Crossrail 2 plans

[Olaf]

Don't bother.

My two cents is the cost of the tunnels should be paid by London councils, TfL etc and from loans repaid from future fare revenue. This appears to be how major schemes outside of NR system will be funded. Upgrading existing lines at each end should easily pay for itseld through extra track access charge revenue.

I would agree with the gist of that if we were not subsidising train services in other parts of the country.

 

[Olaf]

It's time TfL was told, if you want it pay for it yourself. The North is much less populated, and any arguments "per head" are disingenious.

Sure; The flip side is that you pay for any transport projects you want in the north out of your own pockets.

 

[Chester1]

1) if the Treasury guarantees the loans, it means it is on the Treasury's books, which is exactly what government have said they don't want.

2) and where does the operator of the franchise get the cash to pay for these additional track access charges? There are only two sources - taxpayer or fare payer. The first is out, so it has to be the second. Given that the access charges would be at least 10 times that paid by LOROL in their last year (which was £25m, as per their accounts), that's an awful lot of *additional* fare income required.

1) I am aware that this isn't what the government wants but I think its the fairest way. Guaranteed loans would only become more than numbers on a government spreadsheet if the Crossrail 2 company went bankrupt and the government was forced to take it over. It would have to be setup to make sure that the GLA was liable to repay the government.

2) The access charges wouldn't need to extortionate. More services would mean more charges and if they aren't enough to pay for the upgrade of NR infrastructure then so be it.

If I remember correctly the estimate is £29bn for the tunnels + new stations and £3bn for NR upgrades. The latter is a reasonable UK contribution for a London project especially as some/most/all would be recouped through access charges.

 

[Chester1]

Sure; The flip side is that you pay for any transport projects you want in the north out of your own pockets.

Metrolink expansions since 2009 have been mostly local borrowing and private sector contributions. I think the same with Blackpool's tram system modernisation. There have been no other major schemes outside of Network Rail infrastructure. Id bet Northern Powerhouse Rail will be funded directly or indirectly by the north and the bigger the final scheme is the small the government's proportion is likely to be.

One thing I think you are not considering is that the historic lack of investment in the norths rail network is a major factor in the level of opperating subsidy it has receieved. As investment has increased during the current and previous franchise the opperating subsidy has dropped massively and will be nearly erradictated by the end of the franchise. Londons high level of transport investment for a generation is a significant factor in the profitability of its services.

 

[The Ham]

It's time TfL was told, if you want it pay for it yourself. The North is much less populated, and any arguments "per head" are disingenious.

Those subjects come up in the report:

However, these simple regional comparisons are not necessarily made on a like-for-like basis nor in a ‘rationale’ manner. For example:
• London is an entirely urban area, whereas other UK regions include a mix of urban and rural areas. This means that regional comparisons are not like-for-like as transport is likely to represent a larger proportion of public sector spending in an urban area. Consequently, a fairer comparison would be to look at transport expenditure for the Greater South East (GSE) which is more ‘balanced’ in terms of land use. Here, spend per head for the GSE was around half that for London on its own, though still above the UK average.
• Comparing regions based on how much transport expenditure they receive on its own or on a per head basis does not properly account for the need or demand for transport. Not only has transport use grown significantly in London over time as noted above, but the capital’s transport network is also beneficial to the surrounding area particularly due to the high level of commuting. Therefore, this lends itself away from a ‘per head’ measure to one based onthe number of users. On this basis, the amount spent on railways per passenger journey and the amount spent on roads per 1 million vehicle miles in London were one of the lowest among the GB regions. In particular, London has seen the largest decline in road expenditure per 1 million vehicle miles since 2007-08.
• It is more ‘rational’ to compare transport expenditure with the size of an economy. That isbecause transport is essential in supporting an economy. It also brings it in line with how other economic indicators are compared, i.e. national debt and R&D investment is usually referred to in terms of a share of economic output. Consequently, transport spending in London as a share of economic output (as measured by GVA) was largely on par with Wales and Scotland; while for the Greater South East more generally, it was broadly in line with the UK average. Therefore, this suggests expenditure in London and the surrounding area was proportionate to the size of the economy.
• It is also worth considering public sector expenditure in terms of the amount of tax London generates. On this basis, transport expenditure in the capital as a share of tax revenue wasabove the UK average, but was generally in line with this when including the surrounding area. In addition, if considering all public sector spending in the capital, then London raises more in tax than it receives making it a net contributor to the Exchequer.
• So, overall, while initially London receives more than a quarter of the UK’s expenditure on transport, it is reflective of the demand and need for transport in the capital. That is, London has one of the lowest amounts of railway expenditure and road spending per ‘user’ in Great Britain; total spending is in proportion to the size of the economy; and London receives less in public expenditure as a whole than what it contributes in tax.

