It is most unlikely that the taxpayer will ever see a sensible return on the money.
The extension is going to serve a housing development. Behind the housing
estate is the River Thames. Half a mile north is Vauxhall Station. Less than
half a mile south are Battersea Park and Queenstown Road. Wandsworth Road
and Clapham North Stations are not far away.

How many passengers who do not live in the proposed housing development
will use this extension? Not many. Will there be enough people using this
extension to finance an adequate repayment of the loan? Most unlikely.

There is - or was - a much more worthwhile possible extension of the Northern
Line from Kennington as I have explained before.

Phil Cook wrote:
On 05/12/2012 16:36, Anthony Polson wrote:
d wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:09:58 +0000
Anthony Polson wrote:
I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

Why? There are other people living there already you know, it won't just be
for the new estate.


Apparently the new estate would be unviable without the Northern Line.
So the developers should pay, or at least make a significant
contribution. Not to do so suggests either that the development is
only marginally viable (I think we can probably discount that) or some
grubby deal has been done in which political representatives and/or
their party(ies) will benefit in some way.


developers to paying £1 billion for the extension of the Northern
Line, one has to wonder whether the outlay of taxpayers' money will
ever be recouped.

Mr Osborne announced: “As one of the first projects to benefit from this
scheme, the Government will provide a UK Guarantee to allow the Mayor of
London to borrow £1 billion at a new preferential rate to support the
Northern Line Extension to Battersea scheme, subject to due diligence
and the agreement of a binding Funding and Development Agreement with
developers, the Mayor of London and partner authorities during 2013.

“The Northern Line extension to Battersea is key to the redevelopment of
Battersea Power Station and the regeneration of an historic part of London.

"Government intervention has the potential to enable an £8 billion
investment at the Battersea Power Station site, supporting the wider
redevelopment planned for Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea."


What relevance has any of that to whether the taxpayers' £1 billion
will ever be recouped?

When there are plenty of proposed capital projects with benefit/cost
ratios of 2.0 or greater waiting for Treasury funding, projects that
will benefit the nation as a whole, why on earth is £1 billion of
taxpayers' money going to be spent on supporting a private developer's
pipe dream?

The already-rich people of Battersea must be laughing their rainbow-coloured 5-toed socks off at this free addition to their house value.

Robin9 wrote:


Anthony Polson;134685 Wrote:



I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

If you take into account all the Government help, from derelict land
grants for cleaning up the subsoil through all the sweeteners for
developers to paying £1 billion for the extension of the Northern
Line, one has to wonder whether the outlay of taxpayers' money will
ever be recouped.



It is most unlikely that the taxpayer will ever see a sensible return on
the money.
The extension is going to serve a housing development. Behind the
housing
estate is the River Thames. Half a mile north is Vauxhall Station. Less
than
half a mile south are Battersea Park and Queenstown Road. Wandsworth
Road
and Clapham North Stations are not far away.

How many passengers who do not live in the proposed housing development

will use this extension? Not many. Will there be enough people using
this
extension to finance an adequate repayment of the loan? Most unlikely.


I agree with all of the above.


There is - or was - a much more worthwhile possible extension of the
Northern
Line from Kennington as I have explained before.

"Anthony Polson" wrote in message
...
Phil Cook wrote:
On 05/12/2012 16:36, Anthony Polson wrote:
d wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:09:58 +0000
Anthony Polson wrote:
I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

Why? There are other people living there already you know, it won't
just be
for the new estate.


Apparently the new estate would be unviable without the Northern Line.
So the developers should pay, or at least make a significant
contribution. Not to do so suggests either that the development is
only marginally viable (I think we can probably discount that) or some
grubby deal has been done in which political representatives and/or
their party(ies) will benefit in some way.


developers to paying £1 billion for the extension of the Northern
Line, one has to wonder whether the outlay of taxpayers' money will
ever be recouped.

Mr Osborne announced: "As one of the first projects to benefit from this
scheme, the Government will provide a UK Guarantee to allow the Mayor of
London to borrow £1 billion at a new preferential rate to support the
Northern Line Extension to Battersea scheme, subject to due diligence
and the agreement of a binding Funding and Development Agreement with
developers, the Mayor of London and partner authorities during 2013.

"The Northern Line extension to Battersea is key to the redevelopment of
Battersea Power Station and the regeneration of an historic part of
London.

"Government intervention has the potential to enable an £8 billion
investment at the Battersea Power Station site, supporting the wider
redevelopment planned for Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea."


What relevance has any of that to whether the taxpayers' £1 billion
will ever be recouped?

ISTM that stamp duty (at 3 or 4%) on 8 billion pounds of house sales will go
some way towards it (250-300 milliion)

Not to mention the ongoing council tax collected from a site that is
currently derelict and paying nothing in local taxes

tim

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.

