"Bruce" wrote in message

On Thu, 20 May 2010 16:48:19 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 20/05/2010 16:37, Mizter T wrote:

Though Boris is decidedly not advocating some sort of 'core
Crossrail' arrangement, he's arguing for the whole thing to go
ahead.

Plus, I'm not sure how much sense Crossrail would make if bits start
getting cut off it, or indeed how workable such an idea would really
be.

IMO Crossrail from Shenfield to Heathrow would be very heavily used.
The Maidenhead and Abbey Wood stuff is just icing on the cake.


Absolutely spot on. Shenfield to Heathrow is the "Core Crossrail" and
that is what should definitely be built. Once that is up and running,
and the economy is improving, that is the time to start extending it.

Maidenhead was always a waste of time. Reading was always the
preferred western limit, but the fear was that the cost of remodelling
and resignalling Reading, which is needed anyway, would become part of
the cost of Crossrail, which would then appear unaffordable.

But Reading can wait until the economy improves. Heathrow makes
perfect sense.

Would Heathrow be able to accept any more than six trains per hour? If
not, an awful lot of trains won't be going much further west than
Paddington.

On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:37:30 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:
On May 20, 4:18*pm, Bruce wrote:
Thanks for posting this. *Boris's view of the status of Crossrail is
the most sensible I have heard since the general election - seems
strange coming from him, but there you are.

He seems to have taken the decision that he'll rock the boat a bit
(said boat having his fellow Tory chums who are now in government on
board), rather than meekly and quietly sitting in the corner.


Good for him. I'd like to see a lot more of the shrewd politician and
a lot less of the foppish buffoon.


There would be nothing to be ashamed in these troubled times in going
ahead with only the "core Crossrail" as long as it didn't prevent
later additions to the Crossrail network being made in order to
realise the whole project at a later date.

Though Boris is decidedly not advocating some sort of 'core Crossrail'
arrangement, he's arguing for the whole thing to go ahead.

Plus, I'm not sure how much sense Crossrail would make if bits start
getting cut off it, or indeed how workable such an idea would really
be.


'Basil Jet' suggested Shenfield to Heathrow. I would enthusiastically
support that as a first stage.

On May 20, 4:48*pm, Basil Jet wrote:

On 20/05/2010 16:37, Mizter T wrote:
Though Boris is decidedly not advocating some sort of 'core Crossrail'
arrangement, he's arguing for the whole thing to go ahead.

Plus, I'm not sure how much sense Crossrail would make if bits start
getting cut off it, or indeed how workable such an idea would really
be.

IMO Crossrail from Shenfield to Heathrow would be very heavily used. The
Maidenhead and Abbey Wood stuff is just icing on the cake.

Which misses out the backwater that is Canary Wharf.

On Thu, 20 May 2010 17:21:04 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:

Would Heathrow be able to accept any more than six trains per hour? If
not, an awful lot of trains won't be going much further west than
Paddington.


All the signs are that this would happen anyway.

On May 20, 4:48*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
Plus, I'm not sure how much sense Crossrail would make if bits start
getting cut off it, or indeed how workable such an idea would really
be.

Agreed - it already required the complete kludge of a 'ghost station' at
Wormwood Scrubs to turn round half the trains that wouldn't be going to
Heathrow or Maidenhead. *If you cut either of the two western destinations
that problem increases about 50%. *However, unless the core frequency is
around 24 tph it will fail to take passengers off the Central Line, and that
sort of frequency cannot all run to one eastern terminus either AFAICS, if
for instance they were toying with deferring the Abbey Wood branch?

Exactly - it doesn't add up once bits start getting lopped off.

Plus, like it or not, one of the drivers of Crossrail is that of
delivering better transport links to Canary Wharf. (Anyone suggesting
that the Jubilee line is sufficient just doesn't know... and no, the
delayed Jubbly line upgrade will not make it all better overnight.)

Failing to provide better connectivity to what could be called
London's second square mile might suggest that we don't take business
seriously here. Weak transport links to CW are already considered a
major impediment by many firms, and a few have bailed out and returned
back into central London. (It is of course tempting to say stuff the
bankers of CW as their ilk helped get us into this mess, but
ultimately I think that's just a tad simplistic!)

Just a couple of quick stats - the number of people employed on the CW
estate is 93,000 (with plans to double that in coming years), whilst
the number of people employed in the City of London is 307,000 - so
the CW workforce is the size of almost a third of the City workforce.