TfL are, at least in part, kind of paying for it themselves in the form of the Crossrail levy. Also, general tax income is higher.

The simplest way to see this is to compare the account of stamp duty that a typical house pays. Where I live (South East, within an hour of London) £350,000 gets you a fairly basic 3 bedroom house, whist to get a 4 bed house you'd be looking at £450,000 plus for most of them. Go closer in towards London and it (generally) just gets higher and higher.

Compare this with somewhere like Bristol and 4 bed houses are around the £350,000 mark. That drop of £100,000 saves £5,000 in stamp duty costs, bringing it down to £7,500. That's not a lot, but over a 40 year period how many times do houses change hands? I would guess normally between 2 and 5 times, multiply that over the number of houses in London and the South East and that extra stamp duty is going to all add to quite a significant number.

That is just one tax that is easy to demonstrate how it varies by region. Yes there will be some areas in the South East which aren't as highly priced, but then by picking somewhere like Bristol there's areas in the South West which also aren't going to be as highly priced, so it should be fairly balanced in the overall picture.

 

[Bald Rick]

1) I am aware that this isn't what the government wants but I think its the fairest way. Guaranteed loans would only become more than numbers on a government spreadsheet if the Crossrail 2 company went bankrupt and the government was forced to take it over. It would have to be setup to make sure that the GLA was liable to repay the government.

2) The access charges wouldn't need to extortionate. More services would mean more charges and if they aren't enough to pay for the upgrade of NR infrastructure then so be it.

If I remember correctly the estimate is £29bn for the tunnels + new stations and £3bn for NR upgrades. The latter is a reasonable UK contribution for a London project especially as some/most/all would be recouped through access charges.

Loans guaranteed by Government are Government loans. Hence the reason Network Rail's debt is now Government debt. This latest announcement makes it very clear that Government does not expect to finance the 50% that is to be paid for by 'London'.

With Track Access charges, the issue is the same, with bells on. Someone (not government or NR, as above) would have to borrow several £billion to fund construction several years prior to any track access charges being collected. This would require cast iron guarantees from the operator, perhaps a decade in advance, that the track access charges levied would be paid over the next, say, 30-50 years. As Sir Humphrey might say, without a government guarantee that would be a 'courageous' decision for the operator and lender to take.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think the same with Blackpool's tram system modernisation.

From the Railway Gazette:

The modernisation programme has been funded with £68·3m from the Department for Transport; £17·7m from Blackpool Council; £15·2m from Lancashire County Council and £0·4m from the EU's INTERREG North West Europe Programme

 

[HSTEd]

The north can complain about infrastructure construction when it doesn't have a railway that haemmorhages 40p per passenger mile.

 

[IanXC]

The north can complain about infrastructure construction when it doesn't have a railway that haemmorhages 40p per passenger mile.

I hesitate to quote Catch 22.

Well, Catch 22, sub-paragraph A.

 

[bb21]

No, because it is London and south east.

I would agree with the gist of that if we were not subsidising train services in other parts of the country.

The north can complain about infrastructure construction when it doesn't have a railway that haemmorhages 40p per passenger mile.

I'm going to request that this obsession and bitterness re: who is subsidising whom stops here.

This is tiring, boring, and repeated a large number of times in many threads. This is not a game for point-scoring.

Try something new, and discuss sensibly. You are all quite capable of doing that, as evidenced by your other posts.

 

[TheDavibob]

Construction question: in what order would Crossrail 2 be built/opened? Granted, it's far too far in advance to except concrete answers, but would there be the upgrade to, and a TfL Rail-style operation of, some or all of the existing NR route *before* opening on the tunnels throughout?

Granted, I can't really see how it would be possible, given the dearth of paths between Tottenham Hale and any sensible terminus in the north and the reliance of relief in the southwest depending on the tunnels beyond Wimbledon. Or will they complete the tunnelling to New Southgate (if that's still the plan by then), open up the SW suburban lines through the core, and then tack on the Lea Valley lines? This doesn't seem to offer much benefit over opening all lines at once.

 

[swt_passenger]

Construction question: in what order would Crossrail 2 be built/opened? Granted, it's far too far in advance to except concrete answers, but would there be the upgrade to, and a TfL Rail-style operation of, some or all of the existing NR route *before* opening on the tunnels throughout?

