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.

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, 23:10, 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

The Real Doctor wrote:
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

The only way to get good, spacious, affordable housing in Britain is to have a
smaller population. It's gone up 50% in the past hundred years.

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:53:10 GMT, "Grumpy Old Man"
wrote:

The only way to get good, spacious, affordable housing in Britain is to have a
smaller population. It's gone up 50% in the past hundred years.

There is that. The other option would be to become more like Germany
and less London-centric. Serious tax breaks for locating employment
in a city other than London would be a good start, and the Government
should seriously look towards any new civil service jobs that don't
*have* to be in London being somewhere else instead.

The other problem (the "affordable" bit) is that houses should be to
live in, not to invest in.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

In message
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:53:10 GMT, "Grumpy Old Man"
wrote:

The only way to get good, spacious, affordable housing in Britain is to
have a smaller population. It's gone up 50% in the past hundred years.

There is that. The other option would be to become more like Germany
and less London-centric. Serious tax breaks for locating employment
in a city other than London would be a good start, and the Government
should seriously look towards any new civil service jobs that don't
*have* to be in London being somewhere else instead.

They've been trying that since the 1950s at least, works well doesn't it?


The other problem (the "affordable" bit) is that houses should be to
live in, not to invest in.


If you want to rent somewhere to live someone else has to invest in buying it
in the first place.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:21:21 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

They've been trying that since the 1950s at least, works well doesn't it?

Do you propose that further growth of London is feasible, then?

If you want to rent somewhere to live someone else has to invest in buying it
in the first place.

This is true, though the difference between rents and mortgages in
many places suggests that there is not a correct balance.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Mar 25, 9:53 am, "Grumpy Old Man"
wrote:
The Real Doctor wrote:



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

The only way to get good, spacious, affordable housing in Britain is to have a
smaller population. It's gone up 50% in the past hundred years.

The housing crisis is more about the fact that everyone wants to live
in their own home now, while before people were content to have their
entire family live in the upstairs floor of a standard victorian
terrace house.

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, lonelytraveller wrote:

On Mar 25, 9:53 am, "Grumpy Old Man"
wrote:
The Real Doctor wrote:

On 24 Mar, 23:10, Adrian wrote:

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?

The only way to get good, spacious, affordable housing in Britain is to have a
smaller population. It's gone up 50% in the past hundred years.

The housing crisis is more about the fact that everyone wants to live in
their own home now, while before people were content to have their
entire family live in the upstairs floor of a standard victorian terrace
house.

I don't think that's true. I don't remember people living like that in the
80s, when we didn't have a housing crisis. My understanding is that it's
largely about people leaving home earlier, and getting married later (and
less, and divorced more), which increases the ratio of households to
people, and so drives up demand for housing, and thus its price.

The advent of buy-to-let hasn't helped, particularly in hotspots like
London, where a fair chunk of the supply of housing has been taken off the
market and transferred to the rental market. Hence why rents are now 'so
cheap', as people, who are conspicuously not paying my rent, tell me.

tom

--
Change happens with ball-flattening speed. -- Thomas Edison