[Citrus-Fruit]

It seems the UK's Transport hub revamp could be delayed for up to a decade due to the London centric goverment keeping thier money firmly down south. Unbelievable.


Plans to redevelop Birmingham's New Street Station could be delayed by up to a decade, unless more people pledge their support to the project.
A campaign is being launched to highlight the importance of the £100m Gateway for Birmingham scheme.

It needs to be included on a priority list, due to be completed before Christmas, to secure funding.

Rail passengers are being asked to send in postcards and letters to be given to the government later this month.

BBC Midlands Today's transport correspondent Peter Plisner said overcrowding at the station has become a serious concern.

New Street handles more passengers than Gatwick airport does and has more trains passing through it each day than the number of planes that pass through Heathrow.



Wake up to the state of New Street Nov 3 2006


The clock is ticking on "the best chance for a generation" to transform Birmingham's crumbling New Street Station into a 21st Century transport hub. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been set aside to fund the massive revamp. But the scheme now hinges on the Government agreeing to hand over an initial £136million - with a major 'public spending review' decision due in the next few months. Today the Birmingham Mail launches its 'Wake up to the state of New Street' campaign to make sure our city is not overlooked.

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icbirmingham/nov2006/4/0/AD4BBA2F-E151-BFE1-35FFB58A2BE9C7DA.jpg

THIS is the picture which shames Birmingham and should embarrass Government transport bosses into coughing up...FAST.

This urine-soaked, stinking, rubbish-strewn stairway is the first impression many travellers leaving our main station will see.

Badly lit, intimidating and the haunt of drunks and teen gangs, it is hardly the 'Welcome to Birmingham' message the city's retailers are looking for.

But Government chiefs have shown that investment in London's main stations can restore them to their former Victorian grandeur.

[one very bored guy]

Maybe England should split up into different States, like many other countries of that size. I know from experience it does help in matters like these.

[M II A II R II K]

http://members.aol.com/xpus/statesbr.gif

[london lad06]

What a truely pointless thread.

If you have issues with UK transport policy write to your MP instead of sprouting the usual 'look how hard done by wse are cause London gets all the money' blah blah blah

[Mercutio]

Stop bleating about not getting enough subsidy from London. We already subsidise the rest of Britain to the tune of £billions every year. Why not find some imaginative solution such as selling some railway owned land to developers if they will improve the station? They could probably redevelop the staon itself as they did with Victoria and Liverpool Street stations in London.

[Citrus-Fruit]

And you dont believe the goverment is London centric? Millenium Dome, National Stadium? need I go on? This is the UK's transport hub. London's stations get billions of pounds every year. the connection between them and the rest of the country is asking for just £500,000,000. Seems something needs to be done.

[Ardent]

Leeds Station has just been totally rebuilt and there is every reason to
believe that Birmingham's Stations will also be upgraded, including Snow Hill,
which has plans for large skyscrapers and New Street Station.

Network Rail is currently upgrading stations around London and selling office
space around London Stations in order to fund investment in stations outside
of London, such as Birmingham.

New Street Station Planned Skyscrapers
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42030000/jpg/_42030430_newstreetskyscraper300.jpg

Snow Hill Planned Development.
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a264/Biosonic/Renders/SnowHillGlennHowells.jpg

Snow Hill Phase 1

Architect: Glenn Howells Associates

Developer: Ballymore

Height: 130m

Floors: 41

Uses: Hotel (left) Residential (tower)

Start On-Site: 2007 (estimate)

[Ardent]

Hammerson chosen for Victoria upgrade
The Financial Times
27.10.06

Network Rail has announced that it is to enter into exclusive talks with Hammerson to redevelop Victoria Station. The scheme is part of a series of upgrades planned by the not-for-profit rail operator which will see private development of shops, offices and flats around the major stations. Through this, it is hoped to raise £4bn of private money to help pay for station improvements at 50 big regional stations and hundreds of smaller ones.

At the same time Network Rail announced that British Land and a consortium of Morley Fund Management and Chelsfield Partners were the two bidders shortlisted to rebuild Euston. Euston with 50m passengers a year and Victoria with 115m a year have not seen any significant upgrades for half a century. The amount of new space is likely to total 800,000 sq ft at Victoria and 4.3m sq ft to be built on 15 acres around Euston station.

The next big project will be Waterloo, which is likely to be the biggest of the three projects, as it will involve lowering the main concourse to the ground floor.

[Mercutio]

And you dont believe the goverment is London centric?Certainly not. It allows the provinces to be subsidised to the tune of £billions every year.Millenium Dome, National Stadium? need I go on?1) The Millennium Dome is on the Greenwich Meridien. It's where the world entered the 3rd millennium. What sites in Birmingham have any significance in terms of time/date? Yes that's right - none.

2) Wembley is the most famous stadium in the world. The legendary name resonates around the globe. It has always been the home of football. Why shouldn't it be rebuilt on the same site?This is the UK's transport hub.Debateable....London's stations get billions of pounds every year.No they don't.the connection between them and the rest of the country is asking for just £500,000,000. Seems something needs to be done.All you ever do is bleat for subsidy. Pathetic... :rolleyes:

[Ardent]

Birmingham Snow Hill Phase 1 - Due to Commence - July/August 2007 - Finish 2010.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d101/Erebus555/DSCF2072.jpg

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d101/Erebus555/DSCF2075.jpg

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d101/Erebus555/DSCF2081.jpg

[elfabyanos]

I really don't think the "It's gone wrong - blame London" attitude helps anyone. I share the sentiment that it overlooks lots of things that are actually happening. Just because something is delayed doesn't mean it's not going to happen and doesn't mean it's automatically London's fault.

[Citrus-Fruit]

We need Goverment funding but they are resisiting giving it to us. Same with many major projects. Think you need to really know a bit more in depth the amount off things Birmingham and other UK cities have missed out on due to a London centric goverment. Stadium, Casino, Millenium Project etc etc

They've doubled the Olympics price already. How do they expect huge swathes of people to come from all round the UK to watch the bloody games if theres a bottleneck at the UK's transport hub?

They need to cough up a wee bit of money yet its painful for them to even do that.

[nick_taylor]

We need Goverment funding but they are resisiting giving it to us. Same with many major projects. Think you need to really know a bit more in depth the amount off things Birmingham and other UK cities have missed out on due to a London centric goverment. Stadium, Casino, Millenium Project etc etc

They've doubled the Olympics price already. How do they expect huge swathes of people to come from all round the UK to watch the bloody games if theres a bottleneck at the UK's transport hub?

They need to cough up a wee bit of money yet its painful for them to even do that.Let me dispell these myths.

1 - Central Government isn't London-centric, if it was, London wouldn't have to wait far longer than other cities for major developments like Crossrail or Thameslink.

2 - London and the south subsidises the north to the tune of several £bn each year (LCoC), despite London having the poorest wards in the entire country.

3 - London and its metro alone contains one third of the UK population. It also has the highest density of any other area in the UK (ie catchment area) and the fastest growing population centres in the UK.

The fact is, Wembley has a far greater catchment for national sports (be it domestic and international) than any other site in the UK, the same goes for Twickenham and as to why London is the only city in the UK capable of hosting the Olympics: communications, connections and catchment - the 3 C's.

While Birmingham New Street is indeed a mess (I was up in Birmingham the last week and used it on a daily basis), it is by far and away not as severe a problem as at some London Underground stations which are far busier and dangerous due to overcrowding. New Street does however need a complete re-fit. Ideally, building tall mixed-use skyscrapers (easily 200m) on the two 'open-air' outlets at either end, and several slightly smaller 150m+ towers on the surrounding plots would by far provide enough income to re-build the entire station and kicking out the Pallasades tumour.

The main problem though with New Street though is that because of the bottlenecks at the tunnels that enter from the various directions. Two ways around this would be to re-model the entire layout of platforms and the other is completely new tunnels - I'd opt for both - build straighter platforms with a few more terminating platforms, and platforms that actually disperse more (ie more like a balloon from the London end).

The Cross City Line and Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford Lines are priorities for new tunnels built under Central Birmingham. Taking away these commuter lines from the current New Street platforms means you open up far greater capacity at New Street. It could also mean that older dis-used lines could be brought back into action that feed through this new underground station below the current New Street that would see high frequencies.

I'd also consider putting the Nottingham-Hereford Line and Nottingham-Cardiff Lines into tunnels as well, and combine with the same underground interchange at New Street as illustrated above. Would it cost a lot? Yes it would and probably won't get built, but it would be far more flexible for WCML services, make New Street more accessible and ensure that more people opt out from the car and go on the train......That or the new station at Eastside.

Understand that most Londoners and Southerners understand the difficulties that some northern cities are going through - London isn't exactly paved with gold either, so the only way to get these things done is to actively work together and campaign for Central Government to actually provide the funding - Birmingham or London, or elsewhere. Arguing that another city is taking too much money or not giving enough simply won't cut it and will do nothing but delay the enactment of funding bills.

[nick_taylor]

Birmingham Past and Present Heavy Rail Network

http://img326.imageshack.us/img326/3237/birminghamrailwaynetworli4.jpg

[Marre]

Just some side issues raised here:

1) this whole 'subsidising' the north malarky

Government policy over recent decades have enabled London and the South East to grow economically whilst the rest of the country has slipped backwards. Being 'subsidised' by the South is the least the rest of the UK is entitled to because of this.

2) New National Stadium

No way should it have been built again at Wembley, it's done so purely because of historical reasons which is not good enough. Because of the location the price has more then tripled. It could have been built near Birmingham for a much lesser price and been more accessible to the rest of the country.

Wembley itself is a nightmare and it's extremley woeful transport infrastructure simply will not cope with matchday traffic. It almost gridlocked when we were leaving a Bruce Springsteen concert at the Arena and that was for about 10,000 people. Imagine the chaos when 90,000 want to get in and out!

1 - Central Government isn't London-centric, if it was, London wouldn't have to wait far longer than other cities for major developments like Crossrail or Thameslink.

Sorry, I wasn't aware any other cities are going to have a 'Thameslink' or a 'Crossrail' of their own.

Anyway getting to the main issue, the problem is not that London hogs all the money. It's that the Government doesn't invest nearly enough of the treasuries coffers in the UK's entire transport infrastructure (and that includes London aswell).

The amount of money the Government steal's....sorry taxes from it's residents should be enough to deliver both a 1st class railway and motorway network that meets all of the UK's needs.

But alas it just isn't forthcoming, we get more and more taxed and yet our railways and roads get worse and worse - strange pattern there.

And as for the Birmingham New Street development - doesn't deliver anything other then a pretty new concourse really. The Birmingham Grand Central plan is so much better.

[nick_taylor]

Just some side issues raised here:

1) this whole 'subsidising' the north malarky

Government policy over recent decades have enabled London and the South East to grow economically whilst the rest of the country has slipped backwards. Being 'subsidised' by the South is the least the rest of the UK is entitled to because of this.

