On May 25, 4:17*pm, Stephen Furley wrote:

On 25 May, 15:58, "Recliner" wrote:

There were even jokes about how London should
have sub-contracted the 2012 Olympics to Paris, once we realised just
how much it was going to cost, with British spectators who turned up at
Stratford being whisked directly across the Channel.

It may have been intended as a joke, but it sounds like a very good
idea to me. *The French actually wanted the Games; it's difficult to
find anybody in this country who did.

I did. I still do. I don't think your Daily Mail columnist-esque
comment would hold up to thorough scrutiny, but it's an easy thing to
say.

(I think I'll exit this thread now as I can sense the coming avalanche
of scorn.)

On 25/05/2010 15:54, Paul Scott wrote:
The BBC report the fact that:

"A £210m station which was due to help bring in people from abroad to the
London 2012 Olympic Games may never have an international service..."

Correct me if I've got this wrong, but isn't the bit about 'bringing people
to the games' bolloc#s anyway?

Not if you read it somewhat pedantically as (station due to help bring
in people (some from abroad)) will (never have an international
service). While Eurostar wasn't going to stop at Stratford during the
games, the station is certainly intended to bring in spectators, and
some of these will be from abroad - they will just change at St Pancras
or Ebbsfleet to reach Stratford. And hurrah for a correct use of Javelin.

As for the Olympics, I thought the argument was that absolutely everyone
in the country outside London wanted them, it was just tight-fisted
killjoy London taxpayers who didn't, and that was why were lumbered with
them...

Anyway, "Other international train operators are in talks to use
Stratford" is more interesting.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:26:32 +0100, "Robin" wrote:

I think you'll find a fair few self-aggrandising Ministers (now former
Ministers) who wanted the games. But if you, quite reasonably, don't
count them as people I do of course withdraw my comment.

For that matter, not many backbenchers or opposition MPs opposed the
bid. But then no one was going to repeat the lessons of the Dome, were
they?


Compared to the 2012 Olympics, the Dome was a bargain.

On May 25, 6:20*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:

On 25/05/2010 15:54, Paul Scott wrote:

The BBC report the fact that:

"A £210m station which was due to help bring in people from abroad to the
London 2012 Olympic Games may never have an international service..."

Correct me if I've got this wrong, but isn't the bit about 'bringing people
to the games' bolloc#s anyway?

Not if you read it somewhat pedantically as (station due to help bring
in people (some from abroad)) will (never have an international
service). While Eurostar wasn't going to stop at Stratford during the
games, the station is certainly intended to bring in spectators, and
some of these will be from abroad - they will just change at St Pancras
or Ebbsfleet to reach Stratford. And hurrah for a correct use of Javelin.

OK - so the real story here is possibly 'international station will
never get international trains' - in which case I suggest that's not a
new story, as Eurostar CEO Richard Brown was saying that quite some
time ago, and we've discussed it on here many times. Of course one
should never say never - and I'd say that not considering to run any
services until after the Games in 2012, before which the area around
the station will remain a building site, is a sensible option.

I'd think there would be a market of some sort for Eurostar services
from Stratford, but whether E* think that'd be worthwhile given the
extra costs it would entail effectively running another international
terminal (and all that entails) only a few miles from St Pancras is
the critical question. Perhaps in years to come as new housing comes
on stream in the Olympic Park site then things might be different
(much of the new housing is to come later - it's only really the
athletes village that'll be converted for housing and available
shortly after the Games are finished.)


As for the Olympics, I thought the argument was that absolutely everyone
in the country outside London wanted them, it was just tight-fisted
killjoy London taxpayers who didn't, and that was why were lumbered with
them...

So that's the Figgis take on it... I see!

Being boring, my (slightly more serious) take is that many Londoners
were keen on the idea of it during the bidding phase, but as time has
past a significant number have gone somewhat colder on it all.


Anyway, "Other international train operators are in talks to use
Stratford" is more interesting.

Possibly translates as 'HS1 Ltd is keen to talk up the idea of
possible competing services in the run up to it being flogged by the
government who want to secure the best price they can get - ' - or is
that too cynical? As to the factual basis of it, it could be nothing
more than there being an open line of communication between HS1 Ltd
and say DB - the general impression might well suit Mr Grube at DB as
well, even if nothing much is really happening on that front at the
moment.

