|
Bozza on Crossrail
On 03/06/2013 10:36, Recliner wrote:
If jobs in its construction are a main justification for the colossal expenditure, why not just dig large holes by manual labour which would otherwise be unemployed, and then fill them in again? Fifty-five thousand jobs at "only" forty-two thousand million pounds (current estimates). Wow... that's only Ł763,636 per job. Where does he claim that the construction jobs are the*main* justification for the cost? The Ian Batten school of project evaluation. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Bozza on Crossrail
On 03/06/2013 10:36, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote: On 03/06/2013 00:03, Recliner wrote: From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...your-feet.html Quote: "Last week I went to see the Crossrail excavations at Canary Wharf, four years after we had officially got them going, and I remembered how fragile the project had seemed. There was a time when we had to fight for Crossrail, when senior cabinet ministers were denouncing it as a mad plan to build a pointless trench across London. It was an easy way to save £16 billion, they said. Axe it now, they said, and no one will even miss it. Well, thank heavens we didn’t listen to that guff. Crossrail’s tunnel is now a giant and growing fact, that will revolutionise east-west transit in the greatest city on earth, pinging you from Heathrow to the City in about half an hour. Its fast air-conditioned network will run from Maidenhead in the west to Shenfield in the east. Crossrail will increase London’s rail capacity by about 10 per cent, and generate an estimated £42 billion worth of growth across the country. Even in its construction phase, Crossrail is good for the whole of Britain. Of its 1,600 contracts, 62 per cent have gone to firms outside London – more than half of them small and medium enterprises (SMEs). There are bridges from Shropshire, cranes from Derbyshire, grouting from Coventry, piling from Oldham, lifts from Preston and vast quantities of lubrication from Bournemouth. The project is responsible for about 55,000 jobs across the country, and it would have been utter insanity to cancel it – not just because of the jobs it creates, but because it is essential if we are to cope with the demands on our transport network. London will have a million more people in the next 10 years, and without Crossrail the Central line would become so packed and overheated that it would not be fit, under EU rules, for the transport of live animals. It is a vivid and powerful lesson in the vital importance of investing in transport infrastructure, and of driving on ruthlessly with essential schemes: the Tube upgrades, new river crossings, Crossrail Two, and others. They are not just good for London, but for the whole of Britain. And yet none of these Crossrail statistics do justice to what is being achieved. When Patrick McLoughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport, and I went into the new station box at Canary Wharf, I felt a sense of primeval awe, like a Neanderthal stumbling into the gloom of Lascaux. It is akin to a gigantic subterranean cathedral several times the size of Chartres. The boring machine is like a colossal steel-toothed remora or lamprey, grinding her way through the clay. I stood beneath her jaws, and fingered some of that thick black Bournemouth lube, and they told me how the machine had driven with such accuracy that when she entered the station box she was only 5mm off target. This is the biggest engineering project in Europe, an amazing advertisement for British construction; and when you look at it you wonder why we are sometimes so prone to self-doubt. When the next coronation rolls round, we won’t need a new mountain to climb. We’ll have the joy and excitement of Crossrail Two, as she chomps her way from Hackney to Chelsea; and unlike climbing Everest, the scheme will be of practical benefit to all. In the meantime, we need a proper name for Crossrail, the vast new line on London’s underground network – and who better to give her name to that line than someone who has served her country so unfailingly and well for 60 years?" More in http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...your-feet.html If jobs in its construction are a main justification for the colossal expenditure, why not just dig large holes by manual labour which would otherwise be unemployed, and then fill them in again? Fifty-five thousand jobs at "only" forty-two thousand million pounds (current estimates). Wow... that's only £763,636 per job. Where does he claim that the construction jobs are the *main* justification for the cost? Research the distinction between the definite article and the indefinite article in English. Once acquired, the knowledge will be a useful skill for you. |
Bozza on Crossrail
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500
Recliner wrote: benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit the city and the country as a whole. Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the economy will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a cloud higher than any 747 can reach. -- Spud |
Bozza on Crossrail
|
Bozza on Crossrail
On 2013\06\03 00:03, Recliner wrote:
From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...your-feet.html In the meantime, we need a proper name for Crossrail, the vast new line on London’s underground network – and who better to give her name to that line than someone who has served her country so unfailingly and well for 60 years?" The Petula Clark Line certainly has a ring to it. |
Bozza on Crossrail
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:19:31 +0100
Recliner wrote: On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 10:01:14 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500 Recliner wrote: benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit the city and the country as a whole. Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the economy will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a cloud higher than any 747 can reach. Presumably, as a potato farmer, you have no interest in increasing the UK's exports? 99.9% of the UKs exports go by ship. And I'm afraid if you've fallen for the "more businessmen from china will fly into london" BS put out by the vested interests then more fool you. London is far better served for airports than ANY other city in europe (heathrow, gatwick, luton, stansted, city, southend) and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is. We don't need any more. -- Spud |
Bozza on Crossrail
On 03/06/2013 11:27, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2013\06\03 00:03, Recliner wrote: From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...your-feet.html In the meantime, we need a proper name for Crossrail, the vast new line on London’s underground network – and who better to give her name to that line than someone who has served her country so unfailingly and well for 60 years?" The Petula Clark Line certainly has a ring to it. The Downtown Line? -- Dave, Frodsham http://s1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc461/Davy41/ |
Quote:
such venom. He wrote that an extra runway "would benefit . . . the country" which is something most sensible people agree with. Transforming the economy will take more than any one project or policy, as George Osborne is slowly and painfully learning. |
Bozza on Crossrail
On 03/06/13 12:17, Dave Jackson wrote:
The Petula Clark Line certainly has a ring to it. The Downtown Line? The Boris Folly Line. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk