From the Chancellors autumn statement, I guess it doesn't change the
fact that it will (eventually) be privately financed, but is the idea of
advancing a loan to the developer a new one?

On 5 Dec, 13:45, Someone Somewhere wrote:
*From the Chancellors autumn statement, *I guess it doesn't change the
fact that it will (eventually) be privately financed, but is the idea of
advancing a loan to the developer a new one?


The merits of this line are questionable even before the UK treasury
lends money it does not have.

On 05/12/2012 14:15, 77002 wrote:
On 5 Dec, 13:45, Someone Somewhere wrote:
From the Chancellors autumn statement, I guess it doesn't change the
fact that it will (eventually) be privately financed, but is the idea of
advancing a loan to the developer a new one?


The merits of this line are questionable even before the UK treasury
lends money it does not have.

Given the number of flats due to be built on the Nine Elms area, due to
be occupied by city types given the prices they are likely to fetch, I
can see some merit in it.
--
Phil Cook

On 05/12/2012 14:50, Phil Cook wrote:
On 05/12/2012 14:15, 77002 wrote:
On 5 Dec, 13:45, Someone Somewhere wrote:
From the Chancellors autumn statement, I guess it doesn't change the
fact that it will (eventually) be privately financed, but is the idea of
advancing a loan to the developer a new one?


The merits of this line are questionable even before the UK treasury
lends money it does not have.

Given the number of flats due to be built on the Nine Elms area, due to
be occupied by city types given the prices they are likely to fetch, I
can see some merit in it.

Also having a little more than the Kennington loop to take pressure off
the point where the two branches join can only be a good thing if the
longer term plan is to run more services and potentially split the
branches to remove contention there and at the flat junction at Camden.

Or am I missing something?

Of course I would expect a proportion of the housing to meet whatever
the agreed criteria is for affordable or social, but is your (77002)
single line statement an ideological point otherwise?

Someone Somewhere wrote:

Of course I would expect a proportion of the housing to meet whatever
the agreed criteria is for affordable or social


The Coalition recently announced that the binding targets for
affordable housing would be dropped.

On 5 Dec, 15:08, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 05/12/2012 14:50, Phil Cook wrote:

On 05/12/2012 14:15, 77002 wrote:
On 5 Dec, 13:45, Someone Somewhere wrote:
* From the Chancellors autumn statement, *I guess it doesn't change the
fact that it will (eventually) be privately financed, but is the idea of
advancing a loan to the developer a new one?

The merits of this line are questionable even before the UK treasury
lends money it does not have.

Given the number of flats due to be built on the Nine Elms area, due to
be occupied by city types given the prices they are likely to fetch, I
can see some merit in it.

Also having a little more than the Kennington loop to take pressure off
the point where the two branches join can only be a good thing if the
longer term plan is to run more services and potentially split the
branches to remove contention there and at the flat junction at Camden.

Or am I missing something?

Of course I would expect a proportion of the housing to meet whatever
the agreed criteria is for affordable or social, *but is your (77002)
single line statement an ideological point otherwise?

Far from it: My Conservative views are no secret. However, the
United Kingdom's transportation networks fall so far short of what is
needed, that I believe we all need to rise above politics and seek
practical, affordable, commonsense solutions. Moreover, railways in
particular do not lend themselves to a political philosophy.

Add to that the equally dire housing shortage, and it behoves us all
not to pay politics with urban planning.

Phil Cook wrote:

On 05/12/2012 14:15, 77002 wrote:
On 5 Dec, 13:45, Someone Somewhere wrote:
From the Chancellors autumn statement, I guess it doesn't change the
fact that it will (eventually) be privately financed, but is the idea of
advancing a loan to the developer a new one?


The merits of this line are questionable even before the UK treasury
lends money it does not have.

Given the number of flats due to be built on the Nine Elms area, due to
be occupied by city types given the prices they are likely to fetch, I
can see some merit in it.


I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

If you take into account all the Government help, from derelict land
grants for cleaning up the subsoil through all the sweeteners for
developers to paying £1 billion for the extension of the Northern
Line, one has to wonder whether the outlay of taxpayers' money will
ever be recouped.

I have to say that I agree with Adrian. If the development was
anywhere as near as profitable as its protagonists suggest, there
wouldn't need to be a penny of taxpayers' money supporting it.

No doubt some politicians will stand to benefit from their support of
this scheme using OUR money. Perhaps they should be using their own
money instead?

It is most unlikely that the taxpayer will ever see a sensible return on the money.
The extension is going to serve a housing development. Behind the housing
estate is the River Thames. Half a mile north is Vauxhall Station. Less than
half a mile south are Battersea Park and Queenstown Road. Wandsworth Road
and Clapham North Stations are not far away.

How many passengers who do not live in the proposed housing development
will use this extension? Not many. Will there be enough people using this
extension to finance an adequate repayment of the loan? Most unlikely.

There is - or was - a much more worthwhile possible extension of the Northern
Line from Kennington as I have explained before.

Robin9 wrote:


Anthony Polson;134685 Wrote:



I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

If you take into account all the Government help, from derelict land
grants for cleaning up the subsoil through all the sweeteners for
developers to paying £1 billion for the extension of the Northern
Line, one has to wonder whether the outlay of taxpayers' money will
ever be recouped.



It is most unlikely that the taxpayer will ever see a sensible return on
the money.
The extension is going to serve a housing development. Behind the
housing
estate is the River Thames. Half a mile north is Vauxhall Station. Less
than
half a mile south are Battersea Park and Queenstown Road. Wandsworth
Road
and Clapham North Stations are not far away.

How many passengers who do not live in the proposed housing development

will use this extension? Not many. Will there be enough people using
this
extension to finance an adequate repayment of the loan? Most unlikely.


I agree with all of the above.


There is - or was - a much more worthwhile possible extension of the
Northern
Line from Kennington as I have explained before.

On 5 Dec, 18:10, Robin9 wrote:
Anthony Polson;134685 Wrote:



I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

If you take into account all the Government help, from derelict land
grants for cleaning up the subsoil through all the sweeteners for
developers to paying 1 billion for the extension of the Northern
Line, one has to wonder whether the outlay of taxpayers' money will
ever be recouped.

It is most unlikely that the taxpayer will ever see a sensible return on
the money.
The extension is going to serve a housing development. Behind the
housing
estate is the River Thames. Half a mile north is Vauxhall Station. Less
than
half a mile south are Battersea Park and Queenstown Road. Wandsworth
Road
and Clapham North Stations are not far away.

How many passengers who do not live in the proposed housing development

will use this extension? Not many. Will there be enough people using
this
extension to finance an adequate repayment of the loan? Most unlikely.

There is - or was - a much more worthwhile possible extension of the
Northern
Line from Kennington as I have explained before.

Excellent comments, and as I have commented elsewhere, rebuilding
Camden Town station would benefit far more passengers.