2) New National Stadium

No way should it have been built again at Wembley, it's done so purely because of historical reasons which is not good enough. Because of the location the price has more then tripled. It could have been built near Birmingham for a much lesser price and been more accessible to the rest of the country.

Wembley itself is a nightmare and it's extremley woeful transport infrastructure simply will not cope with matchday traffic. It almost gridlocked when we were leaving a Bruce Springsteen concert at the Arena and that was for about 10,000 people. Imagine the chaos when 90,000 want to get in and out!



Sorry, I wasn't aware any other cities are going to have a 'Thameslink' or a 'Crossrail' of their own.

Anyway getting to the main issue, the problem is not that London hogs all the money. It's that the Government doesn't invest nearly enough of the treasuries coffers in the UK's entire transport infrastructure (and that includes London aswell).

The amount of money the Government steal's....sorry taxes from it's residents should be enough to deliver both a 1st class railway and motorway network that meets all of the UK's needs.

But alas it just isn't forthcoming, we get more and more taxed and yet our railways and roads get worse and worse - strange pattern there.

And as for the Birmingham New Street development - doesn't deliver anything other then a pretty new concourse really. The Birmingham Grand Central plan is so much better.What government policies have enabled the South-East and London? Most London projects only go ahead because it funds the majority itself, the DLR is an excellent case in example of how despite it being the only profitable rail service in the UK, it still doesn't get much central government funding! And what about the central government driven PPP - last time I looked, neither Transport for London, the Mayor, the GLA or Londoners were in favour of it - but it was still pushed through. Then you have Crossrail - a project that has been on the tables for 70 years, its been approved at least two times and on both occasions it never got the funding despite the fact it would boost the national economy.

Now you might not like the word 'subsidy', but London contributes around £13bn each year to the regions than it gets back.....London alone could afford to build a brand new Crossrail line and host an Olympics every year with that money.

I also don't believe that the north is entitled to anything - poor leadership, and antiquated unionised populations led to the decline of many industries that could have been saved....the north wouldn't be in the state it is if there had been change decades ago. For instance the British car industry would still be viable today had unions not strangled management and governments into a corner over pay and conditions. Instead of investing in new technology and more efficient production lines, money was wasted on helping prop up jobs that weren't needed. The result was that eventually they fell into a cycle of decline. Quite simply, the northern cities helped people in the short-term, but neglected their long-term ambitions.

Considering that the vast majority of funding was from private sources, I don't really see a problem with Wembley. There will be no heavy burden on the public but there will be on the likes of Multiplex and the German banks that financed it. Also it would be more likely that had Wembley been built in Birmingham, it would have cost the public far more....for a start where do you build it? Out by the NEC....right, there's noway Birmingham International Station could handle 90,000 people, so most people would drive meaning the area would be an even big traffic jam than it is at the moment! Wembley in comparison has 3 stations serving it with multiple high-frequency lines, its connections to the international market are also far higher with 5 international airports. I've been to several matches at the old Wembley and it is indeed a hairy exit, but all the stations have been completely re-built to cater to the higher demand.

Also one third of the UK population reside in the London metro, take out Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and you have close to half the population of England living in or around London. Factor in that London and the south-east has the highest population growth rate and its foreseeable that well over half the population of England will be living in and around London in the not too distant future.

Thameslink 2000....was meant to be completed for the year 2000....its 2006, funding won't be announced until summer 2007 (so it could end up not getting it) and then if it does get funding, it won't be complete until 2013 at the earliest.

Crossrail has been in the works for 70 years, its been proposed 4 times over that period and there isn't a guarantee that it will get funding. Crossrail is expected to have a beginning operation of something 500,000 users a day - thats more users than the entire rail network outside London and its commuter railway network. If the regional cities were far denser then you could bet that they would get the same projects.

Yet the main reason London needs these improvements is simple: its a far denser urban environment that is focused more around public transport. The northern cities simply don't have the catchment areas to sustain a Crossrail like project because the population is distributed poorly. This is down to the failure of northern city councillors over the last few decades and only now is it being fixed in the likes of Liverpool, Leeds and Manchester (Birmingham is doing less of it)....but there will need to be decades of higher density developments to ensure that the northern cities can attain such projects.

Actually we tend to get what we pay for. France and Germany have better transport networks simply because they pay more for it and use it. In Britain, most people have the belief that the car is the only way forward because for decades a suburban environment has been put before them and accepted by planners. London is already the most densely populated city in Britain, but even that pales in comparison to the likes of Paris and other European cities.

Compare Birmingham and Marseilles and you see why the transport network is better: increase density to create a more viable public transport network...its as simple as that.

Indeed, I've gone over the Arup plan many a-time in the SSC UK & Ireland New Street thread...problem is though it wouldn't get built because NIMBY's and those high up in Birmingham would probably see it as too much of a change. I even once put forward my own plan of a re-designed Birmingham New Street which would essentially be a complete re-build, with the original station recreated (ie vaulted roof), with more platforms built to the south and north giving the impression of a fan.

[Waterways]

What government policies have enabled the South-East and London? Most London projects only go ahead because it funds the majority itself,


You are deluded. How much government money is going towards the Olympics? Crossrail? How much government money is going towards Liverpool and the 2008 European capital of Culture? Zero.


Now you might not like the word 'subsidy', but London contributes around £13bn each year to the regions than it gets back.....London alone could afford to build a brand new Crossrail line and host an Olympics every year with that money.


The UK is the most centralised country in the western world - government, financial and media are all peeing in the same pot. Germany splits financial and government, so does the USA, Australia, etc. The capital is in the wrong place, in the bottom right hand corner.

Over the past 100 years London and the south east has done everything it can to base everything there - the power is there and financial aspect too.

For 40 years the world's two largest liners were owned by a Liverpool company and had Liverpool on the sterns - not once did they sail up the Mersey. Strange eh? Liverpool being the largest port in the world at one time too. A government mail contract said they must use southern ports. Yes, true. Everything being pushed south. Most of HM Customs was in Liverpool. The Customs House (looked like St. Pauls) was fire bombed in WW2. Instead of renovating, they demolished this wonderful building and moved operations to London. Bit by bit London did this. Many other cities can tell similar tales.

The country was raped to the benefit of London and south east. Under Thatcher local authorities were reduced to being responsible for collecting the garbage.

The port of Hamburg is a city state and wealthy city too. Similar to Liverpool in many respects. If Liverpool has been made a city state after WW2 it too would be one of Europe's richest cities, instead of being bled and downtrodden by London. Notice how the port Felixstowe received government tempters - a fishing port 40 years ago to now a large port. Felixstowe is in the south. BTW, Liverpool for a long time was the worlds second richest city and was rivalling London at one stage. To the southern based power establishment that was a no. no. After all Liverpool was city that ignored London - the Confederate Navy in the American Civil war was based in Liverpool. Liverpool supplied the southern rebels with supplies, ships and crews against London orders. London seized some ships bound for the south being made at Lairds shipyard. The London government gave compensation to the USA after the war because of Liverpools "aid".

The naïve south of England regarded Liverpool as a bunch of Irish and prone to rebellion. Which is untrue as most people are not of Irish decent with more Welsh than Irish. Most are of English decent, with a mixed population over the past 150 years.


I also don't believe that the north is entitled to anything - poor leadership, and antiquated unionised populations led to the decline of many industries that could have been saved.


You have been reading the Daily Mail - and worse believing it.


...the north wouldn't be in the state it is if there had been change decades ago. For instance the British car industry would still be viable today had unions


Yes, you are indoctrinated by the Daily Mail. The country slid under because of an idiot called Mrs Thatcher, who squandered the greatest legacy we had, North Sea Oil. She spent it on unemployment payments instead of investment in education, training and assisting industry in transition.


Also it would be more likely that had Wembley been built in Birmingham, it would have cost the public far more....for a start where do you build it?


The worst place for a national stadium is London. Full of cars and traffic and in the bottom right hand corner of the country. A daft idea.


Also one third of the UK population reside in the London metro, take out Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and you have close to half the population of England living in or around London.


About 1/3 don't like living there as well. They hate it. Economics forced many into that cess pit. Because the country is over centralised. Look at the road system. It was cetralised on a city I the wrong place.


Factor in that London and the south-east has the highest population growth rate and its foreseeable that well over half the population of England will be living in and around London in the not too distant future.


That should reversed ASAP by de-centralising.


Yet the main reason London needs these improvements is simple: its a far denser urban environment that is focused more around public transport. The northern cities simply don't have the catchment areas to sustain a Crossrail like project because the population is distributed poorly.


"distributed poorly"? The south east has 7.1 % of the land settled, while the north west over 9%. The Home counties are under populated - Kate Barker.


This is down to the failure of northern city councillors over the last few decades and only now is it being fixed in the likes of Liverpool, Leeds and Manchester (Birmingham is doing less of it)....but there will need to be decades of higher density developments to ensure that the northern cities can attain such projects.


Since Blair released some of the London ropes, have the cities got some control over their own affairs. Whitehall stopped a 51 floor tower in Liverpool. Imagine that happening in Germany. Never.


London is already the most densely populated city in Britain, but even that pales in comparison to the likes of Paris and other European cities.


No, Portmouth is. London second then Liverpool. Barcelona, Paris and Athens are way above everything else. See Kate Barkers final report released this week.

[Waterways]

In 1962 Alistair Burnett wrote an article in the Economist about moving the seat of government out of London to the north of England. In the past few years Prospect magazine again took up the idea and mentioned Liverpool as the ideal location. Again, in the past few years a Welsh MP motioned a Parliamentary debate on moving the capital to Liverpool. Many economists and political journalist also favour Liverpool; as one said it is the centre of the UK. None of these initiates came from Liverpool or Liverpool people.

Many have gone on about regeneration, alleviating London’s housing and house prices etc, which all makes sense. But the prime point which tends to get overlooked, is that the UK is falling apart. Southern Ireland has already seceded from the UK, just under half in Northern Ireland don't want to be in the UK and took to violence to attempt to get out, Welsh and Scottish independence parties are strong, and there is still a sharp north-south divide in England with each side not liking or trusting each other too well. Having the capital in the wrong place certainly did not help. And having Whitehall mandarins, who on the whole are private school/Oxbridge/Southern England/jobs for the boys types, not moving out of the South East too much, and at times ignorant of other regions in many aspects and then dictating to the regions, does not help either. Having the capital in the centre of the UK, instead of in the bottom right hand corner will certainly make matters better all around and just geographically.

Liverpool is on the right side of the country for Northern Ireland so they are happy, a hop from Wales so the Welsh are happy, easy to get to from the South West, Midlands, North East, Scotland and the South East. Also Liverpool is still in England. It is the ideal choice of location, and has the entire transport and communications infrastructure in place. It has a water frontage which is far more appealing than what inland UK cities can offer. It all falls into place.

