High Speed Two

[Wasila]

Oh, I thought you were talking about a route for a hi-speed rail line. Yeah, the Crossrail line is set out.

[orudge]

Merged "Crossrail & Hi-Speed Rail in the UK" into the existing High Speed Two topic.

[EXTspotter]

I was wondering what was going on when my post was shown as unread.

Crossrail would be far more beneficial to the country than HS2. The extra "pull" of the line to take more business towards the perifery of the country is marginal compared to current routes and must have a high cost/benefit ratio compared to crossrail.

[orudge]

I must admit that I still don't entirely see the point of Crossrail. I looked at the Wikipedia article, but I still don't entirely get what it's meant to be linking to what else that isn't already linked by existing rail systems. But then, I of course am not from London or the South East and as such might be biased against spending such vast amounts of money there.

[Wasila]

huh, northerners . Despite the fact that it does introduce new routes, the key fact is that it is a major boost in capacity. Go on the Central Line at 6:00 PM.

[orudge]

Meh, you should just not all live/work in London, clearly.

[EXTspotter]

Obviously you decided not to get a reaonable job in the main employment centre in this country, hence Minneapolis.

Obviously the main reason for moving there was public transport of course, seeing as its at the top of everyones priorities.

If they are going to do it, it is obviously got to be worth it.

[orudge]

Well, obviously, I was joking somewhat when I said that, but nevertheless, I have seen various articles, etc, suggesting that Crossrail is a colossal waste of money and that the money would be better going into improving things like Tube services instead. Would that not seem more sensible perhaps where possible?

I think it's mainly the fact that it seems to cost so many billions for what seems to be a relatively insignificant benefit that I object to, particularly when that same amount of money would be able to, say, build many much-needed road and conventional rail schemes that would help a great many more people elsewhere in the country. £16 billion can build a lot of infrastructure.

[JamieLei]

Crossrail would regenerate the East End, relieve pressure on the City by making Stratford/Maryland a highly attractive area to relocate to, relieve the colossal overcrowding on the Central line (only Kevin here could argue against that, cause he experienced it every day), effectively turn the GWML into a tube line (it's not at the moment, not even with 10 min frequencies), and most of all, by connecting the City and Canary Wharf with Heathrow Airport, drastically improves competitiveness and the attractiveness of London as a world city.

Plus the Great Western Main Line truely needs it - the local trains are drastically overcrowded - I know because I've used them

[EXTspotter]

There is a way to get around that, Jamie, take the HST to Swindon or whatever and take your chances of getting back to Reading. If anything those services are just as crowded. The entire of the GWML needs a shakeup, at the far ends of it there is much overcapacity (well compared to most XC services down here you get a seat, quite often without a seatmate) with undercapacity closer to London.

[JamieLei]

There is a way to get around that, Jamie, take the HST to Swindon or whatever and take your chances of getting back to Reading. If anything those services are just as crowded. The entire of the GWML needs a shakeup, at the far ends of it there is much overcapacity (well compared to most XC services down here you get a seat, quite often without a seatmate) with undercapacity closer to London.

I was referring to the local local services - the type that would be run by 142s up your end. I doubt passengers from West Drayton or Southall would like to travel into Paddington via Reading! These are the kind of people that Crossrail will benefit with high frequency trains straight into the heart of London. Those stations are in very very good locations, unlike many in suburban London which are shoved up back streets such as Harringay or Berrylands. Certainly Southall gets used A LOT - a 3-car 165 just isn't sufficient for the local runs!

[Wasila]

I take the Central Line - fortunately I usually just miss rush hour!

It sometimes frustrates me so that people outside London clamour against things like Crossrail because it 'will only benefit London'. So what? London provides a huge portion of the tax's and is the largest contributer by miles to the national economy. And the Tube lines ARE being upgraded - but it's simply not enough. Also decisions are often taken without consideration to London, such as the Lib Dem's policy to put a tax on you based on the value of your house. What if you bought a house cheap and watched its value rocket? Doesn't mean you have high wages.

Sorry orudge, no offence to you just letting off some steam.

[JamieLei]

Indeed - over 1 in 9 people in the UK live in Greater London. The London Travel to Work area (75% of the area commutes to London) has a population of 9.2million - about 1 in 7.

Plenty of money is spent in the regions that goes unnoticed. Howabout the upgrading of the A1 to Motorway standards for one, or the huge amount of reneration money pumped into Middlesbrough, Manchester or Leeds? Where else but Liverpool did the government invest in a building psueo-underground system, and since 1989, the MetroCentre in Gateshead is still the largest shopping centre in the UK, built on a derelict industrial site to stimulate employment. Countless millions, perhaps billions over the years has been pumped into the Highlands and Islands Development Board to prop up employment (only partially successful) in the periphery of the UK, while recent rail reopening schemes have been concentrated everywhere but London (Alloa, Ebbw Vale, Soon to be Birmingham Camp Hill line?). The GVA (Gross Value Added) of each Londoner to the economy is £26k. If you factor up London's total contribution to the economy as a proportion, if anything it's been starved of investment. No matter how much you try, those Swiss banks are not going to relocate to the Shetlands (sorry Labour government of the 1980s!), or anywhere but London for that matter. It's London or overseas.

