Chris Grayling gives backing to Crossrail 2

[Recliner]

<http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/transport-secretary-chris-grayling-gives-backing-to-crossrail-2-a3594416.html>

The £30 billion Crossrail 2 project took a major step forwards today as
Chris Grayling confirmed that he supported the scheme.

The Transport Secretary said there was no doubt London needed new
infrastructure in order to retain its status as the UK’s economic
powerhouse.

His remarks will calm nerves among London politicians and businesses that
the Government had gone cool on the capital’s flagship infrastructure
project.

There had been fears the scheme could be derailed by competing pressures
from the North after it was left out of the Tory manifesto and Queen’s
Speech.

Yet despite the Transport Secretary’s backing for the major north-south
rail link there remain concerns about how it will be funded.

Mr Grayling said: “I am a supporter of Crossrail 2 but given its price tag
we have to ensure that we get this right”.

He issued a joint statement with Mayor Sadiq Khan announcing plans to work
together on a financial package ahead of this autumn’s Budget.

Transport for London was already expecting to pay for at least half of the
cost of the project - but much of it in arrears, as with Crossrail 1.

However, the Department for Transport has now said it wants half of the
construction costs paid for up-front.

Mr Grayling added: “The Mayor and I have agreed to work together on it over
the coming months to develop plans that are as strong as possible, so that
the public gets an affordable scheme that is fair to the UK taxpayer.”

This would be followed by a fresh public consultation on issues including
the route.

Crossrail 2 is embroiled in a series of disputes over the location of
stations, with major local opposition to proposed stops at Chelsea and
Wimbledon.

Mr Khan added: “Crossrail 2 is essential for the future prosperity of
London and the South East, so I’m pleased that the Transport Secretary and
I have reached an agreement to take this vital project forward.

“We will continue to work together to ensure the project is value for money
and provides the maximum benefits for jobs and growth in the region over
coming decades.”

Crossrail 2 is seen as critical to London’s future rapid growth and will
unlock an estimated 200,000 new homes and 200,000 jobs.

Business groups welcomed the announcement. David Leam, infrastructure
director of London First, said: “With this joint statement, Crossrail 2 has
moved forward - from whether we do it to how we do it.

“The Government’s funding ambition is a challenging one but London business
will play its part in developing an affordable funding package, as we did
with Crossrail 1.”

The announcement follows a meeting between the two politicians last week
that was described as “constructive”, marking a thaw in relations after
disagreements over the devolution of suburban rail.

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article

Post by Recliner
<http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/transport-secretary-chris-gr
ayling-gives-backing-to-crossrail-2-a3594416.html>
The £30 billion Crossrail 2 project took a major step forwards today as
Chris Grayling confirmed that he supported the scheme.
The Transport Secretary said there was no doubt London needed new
infrastructure in order to retain its status as the UK_s economic
powerhouse.
His remarks will calm nerves among London politicians and businesses that
the Government had gone cool on the capital_s flagship infrastructure
project.
There had been fears the scheme could be derailed by competing pressures
from the North after it was left out of the Tory manifesto and Queen's
Speech.
Yet despite the Transport Secretary_s backing for the major north-south
rail link there remain concerns about how it will be funded.
Mr Grayling said: "I am a supporter of Crossrail 2 but given its price tag
we have to ensure that we get this right".
He issued a joint statement with Mayor Sadiq Khan announcing plans to work
together on a financial package ahead of this autumn_s Budget.
Transport for London was already expecting to pay for at least half of the
cost of the project - but much of it in arrears, as with Crossrail 1.
However, the Department for Transport has now said it wants half of the
construction costs paid for up-front.
Mr Grayling added: "The Mayor and I have agreed to work together on it
over the coming months to develop plans that are as strong as possible, so
that the public gets an affordable scheme that is fair to the UK
taxpayer."
This would be followed by a fresh public consultation on issues including
the route.
Crossrail 2 is embroiled in a series of disputes over the location of
stations, with major local opposition to proposed stops at Chelsea and
Wimbledon.
Mr Khan added: "Crossrail 2 is essential for the future prosperity of
London and the South East, so I'm pleased that the Transport Secretary and
I have reached an agreement to take this vital project forward.
"We will continue to work together to ensure the project is value for
money and provides the maximum benefits for jobs and growth in the region
over coming decades."
Crossrail 2 is seen as critical to London's future rapid growth and will
unlock an estimated 200,000 new homes and 200,000 jobs.
Business groups welcomed the announcement. David Leam, infrastructure
director of London First, said: "With this joint statement, Crossrail 2
has moved forward - from whether we do it to how we do it.
"The Government's funding ambition is a challenging one but London
business will play its part in developing an affordable funding package,
as we did with Crossrail 1."
The announcement follows a meeting between the two politicians last week
that was described as "constructive", marking a thaw in relations after
disagreements over the devolution of suburban rail.

Unlike people in the now defunct "Northern Powerhouse" Grayling's
constituents won't forgive him for putting the kibosh on Crossrail 2.

[Recliner]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner
<http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/transport-secretary-chris-gr
ayling-gives-backing-to-crossrail-2-a3594416.html>
The Ģ30 billion Crossrail 2 project took a major step forwards today as
Chris Grayling confirmed that he supported the scheme.
The Transport Secretary said there was no doubt London needed new
infrastructure in order to retain its status as the UK_s economic
powerhouse.
His remarks will calm nerves among London politicians and businesses that
the Government had gone cool on the capital_s flagship infrastructure
project.
There had been fears the scheme could be derailed by competing pressures
from the North after it was left out of the Tory manifesto and Queen's
Speech.
Yet despite the Transport Secretary_s backing for the major north-south
rail link there remain concerns about how it will be funded.
Mr Grayling said: "I am a supporter of Crossrail 2 but given its price tag
we have to ensure that we get this right".
He issued a joint statement with Mayor Sadiq Khan announcing plans to work
together on a financial package ahead of this autumn_s Budget.
Transport for London was already expecting to pay for at least half of the
cost of the project - but much of it in arrears, as with Crossrail 1.
However, the Department for Transport has now said it wants half of the
construction costs paid for up-front.
Mr Grayling added: "The Mayor and I have agreed to work together on it
over the coming months to develop plans that are as strong as possible, so
that the public gets an affordable scheme that is fair to the UK
taxpayer."
This would be followed by a fresh public consultation on issues including
the route.
Crossrail 2 is embroiled in a series of disputes over the location of
stations, with major local opposition to proposed stops at Chelsea and
Wimbledon.
Mr Khan added: "Crossrail 2 is essential for the future prosperity of
London and the South East, so I'm pleased that the Transport Secretary and
I have reached an agreement to take this vital project forward.
"We will continue to work together to ensure the project is value for
money and provides the maximum benefits for jobs and growth in the region
over coming decades."
Crossrail 2 is seen as critical to London's future rapid growth and will
unlock an estimated 200,000 new homes and 200,000 jobs.
Business groups welcomed the announcement. David Leam, infrastructure
director of London First, said: "With this joint statement, Crossrail 2
has moved forward - from whether we do it to how we do it.
"The Government's funding ambition is a challenging one but London
business will play its part in developing an affordable funding package,
as we did with Crossrail 1."
The announcement follows a meeting between the two politicians last week
that was described as "constructive", marking a thaw in relations after
disagreements over the devolution of suburban rail.

