

But I agree with the general jist - there will always be at least 1 city more glamourous in the pot than Manchester/Brum/Glasgow/anywhere but London.Manchester did well to beat Berlin and Istanbul. They put in a competent bid and Britain can always draw on our substantial overseas connections to bolster our votes in the IOC.

By contrast Turkey has few friends. Europeans, who dominate the IOC, don't consider Turkey one of their own. The Arab states of the former Ottoman Empire hate their former ruler as does neighbouring rival Iran. However Istanbul remains a massive and inspirational city. It has incredible history, perhaps richer than any other city on earth (possible exception of Rome), incredible monuments and buildings, a gorgeous Mediterranean climate and spectacular natural setting, and is the only city on earth that straddles two continents. The East/West cliches really do apply to Istanbul. It bids for the Olympics every year but is always rejected because of Turkey's lack of friends and the relatively sparce public transport infrastructure in the city. However one day this great metropolis will get what it deserves. :)

Berlin is also a formidable competitor. Berlin is a greater city than Manchester in almost every way. The new projects there have made it superb. Perhaps their bid was poor? Sometimes cities just don't get it together. New York and Moscow didn't offer competitive bids for 2012.

@prizemazda your kinda missing the point of this thread. Your addressing the general issue for funding for London transport versus everywhere else- which is interesting but has been done to death on this forum (thogh i admit everytime I read that utterly irrelavant 20 billion figure Im temptied to go over my old rants). This thread is about the future and specifically about the effect the Olympics re now having.

The point in this case is the funding for New Street was in place and set aside by the SRA. Tony Blair came to Birmingham just before the last election and close to promised that it would be underway shortly. The development which has been overdue for decades has now been stalled again until after 2012 whilst development in London has accelerated. (admiitedlty from a dismally low base)

Now for my more general waffle that I always post when then London vs regions issue comes up:

The warped London focused media we have in the UK does make a big difference to politics and what commitments are carried through. If Labour promise things to other cities then make a u-turn it can make them suffer in popularity in that city but it has no wider effects. Both the promise and the u-turn will barley feature in the national media and no one else will know. Even in that city more people will take note of the London papers than the local news. In contrast if something was promised to London and not delivered it will be read and heard by the entire nation - and warrant anti labour rhetoric in the papers' editorials.

Just look at one of the few regional transport issues to make it in into the national press - the cancellation of Manchester's trams. They got some very limited coverage on the inside pages but was on the front pages of the Manchester papers for months on end-it was the biggest story of the year in a major region in the UK . It s very rare that anything makes the front page of the standard without filtering through to the national media no matter how trivial. The tram fiasco cost Labour votes in the NW but it was contained within that region.

The least insular national media provider is the BBC but even they think that a rumour of tube strike warrants an interview with Bob Crow as a major news item seemingly in ignorance of the fact that three quarters of the country couldn't give a fuck.

The only time this government have considered Public transport a major issue was the only time the national media did which was when serve delays were affecting those commuting into London and the late for work journalist decided it was a front page story.

Lets just hope London doesnt take the 200 Million Pounds for the Nottingham Station Masterplan.

Do you wanna bet? It just might you know.....

the decisions are taken by ministers not London.

and who trusts the integrity of ministers these days, when big business & vested interests lobby them

I agree, which is why i said the anger should be directed at ministers and the government and not London. The government isn't committing any money towards London transport projects we pay through council tax, higher fares and the Mayor has borrowed massive sums. This government does not like transport.

As someone has already mentioned you could write to Alistair Darling, but you would probably get the same old rubbish response.
However you could write to/email your local MP (particularly if they are Conservative/Lib Dem opposition MPs) and ask them, or convince them, to table a question about the issue. The question may be put to Tony Blair @ PMQs or to Alistair Darling @ MQs.

I'd like to point out that for every man or woman you you lives outside of London, for every £1 spent by central government, from general taxation, on transport, £3 is spent on every man or woman in London out of the same general taxation that we all contribute to.

But ALL of the transport projects are being funded by the GLA, fares and debt. The government is contributing next to nothing.

But ALL of the transport projects are being funded by the GLA, fares and debt. The government is contributing next to nothing.


If that is indeed the case, then why have we just been told that the government are set to divert / re-allocate all the funds it promised to set aside to address the increasingly desperate Birmingham New Street debacle into financing the Olympic village transport infrastructure instead? Is there something we haven't been told about or something?

the decisions are taken by ministers not London.


But who do exactly the ministers work/act for at the end of the day? McFuckingDonalds??

I'd like to point out that for every man or woman you you lives outside of London, for every £1 spent by central government, from general taxation, on transport, £3 is spent on every man or woman in London out of the same general taxation that we all contribute to.Where is your source for this?