The relationship of UK politicians and the London City financial institutions is far too cosy. In most other countries they separate the seat of government from the financial, sector to great success: USA with Washington & NY, Germany with Berlin and Frankfurt, Italy with Rome and Milan, etc. The UK is probably the most centralised country in the western world. Franco attempted to centralise everything in Madrid so he could have control, but even he couldn’t fully do it with big Barcelona not having any of it. The UK had no equivalent of a Barcelona to oppose London, only the newly created Welsh and Scottish Parliaments.

The regeneration aspect of Liverpool and the North West, if the capital went to Liverpool is very welcome and it will obviously spread out the wealth of the country rather than concentrating on the South East of England. But the political aspect is far more important in the long term.

It is clear that there is a lot of support to move the seat of government out of London.

[nick_taylor]

You are deluded. How much government money is going towards the Olympics? Crossrail? How much government money is going towards Liverpool and the 2008 European capital of Culture? Zero.

The UK is the most centralised country in the western world - government, financial and media are all peeing in the same pot. Germany splits financial and government, so does the USA, Australia, etc. The capital is in the wrong place, in the bottom right hand corner.

Over the past 100 years London and the south east has done everything it can to base everything there - the power is there and financial aspect too.

For 40 years the world's two largest liners were owned by a Liverpool company and had Liverpool on the sterns - not once did they sail up the Mersey. Strange eh? Liverpool being the largest port in the world at one time too. A government mail contract said they must use southern ports. Yes, true. Everything being pushed south. Most of HM Customs was in Liverpool. The Customs House (looked like St. Pauls) was fire bombed in WW2. Instead of renovating, they demolished this wonderful building and moved operations to London. Bit by bit London did this. Many other cities can tell similar tales.

The country was raped to the benefit of London and south east. Under Thatcher local authorities were reduced to being responsible for collecting the garbage.

The port of Hamburg is a city state and wealthy city too. Similar to Liverpool in many respects. If Liverpool has been made a city state after WW2 it too would be one of Europe's richest cities, instead of being bled and downtrodden by London. Notice how the port Felixstowe received government tempters - a fishing port 40 years ago to now a large port. Felixstowe is in the south. BTW, Liverpool for a long time was the worlds second richest city and was rivalling London at one stage. To the southern based power establishment that was a no. no. After all Liverpool was city that ignored London - the Confederate Navy in the American Civil war was based in Liverpool. Liverpool supplied the southern rebels with supplies, ships and crews against London orders. London seized some ships bound for the south being made at Lairds shipyard. The London government gave compensation to the USA after the war because of Liverpools "aid".

The naïve south of England regarded Liverpool as a bunch of Irish and prone to rebellion. Which is untrue as most people are not of Irish decent with more Welsh than Irish. Most are of English decent, with a mixed population over the past 150 years.

You have been reading the Daily Mail - and worse believing it.

Yes, you are indoctrinated by the Daily Mail. The country slid under because of an idiot called Mrs Thatcher, who squandered the greatest legacy we had, North Sea Oil. She spent it on unemployment payments instead of investment in education, training and assisting industry in transition.

The worst place for a national stadium is London. Full of cars and traffic and in the bottom right hand corner of the country. A daft idea.

About 1/3 don't like living there as well. They hate it. Economics forced many into that cess pit. Because the country is over centralised. Look at the road system. It was cetralised on a city I the wrong place.

That should reversed ASAP by de-centralising.

"distributed poorly"? The south east has 7.1 % of the land settled, while the north west over 9%. The Home counties are under populated - Kate Barker.

Since Blair released some of the London ropes, have the cities got some control over their own affairs. Whitehall stopped a 51 floor tower in Liverpool. Imagine that happening in Germany. Never.

No, Portmouth is. London second then Liverpool. Barcelona, Paris and Athens are way above everything else. See Kate Barkers final report released this week.Well heres the crunch - London looses £13bn to the north every year in the form of subsidisation. London could easily fund the Olympics within 3 months or Crossrail in 9 months if it didn't have to prop up the likes of Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham, Leeds, etc....

Also most of the mess was Liverpools' own doing - Fourth Grace anybody....that wasn't Whitehall, that was Liverpool.

The UK is the most centralised? Ever looked across the English Channel to a country called France? And what is wrong with having one core centre....last time I looked, Germany has no equal to London because the functions are diffused around the country. Either way I don't see how you can complain....Whitehall jobs have been going north for years and most of the north is already employed in public services unlike the south.

And the same hasn't happened to London? Most back room jobs for government departments are in the north. Get a grip, London hasn't conspired or done anything that hasn't been northern cities own un-doing.

....tell me again exactly how Thatcher benefited
London and the GLC....

Felixstowe makes more economical sense because it is only a slight de-tour for container ships travelling to the major port of Rotterdam. You might like those port functions in Liverpool, but it wouldn't make sense to go up and then back down to Liverpool, when Felixstowe is not only in a more favourable location for container ships but for access to the northern and southern markets because it isn't hemmed in by a city.....look at a map...

London also had a port industry, that went into decline, but you won't see many blaming Felixstowe, so why should it be London and Felixstowe's problem that the same happened in Liverpool?

I'd be more inclined to believe that you read the Daily Mail simply because you can't take it that some of the problems have been of your own making....a true northern response. Perhaps if the south stopped that £13bn, we'd built our Crossrail, we'd host the Olympics and you can go on about your merry little lives.

This 'bottom right hand corner' so happens to also have the highest concentration of people in the country...I mean technically the direct centre of Britain is in a field somewhere...doesn't make it a logical place for running Britain.

Well surely then, why would you need the extra £13bn, when as you say is a "cess pit" and surely needs it to correct the problems!

What does land % settled matter, when population density is far greater in the south.

That's strange, I'd swear that it was Liverpool Council that rejected Brunswick Quay....again accept that it was a Liverpool problem created by NIMBY's in charge of running Liverpool from LIVERPOOL. I also don't recall that many 51 storey towers being approved outside Frankfurt....infact most of Europe!

If you're going to rant, you could at least get a few facts right....
London - 4,761/km²
Portsmouth - 4,711/km²


So hang on, you want to take the seat of government which is in 'one corner' and take it to another by putting it in Liverpool, despite the fact that it is further away from the centre of Britain than London is (ie population wise). And who would pay for this move? London? Could London then get the £bn's it has given to the north over the last few decades in return for this move?

[Waterways]

Well heres the crunch - London looses £13bn to the north every year in the form of subsidisation.


London over the past 100 years have made sure the wealth is in the south east. This is not subsidy at all. It is what is owed.


London could easily fund the Olympics within 3 months or Crossrail in 9 months


Nonsense. Most of the place is a slum, apart from a few areas and the central tourist part. They can't even get rid of the slums.


Also most of the mess was Liverpools' own doing


Total tripe. The city was raped, as was others. More so Liverpool as it was different and full commercial city while the others were manufacturing cities.


- Fourth Grace anybody....that wasn't Whitehall, that was Liverpool.


Mann Island replaces it. Have a look on the Liverpool thread.


The UK is the most centralised? Ever looked across the English Channel to a country called France?


Nope.


And what is wrong with having one core centre.


You get what we have today, with all the wealth and power being purposely taken to the centre.


...last time I looked, Germany has no equal to London because the functions are diffused around the country.


A great thing.


Either way I don't see how you can complain....Whitehall jobs have been going north for years and most of the north is already employed in public services unlike the south.


Whitehall job going north? Few my man.


And the same hasn't happened to London? Most back room jobs for government departments are in the north. Get a grip, London hasn't conspired or done anything that hasn't been northern cities own un-doing.


Total tripe read other posts.


....tell me again exactly how Thatcher benefited
London and the GLC....


In her reign she centralised most in London Dictators do.


Felixstowe makes more economical sense because it is only a slight de-tour for container ships travelling to the major port of Rotterdam.


In no time since 1973 has trade with Europe exceed trade with the rest of the world. The rest of the world is on the other coast.


You might like those port functions in Liverpool, but it wouldn't make sense to go up and then back down to Liverpool, when Felixstowe is not only in a more favourable location for container ships but for access to the northern and southern markets because it isn't hemmed in by a city.....look at a map...


You clearly haven't a clue and can't read maps. Felixstowe is in the sticks. Away from industrial heartland.


London also had a port industry, that went into decline, but you won't see many blaming Felixstowe, so why should it be London and Felixstowe's problem that the same happened in Liverpool?


London could not take large ships. Liverpool can. Liverpool had a new container terminal that was underused because the British companies were going Felixstowe. Liverpool is expanding and because of Foreign operators wanting to use the port.


I'd be more inclined to believe that you read the Daily Mail simply because you can't take it that some of the problems have been of your own making....a true northern response.


Paper by Geoffrey Howe "Managing the Decline of Liverpool as a Major Metropolitan Area". Hatton an the rest said like hell you will. The city that fought back.


This 'bottom right hand corner' so happens to also have the highest concentration of people in the country.


Only because they centralised matters. Half the people in London would leave tomorrow if they could.


..I mean technically the direct centre of Britain is in a field somewhere...doesn't make it a logical place for running Britain.


It does. Madrid was put in the direct centre of Spain.


Well surely then, why would you need the extra £13bn, when as you say is a "cess pit" and surely needs it to correct the problems!


Give power back to the cities and regions, get the government out of the place, and you can keep your money.


What does land % settled matter, when population density is far greater in the south.


You can't figure that out.


That's strange, I'd swear that it was Liverpool Council that rejected Brunswick Quay....again accept that it was a Liverpool problem created by NIMBY's in charge of running Liverpool from LIVERPOOL.


It went to Whitehall who overrode the chief planner.


If you're going to rant, you could at least get a few facts right....
London - 4,761/km²
Portsmouth - 4,711/km²


Read Kate Barker - bang up to date.


So hang on, you want to take the seat of government which is in 'one corner' and take it to another by putting it in Liverpool, despite the fact that it is further away from the centre of Britain than London is (ie population wise).


The bulk of the population is grouped between Liverpool/Manchester - Leeds/Sheffield - Birmingham.

Liverpool is central to the UK. Move government and half the population of London will go home and vacate the cess pit.

"Liverpool would of course be the favoured location for such a move", says Lord Hoffman.

[pricemazda]

Hate to break it to you, but 60% of the UK's trade is with Europe.

[Marre]

What government policies have enabled the South-East and London? Most London projects only go ahead because it funds the majority itself, the DLR is an excellent case in example of how despite it being the only profitable rail service in the UK, it still doesn't get much central government funding!

Surely if it's a profitable service it therefore doesn't need central government funding?

And what about the central government driven PPP - last time I looked, neither Transport for London, the Mayor, the GLA or Londoners were in favour of it - but it was still pushed through.

Central Government making decisions against the will of the populace......welcome to our world!

Oh and you should at least be thankful you can even get PPP.

Then you have Crossrail - a project that has been on the tables for 70 years, its been approved at least two times and on both occasions it never got the funding despite the fact it would boost the national economy.