Unlike people in the now defunct "Northern Powerhouse" Grayling's
constituents won't forgive him for putting the kibosh on Crossrail 2.

Also, the approval is conditional on London raising a lot of the funding
itself. I don't think the northern projects have similar requirements.

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

<http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/transport-secretary-chris-grayling-
gives-backing-to-crossrail-2-a3594416.html>

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Recliner
The £30 billion Crossrail 2 project took a major step forwards today as
Chris Grayling confirmed that he supported the scheme.
The Transport Secretary said there was no doubt London needed new
infrastructure in order to retain its status as the UK's economic
powerhouse.
His remarks will calm nerves among London politicians and businesses
that the Government had gone cool on the capital's flagship
infrastructure project.
There had been fears the scheme could be derailed by competing
pressures from the North after it was left out of the Tory manifesto
and Queen's Speech.
Yet despite the Transport Secretary's backing for the major north-south
rail link there remain concerns about how it will be funded.
Mr Grayling said: "I am a supporter of Crossrail 2 but given its price
tag we have to ensure that we get this right".
He issued a joint statement with Mayor Sadiq Khan announcing plans to
work together on a financial package ahead of this autumn's Budget.
Transport for London was already expecting to pay for at least half of
the cost of the project - but much of it in arrears, as with Crossrail
1.
However, the Department for Transport has now said it wants half of the
construction costs paid for up-front.
Mr Grayling added: "The Mayor and I have agreed to work together on it
over the coming months to develop plans that are as strong as possible,
so that the public gets an affordable scheme that is fair to the UK
taxpayer."
This would be followed by a fresh public consultation on issues
including the route.
Crossrail 2 is embroiled in a series of disputes over the location of
stations, with major local opposition to proposed stops at Chelsea and
Wimbledon.
Mr Khan added: "Crossrail 2 is essential for the future prosperity of
London and the South East, so I'm pleased that the Transport Secretary
and I have reached an agreement to take this vital project forward.
"We will continue to work together to ensure the project is value for
money and provides the maximum benefits for jobs and growth in the
region over coming decades."
Crossrail 2 is seen as critical to London's future rapid growth and
will unlock an estimated 200,000 new homes and 200,000 jobs.
Business groups welcomed the announcement. David Leam, infrastructure
director of London First, said: "With this joint statement, Crossrail 2
has moved forward - from whether we do it to how we do it.
"The Government's funding ambition is a challenging one but London
business will play its part in developing an affordable funding
package, as we did with Crossrail 1."
The announcement follows a meeting between the two politicians last
week that was described as "constructive", marking a thaw in relations
after disagreements over the devolution of suburban rail.

Unlike people in the now defunct "Northern Powerhouse" Grayling's
constituents won't forgive him for putting the kibosh on Crossrail 2.

Also, the approval is conditional on London raising a lot of the funding
itself. I don't think the northern projects have similar requirements.

Depends what you mean. Greater Manchester has raised a lot of the costs of
Metrolink locally. I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.

[Recliner]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

<http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/transport-secretary-chris-grayling-
gives-backing-to-crossrail-2-a3594416.html>

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Recliner
The Ģ30 billion Crossrail 2 project took a major step forwards today as
Chris Grayling confirmed that he supported the scheme.
The Transport Secretary said there was no doubt London needed new
infrastructure in order to retain its status as the UK's economic
powerhouse.
His remarks will calm nerves among London politicians and businesses
that the Government had gone cool on the capital's flagship
infrastructure project.
There had been fears the scheme could be derailed by competing
pressures from the North after it was left out of the Tory manifesto
and Queen's Speech.
Yet despite the Transport Secretary's backing for the major north-south
rail link there remain concerns about how it will be funded.
Mr Grayling said: "I am a supporter of Crossrail 2 but given its price
tag we have to ensure that we get this right".
He issued a joint statement with Mayor Sadiq Khan announcing plans to
work together on a financial package ahead of this autumn's Budget.
Transport for London was already expecting to pay for at least half of
the cost of the project - but much of it in arrears, as with Crossrail
1.
However, the Department for Transport has now said it wants half of the
construction costs paid for up-front.
Mr Grayling added: "The Mayor and I have agreed to work together on it
over the coming months to develop plans that are as strong as possible,
so that the public gets an affordable scheme that is fair to the UK
taxpayer."
This would be followed by a fresh public consultation on issues
including the route.
Crossrail 2 is embroiled in a series of disputes over the location of
stations, with major local opposition to proposed stops at Chelsea and
Wimbledon.
Mr Khan added: "Crossrail 2 is essential for the future prosperity of
London and the South East, so I'm pleased that the Transport Secretary
and I have reached an agreement to take this vital project forward.
"We will continue to work together to ensure the project is value for
money and provides the maximum benefits for jobs and growth in the
region over coming decades."
Crossrail 2 is seen as critical to London's future rapid growth and
will unlock an estimated 200,000 new homes and 200,000 jobs.
Business groups welcomed the announcement. David Leam, infrastructure
director of London First, said: "With this joint statement, Crossrail 2
has moved forward - from whether we do it to how we do it.
"The Government's funding ambition is a challenging one but London
business will play its part in developing an affordable funding
package, as we did with Crossrail 1."
The announcement follows a meeting between the two politicians last
week that was described as "constructive", marking a thaw in relations
after disagreements over the devolution of suburban rail.

Unlike people in the now defunct "Northern Powerhouse" Grayling's
constituents won't forgive him for putting the kibosh on Crossrail 2.

Also, the approval is conditional on London raising a lot of the funding
itself. I don't think the northern projects have similar requirements.

Depends what you mean. Greater Manchester has raised a lot of the costs of
Metrolink locally.

Which is why it keeps being extended… If they just sat on thrir hanfs
wanting all the money from London, it wouldn't have grown the way it has.

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.

What improvements?

[Paul Corfield]

Post by Recliner
<http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/transport-secretary-chris-grayling-gives-backing-to-crossrail-2-a3594416.html>
The £30 billion Crossrail 2 project took a major step forwards today as
Chris Grayling confirmed that he supported the scheme.