The DLR for instance pretty much funds its expansions itself because it is actually profitable. The Heathrow Terminal 5 HeathrowExpress and Piccadilly Line extensions are for example being funded by BAA and TfL. Projects such as Crossail (which still after 70 years of waiting has yet to see any action) have greater private business backing and this should be persued by more projects around the country. That is not to say that they should meet a certain target, but should at least go a certain way.

Also a major stumbling block for regional devolution is that many don't wish to have it. Personally I believe that more regions and cities should have the powers that London has, but the politicians and people of these areas need to actually do some work rather than complaining that it was all London's fault. Remember government is only located in London. It is not London's government.

Maybe its just an excuse.

The improvements to the East London Line, DLR extensions, the improvements in buses, have all been paid for by debt, fares and council tax increases.

The tube is being paid for by private money.

Remember Victoria station is closed sometimes on a daily basis because there are too many people. Camden town and Covent Garden are restricted on the weekends because of overcrowding. New Street isn't alone in being desperate for expansion.

Alistair Darling - House of Commons.

I could dig it out of Hansard if you don't believe me but I don't really have the time - there is a link to it somewhere in the Leeds Supertram thread.

Doesn't TfL get a huge amount of funding from Central Government?

If that is indeed the case, then why have we just been told that the government are set to divert / re-allocate all the funds it promised to set aside to address the increasingly desperate Birmingham New Street debacle into financing the Olympic village transport infrastructure instead? Is there something we haven't been told about or something?The government did not state this, instead a Birmingham newspaper interpreted it as to be connected to the Olympics.

Either way I don't like it how people use London as an excuse for its problems when it is clearly in as just as much trouble. Blaming London also polarises opinion in London and its surrounding areas to then go against Birmingham, Manchester, etc. You don't expect much respect when you accuse someone of murder for example when they are innocent.

Let us also not forget that London and its surrounding area holds some 30% of the UK population and that figure is probably lost amongst many people.

nick - but that 30% of the population has three times as much money spent on their public transport by the DfT than any other part of the country.

Is that the way we should run the country?

Have a read of http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051108/debtext/51108-03.htm#51108-03_spnew5

Darling giving his excuses for spending more on London than the rest of the country.


It may have been the same debate the scale of the difference is mentioned, if not, well.. you'll have to find it yourself, but I guarentee the figure used is 3 times as much.

Come on now you are being disingenous. The GLA gets a block grant from government in the same way Scotland, NI, and Welsh governments do. In fact the Welsh assembly is very close to the GLA in terms of powers.

This isn't any different however how London transport has always been.

You shouldn't be trying to suggest that London receives more than its share. The mayor actually says that London contributes £15 billion to the treasury more than is spent in London.

43% of london household live below the poverty line, parents can't get their kids into their 5th and 6th choice schools and send them to the other side of London just to get them ANY school. 6 of the 10 poorest districts in the country are in London. The Olympics will improve huge parts of the East End that are in desperate need. 46% of the people there only have english as a second language. Waiting lists are longest in London, we have the HIGHEST transport fares IN THE WORLD for a crappy crappy service that is alwasy congested or breaking down, EVERY SINGLE DAY.

But TFL have floated Bonds to raise money, raised fares and the mayor has raised council tax. ALL the improvements being made are made by London and not Central govt.

Whats different here is the governments position on transport projects is they will approve them, as long as they don't have to pay for it.

Everyday in London 3 million journeys are made by tube, 6 million are made by bus, 300'000 by bike, 7 million on foot, over 80% of people commuting into London do so by public transport.

London has the largest market in terms of transport so it naturally follows that just to maintain that system it requires money.

Like ive said before the government has commited NO EXTRA money for transport improvements for London.

Prize - read the link to Hansard I have provided - as I said, Darling justifying the extra money his department gives to London.

Like ive said before people should be directing their anger at ministers for their lack of vision and money.

London has been the victim of this lack of leadership for years as well, and its only since having one voice for London and its own city council that things are starting to change. You try running a city with 32 boroughs, a host of quangos and a government minister.

The mayor actually says that London contributes £15 billion to the treasury more than is spent in London.

This attitude really fucks me off.

So fucking what???? London and the SE are the richest parts of the country.

I'd imagine that Hale, Bowdon etc pay a lot more in tax than the people in Old Trafford, Stretford etc. Does this mean they should get miles better public services than the poor people in these poorer areas?

prize - so you now accept that London gets more than it's fair share of money from central government after reading Darlings comments?

You try running a city with 32 boroughs, a host of quangos and a government minister.