Again that's not a unique problem, the North East has been struggling for a long time just to get the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh (a major national turnk road) fully dualled.

Now you might not like the word 'subsidy', but London contributes around £13bn each year to the regions than it gets back.....London alone could afford to build a brand new Crossrail line and host an Olympics every year with that money.

Like I said there is a reason for that and it's fully justified.

I also don't believe that the north is entitled to anything - poor leadership, and antiquated unionised populations led to the decline of many industries that could have been saved....the north wouldn't be in the state it is if there had been change decades ago. For instance the British car industry would still be viable today had unions not strangled management and governments into a corner over pay and conditions. Instead of investing in new technology and more efficient production lines, money was wasted on helping prop up jobs that weren't needed. The result was that eventually they fell into a cycle of decline. Quite simply, the northern cities helped people in the short-term, but neglected their long-term ambitions.

So basically you think no money should leave London based central government to filter out to the rest of the UK?

I won't argue about mismanagement but that's no excuse for keeping the UK centralised on just the South East.

Considering that the vast majority of funding was from private sources, I don't really see a problem with Wembley. There will be no heavy burden on the public but there will be on the likes of Multiplex and the German banks that financed it. Also it would be more likely that had Wembley been built in Birmingham, it would have cost the public far more....for a start where do you build it? Out by the NEC....right, there's noway Birmingham International Station could handle 90,000 people, so most people would drive meaning the area would be an even big traffic jam than it is at the moment! Wembley in comparison has 3 stations serving it with multiple high-frequency lines, its connections to the international market are also far higher with 5 international airports. I've been to several matches at the old Wembley and it is indeed a hairy exit, but all the stations have been completely re-built to cater to the higher demand.

There is a huge problem with the funding for Wembley. Much of the money for it has came from the football foundation.....an organisation who give grants to grassroots football clubs to develop facilities/coaching/etc.

Wembley has been such a massive drain on scant resources that many potentially benefitial projects at grass roots level have been knocked back. Including the proposed national football academy which was to be built near Burton to rival France's Claremont-Ferrand football centre.

Still, we get a nice shiny new stadium at least.......just a shame we can't produce the footballers needed to grace it!

As for transport, Birmingham International is accessible by mainline railway and motorways. Good thing about that area is that the transport infrastructure can be upgraded with little fuss.

Wembley doesn't even have proper motorway access and it's local roads will completley grid lock under the strain.

Also one third of the UK population reside in the London metro, take out Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and you have close to half the population of England living in or around London. Factor in that London and the south-east has the highest population growth rate and its foreseeable that well over half the population of England will be living in and around London in the not too distant future.

You've just highlighted a major problem there.

Thameslink 2000....was meant to be completed for the year 2000....its 2006, funding won't be announced until summer 2007 (so it could end up not getting it) and then if it does get funding, it won't be complete until 2013 at the earliest.

Crossrail has been in the works for 70 years, its been proposed 4 times over that period and there isn't a guarantee that it will get funding. Crossrail is expected to have a beginning operation of something 500,000 users a day - thats more users than the entire rail network outside London and its commuter railway network. If the regional cities were far denser then you could bet that they would get the same projects.

And you've just highlighted a solution aswell, good call.

Yet the main reason London needs these improvements is simple: its a far denser urban environment that is focused more around public transport. The northern cities simply don't have the catchment areas to sustain a Crossrail like project because the population is distributed poorly. This is down to the failure of northern city councillors over the last few decades and only now is it being fixed in the likes of Liverpool, Leeds and Manchester (Birmingham is doing less of it)....but there will need to be decades of higher density developments to ensure that the northern cities can attain such projects.

What could powerless Northern cities do to reverse the concentration of resources in the South East?

You can't fight against central government will and it is a relative fact that central government has been keen to concentrate on the south east and just chuck relative scraps the way of the rest of the UK.

Actually we tend to get what we pay for. France and Germany have better transport networks simply because they pay more for it and use it. In Britain, most people have the belief that the car is the only way forward because for decades a suburban environment has been put before them and accepted by planners. London is already the most densely populated city in Britain, but even that pales in comparison to the likes of Paris and other European cities.

They've applied a simple workable solution.

Constant steady investment, no political interference and leaving the decisions to the people who know what they're doing.

Compare Birmingham and Marseilles and you see why the transport network is better: increase density to create a more viable public transport network...its as simple as that.

Could Birmingham be any more denser?

Indeed, I've gone over the Arup plan many a-time in the SSC UK & Ireland New Street thread...problem is though it wouldn't get built because NIMBY's and those high up in Birmingham would probably see it as too much of a change. I even once put forward my own plan of a re-designed Birmingham New Street which would essentially be a complete re-build, with the original station recreated (ie vaulted roof), with more platforms built to the south and north giving the impression of a fan.

The only reason why Arup's plan would be knocked back is a lack of funding and long term thinking I suspect.

The UK is the most centralised? Ever looked across the English Channel to a country called France? And what is wrong with having one core centre....last time I looked, Germany has no equal to London because the functions are diffused around the country. Either way I don't see how you can complain....Whitehall jobs have been going north for years and most of the north is already employed in public services unlike the south.

Is it a coincidence that Europes strongest economy (Germany) is also one of the most de-centralised?

I think not, each major city in Germany plays it's part just like cities in the UK could do aswell.

I'd be more inclined to believe that you read the Daily Mail simply because you can't take it that some of the problems have been of your own making....a true northern response. Perhaps if the south stopped that £13bn, we'd built our Crossrail, we'd host the Olympics and you can go on about your merry little lives.

Please feel free to stop 'subsidising' us so long as London gives the rest of the UK the power it needs. If we were able to be left alone by London I'm pretty sure the rest of the UK would benefit a whole lot more.

But an example of London Government not wanting this was the recent North East Regional Assembley. All that was on offer was an expensive glorified talking shop with no real powers (seems central government wanted to keep those).

Looking at that map of the six former UK states that would be the best way to go. Six regional governments making the important issues and a minimal central government for joined up national issues.

I'm not anti-London, I'm just very in favour of the rest of the UK being on a level playing field. We don't need 'subsidies' and 'favours', we just need the ability to make our own decisions. We don't need to take jobs form London......we could very well create new jobs therefore further strengthening the UK economy and putting less pressure on the South East which at the end of the day is benefitial to everyone surely?

A recent suggestion was for the 'Northern Way' cities (Liverpool, Stoke, Manchester, Preston, Leeds, Bradford, York, Kingston-upon-Hull, Sheffield, Lincoln, Sunderland, Carlisle & Newcastle-upon-Tyne) to be able to operate as one economic zone (like the Ranstand in the Netherlands).

Hate to break it to you, but 60% of the UK's trade is with Europe.

How does that split for imports and exports?

Can I ask how do you mean by European Unification exactly?

A supporter of the EU or a United European nation?

[Waterways]

Hate to break it to you, but 60% of the UK's trade is with Europe.

"Hard" trade that uses actual goods through ports? No. Banking, insurance & services don't use ports.

[nick_taylor]

London over the past 100 years have made sure the wealth is in the south east. This is not subsidy at all. It is what is owed.

Nonsense. Most of the place is a slum, apart from a few areas and the central tourist part. They can't even get rid of the slums.

Total tripe. The city was raped, as was others. More so Liverpool as it was different and full commercial city while the others were manufacturing cities.

Mann Island replaces it. Have a look on the Liverpool thread.

Nope.

You get what we have today, with all the wealth and power being purposely taken to the centre.

A great thing.

Whitehall job going north? Few my man.

Total tripe read other posts.

In her reign she centralised most in London Dictators do.

In no time since 1973 has trade with Europe exceed trade with the rest of the world. The rest of the world is on the other coast.

You clearly haven't a clue and can't read maps. Felixstowe is in the sticks. Away from industrial heartland.

London could not take large ships. Liverpool can. Liverpool had a new container terminal that was underused because the British companies were going Felixstowe. Liverpool is expanding and because of Foreign operators wanting to use the port.

Paper by Geoffrey Howe "Managing the Decline of Liverpool as a Major Metropolitan Area". Hatton an the rest said like hell you will. The city that fought back.

Only because they centralised matters. Half the people in London would leave tomorrow if they could.

It does. Madrid was put in the direct centre of Spain.

Give power back to the cities and regions, get the government out of the place, and you can keep your money.

You can't figure that out.

It went to Whitehall who overrode the chief planner.

Read Kate Barker - bang up to date.

The bulk of the population is grouped between Liverpool/Manchester - Leeds/Sheffield - Birmingham.

Liverpool is central to the UK. Move government and half the population of London will go home and vacate the cess pit.

"Liverpool would of course be the favoured location for such a move", says Lord Hoffman.And how exactly has London ensured that it has remained dominant? Market forces have tended to go against you on this. There is a reason why the Romans concentrated in the south and avoided the north....

Yet hang on, how is what "you" are owed, when you also in the same post proclaim London and the south to be a cess pit?

Slums...........

The Fourth Grace was still a Liverpool fiasco, nothing connected to Whitehall whatsoever, how it could be interpreted otherwise is peculiar. Liverpool planners and councillors are from Liverpool, not London.

London dictators...........

Brown has made it clear that Whitehall staff are to be slashed. For example back in 2004, 40,000 Whitehall jobs were lost from London. I don't see that as favourable for London....

I don't think you understand, its not to do with what area is closer to the world, its what is more viable for the large container ships that make a port of call at Rotterdam and then go to Felixstowe (or vice versa). They aren't going to take a scenic tour of Britain to just pop into Liverpool to make you feel good, before going back around to Rotterdam. If anything, it is Liverpools' problem for its poor geographical position in relation to the major continental European ports. Felixstowe arose to serve as the next port of call en-route to or from the major European ports.

Actually Felixstowe has an excellent location - not only does it access the English Channel route of the major continental Europe-bound container ships, but it is located to the north of London and south of Birmingham and specifically along the M6/A14 axis which is essentially at the core of the English population, hence why the area generally has the largest number of depots and large warehouses in the UK. Liverpool doesn't offer that catchment area, never mind the cost of container craft going on a detour around Britain, only for the majority of goods to go south again.

London could take large ships, but simply put it wasn't economical enough to have ships sail into the Thames Estuary when they could stop off in deeper waters around the South East which provided easier access.

Madrid is a city that has existed since the 9th century...nobody placed it there, it grew like most other unplanned old cities and developed its networks as it continued to grow. The fact is, there are a whole swathe of countries out there which have centralised economies, France and Japana are easily comparable...yet I don't see the point of giving Liverpool say the national government when it can't even sort itself out with the Fourth Grace.

The bulk of the population is NOT concentrated between Liverpool/Manchester - Leeds/Sheffield - Birmingham. The combined population of those areas is closer to 11mn....to get a larger population figure than London and its metro of 18mn+, you'd need to combine the North West, East Midlands, West Midlands and Yorkshire & Humber to get a population of 21.2mn spread over an area over 4x in size. That isn't concentration: that sparse area.

