On Mar 24, 3:25*pm, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 24 Mar, 20:13, Adrian wrote:

On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote:

To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.

Essential to /what/?
It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.

It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's
ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" -
but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really
going to be worth spending £16bn on.

Ian

If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany,
then you should oppose Crossrail.

Adrian

On Mar 24, 4:00*pm, Dan G wrote:
On Mar 24, 8:13*pm, Adrian wrote:

On Mar 24, 12:46*pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote:

To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.

Essential to /what/?

Ian

It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.
However, I fear that it will take more than one Cross rail to restore
that to anything like acceptable levels.

"They" keep saying the same thing about Heathrow and a third runway --
as if, if it's not built, that suddenly nobody will ever fly into or
out of Heathrow ever again. Somehow I doubt that, and I doubt London
would grind to a halt and go bankrupt if it didn't get Crossrail.

Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing
so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?

In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be)
engineered to a very high standard. The Jubilee Line extension is a
pointer in that respect.

You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq
ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class
workers. Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work
is 40 minutes or less.

London is joining the ranks of the un-livable cities.

On Mar 24, 3:26*pm, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 24 Mar, 20:15, Adrian wrote:

On Mar 24, 12:52 pm, Stimpy wrote:

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:35:40 +0000, Adrian wrote

To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.

*Whatever* the cost??

Wouldn't you like to actually derive some benefit from those
extortionately high UK taxes?

The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international
financial community
- by and large pay bugger all in taxes.

Ian

Their employees pay considerable taxes. And, many of them commute.

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:05:33 -0700 (PDT), Adrian
wrote:

On Mar 24, 3:25*pm, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 24 Mar, 20:13, Adrian wrote:

On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote:

To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.

Essential to /what/?
It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.

It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's
ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" -
but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really
going to be worth spending £16bn on.

Ian

If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany,
then you should oppose Crossrail.

Nowadays the whole point might be that with modern technology there is
no longer a need for a physical centre as there was in the past when
the City of London was full of messengers running around with
negotiable documents.

Adrian wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, Dan G wrote:
On Mar 24, 8:13 pm, Adrian wrote:

On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:
On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote:
To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
Essential to /what/?
Ian
It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.
However, I fear that it will take more than one Cross rail to restore
that to anything like acceptable levels.
"They" keep saying the same thing about Heathrow and a third runway --
as if, if it's not built, that suddenly nobody will ever fly into or
out of Heathrow ever again. Somehow I doubt that, and I doubt London
would grind to a halt and go bankrupt if it didn't get Crossrail.

Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing
so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?

In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be)
engineered to a very high standard. The Jubilee Line extension is a
pointer in that respect.

So are we saying that , because a High Speed Line would be mostly away
from London, it could be built to a lower standard than something
important like a small-profile tube line?

You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq
ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class
workers. Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work
is 40 minutes or less.

London is joining the ranks of the un-livable cities.

If it gets any fuller no-one will live there...


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 24 Mar, 23:05, Adrian wrote:
On Mar 24, 3:25 pm, The Real Doctor wrote:

It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's
ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" -
but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really
going to be worth spending £16bn on.

If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany,
then you should oppose Crossrail.

That's just being silly.

Ian

On 24 Mar, 23:10, Adrian wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, Dan G wrote:

Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing
so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?

In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be)
engineered to a very high standard. The Jubilee Line extension is a
pointer in that respect.

But it is predicted to cost more than five times as much as the
Jubilee Line extension ...

You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq
ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class
workers. Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work
is 40 minutes or less.

And how many people do you think will find good, spacious, affordable
housing as a result of this line. It'll knock quarter of an hour,
tops, off the journey onto London - are those fifteen minutes really
deterring millions from moving to good, spacious, affordable housing?

Ian

Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:00:56 UTC, schrieb Dan G
auf uk.railway :

Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme?

I didn't. But I have some thoughts about this:

*Why* is it costing so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?

Comparing just the length of the cross-London tunnel with the length
of the HS1 London tunnel and wondering why the same length of tunnel
can be much more costly to build -- does make sense only when one
wants to see the cost of the tunnel as only the cost of boring it, by
meter or kilometer.

But there may be a lot of utility lines ond other uses of the
underground to be removed before one can go on boring; also London
Crossrail is planned to have more stations, and underground stations,
which in itself would be more expensive than the one Stratford Int'l
box, plus interchanges with existing underground and train stations.
That is a lot of extra work, which makes the London Crossrail tunnel
more expensive to build than the London HS1 tunnel with the one open
station in its middle.

Just my two cents...

Cheers,
L.W.

Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:26:35 UTC, schrieb The Real Doctor
auf uk.railway :

The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international
financial community

I think that London Crossrail will benefit much more people than
just the "financial community".

It will be a faster way to get _thru_ London, instead of just _into_
London.


Cheers,
L.W.

In message , Charles Ellson
writes
Nowadays the whole point might be that with modern technology there is
no longer a need for a physical centre as there was in the past when
the City of London was full of messengers running around with
negotiable documents.

I work in IT in the finance industry, at Canary Wharf

- The transport links are abysmal, and during the rush hours trains
are always overcrowded.
- I have "modern technology" links at home (Broadband and phone) and I
am allowed to work from home occasionally (i.e. not all the time,
and there has to be a good reason).
- It is much easier and more convenient to do my job in the office.
- Yes, you can have meetings via conference call over the phone, but
it is much better to get everyone together in an office.
- It is far easier to get things from a colleague by going to their
desk and having a quiet chat than by phoning them.
- My clients on the trading desks are not allowed to do their jobs
from home. This is a regulatory requirement.
- Lastly and most importantly - you can't have a drink with your
colleagues and clients after work if you're all working from home.
--
Jane
British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden
http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html