|
|
| London's five-year plan (8381) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (8381) | |
London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Oct 11 23:32:14 2004 From The Guardian:Mayor unveils £10bn scheme for capital's transport Hugh Muir Tuesday October 12, 2004 The Guardian Ken Livingstone will today unveil a £10bn five-year plan to improve London's ailing transport system. The plan takes advantage for the first time of the permission that the London mayor has received from the Treasury to fund big projects by borrowing funds on the capital markets. Mr Livingstone will outline a programme which includes improvements to the reliability and capacity of London Underground, further measures to curb traffic gridlock in targeted suburbs, and the much mooted extension of the congestion charge into west London. The plan will turn London into a "low emission zone" by 2007, barring entry to vehicles that fail to meet environmental requirements. New tube trains will be air cooled, meeting criticisms that conditions in the summer can even put them in breach of regulations for the transportation of livestock. There will be improvements to the Docklands Light Railway, to aid regeneration, and to increase London's chances of securing the 2012 Olympics. CrossRail, the proposed east-west underground line, is not part of the package, but talks with the government are continuing. The details are expected to be approved by the Transport for London (TfL) board on October 27. But the mayor is already facing criticism over the amount he will have to raise to service his borrowing. Opponents say many projects on his wishlist may not come to fruition. Mr Livingstone said: "This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reverse decades of underinvestment. "It marks an end to stop-start funding for London's transport. The programme will deliver the real improvements in the services and capacity needed to keep London on the move. "Over the next four years we will be extending the kind of improvements we have already made to London's bus services to the tube." He said five years was a realistic period to achieve improvements. "Whether you walk, cycle or travel by bus or tube, over the next five years your journey should become safer, more reliable and more comfortable, and London will be a world leader for environmentally friendly and accessible public transport," he said. The government's decision to allow Mr Livingstone to borrow, first revealed in the Guardian, says much about New Labour's warmer relationship with the mayor, and also reveals something about the government's own position. Having allowed Mr Livingstone to be re-elected as the Labour candidate, it cannot allow him to fail. After his successful first term, there is also a desire to loosen the reins on London's devolved government. There are also electoral considerations. London Labour MPs and particularly those in marginal seats would be reluctant to fight a general election next year as representatives of a party that had failed to address the decline in London's infrastructure. There are national implications too. Many of the growth targets set by the Treasury cannot be met unless the London economy functions effectively. The mayor will borrow £3bn, and a further £4bn will result from the public-private partnership and private finance initiative contracts on the tube - a funding method Mr Livingstone opposed in principle but is obliged to accept. The remaining £3bn for capital investment will be funded by government grant and "revenue surpluses", although the latter will rely on TfL being able to achieve them. Last year its budget was heavily skewed by the cost of Mr Livingstone's bus expansion. The London transport minister, Tony McNulty, called the plan "a real step-change in terms of transport investment in London." But Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat chair of the London's assembly's transport committee, said the mayor would have to limit himself to schemes such as the East London line extension, improvements on the Docklands Light Railway, and bus schemes around Stratford, east London. "The rest of the capital will be crippled with ever increasing loan interest payments," she said. London's five-year plan · Thames Gateway Bridge to link Greenwich and Newham · Air-cooled tube trains · East London line extension to Dalston, Croydon and Crystal Palace · Completion of 'showpiece' Wembley Park station · Extending Metropolitan line to Watford Junction · Completion of switch to low-floor buses with CCTV by 2006 · Introduction of low-emission zone by 2007 · New pedestrian crossings and street lighting · New security measures for overground trains and stations · Enhanced cycle network · Initiatives to encourage more walking · Possible extension of congestion charge westwards · Energy-saving and noise reduction on London Underground |
|
|
| (8383) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Oct 11 23:36:54 2004, in response to London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Oct 11 23:32:14 2004. How do they plan on air conditioning the trains on the Underground? |
|
|
| (8389) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Oct 11 23:59:50 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Oct 11 23:36:54 2004. How do they plan on air conditioning the trains on the Underground?I don't know, but I am surprised that it's considered worthwhile in Britain's generally mild climate. Altogether I don't see that this plan offers much of substance in return for the £10 billion in borrowed money. Neither Crossrail nor Thameslink 2000 is included, not being the responsibility of Transport for London. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (8409) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by BOOGE on Tue Oct 12 02:25:05 2004, in response to London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Oct 11 23:32:14 2004. The ELL extensions were halted by a dispute over the Bishopsgate yard, but that was settled a year ago. Has construction restarted? |
|
|
