|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 5, 2017 20:31:25 GMT
If congestion is really so bad, then establishing a flat £10 per trip toll for the next 30 years should be enough to underpin sufficient additional loan financing to get this project back on track. Adding a toll would have the additional advantage of discouraging a lot of the current traffic and probably speed up local bus services, increase bus patronage and even save polar bears. Sounds like a win, win, win  You can't have your cake and eat it too - the more successful the toll is in discouraging people from driving, the less money it will make. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 6, 2017 0:46:37 GMT
If congestion is really so bad, then establishing a flat £10 per trip toll for the next 30 years should be enough to underpin sufficient additional loan financing to get this project back on track. Adding a toll would have the additional advantage of discouraging a lot of the current traffic and probably speed up local bus services, increase bus patronage and even save polar bears. Sounds like a win, win, win You can't have your cake and eat it too - the more successful the toll is in discouraging people from driving, the less money it will make. Up to a point. In respect of some traffic all that happens is costs increase to cover the toll and once costs normalise at the higher level the disincentive disappears and some business related traffic will return. I also doubt that the Mayor of Watford has total authority over all roads into and out of Watford and probably doesn't have the legal powers to impose a tolling regime. TfL is quite unusual in the powers that it has and the scope it has to exercise powers even on roads it doesn't directly manage. From a point of pure politics I understand Watford is rather "conflicted" in its political make up so it's unlikely anything massively controversial, like shoving up the cost of driving into the town centre, would ever survive the inevitable public and political backlash. The rail link only benefits part of Watford so those bits that don't benefit would simply cry foul. Watford Council also doesn't have responsibility for securing additional bus services - that's Herts CC as I understand it. Therefore the notion of toll funds possibly helping improve bus services as well as funding the rail link doesn't really work. Where's the guarantee that Herts would spend the money on buses *in* Watford rather than using it on social care?  Bus funding is not a compulsory spending category which is why several councils have cut all their funding for supported services. It is also worth saying that the business case for the rail link specifically identifies negative impacts on commercial bus routes so one direct impact is that some bus services would be cut because people would divert to the Tube. |
|
|
|
Post by xercesfobe on Dec 3, 2017 8:51:13 GMT
Mayor Khan is focused on getting rid of diesel cars and carpeting London with cycle lanes along with his other interests! He lacks the experience in transport and is the wrong man for the job! Until Khan is replaced nothing will happen with many tube projects as we are seeing more and. more!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 3, 2017 11:11:22 GMT
xercesfobe I'm not sure I agree with all that, but as this forum doesn't do politics I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion about the actions and motivations of a single politician.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 3, 2017 12:06:08 GMT
Mayor Khan is focused on getting rid of diesel cars and carpeting London with cycle lanes along with his other interests! He lacks the experience in transport and is the wrong man for the job! Until Khan is replaced nothing will happen with many tube projects as we are seeing more and. more! Here are a few issues that would face anyone who was Mayor. 1. London's economy is starting to "soften" as business activity slows and people rein in discretionary spending. 2. TfL's revenue is not growing as expected even if we put the fares freeze (a political decision) to one side. This poses risks to the investment programme. 3. Government have axed all revenue support for TfL services. It has also removed the former "Overground grant" which means the Overground must make an operating surplus by 2020. This has taken hundreds of millions out of TfL's budget each year. 4. There are external regulatory pressures on air quality. To do nothing is not acceptable. This was also a significant factor in the Mayoral election. There was also tremendous political lobbying on the cycling issue. I doubt matters would be very different if the MP for Richmond was Mayor! 5. Government has axed London's share of road tax revenues. This means TfL receives no funding for the roads it is responsible for. Therefore road maintenance and renewal has to be funded from the Tube's operating surplus or from TfL borrowing more money. 6. TfL has to ensure an operating surplus from Crossrail's operation post 2019 to pay back loans raised to construct the line. 7. There is negligible scope to raise the TfL element of the council tax precept. 8. There is little scope to increase the share of business rates allocated to TfL if the economy in London is softening. If the economy declines then income from business rates will fall as businesses fail. Now I've concentrated there on the monetary side of things but that is what counts when it comes to being able to spend money on investment. There is very little room for manoeuvre given constraints on several funding sources. Being careful to avoid the moderator's axe then clearly the current Mayor has adopted some policies that others may not have done *but* I think any Mayor would be facing very tough times now. We are not in the more favourable economic and funding environments that Ken and Boris both enjoyed. |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jan 25, 2018 11:31:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 25, 2018 11:42:05 GMT
