SkyscraperCity Forum banner

The Elizabeth Line (Crossrail 1)

2M views 9K replies 475 participants last post by  leedsT 
#1 ·
#41 ·
Rigadon said:
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.)
I'm intrigued as to how many places in the UK have platforms that have to shut off due to over crowding or where you can't physically get on trains or where they have to introduce congestion charging.
 
#44 ·
Englishman said:
London does need more. Just because other places need stuff doesn't mean London doesn't. :|
Yes, but other places have much greater need for the money than London, therefore London shouldn't get another penny until these problems are sorted. Londoners get their arses wiped for them and it's unfair on the rest of the country. You get Government grants, massive regional funding and even have rights to borrow!
 
#45 ·
Englishman said:
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.
There is a difference. In Shanghai a large proportion of the cost was land purchase. This wouldn't have to be done here as most of the lines could be routed down existing motorways!

As for your claims about overcrowding, I had to get from my home town to Stockport recently (a Manchester metro service). The trains were packed so I couldn't get them, the buses were packed and I couldn't get them. I ended up having to wait three buses, get a bus into central Manchester, wait another couple of buses, get a bus to Stockport town centre, wait for a delayed bus and then catch that to my final destination, despite the fact that there are both bus and train services running from Ashton to the part of Stockport I was going to!
 
#46 ·
It is unrealistic to expext a national maglev network could be built for £16 billion. I doubt you build it as far as birmingham for that money. Just consider the cost of getting to Central London. You would not get planning permission for a 200 mph line above the suburban streets of London never mind through Inner London. Unless people are get off at a terminal at Scrathwood services (M1) in North London. So that would require a high speed tunnel under London of a greater distance than the cross rail tunnels. Where would this new Maglev terminal in London be built? Once St Pancras is rebuilt it will be at maximum capacity. All the existing terminals will be at full capacity so they can't be closed/ redevloped. How much for a massive underground terminal then? 1 or 2 billion since it won't be a two platform commuter station. Would we need 6, 8, 12, 18 platforms? This all depends on how much of national network is built. Considering the short distances in the UK a traditional high speed line is more affordable as it can be integrated with the existing network. But of course I doubt it will ever happen. Cross rail and the cancelled tram lines are of different orders of magnitude. I support the building of tram lines accross the country and signifcant expansion of Londons transport capacity. London is much more public transport dependent than the rest of the country. 87% of workers use public in Inner London. It is still 44% in the London suburbs, a figure many british cities don't come close to. 2/3 of all heavy rail transport in the country either takes place in London or terminates there. London requires major investment in capacity to cater for its strong population growth in the last few decades and projected future increases. Don't reduce your arguments to a zero sum game where some one elses loss is your gain.
 
#47 ·
Englishman said:
I'm intrigued as to how many places in the UK have platforms that have to shut off due to over crowding or where you can't physically get on trains or where they have to introduce congestion charging.
The whole of new street station has shut due to overcrowding, I've been on trains on which people couldnt get on in Birmingham and inroducing congestion charging was a choice London made, it want necesary per se.
 
#48 · (Edited)
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).

Agreed but each part of the country should be treated equally and be afforded the same opportunities to improve their public transport as they see fit. For example....

  • Crossrail being financed to account for inflation whereas, inexplicably, tram systems around the country have seemingly NOT been afforded that same priviledge.
  • Be it light rail schemes within London being able to take advantage of rolling stock leasing arrangements due to (apparently) the more devolved administrative set up down there.
  • Be it a regulated bus system in London (again, not yet an option for busses outside of the capital) that has consequently been able to take advantage of obscene amounts of public subsidy.

And of course dont underestimate the lobbying power of the media and big business - witness how a regional story such as a tube strike makes national news for instance. All credit of course to Manchester's concerted efforts which have forced Metrolink up the political agenda somewhat.



All the above taken together with the sustained and substantial investment in public transport infrastructure over generations within London and the South East, is it any wonder that London's public transport useage (and hence its economic vitality and therefore its argument for further investment) is that much greater than anywhere else?