| (8412) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Tue Oct 12 06:15:48 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Oct 11 23:36:54 2004. It didn't say air conditioned; it said air cooled. I don't think they are the same thing.Here is what I've always wondered; perhaps there are scientists outside who can help me out. In New York City, 99% of trains have functioning air conditioning believe it or not; even on the old IRT whose trains are very very narrow and for which we were told for years it couldn't be done (which always leads me to be suspicious of those who say the London tube cannot be air conditioned; whether given the climate it is worthwhile is another question altogether). The question is in grade school we studied something called the conservation of energy. To put it bluntly, the heat has to go somewhere. I wonder if the stations and tunnels are much hotter now, in NY, with the air conditioning (of course the stations should be a/c'd next but doubt that is on the drawing board). Same thing goes for outside temperatures. I wonder if all the airconditioning present in 99% of the cars we drive in America (at least in the NY area) contribute to global warming. |
|
|
| (8425) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Oct 12 08:41:47 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by MATHA531 on Tue Oct 12 06:15:48 2004. Owing to global warming, the London tube trains *have* been intolerably hot in recent summers (especially summer 2003 when temperatures topped 100F in England for the first time ever). Free bottled water has been made available at key central London tube stations.The trains on the London deep tube lines are much smaller (lower and narrower) than IRT trains. Tall people can't even stand up straight if they are right inside the doors. There is a real problem in finding room to fit in a/c equipment without sacrificing passenger space. Ken Livingstone actually announced a competition a few months ago for suggestions on how to achieve a/c on the tube - over 3,000 suggestions were received, of which a small number are being investigated seriously. The next generation of trains for the subsurface lines, due in service around 2010, will definitely have air-cooling, as the space limitations are not so serious in these larger trains. As MATHA531 pointed out, there is also the problem of what to do with the heat after it has been pumped out of the trains. The deep tube tunnels are small-bore (which is why the trains are so small, of course!) and the only way the excess heat could leave these constricted tunnels is via the stations, which in turn would become intolerably hot, and require powerful a/c too. All in all, the additional energy consumption would be serious and form a significant "minus" to set agaist the gain made by deterring car traffic in central London by the congestion charge. |
|
|
| (8444) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Oct 12 11:20:11 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Oct 11 23:59:50 2004. Altogether I don't see that this plan offers much of substance in return for the £10 billion in borrowed money.It wouldn't. PFI and PPP always waste about half the money on risk adjustment etc. Then you have several different contractors' profits, the pay for several companies' administrators. In the end, you get £2 billion's worth of work done for £10 billion. |
|
|
| (8449) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Oct 12 11:32:17 2004, in response to London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Oct 11 23:32:14 2004. Most of the list is not new and not especially exciting - as David Fairthorne has noted, neither Crossrail nor Thameslink 2000, which are exciting projects - in effect the start of London's RER - is there. But one caught my eye:"· Extending Metropolitan line to Watford Junction" That is a very good idea, and wouldn't be particularly costly - esentially it just needs building one bridge, the rest of the RoW is there. What is odd about it, though, is that it isn't in Greater London and is therefore outside Ken Livingstone's bailiwick. |
|
|
| (8472) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Oct 12 12:40:22 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Oct 11 23:36:54 2004. According to the Evening Standard:Commuters are to get air-cooled Tube trains as part of a £10 billion plan to transform the capital's transport network. Ken Livingstone unveiled the scheme today, along with plans for a new Thames road bridge and to extend London Underground and Docklands Light Railway lines. The Mayor's capital investment programme, as it is formally known, must be approved by the Transport for London board later this month and is also subject to consultation. But thanks to a groundbreaking five-year funding deal with the Government, the schemes are now almost certain to go ahead - with many due to be finished by 2009. The projects will funded by £3 billion in new borrowing, £4 billion from PPP contracts and a further £3 billion from government grants and fare rises. They include: Building the first new Thames road bridge in 70 years - the Thames Gateway, linking Greenwich and Newham. Extending the East London line and DLR for the Olympic bid. Pushing out the Metropolitan line to Watford Junction to link with the national rail network. Constructing a showcase Tube station at Wembley Park. Expanding the congestion charge zone westwards. Widening the North Circular. Banning polluting lorries and vans from Greater London. The Mayor claimed that the longawaited proposals - funded by the biggest increase in spending since the Second World War - will give Londoners a 21st-century public transport system. But there are some key omissions, such as the Crossrail scheme to link west and east London. Transport for London also made clear that there is not yet enough money to pay for the proposed West London tram link and Cross River tram. Mr Livingstone's hopes of an earlier takeover of suburban rail routes such as the North London line appear to have been dashed. Cooler Tube trains are a key feature of the five-year project. Mr Livingstone confirmed he would fund new air-conditioned trains on the District, Circle, Metropolitan and Hammersmith and City lines. Deeper lines are more difficult to cool but London Underground will fund pilots to fit cold-water pipes along tunnels to tackle the problem. Every summer, millions of Tube commuters suffer from overheating. The experimental scheme will help to cool stations as well as trains. |
|
|
