From BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6452865.stm

Interesting bit:
BBC London's political editor Tim Donovan said Mr Livingstone may raid
Transport for London reserves and use a £200m loan he has taken out
for transport improvements in east London to help find the £300m.

So it looks like there could be cuts in transport for the Olympics.
What do you think will be cut?
IMHO one of the DLR projects (replacement of the North London Line or
3 cars upgrade). Or may be even some other TfL project outside East
London :-S

On 15 Mar, 17:00, "alex_t" wrote:
From BBC News:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6452865.stm

Interesting bit:
BBC London's political editor Tim Donovan said Mr Livingstone may raid
Transport for London reserves and use a £200m loan he has taken out
for transport improvements in east London to help find the £300m.

So it looks like there could be cuts in transport for the Olympics.
What do you think will be cut?
IMHO one of the DLR projects (replacement of the North London Line or
3 cars upgrade). Or may be even some other TfL project outside East
London :-S


That's an interesting story, though I'd to know more information
before forming an opinion - my grasp on TfL's finances and the cost of
upcoming projects is pretty loose at the best of times, so it's
difficult to able to put that sum in perspective with regards the
wider picture.

However I'm pretty sure that the DLR is committed to both the three
car upgrade project and the Stratford International Extension project
(i.e. the NLL takeover), not least because both are pretty critical
with regards to the Olympics and the associated regeneration.

Perhaps potential future DLR extensions further east, or the East
London Transit might be put on the back burner. Or the West London
Tram - IMO it's would be a good thing, but the burghers of Ealing seem
distinctly mixed in their opinions of it, so perhaps that'll be nixed
(at least for now).

The problem with the budget for the games is that, as far as I can
make out, no-one really thought we'd win it so the original bid wasn't
realistic. As a born and bred Londoner I think it's absolutely great
that it's coming to London, and it seems that the various
announcements today regarding decisions on the funding of the games
should mean that the resulting turbulence is by and large dealt with
now rather than later.

In message ,
writes

I am not prepared to put up with any extra outgoings from my wallet or
any inconvenience caused by them .

Its probable that a certain amount of tourist income will be generated,
but experience shows that it usually falls well short of the estimates
(remember those thousands of empty seats in the broadcasts from
Athens?).

I've never been wholly persuaded by the "regeneration" arguments. Of
course, Barcelona is always rightly quoted as the classic example - but
there the Olympics opened-up a seafront that was hitherto an industrial
wasteland and revitalised old attractions on the beautiful Montjuic
site. East London may need regeneration, but rest assured that millions
of tourists won't be flocking to Stratford once the games have ended.

if the frogs want em let em have em I say

They never did. I was in Paris just before the Olympic bid, and there
was absolutely minimal publicity or enthusiasm. A couple of hotel owners
I spoke to actually said that the bid would ruin the Parisian economy
and totally distort their lucrative tourist income. One of them did have
the courtesy to thank me that London's mistake would relieve them of
decades of debt (and that was well before London's escalating costs were
revealed).

The Olympics is a bit like going to the Opera - its great if someone
else is paying.

--
Paul Terry

In message . com,
Mizter T writes

The problem with the budget for the games is that, as far as I can make
out, no-one really thought we'd win it so the original bid wasn't
realistic. As a born and bred Londoner I think it's absolutely great
that it's coming to London, and it seems that the various announcements
today regarding decisions on the funding of the games should mean that
the resulting turbulence is by and large dealt with now rather than later.

Agreed... I'm with you brother Mitzer
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Its probable that a certain amount of tourist income will be generated,
but experience shows that it usually falls well short of the estimates
(remember those thousands of empty seats in the broadcasts from
Athens?).

There are many other ways that the money will be returned - one of the
major is cost of broadcast rights. Plus selling the new flats in
Olympic village, etc.

As a born and bred Londoner I think it's absolutely great
that it's coming to London, and it seems that the various
announcements today regarding decisions on the funding of the games
should mean that the resulting turbulence is by and large dealt with
now rather than later.

Well, I live in London only for a year (and 15 days), but I totally
support the Olympics ;-)
Besides, something *must* be done with local wastelands...