Well we have 10 boroughs, a host of quangos but no voice in government, great isn't it?

There are any number of reasons why this figure per head is higher. Take for example the concentration of trunk roads and motorways in London, or the huge number of overground rail lines which receive government subsidy. London has for example a dozen or so national rail stations, i imagine its not cheap to run Kings X, Waterloo and victoria.

But Darling is right on one thing, major projects distort that figure. I wonder how the 18 billion WCML would distorty figures nationally or the Tory commissioned CTRL changes figures like that.

Scotland receives more per head funding of ALL government money, the North East receives more per head of social security money because over 20% of people are on incapacity benefit. Oxford and Cambrdige receive more per head in research funding. Cheltenham receives more per head funding in intelligence funding....

I don't think its a worthwhile exercise to go through. It implies unfairness but there are good reasons for the apparent discrepency.

People should not be trying to turn on London, its a divide and rule strategy, if UK cities were to sot down together and jointly attack the government on transport it would have more impact than local campaigns on Metrolink, or Leeds trams.

The other thing is London introduced the Congestion Charge now at £8 a day. If cities want to have transport projects they have options to raise the cash, but none have opted for it.

This attitude really fucks me off.

So fucking what???? London and the SE are the richest parts of the country.

I'd imagine that Hale, Bowdon etc pay a lot more in tax than the people in Old Trafford, Stretford etc. Does this mean they should get miles better public services than the poor people in these poorer areas?

You miss the point about this, 43% of Londoners actually live below the poverty line. London has 6 of the 10 poorest boroughs in the country. It has the longest commute times, the worst overcrowding, the most underperforming schoools, longest hospital waiting lists, the lowest crime detection rates, highest gun crime, highest rates of asylum seekers.... the list goes on.

So now you want to say London should fund the rest of the country but you bitch that it doesn't spend enough supporting other parts when Manchester can't introduce self-funding methods like the congestion charge.

Manchester is acting like it has a right to demand more money from London taxpayers. It doesn't.

The government did not state this, instead a Birmingham newspaper interpreted it as to be connected to the Olympics.




No Nick its not some Birmingham newspapers interpretation its what the City Council and the local MPs have had said (i.e those people who are told why the promised funding has been stalled) and it has not been contradicted by the Government. The Government are hardly likely to make a public annoucemnt are they.

In any case its obvious that something has happened in the last year has effected things. Blair came to Birmingham before both the last elections and mentioned new street redevelopment and his tone was very different on eh two occasions. in 2001 he apologised for the problems said he knows public transport needs to be tuned around, its a slow process etc but that he thinks there might be movement in the next few years. In 2005 he implied it was imminent and only the timing of the election had prevented him from referring to the finalised plans. Despite all the accusations as Blair= Liar i dont thtink hed have said that unless he believed it was about to happen- something has changed since and all evidence points to the Olympics.

well what is the money being spent on for the olympics then?

The funding for the olympics is pretty tight with the lottery, london council tax, sponsorships/tickets/merchandise and money from the Mayors Regeneration Agency the LDA.

The transport projects are being funded by fares, debt and council tax.

So the olympics costs the government nothing. Like everything like this the Treasury won't commit funding.

You miss the point about this, 43% of Londoners actually live below the poverty line. London has 6 of the 10 poorest boroughs in the country. It has the longest commute times, the worst overcrowding, the most underperforming schoools, longest hospital waiting lists, the lowest crime detection rates, highest gun crime, highest rates of asylum seekers.... the list goes on.

So now you want to say London should fund the rest of the country but you bitch that it doesn't spend enough supporting other parts when Manchester can't introduce self-funding methods like the congestion charge.

Manchester is acting like it has a right to demand more money from London taxpayers. It doesn't.


No prizey as always on this issue you miss the point. you moan that frouemrs are blaming some mythical homogeneous London entity or londoners when they do no such thing they blame the government for having a distorted preference fr London funding.

You then seemed to believe in the same homogeneous London entity that is supposedly subsiding the rest of the country. Cities do not pay taxes, some tax comes form companies bu the significant majority comes form individuals and the bulk of that from the wealthiest individuals.

Below I'm going to say a lot thats obvious but some how it seems even intellinet London forumers like yourself tubeman r monkey seems to be missing some of it or else have worked out something clever and never mentioned it. Id also mention that I think its arguable that business rates are an exception to the below discussion and spending them could be re-decentralised,

Most tax goes to be spent on individuals, generally who are children, sick, unemployed or poor. this can be done directly via benefits or indirectly by employing doctors, teacher etc to look at the individuals needs.

