On Jul 23, 1:37*am, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 23 Jul, 00:10, 1506 wrote:

How will this work? *I thought that the Crossrail platforms were to be
on the south side of Paddington under the old cab road?

Yes they are. They're going to build a long thin two storey high
"spine of light" (by which they mean skylight) between the cab road
and Eastbourne Terrace, which will be directly above the island
platform.

Thank you for responding.

This is an interesting concept. I wonder how it will work in
practice. Will the top be glass? Will it be elevated? One has a
certain concern about antisocial behaviors. Will it become a super
sized-trash receptacle, or a magnet for graffiti?

On Jul 22, 12:23*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
An hour or two ago the Crossrail Bill became the Crossrail Act, which
means as soon as the funding agreement is signed (due in September)
the thing might actually see the light of day.

Wonderful News. This is a great day!

On Jul 22, 8:23 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
An hour or two ago the Crossrail Bill became the Crossrail Act, which
means as soon as the funding agreement is signed (due in September)

Given the governments record level of borrowing and deficit its
building I wouldn't get too excited just yet. Just because its
approved doesn't mean it'll happen.

B2003

On 23 Jul, 12:28, wrote:
An hour or two ago the Crossrail Bill became the Crossrail Act, which
means as soon as the funding agreement is signed (due in September)

Given the governments record level of borrowing and deficit its
building I wouldn't get too excited just yet. Just because its
approved doesn't mean it'll happen.

The national debt since 1970 has averaged about 50% - currently it's
39% (including PFI but not public sector pensions, since the former's
new and the latter hasn't changed). So the government has a decent
amount of room for manouevre.

(see: http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn26.pdf )

I can't see the government delaying or axing Crossrail - even if the
economy turns to absolute disaster, rather than the more likely 0-1%
growth for a couple of years, the most sensible political decision
would still be to pledge the funding, begin work, and let the Tories
either continue it or leave it half-built, waste huge amounts of
money, and lose large amounts of London support.

[and the best bit for Labour is that if it is built to time, its
opening date in 2019ish would roughly coincide with their next chance
of getting back in: "see what we did? see how the Tories have invested
nothing in new transport routes over the last 10 years?"]

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

The national debt since 1970 has averaged about 50% - currently it's
39% (including PFI but not public sector pensions, since the former's
new and the latter hasn't changed). So the government has a decent
amount of room for manouevre.


I would contend that we won't actually know what level of debt this
Government has built up and is continuing to build up (Quote Dianne
Abbott on This Week when asked whether the Government will cut back on
spending or borrow, "Oh borrow, of course, we are a deeply unpopular
Government with only two years to go before an election, course we'll
borrow.") until either they're forced to go to the IMF or the other
lot get in (and they’ll probably lie as well).

On Jul 23, 8:48*am, allan tracy wrote:
The national debt since 1970 has averaged about 50% - currently it's
39% (including PFI but not public sector pensions, since the former's
new and the latter hasn't changed). So the government has a decent
amount of room for manouevre.

I would contend that we won't actually know what level of debt this
Government has built up and is continuing to build up (Quote Dianne
Abbott on This Week when asked whether the Government will cut back on
spending or borrow, "Oh borrow, of course, we are a deeply unpopular
Government with only two years to go before an election, course we'll
borrow.") until either they're forced to go to the IMF or the other
lot get in (and they’ll probably lie as well).

When did UK politicians become so honest?

One still doubts that this will negatively impact Crossrail.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, 1506 wrote:

On Jul 23, 8:48*am, allan tracy wrote:
The national debt since 1970 has averaged about 50% - currently it's
39% (including PFI but not public sector pensions, since the former's
new and the latter hasn't changed). So the government has a decent
amount of room for manouevre.

I would contend that we won't actually know what level of debt this
Government has built up and is continuing to build up (Quote Dianne
Abbott on This Week when asked whether the Government will cut back on
spending or borrow, "Oh borrow, of course, we are a deeply unpopular
Government with only two years to go before an election, course we'll
borrow.") until either they're forced to go to the IMF or the other
lot get in (and they?ll probably lie as well).

When did UK politicians become so honest?

MPs who are not ministers are generally pretty open about such things. We
just rarely hear what they have to say. Read some Hansard transcripts of
less headline-grabbing debates, or some committee work, and you may be
surprised at the level of debate.

tom

--
We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that
needs to be done. -- Alan Turing

On Jul 23, 4:56*am, John B wrote:
On 23 Jul, 12:28, wrote:

An hour or two ago the Crossrail Bill became the Crossrail Act, which
means as soon as the funding agreement is signed (due in September)

Given the governments record level of borrowing and deficit its
building I wouldn't get too excited just yet. Just because its
approved doesn't mean it'll happen.

The national debt since 1970 has averaged about 50% - currently it's
39% (including PFI but not public sector pensions, since the former's
new and the latter hasn't changed). So the government has a decent
amount of room for manouevre.

(see:http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn26.pdf)

I can't see the government delaying or axing Crossrail - even if the
economy turns to absolute disaster, rather than the more likely 0-1%
growth for a couple of years, the most sensible political decision
would still be to pledge the funding, begin work, and let the Tories
either continue it or leave it half-built, waste huge amounts of
money, and lose large amounts of London support.

[and the best bit for Labour is that if it is built to time, its
opening date in 2019ish would roughly coincide with their next chance
of getting back in: "see what we did? see how the Tories have invested
nothing in new transport routes over the last 10 years?"]

I concur. You analysis is pretty sound. Moreover, the longer
Crossrail is delayed, the more acute the need.

On 23 Jul, 12:28, wrote:
On Jul 22, 8:23 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

An hour or two ago the Crossrail Bill became the Crossrail Act, which
means as soon as the funding agreement is signed (due in September)

Given the governments record level of borrowing and deficit its
building I wouldn't get too excited just yet. Just because its
approved doesn't mean it'll happen.

B2003

Quite. The history of the railways (and indeed, London Transport
itself) is littered with Acts that never got built. *Sigh* The Watford
& Edgware is my personal poster child for that scenario.

On Jul 23, 5:02*am, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On 23 Jul, 12:28, wrote:

On Jul 22, 8:23 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

An hour or two ago the Crossrail Bill became the Crossrail Act, which
means as soon as the funding agreement is signed (due in September)

Given the governments record level of borrowing and deficit its
building I wouldn't get too excited just yet. Just because its
approved doesn't mean it'll happen.

B2003

Quite. The history of the railways (and indeed, London Transport
itself) is littered with Acts that never got built. *Sigh* The Watford
& Edgware is my personal poster child for that scenario.


This is not the same thing. The Watford and Edgware debacle is a
result of WWII followed by the implementation of London's greenbelt.

Crossrail is needed and it was needed yesterday.

A closer parallel might be Chelsey to Hackney, now there IS a tale of
procrastination!