Factor in that the highest growth rates are in London (London the city itself is growing by the population of Leeds every 10 years) and the south and that it has the highest concentration of population anywhere in the UK.

Liverpool is no way near to being close to the centre of this country, Birmingham would have more legitimacy to that role, but even then it would be pointless because the cost would be simply too much. Germany is still paying the cost of relocating the capital after reunification; infact Berlin is near declaring bankruptcy because of the situation....do you want Liverpool to bottom out once again?

But surely how is the north going to survive without £16bn extra each and every year (and increasing)? Having government located in the north won't do anything to stop that - infact the last thing the north needs is MORE public jobs! What it does need is for the north to back up its ideas, take a more international view on things instead of thinking back to coal mines and car manufacturing, invest in itself, pest government to get things in order, vote, etc.... Quite simply accusing London for your mistakes is not the way forward. I'd bet you'd cringe at the thought that they'd have to close down Merseyrail, close all the Liverpool NHS hospitals, etc... if that £16bn stopped flowing north. And you couldn't get annoyed, because it is what you would want!

Brunswick Quay's failure is nothing to do with London. First of all it was located in the wrong place - far off from the main cluster: the Beetham cluster would have been a far more appropiate site. Brunswick Quay was afterall not meant to be a sort of multi-towered Canary Wharf, but a lone solitary one which messed the skyline up a bit. Secondly it was rejected by Liverpool itself, before it went to appeal. The same has happened to London, but we don't blame Liverpool or other cities for what happens in the planning department. To top it off Ruth Kelly is not a southener - she was from Northern Ireland, and has a Manchester constituency.

Next time you want to preach, you could at least do so without a 'Lostboy' jaundiced view on the world.








Surely if it's a profitable service it therefore doesn't need central government funding?

Central Government making decisions against the will of the populace......welcome to our world!

Oh and you should at least be thankful you can even get PPP.

Again that's not a unique problem, the North East has been struggling for a long time just to get the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh (a major national turnk road) fully dualled.

Like I said there is a reason for that and it's fully justified.

So basically you think no money should leave London based central government to filter out to the rest of the UK?

I won't argue about mismanagement but that's no excuse for keeping the UK centralised on just the South East.

There is a huge problem with the funding for Wembley. Much of the money for it has came from the football foundation.....an organisation who give grants to grassroots football clubs to develop facilities/coaching/etc.

Wembley has been such a massive drain on scant resources that many potentially benefitial projects at grass roots level have been knocked back. Including the proposed national football academy which was to be built near Burton to rival France's Claremont-Ferrand football centre.

Still, we get a nice shiny new stadium at least.......just a shame we can't produce the footballers needed to grace it!

As for transport, Birmingham International is accessible by mainline railway and motorways. Good thing about that area is that the transport infrastructure can be upgraded with little fuss.

Wembley doesn't even have proper motorway access and it's local roads will completley grid lock under the strain.

You've just highlighted a major problem there.

And you've just highlighted a solution aswell, good call.

What could powerless Northern cities do to reverse the concentration of resources in the South East?

You can't fight against central government will and it is a relative fact that central government has been keen to concentrate on the south east and just chuck relative scraps the way of the rest of the UK.

They've applied a simple workable solution.

Constant steady investment, no political interference and leaving the decisions to the people who know what they're doing.

Could Birmingham be any more denser?

The only reason why Arup's plan would be knocked back is a lack of funding and long term thinking I suspect.

Is it a coincidence that Europes strongest economy (Germany) is also one of the most de-centralised?

I think not, each major city in Germany plays it's part just like cities in the UK could do aswell.

Please feel free to stop 'subsidising' us so long as London gives the rest of the UK the power it needs. If we were able to be left alone by London I'm pretty sure the rest of the UK would benefit a whole lot more.

But an example of London Government not wanting this was the recent North East Regional Assembley. All that was on offer was an expensive glorified talking shop with no real powers (seems central government wanted to keep those).

Looking at that map of the six former UK states that would be the best way to go. Six regional governments making the important issues and a minimal central government for joined up national issues.

I'm not anti-London, I'm just very in favour of the rest of the UK being on a level playing field. We don't need 'subsidies' and 'favours', we just need the ability to make our own decisions. We don't need to take jobs form London......we could very well create new jobs therefore further strengthening the UK economy and putting less pressure on the South East which at the end of the day is benefitial to everyone surely?

A recent suggestion was for the 'Northern Way' cities (Liverpool, Stoke, Manchester, Preston, Leeds, Bradford, York, Kingston-upon-Hull, Sheffield, Lincoln, Sunderland, Carlisle & Newcastle-upon-Tyne) to be able to operate as one economic zone (like the Ranstand in the Netherlands).

How does that split for imports and exports?

Can I ask how do you mean by European Unification exactly?

A supporter of the EU or a United European nation?There is a difference between being profitable and being able to fund all future developments. The DLR for example doesn't make a profit to solely fund the £150mn Woolwich Arsenal Extension....but because it is profitable it is more able to fund these projects than those which are unprofitable...hence why it expands so quickly because it meets some of the requirements to expand.

Why should we be thankful for PPP? Its wasted some £400mn (that could have been several DLR extension, a new tram network through Central London or dozens of stations given complete face-relifts) on legal fees and the work has been downright scandalous. We have this for 30 years as well and the knock-on effects harm the national economy: NOBODY WINS.

Yet it is illustrative of the fact that London isn't somehow to blame, but central government is. If any region has the most to shout about, its London which looses more money than any other region because it flows into other regions!

Its almost like the guy selling the Big Issue is being abusive to those who buy it.....this gives out the wrong impression and probably has cost the north dearly in foreign and domestic inward investment.

I don't believe that the regions should be allowed to collapse....but I don't believe that the trend for politicians and the general northern populace to blame London and the south for its problems should continue. I also dislike the fact that despite London having the poorest wards in the UK, it actually looses money to other regions and yet London is attacked for this?

Fact is, if central government really was for centralisation, it wouldn't have bothered with devolution, regionalisation, the EU AND London wouldn't loose £13bn each year and would have no problems with projects.

The majority of the funding came from German banks. The FA wasted more money on Sven than Wembley which at least will bring money in (Sven did not).

Birmingham International Station doesn't compare to the four stations that serve Wembley with high frequency services....below are the usage of the four stations in question. Remember that the 4 Wembley station figures exclude matchday events due to the obvious reason of Wembley being out of action and a reduced capacity and event Wembley Arena due to refurbishment.

Wembley Park Station 7.079mn
Wembley Central Station - 2.769mn
Birmingham International Airport - 1.958mn
North Wembley Station - 1.37mn
Wembley Stadium Station - 0.111mn

In other words, Wembley is at the convergence of the Jubilee, Metropolitan and Bakerloo Lines, WCML and Chiltern Mainline....factor in connections to Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton and public transport infrastructure is clearly in favour of the current Wembley.

I've never been by car to Wembley as the trains are far more numerous and efficient.

Yet it isn't a problem, its a reaction to how the market orientates not some sort of conspiracy....if the northern cities banded together, rather than fight against each other and blame London for its results they wouldn't be in the position they are today.

If central government was so keen about the south-east and London, why is it that London and the south has to find a greater amount of private finance to get projects going? Why is it that London and the south is over-ruled on projects like PPP? Why is it that London alone looses £13bn each year to other regions? Why is it that projects are delayed/cancelled.....those aren't signs of a central government concerned with London and the south. Infact the north should be encouraging more London deveopments because that would ultimately lead to the north getting more money!

Birmingham currently has a density of 3,739/km² across an area of 267.77km² with a population of 1mn.

London in comparison has a density of 4,761/km² across an area of 1,579km² with a population of 7.5mn.

The fact is, there needs to be far greater concentration of population to ensure that projects get off the ground. Yet even then as seen with London, this isn't a guarantee.

And that is central government's fault....not Londons' as some would assume that it is.

At current rates, its probable that Britain will have a larger economy than Germany within a few years. Over the last few years, Britain has outperformed Germany despite lack of transport infrastructure as a whole. At per capita rates, Britain is racing ahead of Germany.

There is a big difference; Germany was a country formed from city-states which created the decentralised Germany of today. Britain has never and will never be like this and to assume that we can change without costing the economy dearly, displacing millions and creating social upheaval is idiotic. Britain is more like France and Japan in these respects. Berlin is nearing the point of bankruptcy because it became the capital again....I don't see any benefit to the UK whatsoever when it is increasing regional and city-based power that is needed, not a relocation job.

Why is it London needs to give power to the regions? Last time I looked, the GLA didn't decide the budgets of the regions because that all came down to central government. If people can't see the difference between London and central government, then the regions will never improve.

By most accounts that is exactly where the north has gone wrong; because instead of appealing to central government they have directed their anger at London which only until a few years ago regained its mayor and even then as seen with the PPP, could be over-ruled.

[Marre]

I don't think you understand, its not to do with what area is closer to the world, its what is more viable for the large container ships that make a port of call at Rotterdam and then go to Felixstowe (or vice versa). They aren't going to take a scenic tour of Britain to just pop into Liverpool to make you feel good, before going back around to Rotterdam. If anything, it is Liverpools' problem for its poor geographical position in relation to the major continental European ports. Felixstowe arose to serve as the next port of call en-route to or from the major European ports.

Actually Felixstowe has an excellent location - not only does it access the English Channel route of the major continental Europe-bound container ships, but it is located to the north of London and south of Birmingham and specifically along the M6/A14 axis which is essentially at the core of the English population, hence why the area generally has the largest number of depots and large warehouses in the UK. Liverpool doesn't offer that catchment area, never mind the cost of container craft going on a detour around Britain, only for the majority of goods to go south again.

London could take large ships, but simply put it wasn't economical enough to have ships sail into the Thames Estuary when they could stop off in deeper waters around the South East which provided easier access.

In all honestly Felixstowe is well placed for many of Britains shipping operations. It's in an area where there is not a massive population but is well placed to serve different areas of the UK br road and rail. Plus it's just easier to get to for many ships.

Why should we be thankful for PPP? Its wasted some £400mn (that could have been several DLR extension, a new tram network through Central London or dozens of stations given complete face-relifts) on legal fees and the work has been downright scandalous. We have this for 30 years as well and the knock-on effects harm the national economy: NOBODY WINS.

Not saying it's a good thing, but at least London is able to get such big projects. Having said that the figures just don't work that well on PPP but we've been trying for over a decade now just to get passenger services running on a 35km stretch of track between several large population centres without success.

Yet it is illustrative of the fact that London isn't somehow to blame, but central government is. If any region has the most to shout about, its London which looses more money than any other region because it flows into other regions!

To be fair though many of London's workers are from the regions anyway so the money flowing back seems like a pretty fair deal to me.

Fact is, if central government really was for centralisation, it wouldn't have bothered with devolution, regionalisation, the EU AND London wouldn't loose £13bn each year and would have no problems with projects.