On 20/05/2010 17:51, Mizter T wrote:

Plus, like it or not, one of the drivers of Crossrail is that of
delivering better transport links to Canary Wharf. (Anyone suggesting
that the Jubilee line is sufficient just doesn't know... and no, the
delayed Jubbly line upgrade will not make it all better overnight.)

Failing to provide better connectivity to what could be called
London's second square mile might suggest that we don't take business
seriously here. Weak transport links to CW are already considered a
major impediment by many firms, and a few have bailed out and returned
back into central London.

I was down the pub with a whole wunch of financial types last week. I
thought it was interesting that they all seem to see Canary Wharf as
somewhere you go in between jobs in the City itself, and when you are
there you try to get "back" ASAP. Obviously this is hardly a valid
sample size[1], but I wonder if it is a widespread view?

(It is of course tempting to say stuff the
bankers of CW as their ilk helped get us into this mess, but
ultimately I think that's just a tad simplistic!)

With London prices I need equity risk analysts - whatever they are - to
buy me beer

Just a couple of quick stats - the number of people employed on the CW
estate is 93,000 (with plans to double that in coming years), whilst
the number of people employed in the City of London is 307,000 - so
the CW workforce is the size of almost a third of the City workforce.

[1] cf the eternal "I live at Stansted Mountfichet and my friend lives
at Hahn and plans his entire life two months ahead, trains are rubbish"
debates

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Thu, 20 May 2010 09:51:59 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:


On May 20, 4:48*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
Plus, I'm not sure how much sense Crossrail would make if bits start
getting cut off it, or indeed how workable such an idea would really
be.

Agreed - it already required the complete kludge of a 'ghost station' at
Wormwood Scrubs to turn round half the trains that wouldn't be going to
Heathrow or Maidenhead. *If you cut either of the two western destinations
that problem increases about 50%. *However, unless the core frequency is
around 24 tph it will fail to take passengers off the Central Line, and that
sort of frequency cannot all run to one eastern terminus either AFAICS, if
for instance they were toying with deferring the Abbey Wood branch?

Exactly - it doesn't add up once bits start getting lopped off.

Plus, like it or not, one of the drivers of Crossrail is that of
delivering better transport links to Canary Wharf. (Anyone suggesting
that the Jubilee line is sufficient just doesn't know... and no, the
delayed Jubbly line upgrade will not make it all better overnight.)

Failing to provide better connectivity to what could be called
London's second square mile might suggest that we don't take business
seriously here. Weak transport links to CW are already considered a
major impediment by many firms, and a few have bailed out and returned
back into central London. (It is of course tempting to say stuff the
bankers of CW as their ilk helped get us into this mess, but
ultimately I think that's just a tad simplistic!)

Just a couple of quick stats - the number of people employed on the CW
estate is 93,000 (with plans to double that in coming years), whilst
the number of people employed in the City of London is 307,000 - so
the CW workforce is the size of almost a third of the City workforce.


Now you're getting emotional. ;-)

There is no suggestion that the current workforce at Canary Wharf is
unable to get to and from work. There are no immediate plans to
extend the Canary Wharf estate to any significant degree so the
existing public transport should be enough to cope for the next few
years. There is plenty of office space available in the Square Mile,
and a surprising amount under construction so that is where any
expansion will go for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, there is a very serious immediate problem with east-west
travel through the West End and the City of London. This problem,
which has been with us for at least two decades, is what needs to be
addressed, not the non-problem at Canary Wharf.

Shenfield to Heathrow looks a winner to me. The rest can follow.

Cameron will just say "sorry Boris, we're asking everyone in the country
to make sacrifices and that includes the London Mayoralty and transport
in London." *Boris may think he has an argument against that but I think
he'll lose because Cameron's stance can be spun in a whole load of ways
that would put Boris in a very difficult position both in the country
and in the Tory Party. *Cameron's early actions within the party
indicate something of a dislike for dissention in the ranks and a desire
for control. *He has to do this in order to remain in power and to have
sort of basis for another term. *It will play very badly if he can't
keep his own party under control.

If Boris loses Crossrail, his overall record as mayor looks poor and I
think he'll struggle to be reelected. Losing control of London would
be embarrassing for Cameron, but more importantly he won't want an
angry Boris back in the House of Commons causing trouble--high level
politics will outweigh any financial considerations. I don't believe
Hammond's opinion will be important, this decision will be taken above
his pay grade.