Put a note in the diary for 2027, would be my suggestion. Similar decisions for Crossrail 1 never became public until they were well into the construction phase. Anything said now would be pure conjecture.

 

[matt_world2004]

Construction question: in what order would Crossrail 2 be built/opened? Granted, it's far too far in advance to except concrete answers, but would there be the upgrade to, and a TfL Rail-style operation of, some or all of the existing NR route *before* opening on the tunnels throughout?

Granted, I can't really see how it would be possible, given the dearth of paths between Tottenham Hale and any sensible terminus in the north and the reliance of relief in the southwest depending on the tunnels beyond Wimbledon. Or will they complete the tunnelling to New Southgate (if that's still the plan by then), open up the SW suburban lines through the core, and then tack on the Lea Valley lines? This doesn't seem to offer much benefit over opening all lines at once.

Isn't some of the cr2 route part of London overground east Anglia lines?

Anyone know why cr2 is not going to stansted that would seem to be an easy win for crossrail 2 and would link it to Gatwick at victoria station and Heathrow at Tottenham court road and Luton at Kings Cross.

 

[D365]

Isn't some of the cr2 route part of London overground east Anglia lines?

Nope, the Hertford East route has remained part of Greater Anglia.

Anyone know why cr2 is not going to stansted that would seem to be an easy win for crossrail 2 and would link it to Gatwick at victoria station and Heathrow at Tottenham court road and Luton at Kings Cross.

Stansted is too far out for Crossrail and doesn't help in any way with railway operation like the extension to Reading.

 

[TheDavibob]

Put a note in the diary for 2027, would be my suggestion. Similar decisions for Crossrail 1 never became public until they were well into the construction phase. Anything said now would be pure conjecture.

I assumed that would probably be the answer, though a bit of conjecture is always fun.

Isn't some of the cr2 route part of London overground east Anglia lines?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Anglian lines being taken over (and four-tracked) is the eastern route from Tottenham Hale to Broxbourne (and the West Anglia Mainline), as of now operated by Greater Anglia, as opposed to the Overground-operated western route.

EDIT:

Anyone know why cr2 is not going to stansted that would seem to be an easy win for crossrail 2 and would link it to Gatwick at victoria station and Heathrow at Tottenham court road and Luton at Kings Cross.

The Stansted Express (which will be helped by CR2) connects to Crossrail 1 at Liverpool Street for Heathrow, and Tottenham Hale provides solid connections southbound. It would be far too slow if it stopped anywhere, so it doesn't really need incorporating into CR2.

 

[Olaf]

Metrolink expansions since 2009 have been mostly local borrowing and private sector contributions. I think the same with Blackpool's tram system modernisation. There have been no other major schemes outside of Network Rail infrastructure. Id bet Northern Powerhouse Rail will be funded directly or indirectly by the north and the bigger the final scheme is the small the government's proportion is likely to be.

One thing I think you are not considering is that the historic lack of investment in the norths rail network is a major factor in the level of opperating subsidy it has receieved. As investment has increased during the current and previous franchise the opperating subsidy has dropped massively and will be nearly erradictated by the end of the franchise. Londons high level of transport investment for a generation is a significant factor in the profitability of its services.

All those schemes have received substantial funding from Central Government.

As far as patronage is concerned, most services in the provinces have to be heavy subsidised to get people to use them whereas in the London and South East regions the operators are allowed to price people off of the services to reduce demand.

 

[notlob.divad]

For my 2pence worth, no crossrail2 should not be built out of the public purse. If some entrepreneurs want to club together and build it, and charge people to use it then they can. This opinion is nothing to do with who pays for it, or which regions require the most subsidy it is simply that the UK is already one of, if not the most overly centralised countries in the world. Encouraging more and more people to commute into London on a daily basis will only exacerbate that problem.

Instead the UK should be decentralising, and finding ways for people to avoid travelling too and across London. Why to get from the northwest to Standsted do the cheapest and fastest fares send you via London? Same with to locations on the south west mainline? That is 2 seats one in and one out of London that are taken by someone who doesn't even want to go there.

East-West was supposed to help change that, but now looks precarious, TP upgrades would help. Whereas HS2 will make it worse Frankly there are a million other schemes around the country, that could be done at a fraction of the cost, yes they may not individually have as high a BCR, but some imaginative thinking rather than the same old focus investment on the obvious could be transformational for the country as a whole.

