In article .com,
wrote:
Michael Bell:
But I am also aware of the political dimension of projects like Crossrail
and Thameslink, which won't benefit Londoners very much, far less than
the projects I discuss above. Crossrail and Thameslink can never be
viable in terms of paying back their capital, and they can only be
justified in cost-benefit terms if they attract vast number of NEW
travellers into London. A decision to build them at government expense is
a decision to abandon the rest of the country and concentrate all
development in the South - East. As a Northerner, I am against that. And
maybe you should be too. Remember what happened to capitals which get too
far out of step with their countries, like Paris in 1871. The Paris
municipality ("commune" in French = "municipality" in English: our
failure to translate this word has led us to serious misunderstanding of
this event) was crushed by the provinces.

Think hard!

But London has received _enormous_ underinvestment for decades - that's
why the transport system is so overcrowded. London puts far more into
the British economy than it gets out.

Now that's the way it should be - I'm not complaining, I realise that
London is the engine of this country's economy and consequently should
be expected to pay more than its fair share for investment elsewhere
that couldn't be paid for otherwise.

But major infrastructure projects like Thameslink and Crossrail are
needed in London, and I'm not sure I like the implication that they
should be abandoned because the rest of the country doesn't like to see
money spent on the capital. London _needs_ it - and if London were to
lose its position as a worldcity, it isn't just those inside the M25
that are going to be affected when the economy suffers.

Jonn Elledge


I'm afraid we'll have to agree to differ.

Michael Bell

--