I have been told that a parliamentary commsission judged that
Crossrail was poor value for money. Can anybody confirm this?

--


Michael Bell

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
I have been told that a parliamentary commsission judged that
Crossrail was poor value for money. Can anybody confirm this?

--


Michael Bell

That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed
off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard'
and anti-subsidy agenda.

Things have somewhat progressed since then.

Colin

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:07:13 +0100, Colin wrote:
That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed
off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard'
and anti-subsidy agenda.

Things have somewhat progressed since then.

What, you call people that live in Manchester or Wales subsidising the
transport needs of Londoners "progress". All government subsidy is the
most definitely anything but progress, but when you charge people that
have no benefit whatsoever, you become worse then Ken!

If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes
of London business and commuters.

Paul Weaver wrote in message ...
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:07:13 +0100, Colin wrote:
That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed
off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard'
and anti-subsidy agenda.

Things have somewhat progressed since then.

What, you call people that live in Manchester or Wales subsidising the
transport needs of Londoners "progress". All government subsidy is the
most definitely anything but progress, but when you charge people that
have no benefit whatsoever, you become worse then Ken!

If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes
of London business and commuters.

Given the degree to which London is the engine of the British economy,
I am deeply skeptical that the SouthEast is a net beneficiary of the
central treasury. On the contrary, if there any cross regional
subsidies, I strongly suspect that the flow of money is in the
opposite direction than the one you suggest. Do you have any
evidence that suggests otherwise?

"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:07:13 +0100, Colin wrote:
That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was
killed off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not
in my back yard' and anti-subsidy agenda.

Things have somewhat progressed since then.

What, you call people that live in Manchester or Wales subsidising the
transport needs of Londoners "progress". All government subsidy is the
most definitely anything but progress, but when you charge people that
have no benefit whatsoever, you become worse then Ken!

If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local
taxes of London business and commuters.

On that basis, London taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidise Regional railway
TOCs that come nowhere near London or the various loss-making metros in
Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, Nottingham, etc. Instead, Londoners'
huge taxes could be reduced, still leaving plenty over for fixing the Tube
and building Crossrails 1, 2, 3, etc.

"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:07:13 +0100, Colin wrote:
That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was
killed
off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back
yard'
and anti-subsidy agenda.

Things have somewhat progressed since then.

What, you call people that live in Manchester or Wales subsidising the
transport needs of Londoners "progress". All government subsidy is the
most definitely anything but progress, but when you charge people that
have no benefit whatsoever, you become worse then Ken!

If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes
of London business and commuters.

So by that argument high wage earners in London payting higher a\mounts of
income and other taxes shouldn't contribute to the unemployed of other parts
of the UK?
We live in a society where we all pay in to a central pot and everyone
benefits from that central pot.

On a different theme, why is building a new railway "subsidy" and a road
"investement"? They're both for the same purpose.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 09:31:30 +0000, Cast_Iron wrote:
So by that argument high wage earners in London payting higher a\mounts of
income and other taxes shouldn't contribute to the unemployed of other parts
of the UK?

No. Tax is evil, social security is evil, and subsidising rail is evil.

We live in a society where we all pay in to a central pot and everyone
benefits from that central pot.

And that society is wrong

On a different theme, why is building a new railway "subsidy" and a road
"investement"? They're both for the same purpose.

Except car drivers pay £30bn a year in taxes through Car tax and petrol
tax, yet only see £5bn investment in roads. In reality train users should
be paying something like £150pw for a travel card for zone 1 alone.

Paul Weaver wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 09:31:30 +0000, Cast_Iron wrote:
So by that argument high wage earners in London payting
higher a\mounts of income and other taxes shouldn't
contribute to the unemployed of other parts of the UK?

No. Tax is evil, social security is evil, and subsidising
rail is evil.

We live in a society where we all pay in to a central pot
and everyone benefits from that central pot.

And that society is wrong

So why do you continue to live in such a society? Unless you've already left
the UK in which case what are you whinging about?

On a different theme, why is building a new railway
"subsidy" and a road "investement"? They're both for the
same purpose.

Except car drivers pay £30bn a year in taxes through Car
tax and petrol
tax, yet only see £5bn investment in roads. In reality
train users should
be paying something like £150pw for a travel card for zone
1 alone.

(Yet again) Taxes levied on motor vehicles and their use is not
hypothecated.

Paul Weaver wrote the following in:
news
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 09:31:30 +0000, Cast_Iron wrote:
So by that argument high wage earners in London payting higher
a\mounts of income and other taxes shouldn't contribute to the
unemployed of other parts of the UK?

No. Tax is evil, social security is evil, and subsidising rail is
evil.

We live in a society where we all pay in to a central pot and
everyone benefits from that central pot.

And that society is wrong

So what society would you think is right? One where the poor starve,
the sick die and the rich get richer?

On a different theme, why is building a new railway "subsidy" and
a road "investement"? They're both for the same purpose.

Except car drivers pay £30bn a year in taxes through Car tax and
petrol tax, yet only see £5bn investment in roads.

Probably partly because there are lots of other costs caused by cars,
for example pollution, illness (asthma etc.) and injury (accidents
etc.).

In reality
train users should be paying something like £150pw for a travel
card for zone 1 alone.

And you think that making public transport inaccessible to the vast
majority of people would be a good thing? Do you think it would somehow
benefit society?

--
message by Robin May, consumer of liquids
If bathroom means toilet in America, I'll have a shower please.

Hacker is to computer as boy racer is to Ford Escort.

"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:07:13 +0100, Colin wrote:
That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was
killed
off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back
yard'
and anti-subsidy agenda.

Things have somewhat progressed since then.

What, you call people that live in Manchester or Wales subsidising the
transport needs of Londoners "progress". All government subsidy is the
most definitely anything but progress, but when you charge people that
have no benefit whatsoever, you become worse then Ken!

If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes
of London business and commuters.

You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Londoners massively subsidise
the rest of the UK with their tax outlay - something that Ken is always
quick to highlight.

Crossrail would only go a small way to redress the huge historic inbalance.

Perhaps London should go independent and keep all our tax revenue to
ourselves - then you'd be sorry!

Colin