|
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mar 24, 2:41*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote My reading of Ken's comments are that (a) he fully understands that Crossrail is a project of great enormity and he will treat it as such, I hope you don't really mean that - it is an enormous project, but surely not one of great wickedness. [NB - for those who may not understand my point, may I respectfully suggest that they look up 'enormity' in a dictionary.] Peter A much more common mistake is the misuse of the word "prestigious". To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential. Adrian |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote:
To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential. Essential to /what/? Ian |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:35:40 +0000, Adrian wrote
To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential. *Whatever* the cost?? |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mar 24, 12:46*pm, The Real Doctor
wrote: On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote: To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential. Essential to /what/? Ian It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center. Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life. However, I fear that it will take more than one Cross rail to restore that to anything like acceptable levels. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mar 24, 12:52*pm, Stimpy wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:35:40 +0000, Adrian wrote To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential. *Whatever* the cost?? Wouldn't you like to actually derive some benefit from those extortionately high UK taxes? |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:15:07 +0000, Adrian wrote
To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential. *Whatever* the cost?? Wouldn't you like to actually derive some benefit from those extortionately high UK taxes? I can think of *many* things to spend my tax money on that would give me more benefit than Crossrail. Save £1bn on Crossrail and reopen the stations in Monmouth and Rhyader please :-) |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mar 24, 1:35*pm, Stimpy wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:15:07 +0000, Adrian wrote To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential. *Whatever* the cost?? Wouldn't you like to actually derive some benefit from those extortionately high UK taxes? I can think of *many* things to spend my tax money on that would give me more benefit than Crossrail. Save £1bn on Crossrail and reopen the stations in Monmouth and Rhyader please :-) Reopen Monmouth, Rhydar and much of Wales' lost network AND build Crossrail. The UK Treasury can afford it. BTW: I must express an interest. My father and much of my ancestry is from Monmouthshire. Indeed, my brother still maintains a home there, although he lives and works in Alberta. Adrian |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 24 Mar, 20:13, Adrian wrote:
On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor wrote: On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote: To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential. Essential to /what/? It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center. Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life. It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" - but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really going to be worth spending £16bn on. Ian |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 24 Mar, 20:15, Adrian wrote:
On Mar 24, 12:52 pm, Stimpy wrote: On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:35:40 +0000, Adrian wrote To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential. *Whatever* the cost?? Wouldn't you like to actually derive some benefit from those extortionately high UK taxes? The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international financial community - by and large pay bugger all in taxes. Ian |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mar 24, 8:13*pm, Adrian wrote:
On Mar 24, 12:46*pm, The Real Doctor wrote: On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote: To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential. Essential to /what/? Ian It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center. Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life. However, I fear that it will take more than one Cross rail to restore that to anything like acceptable levels. "They" keep saying the same thing about Heathrow and a third runway -- as if, if it's not built, that suddenly nobody will ever fly into or out of Heathrow ever again. Somehow I doubt that, and I doubt London would grind to a halt and go bankrupt if it didn't get Crossrail. Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects? |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mar 24, 3:25*pm, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 24 Mar, 20:13, Adrian wrote: On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor wrote: On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote: To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential. Essential to /what/? It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center. Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life. It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" - but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really going to be worth spending £16bn on. Ian If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany, then you should oppose Crossrail. Adrian |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mar 24, 4:00*pm, Dan G wrote:
On Mar 24, 8:13*pm, Adrian wrote: On Mar 24, 12:46*pm, The Real Doctor wrote: On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote: To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential. Essential to /what/? Ian It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center. Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life. However, I fear that it will take more than one Cross rail to restore that to anything like acceptable levels. "They" keep saying the same thing about Heathrow and a third runway -- as if, if it's not built, that suddenly nobody will ever fly into or out of Heathrow ever again. Somehow I doubt that, and I doubt London would grind to a halt and go bankrupt if it didn't get Crossrail. Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects? In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be) engineered to a very high standard. The Jubilee Line extension is a pointer in that respect. You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class workers. Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work is 40 minutes or less. London is joining the ranks of the un-livable cities. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mar 24, 3:26*pm, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 24 Mar, 20:15, Adrian wrote: On Mar 24, 12:52 pm, Stimpy wrote: On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:35:40 +0000, Adrian wrote To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential. *Whatever* the cost?? Wouldn't you like to actually derive some benefit from those extortionately high UK taxes? The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international financial community - by and large pay bugger all in taxes. Ian Their employees pay considerable taxes. And, many of them commute. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:05:33 -0700 (PDT), Adrian
wrote: On Mar 24, 3:25*pm, The Real Doctor wrote: On 24 Mar, 20:13, Adrian wrote: On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor wrote: On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote: To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential. Essential to /what/? It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center. Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life. It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" - but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really going to be worth spending £16bn on. Ian If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany, then you should oppose Crossrail. Nowadays the whole point might be that with modern technology there is no longer a need for a physical centre as there was in the past when the City of London was full of messengers running around with negotiable documents. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
Adrian wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, Dan G wrote: On Mar 24, 8:13 pm, Adrian wrote: On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor wrote: On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote: To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential. Essential to /what/? Ian It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center. Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life. However, I fear that it will take more than one Cross rail to restore that to anything like acceptable levels. "They" keep saying the same thing about Heathrow and a third runway -- as if, if it's not built, that suddenly nobody will ever fly into or out of Heathrow ever again. Somehow I doubt that, and I doubt London would grind to a halt and go bankrupt if it didn't get Crossrail. Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects? In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be) engineered to a very high standard. The Jubilee Line extension is a pointer in that respect. So are we saying that , because a High Speed Line would be mostly away from London, it could be built to a lower standard than something important like a small-profile tube line? You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class workers. Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work is 40 minutes or less. London is joining the ranks of the un-livable cities. If it gets any fuller no-one will live there... -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 24 Mar, 23:05, Adrian wrote:
On Mar 24, 3:25 pm, The Real Doctor wrote: It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" - but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really going to be worth spending £16bn on. If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany, then you should oppose Crossrail. That's just being silly. Ian |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 24 Mar, 23:10, Adrian wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, Dan G wrote: Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects? In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be) engineered to a very high standard. The Jubilee Line extension is a pointer in that respect. But it is predicted to cost more than five times as much as the Jubilee Line extension ... You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class workers. Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work is 40 minutes or less. And how many people do you think will find good, spacious, affordable housing as a result of this line. It'll knock quarter of an hour, tops, off the journey onto London - are those fifteen minutes really deterring millions from moving to good, spacious, affordable housing? Ian |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:00:56 UTC, schrieb Dan G
auf uk.railway : Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? I didn't. But I have some thoughts about this: *Why* is it costing so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects? Comparing just the length of the cross-London tunnel with the length of the HS1 London tunnel and wondering why the same length of tunnel can be much more costly to build -- does make sense only when one wants to see the cost of the tunnel as only the cost of boring it, by meter or kilometer. But there may be a lot of utility lines ond other uses of the underground to be removed before one can go on boring; also London Crossrail is planned to have more stations, and underground stations, which in itself would be more expensive than the one Stratford Int'l box, plus interchanges with existing underground and train stations. That is a lot of extra work, which makes the London Crossrail tunnel more expensive to build than the London HS1 tunnel with the one open station in its middle. Just my two cents... Cheers, L.W. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:26:35 UTC, schrieb The Real Doctor
auf uk.railway : The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international financial community I think that London Crossrail will benefit much more people than just the "financial community". It will be a faster way to get _thru_ London, instead of just _into_ London. Cheers, L.W. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
In message , Charles Ellson
