Crossrail

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by gothicform

zim makes a good point though, and some of the schemes he has mentioned have bigger cost benefits per pound spent than crossrail. no one at all whenever i make this point even bothers to address it, its like the elephant in the room that is completely ignored. why should the total govt spending on transport for london be almost ten times where i live?

Sorry but I don't believe that other schemes do have such a critical value for Britain's economy. London is also dependent on public transport to a greater extent than other parts of the country with their uncongested roads. In terms of overall government spending per capita London scores at the bottom of the heap compared to other regions. If London was a city state spending her own taxes then crossrail would have been built already.

[gothicform]

Sorry but I don't believe that other schemes do have such a critical value for Britain's economy. London is also dependent on public transport to a greater extent than other parts of the country with their uncongested roads. In terms of overall government spending per capita London scores at the bottom of the heap compared to other regions. If London was a city state spending her own taxes then crossrail would have been built already.

unfortunately the DoT feasibility studies carried out by WSP, davis langdon, atkins amongst others show otherwise. for the cost of crossrail you could comfortably build the top ten schemes in terms of cost benefit and get benefits of approaching 100 billion quid over 30 years rather than half that over 60. 2.5 to 1 cost benefits are shit.

[Salif]

Lets face it, the UK is virtually a city state in everything but name - we'll all end up living in London someday so lets not condemn it. But instead choose which part of it's surrounding countryside you want dug up for your new outer outer outer suburban home.

See you soon future next door neighbours.

[elfabyanos]

Gothic, I think you have a valid point. Crossrail, while not having the best cost/benefit ratio does have one of the highest absolute cost to benefit of a single project - benefits of £50bn for a single project are a serious eye opener. If not directly an eye opener for the politicians then certainly by the proxies of the many voices from various places all singing to the same tune like the mayor, the cbi, cw, etc etc, eventually has brought it through.

However, where I see a major problem in it all is that there is no plan to any of it really, it's just pack of wolves baying for permission/funding/political backing. What this country needs is a transport masterplan, where projects are no longer individual eggs that need protecting from the political wilderness but part of a grand scheme. I shudder to say it but similar to the motorway plan from the 50s or whenever it was, or like France's TGV network, but more so including local schemes. That way too there would be no accusations that certain regions were eating up all the funding and political will wanted by others.

[Black Cat]

Originally Posted by elfabyanos

Gothic, I think you have a valid point. Crossrail, while not having the best cost/benefit ratio does have one of the highest absolute cost to benefit of a single project - benefits of £50bn for a single project are a serious eye opener. If not directly an eye opener for the politicians then certainly by the proxies of the many voices from various places all singing to the same tune like the mayor, the cbi, cw, etc etc, eventually has brought it through.

However, where I see a major problem in it all is that there is no plan to any of it really, it's just pack of wolves baying for permission/funding/political backing. What this country needs is a transport masterplan, where projects are no longer individual eggs that need protecting from the political wilderness but part of a grand scheme. I shudder to say it but similar to the motorway plan from the 50s or whenever it was, or like France's TGV network, but more so including local schemes. That way too there would be no accusations that certain regions were eating up all the funding and political will wanted by others.

I'm not sure there has ever been a transport masterplan for the UK. However, London badly needed the Crossrail projects in the 1980s, so the decision to construct is very welcome but should have been taken decades ago. The projects elsewhere may be equally important, but may simply join the decades long line up for funding unless there is a stronger regional political push (meaning all cities connected have to campaign in unison - pushing also the idea of connecting between Ireland and the Atlantic via Liverpool/N Wales and from Hull to Europe). The northern Crossrail appears an excellent project, I hope it moves forward, but the UK's record for funding the timely construction of infrastructure is not great. Get campaigning!

[gothicform]

benefits of £50bn for a single project are a serious eye opener

taking a two line hsr as an example, atkins say a £90 billion cost benefit over 30 years for an expenditure of not more than £30 billion. over the 60 years crossrail has been costed for thats over £180 billion quid! as a sleight of hand they actually doubled the usual length of time the cost benefits are judged on with crossrail to make them sound more positive. over 30 years its 1.25 to 1 which is less than the WCML!

i have on my laptop a report by one particular committee in the uk into the railways. ill post some quotes up tomorrow where the network rail guy gets completely savaged for what they are spending money on. basically some mps had a list and asked him why they were spending money on the "bottomless pit of the WCML with no more than 1.5 to 1 cost benefit" when there were all these major projects around the country that had huge cost benefits and were ignored.

[LocksRocks]

Originally Posted by Monkey

The hard truth is that Crossrail is far more important for Britain's economy than any of the regional projects.

I suggest all people within the Greater London area that don't contribute greatly to the UK economy should be banned from using public transport at busy times. That way, traders, investment bankers and fund managers etc can have a staight forward jouney into the capital using the existing public transport system. Then the not so important workers who contribute less to the economy can find other means of getting to work. Perhaps using canoes or skateboards.
If this measure was taken, there would be no need to build crossrail and we could spend the money saved employing more consultants to advise the govenment on methods to reduce the carbon footprint of lesser workers that have limited means of getting to work.

