On Oct 5, 4:18 pm, Mizter T wrote:
Did anyone in government ever actually suggest that Crossrail might be
ready for the Olympics? I can't think of anything, but it's a notion
that appears to have farily widespread currency so I kind of feel it
must have come from somewhere (an off the cuff comment from an ill-
informed minister for example).

I doubt the government will go out of its way to disabuse people of
the notion however , since perhaps they like it giving the impression
we'll be getting something usefil for the billions they're spending so
a bunch of athletes can run around in circles and chuck sticks and
balls about for a few weeks in events most people couldn't give a toss
about.

B2003

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Offramp wrote:

On Oct 2, 9:59 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

Construction will start two years before the Olympics?

I can foresee that in 2011 (like the JLE in 1998/9) the papers will start
to say, 'Why isn't this thing ready? It's meant to be ready for the 2012
Olympics!?' Then the Gov will throw squillions of pounds at it and it'll
open in May 2012.

Except the government have never said it'll be ready for the Olympics. A
lot of people seem to think that's the plan, but they're generally the
same people who think Hackney is getting a tube line, ie the uninformed.
If a hue and cry is raised, the government can quite truthfully say that
it can't be delivered before the Olympics, it never could have been, and
they never said it would be.


The BBC news site is clouding the issue re 2012 again today with:

"Critics fear massive disruption and warn that spiralling costs will see
funding slashed for other key transport and infrastructure initiatives. And
they point out that it will not even be ready for the 2012 Olympics, which
is itself likely to test Londoners' pockets and patience."

It seems George Galloway is against it as well. What a surprise...

Paul

On Oct 6, 10:51 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
It seems George Galloway is against it as well. What a surprise...

Well, what self respecting marxist could agree with a service that
would take all those nasty capitalists to work in canary wharf? That
and he might be worried all the tunnelling under Tower Hamlets could
scare off the illegal immigrants he sucks up to there.

B2003

Boltar wrote:

It seems George Galloway is against it as well. What a surprise...

Well, what self respecting marxist could agree with a service that
would take all those nasty capitalists to work in canary wharf? That
and he might be worried all the tunnelling under Tower Hamlets could
scare off the illegal immigrants he sucks up to there.

There's been a bit of Not In My Back Yardism in that part of town as well -
the proposal for a rubble extraction shaft in Victoria Park has previously
provoked a "Not here but we don't have an idea as to where else and we
expect the developers to find a site" campaign.

On 6 Oct, 17:47, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:
Boltar wrote:
It seems George Galloway is against it as well. What a surprise...
Well, what self respecting marxist could agree with a service that
would take all those nasty capitalists to work in canary wharf? That
and he might be worried all the tunnelling under Tower Hamlets could
scare off the illegal immigrants he sucks up to there.

There's been a bit of Not In My Back Yardism in that part of town as well -
the proposal for a rubble extraction shaft in Victoria Park has previously
provoked a "Not here but we don't have an idea as to where else and we
expect the developers to find a site" campaign.


The thing I don't like about Crossrail is that it seems that the
designers have gone out of their way to make it necessary to demolish
anything old that would be difficult to demolish under normal
circumstances due to popular protest.

For example, they chose to make it necessary to demolish the Astoria,
a popular and iconic music venue with much history, to sort out the
station at Tottenham Court Road, rather than choosing to demolish the
fairly unpopular Centrepoint on the other side of the road. They chose
to make it necessary to demolish a block of Dean street near Diadem
Court, rather than the ugly 1970s office block on the other side of
oxford street, or the building that Dean Street Tesco is in, or the
modern buildings of St Anne's court.

They chose to obstruct the side entrance at paddington, rather than
demolish the horrifically ugly modern building on the other side of
the road. They chose to demolish one of the nicer buildings on
Southhampton row, rather than the horrible 1960s/1970s extension of
Central St Martins Academy. They chose to demolish some of the nicest
buildings around Farringdon, rather than modern office blocks round
there. They chose to demolish parts of Bloomfield street instead of
the UBS building or the uninspiring modern 1980s block housing Austin
Reed.