Why has everyone fallen for this guff from Grayling? He said a few vaguely supportive words but has not given any go ahead nor committed any money.

Think about where we were recently - TfL delivered the Strategic Business Case to the DfT for approval. Nothing happened. We had an election. Nothing happened. The Mayor, business leaders, London Assembly all start shouting "why haven't you given the go ahead to CR2?". Nothing happens until we get this meaningless statement which

a) does not mention the business case approval at all
b) does not guarantee any funding at all
c) makes the next round of consultation conditional.
d) sends TfL and the Mayor away to do more work on a completely different funding package.
e) sends TfL and the Mayor away to "make the scheme affordable" as clearly it currently isn't affordable if your name is Grayling
f) sends TfL and the Mayor away to confirm the route (i.e. cut it back)
g) sends TfL and the Mayor away to remove uncertainty about the safeguarding (e.g. scrap Chelsea station, stop wittering about an eastern branch).

All yesterday's nonsense does is get the pressure off the DfT for a few months, avoids the DfT making any commitments at all, gives the Mayor and TfL a funding requirement that is the complete opposite of what they submitted (they wanted to borrow and hypothecate future revenue streams). There is no mention about a Land Value Capture Tax that was rumoured to be Grayling's preference for review but the lack of government majority no doubt means this can't be taken forward as legislation would be needed.

The demands from Grayling for "up front" funding from TfL is a way of trying to force the Mayor to scrap his fares freeze and implement higher than inflation fare increases to create an annual funding stream. Alternatively or even additionally it may also mean the TfL precept being increased vastly or TfL's activities being scaled back even more to generate funding for CR2. This is payback for every time the Mayor has said "give me Southern to run", "let me run South Eastern", "government operation of trains is useless", "you have to freeze rail fares as I've done on the tube and DLR". Grayling hates all this so time to show who's boss.

I know I am being very negative here but Grayling hates everything Khan stands for. However he holds the power here as CR2 cannot proceed without government funding nor can changes to NR services to implement CR2 proceed without DfT sign off. I am sure there are a thousand other issues which also need DfT / govt support. This announcement is actually an exercise in power by Grayling as I am sure Khan understands all too well. However he has no choice but to do what Grayling wants otherwise he has to give up on CR2 and then he'd be in the firing line - a result Grayling would no doubt be delighted with.

[tim...]

Post by Paul Corfield
I know I am being very negative here but Grayling hates everything Khan
stands for. However he holds the power here as CR2 cannot proceed without
government funding nor can changes to NR services to implement CR2 proceed
without DfT sign off. I am sure there are a thousand other issues which
also need DfT / govt support. This announcement is actually an exercise
in power by Grayling as I am sure Khan understands all too well. However
he has no choice but to do what Grayling wants otherwise he has to give up
on CR2 and then he'd be in the firing line - a result Grayling would no
doubt be delighted with.

whatever the results of this, I doubt very much that Kahn will still be in
office by the time that CR2 construction is started

tim

[Recliner]

Post by tim...

Post by Paul Corfield
I know I am being very negative here but Grayling hates everything Khan
stands for. However he holds the power here as CR2 cannot proceed without
government funding nor can changes to NR services to implement CR2 proceed
without DfT sign off. I am sure there are a thousand other issues which
also need DfT / govt support. This announcement is actually an exercise
in power by Grayling as I am sure Khan understands all too well. However
he has no choice but to do what Grayling wants otherwise he has to give up
on CR2 and then he'd be in the firing line - a result Grayling would no
doubt be delighted with.

whatever the results of this, I doubt very much that Kahn will still be in
office by the time that CR2 construction is started

Who is 'Kahn'?

Whoever he is, Sadiq Khan probably hopes to be PM by the time CR2
construction
might start in the mid 2020s. And Grayling's term at the DfT will be long
forgotten.

[Arthur Conan Doyle]

Post by Recliner
Who is 'Kahn'?

He's the guy who's pissed off at Jim Kirk.

[tim...]

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by Paul Corfield
I know I am being very negative here but Grayling hates everything Khan
stands for. However he holds the power here as CR2 cannot proceed without
government funding nor can changes to NR services to implement CR2 proceed
without DfT sign off. I am sure there are a thousand other issues which
also need DfT / govt support. This announcement is actually an exercise
in power by Grayling as I am sure Khan understands all too well.
However
he has no choice but to do what Grayling wants otherwise he has to give up
on CR2 and then he'd be in the firing line - a result Grayling would no
doubt be delighted with.

whatever the results of this, I doubt very much that Kahn will still be in
office by the time that CR2 construction is started

Who is 'Kahn'?
Whoever he is, Sadiq Khan probably hopes to be PM

I suspect that he won't make it that far

but he will have to be back on the commons in order to give it a shot

tim

[Recliner]

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by Paul Corfield
I know I am being very negative here but Grayling hates everything Khan
stands for. However he holds the power here as CR2 cannot proceed without
government funding nor can changes to NR services to implement CR2 proceed
without DfT sign off. I am sure there are a thousand other issues which
also need DfT / govt support. This announcement is actually an exercise
in power by Grayling as I am sure Khan understands all too well.
However
he has no choice but to do what Grayling wants otherwise he has to give up
on CR2 and then he'd be in the firing line - a result Grayling would no
doubt be delighted with.

whatever the results of this, I doubt very much that Kahn will still be in
office by the time that CR2 construction is started

Who is 'Kahn'?
Whoever he is, Sadiq Khan probably hopes to be PM

I suspect that he won't make it that far

Well, I bow to your greater knowledge on the subject. But you might want to
read this long profile on him in the New Yorker:
<http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/31/sadiq-khan-takes-on-brexit-and-terror/amp>

Post by tim...
but he will have to be back on the commons in order to give it a shot

Yes, of course. I'm sure you know that both his predecessors combined their
roles as MP and mayor for periods. Boris was also a best-selling author and
very highly paid newspaper columnist while mayor.

[tim...]

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by Paul Corfield
I know I am being very negative here but Grayling hates everything Khan
stands for. However he holds the power here as CR2 cannot proceed without
government funding nor can changes to NR services to implement CR2 proceed
without DfT sign off. I am sure there are a thousand other issues which
also need DfT / govt support. This announcement is actually an exercise
in power by Grayling as I am sure Khan understands all too well.
However
he has no choice but to do what Grayling wants otherwise he has to
give
up
on CR2 and then he'd be in the firing line - a result Grayling would no
doubt be delighted with.

whatever the results of this, I doubt very much that Kahn will still be in
office by the time that CR2 construction is started

Who is 'Kahn'?
Whoever he is, Sadiq Khan probably hopes to be PM

I suspect that he won't make it that far

Well, I bow to your greater knowledge on the subject.

very funny

Three things have to happen:

1) The current Labour party trajectory towards far left domination collapse
in a heap
2) He wins a leadership election contest against some other worthy,
moderate, contenders (and any lefties that get onto the ballot).
3) The Labour party convince enough of the electorate to vote them into
office

I suggest that 3 will be the easiest of these, but I would also suggest that
if he were the leader he will find it harder than some others. He comes
across as an identikit politician, and whatever the Labour spin doctors
think, the electorate don't actually like identikit politicians.

