I have been told that a parliamentary commsission judged that
Crossrail was poor value for money. Can anybody confirm this?

--


Michael Bell

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
I have been told that a parliamentary commsission judged that
Crossrail was poor value for money. Can anybody confirm this?

--


Michael Bell

That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed
off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard'
and anti-subsidy agenda.

Things have somewhat progressed since then.

Colin

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:07:13 +0100, Colin wrote:
That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed
off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard'
and anti-subsidy agenda.

Things have somewhat progressed since then.

What, you call people that live in Manchester or Wales subsidising the
transport needs of Londoners "progress". All government subsidy is the
most definitely anything but progress, but when you charge people that
have no benefit whatsoever, you become worse then Ken!

If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes
of London business and commuters.

Paul Weaver wrote in message ...
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:07:13 +0100, Colin wrote:
That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed
off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard'
and anti-subsidy agenda.

Things have somewhat progressed since then.

What, you call people that live in Manchester or Wales subsidising the
transport needs of Londoners "progress". All government subsidy is the
most definitely anything but progress, but when you charge people that
have no benefit whatsoever, you become worse then Ken!

If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes
of London business and commuters.

Given the degree to which London is the engine of the British economy,
I am deeply skeptical that the SouthEast is a net beneficiary of the
central treasury. On the contrary, if there any cross regional
subsidies, I strongly suspect that the flow of money is in the
opposite direction than the one you suggest. Do you have any
evidence that suggests otherwise?

"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:07:13 +0100, Colin wrote:
That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was
killed off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not
in my back yard' and anti-subsidy agenda.

Things have somewhat progressed since then.

What, you call people that live in Manchester or Wales subsidising the
transport needs of Londoners "progress". All government subsidy is the
most definitely anything but progress, but when you charge people that
have no benefit whatsoever, you become worse then Ken!

If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local
taxes of London business and commuters.

On that basis, London taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidise Regional railway
TOCs that come nowhere near London or the various loss-making metros in
Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, Nottingham, etc. Instead, Londoners'
huge taxes could be reduced, still leaving plenty over for fixing the Tube
and building Crossrails 1, 2, 3, etc.

"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:07:13 +0100, Colin wrote:
That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was
killed
off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back
yard'
and anti-subsidy agenda.

Things have somewhat progressed since then.

What, you call people that live in Manchester or Wales subsidising the
transport needs of Londoners "progress". All government subsidy is the
most definitely anything but progress, but when you charge people that
have no benefit whatsoever, you become worse then Ken!

If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes
of London business and commuters.

So by that argument high wage earners in London payting higher a\mounts of
income and other taxes shouldn't contribute to the unemployed of other parts
of the UK?
We live in a society where we all pay in to a central pot and everyone
benefits from that central pot.

On a different theme, why is building a new railway "subsidy" and a road
"investement"? They're both for the same purpose.

"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:07:13 +0100, Colin wrote:
That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was
killed
off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back
yard'
and anti-subsidy agenda.

Things have somewhat progressed since then.

What, you call people that live in Manchester or Wales subsidising the
transport needs of Londoners "progress". All government subsidy is the
most definitely anything but progress, but when you charge people that
have no benefit whatsoever, you become worse then Ken!

If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes
of London business and commuters.

You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Londoners massively subsidise
the rest of the UK with their tax outlay - something that Ken is always
quick to highlight.

Crossrail would only go a small way to redress the huge historic inbalance.

Perhaps London should go independent and keep all our tax revenue to
ourselves - then you'd be sorry!

Colin

In article , Colin
wrote:

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
I have been told that a parliamentary commsission judged that
Crossrail was poor value for money. Can anybody confirm this?

--


Michael Bell

That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed
off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard'
and anti-subsidy agenda.

Things have somewhat progressed since then.

Colin

Saying that they don't want it in their back yard is quite a different
thing from saying that it is "poor value for money". Saying that it is
"poor value for money" at least accepts the idea that it can be right
to spend money, but that the money might be better spent on other
things, eg making better use of what's already there by creating
interchange where routes cross over each other without interchange,
there must be several dozen such sites in London. And there must be
many other serious contenders for available funds. AS REPORTED TO ME,
the judgement was made that Crossrail did not rank high against such
competitors even within London. So why is there such a push for it?



--

Michael

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:06:53 +0100, Michael Bell
wrote:

I have been told that a parliamentary commsission judged that
Crossrail was poor value for money. Can anybody confirm this?

Well ISTR a report in the Sunday press a while ago which noted that a
3mile rail tunnel is being built under Kiel for £400 million whilst a
5 mile tunnel in London is costed at £17 billion....
--

ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø
Please reply to the group
Replies to this address will bounce!
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø

Paul Weaver wrote:

If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes
of London business and commuters.

You might care to check how, say, the Manchester tram network expansion
is being funded.