I still don't see why they didn't route it as a new tube line from
Paddington to Liverpool street via Charing Cross and Temple - reusing
the old Jubilee line route and Aldwych branch of the Piccadilly where
possible. At least that way it would introduce useful routes that
aren't there already - when the Victoria line was built as relief for
the Piccadilly they didn't follow the Piccadilly slavishly, but made
the path oscillate either side, so that it fulfilled something more.
If it took that route, there'd be a quick way from green park to
Marble Arch, avoiding interchange at bond street, there'd be a quick
way from green park to Paddington too, instead of having to change at
oxford circus and go the slow way round.

All these routes that people have to take now because there isn't a
more direct line could be simplified, but instead they have something
that parallels the central; except from Tottenham court to Liverpool
street it goes off to parallel the Metropolitan instead for a while.
This is fairly useless, because there's hardly anyone for whom
Tottenham Court Road - Farringdon is a significant shortcut; it
doesn't stop at Holborn, so anyone going through Holborn and trying to
get to Barbican or Farringdon is no better off than they were before.

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message
...
Boltar wrote:

It seems George Galloway is against it as well. What a surprise...

Well, what self respecting marxist could agree with a service that
would take all those nasty capitalists to work in canary wharf? That
and he might be worried all the tunnelling under Tower Hamlets could
scare off the illegal immigrants he sucks up to there.

There's been a bit of Not In My Back Yardism in that part of town as
well - the proposal for a rubble extraction shaft in Victoria Park has
previously provoked a "Not here but we don't have an idea as to where else
and we expect the developers to find a site" campaign.

I caught the end of an ITV Meridian documentary on HS1/CTRLduring the week,
highlighting some of Kent's most vocal objectors to the CTRL, its easy to
forget all the hassle, seems a long time ago now.

I wonder if any of the same people are now protesting about the withdrawal
of Eurostar services from Ashford?

Paul S

lonelytraveller wrote:

The thing I don't like about Crossrail is that it seems that the
designers have gone out of their way to make it necessary to
demolish anything old that would be difficult to demolish under
normal circumstances due to popular protest.

For example, they chose to make it necessary to demolish the
Astoria, a popular and iconic music venue with much history, to
sort out the station at Tottenham Court Road, rather than choosing
to demolish the fairly unpopular Centrepoint on the other side of
the road.

By "fairly unpopular", I guess you mean you don't like it. It is
actually a listed building, which the Astoria isn't.

They chose to make it necessary to demolish a block of Dean street
near Diadem Court, rather than the ugly 1970s office block on the
other side of oxford street, or the building that Dean Street
Tesco is in, or the modern buildings of St Anne's court.

The problem with large office buildings is that the compensation costs
for compulsory purchase are enormous. I'm not familiar with the
buildings in question, but you seem to regard anything old as
sacrosanct, and anything new as ripe for demolition. In my experience
Crossrail have bent over backwards to preserve listed buildings wherever
possible.

They chose to obstruct the side entrance at paddington, rather than
demolish the horrifically ugly modern building on the other side of
the road.

Because the modern building is on the wrong side of the road for an
interchange with the mainline station. What do you mean by "obstruct"?

[snip]

I still don't see why they didn't route it as a new tube line from
Paddington to Liverpool street via Charing Cross and Temple -
reusing the old Jubilee line route and Aldwych branch of the
Piccadilly
where possible.

Well, for a start, the Jubilee/Piccadilly tunnels aren't big enough!
Anyway it's a bit late now to start debating the route all over again.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Oct 7, 5:50 pm, "Richard J." wrote:
Well, for a start, the Jubilee/Piccadilly tunnels aren't big enough!

And they're in the wrong place. Besides LUL seems to be making a nice
little earner from the old jubilee Charing X station and I doubt
they'd want to lose it - any TV program or ad that needs a tube
setting seems to use it these days. They might as well just lock up
Aldwych and chuck away the key

B2003

On 7 Oct, 17:50, "Richard J." wrote:
lonelytraveller wrote:

The thing I don't like about Crossrail is that it seems that the
designers have gone out of their way to make it necessary to
demolish anything old that would be difficult to demolish under
normal circumstances due to popular protest.

For example, they chose to make it necessary to demolish the
Astoria, a popular and iconic music venue with much history, to
sort out the station at Tottenham Court Road, rather than choosing
to demolish the fairly unpopular Centrepoint on the other side of
the road.

