Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 20:27:59 on Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:

I don't believe that absurdly low cost figure. In 1992 terms, the cost of
the full Piccadilly line extension, including the four stations, was
probably well over £250m, maybe closer to £500m.

If you don't accept the contemporaneous figure of £26m build cost when
it opened, then other discussion is futile. Can you come up with a
better figure from the archives - if you do we can resume talking about
the return on investment.

As you well know, it wasn't a contemporaneous figure. It was an absurdly
low estimate, from an aviation magazine, from years earlier, that was not
only many times too small for even the original simple 1977 extension, but
also couldn't have taken into account the eventual scope of the project,
with four stations rather than two, and the extended tunnels to T4 and T5.


Building those extensions in three stages also pushed up the costs, with
the junctions for the T4 and T5 lines having to be added years later. The
T4 loop is also longer than it needs to be, as it was originally planned to
include the T5 station on it. Those all push up the costs way beyond the
original 1970's project, let alone wildly optimistic 1960s guesses.

So we have no contemporaneous figure, and I can't find any on the web (it's
hard to find documents and contemporary news reports on the web from so
long before there was a web).

So I have used the next best thing, the costs of three other underground
London railways built slightly later, to get a ballpark figure of around
£1.5bn. Even if projects were cheaper in real terms in the 1970s, the total
won't have been much below £1bn in 2000 terms.

However, even the 1960s Victoria line cost £7m per mile in 1960s money,
which shows just how low that £26m is. Even if the Picc extension was as
cheap to build per mile as the mid 1960s Victoria line, that would still be
close to £80m per mile in 2000 money, which would make the cost somewhere
north of £600m in 2000 money terms.

See
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4934f...#axzz470nUlC5w

So, however you calculate it, the cost in 2000 money terms is somewhere in
the £0.6 to £1.5m range. As we don't have a better figure, let's simplify
the sums and assume it was in the £1bn bracket, again in 2000 money.

Now try and tell us that the fares income will ever pay back that cost.

Anecdotally, there was a last minute realisation in the formation of TfL that it was being given control of those urban motorways, but didn't have the legal authority to manage motorways, therefore they were hurriedly declassified.

The London end of the M11 has a 50 mph speed limit.
That has TfL's finger prints all over it. There was no such
speed limit until TfL appeared on the scene. I don't recall
the M4 having a speed limit in the London area before either.
Is it quite certain that TfL have no control of motorways in
the Greater London area?

Recliner wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message

-sept ember.org, at 20:27:59 on Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:

I don't believe that absurdly low cost figure. In 1992 terms, the
cost of the full Piccadilly line extension, including the four
stations, was probably well over £250m, maybe closer to £500m.

If you don't accept the contemporaneous figure of £26m build cost
when it opened, then other discussion is futile. Can you come up
with a better figure from the archives - if you do we can resume
talking about the return on investment.

As you well know, it wasn't a contemporaneous figure. It was an
absurdly low estimate, from an aviation magazine, from years earlier,
that was not only many times too small for even the original simple
1977 extension, but also couldn't have taken into account the
eventual scope of the project, with four stations rather than two,
and the extended tunnels to T4 and T5.

£26m is in the right ballpark. According to Hansard from 15 Dec 1976

Mr. Sillars asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his
latest estimate of the Government share of costs associated with
building the Piccadilly underground line extension to Heathrow Airport.

Mr. William Rodgers - My Department contributed 25 per cent. of the
total expenditure of £18.5 million incurred up to 31st March 1975.
Expenditure since then, estimated at £7.2 million to 31st December
1976, qualifies under the Local Government Act 1974 for transport
supplementary grant at the rate of 70 per cent. The total cost of the
work outstanding at 31st December 1976 is estimated to be £3.6 million.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/w...761215_CWA_194

So the total cost was approx 18.5 + 7.2 + 3.6 = 29.3 million.

Using RPI, that would be around £220 million in todays money.

Peter Smyth

Peter Smyth wrote:
Recliner wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message

-sept ember.org, at 20:27:59 on Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:

I don't believe that absurdly low cost figure. In 1992 terms, the
cost of the full Piccadilly line extension, including the four
stations, was probably well over £250m, maybe closer to £500m.