| (8538) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Oct 12 14:59:05 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Oct 12 12:40:22 2004. Widening the North Circular.That sounds expensive. I suppose it could have been worse. At least no-one's even mentioning the South Circular! |
|
|
| (8561) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Oct 12 15:47:25 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Oct 12 12:40:22 2004. Banning polluting lorries and vans from Greater London.That's simply not practical. How will they deliver the goods in Greater London? Are there non-polluting vehicles? |
|
|
| (8563) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Oct 12 15:52:26 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Oct 12 14:59:05 2004. Widening the North Circular. That sounds expensive.The mayor plans to spend 10 billion pounds of borrowed money, and he's not responsible for Crossrail or Thameslink 2000. |
|
|
| (8615) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Oct 12 19:08:04 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Oct 12 15:47:25 2004. That's simply not practical. How will they deliver the goods in Greater London? Are there non-polluting vehicles?Well, I suppose running them all off trolleybus wire might cost about - errrmmm - £10bn. |
|
|
| (8677) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Oct 12 23:27:17 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Oct 12 19:08:04 2004. How will they deliver the goods in Greater London? Are there non-polluting vehicles?Well, I suppose running them all off trolleybus wire might cost about - errrmmm - £10bn. ROTFLMAO! Perhaps a problem of this magnitude should be referred to the visionary Mr. Funk Junk at http://www.func-junc.co.uk/ |
|
|
| (8685) | |
Crossrail chair appointed (Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Oct 13 00:25:04 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Fytton on Tue Oct 12 11:32:17 2004. neither Crossrail nor Thameslink 2000 - in effect the start of London's RER - is there.But I am pleased to see in The Guardian that Adrian Montague, chairman of British Energy and author of the Montague report on Crossrail, is to take charge of Crossrail. Mayor Livingstone wanted his Transport for London to do the job, but TfL will have three directors out of seven. |
|
|
| (8698) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Oct 13 01:11:15 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Oct 12 23:27:17 2004. Perhaps a problem of this magnitude should be referred to the visionary Mr. Funk Junk at http://www.func-junc.co.uk/Oh dear, has he been spamming you too? |
|
|
| (8699) | |
Re: Crossrail chair appointed (Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Oct 13 01:15:50 2004, in response to Crossrail chair appointed (Re: London's five-year plan), posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Oct 13 00:25:04 2004. Oh yawn. A lawyer, chairman of a recruitment agency, and a bigwig in Notwork Rail. I wonder what this guy's politics are. |
|
|
| (8700) | |
Re: Crossrail chair appointed (Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Oct 13 01:16:54 2004, in response to Re: Crossrail chair appointed (Re: London's five-year plan), posted by Rail Blue on Wed Oct 13 01:15:50 2004. Thought as much. This guy's a walking disaster. |
|
|
| (8706) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Oct 13 05:59:03 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Oct 12 15:52:26 2004. "10 billion pounds of borrowed money"All capital expenditures use borrowed money. You're just using politically emotive words to describe normal business practice. |
|
|
| (8914) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Oct 13 17:57:39 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Fytton on Wed Oct 13 05:59:03 2004. The five-year plan covers a lot of ground and, after becoming confused by the differing descriptions, I have tried to summarize it, based on the official description Transport for London five year investment programme - The TfL business plan 2005/6-2009/10.First, about the money. Actually I was wrong. It's not all borrowed. £3 billion is new borrowing, £4 billion is already scheduled PPP and PFI, and £3 billion is Government grants; total £10 billion. Now for the highlights of the plan. "Train, track and signal upgrades will improve Tube reliability and enable an extra 3 million km to be run each year by 2009/10." "Station modernisations and refurbishments are due to take place at 200 stations by 2010." Tube stations to be improved include Wembley Park, Victoria, Covent Garden, Holloway Road, Kings Cross, Vauxhall, North Greenwich, Camden Town, Tottenham Court Road and Bank. East London line extensions to Dalston Junction, West Croydon and Crystal Palace. Heathrow Terminal 5 (Piccadilly line) and Croxley link (Metropolitan line). City Airport (DLR) and Woolwich Arsenal (DLR). DLR Canning Town to Stratford. More and longer trains on the Jubilee line. Longer trains on the Lewisham branch of the DLR. Bus rapid transit (phase 1) for East London and Greenwich Waterfront. Thames Gateway Bridge (construction 2009 - 2012). Road improvements including A40, A206, A406, Blackwall, Rotherhithe and Fore St tunnels and Westminster Bridge. 100% "accessible" bus fleet. Quieter, cleaner, energy saving buses. Quieter underground. Bus stations at Finsbury Park, Hounslow and Dalston; bus garages at Hounslow and North Acton. London Cycle Network. London-wide low emission zone. Seek powers for future plans: W London tram, Croydon tram to Crystal Palace, DLR to Barking Reach, Cross River tram, extension of E London bus transit. So far I have found no mention of air conditioning or air cooling of tube trains, as mentioned in most unofficial reports. |
|
|
| (9023) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Oct 14 00:18:51 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Oct 13 17:57:39 2004. Perhaps I should first have read the TfL press release, which does mention new air-cooled tube trains. However the press release does not mention the tube extension to Heathrow Terminal 5, which is listed in the main document.Next I would like to see a price tag against each major project. Clearly the ELL and DLR extensions and the Thames Gateway Bridge are big-ticket items, costing over £500 million each. |
|
|