By "fairly unpopular", I guess you mean you don't like it. It is
actually a listed building, which the Astoria isn't.
Just because something is/isn't listed doesn't mean it is/isn't liked
or is/isn't worth keeping; the Red House Coal Store at Smithfield
market wasn't listed until last year, for example, despite the ugly
modern poultry market having been Grade II for ages. The Astoria is
extremely popular. By CenterPoint being fairly unpopular, I mean that
it regularly comes to the top of lists of ugly buildings in central
london that people would like to demolish. If I remember correctly,
Centre Point's construction was also illegal.

They chose to make it necessary to demolish a block of Dean street
near Diadem Court, rather than the ugly 1970s office block on the
other side of oxford street, or the building that Dean Street
Tesco is in, or the modern buildings of St Anne's court.
The problem with large office buildings is that the compensation costs
for compulsory purchase are enormous. I'm not familiar with the
buildings in question, but you seem to regard anything old as
sacrosanct, and anything new as ripe for demolition. In my experience
Crossrail have bent over backwards to preserve listed buildings wherever
possible.
You've jumped to an inaccurate conclusion. I regard anything old AND
nice to look at as worth keeping, and anything new
AND ugly as ripe for demolition. If they've bent over backwards, its
for modern buildings - cardinal tower, for example, very ugly, was
going to be demolished, but the McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken
franchisees who were at the base raised objections, so now they are
going to demolish the rather pretty 54-60 Cowcross Street and replace
them with something horrifically out of keeping. The compensation
costs of demolishing ugly modern buildings can hardly be much compared
with the overall cost of crossrail, I'm sure its extremely affordable,
especially as they could build brand new office blocks in their place
afterwards, which would doubtless be worth far more.

They chose to obstruct the side entrance at paddington, rather than
demolish the horrifically ugly modern building on the other side of
the road.
Because the modern building is on the wrong side of the road for an
interchange with the mainline station. What do you mean by "obstruct"?
Crossrail is quite deep, the escalators would be long enough to
stretch the width of the road easily. By "obstruct" I mean that it
will require the retaining wall railings and canopies to be
demolished, making the station appear somewhat naked.

I still don't see why they didn't route it as a new tube line from
Paddington to Liverpool street via Charing Cross and Temple -
reusing the old Jubilee line route and Aldwych branch of the
Piccadilly
where possible.
Well, for a start, the Jubilee/Piccadilly tunnels aren't big enough!
They are big enough for a tube line - hence why I said that I don't
see why they didn't route it as a new TUBE line...

Anyway it's a bit late now to start debating the route all over again.
I don't see why its a bit late now, they aren't even going to start
building it for 3 years.

lonelytraveller wrote:
On 7 Oct, 17:50, "Richard J." wrote:
lonelytraveller wrote:

They chose to obstruct the side entrance at paddington, rather
than demolish the horrifically ugly modern building on the other
side of the road.
Because the modern building is on the wrong side of the road for an
interchange with the mainline station. What do you mean by
"obstruct"?
Crossrail is quite deep, the escalators would be long enough to
stretch the width of the road easily. By "obstruct" I mean that it
will require the retaining wall railings and canopies to be
demolished, making the station appear somewhat naked.

The existing retaining wall limits the access to the station from
Eastbourne Terrace. This will be demolished and the road lowered to the
level of the present taxi road, so access will be improved. Bringing
the escalators up to the surface on the western side of Esatbourne
Terrace would make it more difficult for passengers interchanging
between Crossrail and mainline or Tube.

I still don't see why they didn't route it as a new tube line from
Paddington to Liverpool street via Charing Cross and Temple -
reusing the old Jubilee line route and Aldwych branch of the
Piccadilly where possible.
Well, for a start, the Jubilee/Piccadilly tunnels aren't big
enough!
They are big enough for a tube line - hence why I said that I don't
see why they didn't route it as a new TUBE line...

Oh, for heaven's sake, why do you want to condemn London to yet another
line constrained by the Tube loading gauge with its limited capacity and
poor comfort level? Paris managed to avoid this a century ago.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)