On Jun 28, 12:04 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 28 Jun, 10:15, John B wrote:

However, as any fule kno, the stumbling block for the last few years
has been on where the money's coming from. If Gordon wants to gain
popularity and credibility with London voters and business leaders,
then an announcement on Crossrail financing - obviously conditional on
the passage of the bill - would be a good way to do so.

Maybe. But I'd think a funding commitment would be a risky idea
politically. It could easily look like throwing money at an
extravagant project with no real care, that will only benefit a few
Londoners and a few big city businesses etc etc. All of the
politically safe moves (funding development, introducing a bill) have
already been done.

But it won't just benefit a few Londoners. It'll indirectly benefit
just about everyone that ever uses public transport in London - that
must be about 20% of the country. Plus it'd have the added benefit of
stopping the economy from grinding to a halt because noone in London
can get about any more.

Jonn Elledge

On 27 Jun, 22:19, Mr Thant
wrote:

My guess: We have an anouncement on Crossrail soon.

The Thameslink Programme, on the other hand...

Yes my money is on Thameslink being announced as its;
a) further advanced
b) cheaper
c) first phase can be (probably) completed before the olympics
d) Less likely to soak up civil resources that would be needed for
said games (Dont get me wrong; its a lot of work just not the same
magnitude as Crossrail)

For the next five years everything in political terms is governed by
the olympic timetable. I would be very surprised if there is a serious
start on Crossrail till its over.

On 28 Jun, 14:27, kytelly wrote:
For the next five years everything in political terms is governed by
the olympic timetable. I would be very surprised if there is a serious
start on Crossrail till its over.

I had thought this - but someone clever (possibly on u.t.l/u.r)
recently pointed out to me that one of the few things the Olympics
*won't* need in civil engineering terms is skilled, specialised
tunnellers and customised, specialised boring machines. Therefore,
these will be among the few resources within the building market that
*aren't* at a massive premium during the lead-up to 2012.

If my understanding of the construction process is right, and if
Crossrail building were to start next year, then the main work for
about the first five years would be the tunnelling. Fit-out and
surface construction would then kick off around 2013: conveniently in
time to use all the builders freed up by the completion (/abandonment,
depending on your levels of cynicism) of Olympic works.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org/blog

On Jun 28, 11:54 am, John B wrote:
On 28 Jun, 11:41, Kev wrote:



And Canary Wharf's developers stumped up cash for the DLR and the JLE,
and will most likely stump up cash for Crossrail as well (assuming the
private sector funding model is based on the award of development
rights, which is likely).

Really, what percentage of the cost of the Jubilee Ext and the DLR did
they cough up and are the developers currently putting money into the
Jubilee resignalling or DLR works.

Kevin

On 28 Jun, 15:43, Kev wrote:
And Canary Wharf's developers stumped up cash for the DLR and the JLE,
and will most likely stump up cash for Crossrail as well (assuming the
private sector funding model is based on the award of development
rights, which is likely).

Really, what percentage of the cost of the Jubilee Ext and the DLR did
they cough up and are the developers currently putting money into the
Jubilee resignalling or DLR works.

They put up £400m for the JLE (although they went bust over roughly
the same period, so not sure how much actually got paid out), and £70m
for the DLR (out of c£300m cost for the original line plus the
extension to Bank).

They're not paying for the JLE resignalling, because the deal behind
the £400m was that it would fund a railway that worked. And they're
not paying for the new DLR extensions, because these are for the
benefit of the Olympics/CTRL (Stratford Intl to Custom House),
Woolwich regeneration (King George V to Woolwich), and Dagenham Dock
regeneration (Canning Town to Dagenham Dock).

I don't know whether or to what extent developers in these areas are
funding the DLR extensions.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On 28 Jun, 14:53, John B wrote:
On 28 Jun, 14:27, kytelly wrote:

For the next five years everything in political terms is governed by
the olympic timetable. I would be very surprised if there is a serious
start on Crossrail till its over.

I had thought this - but someone clever (possibly on u.t.l/u.r)
recently pointed out to me that one of the few things the Olympics
*won't* need in civil engineering terms is skilled, specialised
tunnellers and customised, specialised boring machines. Therefore,
these will be among the few resources within the building market that
*aren't* at a massive premium during the lead-up to 2012.

If my understanding of the construction process is right, and if
Crossrail building were to start next year, then the main work for
about the first five years would be the tunnelling. Fit-out and
surface construction would then kick off around 2013: conveniently in
time to use all the builders freed up by the completion (/abandonment,
depending on your levels of cynicism) of Olympic works.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org/blog

Hmm I take your point but I think we're both feeling around in the
dark a bit here as neither of us are civil engineers. I would suggest
that the actual tunneling is but one part of building a tunnel;
Design, project management and proffessional services would have a lot
of overlap with other big projects. I'm not saying it wouldnt be
possible but the way this country seems to work would rule out two
mega civil projects running concurrently.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, John B wrote:

On 28 Jun, 11:41, Kev wrote:

(apart from people who think that its only purpose is to speed
commuting times between Maidenhead and Canary Wharf - I suspect these
are the same people who thought Thameslink's purpose was to speed
commuting times between Streatham and St Albans).

You mean to say that isn't what it is for.

The point is that it relieves the pressure on all the central
Underground lines

Well, the Central line, and i think the Met and District, but not to the
same degree. I don't believe it does anything for any other lines; my
memory of the relief maps in the hoary old Central London Rail study is
that most of the nice green and blue bits are to the east.

Now, if they'd gone for the Wimbledon alignment ...

plus Liverpool Street and Paddington mainline stations, plus the other
transport links to Heathrow.

AIUI, Crossrail will take over the Heathrow paths that are currently in
use by Heathrow Connect; it won't provide more trains. Although, of
course, they'll be twice the size. Is HC currently anywhere near capacity?
I've never heard it suggested that it is; i suspect the premium fare may
have something to do with this. Will that go away with Crossrail? Even if
not, i suspect Crossrail will be more attractive than HC, since you don't
have to change at Paddington.

tom

--
Biochemistry is the study of carbon compounds that wriggle.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, John B wrote:

On 27 Jun, 22:19, Mr Thant
wrote:

My guess: We have an anouncement on Crossrail soon.

It already has the government's full support - the current hurdle is
getting it through parliament, which isn't really something you can
announce. I don't think any progress can be made until there's been a
few months of consultation whatnot over the recent Woolwich changes.
The only thing Brown could announce is scrapping it.

However, as any fule kno, the stumbling block for the last few years has
been on where the money's coming from. If Gordon wants to gain
popularity and credibility with London voters and business leaders, then
an announcement on Crossrail financing - obviously conditional on the
passage of the bill - would be a good way to do so.

Three words: land value capture.

LVC is blindingly obviously the best way to fund large infrastructure
projects like this. The reason it hasn't been used yet is that there isn't
a legal framework to do it. El Gordo could announce that he was going to
put one in place, thereby showing people that he backs public transport
and that he's still a financial innovator, all for zero cost to the
Treasury.

tom

PS This document contains a few tidbits of info on LVC, starting on page
8; by coincidence, it also discusses privatisation of trunk roads, with
multiple competing routes between cities, as came up in another thread:

http://www.policyinstitute.info/AllPDFs/Bruce2Sep05.pdf

--
Biochemistry is the study of carbon compounds that wriggle.

In article . com,
(Mr Thant) wrote:

On Jun 28, 2:26 am, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
You're having a laugh surely? They have agreed no public funding
at all.

Sorry, should have been clearer - I meant it has full support for
getting it past the current stage, and there's not a lot Brown could
do to expedite that.

Not delaying CSR2007 until the autumn would have helped and was within
his control.

--
Colin Rosenstiel