On 15 Mar, 21:25, "alex_t" wrote:
As a born and bred Londoner I think it's absolutely great
that it's coming to London, and it seems that the various
announcements today regarding decisions on the funding of the games
should mean that the resulting turbulence is by and large dealt with
now rather than later.

Well, I live in London only for a year (and 15 days), but I totally
support the Olympics ;-)
Besides, something *must* be done with local wastelands...


Good stuff. Of course I didn't mean to imply that only born and bred
Londoners can support the Olympics, or indeed that only those who are
born and bred are Londoners!

But when does a Londoner become a Londoner is a long conversation,
best enjoyed over a pint of London Pride in a solid London public
hostelry... or some other refreshment that's to your taste in an
establishment of your choosing (with a shisha in a Little Lebanon cafe
perhaps)... some have said that being a Londoner comes as a sudden
flash of revelation whilst out walking along the Thames or staring out
over the sweeping skyline from an elevated vantage point... this post
is creeping off topic so I'll finish it there!

On 15 Mar 2007 10:00:48 -0700, "alex_t"
wrote:

From BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6452865.stm

Interesting bit:
BBC London's political editor Tim Donovan said Mr Livingstone may raid
Transport for London reserves and use a £200m loan he has taken out
for transport improvements in east London to help find the £300m.

I think you'll find he won't be able to do that without there being
severe consequences. The Treasury would leap on any misuse of the
specially granted powers to raise open market finance - they're just
looking for any excuse to reign in any perceived loss of their much
vaunted control.

The other consequence is that TfL's credit rating would be damaged if
reserves were raided and also if money raised from bonds for transport
were used to pay for the Olympics. What return would TfL earn from
funding the Olympics by stealth that would give an income stream to pay
those who have taken out "TfL bonds"?

The further effect is that any future bond offer would be more expensive
due to a poor credit rating and less likely to be taken up if there was
uncertainty.

Thus far TfL's financial position and controls has been sufficiently
good to make the extra financing effective and attractive. I really
cannot see the Mayor wishing to jeopardise such an important additional
power that he has gained after much fighting with Central government.

So it looks like there could be cuts in transport for the Olympics.
What do you think will be cut?
IMHO one of the DLR projects (replacement of the North London Line or
3 cars upgrade). Or may be even some other TfL project outside East
London :-S

None of them IMO.

DLR is a huge success story and much of the work is committed
contractually or about to be so. Ken needs every success he can get his
hands on. Overground is a hugely important scheme for TfL and the Mayor
- politically it is absolutely vital for Ken and also the Labour Party.
It simply will not be stopped given all the work that has been done.
Phase 2 might get delayed but I am sceptical about that because if
Overground is shown to work well in the early stages then the clamour
for a full "circle" will be huge.

The only scheme that is likely to go is East London Transit and that's
simply because Barking council won't allow it to run through the town
centre. Therefore there will probably just be a slightly improved route
369 instead. The savings are also small in the greater scheme of
things.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Terry wrote:
In message ,
writes

I am not prepared to put up with any extra outgoings from my
wallet or any inconvenience caused by them .

Its probable that a certain amount of tourist income will be
generated, but experience shows that it usually falls well short of
the estimates (remember those thousands of empty seats in the
broadcasts from Athens?).

I've never been wholly persuaded by the "regeneration" arguments. Of
course, Barcelona is always rightly quoted as the classic example -
but there the Olympics opened-up a seafront that was hitherto an
industrial wasteland and revitalised old attractions on the
beautiful Montjuic site. East London may need regeneration, but
rest assured that millions of tourists won't be flocking to
Stratford once the games have ended.
if the frogs want em let em have em I say

They never did. I was in Paris just before the Olympic bid, and
there was absolutely minimal publicity or enthusiasm. A couple of
hotel owners I spoke to actually said that the bid would ruin the
Parisian economy and totally distort their lucrative tourist
income. One of them did have the courtesy to thank me that London's
mistake would relieve them of decades of debt (and that was well
before London's escalating costs were revealed).

But they *are* going ahead with regeneration of the area they would have
used for the Olympics. The plans were announced in the press when I was
last in Paris.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

And what may I ask are these things going to do for the poor and
homeless of London .

Nothing*.
Just as they would get nothing if those money wouldn't be spent for
the Olympics.

* - well, may be nicer landscapes