Should Crossrail 2 trump trans-Pennine and HS2b investment?

[big all]

They don't need one - they get the cream anyway! Free public transport pass at 60? Children free up to age 11, is it?Except that it won't.

anything they get above the nation level is paid for by people in that area through there council tax
you too can demand more and off course pay for it through your higher council tax

 

[Busaholic]

Talk of Crossrail 2 is misplaced: it's as likely to proceed as HS2 i.e, less than 10%, in my estimation, in the next ten to fifteen years at least. Even Crossrail, though I'm sure it'll get going eventually, is back to well into 2020 at the earliest, if you read between the lines of latest statements. And will Monty Python, the Holy Grayl, still be Transport Secretary? That's one thing I wouldn't bet against, he must know where all the bodies are buried in the Conservative Party!

 

[big all]

the trouble you have is london has about 9 million people
liverpool about 0.57 manchester 0.55 sheffield 0.54 leeds 0.50 or around 2.2 so a ratio off 4 to 1
and as hs2 involves the north that would go toward there quota as much as londons
https://www.citypopulation.de/UK-Cities.html

 

[Hadders]

London doesn't compete with Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow etc for jobs.

It competes with Paris, New York, Berlin, Tokyo etc. It is the goose that lays the golden egg as far as this country's economy is concerned.

 

[si404]

None of Scotland is south of Hadrian's Wall. A big chunk of England is north of it though.

And in 2014 55.3% of those living in Scotland voted to keep it part of the United Kingdom. Thus "their country" is the UK, as it has been since 1707...

 

[158756]

London doesn't compete with Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow etc for jobs.

It competes with Paris, New York, Berlin, Tokyo etc. It is the goose that lays the golden egg as far as this country's economy is concerned.

The problem is how sustainable this is politically. London projects always have the best business cases and the most businesses willing to contribute because all the wealth is already there. We spend money on London - London grows faster - we spend more on London etc. Eventually in 50 years we'll be building Crossrail 6 while half the population North of Watford Gap queues at soup kitchens.

 

[Busaholic]

The problem is how sustainable this is politically. London projects always have the best business cases and the most businesses willing to contribute because all the wealth is already there. We spend money on London - London grows faster - we spend more on London etc. Eventually in 50 years we'll be building Crossrail 6 while half the population North of Watford Gap queues at soup kitchens.

Don't forget west of Newbury Gap too!

 

[big all]

The problem is how sustainable this is politically. London projects always have the best business cases and the most businesses willing to contribute because all the wealth is already there. We spend money on London - London grows faster - we spend more on London etc. Eventually in 50 years we'll be building Crossrail 6 while half the population North of Watford Gap queues at soup kitchens.

yes i agree
the financial case will almost always favor London centric project
we need far more projects to boost the less though off areas boosting prospects in general giving some off the poorest in society a chance off deserved help
but please remember this is as prevalent in london but more so as the greater wealth on average has poverty and destitution as bad as anywhere else in the uk

 

[fishtastic]

the trouble you have is london has about 9 million people
liverpool about 0.57 manchester 0.55 sheffield 0.54 leeds 0.50 or around 2.2 so a ratio off 4 to 1
and as hs2 involves the north that would go toward there quota as much as londons
https://www.citypopulation.de/UK-Cities.html

You seem to have quoted the population of Greater London, but then the population of the the Manchester borough, the Liverpool borough. The population of Greater Manchester is 2.75 million, population of Merseyside is 1.4, changes that ratio a bit.

 

[Ken H]

You seem to have quoted the population of Greater London, but then the population of the the Manchester borough, the Liverpool borough. The population of Greater Manchester is 2.75 million, population of Merseyside is 1.4, changes that ratio a bit.

add in 2.2m in w yorks.
and how many live in the preston -blackburn-Burnley M65 corridoor?

 

[big all]

i was quite sure greater london was nearer to 10.8
but then you places like reading and others on the periffery served by crossrail but not in greater london

 

[DarloRich]

Te answer, of course, is that both should go ahead for different reasons.

A very good question, which will be studiously ignored by those who relish conflict between Londoners and primitive tribalists in northern England.

I have to admit that i was one of those primitive tribalists in northern England ( still am in many areas if honest!) until i moved down south. It is a different world with numbers of people moving distances unimaginable "up north". it is an order of magnitude higher. This post sums up the issues quite well although i would go further and say that on a 12 car train into Leeds at least 8 cars would be empty. OBVIOUSLY that doesn't mean that no investment is needed but it does not need to be the same scale or manner as London. We need to generate good quality well rewarded jobs in the North East before we worry about anything else! Without jobs there is no one to move around!

