On Mar 24, 2:41*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote



My reading of Ken's comments are that (a) he fully understands that
Crossrail is a project of great enormity and he will treat it as such,

I hope you don't really mean that - it is an enormous project, but surely
not one of great wickedness.

[NB - for those who may not understand my point, may I respectfully suggest
that they look up 'enormity' in a dictionary.]

Peter

A much more common mistake is the misuse of the word "prestigious".

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

Adrian

On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote:

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

Essential to /what/?

Ian

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.

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

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 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.

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

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.

Adrian

It'll take more than Crossrail to save London. It is gradually sinking, in a
century or two it will be under the water.

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?

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.