Will Crossrail2 Be Built In The Next 40 Years?

[Olaf]

There's been many studies and reports on the subject. Here's just a few, and they all come to the same conclusion.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/da...mes-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...vestment-in-transport-is-in-london-says-study

http://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/...se-1-600-per-person-london-north-spending-gap

IPPR - need I say more?

 

[Olaf]

Investment outside London doesn't have to new or reopened lines. For instance, electrification of all the suburban routes around Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Bradford etc would make a huge difference

Well it woud more moeny in teh pockets of people that failed to deliver the earlier electrification projects, but of itself, it does not improve capacity and causes serious disruption to services for extended periods.

 

[Olaf]

Dix says: “I tell people that I come from Grimsby.” She says. “There’s loads of homes up there, but no jobs. Without them, what’s the point of building more? You’ve got to get the jobs in!"

And there's the nub - continuing to invest in already wealthy areas exacerbates an already yawning wealth gap.

Inequality is a huge and growing issue in this country and spending more and more public money in London will do nothing to address the problem.

You make your investments where they are needed and can make a difference; what transport investment in Grimsby (or affecting the area) could justify it's priority over CR2?

Andy Burnham, Manchester mayor, and other northern authorities say they're watching Crossrail2 closely. Any sign that money for it is forthcoming before a Northern high-speed link and there will be a political stink

He is playing to his audience, but they would still need to get any proposals through the process while CR2 is already well advanced and is down to negotiations on funding. So a political stink is all it will be, and if he does make any ground on it there will be a come-back from the much bigger lobby for CR2 (as has already been made evident).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

We could cut pensioner and student subsidies - that would save money and potentially free-up seats.

That is inhumane -come on :cry:

I said I would increase tax on diesel fuel - why are you being like that?

 

[plcd1]

Well it woud more moeny in teh pockets of people that failed to deliver the earlier electrification projects, but of itself, it does not improve capacity and causes serious disruption to services for extended periods.

Eh? If you electrify you usually undertake other relevant infrastructure improvements than can improve capacity. Faster run times and longer EMUs will raise capacity. You can achieve more if you take a nuanced approach to things like line speeds and track interventions that can be delivered more effectively in a blockade. You may also be able to rejig service patterns to release capacity or greater new journey opportunities across a conurbation.

The phrase "no pain, no gain" seems relevant here. Yes there is disruption but it is nearly always worth it to gain the improved service.

While no great fan of CR2 I don't buy in to this "frozen north vs evil London & SE" argument. I understand the frustration of people but there are influences and decisions far removed from the transport network that have given us the country we have and they don't all date from within the last 30-40 years. Mr Burnham can jump up and down all he likes about perceived "injustice" over CR2 but he'd be better served putting together a stonking case for a rail revolution in Manchester - a place not exactly starved of rail and tram investment in recent years.

 

[muddythefish]

You make your investments where they are needed and can make a difference; what transport investment in Grimsby (or affecting the area) could justify it's priority over CR2?.

Missing the point: in the case of Grimsby itself probably not, but over the north as a whole investment priority over Crossrail 2 is justified

He is playing to his audience, but they would still need to get any proposals through the process while CR2 is already well advanced and is down to negotiations on funding. So a political stink is all it will be, and if he does make any ground on it there will be a come-back from the much bigger lobby for CR2 (as has already been made evident).

Politics makes or breaks projects. HS2 is only going ahead because there is cross-party agreement. Crossrail2 is seen in the north as a line in the sand as far as the bias towards London invstment is concerned

 

[muddythefish]

Taxes are still too high in this country - you can put they up, but then the same people demanding the increases would then demand more handouts to cover loss of income and the associated increase in inflation. On top of that, tax increases slow economies. We are not able to cover all our current needs because too many have come to believe they are entitled to an easy life.

Standard knee-jerk right wing guff.

 

[Bald Rick]

Missing the point: in the case of Grimsby itself probably not, but over the north as a whole investment priority over Crossrail 2 is justified

By what criteria?

 

[The Ham]

Politics makes or breaks projects. HS2 is only going ahead because there is cross-party agreement. Crossrail2 is seen in the north as a line in the sand as far as the bias towards London invstment is concerned

CR2 is likely to open in 15 years time, the reason it is up for discussion now is the account of lead time that it will take to get it going and then the length of time to build it.