In London, there's also a capacity problem; the population is growing and London is 20% of the economy. Standing at the London end of the platform at Clapham Junction in the peaks, I'm always impressed at the sheer number of trains managed. But that shows a problem. Our transport, like the north, is bursting at the seems. However, you put a 12 car train on in the north, you'll get no standing passengers, on Thameslink/South West/Southern you still aren't guaranteed a seat. Often that's why it's more pressing, projects will pay for themselves quickly and attract more private investment than they will in Yorkshire. Is it fair? No. But it's until recently, it was the midlands and north refusing to have devolution, who's very job it is to fight for their region. It doesn't take a genius to work out a totally centralised government 300 miles away and a local authority that has hardly any power isn't going to be the best for local interests.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Crossrail 2 doesn't stand a chance until Crossrail 1 is up and running, with long-term TfL funding resolved.
The reasons for the delay/overspend also need to be understood and factored into the Crossrail 2 business case.
TfL wanted an early commitment to Crossrail 2, partly linked to HS2 arriving at Euston.
HS2 has its own problems, and so does NPR, but I suspect Crossrail 2 has gone to the back of the queue for now.

On London's need for ever more infrastructure, the golden goose of the City is in the middle of taking flight to Paris/Amsterdam/Frankfurt, thanks to Brexit (hard or soft).
No Chancellor will want to make massive new promises until we know where we are for the longer term.

 

[Meerkat]

the golden goose of the City is in the middle of taking flight to Paris/Amsterdam/Frankfurt

Not convinced that will happen to any significant extent. And a few companies considering Paris are probably having second thoughts right now!

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Not convinced that will happen to any significant extent. And a few companies considering Paris are probably having second thoughts right now!

I'm not convinced either.

 

[Sceptre]

The reason why the Government seems more willing to fund Crossrail 2 than Northern rail upgrades has nothing to do with what constituency the Transport Secretary represents, of course.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The reason why the Government seems more willing to fund Crossrail 2 than Northern rail upgrades has nothing to do with what constituency the Transport Secretary represents, of course.

If you got a firm grip of your prejudice, you might notice that he does not seem willing to fund Crossrail 2.

 

[Bald Rick]

Te answer, of course, is that both should go ahead for different reasons.



I have to admit that i was one of those primitive tribalists in northern England ( still am in many areas if honest!) until i moved down south. It is a different world with numbers of people moving distances unimaginable "up north". it is an order of magnitude higher. This post sums up the issues quite well although i would go further and say that on a 12 car train into Leeds at least 8 cars would be empty.

I had a very interesting chat on this with a colleague from the North West the other day; he commutes into Manchester. He was rather surprised when I explained that even with 12 coach trains, you don’t get a seat from 0700 until after 0900, and that this was much better than a few years ago where you often couldn’t get on the trains in the first place. Then when I said how much the season ticket was for an 18 minute journey, I’m afraid I had to put his eyes back in for him.

 

[Tobbes]

On the CR2 point, it will be needed to deal with distribution from HS2 phase 2 from 2033. If we don't do CR2 then someone needs to have a new plan of what to do with the distribution of HS2 passengers.

 

[camflyer]

On the CR2 point, it will be needed to deal with distribution from HS2 phase 2 from 2033. If we don't do CR2 then someone needs to have a new plan of what to do with the distribution of HS2 passengers.

Yes, I dread to think what will happen to the Northern Line between Euston and Tottenham Court Road if Crossrail 2 isn't built.

 

[Tobbes]

Yes, I dread to think what will happen to the Northern Line between Euston and Tottenham Court Road if Crossrail 2 isn't built.

Quite. Cross River Tram may be the only short term deliverable, and you need CR2 and CRT.

 

[plcd1]

Crossrail 2 doesn't stand a chance until Crossrail 1 is up and running, with long-term TfL funding resolved.
The reasons for the delay/overspend also need to be understood and factored into the Crossrail 2 business case.
TfL wanted an early commitment to Crossrail 2, partly linked to HS2 arriving at Euston.
HS2 has its own problems, and so does NPR, but I suspect Crossrail 2 has gone to the back of the queue for now.