I don't rate his chances on 1 or 2 highly.

Post by Recliner
But you might want to
<http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/31/sadiq-khan-takes-on-brexit-and-terror/amp>

Post by tim...
but he will have to be back on the commons in order to give it a shot

Yes, of course. I'm sure you know that both his predecessors combined their
roles as MP and mayor for periods.

but not to popular opinion

Post by Recliner
Boris was also a best-selling author and
very highly paid newspaper columnist while mayor.

what's that got to do with anything?

This isn't about how much time you devote to the job (I very much suspect
being mayor is not a full time job, at least not by the standards of being a
government minster), it's how much of your political loyalty you put in that
direction. And loyalty will be divided combining Mayor with running to be
Labour party leader.

tim

[Recliner]

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by Paul Corfield
I know I am being very negative here but Grayling hates everything Khan
stands for. However he holds the power here as CR2 cannot proceed without
government funding nor can changes to NR services to implement CR2 proceed
without DfT sign off. I am sure there are a thousand other issues which
also need DfT / govt support. This announcement is actually an exercise
in power by Grayling as I am sure Khan understands all too well.
However
he has no choice but to do what Grayling wants otherwise he has to
give
up
on CR2 and then he'd be in the firing line - a result Grayling would no
doubt be delighted with.

whatever the results of this, I doubt very much that Kahn will still be in
office by the time that CR2 construction is started

Who is 'Kahn'?
Whoever he is, Sadiq Khan probably hopes to be PM

I suspect that he won't make it that far

Well, I bow to your greater knowledge on the subject.

very funny
1) The current Labour party trajectory towards far left domination collapse
in a heap
2) He wins a leadership election contest against some other worthy,
moderate, contenders (and any lefties that get onto the ballot).
3) The Labour party convince enough of the electorate to vote them into
office
I suggest that 3 will be the easiest of these, but I would also suggest that
if he were the leader he will find it harder than some others. He comes
across as an identikit politician, and whatever the Labour spin doctors
think, the electorate don't actually like identikit politicians.
I don't rate his chances on 1 or 2 highly.

I don't think he's planning detailed tactics. He's more of a strategic
thinker, and is establishing a solid track record so as to be ready if
an opportunity presents itself. He's not nakedly ambitious like Boris,
but as you can if you read that article, he's tireless when he has an
objective to achieve.

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner
But you might want to
<http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/31/sadiq-khan-takes-on-brexit-and-terror/amp>

Post by tim...
but he will have to be back on the commons in order to give it a shot

Yes, of course. I'm sure you know that both his predecessors combined
their roles as MP and mayor for periods.

but not to popular opinion

Post by Recliner
Boris was also a best-selling author and
very highly paid newspaper columnist while mayor.

what's that got to do with anything?

It proved that no-one demands that the mayor be full-time.

Post by tim...
This isn't about how much time you devote to the job (I very much suspect
being mayor is not a full time job, at least not by the standards of being a
government minster), it's how much of your political loyalty you put in that
direction. And loyalty will be divided combining Mayor with running to be
Labour party leader.

He may take advantage of a convenient by-election in his second term
to get himself parked in the Commons, without actually standing for
leader at the same time. He'll just make sure he's in a good position
to take advantage of an opportunity, should it arise.

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

<http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/transport-secretary-chris-grayling-
gives-backing-to-crossrail-2-a3594416.html>

Post by Paul Corfield

Post by Recliner
The £30 billion Crossrail 2 project took a major step forwards today as
Chris Grayling confirmed that he supported the scheme.

Why has everyone fallen for this guff from Grayling? He said a few
vaguely supportive words but has not given any go ahead nor committed
any money.
Think about where we were recently - TfL delivered the Strategic
Business Case to the DfT for approval. Nothing happened. We had an
election. Nothing happened. The Mayor, business leaders, London
Assembly all start shouting "why haven't you given the go ahead to
CR2?". Nothing happens until we get this meaningless statement which
a) does not mention the business case approval at all
b) does not guarantee any funding at all
c) makes the next round of consultation conditional.
d) sends TfL and the Mayor away to do more work on a completely different funding package.
e) sends TfL and the Mayor away to "make the scheme affordable" as
clearly it currently isn't affordable if your name is Grayling
f) sends TfL and the Mayor away to confirm the route (i.e. cut it back)
g) sends TfL and the Mayor away to remove uncertainty about the
safeguarding (e.g. scrap Chelsea station, stop wittering about an
eastern branch).
All yesterday's nonsense does is get the pressure off the DfT for a
few months, avoids the DfT making any commitments at all, gives the
Mayor and TfL a funding requirement that is the complete opposite of
what they submitted (they wanted to borrow and hypothecate future
revenue streams). There is no mention about a Land Value Capture Tax
that was rumoured to be Grayling's preference for review but the lack
of government majority no doubt means this can't be taken forward as
legislation would be needed.
The demands from Grayling for "up front" funding from TfL is a way of
trying to force the Mayor to scrap his fares freeze and implement
higher than inflation fare increases to create an annual funding
stream. Alternatively or even additionally it may also mean the TfL
precept being increased vastly or TfL's activities being scaled back
even more to generate funding for CR2. This is payback for every time
the Mayor has said "give me Southern to run", "let me run South
Eastern", "government operation of trains is useless", "you have to
freeze rail fares as I've done on the tube and DLR". Grayling hates
all this so time to show who's boss.
I know I am being very negative here but Grayling hates everything
Khan stands for. However he holds the power here as CR2 cannot
proceed without government funding nor can changes to NR services to
implement CR2 proceed without DfT sign off. I am sure there are a
thousand other issues which also need DfT / govt support. This
announcement is actually an exercise in power by Grayling as I am
sure Khan understands all too well. However he has no choice but to
do what Grayling wants otherwise he has to give up on CR2 and then
he'd be in the firing line - a result Grayling would no doubt be
delighted with.

Wow! Don't hold back, Paul! Not that I can fault what you say.