I would treat that article with a great deal of scepticism. The last formal position was not that TfL had "been given everything it wanted". It was that the funding partners other than TfL were seeking Housing Infrastructure Fund monies to try to close the gap. This is what Mike Brown told the London Assembly Budget and Performance Cttee a couple of weeks ago. He reiterated that all of TfL's funding, including the Growth Fund monies, remained in place but it was not sufficient to cover the expected costs and risks. No statements were made about bus schemes and TfL would not be tasked with delivering such a thing within Hertfordshire. If anyone is looking at bus schemes it will be Herts CC / Watford Borough as a fall back way to spend the monies they have secured from Central Govt. It also looks to me like TfL / City Hall want the "open ended" cost risk burden lifted which is why Mr Harrington's "magic £73.4m" is not sufficient. If you still fear costs will rise further then TfL and the Mayor are not off the financial hook. Given the history of this project you can understand their scepticism. I certainly wouldn't take the £73.4m and retain the cost risk. Mr Harrington also seems to believe that being granted "air rights" over a line in Hertfordshire is some sort of magic solution when it is no such thing. Mr Harrington is quite clearly "fed up" that he is not in control of things so has resorted to the media to try to pressure the Mayor. A classic tactic but a rather tired one. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jan 25, 2018 11:59:36 GMT
A guided bus service covering this route would be utterly un-feasible. The congestion around Watford Junction would kill any benefits to the service dead. It could avoid that by taking over one of the two running lines between Watford High Street and Watford Junction, which would I suspect severely impact operations on the LO route.
|
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jan 25, 2018 11:59:44 GMT
This article suggests that the funding agreement had to be in place by 31/12/2017 otherwise they'd run into problems with the TWA. It is of course now almost a month later, but we are not told when Mr Harrington raised the extra money (although it would seem he came in £0.4 million short based on the phrasing used in the article!)
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 25, 2018 12:05:04 GMT
This article suggests that the funding agreement had to be in place by 31/12/2017 otherwise they'd run into problems with the TWA. It is of course now almost a month later, but we are not told when Mr Harrington raised the extra money (although it would seem he came in £0.4 million short based on the phrasing used in the article!) The December deadline relates to the Mayor instructing TfL to "wind down" the project team, existing contracts and settle any outstanding claims. The TWA powers expire in August this year so, theoretically, there is some scope for works to resume by that deadline but only if there is a water tight funding deal that caps TfL's risk and transfers the responsibility for cost / time overruns to someone else. That's what I am guessing the sticking point is. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jan 25, 2018 13:46:50 GMT
The good news is that the strength of feeling about this may well trigger another route options and feasibility study which should result in a very different set of figures from the studies carried out 10 years ago, 20 years ago and 30 years ago. I moved to Watford 27 years ago now, and within a few months of doing so my back bedroom was being used (by agreement of course) by a chap called Owen who had set up noise monitoring equipment on my ground-floor flat roof, feeding back to equipment in the bedroom. This was as a week-long baseline for the proposed Croxley Rail Link!
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jan 25, 2018 14:49:40 GMT
I posted this to multiple forums and one suggests from the letter sent to Kahn that the sticking point indeed seems to be that he want the DfT to take on the project's risks.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 25, 2018 15:40:05 GMT
I posted this to multiple forums and one suggests from the letter sent to Kahn that the sticking point indeed seems to be that he want the DfT to take on the project's risks. If you were the Mayor you would undoubtedly take the same view and would want to get out of the liability that Boris left behind, in the full knowledge he would never have to deal with any fall out. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jan 25, 2018 23:08:31 GMT
If no change has occurred, and this is simply an MP using/abusing the media to up the ante, its very bombastic. Its certainly extremely unsubtle about where he wants the public to place the blame.
That sort of indicates the project is dead anyway, if its now at the stage where literal rabble rousing is part of the 'discussion'.
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jan 25, 2018 23:50:36 GMT
Trust the son of a bus driver to want a kerb guided busway!