It is all well and good saying that there needs to be more investment elsewhere, but what projects should that be?

Also, how will HS2 impact on those projects. CR2 is clearly something that improve when HS2 is built as it allows more people to get off a HS2 train and get around London. As such there's no rush that HS2 week make it redundant.

Conversely if you do something to gain you extra capacity into Manchester, that could be not needed after HS2 as that would also free up paths.

Without knowing specific projects for elsewhere how can it be seen if there is a real need (i.e. projects that would be of more benefit that CR2) or whether it is just a perceived need (i.e. "it's not fair, so we should try and balance things out" ).

To date much of the debate on here has been focused on the latter. Yes there could be a case for doing so politically​ and so some projects could be elevated advice where they may otherwise have sat, but even so to have a balanced debate there needs to be suitable projects put forward.

 

[HSTEd]

"A line in the sand" is a rather poor analogy when London is the one paying for essential public services across large parts of the North of England.

A handful of deprived area MPs cannot withstand the 80+ vote Juggernaut that is London.

 

[rebmcr]

too many have come to believe they are entitled to an easy life.

Spoken as one of The Few who already has an easy life, then? Use of the word 'entitled' by right wing reactionaries is one of the most ironic things I've ever encountered.

 

[HSTEd]

I am not sure how anyone could describe a life "on benefits" as easy or pleasant.
The conditions are pretty grim.

And the amount of effort that would be required to game the system for a long period of time is probably greater than that required for a job that grants the same income.

 

[Greenback]

Let's keep this on topic, please.

 

[muddythefish]

"A line in the sand" is a rather poor analogy when London is the one paying for essential public services across large parts of the North of England.

A handful of deprived area MPs cannot withstand the 80+ vote Juggernaut that is London.

So how do you make more deprived areas more competitive - by investing in the already successful ones?

 

[The Ham]

So how do you make more deprived areas more competitive - by investing in the already successful ones?

In the case of Crossrail 2 (and the original as well) some successful area, and a number of areas listed as some of the most deprived in country, are part funding those schemes.

Deprived areas are not just isolated to one part of the country. Some of the London Boroughs still end up lower than Liverpool.

I have asked before, what projects should get the go-ahead before Crossrail 2? As otherwise much of the debate to date on here has been London is getting a £32 billion railway (forgetting that London is paying for half I that) therefore there should be a fair amount spent elsewhere (with no regards to if it is worth doing, just we need to have a fair share).

I have also suggested that fair attend on rail should be based on passengers and not on population, as you could spend billions in schemes that no-one uses just so you keep the fair share of spending up.

I'm also not aware of anyone on the side of suggesting that Crossrail 2 is be built in the next 40 years is suggesting that there's no investment elsewhere.

 

[HSTEd]

So how do you make more deprived areas more competitive - by investing in the already successful ones?

Investing in infrastructure for already succesful ones makes them more succesful and thus generates more tax income to support services in deprived areas.

If the London schemes have a higher BCR (and they likely do thanks to the greater efficiency inherent in large cities) then they should be invested in first, otherwise we artificially reduce state resources that will be available in future.

London is one of the most succesful urban areas in the history of the planet, attempting to strangle it by withholding infrastructure funding is akin to killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

 

[muddythefish]

Investing in infrastructure for already succesful ones makes them more succesful and thus generates more tax income to support services in deprived areas.

If the London schemes have a higher BCR (and they likely do thanks to the greater efficiency inherent in large cities) then they should be invested in first, otherwise we artificially reduce state resources that will be available in future.

London is one of the most succesful urban areas in the history of the planet, attempting to strangle it by withholding infrastructure funding is akin to killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

Thereby exacerbating the divide - the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer.

Inequality is a huge and growing problem in this country - as all political parties now recognise. Some people it seems want it to get worse.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Thereby exacerbating the divide - the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer.

Inequality is a huge and growing problem in this country - as all political parties now recognise. Some people it seems want it to get worse.