[Optimist]

Post by Paul Corfield

Post by Recliner
<http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/transport-secretary-chris-grayling-gives-backing-to-crossrail-2-a3594416.html>
The £30 billion Crossrail 2 project took a major step forwards today as
Chris Grayling confirmed that he supported the scheme.

Why has everyone fallen for this guff from Grayling? He said a few vaguely supportive words but has not given any go ahead nor committed any money.
Think about where we were recently - TfL delivered the Strategic Business Case to the DfT for approval. Nothing happened. We had an election. Nothing happened. The Mayor, business leaders, London Assembly all start shouting "why haven't you given the go ahead to CR2?". Nothing happens until we get this meaningless statement which
a) does not mention the business case approval at all
b) does not guarantee any funding at all
c) makes the next round of consultation conditional.
d) sends TfL and the Mayor away to do more work on a completely different funding package.
e) sends TfL and the Mayor away to "make the scheme affordable" as clearly it currently isn't affordable if your name is Grayling
f) sends TfL and the Mayor away to confirm the route (i.e. cut it back)
g) sends TfL and the Mayor away to remove uncertainty about the safeguarding (e.g. scrap Chelsea station, stop wittering about an eastern branch).
All yesterday's nonsense does is get the pressure off the DfT for a few months, avoids the DfT making any commitments at all, gives the Mayor and TfL a funding requirement that is the complete opposite of what they submitted (they wanted to borrow and hypothecate future revenue streams). There is no mention about a Land Value Capture Tax that was rumoured to be Grayling's preference for review but the lack of government majority no doubt means this can't be taken forward as legislation would be needed.
The demands from Grayling for "up front" funding from TfL is a way of trying to force the Mayor to scrap his fares freeze and implement higher than inflation fare increases to create an annual funding stream. Alternatively or even additionally it may also mean the TfL precept being increased vastly or TfL's activities being scaled back even more to generate funding for CR2. This is payback for every time the Mayor has said "give me Southern to run", "let me run South Eastern", "government operation of trains is useless", "you have to freeze rail fares as I've done on the tube and DLR". Grayling hates all this so time to show who's boss.
I know I am being very negative here but Grayling hates everything Khan stands for. However he holds the power here as CR2 cannot proceed without government funding nor can changes to NR services to implement CR2 proceed without DfT sign off. I am sure there are a thousand other issues which also need DfT / govt support. This announcement is actually an exercise in power by Grayling as I am sure Khan understands all too well. However he has no choice but to do what Grayling wants otherwise he has to give up on CR2 and then he'd be in the firing line - a result Grayling would no doubt be delighted with.

Is it true that Grayling will insist on diesel operation to avoid having to pay for electrification?

[Robin9]

I don't know if Mr. Grayling does hate everything that Mr. Khan
stands for, and he being a professional politician, I accept that
his motives may not be entirely pure, public minded and honourable.

However, it is not contrary to the public interest to force the
Mayor to do his sums correctly, to make sure that Londoners
one way or another pay for a London Tube line instead of
scrounging off tax-payers elsewhere, and to insist that the scheme
is finalised and quantified before work begins.

We have had too many railway projects for which the costs and
specifications have been changed after work has begun. Very few
sensible people believe that Mr. Khan's policy of holding down fares
is a rational way of financing public transport in London


--
Robin9

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.

What improvements?

The ones currently under way.

[Recliner]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.

What improvements?

The ones currently under way.

So do they include new network extensions, new stations or new stock, as
Manchester Metrolink has repeatedly enjoyed?

[s***@potato.field]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 02:00:37 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.

What improvements?

The ones currently under way.

So do they include new network extensions, new stations or new stock, as
Manchester Metrolink has repeatedly enjoyed?

Not sure there's anywhere left to extend it to that doesn't involve new track
or tunneling and that won't happen because its not london. Even as a londoner
I think the disparity between the investment the capital gets in transport
infrastructure and what other cities get is a disgrace.

--
Spud

[Recliner]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 02:00:37 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.

What improvements?

The ones currently under way.

So do they include new network extensions, new stations or new stock, as
Manchester Metrolink has repeatedly enjoyed?

Not sure there's anywhere left to extend it to that doesn't involve new track
or tunneling and that won't happen because its not london. Even as a londoner
I think the disparity between the investment the capital gets in transport
infrastructure and what other cities get is a disgrace.

Manchester, Nottingham and Birmingham trams have all had new track,
stations, routes and fleets in the recent past.

[s***@potato.field]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 09:12:45 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 02:00:37 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.

What improvements?

The ones currently under way.

So do they include new network extensions, new stations or new stock, as
Manchester Metrolink has repeatedly enjoyed?

Not sure there's anywhere left to extend it to that doesn't involve new track
or tunneling and that won't happen because its not london. Even as a londoner
I think the disparity between the investment the capital gets in transport
infrastructure and what other cities get is a disgrace.

Manchester, Nottingham and Birmingham trams have all had new track,
stations, routes and fleets in the recent past.

You rather missed the point. In europe cities the size of brum and manchester
generally have a tram system AND a proper metro but until the 90s they didn't
even have the trams and nottingham only gots its tram 10 or so years ago! This
is a shameful indictment of UK public transport policy by all governments.

[Roland Perry]

Post by s***@potato.field
In europe cities the size of brum and manchester
generally have a tram system AND a proper metro but until the 90s they didn't
even have the trams and nottingham only gots its tram 10 or so years ago! This
is a shameful indictment of UK public transport policy by all governments.

And despite the cries of anguish from the Manchester area, London
farepayers contribute half the cost of running Northern Rail. A massive
subsidy for which they don't appear to be the slightest bit grateful.

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by s***@potato.field
In europe cities the size of brum and manchester
generally have a tram system AND a proper metro but until the 90s they
didn't even have the trams and nottingham only gots its tram 10 or so
years ago! This is a shameful indictment of UK public transport policy by
all governments.

And despite the cries of anguish from the Manchester area, London
farepayers contribute half the cost of running Northern Rail. A
massive subsidy for which they don't appear to be the slightest bit
grateful.

I don't think that subsidy contributes much to services in Northern cities
either.

[Roland Perry]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Roland Perry

Post by s***@potato.field
In europe cities the size of brum and manchester
generally have a tram system AND a proper metro but until the 90s they
didn't even have the trams and nottingham only gots its tram 10 or so
years ago! This is a shameful indictment of UK public transport policy by
all governments.

And despite the cries of anguish from the Manchester area, London
farepayers contribute half the cost of running Northern Rail. A
massive subsidy for which they don't appear to be the slightest bit
grateful.

I don't think that subsidy contributes much to services in Northern cities
either.

Only half the fares basket.

[tim...]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 02:00:37 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.

What improvements?

The ones currently under way.