That is just rail investment there are more things that could be done to encourage private business to invest and relocate out of the capital, whilst reducing the cost on the public purse and increasing the returns of the private investment. But the fixation on London and the South East does nobody any favours. It drives up congestion, overcrowding and living costs for those in the South East and sucks the life out of the regional economies.

 

[HSTEd]

It should be considered that perhaps the ever greater centralisation of economic actvitity into London and its environs is not something that should be resisted?

It has been demonstrated time and again that large cities tend to do better than small cities in economic output. This has permitted the megacity (London and New York being obvious examples) to survive the coming of car-based suburbia that was long predicted to destroy them.

Leaving aside historical aspects, if we were going to start from scratch with the construction of a modern economy in the UK, based around services and not primary or secondary industries - would we scatter people up and down the entire length of the country where it takes hours (or even days?) for people to reach other people to collaborate, work and socialise with them?

What reason has someone got to want to live in Maryport (for example), beyond sentimental attachment to the place that they have always lived? [And I am in no way saying this is valueless].

But perhaps attempting to force people to not live in ever Greater London is just Canute attempting to hold back the tide and the country would be better served providing more commuting capacity to enable a greater part of the land to be referred to as 'London' - the commuter belt could potentially stretch as far North as Manchester with more high speed lines.

Just a thought.

 

[notlob.divad]

There is a certain element of truth in what you say, if we where starting from a clean slate. However we are startinv from the legacy of future generations, and having already tarmaced over large swathes of the countryside, we should not now abandon these to some form of post appocalyptic wasteland akin to chernobyl, instead we should invest in them and make the most or the destruction of nature our species has already caused.

In my opinion. Anyway.

 

[swt_passenger]

However we are starting from the legacy of future generations...

You must be Doc Brown?

 

[Chester1]

It would be wrong to think that projects like CR2 would be universally welcomed in the provinces. Some people need to feel hard done by and enjoy complaining. I have heard plenty of people whinge about the recent public infrastructure works in Greater Manchester and the ongoing rapid expansion of the city centre and Salford Quays. Some people will find something to complain about. There is rebalancing of the UK economy underway, too slowly though and lead predominantly by insane property prices in London making the rest of the UK more appealing. For instance next year HSBC is moving its UK HQ to Birmingham but keeping its Global HQ at Canary Wharf. London will still be unaffordable and have a lower standard of living than other English cities with or without CR2. Its fundmentally lacks space to expand and further projects suck in more people.

 

[HSTEd]

It only lacks the space to expand because it is strangled by a combination of inferior long distance transport links and that misguided project, the green belt.
IMO it would be best to remove both those constraints.

 

[Chester1]

It only lacks the space to expand because it is strangled by a combination of inferior long distance transport links and that misguided project, the green belt.
IMO it would be best to remove both those constraints.

Are you sure geographic expansion would really help? There is potentially enough UK and international migration + natural growth to expand London until it swallows up half the South East. Greater Tokyo has a population of 38 million and if London keeps getting new railway lines from nearby towns and the greenbelt is slowly worn down it is plausible that it could become something comparable. Crossrail 1 basically adds Maidenhead and Reading to London.

 

[HSTEd]

There is a certain element of truth in what you say, if we where starting from a clean slate. However we are startinv from the legacy of future generations, and having already tarmaced over large swathes of the countryside, we should not now abandon these to some form of post appocalyptic wasteland akin to chernobyl, instead we should invest in them and make the most or the destruction of nature our species has already caused.

In my opinion. Anyway.

That is an interesting question - would developing london further cause the abandonment of valuable infrastructure already constructed elsewhere?

Luckily we can study the data as it stands - the ONS provides subnational breakdowns of population projections out to 2039.

If we strip out only 'all ages' data for each local authority area, and calculate the percentage population change between 2014-2039.
You can then sort the dataset by population increase, only 11 local authority areas have projected negative population growth.

Those are:
Barrow-in-Furness
Isles of Scilly
Copeland
Richmondshire
Hyndburn
Cumbria
Blackburn with Darwen
Allerdale
Blackpool
Redcar And Cleveland
South Lakeland

However, Burnley also shows zero population growth.

Of these, only five shows a bigger than 2.0% population reduction, which leaves:
Barrow-in-Furness
Isles of Scilly
Copeland
Richmondshire
Hyndburn

The Isles of Scilly has a reduction of ~10%, but only has a population of 2,000 to start with and isn't really relevant to this discussion.

The remaining areas only have a population in 2039 of 256,000 people and will show a decrease of 15,000 people relative to 2014.