| (9032) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Oct 14 01:07:07 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Oct 11 23:36:54 2004. How do they plan on air conditioning the trains on the Underground?I found this answer at Always Touch Out: "The deep tube lines are the Bakerloo, Central, Victoria, Waterloo & City (all belonging to one PPP contract), Jubilee, Northern & Piccadilly (belonging to a separate PPP contract). Proper air conditioning of trains and underground stations on these lines is so difficult it would be prohibitively expensive. This is because there is no easy way of dissipating heat from air conditioning units - the tunnels (the oldest deep tube tunnels in the world) are generally too small. The small size of the tunnels also means that air conditioning units cannot be fitted on the similarly-sized trains, unlikely more modern air-conditioned tube systems such as Singapore. The geology of the area also means that some tube lines are insulated by the clay they were tunnelled through. However, the Mayor ran a competition last year with a £100,000 prize for someone who could come up with a workable method of significantly cooling the deep tubes. As a result, London South Bank University is now working on a pilot project with London Underground to use the thousands of litres of ground water which must be pumped out of the deepest parts of the system every day. The pilot system at Victoria station's Victoria line platforms involves using water pumped from the nearby underground River Tyburn. 200 litres per second will be drawn from the river and pumped between the platforms. Fans will draw hot air from the platforms across the pipes, cooling the air and heating the water. The heated water will be pumped out to the Thames where it will cool rapidly. The air cooling effect is predicted to be about 5°C." |
|
|
| (9069) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Thu Oct 14 07:52:57 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Oct 14 00:18:51 2004. Clearly the ELL and DLR extensions and the Thames Gateway Bridge are big-ticket items, costing over £500 million each.That is if the Thames Gateway Bridge happens. Last I heard was that LCY is trying to block it. I wish they'd put a DLR branch across the bridge too! |
|
|
| (9075) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Thu Oct 14 08:09:37 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Rail Blue on Thu Oct 14 07:52:57 2004. "That is if the Thames Gateway Bridge happens. ...... I wish they'd put a DLR branch across the bridge too!"The DLR already has a tunnel under the Thames between Greenwich and the Isle of Dogs, and within the next few years will have another between London City Airport and Woolwich. It doesn't need a third trans-river cossing - though I guess a light-rail service across such a long, high bridge would have been fun for railfans. I think the bridge will get built. It is one of Mayor Ken's pet projects, and it is in the east London area that is getting lots of resources thrown at it for regeneration (and maybe for the Olympics too of course). |
|
|
| (9077) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Thu Oct 14 08:34:22 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Fytton on Thu Oct 14 08:09:37 2004. It doesn't need a third trans-river cossing - though I guess a light-rail service across such a long, high bridge would have been fun for railfans.So people from Thamesmead can catch a bus to Woolwich or Beckton. Great. And the terminus at Woolwich will face the wrong way for an extension. |
|
|
| (9084) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Thu Oct 14 09:35:24 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Rail Blue on Thu Oct 14 08:34:22 2004. "So people from Thamesmead can catch a bus to Woolwich or Beckton...."Or, of course, to that well-known magnificent white elephant, North Greenwich station (Jubilee Line)! Thamesmead is the new New Addington - the biggest non-rail-connected residential area in London. Like New Addington, it is a downmarket district of largely public housing on the edge of London (Far Rockaway, anyone?). Like Beckton (which at least has the DLR), it is one of the few places in London where people on ordinary incomes just might be able to afford to buy a home. Thamesmead is also the location of the notorious Belmarsh Prison, where the UK incarcerates its own Al-Qaida suspects; the convicts have little need of rapid transit, however. (8-) |
|
|
| (9129) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Thu Oct 14 12:44:01 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Rail Blue on Thu Oct 14 07:52:57 2004. That is if the Thames Gateway Bridge happens. Last I heard was that LCY is trying to block it.By LCY, do you mean London City Airport? It's hard to see why an airport would be opposed to a road improvement, unless somehow the bridge superstructure would interfere with approach paths. |
|
|
| (9131) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Thu Oct 14 13:01:40 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Fytton on Thu Oct 14 09:35:24 2004. Thamesmead is the new New Addington - the biggest non-rail-connected residential area in London. Like New Addington, it is a downmarket district of largely public housing on the edge of London (Far Rockaway, anyone?). Like Beckton (which at least has the DLR), it is one of the few places in London where people on ordinary incomes just might be able to afford to buy a home.What about running a light rail link to the Abbey Wood station? |
|
|
| (9142) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Oct 14 13:27:18 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Peter Rosa on Thu Oct 14 13:01:40 2004. What about running a light rail link to the Abbey Wood station?Rail service Abbey Wood station is to be greatly increased by the proposed Crossrail southeast branch, which is to have 12 tph (peak) to the City and West End. Also the Greenwich Waterfront Transit (BRT, not LRT) will run from Abbey Wood to Woolwich via Thamesmead, and eventually to North Greenwich Jubilee line tube station. |
|
|