So do they include new network extensions, new stations or new stock, as
Manchester Metrolink has repeatedly enjoyed?

Not sure there's anywhere left to extend it to that doesn't involve new track
or tunneling and that won't happen because its not london. Even as a londoner
I think the disparity between the investment the capital gets in transport
infrastructure and what other cities get is a disgrace.

the problem is that London's spend is skewed by the huge number of people
that it has to provide transport for, who don't actually live there

tim

[Recliner]

Post by tim...

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 02:00:37 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.

What improvements?

The ones currently under way.

So do they include new network extensions, new stations or new stock, as
Manchester Metrolink has repeatedly enjoyed?

Not sure there's anywhere left to extend it to that doesn't involve new track
or tunneling and that won't happen because its not london. Even as a londoner
I think the disparity between the investment the capital gets in transport
infrastructure and what other cities get is a disgrace.

the problem is that London's spend is skewed by the huge number of people
that it has to provide transport for, who don't actually live there

True, but London taxpayers also contribute heavily to the transport
costs in Wales, Scotland and the North of England.

[tim...]

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 02:00:37 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.

What improvements?

The ones currently under way.

So do they include new network extensions, new stations or new stock, as
Manchester Metrolink has repeatedly enjoyed?

Not sure there's anywhere left to extend it to that doesn't involve new track
or tunneling and that won't happen because its not london. Even as a londoner
I think the disparity between the investment the capital gets in transport
infrastructure and what other cities get is a disgrace.

the problem is that London's spend is skewed by the huge number of people
that it has to provide transport for, who don't actually live there

True, but London taxpayers also contribute heavily to the transport
costs in Wales, Scotland and the North of England.

I find it hard to believe that operating subsidy reaches close to London's
CapEx advantages

tim

[Recliner]

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 02:00:37 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.

What improvements?

The ones currently under way.

So do they include new network extensions, new stations or new stock, as
Manchester Metrolink has repeatedly enjoyed?

Not sure there's anywhere left to extend it to that doesn't involve new track
or tunneling and that won't happen because its not london. Even as a londoner
I think the disparity between the investment the capital gets in transport
infrastructure and what other cities get is a disgrace.

the problem is that London's spend is skewed by the huge number of people
that it has to provide transport for, who don't actually live there

True, but London taxpayers also contribute heavily to the transport
costs in Wales, Scotland and the North of England.

I find it hard to believe that operating subsidy reaches close to London's
CapEx advantages

You may be right: I've not seen a proper analysis. I suppose the issue is
that London is much more dependent on public transport, particularly rail,
than the much smaller northern cities. And London generates a huge tax
surplus, which funds projects everywhere else.

Also, while London gets a lot of rail investment, it sees few new roads; in
other cities, I seem to see a lot of new roads.

[tim...]

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 02:00:37 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.

What improvements?

The ones currently under way.

So do they include new network extensions, new stations or new stock, as
Manchester Metrolink has repeatedly enjoyed?

Not sure there's anywhere left to extend it to that doesn't involve
new
track
or tunneling and that won't happen because its not london. Even as a londoner
I think the disparity between the investment the capital gets in transport
infrastructure and what other cities get is a disgrace.

the problem is that London's spend is skewed by the huge number of people
that it has to provide transport for, who don't actually live there

True, but London taxpayers also contribute heavily to the transport
costs in Wales, Scotland and the North of England.

I find it hard to believe that operating subsidy reaches close to London's
CapEx advantages

You may be right: I've not seen a proper analysis. I suppose the issue is
that London is much more dependent on public transport, particularly rail,
than the much smaller northern cities. And London generates a huge tax
surplus, which funds projects everywhere else.
Also, while London gets a lot of rail investment, it sees few new roads; in
other cities, I seem to see a lot of new roads.

That's true too

in the quadrant of London where I grew up, in the 50 year since I was old
enough to remember the road layout, where trunk routes are concerned there's
been one major junction improvement and about a mile of "bypass" road

And, I think, that's it

tim

[Basil Jet]

Post by tim...
in the quadrant of London where I grew up, in the 50 year since I was
old enough to remember the road layout, where trunk routes are concerned
there's been one major junction improvement and about a mile of "bypass"
road
And, I think, that's it

South West London: York Circus and the adjoining Trinity Road, Swandon
Way and Armoury Way?

[s***@potato.field]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 22:43:12 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner
You may be right: I've not seen a proper analysis. I suppose the issue is
that London is much more dependent on public transport, particularly rail,
than the much smaller northern cities. And London generates a huge tax

You've obviously never driven on the M60 in the rush hour. Manchester (and
brum) both need proper metros, not cut price trams.

[Robin9]

Post by s***@potato.field
-
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 02:00:37 -0000 (UTC)
In article
I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.
What improvements?
The ones currently under way.
So do they include new network extensions, new stations or new stock
as
Manchester Metrolink has repeatedly enjoyed?
Not sure there's anywhere left to extend it to that doesn't involv
new
track
or tunneling and that won't happen because its not london. Even as a londoner
I think the disparity between the investment the capital gets in transport
infrastructure and what other cities get is a disgrace.
the problem is that London's spend is skewed by the huge number o
people
that it has to provide transport for, who don't actually live there-
True, but London taxpayers also contribute heavily to the transport
costs in Wales, Scotland and the North of England.-
I find it hard to believe that operating subsidy reaches close t
London's
CapEx advantages-
You may be right: I've not seen a proper analysis. I suppose the issu
is
that London is much more dependent on public transport, particularl
rail,
than the much smaller northern cities. And London generates a huge tax
surplus, which funds projects everywhere else.
Also, while London gets a lot of rail investment, it sees few new roads
in
other cities, I seem to see a lot of new roads.

In London, money is only spent on roads to make them less fit for
purpose


--
Robin9

[Recliner]

Post by Robin9

Post by s***@potato.field
-
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 02:00:37 -0000 (UTC)
In article
I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.
What improvements?
The ones currently under way.
So do they include new network extensions, new stations or new stock, as
Manchester Metrolink has repeatedly enjoyed?
Not sure there's anywhere left to extend it to that doesn't involve
new
track
or tunneling and that won't happen because its not london. Even as a londoner
I think the disparity between the investment the capital gets in transport
infrastructure and what other cities get is a disgrace.
the problem is that London's spend is skewed by the huge number of people
that it has to provide transport for, who don't actually live there-
True, but London taxpayers also contribute heavily to the transport
costs in Wales, Scotland and the North of England.-
I find it hard to believe that operating subsidy reaches close to London's
CapEx advantages-
You may be right: I've not seen a proper analysis. I suppose the issue is
that London is much more dependent on public transport, particularly rail,
than the much smaller northern cities. And London generates a huge tax
surplus, which funds projects everywhere else.
Also, while London gets a lot of rail investment, it sees few new roads; in
other cities, I seem to see a lot of new roads.