For a while the German city of Essen was the site of experimental track sharing between kerb guided buses and trams. The technology worked, and but for funds being diverted because of German reunification this might have still been in operation. What is significant however is that the trams were powered by overhead wires whilst the buses were either diesel or trolleybus electric.
I cannot imagine track sharing with buses and third rail electric trains happening. Nor one track being given over to the buses with both buses and trains running side by side. Perhaps if the section of railway was converted to overhead wire power.... but realistically speaking all this will cost £mucho £mucho and of course its a shortage of funds which is has seen this 'cheaper' situation arise.
I wonder if passengers who use Watford Met are pleased that this scheme might end up 'not happening'?
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 26, 2018 1:21:51 GMT
Trust the son of a bus driver to want a kerb guided busway! For a while the German city of Essen was the site of experimental track sharing between kerb guided buses and trams. The technology worked, and but for funds being diverted because of German reunification this might have still been in operation. What is significant however is that the trams were powered by overhead wires whilst the buses were either diesel or trolleybus electric. I cannot imagine track sharing with buses and third rail electric trains happening. Nor one track being given over to the buses with both buses and trains running side by side. Perhaps if the section of railway was converted to overhead wire power.... but realistically speaking all this will cost £mucho £mucho and of course its a shortage of funds which is has seen this 'cheaper' situation arise. I wonder if passengers who use Watford Met are pleased that this scheme might end up 'not happening'? Simon Why do you believe that the Mayor said anything about a bus scheme? I can't see why he would even mention it given it has nothing to do with him. It's demonstrably clear from the policies being pursued in London that he knows nothing about buses at all despite the oft repeated "election mantra". The fact people keep repeating it just shows how effective his election comms were and not much else of any substance about buses. TfL would have nothing to do with such a busway scheme even if it were feasible. It is a matter for Watford BC, Herts CC and eventually commercial bus operators. If a bus scheme has been mooted it will almost certainly have been raised by the local authorities with responsibility for Watford's transport and not TfL. They will have millions of pounds of allocated funds to spend in the area so it is entirely natural that they may now be considering fall back projects rather than risk losing the money. I think we need to cut through the political "flim flam" where one side has a clearly rehearsed position of painting the Mayor as the villain while the Mayor is appearing to be responsible and accountable to Londoners (which, of course, he is) but not to Herts. This entire mess is because of multiple "dodgy" decisions and back room stitch ups for political / election purposes. It was never sustainable in the long term if we take a step back and consider what was agreed. Even with a Tory Mayor in London the deal would inevitably unravel because the cost escalation hasn't stopped and would most likely worsen once "spades were in the ground". |
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Jan 27, 2018 13:10:14 GMT
Speaking of German projects ended by reunification, has anyone here ever heard of the M-Bahn project in West Berlin?
Not suggesting that for Croxley, mind...
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 27, 2018 19:27:20 GMT
Speaking of German projects ended by reunification, has anyone here ever heard of the M-Bahn project in West Berlin? Not suggesting that for Croxley, mind... Yes - I travelled on it. My one photo is on Flickr ---> www.flickr.com/photos/24759744@N02/3641768617/The line vanished post reunification because it was on a former U Bahn line that was severed but has now been replaced but I imagine you know that. Mr Smiler's excellent "City Transport" website has info on it and I believe he has some video clips of it on Youtube. And apols to mods for an off topic reply. I suggest no more is said about the M Bahn in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by holborncentral on Jan 27, 2018 19:56:48 GMT
Speaking of German projects ended by reunification, has anyone here ever heard of the M-Bahn project in West Berlin? Not suggesting that for Croxley, mind... I haven't heard of it, but I do know there were restrictions on the Berlin U-Bahn pre-reunification (people couldn't use it to travel east-west). There is a map of Berlin in my German book (I do night classes in German at my college) but it doesn't mention the M-Bahn. What exactly is it? |
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Jan 27, 2018 20:21:19 GMT
It was a short Maglev line running between Gleisdreick and Kemperplatz in West Berlin, mostly on the elevated section of U2 that had been closed in 1972; Potsdamer Platz station was already closed and sealed off by the Wall. It only ran for passengers between 1989 and 1991, when it was dismantled to reinstate U2.