Labour have comprehensively FAILED the core cities where it comes to vital sub regional public infrastructure provision. This is a major issue and deserves to be highlighted time and again.
 
#49 ·
As if this iniquitous set up wasn't bad enough but you have the ODPM and its local partners striving to regenerate the North and create joined-up, holistic strategies yet a Department for Transport that utterly fails to take into account the integral role of public transport provision and the real regenerative benefits that such investments can have in deprived areas.

Joined up government? Don't make me laugh.
 
#50 ·
I say the subsidisation of the north should stop, then London would be able to afford to build Crossrail without subsidising the north who might then be forced into creating higher density living environments and stable economic and demographic cities that could build these lines at a far more reasonable cost out of their own funds.


I believe in tram networks and the growth of the periphery cities...but I think now is the time the injustice that London gets (ie the flak even though it subsidises the north) should be rectified.
 
#53 ·
I say the subsidisation of the north should stop, then London would be able to afford to build Crossrail without subsidising the north who might then be forced into creating higher density living environments and stable economic and demographic cities that could build these lines at a far more reasonable cost out of their own funds.
What an utterly naive post. How do you expect high density development and a sustainable economic rennaisance to take place within deprived areas without decent public transport provision?
 
#54 ·
Well London and the South-east has been subsidising the north for decades now. There is no reason why the likes of Manchester shouldn't look to actually doing some work for a change and address the imbalance that London has to suffer from. Yet it still gets flak and if the handouts stop, I bet all northerners would be eating their hats.

Also London has some of the most deprived areas in the whole of the UK, eg Tower Hamlets.
 
#55 ·
Well where is Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield expected to get the money from. The government is meant to treat all areas fairly- but thats not true, which is obviously clear. As soon as these cities get some money to provide money making alternative schemes benefiting the public, the sooner they can get on with getting money for themselves. Northern Cities have done too well for their own good, people think they don't need the money because some have improved so much- nameley Manchester, Newcastle and Leeds with Liverpool and Sheffield upcoming.
 
#56 ·
Then where is London meant to get the money to spend on projects that it desperately needs, when the money it is generating is being used to subsidise public services in the north! This process has been going on for several decades and it can't keep on going indefinately and its not like London will be getting back this money as some sort of long term loan. Now what really pees me off is when idiots starting groaning about not getting services, etc when London is actually the real loser as it is getting less money to spend on infrastructure and the like than other UK cities.
 
#58 ·
nick-taylor said:
Then where is London meant to get the money to spend on projects that it desperately needs, when the money it is generating is being used to subsidise public services in the north! This process has been going on for several decades and it can't keep on going indefinately and its not like London will be getting back this money as some sort of long term loan. Now what really pees me off is when idiots starting groaning about not getting services, etc when London is actually the real loser as it is getting less money to spend on infrastructure and the like than other UK cities.
Sorry nick, but that's a load of bollocks and you know it. Per capita London may get less than other regions, but that isn't even enough to hold back the tide. Why? Because London got most of the Government funding for decades, nay centuries. It got to the point where it's infrastructure was so much more advanced that private industry was willing to invest there over anywhere else. Now the regions want a bit of that pie. Surely if the playing field is built uneven we should do all we can to level it, rather than just doing enough to stop it getting worse?
 
#59 ·
potto said:
Perhaps other cities sould be brave and go for congestion charging to levy some more funds?
Unfortunately the other cities don't have the luxury London has. It's public transport system is extensive enough, thanks to decade upon decade of funding, to handle those people who leave their cars. Because that investment has not been made in the regions we need the infrastructure investment before we could even think about congestion charging. It's amazing how naive some of you London forumers are.
 
#60 ·
EarlyBird2 said:
Sorry nick, but that's a load of bollocks and you know it. Per capita London may get less than other regions, but that isn't even enough to hold back the tide. Why? Because London got most of the Government funding for decades, nay centuries. It got to the point where it's infrastructure was so much more advanced that private industry was willing to invest there over anywhere else. Now the regions want a bit of that pie. Surely if the playing field is built uneven we should do all we can to level it, rather than just doing enough to stop it getting worse?
most of London's tube and rail networks were built from private money.
 
Top