In London, money is only spent on roads to make them less fit for
purpose.

Yes, that's all too true.

[tim...]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.

What improvements?

The ones currently under way.

none, last time I looked

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.

What improvements?

The ones currently under way.

So do they include new network extensions, new stations or new stock, as
Manchester Metrolink has repeatedly enjoyed?

Primarily fleet refurbishment I think and maybe replacement. So nothing like
the Manchester investment, for sure.

[Recliner]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.

What improvements?

The ones currently under way.

So do they include new network extensions, new stations or new stock, as
Manchester Metrolink has repeatedly enjoyed?

Primarily fleet refurbishment I think and maybe replacement. So nothing like
the Manchester investment, for sure.

I think just refurbishment, which counts as just routine maintenance
for an ageing fleet. Fleet replacement will be needed soon, but I
don't think it's funded yet.

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Even as a londoner I think the disparity between the investment the
capital gets in transport infrastructure and what other cities get
is a disgrace.

the problem is that London's spend is skewed by the huge number of
people that it has to provide transport for, who don't actually live
there

True, but London taxpayers also contribute heavily to the transport
costs in Wales, Scotland and the North of England.

I find it hard to believe that operating subsidy reaches close to
London's CapEx advantages

You may be right: I've not seen a proper analysis. I suppose the issue is
that London is much more dependent on public transport, particularly rail,
than the much smaller northern cities. And London generates a huge tax
surplus, which funds projects everywhere else.
Also, while London gets a lot of rail investment, it sees few new roads;
in other cities, I seem to see a lot of new roads.

The scariest comparison I remember seeing, though a few years ago, was that
the annual number of passenger journeys on LUL and National Rail were much
the same.

[Recliner]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Even as a londoner I think the disparity between the investment the
capital gets in transport infrastructure and what other cities get
is a disgrace.

the problem is that London's spend is skewed by the huge number of
people that it has to provide transport for, who don't actually live
there

True, but London taxpayers also contribute heavily to the transport
costs in Wales, Scotland and the North of England.

I find it hard to believe that operating subsidy reaches close to
London's CapEx advantages

You may be right: I've not seen a proper analysis. I suppose the issue is
that London is much more dependent on public transport, particularly rail,
than the much smaller northern cities. And London generates a huge tax
surplus, which funds projects everywhere else.
Also, while London gets a lot of rail investment, it sees few new roads;
in other cities, I seem to see a lot of new roads.

The scariest comparison I remember seeing, though a few years ago, was that
the annual number of passenger journeys on LUL and National Rail were much
the same.

I think NR has outgrown the Tube a little: 1.65bn annual journeys on NR vs
1.3bn Tube and 0.11bn DLR journeys.

[Basil Jet]

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The scariest comparison I remember seeing, though a few years ago, was that

the annual number of passenger journeys on LUL and National Rail were much
the same.

I think NR has outgrown the Tube a little: 1.65bn annual journeys on NR vs
1.3bn Tube and 0.11bn DLR journeys.

The way I heard it,
LUL + LO passengers > NR passengers (less LO)
DLR + Tramlink passengers > all other tram passengers
And the bizarrest one,
London bus passengers > the rest of the country bus passengers.

[tim...]

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Even as a londoner I think the disparity between the investment the
capital gets in transport infrastructure and what other cities get
is a disgrace.

the problem is that London's spend is skewed by the huge number of
people that it has to provide transport for, who don't actually live
there

True, but London taxpayers also contribute heavily to the transport
costs in Wales, Scotland and the North of England.

I find it hard to believe that operating subsidy reaches close to
London's CapEx advantages

You may be right: I've not seen a proper analysis. I suppose the issue is
that London is much more dependent on public transport, particularly rail,
than the much smaller northern cities. And London generates a huge tax
surplus, which funds projects everywhere else.
Also, while London gets a lot of rail investment, it sees few new roads;
in other cities, I seem to see a lot of new roads.

The scariest comparison I remember seeing, though a few years ago, was that
the annual number of passenger journeys on LUL and National Rail were much
the same.

I think NR has outgrown the Tube a little: 1.65bn annual journeys on NR vs
1.3bn Tube and 0.11bn DLR journeys.

though the average journey length on NR is likely to be significantly longer

[Recliner]

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Even as a londoner I think the disparity between the investment the
capital gets in transport infrastructure and what other cities get
is a disgrace.

the problem is that London's spend is skewed by the huge number of
people that it has to provide transport for, who don't actually live
there

True, but London taxpayers also contribute heavily to the transport
costs in Wales, Scotland and the North of England.

I find it hard to believe that operating subsidy reaches close to
London's CapEx advantages

You may be right: I've not seen a proper analysis. I suppose the issue is
that London is much more dependent on public transport, particularly rail,
than the much smaller northern cities. And London generates a huge tax
surplus, which funds projects everywhere else.
Also, while London gets a lot of rail investment, it sees few new roads;
in other cities, I seem to see a lot of new roads.

The scariest comparison I remember seeing, though a few years ago, was that
the annual number of passenger journeys on LUL and National Rail were much
the same.

I think NR has outgrown the Tube a little: 1.65bn annual journeys on NR vs
1.3bn Tube and 0.11bn DLR journeys.

though the average journey length on NR is likely to be significantly longer

Yes, of course.

[Roland Perry]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The scariest comparison I remember seeing, though a few years ago, was that
the annual number of passenger journeys on LUL and National Rail were much
the same.

I'm not sure why it surprises you. Much of National Rail has 1tph two or
three car DMUs carrying mainly air. LUL trains are 8 carriages crammed
to 3x the seating capacity, running every couple of minutes.

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The scariest comparison I remember seeing, though a few years ago, was
that the annual number of passenger journeys on LUL and National Rail
were much the same.

I'm not sure why it surprises you. Much of National Rail has 1tph two
or three car DMUs carrying mainly air. LUL trains are 8 carriages
crammed to 3x the seating capacity, running every couple of minutes.

I bet it surprises the rest of the country complaining that so much rail
investment goes into London.

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:43:04 +0100, "tim..."

Post by tim...

Even as a londoner I think the disparity between the investment the
capital gets in transport infrastructure and what other cities get
is a disgrace.

the problem is that London's spend is skewed by the huge number of
people that it has to provide transport for, who don't actually live
there

True, but London taxpayers also contribute heavily to the transport
costs in Wales, Scotland and the North of England.