There is certainly a "perception" issue. I do agree, one way to improve the perception is to spend money on - IMHO- no brainer "rest-of-the-country schemes"

Transpennine Electrification and improvements, Calder Valley line and Midland Mainline full electrification immediately spring to mind.

 

[HSTEd]

Thereby exacerbating the divide - the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer.

But the idea that London schemes only make the rich richer does seem to ignore the statistics that say that some of the most deprived wards in the country are in London.

The streets are most certainly not paved with gold.

Inequality is a huge and growing problem in this country - as all political parties now recognise. Some people it seems want it to get worse.

So your solution is to deliberately make London worse off by strangling it whilst squandering huge sums of money on projects that hardly anyone will use.

I have yet to see people come up with ways to spend the amounts of money we are talking about on the "North" in a way that will produce a good BCR.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I have yet to see people come up with ways to spend the amounts of money we are talking about on the "North" in a way that will produce a good BCR.

And this is key IMHO. What I would love, is when the RUS Electrification refresh/update is eventually produced - we were promised it a while ago, solid BCR numbers in light of all that has been learned since the 2009 document is incorporated. This would enable a priority list. A bit like the NW Sparks report. And since it is not all just about electrification, solid BCRs for all schemes not just electrification projects.

 

[muddythefish]

But the idea that London schemes only make the rich richer does seem to ignore the statistics that say that some of the most deprived wards in the country are in London.

So your solution is to deliberately make London worse off by strangling it whilst squandering huge sums of money on projects that hardly anyone will use.

I have yet to see people come up with ways to spend the amounts of money we are talking about on the "North" in a way that will produce a good BCR.

England is a poor country with an extremely wealthy capital at the centre of a wealthy region.

No one is suggesting making London "worse off" - only that the rest of the country gets a fairer deal after London has sucked up billions of public investment compared to the rest of the country over the past 40 years.

One example, Leeds and Liverpool had circa £300m tram schemes knocked back a number of years ago. Shortly afterwards King's Cross station won approval for a new £400m ticket office.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

England is a poor country with an extremely wealthy capital at the centre of a wealthy region.

You would need to define poor for me. I don't consider a G7 country to be poor.

 

[muddythefish]

You would need to define poor for me. I don't consider a G7 country to be poor.

There's plenty of articles around with good research

https://www.ft.com/content/837a7b40-f534-11e3-91a8-00144feabdc0?mhq5j=e1

http://www.citymetric.com/business/...-average-and-other-things-we-learned-map-2721

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...amilies-Wales-Cornwall-Europes-worst-off.html

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/...er-than-any-us-state-other-than-mississippi/#

 

[GRALISTAIR]

There's plenty of articles around with good research

https://www.ft.com/content/837a7b40-f534-11e3-91a8-00144feabdc0?mhq5j=e1

http://www.citymetric.com/business/...-average-and-other-things-we-learned-map-2721

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...amilies-Wales-Cornwall-Europes-worst-off.html

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/...er-than-any-us-state-other-than-mississippi/#

Wow - thanks for that. Seems I have lived outside the UK for far too long. So sounds like some balance needed. Yes - keep the capital moving so it maintains this position but definitely invest in infrastructure- transport links etc in the deprived regions.

 

[HSTEd]

England is a poor country with an extremely wealthy capital at the centre of a wealthy region.

And your proposal to make the rest better off is to damage the ability of the capital to pay for the rest?
Where will the piles of money come from for the collosal infrastructure projects you want?
If london gets richer we have the money to buy more stuff for the north later.

No one is suggesting making London "worse off" - only that the rest of the country gets a fairer deal after London has sucked up billions of public investment compared to the rest of the country over the past 40 years.

And provided tens of billions of pounds to the rest of the country over the past 40 years.
And you are proposing that needed infrastructure be withheld because you believe that it is too well off and thus does not need it.

One example, Leeds and Liverpool had circa £300m tram schemes knocked back a number of years ago. Shortly afterwards King's Cross station won approval for a new £400m ticket office.

And KGX Ticket office probably sees far more use than both of those schemes combined.
There are relatively few transport corridors outside London that can justify tram or tram like schemes from scratch - I know, I live next to one. [Oxford Road corridor].