On 5 Dec, 16:39, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:36:17 +0000





Anthony Polson wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:09:58 +0000
Anthony Polson wrote:
I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

Why? There are other people living there already you know, it won't just be
for the new estate.

Apparently the new estate would be unviable without the Northern Line.
So the developers should pay, or at least make a significant
contribution. *Not to do so suggests either that the development is
only marginally viable (I think we can probably discount that) or some
grubby deal has been done in which political representatives and/or
their party(ies) will benefit in some way.

Does it really matter? The extension will be a benefit for the whole area..

Is this true? I mean the area already has several railway stations.
And there is no effort being made to integrate the new extension into
the existing transportation infrastructure.

After WWII several studies were done on the future transportation need
of the London region. One of the few tangible results of these
studies was the Victoria Line.

The Victoria Line filled a strategic gap in the subway network. Its
axis was almost a stroke of genius. Add to that the interchanges with
the existing lines (some of them cross platform) and the route quickly
became an indispensible part of the everyday journey of millions of
users. Indeed the routes succeeded in knitting together disparate
parts of London's rail network.

Fast forward to the Jubilee Line extension: This one was much less
well planned, but did manage provide a useful route with some
worthwhile interchanges. And, in compensation for the lack of
strategic planning, the Canary Wharf developer made a sizable
contribution to the Line's cost.

Now we come to the Northern Line extension to Battersea. There is no
strategy. There is just a developer's perceived need to a "tube"
connection. There is no guarantee that the urban development will be
completed.

If the line is intended to replace the two existing Battersea stations
(accelerating services into Victoria and Waterloo), and would then
continue to Clapham Junction (for interchange with the mainlines) it
might make some sort of sense. In its planned form it is an oversized
vanity project adding little to London's transportation network.

And, what of Battersea and Nine Elms as a whole? Is there a grand
vision here? Will the existing road system be abandoned in favor of a
modern grid? Are there attempts at future proofing? I mean will
there be easy access to the subsurface for future co-axes and fibre
optics, etc?

How about severe ToDs over, and around, the new stations? Perhaps
high rise residential accommodation, over commercial office space,
over retail. The density (and skyline) tapering off as distance from
the stations increases?

No? I thought not, just more expensive piecemeal renewal. One day
London will wonder why her role, as a financial center, has been
replaced by perhaps Singapore, Shanghai, and/or Brasilia.

It would be better to spend the money on a replacement for Camden Town
Northern Line station. That would at least allow splitting and
acceleration of the Northern Line.

On 5 Dec, 18:10, Robin9 wrote:
Anthony Polson;134685 Wrote:



I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

If you take into account all the Government help, from derelict land
grants for cleaning up the subsoil through all the sweeteners for
developers to paying 1 billion for the extension of the Northern
Line, one has to wonder whether the outlay of taxpayers' money will
ever be recouped.

It is most unlikely that the taxpayer will ever see a sensible return on
the money.
The extension is going to serve a housing development. Behind the
housing
estate is the River Thames. Half a mile north is Vauxhall Station. Less
than
half a mile south are Battersea Park and Queenstown Road. Wandsworth
Road
and Clapham North Stations are not far away.

How many passengers who do not live in the proposed housing development

will use this extension? Not many. Will there be enough people using
this
extension to finance an adequate repayment of the loan? Most unlikely.

There is - or was - a much more worthwhile possible extension of the
Northern
Line from Kennington as I have explained before.

Excellent comments, and as I have commented elsewhere, rebuilding
Camden Town station would benefit far more passengers.

On 06/12/2012 12:55, 77002 wrote:
After WWII several studies were done on the future transportation need
of the London region. One of the few tangible results of these
studies was the Victoria Line.

And the Jubilee line, and Crossrail.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 04:55:37 -0800 (PST)
77002 wrote:
Does it really matter? The extension will be a benefit for the whole area=
..

Is this true? I mean the area already has several railway stations.
And there is no effort being made to integrate the new extension into
the existing transportation infrastructure.

Does it need to? I can't see anyone changing onto the northern line at
battersea and trundling through south london when they can go one more stop
to victoria and be in the heart of west end with 2 stops of the victoria line.

The Victoria Line filled a strategic gap in the subway network. Its

Shame it didn't go further south.

Fast forward to the Jubilee Line extension: This one was much less
well planned, but did manage provide a useful route with some

Useful until it heads of to stratford pointlessly duplicating the DLR.
A Thamesmead terminues as originally planned would have opened up a whole
new area along the thames.

Now we come to the Northern Line extension to Battersea. There is no
strategy. There is just a developer's perceived need to a "tube"
connection. There is no guarantee that the urban development will be
completed.

Believe me, once a tube station is built developers will be climbing over
each other to get projects approved there. Thats how london expanded in
the 1930s - Cockfosters for example used to be a quiet little village, now
look at it.

B2003