"There are no immediate plans to extend the Canary Wharf estate to any
significant degree"

I'm not sure that's correct: Riverside South for example may still go
ahead.

In any case the important thing is not immediate development plans but
the long term trend in the area. Even under current plans Crossrail
won't be ready until 2017; if the Canary Wharf branch is cancelled
now, it will put completion back probably at least another five years.

On May 20, 7:19*pm, Bruce wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2010 09:51:59 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

On May 20, 4:48*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
Plus, I'm not sure how much sense Crossrail would make if bits start
getting cut off it, or indeed how workable such an idea would really
be.

Agreed - it already required the complete kludge of a 'ghost station' at
Wormwood Scrubs to turn round half the trains that wouldn't be going to
Heathrow or Maidenhead. *If you cut either of the two western destinations
that problem increases about 50%. *However, unless the core frequency is
around 24 tph it will fail to take passengers off the Central Line, and that
sort of frequency cannot all run to one eastern terminus either AFAICS, if
for instance they were toying with deferring the Abbey Wood branch?

Exactly - it doesn't add up once bits start getting lopped off.

Plus, like it or not, one of the drivers of Crossrail is that of
delivering better transport links to Canary Wharf. (Anyone suggesting
that the Jubilee line is sufficient just doesn't know... and no, the
delayed Jubbly line upgrade will not make it all better overnight.)

Failing to provide better connectivity to what could be called
London's second square mile might suggest that we don't take business
seriously here. Weak transport links to CW are already considered a
major impediment by many firms, and a few have bailed out and returned
back into central London. (It is of course tempting to say stuff the
bankers of CW as their ilk helped get us into this mess, but
ultimately I think that's just a tad simplistic!)

Just a couple of quick stats - the number of people employed on the CW
estate is 93,000 (with plans to double that in coming years), whilst
the number of people employed in the City of London is 307,000 - so
the CW workforce is the size of almost a third of the City workforce.

Now you're getting emotional. ;-)

Er, no, just pointing out what you've chosen to overlook...


There is no suggestion that the current workforce at Canary Wharf is
unable to get to and from work. [...]

There is however every suggestion that many of them find it pretty
hard going. (No, I'm not one of them.)

*[...] There are no immediate plans to
extend the Canary Wharf estate to any significant degree so the
existing public transport should be enough to cope for the next few
years. *There is plenty of office space available in the Square Mile,
and a surprising amount under construction so that is where any
expansion will go for the foreseeable future.

That's interesting, given that the 63 floor Columbus Tower is on the
way (Boris having overruled Tower Hamlets council and granted
permission in Oct '09), meanwhile Riverside South (two towers of 45
and 37 floors) - which would be a new HQ for JP Morgan (currently in
the City) - is probably on the way, with very extensive ground works
have been done. However, they haven't given a final commitment to
build it yet - speculation on my part, but I wonder of they're holding
out to hear about Crossrail developments. There's also future the
North Quay, Wood Wharf and Heron Quay developments (each of which
involve several towers), which I think have all gained preliminary
approval at least.

Discount the latter three if you wish, but even just counting the
first two I'd say there are indeed immediate plans to extend the
Canary Wharf estate. OK, I can see the pedant in you might wish to
quibble that they might be outside the limits of Canary Wharf Group
plc estate, but I don't think that really washes as they'd be right
next door, and I imagine most would describe them as being part of
Canary Wharf aka that big collection of skyscrapers in the Docklands.
(Plus the North Quay ad Heron Quay developments are CWG plc projects.)

I would however agree that altogether there's a surprising amount of
new offices developments both under construction (the essentially
finished Heron Tower, the work in progress Shard, the King's Cross
central development, to take a few examples) and being proposed (away
from the City and the Docklands there's the Nine Elms proposals for
example). It obviously seems to make sense to someone!


Meanwhile, there is a very serious immediate problem with east-west
travel through the West End and the City of London. *This problem,
which has been with us for at least two decades, is what needs to be
addressed, not the non-problem at Canary Wharf.

I didn't disagree that there's a severe east-west problem. I would
very much disagree that there's a non-problem at Canary Wharf. I don't
think you entirely know what you're talking about.


Shenfield to Heathrow looks a winner to me. *The rest can follow.

Keep kidding yourself that the minister might take advice from the
great one...