Consequrently money flows from the wealthy to the young, sick and poor. Very little spending within England is region specific and is purely about the individuals. i am a net tax giver (at least presently at 26 I doubt Ive paid for 14 years of education) and therefore NO Londoners subsidise me. Similarly an unemployed Londoner is a net tax receiver and therefore can be said to be is partially subsidised by the wealthy outside of London. The 15/20 billion pound figure is an irrelevance to individuals including the 43%.

London has its fair share of children and the sick and more than its fair share of the poor and unemployed and hence the mythical homogenised London entity has more spent on it per head than any region in England except the NE- not because they are Londoners but because they need it.

However London has an even larger amount of the normal share of wealthy people. These are all massive net tax givers and therefore if you take an average across the whole of London - the mythical average Londoner persuamably gives around 2 grand more than he receives (15-20 bilion in total). These people are taxed more not because they ar ein London but because they are wealthy.

To bitch about the money flowing out when there is so much poverty is absurd. Why would somebody in poverty in London deserve more money than a similar person in Newcastle just because more of their near neighbours are investment bankers. It makes absolutely no sense.


None of this, and certainly not the 15 billion figure, has anything to do with the issue at hand - that is of the very small percentage money that is spend on public transport and other projects that are region specific many people accuse the government of giving london far more than its fair share. A rich person doesn't and shouldn't get better treatment on the NHS just because he's given more money to it and similarly Londoners shouldn't whinge that they deserve more projects just because on average they pay more tax.

whilst total tax paid should be irrelevant - one factor to be borne in mind is the likely economic growth and increase in tax revenue that will result. Arguments that London is ht most important to the country's economy and that some projects there may produce a better return in growth are sometimes legitimate and i wish forumers would concentrate on them more.

However- that should only be one factor- public projects and public transport are not solely about an investment that will give a return but about spending to improve the country and the primary consideration should be which area needs it the most not which will give most back.

well what is the money being spent on for the olympics then?



Did you actually read this link?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4692536.stm

London mayor Ken Livingstone said: "We are delighted the government has stepped in and agreed to fund these works, which are vital to improving rail services in London.


"Not only will it deliver a modern, expanded and accessible station, it is a critical piece of the jigsaw in delivering our Olympic transport plans."

I am not saying that London deserves spending because it has lots of poor people, i am merely illustrating the point that despite having huge problems Londoners already contribute huge sums.

I agree with you on the business rates issue.

But you can't ignore that Londoners are already taxed to the hilt and pay astronomical sums for an often dangerous and congested transport system that hasn't received investment in nearly 30 years and they are paying for it themselves.

If brum wants trams, or manchester an extended one, why can't they (like London) find their own sources of finance like a congestion charge?

There are any number of reasons why this figure per head is higher. Take for example the concentration of trunk roads and motorways in London, or the huge number of overground rail lines which receive government subsidy. London has for example a dozen or so national rail stations, i imagine its not cheap to run Kings X, Waterloo and victoria.

I don't think its a worthwhile exercise to go through. It implies unfairness but there are good reasons for the apparent discrepency.


Greater Manchester actually has a far greater concentration / more miles of motorway within its county boundary of 501 square miles than Greater London does within ITS 610 square miles - in fact it has the highest mileage of motorway of ANY metropolitan conurbation in the the UK. But does it get more cash because of this fact?

If London is so poor, then why waste money that could be used for helping poor London communities, on throwing a parade in 2012?
Its just typical. Things seem to be on the up for London and the rest of the country, London decide they want to show off to the world in 2012 and everything falls back down again.

you've missed the point about regeneration projects they need an anchor, a destination in order to be a catalyst to further regeneration. Take the City of Manchester Stadium or Bullring centre, or even the Dome which is now causing major redevelopment of the whole Greenwich penisula. In my own hometown its been The University of Lincoln acting as the driver for regeneration.

The olympics will take place in the east end which have been neglected for centuries.

or even the Dome which is now causing major redevelopment of the whole Greenwich penisula
Taken long enough though hasnt it? The Dome closed, what, 6 years ago? If anything, the Dome has delayed the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula while they decide what to do with it. Otherwise I'm fairly sure that such a prime spot would have been redeveloped by now.

you've missed the point about regeneration projects they need an anchor, a destination in order to be a catalyst to further regeneration.
True, but surely a regeneration anchor doesnt have to be as big as the Olympics? Also, for the huge cost of it, relying on the Olympics as a regeneration anchor is very risky. We have seen how other Olympic sites in other cities have become ghost towns once the 2 week party is over, and yes, I'm aware that London has a counter plan for this, but as we have seen with the Dome, things dont always go to plan.