So even at current rates the growth of London is hardly going to lead to a dystopian abandoned north.

Are you sure geographic expansion would really help? There is potentially enough UK and international migration + natural growth to expand London until it swallows up half the South East. Greater Tokyo has a population of 38 million and if London keeps getting new railway lines from nearby towns and the greenbelt is slowly worn down it is plausible that it could become something comparable. Crossrail 1 basically adds Maidenhead and Reading to London.

Is that a bad thing?
If what we know about the dynamism of large urban areas is true, imagine the wonders that would come out of such a conglomeration.

 

[The Ham]

For my 2pence worth, no crossrail2 should not be built out of the public purse. If some entrepreneurs want to club together and build it, and charge people to use it then they can. This opinion is nothing to do with who pays for it, or which regions require the most subsidy it is simply that the UK is already one of, if not the most overly centralised countries in the world. Encouraging more and more people to commute into London on a daily basis will only exacerbate that problem.

Instead the UK should be decentralising, and finding ways for people to avoid travelling too and across London. Why to get from the northwest to Standsted do the cheapest and fastest fares send you via London? Same with to locations on the south west mainline? That is 2 seats one in and one out of London that are taken by someone who doesn't even want to go there.

East-West was supposed to help change that, but now looks precarious, TP upgrades would help. Whereas HS2 will make it worse Frankly there are a million other schemes around the country, that could be done at a fraction of the cost, yes they may not individually have as high a BCR, but some imaginative thinking rather than the same old focus investment on the obvious could be transformational for the country as a whole.

That is just rail investment there are more things that could be done to encourage private business to invest and relocate out of the capital, whilst reducing the cost on the public purse and increasing the returns of the private investment. But the fixation on London and the South East does nobody any favours. It drives up congestion, overcrowding and living costs for those in the South East and sucks the life out of the regional economies.

There will be several places outside of London that will see an increase in rail services to them because of Crossrail 2. This could include Exeter, which could lead to further investment in the South West (redoubling of the WofE line).

Other locations which would see an increase in frequency of services to them would be Southampton, Portsmouth and all the locations served.

Yes all those extra services into and through London will help London, however 1 extra service to a city of circa 250,000 would have the same benefits as 34 extra services to London based on population comparisons.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Yes Crossrail 2 will get Built!

 

[The Ham]

For my 2pence worth, no crossrail2 should not be built out of the public purse. If some entrepreneurs want to club together and build it, and charge people to use it then they can. This opinion is nothing to do with who pays for it, or which regions require the most subsidy it is simply that the UK is already one of, if not the most overly centralised countries in the world. Encouraging more and more people to commute into London on a daily basis will only exacerbate that problem.

Instead the UK should be decentralising, and finding ways for people to avoid travelling too and across London. Why to get from the northwest to Standsted do the cheapest and fastest fares send you via London? Same with to locations on the south west mainline? That is 2 seats one in and one out of London that are taken by someone who doesn't even want to go there.

East-West was supposed to help change that, but now looks precarious, TP upgrades would help. Whereas HS2 will make it worse Frankly there are a million other schemes around the country, that could be done at a fraction of the cost, yes they may not individually have as high a BCR, but some imaginative thinking rather than the same old focus investment on the obvious could be transformational for the country as a whole.

That is just rail investment there are more things that could be done to encourage private business to invest and relocate out of the capital, whilst reducing the cost on the public purse and increasing the returns of the private investment. But the fixation on London and the South East does nobody any favours. It drives up congestion, overcrowding and living costs for those in the South East and sucks the life out of the regional economies.

I would suggest that HS2 would allow a significant number of people to avoid central London if traveling from up country to the south west through the interchange at Old Oak Common.

If the Southern Approach to Heathrow is built that would allow an interchange to the SWML (I would prefer it if it resulted in direct trains from Woking to Old Oak Common, and by extension to Paddington, as that would be two changes to get to most places served by SWT), although some of that benefit would be achieved by Basingstoke services using the Western Approach to Heathrow.

In that extent building HS2 would likely do more to release that pressure than East West Rail would likely do.

Of course depending on where in the SW you are going it could be quicker (at the very least compared with today) use HS2 to get to Birmingham and then use XC to head towards the SW.

 

[CdBrux]

It only lacks the space to expand because it is strangled by a combination of inferior long distance transport links and that misguided project, the green belt.
IMO it would be best to remove both those constraints.

London has, compared to other cities, quite low density housing, a lot of semi's with large gardens in the suburbs. The population could increase a lot inside the M25 without recourse to long distance transport or using the green belt. It would not be that popular though...