If you don't accept the contemporaneous figure of £26m build cost
when it opened, then other discussion is futile. Can you come up
with a better figure from the archives - if you do we can resume
talking about the return on investment.

As you well know, it wasn't a contemporaneous figure. It was an
absurdly low estimate, from an aviation magazine, from years earlier,
that was not only many times too small for even the original simple
1977 extension, but also couldn't have taken into account the
eventual scope of the project, with four stations rather than two,
and the extended tunnels to T4 and T5.

£26m is in the right ballpark. According to Hansard from 15 Dec 1976

Mr. Sillars asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his
latest estimate of the Government share of costs associated with
building the Piccadilly underground line extension to Heathrow Airport.

Mr. William Rodgers - My Department contributed 25 per cent. of the
total expenditure of £18.5 million incurred up to 31st March 1975.
Expenditure since then, estimated at £7.2 million to 31st December
1976, qualifies under the Local Government Act 1974 for transport
supplementary grant at the rate of 70 per cent. The total cost of the
work outstanding at 31st December 1976 is estimated to be £3.6 million.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/w...761215_CWA_194

So the total cost was approx 18.5 + 7.2 + 3.6 = 29.3 million.

Using RPI, that would be around £220 million in todays money.

Of course that was for the original two-station extension, but it
nevertheless seems very low (and presumably doesn't include anything for
the several additional trains needed for the extension, but presumably
ordered in anticipation).

What was the total cost including the two separate, subsequent extensions
for T4 and T5, the latter also requiring a new grade-separated underground
junction for the T4 and T5 lines to the west of the T123 station? Those
extensions would certainly have much more than doubled the total cost.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 20:50:55 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:51:12 +0100, JNugent
wrote:



I always thought the Highways Agency was in charge of those motorways,
not TfL; but putting that to one side it does look as if the majority of
the money will be going on public transport, which will then pay much of
it back through fares.

TaL is well-known not to have any say over motorways (thank God).

Not having direct control is not the same as not having a say. Also,
TfL inherited at least two motorways (A102(M) and M41) but these were
immediately re-classified as non-motorway special roads.


Was the Westway under TfL's (or its predecessor's) control when it was
still a motorway? There was a time when I commuted to work on it most
days.

The A40(M) is Westway, the M41 (now part of the A3220) was the bit
running down from it to Shepherds Bush roundabout forming part of the
planned West Cross Route.

The Pathetic Motorways version is :-
"So why isn't it a motorway anymore?
For purely political reasons. In 2000, all roads within Greater London
were transferred to a new body, "Transport for London" [which is
clearly wrong as most roads come under the burghs]. Unfortunately,
whoever wrote the legislation made an error, and TfL have no power to
be the authority in charge of motorways..."

http://motorwayarchive.ihtservices.c...t-cross-route/
says :-
"Following the formation of Transport for London (TfL), these roads
were reclassified in May 2000. This change was required because the
Greater London Authority (GLA) Act does not give the Mayor for London
powers to be the highway authority for motorways, but these roads were
being transferred to the Mayor. It was therefore necessary to remove
their motorway status before June 2000 when the Mayor took office. "
which doesn't seem to be a relevant reason rather than when TfL had
relevant powers vested in it.

The actual sequence of events might then be that legislation
transferred the motorways to TfL on the date that TfL was created but
between that legislation being passed and the creation day further
legislation removed the motorways from the process.

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 22:18:44 on Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Mr. William Rodgers - My Department contributed 25 per cent. of the
total expenditure of £18.5 million incurred up to 31st March 1975.
Expenditure since then, estimated at £7.2 million to 31st December
1976, qualifies under the Local Government Act 1974 for transport
supplementary grant at the rate of 70 per cent. The total cost of the
work outstanding at 31st December 1976 is estimated to be £3.6 million.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/w...761215_CWA_194

So the total cost was approx 18.5 + 7.2 + 3.6 = 29.3 million.

Using RPI, that would be around £220 million in todays money.

Of course that was for the original two-station extension, but it
nevertheless seems very low (and presumably doesn't include anything for
the several additional trains needed for the extension, but presumably
ordered in anticipation).

Tube lines have fleets of identical trains, you can't just order a few
more later.