Oh please, the regional assembley on offer to the North East had no real powers. It was going to be nothing more then an expensive talking shop which is why it wasn't voted for. It was just a cheap gesture by the Government to try and keep the 'provinces' onside.

The majority of the funding came from German banks. The FA wasted more money on Sven than Wembley which at least will bring money in (Sven did not).

I can assure you that football foundation money has been redirected form grass roots projects to the Wembley stadium fiasco. All because certain people still hold the idea that we need a national stadium and that it should be in one of the worst places in England.

Birmingham International Station doesn't compare to the four stations that serve Wembley with high frequency services....below are the usage of the four stations in question. Remember that the 4 Wembley station figures exclude matchday events due to the obvious reason of Wembley being out of action and a reduced capacity and event Wembley Arena due to refurbishment.

Wembley Park Station 7.079mn
Wembley Central Station - 2.769mn
Birmingham International Airport - 1.958mn
North Wembley Station - 1.37mn
Wembley Stadium Station - 0.111mn

In other words, Wembley is at the convergence of the Jubilee, Metropolitan and Bakerloo Lines, WCML and Chiltern Mainline....factor in connections to Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton and public transport infrastructure is clearly in favour of the current Wembley.

I've never been by car to Wembley as the trains are far more numerous and efficient.

You've missed my point - that being the Birmingham International transport infrastructure could be expanded by quite a lot (a lot more then what Wembley can achieve). And like it or not, not everybody going to Wembley will be going there by train.

It's all down to historical attitudes that insist on being stuck in the past rather then moving on. The French did it with the Stade de France, why couldn't we do likewise - are we really that stuck in the past?

All the advantages of sticking at Wembley are far outweight by the disadvantages.

Birmingham currently has a density of 3,739/km² across an area of 267.77km² with a population of 1mn.

London in comparison has a density of 4,761/km² across an area of 1,579km² with a population of 7.5mn.

The fact is, there needs to be far greater concentration of population to ensure that projects get off the ground. Yet even then as seen with London, this isn't a guarantee.

And that is central government's fault....not Londons' as some would assume that it is.

Agreed!

Which means the 'regions' have to be able to reverse the flow of population back form London and the South East. Given how expensive London is becoming that could well be very achievable in the future. Looking at population figures ideally we would need those figures to double.

At current rates, its probable that Britain will have a larger economy than Germany within a few years. Over the last few years, Britain has outperformed Germany despite lack of transport infrastructure as a whole. At per capita rates, Britain is racing ahead of Germany.

How much of Britains economy is based on borrowed money?

With a lack of skilled workers and a whole load of borrowing I suspect Britians economy is on shaky ground.

I don't see any benefit to the UK whatsoever when it is increasing regional and city-based power that is needed, not a relocation job.

My argument in another post......give regions/cities power and let them create new jobs. We don't need to have jobs relocated by government.

[nick_taylor]

In all honestly Felixstowe is well placed for many of Britains shipping operations. It's in an area where there is not a massive population but is well placed to serve different areas of the UK br road and rail. Plus it's just easier to get to for many ships.

Not saying it's a good thing, but at least London is able to get such big projects. Having said that the figures just don't work that well on PPP but we've been trying for over a decade now just to get passenger services running on a 35km stretch of track between several large population centres without success.

To be fair though many of London's workers are from the regions anyway so the money flowing back seems like a pretty fair deal to me.

Oh please, the regional assembley on offer to the North East had no real powers. It was going to be nothing more then an expensive talking shop which is why it wasn't voted for. It was just a cheap gesture by the Government to try and keep the 'provinces' onside.

I can assure you that football foundation money has been redirected form grass roots projects to the Wembley stadium fiasco. All because certain people still hold the idea that we need a national stadium and that it should be in one of the worst places in England

You've missed my point - that being the Birmingham International transport infrastructure could be expanded by quite a lot (a lot more then what Wembley can achieve). And like it or not, not everybody going to Wembley will be going there by train.

It's all down to historical attitudes that insist on being stuck in the past rather then moving on. The French did it with the Stade de France, why couldn't we do likewise - are we really that stuck in the past?

All the advantages of sticking at Wembley are far outweight by the disadvantages.

Agreed!

Which means the 'regions' have to be able to reverse the flow of population back form London and the South East. Given how expensive London is becoming that could well be very achievable in the future. Looking at population figures ideally we would need those figures to double.

How much of Britains economy is based on borrowed money?

With a lack of skilled workers and a whole load of borrowing I suspect Britians economy is on shaky ground.

My argument in another post......give regions/cities power and let them create new jobs. We don't need to have jobs relocated by government.PPP wasn't a project, it was a government exercise in the messing of London affairs. The result is that London has less control over the public transport network, could be held to ransom over delays, new infrastructure that might not be appropriate or inefficient actions. £400mn could have been used as the first stage of a brand new national maglev/HSR route.

As a fact, historically the number of people moving south has tended to not be extreme, and this is still apparent today. The reason for the growth of London and the south is mainly down to immigration.

It might have not been the be and all of what was hoped for, but it was a first stage, much like London had to go through. Devolution in the periphery ought to be a clear indicator to this.

And why not a national stadium? Touring around the country might be great, but you won't get anywhere near the capacity of Wembley, the closest stadium is Old Trafford and the transport connections would somehow be better there?

Yet one of the requirements for the new national stadium was to have more people arrive and depart via public transport....how would you be able to achieve that with a new national stadium outside Birmingham International? Everyone would drive there defeating the requirement! Wembley has 4 stations plotted around the site with far higher capacities offering far more services...and that isn't enough?

The Stade de France is the French national stadium...?!?!?

But historically there hasn't been anything like the in-roads of population from the north to the south. Growth came in the form of waves of immigrants over several centuries, French Huguenots, Irish Catholics, European Jews, Afro-Caribbean, Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshi and today new EU member state citizens and others from all over the world....yet very few northerners have tended to move southward.

Yet despite the high prices, people are still moving - the property market is out-doing the regions, while the population continues to grow at record rates. The only way I see the regions changing is if they stop bickering and start acting together with London to act as nodes that get spin off from London. The only city to have done this in my opinion is Leeds (thanks to legal services), which also so happens to be the most dynamic and progressive city that doesn't bicker about London to the extent of other northerners. Leeds should be used as a model for other northern cities.

Yet it is borrowing that is within the economy. It is also a sign of a prosperous economy that has long-term ambitions that everything will be okay. Granted external factors could destabilise this, but consumer and business confidence is what truly drives the economy. This is also the reason for why Germany and France recently went through a bad patch, simply because nobody had confidence that the future would pick up meaning the economy sulked down and Britain surpassed them.

Britain is far more ideally positioned than any other country in Europe bar the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands; considering that they are 'small' countries, that makes Britain more pronounced. The reason is simple: Britain diversified away from manufacturing and other inefficient practices to reflect upon business and financial services. Factor in high-tech research that might not get funding in Europe (financial or ethical reasons) and our knowledge economy (ie our universities) which is by far the most developed in Europe and easily comparable to that of the US. The final nail is protectionist policies which have damaged other European nations productivity to the point that their economies are crippled; as seen by the fact that despite France having a larger and faster growing population is still lagging behind economically. Even the northern cities are seeing a renaissance which is rarely exhibited in other comparable cities in other European nations; the mass of skyscrapers clearly illustrates my point.

Self-governance also requires a higher level of maturity from the north in regards to the south; otherwise even with such powers the north will still linger.

[Marre]

And why not a national stadium? Touring around the country might be great, but you won't get anywhere near the capacity of Wembley, the closest stadium is Old Trafford and the transport connections would somehow be better there?

Yet one of the requirements for the new national stadium was to have more people arrive and depart via public transport....how would you be able to achieve that with a new national stadium outside Birmingham International? Everyone would drive there defeating the requirement! Wembley has 4 stations plotted around the site with far higher capacities offering far more services...and that isn't enough?

Old Trafford now has a capacity of about 75,000 and has plans to expand further. But stadium capacity isn't everything, when the England games are played in different areas it gives so many other people a chance to see them play.

If the national stadium has been built in a more suitable area such as Birmingham International then the cost of the stadium would probably only have been about a quarter of Wembley's price tag. Meaning that there would be plenty of money available to improve the local transport infrastructure.

But who cares about paying well over the odds as long as it's in London right?

The Stade de France is the French national stadium...?!?!?

You've missed my point, I was referring to the fact that the French weren't so stuck like we seemingly are. Rather then spend money on rebuilding Parc de Princes they bit the bullet and realised it was time to move on.

[nick_taylor]

Old Trafford now has a capacity of about 75,000 and has plans to expand further. But stadium capacity isn't everything, when the England games are played in different areas it gives so many other people a chance to see them play.

If the national stadium has been built in a more suitable area such as Birmingham International then the cost of the stadium would probably only have been about a quarter of Wembley's price tag. Meaning that there would be plenty of money available to improve the local transport infrastructure.

But who cares about paying well over the odds as long as it's in London right?

You've missed my point, I was referring to the fact that the French weren't so stuck like we seemingly are. Rather then spend money on rebuilding Parc de Princes they bit the bullet and realised it was time to move on.The problem with Old Trafford isn't just its capacity (Wembley could for example still be a 5* stadium even if it added in 30,000 more seats which is possible), but its location, because the heavy rail station at Old Trafford is only open match days - hardly a multi-modal hub of several stations and railway lines like at Wembley.

The sad truth is that English stadium capacities are not that high and you'd only be able to host games at a few to ensure that you gather enough revenue. Wembley with 90,000 would bring in 2x more than say Villa Park. That is more money that could be used for developing grass-roots football. The new Wembley and all the associated transport improvements also mean that the vast Wembley area will be able to be redeveloped - this too also helps Wembley itself, because it owns most of this land.

And how exactly could you improve Birmingham International? It is really only west to east. If you were coming from the north, you'd have to go through Birmingham New Street - essentially while it might be closer towards the centre in regards to population, its catchment area would be far lower because it would be harder to get too (fewer train services, fewer railway lines and not enough road capacity).

Like I said, the public don't loose any money, its private organisations that messed with the situation and will ultimately pay for it.

A reminder of how far away the Stade de France is from Parc de Princes is:

Arrondissement XVI
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Paris16_map.svg/587px-Paris16_map.svg.png

Arrondissement Saint-Denis
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Saint-Denis_map.svg/587px-Saint-Denis_map.svg.png


They moved from one areas of the Parisian urban area, to another - around 1-2miles possibly. The reason was simple: land area was far more limited meaning that a larger and more advanced stadium could not be built; unlike Wembley. Hence using Paris as an example for pushing for a more central national stadium was flawed.

[Waterways]

And how exactly has London ensured that it has remained dominant?


The government, media and financial aspect are all there - and more.


Market forces have tended to go against you on this.


When the dice loaded against you they do.