On London's need for ever more infrastructure, the golden goose of the City is in the middle of taking flight to Paris/Amsterdam/Frankfurt, thanks to Brexit (hard or soft).
No Chancellor will want to make massive new promises until we know where we are for the longer term.

CR2 will not get an early commitment. TfL's funding is "broken" for many years to come. The settlement for the CR1 overrun takes funding from the Crossrail levy and Community Infrastructure Levy for years and years. The Mayor had intended to keep the Crossrail levy going to fund CR2. That's just gone out of the window because the money has to go to pay back the government loans for CR1 overrun. That point is vaguely acknowledged in the press release that was put out about the CR1 settlement. When you add in the government's reluctance to fund CR2 anyway and the never ending process of descoping it then forget it for at least 20 years, possibly longer.

I agree with you that Brexit is causing the banks to move operations into mainland Europe. That may not kill the City but it will reduce earnings, profits, tax revenues and employment and thus commuting. Depending on the scale of transfer the City and all the supporting businesses could take a very big knock. And if people think that is not going to affect life outside London then they're mad.

On the more general point of this thread I agree with those forum members who've acknowledged the very different scale of transport demand and pressure in London and the South East and the region's ability to part fund investment as well as generate more revenue. IMO none of this outweighs the needs of the North / Yorkshire / wherever in terms of having genuine transport needs that need investment and funding. The interventions may, at this point, be smaller in scale but they still need doing. What we need is more effective planning and delivery by Network Rail so that costs do not run away or invalidate business cases before any funding is found.

 

[LeeLivery]

Te answer, of course, is that both should go ahead for different reasons.



I have to admit that i was one of those primitive tribalists in northern England ( still am in many areas if honest!) until i moved down south. It is a different world with numbers of people moving distances unimaginable "up north". it is an order of magnitude higher. This post sums up the issues quite well although i would go further and say that on a 12 car train into Leeds at least 8 cars would be empty. OBVIOUSLY that doesn't mean that no investment is needed but it does not need to be the same scale or manner as London. We need to generate good quality well rewarded jobs in the North East before we worry about anything else! Without jobs there is no one to move around!

Totally agree.

The reason why the Government seems more willing to fund Crossrail 2 than Northern rail upgrades has nothing to do with what constituency the Transport Secretary represents, of course.

Mmmmm when it comes to Grayling I don't imagine he's very popular with the commuters of Epsom & Ewell, even if they vote Tory. Southern was in a state, SWR now have the stikes and Epsom still isn't in the travelcard zones. The government doesn't seem to be very warm on the idea of Crossrail 2 either. Far too quiet on it in fact.

CR2 will not get an early commitment. TfL's funding is "broken" for many years to come. The settlement for the CR1 overrun takes funding from the Crossrail levy and Community Infrastructure Levy for years and years. The Mayor had intended to keep the Crossrail levy going to fund CR2. That's just gone out of the window because the money has to go to pay back the government loans for CR1 overrun. That point is vaguely acknowledged in the press release that was put out about the CR1 settlement. When you add in the government's reluctance to fund CR2 anyway and the never ending process of descoping it then forget it for at least 20 years, possibly longer.

I agree with you that Brexit is causing the banks to move operations into mainland Europe. That may not kill the City but it will reduce earnings, profits, tax revenues and employment and thus commuting. Depending on the scale of transfer the City and all the supporting businesses could take a very big knock. And if people think that is not going to affect life outside London then they're mad.

On the more general point of this thread I agree with those forum members who've acknowledged the very different scale of transport demand and pressure in London and the South East and the region's ability to part fund investment as well as generate more revenue. IMO none of this outweighs the needs of the North / Yorkshire / wherever in terms of having genuine transport needs that need investment and funding. The interventions may, at this point, be smaller in scale but they still need doing. What we need is more effective planning and delivery by Network Rail so that costs do not run away or invalidate business cases before any funding is found.

Part of me thinks that if Crossrail 2 is built, TfL won't have as much control (if any) over it compared to Crossrail 1, making it more Thameslink 2 rather than Crossrail 2. Fact is TfL can't afford itself, let alone XR2. Just the other day, it was on BBC London News that the signs are (unsurprisingly) TfL will have to ditch the fare freeze. They're making cutbacks but I don't see how they'll reduce the debt.