writes Nowadays the whole point might be that with modern technology there is no longer a need for a physical centre as there was in the past when the City of London was full of messengers running around with negotiable documents. I work in IT in the finance industry, at Canary Wharf - The transport links are abysmal, and during the rush hours trains are always overcrowded. - I have "modern technology" links at home (Broadband and phone) and I am allowed to work from home occasionally (i.e. not all the time, and there has to be a good reason). - It is much easier and more convenient to do my job in the office. - Yes, you can have meetings via conference call over the phone, but it is much better to get everyone together in an office. - It is far easier to get things from a colleague by going to their desk and having a quiet chat than by phoning them. - My clients on the trading desks are not allowed to do their jobs from home. This is a regulatory requirement. - Lastly and most importantly - you can't have a drink with your colleagues and clients after work if you're all working from home. -- Jane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
In message
, Adrian writes On Mar 24, 3:26*pm, The Real Doctor wrote: On 24 Mar, 20:15, Adrian wrote: On Mar 24, 12:52 pm, Stimpy wrote: On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:35:40 +0000, Adrian wrote To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential. *Whatever* the cost?? Wouldn't you like to actually derive some benefit from those extortionately high UK taxes? The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international financial community - by and large pay bugger all in taxes. Ian Their employees pay considerable taxes. And, many of them commute. And if those employees lost their jobs, then that would take several billion pounds out of the local economy of the south-east and, by extension, Britain. -- Jane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 25 Mar, 08:47, "Lüko Willms" wrote:
But there may be a lot of utility lines ond other uses of the underground to be removed before one can go on boring; also London Crossrail is planned to have more stations, and underground stations, which in itself would be more expensive than the one Stratford Int'l box, plus interchanges with existing underground and train stations. That is a lot of extra work, which makes the London Crossrail tunnel more expensive to build than the London HS1 tunnel with the one open station in its middle. I thought about the cost of stations - then remembered that the Jubilee Line extension included four new underground stations, interchanges with three existing underground stations (plus 2 new and 2 altered surface stations) and it /still/ only (sic) £3.5bn. That's not just a bit less than Crossrail - that's one fifth of the predicted Crossrail cost. Remember, Crossrail = HS1 + Jubilee Line Extension + WCML upgrade. Ian |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 25 Mar, 08:47, "Lüko Willms" wrote:
Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:26:35 UTC, schrieb The Real Doctor auf uk.railway : The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international financial community I think that London Crossrail will benefit much more people than just the "financial community". It will be a faster way to get _thru_ London, instead of just _into_ London. Well, it would be if it was designed to take long distance trains. But it's not - just stoppers from Maidenhead to Shenfield. Long distance travellers (Bristol - Norwich?) wanting to travel across London will still have to change twice, just as now. Ian |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 25 Mar, 09:05, The Real Doctor wrote:
I thought about the cost of stations - then remembered that the Jubilee *Line extension included four new underground stations, interchanges with three existing underground stations (plus 2 new and 2 altered surface stations) and it /still/ only (sic) £3.5bn. That's not just a bit less than Crossrail - that's one fifth of the predicted Crossrail cost. But Crossrail includes 8 underground stations, most with two entrances (doubling many of the costs), the rebuilding of several miles of Great Western Main Line including two grade-separated junctions (Heathrow and Acton Yard), the electrification of 11 miles of GWML (requiring the rebuilding of about ten bridges in Slough), rebuilding a of a fair bit of GEML, rebuilding of ca. 30 stations (about half will be completely demolished) and so on. It's a much larger project. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
Am Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:07:25 UTC, schrieb The Real Doctor
auf uk.railway : It will be a faster way to get _thru_ London, instead of just _into_ London. Well, it would be if it was designed to take long distance trains. I did not think about that, but rather about someone lifing e.g. in Romford and looking for a job at the Heathrow airport. Or similar setups. Have a look at the RER network in and around Paris. Cheers, L.W. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
Adrian wrote:
On Mar 24, 3:25*pm, The Real Doctor wrote: On 24 Mar, 20:13, Adrian wrote: On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor wrote: On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote: To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential. Essential to /what/? It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center. Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life. It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" - but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really going to be worth spending £16bn on. Ian If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany, then you should oppose Crossrail. Adrian It'll take more than Crossrail to save London. It is gradually sinking, in a century or two it will be under the water. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 24 Mar, 23:10, Adrian wrote: On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, Dan G wrote: Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects? In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be) engineered to a very high standard. The Jubilee Line extension is a pointer in that respect. But it is predicted to cost more than five times as much as the Jubilee Line extension ... You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class workers. Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work is 40 minutes or less. And how many people do you think will find good, spacious, affordable housing as a result of this line. It'll knock quarter of an hour, tops, off the journey onto London - are those fifteen minutes really deterring millions from moving to good, spacious, affordable housing? Ian The only way to get good, spacious, affordable housing in Britain is to have a smaller population. It's gone up 50% in the past hundred years. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 25 Mar, 08:47, "Lüko Willms" wrote: Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:26:35 UTC, schrieb The Real Doctor auf uk.railway : The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international financial community I think that London Crossrail will benefit much more people than just the "financial community". It will be a faster way to get _thru_ London, instead of just _into_ London. Well, it would be if it was designed to take long distance trains. But it's not - just stoppers from Maidenhead to Shenfield. Long distance travellers (Bristol - Norwich?) wanting to travel across London will still have to change twice, just as now. Ian All the more reason to pull the plug. Thameslink, by contrast, will accommodate long-distance services, will it not ? |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:58:47 +0000, Jane Sullivan
