SkyscraperCity Forum banner

The Elizabeth Line (Crossrail 1)

2M views 9K replies 475 participants last post by  leedsT 
#1 ·
#21 ·
Thing is Trams work for smaller less dense cities, but it would not work for London. London gives more money to the UK treasury than it gets back, dispite having higher than average unemployment. The cost of everything is higher in London, which is one reason why transport is so expensive, London is much more dense than else where and much bigger, hense why public transport is so important. Chcicken and egg, but a much higher proportion of population in London than anywhere else in the country use pubic tranport to go to work. If anyone doubts London needs more and better public transport you are obviously living in a different city to me and don't experiance the joys of commuting.
 
#22 ·
But it was not just general inflation we were taking about in the cancelled tram plans it was specific to the cost of the projects themselves. Now I blame the government for making the whole bidding process so complicated through PFI. It was the pricing in of uncertainty of to cover unexmpected costs, that sunk these bids. A straight forward one off construction bid using standard parts and the existing operating company taking over the new route could have delivered a much lower system. I mean for goodness sake. Many tiny Spanish cities are building tram systems at one third the cost per Km than British systems. Places like Alicante, Malaga and Las Palmas. Some even have large sections underground. It is interesting to note that non of the London projects (East London Line) are PFI but are just straight forward contracts from london Underground/Network Rail. If the DFT can swallow its pride about the costly mess of PFI then maybe these projects can be ressurected.
 
#23 ·
Metrolink and other cities managed to get lower private financing than Crossrail. To top it off Crossrail is a heavy rail line that will connect some 18mn people, ie 1/3 of the UK. Now I want tram systems in all major cities....but these cities have to bring in higher density populations and more sensible plans to ensure that these don't become white elephants. Crossrail by the way has been an idea since the 1930's.
 
#24 ·
London gives more money to the UK treasury than it gets back, dispite having higher than average unemployment.
Yes, and this will continue to get worse and worse whilst we continue to get this massively unequall distribution of spending.

If anyone doubts London needs more and better public transport you are obviously living in a different city to me and don't experiance the joys of commuting.
Tell me which city in the country has better public transport then, where commuting is 'a joy'. At least you have the option of public transport in London, the rest of the country is left with a deregualted (I notice London's buses were never deregulated) usless bus services that don't run early in the monring or after 6pm at night.

But it was not just general inflation we were taking about in the cancelled tram plans it was specific to the cost of the projects themselves.
NOT TRUE, in 2002 Metrolink phase 3 was going to cost £520m, but due to DfT delays (see Select Committee report on Light Rail) costs went up as the price of steel etc rose, costs now above £768m - government refuse the extra cash.

In 2002, the cost of Crossrail was £10bn, the government agree (provisionally) to funding, by 2005 the expected cost has risen to £16,000,000,000 - government does not seem to have refused to pay the extra costs as they have done else where. Please explain the difference between the rising costs of Metrolink (primarily caused by the DfT) which were not funded by government, and the rising costs of Crossrail, which appear to being funded by government. If in 2002, the government had have asked 'How much will it cost to build Metrolink in 2007?', they'd have got the £768m figure, why are we stuck with the 2002 costings being provided? Similar situation in Leeds, Liverpool and Portsmouth.

Metrolink and other cities managed to get lower private financing than Crossrail.
Be interesting to see the comparisons on that, the figures I saw were when the cost of Crossrail was expected to be £10bn - I bet the proportion is now very low in comparsion to some of the other schemes being promoted around the country - even if £3bn is funded privately, this still leaves a huge £13bn to befound from the piblic purse.

Crossrail by the way has been an idea since the 1930's.
Oldham line has had parlimentary powers for nearly 30 years now, it is not as if someone one day in these cities thought 'Oh I want a tram line', these are well thought out plans that continually get knocked back.



One final question, presuming this goes ahead, at £16bn, someone please name the most expensive infrastructure project that has ever gone ahead that did not benifit London in any way.
 
#25 ·
I presume when the calculations for how much money London recieves from the rest of the country the following type of story get taken into account...

The benifit to the tax payers north of Watford of this rail link is obvious for all to see.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4701801.stm

Warning on Chunnel rail link cost

The warning comes despite the first stages of the link being on budget
UK taxpayers may end up paying more than was forecast for the Channel Tunnel rail link, the government's spending watchdog has warned.
A National Audit Office (NAO) report found passenger revenue forecasts for the £5bn project - made in 1998 and 2001 - had been "too optimistic".

As a result taxpayers could be forced to make up the shortfall for the London to Kent link, the NAO added.

"The economic justification for the project remains marginal," it said.

The uncertainties remained despite "encouraging developments" linked to regenerating areas around London's King's Cross, Stratford in east London and Kent, the NAO said.

Close monitoring

It called on the government to take measures to minimise potential risks to taxpayers by reviewing costing forecasts more regularly.

Such a move would allow the Department of Transport to make "realistic predictions of the value and timing of future lending" to London and Continental Railways who are building the link.

However, the NAO did acknowledge that Section 1 and 2 of the scheme had come in on time and to cost.

Edward Leigh, chairman of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee called on the Department of Transport to keep a close eye on the scheme.

"This project is a sorry tale of something that started off in the expectation that all the risks would be borne by the private sector and has ended up today as one where they are all backed financially by the government," he said.

However, Mr Leigh did add that the plans to provide a fast link between London and the Channel Tunnel in Folkestone were "bold and prestigious" and had helped the UK secure the 2012 Olympics.

Part of the link will be used to carry spectators from central London to Olympic sites in east London.
 
#26 ·
How much did is this going to cost?

Can anyone see the government progressing with a scheme anywhere outside the capital that is...

"The economic justification for the project remains marginal," it said.
also...

"This project is a sorry tale of something that started off in the expectation that all the risks would be borne by the private sector and has ended up today as one where they are all backed financially by the government," he said.
Roll this on 10 years, I bet we will be hearing exactly the same type of stories about Crossrail, and how the cost is now being bourne by the UK tax payer.
 
#28 ·
Paris - how many times more densley populated than London.

Same for Barelona, Lyon, Rome, Munich, and many many other cities.

Yes, these cities also have undergrounds - but don't kid yoursleves that trams are not very suited for very densely populated areas as well.
 
#30 ·
Blunther, exactly, the Londoner's seem to quote this figure without realising what this actually represents - this is a huge figure.

We could move the entire UK government, the BBC, the royal family, and just about every nation institution out of London for less money, freeing up the transport infrastructure such that Crossrail is not required.

£16bn - is a fu€king stupid amount of money - and it will no doubt rise as time goes on.
 
#31 ·
I'd have thought it would be a better idea to spend that £16bn on the talked-about maglev network, and ease London's congestion problems that way. If you just keep throwing money at it, and improving it above all others, then more and more people are going to want to live there, which means throwing more money at it, etc.

Build this maglev, and folk that work in London could live in Brum, Manc or even Liverpool, and commute every day quicker than commuters from the traditional commuiter belt can get to London today.

Seems more sensible to me. PLus, everyone benefits, rather than just the overcrowded corner of Britain.
 
#32 ·
Englishman said:
but a much higher proportion of population in London than anywhere else in the country use pubic tranport to go to work. .
since every major cities' public transport is over capacity during communitng periods that a mott poitn surely. (yeah I knwo you made the chicken-egg pooitn but youi went onto say this regardless.)
 
#35 ·
Blunther said:
I'd have thought it would be a better idea to spend that £16bn on the talked-about maglev network, and ease London's congestion problems that way. If you just keep throwing money at it, and improving it above all others, then more and more people are going to want to live there, which means throwing more money at it, etc.

Build this maglev, and folk that work in London could live in Brum, Manc or even Liverpool, and commute every day quicker than commuters from the traditional commuiter belt can get to London today.

Seems more sensible to me. PLus, everyone benefits, rather than just the overcrowded corner of Britain.
I doubt we'd get much of a maglev for that price. And what's the point of people travelling hundreds of miles when if you got to London you'd have to wait half an hour to squeeze onto a crowded and late running tube train to get to where you work.
 
#36 ·
Englishman said:
Further, London needs more tube lines as spares. People keep bombing the shite out of them, so we need extra redundancy built into the system.
What a complete load of rubbish. What we NEED is the money to be spent on public transport in other cities so that major companies are more willing to invest there. London doesn't need more, the rest of the country does. If the Government doesn't realise this soon I think they'll begin to suffer for it.
 
#37 ·
Englishman said:
I doubt we'd get much of a maglev for that price. And what's the point of people travelling hundreds of miles when if you got to London you'd have to wait half an hour to squeeze onto a crowded and late running tube train to get to where you work.
We'd actually get most of the maglev network for that price. This thing is an absolute rip-off. Maybe if the rest of the country gets the Government investment more private firms will invest there and less people will be crowded on the tube trains. Also, do you honestly think London is the only city in the UK that suffers from overcrowding on public transport?
 
#38 ·
Trammy said:
Paris - how many times more densley populated than London.

Same for Barelona, Lyon, Rome, Munich, and many many other cities.

Yes, these cities also have undergrounds - but don't kid yoursleves that trams are not very suited for very densely populated areas as well.
But none of these cities have such dense concentrations of office space as central London. Only Paris is remotely on the same scale and Paris does not have trams.
 
#39 ·
EarlyBird2 said:
What a complete load of rubbish. What we NEED is the money to be spent on public transport in other cities so that major companies are more willing to invest there. London doesn't need more, the rest of the country does. If the Government doesn't realise this soon I think they'll begin to suffer for it.
London does need more. Just because other places need stuff doesn't mean London doesn't. :|
 
#40 ·
You are increadibly nieve to think we'd really get a maglev line for that price. Never gonna happen. Unless you want to close down one of the existing north south lines whilst this is built. Even in Shanghai it cost over a billion dollars, and labour is increadibly cheap relatively there. That line was only about 20 miles. Prices of land particularly and labour costs are way more here, and proposed maglev tracks are a substantial distance longer.

Commute times in London are by enlarge longer than any other part of the country. London is many times denser, and thus make public transport a lot more cost effective, and that is how the government work these things. A ten carriage

I personally don't think it should be a case of London getting this or Manchester getting that or leeds the other, but every town getting more public transport investment. I think there is a good case for city metros having more autonomy over public transport (though that of course means there should be less national tax if local taxes are going to go up). They should have the abiliity to borrow (maybe from the government or banks or bonds) to invest in public transport. Maybe there could be a matching scheme. Maybe EU a third, national governmetn a third and the rest ogt by any other means (local taxing borrowing or private investment).

I know other cities suffer from over crowding, but I'm not sure how many other towns have to close off platforms every day due to dangerous levels of over crowding like Victoria, and London bridge (and probably many other London stations) do almost every day. Or where you have to wait for several trains to go past before you can squidge into the train.
 
Top