 

[muddythefish]

And your proposal to make the rest better off is to damage the ability of the capital to pay for the rest?
Where will the piles of money come from for the collosal infrastructure projects you want?
If london gets richer we have the money to buy more stuff for the north later.

How is London being "damaged"? London has damaged the rest of the country for decades through draining it of public resources and the best people.

The money will come from general taxation - like all other public monies.

The last sentence has to be a joke - thanks very much for the crumbs under London's table

And provided tens of billions of pounds to the rest of the country over the past 40 years.
And you are proposing that needed infrastructure be withheld because you believe that it is too well off and thus does not need it.

.

Read what I said - London can pay for its own investment

And KGX Ticket office probably sees far more use than both of those schemes combined.
There are relatively few transport corridors outside London that can justify tram or tram like schemes from scratch - I know, I live next to one. [Oxford Road corridor].

So a ticket office at one London station is more important than two whole city regions. Sums up the metropolitan mindset.

 

[Bald Rick]

So a ticket office at one London station is more important than two whole city regions. Sums up the metropolitan mindset.

1) it's a little bit more than a ticket office. It was a complete reconstruction of a major terminus to replace a 40 year old temporary (and condemned) facility for which the planning consent had run out over a decade previously.

2) but let's say it was just a ticket office for £400m. How does that compare with the half billion quid spent on the ticket office at Brimingham New St at the same time? Or the £400m (in today's money) spent on the ticket offices at Leeds and Mancheter Piccadilly station a decade previously?

3) or the half billion quid being spent on a new fleet of trains on Merseyside?

4) or the half billion quid to be spent on a new fleet of trains on Tyneside?

5) or the almost billion quid spent on extending the tram network in Manchester?

Or did you miss that?

 

[muddythefish]

Did you miss that?

Did you miss this?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...vestment-in-transport-is-in-london-says-study

or this gem?

http://www.tomforth.co.uk/wenevertried/

 

[Bald Rick]

Did you miss this?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...vestment-in-transport-is-in-london-says-study

or this gem?

http://www.tomforth.co.uk/wenevertried/

No I didn't miss them. You've trotted them out several times and appear to be not interested in posters explaining the reasons why. So I'll have another go.

The solutions to increase transport capacity in 'the north' are much simpler than in London and the South East. In many cases you don't even need to spend much money at all, just buy some more or longer trains, and a few platform extensions. This option is pretty much not available in London and the South East, hence the need to build more big infrastructure. And big infrastructure is more expensive.

Also, I could show - but can't be bothered - various statistics about how spending in the north on various things is much higher per person than in London. You could break it down further. I could show that recent transport spending per head of population in the Scottish Borders is several times more than in London. Transport spending in NW London will be a fraction of that spent in Manchester. Spending on new roads in the North East per head of population has been much higher than in London. Spending on air conditioning units in the last week has been hundreds of times more in London than Edinburgh.

As with all arguments based on flawed logic, I'm afraid it is just hot air.

 

[The Ham]

There's plenty of articles around with good research

https://www.ft.com/content/837a7b40-f534-11e3-91a8-00144feabdc0?mhq5j=e1

http://www.citymetric.com/business/...-average-and-other-things-we-learned-map-2721

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...amilies-Wales-Cornwall-Europes-worst-off.html

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/...er-than-any-us-state-other-than-mississippi/#

The map on the city metric article does show that London is richer and much of the UK is poorer than the EU average. However did you look at France? That has Paris as richer and ALL of the rest poorer or broadly the average. Likewise Spain isn't much better.

As such the UK is doing a much better job than the French and probably the Spanish at distributing the wealth.

That's not to say that we couldn't do better and there are clearly some areas where there is a need to improve things a lot more. However they tend to be areas which are more rural in nature (West Wales) which means investment in railways aren't going to bring that big a benefit.

Yes we need to help those poorer areas out, but canning CR2 isn't going to make any difference to that, other than it risks stifling the wider economy which will limit our ability to help.

Just one final point, the area of England that is clear to see that is doing the best is Berkshire/Oxfordshire (ish) which has seen relatively little in the way of rail investment in recent years (only just having got the new Oxford London route and Reading station rebuild, but still with a lot of services run by trains built in the 70's).