There is a reason why the Romans concentrated in the south and avoided the north....


My God!! He is using what happen 2000 years as analogy!!! Wow!


Yet hang on, how is what "you" are owed, when you also in the same post proclaim London and the south to be a cess pit?

Slums...........


The worse UK train journey I have ever rode was from Charring Cross to Charlton - as you ride through the shanty towns of south London.


The Fourth Grace was still a Liverpool fiasco, nothing connected to Whitehall whatsoever,


A Whitehall minister turned it down.


I don't think you understand, its not to do with what area is closer to the world, its what is more viable for the large container ships that make a port of call at Rotterdam and then go to Felixstowe (or vice versa). They aren't going to take a scenic tour of Britain to just pop into Liverpool to make you feel good, before going back around to Rotterdam. If anything, it is Liverpools' problem for its poor
geographical position in relation to the major continental European ports. Felixstowe arose to serve as the next port of call en-route to or from the major European ports.


You are so naïve it is beyond belief Liverpool is, and was the world's largest port at one time. It is centre to the UKs industrial heartland. Felixstowe is in in the sticks.


Actually Felixstowe has an excellent location


It does not.


London could take large ships,


It could not. 45,000 tons was the largest ever to scrape up the Thames to London - small. The Thames is a stream.


Madrid is a city that has existed since the 9th century...nobody placed it there,


It was put there because it was dead central.


The bulk of the population is NOT concentrated between Liverpool/Manchester - Leeds/Sheffield - Birmingham.


It is.


The combined population of those areas is closer to 11mn.


The north west of England alone is 12 million.


Liverpool is no way near to being close to the centre of this country,


Geographically it is centre of the UK.


Birmingham would have more legitimacy to that role,


That is the centre of England, not the UK.


but even then it would be pointless because the cost would be simply too much. Germany is still paying the cost of relocating the capital after reunification; infact Berlin is near declaring bankruptcy because of the situation.


You are in cloud cuckoo land.


...do you want Liverpool to bottom out once again?


No, we want London away from us.


But surely how is the north going to survive without £16bn extra each and every year (and increasing)?


Nonsense. Liverpool in the 1980-s under the evil Thatcher contributed more to Whitehall than what it received.


Brunswick Quay's failure is nothing to do with London.


A Whitehall minister turned it down.


First of all it was located in the wrong place


You are in cloud cuckoo land.


To top it off Ruth Kelly is not a southener - she was from Northern Ireland.


The decision was made by a London mechanism.

You are so uninformed and naïve it is beyond belief.

[Marre]

The problem with Old Trafford isn't just its capacity (Wembley could for example still be a 5* stadium even if it added in 30,000 more seats which is possible), but its location, because the heavy rail station at Old Trafford is only open match days - hardly a multi-modal hub of several stations and railway lines like at Wembley.

The sad truth is that English stadium capacities are not that high and you'd only be able to host games at a few to ensure that you gather enough revenue. Wembley with 90,000 would bring in 2x more than say Villa Park. That is more money that could be used for developing grass-roots football. The new Wembley and all the associated transport improvements also mean that the vast Wembley area will be able to be redeveloped - this too also helps Wembley itself, because it owns most of this land.

And how exactly could you improve Birmingham International? It is really only west to east. If you were coming from the north, you'd have to go through Birmingham New Street - essentially while it might be closer towards the centre in regards to population, its catchment area would be far lower because it would be harder to get too (fewer train services, fewer railway lines and not enough road capacity).

Like I said, the public don't loose any money, its private organisations that messed with the situation and will ultimately pay for it.

A reminder of how far away the Stade de France is from Parc de Princes is:

Arrondissement XVI
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Paris16_map.svg/587px-Paris16_map.svg.png

Arrondissement Saint-Denis
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Saint-Denis_map.svg/587px-Saint-Denis_map.svg.png


They moved from one areas of the Parisian urban area, to another - around 1-2miles possibly. The reason was simple: land area was far more limited meaning that a larger and more advanced stadium could not be built; unlike Wembley. Hence using Paris as an example for pushing for a more central national stadium was flawed.

You mention grassroots investment but but because of the Wembley Stadium fiasco grassroots football has suffered immensley. Privgate money maybe involved but a significant amount of money intended for football foundation projects has been diverted to this project. Sorry to keep mentioning this but it's a sore subject with me.

As for Birmingham Inetrnational, yes it's a east-west axis but plans have been mooted to re-open the Coleshill-Birmingham International line. Coleshill being where the Nuneaton and Burton mainlines split. I'd dare say that would have been put on the fast track for re-opening.

And again massive capacities are not that important an issue, what is important is sell-out crowds at quality enclosed stadiums with a great atmosphere. Couldn't care elss if that was infront of 75000 at Old Trafford or 9000 at Yeovil's Huish Park. It's all about involvement, other countries don't get themselves too worried over constant massive attendances.

But we're getting too bogged down in that one particular area here.

Saint-Denis.......yeah it's not that far away but it was still a big step by the FFF.

I will say going back a few posts that we are no where near as centralised as France at least. For one example our non-capital inter-city railway services are much more frequent.

[Marre]

The problem with Old Trafford isn't just its capacity (Wembley could for example still be a 5* stadium even if it added in 30,000 more seats which is possible), but its location, because the heavy rail station at Old Trafford is only open match days - hardly a multi-modal hub of several stations and railway lines like at Wembley.

The sad truth is that English stadium capacities are not that high and you'd only be able to host games at a few to ensure that you gather enough revenue. Wembley with 90,000 would bring in 2x more than say Villa Park. That is more money that could be used for developing grass-roots football. The new Wembley and all the associated transport improvements also mean that the vast Wembley area will be able to be redeveloped - this too also helps Wembley itself, because it owns most of this land.

And how exactly could you improve Birmingham International? It is really only west to east. If you were coming from the north, you'd have to go through Birmingham New Street - essentially while it might be closer towards the centre in regards to population, its catchment area would be far lower because it would be harder to get too (fewer train services, fewer railway lines and not enough road capacity).

Like I said, the public don't loose any money, its private organisations that messed with the situation and will ultimately pay for it.

A reminder of how far away the Stade de France is from Parc de Princes is:

Arrondissement XVI
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Paris16_map.svg/587px-Paris16_map.svg.png

Arrondissement Saint-Denis
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Saint-Denis_map.svg/587px-Saint-Denis_map.svg.png


They moved from one areas of the Parisian urban area, to another - around 1-2miles possibly. The reason was simple: land area was far more limited meaning that a larger and more advanced stadium could not be built; unlike Wembley. Hence using Paris as an example for pushing for a more central national stadium was flawed.

You mention grassroots investment but because of the Wembley Stadium fiasco grassroots football has suffered immensley. Private money maybe involved but a significant amount of money intended for football foundation projects has been diverted to this project. Sorry to keep mentioning this but it's a sore subject with me.

As for Birmingham Inetrnational, yes it's a east-west axis but plans have been mooted to re-open the Coleshill-Birmingham International line. Coleshill being where the Nuneaton and Burton mainlines split. I'd dare say that would have been put on the fast track for re-opening.

But we're getting too bogged down in that one particular area here.

And again massive capacities are not that important an issue, what is important is sell-out crowds at quality enclosed stadiums with a great atmosphere. Couldn't care less if that was infront of 75000 at Old Trafford or 9000 at Yeovil's Huish Park. It's all about involvement, other countries don't get themselves too worried over constant massive attendances.

Saint-Denis.......yeah it's not that far away but it was still a big step by the FFF.

I will say going back a few posts that we are no where near as centralised as France at least. For one example our non-capital inter-city railway services are much more frequent.

[nick_taylor]

The government, media and financial aspect are all there - and more.

When the dice loaded against you they do.

My God!! He is using what happen 2000 years as analogy!!! Wow!

The worse UK train journey I have ever rode was from Charring Cross to Charlton - as you ride through the shanty towns of south London.

A Whitehall minister turned it down.

You are so naïve it is beyond belief Liverpool is, and was the world's largest port at one time. It is centre to the UKs industrial heartland. Felixstowe is in in the sticks.

It does not.

It could not. 45,000 tons was the largest ever to scrape up the Thames to London - small. The Thames is a stream.

It was put there because it was dead central.

It is.

The north west of England alone is 12 million.

Geographically it is centre of the UK.

That is the centre of England, not the UK.

You are in cloud cuckoo land.

No, we want London away from us.

Nonsense. Liverpool in the 1980-s under the evil Thatcher contributed more to Whitehall than what it received.

A Whitehall minister turned it down.

You are in cloud cuckoo land.

The decision was made by a London mechanism.

You are so uninformed and naïve it is beyond belief.
And? London isn't the only city in the world to have all those functions, Paris for France and Tokyo for Japan come to mind.

Some could say that it still holds ground though....you blame us for all your mistakes, you blame us for actions that you take yourself (Brunswick Quay) and you blame for subsidising the north. Make your mind up though.

Yes...."shanty towns of south London"........ :rolleyes:

Yet a Whitehall official did not reject it at first - that was down to Liverpool councillors and Liverpool planners. It lost on appeal, but had those in control of Liverpool turned it down first and foremost....the fact that you can't accept that just goes to illustrate my point that some northerners lack the ability to accept that they are wrong and that every problem they face is due to southerners.

Christ, just because Liverpool was ONCE the worlds busiest port, doesn't mean that it should have that role today. Liverpool is also not the industrial heart of Britain - Birmingham could claim that role quite easily.

If Felixstowe wasn't in the best location, then ships wouldn't go there. Ask any large container ship company heading towards Rotterdam and whether they'd opt to loop around to Liverpool or nip up to Felixstowe - common sense please; you make Liverpudlians appear as spiteful, ignorant and stupid individuals who deserve what they get.

Yes....the Thames is a stream.....

So you're telling me that the Spanish of the 9th century knew exactly what the Spain of the 21st century was going to resemble, hence why Madrid is what it is today.... I personally would find that down-right disrespectful if I was from Madrid; because its position in Spain and the world is far more than just geography.

The North-West has 12mn people? Let me guess, you're pulling these figures from out of your arse because Londoners spiked the Liverpool water supply... :laugh:

The true population of the North-West is (as according to the 2001 census): 6,729,800.

Yes...the geographic centre......

No it isn't because there are nearly just as many people around London in a far smaller area; ie a higher concentration....broaden the area and London and its environs has far more people.

So you think Berlin isn't in financial trouble?

The sad thing is, individuals such as yourself will be avoided by true policy makers. Your views are based on conspiracy theory rather than fact and figures. You portray a picture of a city and environment that believes they are getting it 'rough' when you get far more than anyone else.

With the recent upsurge in wanting to cut Scotland from England due to the ridiculous amount of subsidisation taking place; I'd expect the exact same thing to happen with the regions meaning Liverpool would probably go bankrupt. And with vocal individuals such as yourselves I'd want that to happen to be a wakeup call that you're no more than a parasitic organism leaching off the south and London.