In my own hometown its been The University of Lincoln acting as the driver for regeneration.
I can respect that as my hometown also has the same situation, but universities dont come with a shelf life.

The olympics will take place in the east end which have been neglected for centuries.
Well lets hope that after the 2 week party in 2012, the East End wont be forgotten about and left to neglect again (see Atlanta)
There are far more sustainable means of regeneration than this.

Look at Barcelona though, and Beijing is clearly using the olympics to improve nearly everything.

Barcelona was turned upside down, and turned into a shiny new thing, but this will hardly be the case with the east end, look at the northern suburbs in Paris, which have gained no improvement from the building of Stade De France

You shouldn't be trying to suggest that London receives more than its share. The mayor actually says that London contributes £15 billion to the treasury more than is spent in London.

I don't like this figure being quoted. I would hazard a guess that most cities and towns contribute more than it spent seeing as the excess money is spent on health, education, governance, defence, internation aid etc etc on our behalf. If cities paid less than they received where would the money be coming from.

Plus you have to factor in the vast numbers of companies with headquarters in London meaning profits being registered there etc.

The closing of Victoria, Covent Garden statiosn etc are not comparable to New St though. If New St Stn closes it cocks up most of the UK rail network.

And the large provincial cities can't employ a congestion charge in the way London did because a) London has a captive audience b) the large cities run the risk of endangering their economies and c) we are in competition with one another, whereas London doesn't have a competitor in the UK.

But Pricemazda is right - it is not the fault of Londoners that they are potentially getting funding at the expense of others. What we are moaning about Pricemazda is the fact that the government seems to be very London-oriented, and the media most definitely is.

We not having a pop at you or your brethren, but we want you to appreciate that sometimes the regions suffer when London gets what, or some of what, it wants. :)

I can agree to that, which is why I said this should be directed at Ministers. Hopefully if the Mayor is going to rolled out to other big conurbations then things will start to change.

The government has only allowed london transport projects to go ahead because it doesn't have to pay for them.

This thread is turning into a traditional anti-London rant which happens to half the threads on this forum.

In this country Governments always think short term they don't have a history and probably never will want to invest in large transport projects, there is too much risk and they are not really a vote winner outside large urban areas.

Rather than continually moaning about London, other areas in the country need follow their lead, they need to demand a mayor and start raising their own cash for projects instead of begging for handouts. When private or self raised money is involved the government will have confidence in a project.

The UK is not a European semi-socialist state, the government aren't going to subsidise a transport system, they want to wash their hands if possible. And Businesses don't want to work with 50 local councillors, who back bite and disagree so that nothing gets done and are answerable to nobody because nobody knows who they are. They want to work with one body a mayor.

The way forward is to get a mayor and then elect a mayor that has the interests of a city not toeing a party line for some forward ambitions of Government position in the future.

Get a Mayor, Get Business on side, Get Power, Get Projects.

I don't think this is particularly anti-London and the presence of Pricemazda is helping people see both sides of the story, but you are right in the respect of a mayor. The problem with a mayor is his hands are tied by government so will it really change that much? It will definitely allow business to conduct better and it would hopefully give a city a better national profile (but only until every other city has a mayor, then all will be jostling for position again).

The fact is that the government SHOULD be funding transport projects. It is in the interests of the economy to transport people to and from work better, and if this was to fall uder the auspices of private enterprise then why have we got a Department for Transport?

We are stuck in a no-mans land where government wants control of so many aspects of governance (even down to the local level) but are not willing to govern. They won't relinquish power to allow councils to borrow money and the councils won't raise local tax rates because it will get them voted out and we'll be back at square one.

And the subject matter of New St transcends debate over light rail systems etc (as they benefit only the local network). Government is ploughing money into London's rail terminii but not THE most important railway station on the UK network.

We only want a couple of hundred million for goodness sake! :cheers:

No Nick its not some Birmingham newspapers interpretation its what the City Council and the local MPs have had said (i.e those people who are told why the promised funding has been stalled) and it has not been contradicted by the Government. The Government are hardly likely to make a public annoucemnt are they.I don't expect them to make a public announcement, but its like its some conspiracy theory that is being thrown around here.

If there is a problem, then how comes more Brummies aren't actively pushing for a Mayor, greater control, etc...its been actively persuaded but nobody seems to want to take control in case anything goes wrong. London can't be used as a scapegoat when it clearly isn't at fault.

We did push for a mayor, but because the city was split between mayor + cabinet or mayor + executive, the wonderful politicians said that we didn't want one because the anti-mayor brigade was the single largest goup.

Even though the pro-mayor lobby was 50% larger.

And we wouldn't need a mayor if central government gave local government the power it needs.

It's the old game of divide and rule.