"Mizter T" wrote:

[Apols - managed to post an unfinished reply - this is the finished version]

"Bruce" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote:
[snip]
The 'we won't pay for it' - 'we'll provide upfront funding' - 'well, maybe
we'll end up paying for a bit of it' shift is kinda amusing - Boris might
eventually come to the realisation that fancy wordplay alone cannot make
things happen for free.

The same thing happened to all the various Olympic construction
packages. Many of these were supposed to be financed wholly or partly
by private enterprise - notably the athlete's village and the media
centre. But the private sector wasn't remotely interested.

I demur from that characterisation of events - the private sector were
interested until the credit crunch kicked in (and at the most inopportune
moment in terms of project timing).


I agree that the credit crunch arrived at a bad time, but the private
sector had already rejected both the media centre and the athletes'
village as being unsuitable for private involvement because of their
designs. I doubt that the credit crunch played any part in their
decision.

I concede that the credit crunch can probably take the blame for other
Olympic projects not being funded by the private sector. However, I
did not mention those projects. I would make the general comment that
the private sector contribution to the cost of London 2012 is as close
to zero as makes no significant difference.


So it is with the cable car.

snip

It's perhaps slightly peculiar that there's all those mentions of
vehicular
river crossing options appended to the press release, when the cable car
obviously isn't going to cater for that demand, but I suppose that might
be in anticipation of questions being asked as to why the cable car is
(supposedly) going ahead whilst the thorny issue of other new river
crossings remains up in the air.

The cable car is going ahead because it is a quick fix that might just
be ready in time ... might.

Hmm, I wouldn't say it's a quick fix because it doesn't really address any
of the underlying cross-river access issues - it might relieve the Jubilee
line a bit, but I don't really see this as some sort of crucial transport
link, more of a novelty attraction type thing (in the broad mould of the
London Eye).


I wasn't suggesting it was a significant, or even useful transport
link. Its importance is purely symbolic, in that Something Must Be
Seen To Be Done. The cable car is that Something.


Contrast that with the proposed East London River Crossing - a road
bridge to replace the Woolwich Ferry. ELRC has been on the cards
since the 1970s, but still hasn't been started, largely because the
road network to the south of ELRC doesn't have the capacity to take
the expected traffic.

Boris of course cancelled the Thames Gateway bridge, which was the latest
iteration of the ELRC. Tis a thorny issue indeed.


It's a thorny issue because politicians have had to accept that they
must take on board the views of people whose lives and environment
would be significantly affected by ELRC - or the Thames Gateway
Bridge, if you prefer. I would observe that no such consideration has
been shown to people living on or near the proposed route of HS2.