I'll move this to a new thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jan 27, 2018 21:22:26 GMT
Who got custody of The Edge?
|
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Jan 27, 2018 21:38:06 GMT
Who got custody of The Edge?  |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Jan 27, 2018 21:56:40 GMT
Who got custody of The Edge? Yes, it's quite amusing & is one thread that never needs bumping!! Seriously, isn't it amazing how a certain circus clown's idea was hailed as the greatest idea since Brunel & the GWR, without anybody sensing that, unless building commenced within a month, costs might just escalate the longer people wondered about its' viability? Of course, they could always ask Belting John to pen a song about it & raise a few bob towards construction. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jan 28, 2018 12:13:43 GMT
Seriously, isn't it amazing how a certain circus clown's idea was hailed as the greatest idea since Brunel & the GWR, without anybody sensing that, unless building commenced within a month, costs might just escalate the longer people wondered about its' viability? Of course, they could always ask Belting John to pen a song about it & raise a few bob towards construction. I think the matter of the project's viability has ALWAYS been front and centre in people's minds. They had to trim and compromise, then hack and slash, then they gradually eased it back towards a working design (I'm thinking of the proposition to single track it all the way to the Junction, which was one point mooted until TfL laughed them out of court), until it scraped through the ROI / CBR. If anything the delicate balance should have stimulated the drive towards raising the funds by e.g. selling public shares for part of the construction, re-zoning the proposed new stations into a higher fare band, diverting all the wasted Section 6 funds that were handed back to various developers over the years (another scandal). As it is the council and other developers have used the MLX to fulfill many of the local criteria for a number of high profile projects. There's a lot of egg going to be on faces over this. I suppose one can hardly blame HCC's failure that caused the transfer of the scheme delivery to TfL if TfL couldn't make it work. |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jan 29, 2018 23:08:44 GMT
Speaking of German projects ended by reunification, has anyone here ever heard of the M-Bahn project in West Berlin? Not suggesting that for Croxley, mind... Yes - I travelled on it. My one photo is on Flickr ---> www.flickr.com/photos/24759744@N02/3641768617/The line vanished post reunification because it was on a former U Bahn line that was severed but has now been replaced but I imagine you know that. Mr Smiler's excellent "City Transport" website has info on it and I believe he has some video clips of it on Youtube. And apols to mods for an off topic reply. I suggest no more is said about the M Bahn in this thread. Thanks Snoggle for thinking of me. yes, I saw it and rode it - knowing that its future was not looking good when I went to Berlin in April 1990 I made a point of visiting it and filming it. My film is on YouTube but I think its too far OT to include here. Simon |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jan 31, 2018 11:15:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ducatisti on Jan 31, 2018 12:33:32 GMT
that doesn't sound like thickening, that just sounds like a very large number to make it go away...
(ie TfL say "not doing it, too expensive", WBC say "pleeeeease, how much would it cost", TfL pick a number to leave them not exposed at all)
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 31, 2018 13:21:38 GMT
It looks to me as if TfL have quantified the additional expected "risk premium" to allow them to take on the work in accordance with the original agreement. In short the total expected cost and risk increase is £73m + £40m. I do find the political ranting bordering on the bizarre but the funding partners have "blinked first" in terms of coughing up extra money so you can hardly expect TfL not to take advantage of that. I don't think Mayor Khan cares one iota as to how he is "painted" by government ministers, the Mayor of Watford or the local MP. Therefore all this effort to portray him as a villain just isn't working. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Jan 31, 2018 21:32:05 GMT
What the flippin heck is going on with the image of the moss covered (I can only guess is a) 72TS. Ignoring the shared line between Rayners Lane and Uxbridge, since when have any of these early 1970s units made it onto the Met?? |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jan 31, 2018 21:48:25 GMT
What the flippin heck is going on with the image of the moss covered (I can only guess is a) 72TS. Ignoring the shared line between Rayners Lane and Uxbridge, since when have any of these early 1970s units made it onto the Met?? Ha ha ha. Welcome to the world of local journalism! |
|
Bus funding is not a compulsory spending category which is why several councils have cut all their funding for supported services. It is also worth saying that the business case for the rail link specifically identifies negative impacts on commercial bus routes so one direct impact is that some bus services would be cut because people would divert to the Tube.