What was the total cost including the two separate, subsequent extensions
for T4 and T5, the latter also requiring a new grade-separated underground
junction for the T4 and T5 lines to the west of the T123 station? Those
extensions would certainly have much more than doubled the total cost.

And generate double the fares.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 22:18:44 on Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Mr. William Rodgers - My Department contributed 25 per cent. of the
total expenditure of £18.5 million incurred up to 31st March 1975.
Expenditure since then, estimated at £7.2 million to 31st December
1976, qualifies under the Local Government Act 1974 for transport
supplementary grant at the rate of 70 per cent. The total cost of the
work outstanding at 31st December 1976 is estimated to be £3.6 million.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/w...761215_CWA_194

So the total cost was approx 18.5 + 7.2 + 3.6 = 29.3 million.

Using RPI, that would be around £220 million in todays money.

Of course that was for the original two-station extension, but it
nevertheless seems very low (and presumably doesn't include anything for
the several additional trains needed for the extension, but presumably
ordered in anticipation).

Tube lines have fleets of identical trains, you can't just order a few
more later.

Do you really think that?

I must be imagining the extra train ordered for the Met to cover the
Watford Junction extension, the extra carriages and trains ordered for the
Jubilee line (even after the original UK factory that assembled them had
closed), the extra carriages and trains ordered for the Overground, the
extra carriages and Pendolino trains ordered for Virgin (also after the UK
assembly plant had closed), the pending order for new Northern line trains
for the Battersea extension, etc.

But in this case, the 73TS were built while the Heathrow extension was
under construction, and a large enough fleet to cover it was ordered.
Without that extension, the order would have been for a significantly
smaller fleet. They were later modified to have more luggage space by the
doors, with fewer seats.


What was the total cost including the two separate, subsequent extensions
for T4 and T5, the latter also requiring a new grade-separated underground
junction for the T4 and T5 lines to the west of the T123 station? Those
extensions would certainly have much more than doubled the total cost.

And generate double the fares.

Probably not double (have you seen how few people use the T4 station?), but
more certainly. But if you're going to estimate that total incremental
revenue (as you did), then you also have to look at the total investment.

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 08:03:57 on Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:

the 73TS were built while the Heathrow extension was
under construction, and a large enough fleet to cover it was ordered.
Without that extension, the order would have been for a significantly
smaller fleet.


They were later modified to have more luggage space by the
doors, with fewer seats.

What was the total cost including the two separate, subsequent extensions
for T4 and T5, the latter also requiring a new grade-separated underground
junction for the T4 and T5 lines to the west of the T123 station? Those
extensions would certainly have much more than doubled the total cost.

And generate double the fares.

Probably not double (have you seen how few people use the T4 station?), but
more certainly.

Latest annual station usage stats:

T123 7.49m
T5 3.90m
T4 2.35m

But if you're going to estimate that total incremental revenue (as you
did), then you also have to look at the total investment.

To simplify things I've only been looking at the cost, and revenue of,
Phase 1, for most of the thread now.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 07:59:18 BST, Bob Martin
wrote:

in 1378970 20160425 090854 Graeme Wall wrote:
On 25/04/2016 09:00, Recliner wrote:
From
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...en-for-transpo
rt-for-london/

Quote:

Heathrow's controversial proposal to build a third runway would place a
£16bn burden on Transport for London, the agency has said, as it would
require upgrades to the road and railway networks that service the airport.

TfL said Heathrow had "substantially underestimated" the impact of the
extra runway, as it released a figure eight times higher than the £2.2bn
that the airport had calculated.

The transport authority instead estimates that the development, which could
lead to heavier congestion on London's roads, buses and trains, will have a
£18.4bn price tag.

Heathrow has previously promised that £1.2bn would be raised through public
contributions, with the airport spending another £1bn, leaving a shortfall
of more than £16bn.

... continues


Haven't they put off the announcement yet again?

They'll keep putting it off until all the transit stuff moves to Frankfurt or Amsterdam.

Or, the financial sector starts to move to Frankfurt.

Regardless of what happens at Heathrow, surely Gatwick needs
expansion. When the Weald oil fields come on-stream, oilmen are not
going to trek from Heathrow to deepest Sussex.