On May 25, 6:57*pm, Bruce wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:26:32 +0100, "Robin" wrote:

I think you'll find a fair few self-aggrandising Ministers (now former
Ministers) who wanted the games. *But if you, quite reasonably, don't
count them as people I do of course withdraw my comment.

For that matter, not many backbenchers or opposition MPs opposed the
bid. *But then no one was going to repeat the lessons of the Dome, were
they?

Compared to the 2012 Olympics, the Dome was a bargain.

The 2012 Games does at least have a solid focus, unlike the Dome.

Plus, what's your take on how it will promote the image of London and
Britain abroad, both in terms of tourism and in a wider sense as a
place where things can be done. It might even help to convince some
Brits that a 'can do' spirit isn't something to be mocked but
celebrated. Plus there's all the regenerative effects of the Games on
east London.

Mock away...

"Stephen Furley" wrote in message
...
On 25 May, 17:14, MIG wrote:

I've met a person who thinks that having the Olympics in London is a
good idea. So that's at least 651 odd people ...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What percentage of the population would you say were in favour of the
Games? I certainly don't have any accurate figures, but the
impression I've got from hearing people talk about them is that it's a
minority, and not a very large one; probably less than 20%. Most
people seem to think that they're just too expensive.

75% of the UK actually.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-2012-games.do

Peter Smyth

On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:18:53 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:


On May 25, 6:57*pm, Bruce wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:26:32 +0100, "Robin" wrote:

I think you'll find a fair few self-aggrandising Ministers (now former
Ministers) who wanted the games. *But if you, quite reasonably, don't
count them as people I do of course withdraw my comment.

For that matter, not many backbenchers or opposition MPs opposed the
bid. *But then no one was going to repeat the lessons of the Dome, were
they?

Compared to the 2012 Olympics, the Dome was a bargain.

The 2012 Games does at least have a solid focus, unlike the Dome.


No, it's exactly like the Dome. Both could be accurately described as
"grandstanding". The only difference is, the Dome was a bargain.


Plus, what's your take on how it will promote the image of London and
Britain abroad, both in terms of tourism and in a wider sense as a
place where things can be done.


It will be like any Olympic Games that has been held in a first world
country - a complete waste of time, money and effort.

It's OK for countries like China and, for the World Cup, South Africa.
It will put them on the map and bring in people and business that
would otherwise probably not have come. It will do sod all for the UK
except cost an inordinate amount of money.

It might even help to convince some
Brits that a 'can do' spirit isn't something to be mocked but
celebrated.


Only if "can do" equates to "can spend an inordinate amount of money
on something that has no long term benefit".


Plus there's all the regenerative effects of the Games on
east London.


All of which could have been obtained for just a small fraction of the
£10.6 billion so far committed. And there are no regenerative effects
anywhere else.


Mock away...


It's not mocking, it is taking an objective look at how public money
is spent. £10.6 billion would have paid for most of Crossrail. The
Channel Tunnel only cost 30% more, and even I would admit that it has
brought some long term benefit to the UK, although nowhere near
anything that justified the cost.

The Olympics has brought no benefit at all. It has overheated the
construction industry in London and put up contract prices across the
board, so many clients have had to pay a lot more for their projects
just because of it. Jobs have been lost because businesses displaced
from the site have not all reopened. Local residents have had to put
up with the noise, mess and traffic for several years and for what? A
park that no-one has the faintest idea what to do with.

Even the accommodation for Olympic athletes will require extremely
expensive conversion to make it suitable for social housing because
the designers didn't deliver on their promises.

I think the people who are really doing the mocking are those who
promoted the Olympic bid, promising it would be delivered within a
budget of £2.7 billion.

The out-turn cost will be more than four times more. Those people
were taking the ****, and so are you.

On 25 May, 17:45, Stephen Furley wrote:
On 25 May, 17:14, MIG wrote:

I've met a person who thinks that having the Olympics in London is a
good idea. *So that's at least 651 odd people ...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What percentage of the population would you say were in favour of the
Games? *I certainly don't have any accurate figures, but the
impression I've got from hearing people talk about them is that it's a
minority, and not a very large one; probably less than 20%. *Most
people seem to think that they're just too expensive.