| (9150) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Oct 14 14:01:01 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Oct 12 14:59:05 2004. Widening the North Circular."The £900 million plan to improve the traffic-choked North Circular Road (A406) in Barnet and Enfield has been shelved for at least the next five years and may never go ahead, the Mayor of London Ken Livingstone said this week. The North Circular Road programme is the largest scheme to have been scrapped in the Mayor's five-year transport programme, Mr Livingstone admitted this week, with the plan downgraded to a £24m investment." (Bridge replacement at Bounds Green). Back on topic: Thameslink 2000 has become snared in planning disputes but looks set to take a step forward. "It will shortly be announced that the scheme will cost two or three billion pounds and be completed in 2013-2014," said Mr Livingstone. From "Funds go East" by the Hendon and Finchley Times. |
|
|
| (9396) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Oct 15 12:18:57 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Peter Rosa on Thu Oct 14 12:44:01 2004. London City Airport?... It's hard to see why an airport would be opposed to a road improvement, .........unless somehow the bridge superstructure would interfere with approach paths."That is precisely the problem. |
|
|
| (9402) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Oct 15 12:31:33 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Oct 14 14:01:01 2004. "Back on topic: Thameslink 2000 has become snared in planning disputes but looks set to take a step forward. "It will shortly be announced that the scheme will cost two or three billion pounds and be completed in 2013-2014," said Mr Livingstone."Hmm. I still think Thameslink 2020 would be a realistic name. They could use it for publicity: "Thameslink's 2020 Vision" (8-) . |
|
|
| (9626) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Oct 16 01:33:57 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Fytton on Tue Oct 12 11:32:17 2004. neither Crossrail nor Thameslink 2000, ... - in effect the start of London's RER - is there.Being main line rail rather than tube lines, Crossrail and Thameslink 2000 are Network Rail projects that fall outside the jurisdiction of Transport for London. The Mayor has no budgetary power over them, so they are not included in his 10 billion pound ($18 billion) plan. The East London line and Docklands Light Railway extensions are in the Mayor's plan, as are the many tube station improvements, track and signalling improvements. A fair amount is to be spent on road improvements including the Thames Gateway Bridge, and better buses. Crossrail is waiting for a hybrid Parliamentary Bill and Thameslink 2000 is waiting for another public inquiry. My concern over Thameslink 2000 is that the first inquiry only found superficial deficiencies and disregarded potential transport deficiencies. Is it realistic to expect 24 tph to present themselves on time at the tunnel portal, after coming from twelve different southern branches, some as much as 60 or 70 miles away? I don't see that as a good basis for a robust, reliable timetable. No Paris RER line has so many branches. The RER line C has four branches at each end; the others have fewer branches. |
|
|
| (9814) | |
Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Sun Oct 17 00:51:11 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Fytton on Tue Oct 12 11:32:17 2004. Breaking news: two new reports on Crossrail funding.From Reuters: Government to bankroll London Crossrail - report Sun 17 October, 2004 01:44 LONDON (Reuters) - The government will underwrite the entire 10 billion pound cost of CrossRail, a new underground rail link planned for London, The Independent on Sunday has reported. "It will be publicly funded and publicly cliented," a 'well-placed source' was quoted as saying in the newspaper. In July, the government insisted that the cost of the CrossRail project, a planned underground railway linking east and west London, could not be met solely, or even largely, by taxpayers. Crossrail is considered an important part of London's bid to host the 2012 Olympics, but analysts say it is highly unlikely to be completed by then. Companies in the City of London, the capital's financial heart, have warned they may move without a drastic improvement to transport links. From The Independent: Treasury to bankroll Crossrail By Jason Nissé 17 October 2004 The Treasury is to underwrite the entire £12bn cost of the Crossrail project to build a rail link across London after deciding it will not be a public-private partnership. Though it will look for contributions of up to £2bn from London businesses and input from Transport for London, the Treasury has accepted that the PPP model will not work for the giant project. Crossrail was created as a joint venture between the Strategic Rail Authority and TfL, which is part of the London Mayor's office. However, since then it has been approved by the Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling, and plans have been announced to abolish the SRA. The Treasury and the Department for Transport last week moved to assert their control over the project, appointing financial troubleshooter Adrian Montague as chairman. Mr Montague wrote the report that led the Government to back the project. The Treasury, TfL and London business leaders are working on a funding package but it is understood that a rise in fares has been ruled out. Higher business rates may be used but that is unlikely to raise more than £2bn. Civil servants have persuaded the Treasury to keep the project under public control to minimise costs. "It will be publicly funded and publicly cliented," said a well-placed source. |
|
|
| (9900) | |
Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by BOOGE on Sun Oct 17 13:03:55 2004, in response to Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan), posted by David Fairthorne on Sun Oct 17 00:51:11 2004. Now lets get it built without further delay. |
|
|
| (9981) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sun Oct 17 20:07:52 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Fytton on Thu Oct 14 09:35:24 2004. Like Beckton (which at least has the DLR), it is one of the few places in London where people on ordinary incomes just might be able to afford to buy a home.Well, I sure couldn't afford to rent a flat there! Even studios are showing as over £550pcm. Having said that, it's one of the few places in London in which £200,000 will get a house of some sort. Thst still needs a joint income of £50,000, even at my age. Seeing that Grade D Nurses only get £21k-£23k in Inner London, and newly qualified teachers a little less, this still is expensive enough to pretty much stuff first time buyers. |
