On 5 Dec, 15:08, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 05/12/2012 14:50, Phil Cook wrote:

On 05/12/2012 14:15, 77002 wrote:
On 5 Dec, 13:45, Someone Somewhere wrote:
* From the Chancellors autumn statement, *I guess it doesn't change the
fact that it will (eventually) be privately financed, but is the idea of
advancing a loan to the developer a new one?

The merits of this line are questionable even before the UK treasury
lends money it does not have.

Given the number of flats due to be built on the Nine Elms area, due to
be occupied by city types given the prices they are likely to fetch, I
can see some merit in it.

Also having a little more than the Kennington loop to take pressure off
the point where the two branches join can only be a good thing if the
longer term plan is to run more services and potentially split the
branches to remove contention there and at the flat junction at Camden.

Or am I missing something?

Of course I would expect a proportion of the housing to meet whatever
the agreed criteria is for affordable or social, *but is your (77002)
single line statement an ideological point otherwise?

Far from it: My Conservative views are no secret. However, the
United Kingdom's transportation networks fall so far short of what is
needed, that I believe we all need to rise above politics and seek
practical, affordable, commonsense solutions. Moreover, railways in
particular do not lend themselves to a political philosophy.

Add to that the equally dire housing shortage, and it behoves us all
not to pay politics with urban planning.