[dwb]

The £16 billion Crossrail project to build a new rail line from Maidenhead in the west to Shenfield in the east has been approved. You can read this report on the BBC website or this press release on the Crossrail website for further information.

David

 

[Doug]

I don't know why they don't use the Thames, like the Parisians use the Seine. Reclaiming part of the river next to the banks on either side to build a high speed link following the river. Its not like there is that much river traffic these days. Seeing as the English are so anti-cars these days, they could put in a rail link instead of roadway.

 

[Gary]

Whilst not wishing to upset Londoners...

Something not right about this but of course Labour need London votes in an election.

London gets all the money yet again. Borrowing against future fare income. Wasn't that what they said about the Channel Tunnel?

What could you do with that sort of money outside London?

And how could the Post Office be modernised if that sort of momey was made available to them?

The fact is in 50 years time London won't exist as a capital as it will be underwater. Unless of course they spend £20b on a new Thames barrier.

There is a story in the papers this morning about council tax in the UK increasing by £200 per household across the country over the next 3 years.

What with this London rail thing and the Olympics.

Coincidence?

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[dwb]

QUOTE Something not right about this
The only thing that's not right about it is that there should have been a decent east / west link across London 100 years ago. As for the amount of money being invested, considering that the annual tax take for road tax alone is in the region of £4.5 billion (30 million vehicles at £150 average each), £16b over 10 years seems a very small rate of transfer from road to rail. The treasury is not putting up the whole amount in any case and the Mayor of London is under writing any cost overruns, so the amount of "national" money going into the project is considerably less than the headline figure and taken on a per capita basis is not probably not as disportionate as it would first appear.

David