|
|
| (9983) | |
Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sun Oct 17 20:32:53 2004, in response to Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan), posted by David Fairthorne on Sun Oct 17 00:51:11 2004. Well, I'm happy they've finally ditched PPP. Pity the project sucks. |
|
|
| (10021) | |
Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Oct 18 04:52:55 2004, in response to Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan), posted by Rail Blue on Sun Oct 17 20:32:53 2004. "Pity the project sucks"It doesn't *inherently* suck - the basic idea to build a high-speed underground line from Paddington to Liverpool Street, and capture some suburban routes at each end and attach them to the new tube, is brilliant (the start of Lodon's RER). What sucks is the detail, of precisely which routes they are going to capture, etc. Hopefully these are negotiable. |
|
|
| (10103) | |
Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Oct 18 16:15:56 2004, in response to Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan), posted by Fytton on Mon Oct 18 04:52:55 2004. What sucks is the detail, of precisely which routes they are going to capture, etc. Hopefully these are negotiable.I think they already have been negotiated! Many other options were considered, and rejected for good reasons. |
|
|
| (10351) | |
Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Oct 19 14:42:56 2004, in response to Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan), posted by Fytton on Mon Oct 18 04:52:55 2004. the basic idea to build a high-speed underground line from Paddington to Liverpool Street, and capture some suburban routes at each endThis awfully sounds familiar... Did I hear somebody say "Met"? :-p |
|
|
| (10357) | |
Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Oct 19 15:39:08 2004, in response to Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan), posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Oct 19 14:42:56 2004. This awfully sounds familiar... Did I hear somebody say "Met"? :-pMy thoughts entirely. It wouldn't all have to be electrified either. |
|
|
| (10379) | |
Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Oct 19 17:52:35 2004, in response to Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan), posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Oct 19 14:42:56 2004. This awfully sounds familiar... Did I hear somebody say "Met"? :-pI thought I heard somebody say "RER"! The main problem that Crossrail is intended to solve is east-west overcrowding. The most overcrowded line is (I hear) the Central line in the areas east and west of Liverpool Street, say between Stratford and Tottenham Court Road. That's where additional capacity is most needed. The Metropolitan, Circle, and Hammersmith & City lines share tracks between Liverpool Street and Baker Street, and those tracks are already fully utilised. Besides, they pass to the north of the busiest area of the West End, which is Oxford Street. If a new line is built to add capacity, it may as well run through the very middle of the City and West End. That, combined with faster journey times, should attract many passengers and provide the desired relief. Crossrail will provide plenty of extra capacity (peak 10 car trains, 24 tph) through the central area. Stations will be long enough for 12 car trains, and will have entrances at both ends. Extra capacity on the Shenfield branch east of Liverpool Street will be limited by the fact that Crossrail (12 tph) will run on the slow tracks from Liverpool Street, sharing them with the existing Liverpool Street to Shenfield service, which will be reduced to accommodate Crossrail. The Ebbsfleet branch (with the other 12 tph) will serve new housing developments in the "Thames Gateway" area, and the Canary Wharf (Isle of Dogs) business district. Two trains out of three will terminate at Abbey Wood; those that continue to Ebbsfleet will share (third rail) tracks with the South Eastern. That branch will take some pressure off the South Eastern service which passes through the bottleneck at London Bridge (high level) station. West of Paddington it was difficult to find useful routes that would justify the cost. Recently there were to be two branches, one to Heathrow and one to Kingston, but the Kingston branch was found to too expensive and now the western branch goes via the slow tracks from Paddington. About half of the trains will continue to Heathrow, West Drayton or Maidenhead, and the remainder will terminate at Paddington. City financial interests insisted on having Crossrail serve Heathrow Airport, the City, and Canary Wharf, and that seems to have determined branch route selection, apart from the busy Shenfield line which was an obvious choice. There is a good explanation of Crossrail at Always Touch Out. |
|
|
| (10408) | |
Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Oct 19 18:53:43 2004, in response to Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan), posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Oct 19 17:52:35 2004. I thought I heard somebody say "RER"!There's no doubt that the tracks along the North section of the Circle need an upgrade. Crossrail is not the way to achieve this. The main problem that Crossrail is intended to solve is east-west overcrowding. The most overcrowded line is (I hear) the Central line in the areas east and west of Liverpool Street, say between Stratford and Tottenham Court Road. That's where additional capacity is most needed. The Metropolitan, Circle, and Hammersmith & City lines share tracks between Liverpool Street and Baker Street, and those tracks are already fully utilised. Only because of the absolutely crass Circle working. Eliminating that would free up enough capacity to send 8tph along the GWML to Heathrow, which is really the only serious Western proposal. If a new line is built to add capacity, it may as well run through the very middle of the City and West End. That, combined with faster journey times, should attract many passengers and provide the desired relief. But we don't need another East-West line. The problem is that too many