[Kevo00]

Finally people talking my language! Usually I am in a minority of one on here when it comes to things like Crossrail. The idea that Crossrail won't create new journeys is ridiculous, because for the first time you will be able to get to Canary Wharf, Whitechapel, Tottenham Court Road, Bond Street, etc. etc. by National Rail, relieving the tube and DLR of people that came in BR DLR. Not to mention making new through journeys between the GWML, GEML and South Eastern systems possible. It will create more journeys than all the Scottish and Welsh re-openings put together, probably ten or twenty times over.

As for the 'everyone shouldn't live in London' argument, sorry but it simply is more efficient in the long run if we all live in the same place. That trend has been going on the UK for at least 200 years now, and its hard to see how it could be reversed.

[Wasila]

Finally people talking my language! Usually I am in a minority of one on here when it comes to things like Crossrail.

I feel the same. Nice to see some intelligent Londoners here.

Also, as a sidenote to those that complain about our money going to help people in Eastern Europe as opposed to ourselves (EU) or, on a smaller scale, that too much money per head is spent on Scotland, the same is true of many places. In any nation or even local authority the amount spent per person is going to change - Londoners aren't clamouring for a breakaway from the UK (not a bad idea ) because our money is spent elsewhere. It's just on a different scale.

That trend has been going on around the world for at least 200 years now, and its hard to see how it could be reversed.

Corrected. Also the trend was temporarily reversed when the government managed to get people to move out and into new towns like Milton Keynes - and that wasn't a bad thing.

[orudge]

Indeed - over 1 in 9 people in the UK live in Greater London

But that, of course, does leave 8 in 9 people living in the rest of the country, the majority of which I imagine live in the other major urban areas of the country, many of which are relatively underinvested in compared to London, I'm sure. Of course, London is the primary financial centre of the UK, so that does count for a lot. But with the £16 billion supposedly going to be spent on Crossrail, you could build, what, 4-5 new Forth Road Bridges! The Forth crossing need never be congested again! Or one could build many thousands of much-needed Cupar bypasses...

[Wasila]

And, of course, Crossrail isn't much needed?

And bad transport in London makes it less attractive to the finance industry - the provider of the tax that probably funds your local hospital. And they're hardly going to go to Birmingham instead. Out of interest, do you live in a city?

[JGR]

Trying to say that cross-rail shouldn't be built, because you're not building something in more minor places too, seems to me like jumbled thinking (particularly as improvements to transport are being made across the whole UK, albeit at different rates).

As for transport, cross-rail is essentially a clone of RER A in Paris. Which works splendidly there and is extremely useful for commuting/getting into the city from outside the periphery of the metro.
(Rather than getting to a station, and then crushing onto an overcrowded victorian tube train which stops at a long list of minor places to get to the middle of the city/other stations to get out of the other side).

As for monetary concerns, an awful lot of of money spent essentially ends up in a drain without having produced a lasting effect. A train line such as that will be providing a service and generating revenue for many decades to come. It's a worthwhile investment on many levels regardless of what's happening elsewhere (where arguably, other investments should also be made).

[orudge]

And, of course, Crossrail isn't much needed?

I didn't say it wasn't much needed, just that for the price you could get many other improvements elsewhere. My examples were obviously somewhat unserious (one Cupar bypass would be enough), but the general point stands. I think to be honest it's not so much the idea of Crossrail that bugs me, or the fact that it's being built in London, just the fact it seems to cost such an obscene amount of money. To be fair, that's somewhat the case with any major construction project these days though... why do they cost so much? (Perhaps if there weren't so many consultants and agencies middle-men involved the price could be shaved down a bit, but that's another matter entirely!)

And bad transport in London makes it less attractive to the finance industry - the provider of the tax that probably funds your local hospital. And they're hardly going to go to Birmingham instead.

Well, no, but there's also Edinburgh, which is the second financial centre of the UK.

Out of interest, do you live in a city?

When I'm in the UK, no. When I'm in the US, yes.

[Ameecher]

But with the £16 billion supposedly going to be spent on Crossrail, you could build, what, 4-5 new Forth Road Bridges! The Forth crossing need never be congested again! Or one could build many thousands of much-needed Cupar bypasses...

And if the Scottish Parliament weren't such idiots about the Forth crossing you could about 10 crossings for the £16bn....