wrote: And if those employees lost their jobs, then that would take several billion pounds out of the local economy of the south-east and, by extension, Britain. But why would they lose their jobs if Crossrail didn't happen? The existing lines are by and large adequate (if not always pleasant) for getting everyone to their current jobs - if they weren't, they wouldn't get there! Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:53:10 GMT, "Grumpy Old Man"
wrote: The only way to get good, spacious, affordable housing in Britain is to have a smaller population. It's gone up 50% in the past hundred years. There is that. The other option would be to become more like Germany and less London-centric. Serious tax breaks for locating employment in a city other than London would be a good start, and the Government should seriously look towards any new civil service jobs that don't *have* to be in London being somewhere else instead. The other problem (the "affordable" bit) is that houses should be to live in, not to invest in. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
"Lüko Willms" wrote in message ... Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:00:56 UTC, schrieb Dan G auf uk.railway : Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? I didn't. But I have some thoughts about this: *Why* is it costing so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects? Comparing just the length of the cross-London tunnel with the length of the HS1 London tunnel and wondering why the same length of tunnel can be much more costly to build -- does make sense only when one wants to see the cost of the tunnel as only the cost of boring it, by meter or kilometer. But there may be a lot of utility lines ond other uses of the underground to be removed before one can go on boring; also London Crossrail is planned to have more stations, and underground stations, which in itself would be more expensive than the one Stratford Int'l box, plus interchanges with existing underground and train stations. That is a lot of extra work, which makes the London Crossrail tunnel more expensive to build than the London HS1 tunnel with the one open station in its middle. Just my two cents... Cheers, L.W. More to do with the very deep foundations of tall buildings in Central London than utilities. In comparison, the tunnelling for CTRL2 and JLE were relatively unimpeded by such constraints. The gradient profile should be 'interesting' as a result of this. Brian |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
In message
, at 09:47:14 on Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Lüko Willms remarked: Comparing just the length of the cross-London tunnel with the length of the HS1 London tunnel and wondering why the same length of tunnel can be much more costly to build Only a third of the Crossrail budget is building the tunnel. And that tunnel is under random property and roads in Central London. HS1 is largely built either in open countryside, or under an existing railway line. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
"Grumpy Old Man" wrote in message ... The Real Doctor wrote: On 25 Mar, 08:47, "Lüko Willms" wrote: Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:26:35 UTC, schrieb The Real Doctor auf uk.railway : The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international financial community I think that London Crossrail will benefit much more people than just the "financial community". It will be a faster way to get _thru_ London, instead of just _into_ London. Well, it would be if it was designed to take long distance trains. But it's not - just stoppers from Maidenhead to Shenfield. Long distance travellers (Bristol - Norwich?) wanting to travel across London will still have to change twice, just as now. Ian All the more reason to pull the plug. Thameslink, by contrast, will accommodate long-distance services, will it not ? Depends if you consider Brighton - Bedford or Peterborough long - distance, but they are still going to use basically high capacity commuter trains. In terms of gauge, there appears little reason why an electric train couldn't run Bristol - Norwich in the future (at least off peak when the service is lighter), but like Thameslink the central section services will require high frequency all stations stoppers at, so they will almost certainly decide against it for reliability of timetabling. Paul |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
"Paul Scott" wrote:
"Grumpy Old Man" wrote in message ... The Real Doctor wrote: On 25 Mar, 08:47, "Lüko Willms" wrote: Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:26:35 UTC, schrieb The Real Doctor auf uk.railway : The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international financial community I think that London Crossrail will benefit much more people than just the "financial community". It will be a faster way to get _thru_ London, instead of just _into_ London. Well, it would be if it was designed to take long distance trains. But it's not - just stoppers from Maidenhead to Shenfield. Long distance travellers (Bristol - Norwich?) wanting to travel across London will still have to change twice, just as now. Ian All the more reason to pull the plug. Thameslink, by contrast, will accommodate long-distance services, will it not ? Depends if you consider Brighton - Bedford or Peterborough long - distance, but they are still going to use basically high capacity commuter trains. In terms of gauge, there appears little reason why an electric train couldn't run Bristol - Norwich in the future (at least off peak when the service is lighter), but like Thameslink the central section services will require high frequency all stations stoppers at, so they will almost certainly decide against it for reliability of timetabling. Paul Well the Thameslink services you mention look longer than is currently proposed for Crossrail. I agree with you, services such as Norwich to Bristol would make better use of Crossrail than allowing it to be hogged mainly for travel within the M25 area. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mar 25, 8:00*am, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 24 Mar, 23:10, Adrian wrote: On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, Dan G wrote: Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects? In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be) engineered to a very high standard. *The Jubilee Line extension is a pointer in that respect. But it is predicted to cost more than five times as much as the Jubilee Line extension ... You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class workers. *Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work is 40 minutes or less. And how many people do you think will find good, spacious, affordable housing as a result of this line. It'll knock quarter of an hour, tops, off the journey onto London - are those fifteen minutes really deterring millions from moving to good, spacious, affordable housing? Ian But wasn't the main justification for crossrail the relief of the overcrowding already present on existing lines, as well as allowing for predicted growth. It will take a fair number of people off the Central line (and other Underground lines) as well as providing extra capacity on the National Rail lines to either side. The fact that it will reduce journey times is an added benefit, but not the main justification for the construction. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 25 Mar, 11:28, "Grumpy Old Man"
wrote: "Paul Scott" wrote: "Grumpy Old Man" wrote in message .. . The Real Doctor wrote: On 25 Mar, 08:47, "Lüko Willms" wrote: Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:26:35 UTC, *schrieb The Real Doctor *auf uk.railway : The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international financial community * I think that London Crossrail will benefit much more people than just the "financial community". * It will be a faster way to get _thru_ London, instead of just _into_ London. Well, it would be if it was designed to take long distance trains. But it's not - just stoppers from Maidenhead to Shenfield. Long distance travellers (Bristol - Norwich?) wanting to travel across London will still have to change twice, just as now. Ian All the more reason to pull the plug. *Thameslink, by contrast, will accommodate long-distance services, will it not ? Depends if you consider Brighton - Bedford or Peterborough long - distance, but they are still going to use basically high capacity commuter trains. In terms of gauge, there appears little reason why an electric train couldn't run Bristol - Norwich in the future (at least off peak when the service is lighter), but like Thameslink the central section services will require high frequency all stations stoppers at, so they will almost certainly decide against it for reliability of timetabling. Paul Well the Thameslink services you mention look longer than is currently proposed for Crossrail. *I agree with you, services such as Norwich to Bristol would make better use of Crossrail than allowing it to be hogged mainly for travel within the M25 area.- Hide quoted text - I honestly can't see why. How many people want to make that journey? I'll guess it's far fewer than want to travel within London. The ideal, of course, would be a four track line, allowing fast trains and stoppers to run on different tracks. But if they have to choose one, it should be the heavily used suburban services every time. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
|
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
In message , Neil Williams
writes On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:58:47 +0000, Jane Sullivan wrote: And if those employees lost their jobs, then that would take several billion pounds out of the local economy of the south-east and, by extension, Britain. But why would they lose their jobs if Crossrail didn't happen? They'd lose their jobs if the financial centre of Europe moved out of London to Frankfurt. The existing lines are by and large adequate (if not always pleasant) for getting everyone to their current jobs - if they weren't, they wouldn't get there! Neil -- Jane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:21:21 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote: They've been trying that since the 1950s at least, works well doesn't it? Do you propose that further growth of London is feasible, then? If you want to rent somewhere to live someone else has to invest in buying it in the first place. This is true, though the difference between rents and mortgages in many places suggests that there is not a correct balance. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 25 Mar, 11:12, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:47:14 on Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Lüko Willms remarked: Comparing just the length of the cross-London tunnel with the length of the HS1 London tunnel and wondering why the same length of tunnel can be much more costly to build Only a third of the Crossrail budget is building the tunnel. And that tunnel is under random property and roads in Central London. HS1 is largely built either in open countryside, or under an existing railway line. Quite - the CTRL tunnels rarely venture far away from being underneath railway alignments that have been in existence for a long time, so there were far fewer issues about underground utilities (sewers, cable tunnels etc), building foundations etc and also a greater confidence that there were not old hidden excavations. Nevertheless there has been at least one problem caused to the railways above by the CTRL tunnelling - a retaining wall next to the North London Line at Dalston Junction had to be rebuilt. See the bottom of this page for the reference: http://www.loveplums.co.uk/Tube/Broa...et_line_2.html In February 2003 there was also one very significant problem caused by tunnelling away from railway lands in a residential street in central Stratford where a great hole opened up in the back gardens of houses on Lavender Street - the CTRL tunnelling seemingly disturbed a network of old water wells... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2741307.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2742281.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/2984955.stm Tunnelling might be far easier these days but it is certainly not without its risks - and tunnelling underneath central London carries a far greater risk. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk