On May 29, 5:22*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2010 06:54:31 -0700 (PDT), lonelytraveller



wrote:
On 29 May, 14:39, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"lonelytraveller" wrote

they managed to produce the victoria line pretty cheaply. I don't see
why its such a struggle to produce another line cheaply.

Too much on the cheap. Kings Cross was left as a fire trap. Several
stations, notably Victoria, Oxford Circus and Kings Cross were too small for
the number of passengers using them, and are having to be expensively
enlarged. Brixton needs three platforms to turn back the whole service, but
only has two. While there is good cross-platform interchange at Stockwell,
Oxford Circus, Euston, Highbury & Islington and Finsbury Park, interchange
at other stations, particularly Vauxhall and Green Park is as bad as it is
possible to make it.
In a choice between having the Victoria line, and not having it, which
would you prefer?

That's not really a sensible proposition though. I live on the Victoria
Line route so I am very pleased it exists. As Mr Masson pointed out the
Victoria Line was pared to the bone and we have had decades of
passengers being delayed due to inadequate capacity in stations and
massively overcrowded trains. *All that disbenefit - and it will amount
of hundreds of millions of pounds if not billions - just because they
wanted to save a few tens of millions in the 60s? *If the planners, back
in the 1960s, had been able to accurately estimate how patronage would
grow, the extent of people being delayed due to poor capacity and then
the massively expensive additional works that have been needed would
they ever have agreed to cut back the original scheme? *I doubt it very
much.

There is a real fallacy in building assets that will last for over 100
years for about 10 years worth of projected demand. *People complain
about the scale of somewhere like Canary Wharf JLE station but it can
handle huge numbers of people very effectively - it's in complete
contrast to somewhere like Victoria or Kings Cross which jam up or else
send people round corridors for 10 miles to spread the passenger load
out.

I appreciate that the government says it has to review projects - that
is its prerogative. At the same time it says it wants an entrepreneurial
economy and more private sector jobs. *The bit it seems to forget is
that those same entrepreneurs and private sector employees do need an
effective and efficient transport system to support their endeavours.
For London that means big schemes like Thameslink, tube upgrades and
Crossrail need to happen. *Similar schemes in the rest of the country
that improve city transport and inter-urban transport also have to
happen. *Condemning people to decades of car borne congestion and no
viable alternative is not sensible even if the money is very tight. *You
can sacrifice other things to allow capital investment to carry on -
provided you're sure you're getting it at a good price. *This is where
the frogs have to stop boiling in Network Rail's scoping and costing
departments and where cost has to be taken out in all of the
"interfaces" in the rail industry. *By all means send in the forensic
accountants and auditors to make our money go further.

--
Paul C

Aside from the omission of most of the central escalators in each
bank, don't suppose you have any details on what else was cut from the
original plans?