people are using only one of the existing ones, which happens to be the one with the smallest trains anyway. Crossrail will provide plenty of extra capacity (peak 10 car trains, 24 tph) through the central area. Stations will be long enough for 12 car trains, and will have entrances at both ends. It's not needed. We just need some way of getting people on to the District Line, which is the emptiest line through Central London (mainly because of the limited appeal of a single Eastern branch to Upminster). An obvious suggestion would be a short connector to send the District to Shenfield. Extra capacity on the Shenfield branch east of Liverpool Street will be limited by the fact that Crossrail (12 tph) will run on the slow tracks from Liverpool Street, sharing them with the existing Liverpool Street to Shenfield service, which will be reduced to accommodate Crossrail. This will be a disaster if it ever happens. People going to the West End will avoid the 6tph terminating at Liv St like the plague, but people going to the City will have no qualms about piling into the other 12tph anyway. The Shenfield Line needs 18tph either to the same place or to two wholly different useful lines. The Ebbsfleet branch (with the other 12 tph) will serve new housing developments in the "Thames Gateway" area, and the Canary Wharf (Isle of Dogs) business district. Oh dear. The "Thames Gateway" has already got good rail service (the South Eastern), apart from Thamesmead, which won't get any trains regardless of Crossfail. The whole Canary Wharf business sounds like JLE Mk II to me, but let's be charitable to the buggers for a minute. The Isle of Dogs wants a direct service to Heathrow. Killing the Circle (and preferably segregating 10 chains or so of track from Praed St junction to Edgware Rd station) would allow 8tph to Heathrow. Perhaps a spur could be constructed from Whitechapel to Canary Wharf to give this service a new Eastern Terminal for a fraction of the cost of boring huge tubes under the River. Two trains out of three will terminate at Abbey Wood; those that continue to Ebbsfleet will share (third rail) tracks with the South Eastern. That branch will take some pressure off the South Eastern service which passes through the bottleneck at London Bridge (high level) station. So we now want the South Eastern sorted twice? I thought TL3K was meant to do that. West of Paddington it was difficult to find useful routes that would justify the cost. Which is the main thing that makes Crossfail a big white elephant. Recently there were to be two branches, one to Heathrow and one to Kingston, but the Kingston branch was found to too expensive and now the western branch goes via the slow tracks from Paddington. Bloody stupid idea it was too. Richmond and Kingston already have a perfectly good rail service. About half of the trains will continue to Heathrow, West Drayton or Maidenhead, and the remainder will terminate at Paddington. What a waste. They could at least go to Greenford, or even Gerrard's Cross. City financial interests insisted on having Crossrail serve Heathrow Airport, the City, and Canary Wharf, and that seems to have determined branch route selection, It's public sector now, so they can sod off. apart from the busy Shenfield line which was an obvious choice. Which was the only big problem to start with, one which Crossfail makes a total pig's ear of. There is a good explanation of Crossrail at Always Touch Out. However good the explanation, a project to benefit people who are too lazy to change trains and a few commuters from Essex can never be worth £12bn, especially not when Britain's major cities, such as Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, and Manchester, are getting precisely nothing for rail projects. I say give £5bn to Birmingham, £3bn to Manchester, and £2bn each to Liverpool and Leeds, so they can get a start on proper undergrounds, and let Red Ken and Essex County Council work out a much cheaper way of benifitting their commuters. |
|
|
| (10455) | |
Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Tue Oct 19 23:02:17 2004, in response to Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan), posted by Rail Blue on Tue Oct 19 18:53:43 2004. However good the explanation, a project to benefit people who are too lazy to change trainsSounds like New York's proposals regarding the LIRR |
|
|
| (10467) | |
Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Oct 19 23:50:24 2004, in response to Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan), posted by Peter Rosa on Tue Oct 19 23:02:17 2004. Sounds like New York's proposals regarding the LIRRIn some ways it's similar; imagine East Side Access extended west from Grand Central to somewhere in New Jersey. |
|
|
| (10480) | |
Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Oct 20 00:40:38 2004, in response to Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan), posted by Rail Blue on Tue Oct 19 18:53:43 2004. too many people are using only one of the existing ones, which happens to be the one with the smallest trains anyway.We just need some way of getting people on to the District Line, which is the emptiest line through Central London a short connector to send the District to Shenfield. Killing the Circle ... would allow 8tph to Heathrow. a spur ... from Whitechapel to Canary Wharf That's a pretty interesting idea, which you explained once before but I missed the point. Let me see if I understand now. You want to divert passengers away from the crowded Central line and onto the less crowded District and Metropolitan lines. The key is to break up the Circle line by abolishing the circular service, allowing services to be extended east and west. The Metropolitan tracks would carry their present services, minus the Circle, plus a new service from Heathrow. In the east the Metropolitan would go to Barking with a new branch to Canary Wharf. The District tracks would carry its present services, including the remaining sector of the Circle from Edgware Road. In the east the District would go to Upminster with a new branch to Shenfield. No trains would go to Aldgate, and passengers would use Aldgate East instead. The most expensive parts would be the new tunnels; the one connecting the District line to the Shenfield line and the spur to Canary Wharf. I would like to know the full extent and alignment of these tunnels and what other works would be needed, such as changes in the track layout. Also how you would deal with the two forms of electrification: fourth rail and catenary. Then you can give us an estimate of how many billions you can save the Treasury! |