[JGG]

Originally Posted by LocksRocks

I suggest all people within the Greater London area that don't contribute greatly to the UK economy should be banned from using public transport at busy times. That way, traders, investment bankers and fund managers etc can have a staight forward jouney into the capital using the existing public transport system. Then the not so important workers who contribute less to the economy can find other means of getting to work. Perhaps using canoes or skateboards.
If this measure was taken, there would be no need to build crossrail and we could spend the money saved employing more consultants to advise the govenment on methods to reduce the carbon footprint of lesser workers that have limited means of getting to work.

That indeed seems to be part of the policy... flat carbon tax on airline tickets, the highest tube fares in the world, congestion charge zone...

[pricemazda]

Originally Posted by LocksRocks

I suggest all people within the Greater London area that don't contribute greatly to the UK economy should be banned from using public transport at busy times. That way, traders, investment bankers and fund managers etc can have a staight forward jouney into the capital using the existing public transport system. Then the not so important workers who contribute less to the economy can find other means of getting to work. Perhaps using canoes or skateboards.
If this measure was taken, there would be no need to build crossrail and we could spend the money saved employing more consultants to advise the govenment on methods to reduce the carbon footprint of lesser workers that have limited means of getting to work.

The problem with that is what would the Banker's Belt in Surrey do?

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by LocksRocks

I suggest all people within the Greater London area that don't contribute greatly to the UK economy should be banned from using public transport at busy times. That way, traders, investment bankers and fund managers etc can have a staight forward jouney into the capital using the existing public transport system. Then the not so important workers who contribute less to the economy can find other means of getting to work. Perhaps using canoes or skateboards. If this measure was taken, there would be no need to build crossrail and we could spend the money saved employing more consultants to advise the govenment on methods to reduce the carbon footprint of lesser workers that have limited means of getting to work.

So your big idea is to deny ordinary Londoners any of the benefits of sharing their city with the nation's economic engine despite the fact that they already pay for the privilege in the form of higher prices for everything and less government expenditure per head?

Hmm.... maybe you have a point and maybe we can even take it further. Maybe Mancs should be compensated by central government for their misfortune to live in such a sooty, ugly old mill town, and the sheer grind and misery of having to listen to all that victim-complex whinging....

[gothicform]

ordinary Londoners

hmmm but ordinary londoners actually live in cheaper areas than say where i live, north kesteven. yes there are many boroughs in london cheaper. where i live in terms of prices is about equivalent to hackney despite incomes being lower on average. with things like public transport spending, thats lower here and private transport spending many times higher because everyone has to drive. ordinary londoners get a pretty good deal.

[Cherguevara]

Has anyone calculated the benefits of Crossrail with the potential extensions to Reading and Ebssfleet? Because presumably they would add some benefit at limited cost (since they are reliant on improvements that need to be made for the national rail network itself).

I'm still not convinced it's the best use of money, but it's getting built so that's the end of it.

Anyway, it's been done at a considerable cost to the private sector because they are its chief beneficiaries. But they're not going to be there to fund any scheme London wants. I imagine that from now London will have to start living within its means like everywhere else (government funding being dependent on locally raised funding). This means trams, train improvements (and marginal tube upgrades) and buses.

[LocksRocks]

Originally Posted by Monkey

So your big idea is to deny ordinary Londoners any of the benefits of sharing their city with the nation's economic engine despite the fact that they already pay for the privilege in the form of higher prices for everything and less government expenditure per head?

Hmm.... maybe you have a point and maybe we can even take it further. Maybe Mancs should be compensated by central government for their misfortune to live in such a sooty, ugly old mill town, and the sheer grind and misery of having to listen to all that victim-complex whinging....

No, ban them, if they don't contribute enough to the economic engine why should they benifit? They are a burden on the the real earners.
I'd welcome them to come up north, It would be nice to have a few Perly Queens and Cockney shoeshine boys singing Chas and Dave songs up here.

[sarflonlad]

Are there any actual ordinary Londoners left in London? I'm one, but outside of the people I grew up with I rarely meet any others at work, play or through the casual conversations that occur at I dunno, cashpoints.

The demand for Crossrail probably comes from influx of non-Londoners. Sorry, IT IS from the influx of non-Londoners. Part of the reason for building it is because the population will swell to over 8 million in the next decade.

If you're unhappy with where you live, move to London I guess. Clearly people on here are too apathetic to actually do anything for themselves and campaign for better transport. Except perhaps those in Manchester. They (politicians, local businesses and ordinary residents) really rallied behind keeping the Metrolink 'back on track'. Sure, they didn't get all that was promised - but then Crossrail won't be all as promised depsite the pressure to build it.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by gothicform

ordinary londoners get a pretty good deal.

No we don't! I want my money back!!