I find it hard to believe that operating subsidy reaches close to
London's CapEx advantages

You may be right: I've not seen a proper analysis. I suppose the issue
is that London is much more dependent on public transport, particularly
rail, than the much smaller northern cities. And London generates a
huge tax surplus, which funds projects everywhere else.
Also, while London gets a lot of rail investment, it sees few new
roads; in other cities, I seem to see a lot of new roads.

The scariest comparison I remember seeing, though a few years ago,
was that the annual number of passenger journeys on LUL and
National Rail were much the same.

I think NR has outgrown the Tube a little: 1.65bn annual journeys on NR vs
1.3bn Tube and 0.11bn DLR journeys.

I thought so but that they are even close shows the immense transport
disparity between London and the rest of the country.

[Recliner]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:43:04 +0100, "tim..."

Post by tim...

Even as a londoner I think the disparity between the investment the
capital gets in transport infrastructure and what other cities get
is a disgrace.

the problem is that London's spend is skewed by the huge number of
people that it has to provide transport for, who don't actually live
there

True, but London taxpayers also contribute heavily to the transport
costs in Wales, Scotland and the North of England.

I find it hard to believe that operating subsidy reaches close to
London's CapEx advantages

You may be right: I've not seen a proper analysis. I suppose the issue
is that London is much more dependent on public transport, particularly
rail, than the much smaller northern cities. And London generates a
huge tax surplus, which funds projects everywhere else.
Also, while London gets a lot of rail investment, it sees few new
roads; in other cities, I seem to see a lot of new roads.

The scariest comparison I remember seeing, though a few years ago,
was that the annual number of passenger journeys on LUL and
National Rail were much the same.

I think NR has outgrown the Tube a little: 1.65bn annual journeys on NR vs
1.3bn Tube and 0.11bn DLR journeys.

I thought so but that they are even close shows the immense transport
disparity between London and the rest of the country.

Yes, it's a very surprising statistic when you first come across it. If you
add in LO as well today, and Crossrail from 2020, TfL will probably be
responsible for more than half the rail journeys in the UK (all of them
electrified, as well). And, it seems, the same is true of urban buses.

[Roland Perry]

In message
<1632485575.522841020.507058.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, at 09:36:51 on Thu, 27 Jul 2017, Recliner

Post by Recliner
Yes, it's a very surprising statistic when you first come across it. If you
add in LO as well today, and Crossrail from 2020, TfL will probably be
responsible for more than half the rail journeys in the UK (all of them
electrified, as well).

Oh - did they finish electrifying Barking to Gospel Oak? I was in
Leytonstone earlier in the week and no sign of any wires from the
gantries.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 09:36:51 on Thu, 27 Jul 2017, Recliner

Post by Recliner
Yes, it's a very surprising statistic when you first come across it. If you
add in LO as well today, and Crossrail from 2020, TfL will probably be
responsible for more than half the rail journeys in the UK (all of them
electrified, as well).

Oh - did they finish electrifying Barking to Gospel Oak? I was in
Leytonstone earlier in the week and no sign of any wires from the
gantries.

Did you not notice the '2020' in the text you replied to? I was assuming
even NR will finish the project well before then, hopefully this year.

[Roland Perry]

In message
<699125743.522971588.798160.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 21:53:19 on Fri, 28 Jul 2017, Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Yes, it's a very surprising statistic when you first come across it. If you
add in LO as well today, and Crossrail from 2020, TfL will probably be
responsible for more than half the rail journeys in the UK (all of them
electrified, as well).

Oh - did they finish electrifying Barking to Gospel Oak? I was in
Leytonstone earlier in the week and no sign of any wires from the
gantries.

Did you not notice the '2020' in the text you replied to?

Oh, sorry, there was an invisible "from 2020" after LO as well, was
there?

Not sure quite what "LO as well today, from 2020" would mean though.

Post by Recliner
I was assuming
even NR will finish the project well before then, hopefully this year.

Which project, LO or Crossrail?

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 21:53:19 on Fri, 28 Jul 2017, Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Yes, it's a very surprising statistic when you first come across it. If you
add in LO as well today, and Crossrail from 2020, TfL will probably be
responsible for more than half the rail journeys in the UK (all of them
electrified, as well).

Oh - did they finish electrifying Barking to Gospel Oak? I was in
Leytonstone earlier in the week and no sign of any wires from the
gantries.

Did you not notice the '2020' in the text you replied to?

Oh, sorry, there was an invisible "from 2020" after LO as well, was
there?
Not sure quite what "LO as well today, from 2020" would mean though.

Post by Recliner
I was assuming
even NR will finish the project well before then, hopefully this year.

Which project, LO or Crossrail?

GOBLIN. The Crossrail tunnel won't be in service before 2019, and full
services may well slip into 2020. That was, rather obviously, why I
specified that date for the comparison.

[Roland Perry]

In message
<17308101.523047748.842528.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septem
ber.org>, at 19:04:03 on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Yes, it's a very surprising statistic when you first come across it. If you
add in LO as well today, and Crossrail from 2020, TfL will probably be
responsible for more than half the rail journeys in the UK (all of them
electrified, as well).

Oh - did they finish electrifying Barking to Gospel Oak? I was in
Leytonstone earlier in the week and no sign of any wires from the
gantries.

Did you not notice the '2020' in the text you replied to?

Oh, sorry, there was an invisible "from 2020" after LO as well, was
there?
Not sure quite what "LO as well today, from 2020" would mean though.

Post by Recliner
I was assuming
even NR will finish the project well before then, hopefully this year.

Which project, LO or Crossrail?

GOBLIN. The Crossrail tunnel won't be in service before 2019, and full
services may well slip into 2020. That was, rather obviously, why I
specified that date for the comparison.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
If you add in LO

incorporating GOBLIN

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
as well

as it stands

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
today,

(

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
and Crossrail from 2020,

)

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
TfL will probably be responsible for more than half the rail
journeys in the UK (all of them electrified, as well).

Except GOBLIN isn't, today.

[Basil Jet]

Post by Recliner
Yes, it's a very surprising statistic when you first come across it. If you
add in LO as well today, and Crossrail from 2020, TfL will probably be
responsible for more than half the rail journeys in the UK (all of them
electrified, as well).

... unless they take over an unelectrified West Ealing to Greenford,
although there's no good reason to think they will.

[Recliner]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Recliner
Yes, it's a very surprising statistic when you first come across it. If you
add in LO as well today, and Crossrail from 2020, TfL will probably be
responsible for more than half the rail journeys in the UK (all of them
electrified, as well).

... unless they take over an unelectrified West Ealing to Greenford,
although there's no good reason to think they will.

You could make a theoretical case that that line could be part of GWR (as
now), LO or Chiltern, but I don't suppose either of the latter would be
interested in taking it off GWR's hands.