|
|
| (10508) | |
Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Oct 20 01:26:08 2004, in response to Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan), posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Oct 19 17:52:35 2004. What I meant was that the idea was already in plans in 1855 and became real in 1877... |
|
|
| (10524) | |
Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Oct 20 04:52:16 2004, in response to Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan), posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Oct 20 00:40:38 2004. The problems with the otherwise sensible idea of running 8 tph Heathrow - Shenfield via the north side of the Circle Line are twofold: it doesn't give Heathrow a fast service to the heart of London (the West End) or even to the absolute heart of The City (Bank). And does it leave enough capacity for other subsurface line services? The service over the western side of the Circle Line (up through High Street Ken and Notting Hill Gate) is relatively sparse even now.What is *actually* planned for the Circle, Metropolitan, District and Hamamersmith & City lines, as I understand it, is this: The Hammersmith & City becomes the Teacup Line (perhaps they'll call it "Hammersmith & Circle Line"??): Hammersmith (H&C station) - Ladbroke Grove - Paddington (main line station) - Edgware Road (through platforms) - Bayer Street - Kings Cross - Liverpool Street - Aldgate (through platforms) - Tower Hill - Embankment - Victoria - Gloucester Road - High Street Ken - Padding ton (Circle Line station) - Edgware Road (terminal platforms); then reverese and go back the same way to Hammersmith. The argument is that the poor timekeeping of the Circle Line is due to its never terminating. Thw Wimbledon - Edgware Road section of the District Line ("Wimbledon & City Line" in the future??): Wimbledon - Putney Bridge - Earls Court - High Street Ken - Paddington (Circle Line station) - Edgware Road (through platforms) - Kings Cross - Liverpool Street - Aldgate (terminal platforms). Metropolitan (some of the trains - the Uxbridge ones??): In from beyond Finchley Road - Baker Street - Kings Cross - Liverpool Street - Aldgate East - Whitechapel - Barking. Rest of the Metropolitan trains terminate in the terminal platforms at Baker Street. |
|
|
| (10529) | |
Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Oct 20 05:25:06 2004, in response to Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan), posted by Rail Blue on Tue Oct 19 18:53:43 2004. "But we don't need another East-West line. The problem is that too many people are using only one of the existing ones, which happens to be the one with the smallest trains anyway."The reason the Central Line is so successful is that it goes where people want to go - right through the heart of The City and the West End. The north (Metropolitan) and south (District) sides of the Circle don't. The north side, in particular, is more than walking distance from most West End destinations, so people change in their millions at Kings Cross or Baker Street to get to the West End. Encouraging more use of the south side of the Circle (the District Line) makes a lot more sense. Presumably that was the reason why the cross-platform interchange between the Central and the District at Mile End was provided in the 1940s - yet London Underground seems to keep it secret; I've never seen any publicity encouraging people to use it. And stations like Temple, Embankment and Westminster are pretty close to important destinations. Crossrail, whatever its faults, is meant to be an express version of the Central Line. I see it as part of the same concept as Thameslink 2000 - fast cross-London services, one north-south, the other east-west, the two connecting at Farringdon. |
|
|
| (10663) | |
Denied (Re: Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan)) |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Oct 20 13:51:29 2004, in response to Crossrail gets Treasury backing (was Re: London's five-year plan), posted by David Fairthorne on Sun Oct 17 00:51:11 2004. ic The Wharf reports that the Treasury denies the Crossrail funding rumour.CROSSRAIL TALKS STILL ON TRACK Oct 21, 2004 Renato Castello THE Treasury has rejected reports it has scrapped private backing to underwrite the £10billion Crossrail project. Crossrail spokesperson Ian Rathbone insisted that the Treasury was still in talks with private partners to fund the east-west railway. "Rumours this week that the Government will underwrite the project if it can not be funded are definitely not true," he said. "Discussions are still ongoing for an equitable arrangement." The Independent on Sunday reported that Crossrail would not seek a public-private partnership for the scheme. Mr Rathbone said: "Whether the Government actually pays for it has not been settled yet." The Treasury is struggling to get private backing for the project, which will link Canary Wharf with Heathrow - giving Wharfers a 35 minute link to the airport. The Treasury is willing to stump up £2bn, with the rest coming from a three per cent rise in business rates, Council Tax and possible borrowing under the Mayor Ken Livingstone's new powers. The project suffered a blow in September when major developers including Canary Wharf Group rejected a levy against a rise in property prices as a result of the east-west line. Meanwhile, Crossrail is under increasing pressure to rethink the location of key East London stations. Newham Council is lobbying the Crossrail team against a station at Custom House and Greenwich Council has launched a campaign for a station at Woolwich Arsenal. Newham, with the backing of London City Airport and ExCeL, is against Crossrail's proposed Royal Dock's branch earmarked for the present DLR Custom House station. The council warns that the station would not provide strong enough links with major attractions including ExCeL, the Aquarium and the London City Airport and wants the station at Prince Regent. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