 

[CdBrux]

Some interesting political manoeuvrings by the London Mayor and his northern counterparts, each seeming to defend their own patch vs the other:

Firstly from the London Mayor:

Transport expenditure in London


Comparing regions based on how much transport expenditure they receive on its own or on a per head basis does not properly account for the need or demand for transport. Not only has transport use grown significantly in London over time as noted above, but the capital’s transport network is also beneficial to the surrounding area particularly due to the high level of commuting. Therefore, this lends itself away from a ‘per head’ measure to one based on the number of users. On this basis, the amount spent on railways per passenger journey and the amount spent on roads per 1 million vehicle miles in London were one of the lowest among the GB regions. In particular, London has seen the largest decline in road expenditure per 1 million vehicle miles since 2007-08.

It is more ‘rational’ to compare transport expenditure with the size of an economy. That is because transport is essential in supporting an economy. It also brings it in line with how other economic indicators are compared, i.e. national debt and R&D investment is usually referred to in terms of a share of economic output. Consequently, transport spending in London as a share of economic output (as measured by GVA) was largely on par with Wales and Scotland; while for the Greater South East more generally, it was broadly in line with the UK average. Therefore, this suggests expenditure in London and the surrounding area was proportionate to the size of the economy.


https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/defa...inal_cin54.pdf

Then fron 'the north' which I understand is backed by the Mayors of Liverpool City Region, Greater Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle:

Calls for "HS3" rail line for the North as £30bn London projects are backed
By Jonathan Walker, Chronicle Live, 26th July 2017


A new rail line linking North East and North West would go some way to tackling lack of transport investment in the North. Campaigners have launched a petition demanding the Government press ahead with plans for a new high speed rail line linking the North East and North West. They want a rail line as part of a bid to cut the huge gap in infrastructure investment between the north and the south.

Think tank IPPR North has examined funding for infrastructure such as transport schemes over the past 10 years, and found that the north of England would have received £59bn more over the last decade if it had received the same funding per person as London. It has now launched a petition calling for the Government to fund a new rail line. The Conservative General Election manifesto included plans for a new “Northern Powerhouse rail” line, expected to link Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Hull, Sheffield and Newcastle.

Labour is proposing a similar scheme, which it calls "Crossrail for the North", or "HS3". The funding gap was highlighted when Transport Secretary Chris Grayling backed £30bn plans for Crossrail 2 in London and the south east, days after a series of rail projects in Wales, the East Midlands and the north were downgraded or axed. One scheme, the electrification of the line between Leeds and Manchester, part of a wider plan to upgrade the entire trans-pennine line west from Liverpool, to Hull and Newcastle, was seen as a key element of the ‘Northern Powerhouse’ to boost the economy across the region through a “Crossrail for the North”. However, the Government has now said the line will be only partly electrified. IPPR North director, Ed Cox, said: “To approve or back Crossrail 2 ahead of backing the Northern Powerhouse rail programme is really rubbing salt into the wounds, and to do it when Parliament’s in recess and there can’t be further questions of the decision taken creates greater anger and resentment. “We are going to be calling for the Transport Secretary to pledge backing for Crossrail for the north.

“Over the past decade we have spent £59bn more in London than in the north of England so over the next decade there’s £59bn catch-up cash should be devolved to transport for the north. There is huge economic potential in the north of England, but we need to invest in the north, it’s just very short sighted to be constantly mitigating congestion in the south rather than investing in the north.”

However . . .

An HM Treasury spokesperson said: “We have a strong record of investment in the North. Since 2010, more than 540 infrastructure projects have been completed in the area, with 175 more to come. We are investing £13bn into Northern transport links, ensuring communities are better connected. And we have also invested over £3.3bn into Local Enterprise Partnerships, which provide finance to local infrastructure schemes.”


Read More - http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/...e_Nletter_News

Isn't this somewhat of a fabrication from Mr Cox? CR2 has not been approved, just backed in principle, indeed London mayor was told to find more local money for it.
NPR does not yet have proposals with anywhere near so much details on the table as CR2 so hard to approve / back something for which there is not yet a proposal?

When is the TfN report for 'NPR' due? I had thought it was in June but seems delayed. The government should wait for this and then say how much they will back it. Then we can have a proper view on infrastructure developments across the country, or at least in 2 regions of it. Until the TfN report is published and the government responds the space is open for the opportunist politician to stir things.

 

[HSTEd]

With that much money (not saying I agree with the calculation) a Shinkansen is back on the table....