Totally agree projects need doing in the North, Midlands, South West, Wales and NI. I'm at a loss with the money pinching over the new T&W Metro fleet and the unwillingness to expand the system on lines that are already there. The government talks of HS3 or whatever the name is and yet there's no serious plan. Also, Leeds should definitely put a Tram system back on the cards, TransPennine electrification is a farce and what's going on with Salford Central?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Part of me thinks that if Crossrail 2 is built, TfL won't have as much control (if any) over it compared to Crossrail 1, making it more Thameslink 2 rather than Crossrail 2. Fact is TfL can't afford itself, let alone XR2. Just the other day, it was on BBC London News that the signs are (unsurprisingly) TfL will have to ditch the fare freeze. They're making cutbacks but I don't see how they'll reduce the debt.

The "fares freeze" was not TfL's idea and I doubt they like it. It was Sadiq Khan's way of winning an election. It is he who will have to dump the policy which is ruining TfL's finances at a critical moment.

 

[DarloRich]

I had a very interesting chat on this with a colleague from the North West the other day; he commutes into Manchester. He was rather surprised when I explained that even with 12 coach trains, you don’t get a seat from 0700 until after 0900, and that this was much better than a few years ago where you often couldn’t get on the trains in the first place. Then when I said how much the season ticket was for an 18 minute journey, I’m afraid I had to put his eyes back in for him.

People think they understand London commuting - until they do it! It is like nothing at home price, time or distance wise. Nothing.

 

[LeeLivery]

The "fares freeze" was not TfL's idea and I doubt they like it. It was Sadiq Khan's way of winning an election. It is he who will have to dump the policy which is ruining TfL's finances at a critical moment.

That's true, but they'll both be blamed. When that pledge was made TfL should've immediately said: "WE CAN'T AFFORD IT, WE ALREADY HAVE A DEFICIT!!!" At least then the voters would've known what they signed up for - an impossible task. Sounds familiar...

 

[G_A_C_C_C]

Maybe the question should now be changed to...
Should Crossrail 1 trump trans-Pennine and HS2b investment?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Maybe the question should now be changed to...
Should Crossrail 1 trump trans-Pennine and HS2b investment?

. . . and the answer is no, because the costs of the overrun will be borne by London, not the whole country.

 

[camflyer]

That's true, but they'll both be blamed. When that pledge was made TfL should've immediately said: "WE CAN'T AFFORD IT, WE ALREADY HAVE A DEFICIT!!!" At least then the voters would've known what they signed up for - an impossible task. Sounds familiar...

The fare freeze was a bad idea from Khan (even though it was very popular - people always want better services for less money) but I don't think it would have been appropriate for TfL to object to the policy as that would mean them getting involved in a political campaign.

 

[plcd1]

The fare freeze was a bad idea from Khan (even though it was very popular - people always want better services for less money) but I don't think it would have been appropriate for TfL to object to the policy as that would mean them getting involved in a political campaign.

Precisely. TfL can't "get in the way" of political campaigns. The purdah rules etc impose pretty severe restrictions on the organisation and employees.

It was clear that the promise of the fares freeze was wrong in the campaign anyway as people thought rail fares and Travelcards would be frozen but, of course, the Mayor has no overall jurisdiction on those. They're a matter for the DfT who controls the TOCs and their franchises.

I expect TfL were very candid with the Mayor after his election as to the likely impact of his policies. Publicly it's always been framed as "of course we can deliver it" because TfL must do what the Mayor orders unless it's illegal. TfL is an organisation that only really functions properly if its income base is increasing in line with RPI as an absolute minimum. For a long time it's done that despite having generous revenue grant. Now it effectively has to act commercially in terms of its revenue, costs and borrowing because there is no revenue grant and no investment grant (replaced by a share of non hypothecated business rates allocation). Council tax precept brings in very little so fares revenue and charges is the big ticket item. From what I've been told the Fares Freeze idea was really a London Labour Party idea which Khan got lumbered with - probably without a full understanding at the time as to what it meant economically and politically. I suspect the loss of revenue grant was a similar "unknown" in whatever political calculations were made.

The fact that in the new business plan TfL have altered their post 2020 fares assumption from RPI (not stated but used in the previous business plan) to an overt and publicly stated RPI+1% measure shows that they really think they can't survive another fares freeze. A warning shot has therefore been fired across the bows of 2020 Mayoral Candidates. If Labour were stupid enough to propose one then I'd expect it to be very strongly critiqued by the opposition candidates and the media. Some Mayor's Questions are already asking for the cost of another fares freeze so it's on the "radar screen" so to speak. After 4 years it will be clear what the cost to TfL and London is of the current fares freeze in terms of the impact on projects, service levels etc.