As I was saying, I've met one. However, this wasn't an exhaustive
survey.

On 25 May, 19:43, Bruce wrote:

It will be like any Olympic Games that has been held in a first world
country - a complete waste of time, money and effort.

It's OK for countries like China and, for the World Cup, South Africa.
It will put them on the map and bring in people and business that
would otherwise probably not have come. *It will do sod all for the UK
except cost an inordinate amount of money.

China can probably afford it, but doesn't need it. China has plenty
of business already.

All of which could have been obtained for just a small fraction of the
£10.6 billion so far committed. *And there are no regenerative effects
anywhere else.

This is exactly like the Dome. We were told that the project would
clean up a contaminated ex gasworks site. This was true of course,
but that could have been done at far lower cost.

It's not mocking, it is taking an objective look at how public money
is spent. *£10.6 billion would have paid for most of Crossrail. *The
Channel Tunnel only cost 30% more, and even I would admit that it has
brought some long term benefit to the UK, although nowhere near
anything that justified the cost. *

The Olympics has brought no benefit at all. *It has overheated the
construction industry in London and put up contract prices across the
board, so many clients have had to pay a lot more for their projects
just because of it. *Jobs have been lost because businesses displaced
from the site have not all reopened. *Local residents have had to put
up with the noise, mess and traffic for several years and for what? *A
park that no-one has the faintest idea what to do with.

I'm not sure about 'no benefit at all'. I think that there are
benefits, but the costs of them are out of all proportion to those
benefits. There are also 'dis-benefits', if there is such a word,
which may outweigh the benefits, even if the costs are ignored.

Even the accommodation for Olympic athletes will require extremely
expensive conversion to make it suitable for social housing because
the designers didn't deliver on their promises.

Will probably end up as expensive flats for people from outside the
area. Some of the sports venues may be re-located elsewhere, but
there seems to be some doubt about that. The main stadium is due to
survive in cut-down form, but it was suggested last year that the
proposed future use may be unaffordable. We shall see; this would not
be the first stadium to be demolished after the games.

If we want to hold a few weeks of sporting events, and invite athletes
from around the world, then by all means do so, but there's no need to
spend this amount of money to do so. We have various existing venues
where top athletes compete in other events; why can't they be used,
possibly with some minor upgrading, for the Olympics.

I rather liked the old Stratford, but much of it is likely to be
lost. What remains of the Bow Back Rivers once the games are over,
remains to be seen.

Stratford was home to some of the 'nasty' industries, though many of
them have closed down since the War. There is no doubt that the area
needed regeneration, but it did not need the Olympics. Don't look
down on areas which have nasty industries; they produce products which
people want to use, paint and varnish, soap, printing inks (and
printed materials), industrial alcohol, chemicals etc. It also
recycled scrap materials, overhauled railway vehicles, provided
scaffolding and so on. Much of what was left of the industry will
probably not survive the Olympics.

The great thing about Stratford was that the housing was the right
distance from the industry; separated from it, but reasonably close.
You weren't living right next door to the paint factory, but probably
in some rather nice Victorian terraced housing which, suitably
refurbished and with modern facilities, can provide a very pleasant
place to live. Best of all, work was probably close enough to walk;
no need to be in a car stuck in traffic, no need to travel to work in
overcrowded rush hour trains, but the area has excellent transport
connections when you do want to travel other than for work.

On 25 May, 19:10, Mizter T wrote:
On May 25, 6:20*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:





On 25/05/2010 15:54, Paul Scott wrote:

The BBC report the fact that:

"A £210m station which was due to help bring in people from abroad to the
London 2012 Olympic Games may never have an international service..."

Correct me if I've got this wrong, but isn't the bit about 'bringing people
to the games' bolloc#s anyway?

Not if you read it somewhat pedantically as (station due to help bring
in people (some from abroad)) will (never have an international
service). While Eurostar wasn't going to stop at Stratford during the
games, the station is certainly intended to bring in spectators, and
some of these will be from abroad - they will just change at St Pancras
or Ebbsfleet to reach Stratford. And hurrah for a correct use of Javelin.