Region. Taxes paid. Spending. Profit/Loss.
- London 87.2, 68.7 , -18.5
- South East 68.4 , 59.5 , -8.8
- East Eng. 42.7 , 38.2 , -4.5
- S West 35.3 , 41.1 , + 5.6
- E Midlands 28.1 30.2 , +1.3
- W Midlands 36.0 , 39.6 , +3.6
- Yorks & Humb. 31.8 , 38.5 , +6.7
- North West 46.1 , 55.0 , +8.9
- Scotland 34.4 , 45.6 , +11.3
- North East 14.9 , 21.6 , +6.6
- Wales 16.2 , 24.9 , +8.7
- N. Ireland 10.2 , 16.9 , +6.7



Public Spending as a Share of Regional GDP 2005/2006

- United Kingdom 43.0%

- London 33.4%
- South East 33.9%
- East of England 38.5%
- South West 42.9%
- East Midlands 43.6%
- West Midlands 46.3%
- Yorks & Humber 48.9%
- North West 52.6%
- Scotland 54.9%
- North East 61.5%
- Wales 62.4%
- N. Ireland 71.3%

[gothicform]

what about edinburgh then? per capita incomes are a mere 54 euros below that of london.

[Monkey]

^ Come on be serious. Edinburgh does not have any serious infrastructural problems. That doesn't mean it has no problems whatsoever but it's not under the same strain nor experiencing the same population growth as London. I'm sure Lostboy can provide a whole whingefest about how unfairly privileged Edinburgh and Scotland are. Edinburgh, unlike London, is also not the engine room of the British economy. London is much more densely populated than any other part of Britain and is therefore far more dependent on public transport. Its infrastructure is becoming critically overstretched and that has serious implications for the national economy. The London goose must remain internationally competitive if it's to continue laying the golden eggs.

[Dothog]

Originally Posted by Monkey

London is much more densely populated than any other part of Britain and is therefore far more dependent on public transport.

That isn’t a good thing to perpetuate if it means building over the space a low-lying city facing the North Sea (the most liable to flooding in Britain) needs to survive.

[albatross]

If Edinburgh (and many other cities) doesn't have any serious infrastructure problems, maybe we should consider moving the national stadiums, Bank of England, national galleries, BBC, government departments, parliament, quangos, legal system and other national bodies/agencies to cities throughout the UK.

They could then be run cheaper (less congestion, cheaper cost of living, less pay etc). That would then take the burden off poor old London. We then have the benefit of all the supply companies for all the above national institutions also creating jobs in these cities, taking more burden off London.

I'm assuming that the regional taxes / spending figures quoted are for the support of running the cities / operating these regions only? Are the additional benefits (i.e. spending) of having all these national institutions factored in?

I would like to see some of the great free galleries that London has, and maybe get audience tickets to a BBC show, however, as I live 600-odd miles away it is a tad impracticable.

[Rigadon]

Originally Posted by Monkey

. In terms of overall government spending per capita London scores at the bottom of the heap compared to other regions. .

That just isn't true.

Originally Posted by Monkey

No we don't! I want my money back!!


Region. Taxes paid. Spending. Profit/Loss.
- London 87.2, 68.7 , -18.5
- South East 68.4 , 59.5 , -8.8
- East Eng. 42.7 , 38.2 , -4.5
- S West 35.3 , 41.1 , + 5.6
- E Midlands 28.1 30.2 , +1.3
- W Midlands 36.0 , 39.6 , +3.6
- Yorks & Humb. 31.8 , 38.5 , +6.7
- North West 46.1 , 55.0 , +8.9
- Scotland 34.4 , 45.6 , +11.3
- North East 14.9 , 21.6 , +6.6
- Wales 16.2 , 24.9 , +8.7
- N. Ireland 10.2 , 16.9 , +6.7



Public Spending as a Share of Regional GDP 2005/2006

- United Kingdom 43.0%

- London 33.4%
- South East 33.9%
- East of England 38.5%
- South West 42.9%
- East Midlands 43.6%
- West Midlands 46.3%
- Yorks & Humber 48.9%
- North West 52.6%
- Scotland 54.9%
- North East 61.5%
- Wales 62.4%
- N. Ireland 71.3%

Im going over stuff Ive said many time before here but anyway.

I think you well know those figures are pretty irrelevant where infrastructure spending is concerned. Most money goes on sick people, children and pensioners whereas most money comes from rich people. London has a normal number of the former but a much higher than average number of the latter. The comparison between Kensington and Hackney would be much more dramatic than any of the ones above but I don't think your suggesting that Kensington should get its money back from Hackney. Nor do I think you really believe that spending on Health, Education or Pensions should be dependent on location or the amount any individual/group of individuals or town of individuals has paid in tax or that transport funding should consider how much money has already been spend in the area in Health and Education.


If London hospitals got so good at treating cancer that all cancer sufferers in the UK moved to London then London's profit in those figures would go down, yet arguing that it should then be entitled to less money for transport would be nonsensical.

Given limited resources it makes sense to spend money on transport where it will encourage most economic growth and therefore pay back most in tax. You have a perfectly reasonable argument in attempting to make the case that spending on crossrail and London transport in general fulfills those criteria better than projects elsewhere. I dont see the need to dredge up the total spend and tax take figures as if these places were different countries.