Marre - The main reason Wembley got the private financing was because of the knock-on effects of:
a) Larger catchment area to get a higher possibility of sell out crowds
b) High value land that could be used for high-density profit generating property development

By all accounts, a Wembley at Birmingham, probably wouldn't have met these criteria meaning it would had to have had even MORE public financing to support it. Fact is, what are you going to build around Birmingham International? Apartments - no way, so it would be warehousing, retail outlets or office parks - no way near as lucrative as having an entire new residential quarter, with a new commercial centre around a new square equivalent in size to Leicester Square.

That still won't be anything close to the connectivity of 4 stations and numerous rail lines.

National games at 9,000 capacity stadiums won't bring in the money to feed in grass-roots, 90,000 capacity stadiums will.

Not really, there wasn't enough space to expand so they had to relocate, Wembley didn't face that problem because it had swathes of development land.

[Waterways]

And? London isn't the only city

Your knowledge is poor compounded by poor logic and reasoning. Not worth taking issue with you. Just read my initial post on this. UNDERSTAND them. Come back and ask questions on points you don't understand - which is most by the looks of it.

[Marre]

By all accounts, a Wembley at Birmingham, probably wouldn't have met these criteria meaning it would had to have had even MORE public financing to support it. Fact is, what are you going to build around Birmingham International? Apartments - no way, so it would be warehousing, retail outlets or office parks - no way near as lucrative as having an entire new residential quarter, with a new commercial centre around a new square equivalent in size to Leicester Square.


But Wembley Stadium is surrounded by warehousing and industrial units.

I'd want that to happen to be a wakeup call that you're no more than a parasitic organism leaching off the south and London.

You go on about anti-London feelings by Northerners but comments like that are just as bad.

[nick_taylor]

But Wembley Stadium is surrounded by warehousing and industrial units.

You go on about anti-London feelings by Northerners but comments like that are just as bad.The entire area is being transformed into a new quarter for London by Quintain Estates.

This is what the area will look like in the future - note that because of the upgrades in the local public transport network, the vast surface car parks of the old Wembley will be swept aside.

http://www.new-wembley.com/popup/proposal/aerial-dusk.jpg


How is just as bad when it is technically a fact - the north is subsidised by London alone to the tune of £16bn each and every year. The term 'parasite' and 'leech' are deserving of individuals who meet the following criteria:
- Quick to blame everyone else for their situation despite the blame being closer to home
- Take someone else's money because they tend to lazier and less productive
- Create fictitious figures (12mn living in the North West for example, when in reality there is only 6.7mn)
- Mouth off about supposed 'slums' and conspiracy theories of acts of economic rape which have 'supposedly' taken place

It wouldn't even matter if the north was an independent country, because northerners would still have a problem with the south being far more productive and hard working.

Take Scotland - the irony is that the move to separate from England is growing because they believe that they are being dealt a raw deal. Yet the sour reality is that Scotland has always been and continues to be supported by England economically (hence why Scotland can afford to have free university tuition and free care for the elderly while England gets neither) and has the unfair advantage of having a say in English and Scottish affairs, while English MP's have only a say in English affairs (ie the West Lothian question).

If Scotland left the UK it would collapse within a few weeks because North Sea oil is not a guarantee of future prosperity (if it was, it would be here today). The same would happen if England were to break up into regions, ie they would spend the money they collect in taxes. For London and the south this would be excellent because not only would it be able to fund Crossrail-type projects each and every year, but it would be able to host the Olympics and other events without a penny from any other region. The northern regions however would probably lag behind due to the loss of £16bn inflows (add the South-East and it would probably we well over £30bn) each year and could even collapse.

Sometimes, I wish that for a 10 year trial this actually happened, because it would prove a point.

[Marre]

The entire area is being transformed into a new quarter for London by Quintain Estates.

This is what the area will look like in the future - note that because of the upgrades in the local public transport network, the vast surface car parks of the old Wembley will be swept aside.

http://www.new-wembley.com/popup/proposal/aerial-dusk.jpg

Hmm, very nice - be interesting to see the impact on local traffic levels though. Really think you're over-estimating how many people will use public transport to get to Wembley Stadium. Would appear that most of the trains that serve that area are regional services. Therefore I can't see everybody using them if they are coming from afar.

Quite interesting it took us only about four hours to drive from the North East to Wembley down the M1 recently. Anyway I hope I'm wrong, be nice to have a successful public transport scheme on this sort of scale........remains to be seen though (best intentions, etc).

How is just as bad when it is technically a fact - the north is subsidised by London alone to the tune of £16bn each and every year.

Ah this one again, like it or not London has been able to flourish in recent decades partly because of Government policy. And whether you accept it or not successive Governments have seen fit to sit back and allow the rest of the UK to slide backwards. Not what a Govenrment is supposed to do (naughty naughty).

The term 'parasite' and 'leech' are deserving of individuals who meet the following criteria:
- Quick to blame everyone else for their situation despite the blame being closer to home
- Take someone else's money because they tend to lazier and less productive
- Create fictitious figures (12mn living in the North West for example, when in reality there is only 6.7mn)
- Mouth off about supposed 'slums' and conspiracy theories of acts of economic rape which have 'supposedly' taken place

Thanks for that, very nice of you to say so.

Just a couple of questions though, what if the blame really does lie with someone else?

And how can you say these people are lazier and less productive?

If anything it has been shown that workers in the North are some of the most productive in Europe (Nissan factory for example).

It wouldn't even matter if the north was an independent country, because northerners would still have a problem with the south being far more productive and hard working.

And Southerners would still be stuck up arrogant toffs looking down at everyone else trying to think up new ways to deprive them. Oh look at that, I've done what you've just done and made a totally unfair sweeping generalisation.

Take Scotland

No thanks.

- the irony is that the move to separate from England is growing because they believe that they are being dealt a raw deal. Yet the sour reality is that Scotland has always been and continues to be supported by England economically (hence why Scotland can afford to have free university tuition and free care for the elderly while England gets neither) and has the unfair advantage of having a say in English and Scottish affairs, while English MP's have only a say in English affairs (ie the West Lothian question).

Could it not just be they want what they feel has been taken from them?

If Scotland left the UK it would collapse within a few weeks because North Sea oil is not a guarantee of future prosperity (if it was, it would be here today). The same would happen if England were to break up into regions, ie they would spend the money they collect in taxes.

I'm sure Scotland like other areas could (if given enough powers) could generate it's own future prosperity.

For London and the south this would be excellent because not only would it be able to fund Crossrail-type projects each and every year, but it would be able to host the Olympics and other events without a penny from any other region. The northern regions however would probably lag behind due to the loss of £16bn inflows (add the South-East and it would probably we well over £30bn) each year and could even collapse.

Same as above, incase you hadn't noticed the Northern regions have already been lagging behind for a while. No reason why the the North couldn't form it's own united economic area and prosper.

Sometimes, I wish that for a 10 year trial this actually happened, because it would prove a point.

Ditto, because then London-based Central Government would lose it's strangehold on the rest of the country. Thus allowing them to make their own decisions and not be bound by the say so of people who shouldn't have any say over our affairs.

Whilst London and the South East has a large population it does not hold the majority of the UK populace. That lies outside the South East area, your belief that the rest of the UK would collapse without London is misguided.

London is not the be all and end all of the UK, at least it certainly shouldn't be. The Netherlands has a population of about 16 million and no one overly dominant city. And yet no collapsing economy, they do fairly well for themselves.

An example for the rest of the UK to look to, the UK 'ranstad' is something which could serve us all well.

[nick_taylor]

Hmm, very nice - be interesting to see the impact on local traffic levels though. Really think you're over-estimating how many people will use public transport to get to Wembley Stadium. Would appear that most of the trains that serve that area are regional services. Therefore I can't see everybody using them if they are coming from afar.

Quite interesting it took us only about four hours to drive from the North East to Wembley down the M1 recently. Anyway I hope I'm wrong, be nice to have a successful public transport scheme on this sort of scale........remains to be seen though (best intentions, etc).

Ah this one again, like it or not London has been able to flourish in recent decades partly because of Government policy. And whether you accept it or not successive Governments have seen fit to sit back and allow the rest of the UK to slide backwards. Not what a Govenrment is supposed to do (naughty naughty).

Thanks for that, very nice of you to say so.

Just a couple of questions though, what if the blame really does lie with someone else?

And how can you say these people are lazier and less productive?

If anything it has been shown that workers in the North are some of the most productive in Europe (Nissan factory for example)

And Southerners would still be stuck up arrogant toffs looking down at everyone else trying to think up new ways to deprive them. Oh look at that, I've done what you've just done and made a totally unfair sweeping generalisation.

No thanks.

Could it not just be they want what they feel has been taken from them?

I'm sure Scotland like other areas could (if given enough powers) could generate it's own future prosperity.

Same as above, incase you hadn't noticed the Northern regions have already been lagging behind for a while. No reason why the the North couldn't form it's own united economic area and prosper.

Ditto, because then London-based Central Government would lose it's strangehold on the rest of the country. Thus allowing them to make their own decisions and not be bound by the say so of people who shouldn't have any say over our affairs.

Whilst London and the South East has a large population it does not hold the majority of the UK populace. That lies outside the South East area, your belief that the rest of the UK would collapse without London is misguided.

London is not the be all and end all of the UK, at least it certainly shouldn't be. The Netherlands has a population of about 16 million and no one overly dominant city. And yet no collapsing economy, they do fairly well for themselves.

An example for the rest of the UK to look to, the UK 'ranstad' is something which could serve us all well.This is London, the majority of people take public transport because it is more convenient...why drive anywhere (unless it is outside London and somewhere remote) when there are buses every few seconds and trains every minute.

Also for match-days the trains are diverted to cater for this. Fans from the north could park up near Milton Keynes and catch a train in without having to worry about being late due to congestion. That is what makes Wembley so much better - it has the infrastructure already.

How has it flourished under central government? Do you consider loosing £16bn each and every single year as an example of 'flourishing'; to me that's central government raping everybody. Quite simply for the immense concentration of people in and around London it shouldn't have to go to central government to get the funding for the likes of Crossrail and Thameslink when these projects could easily have been handled by London itself if it had say over where taxes raised in London went to.

Then where does the blame lie? I don't see northerners complaining about globalisation, but you hear them about moan about London - the thread title perfectly illustrates this despite the fact that if anywhere is getting crapped upon, its London.

There are exceptions such as in Sunderland, but the general observation is that if they were productive, they wouldn't be in their current situation. Quite simply the unions killed off long-term growth in the north.

How are we toffs that think of other ways to deprive people? Last time I looked, we were the ones being deprived to the tune of £16bn each year! Include the rest of the south and that figure probably rises to £30bn: with that money we could build a high-speed rail network larger than Japan or France!

What has been 'taken' from Scotland? Scotland was saved from bankruptcy by England due to Scotland's mess in Panama with the Darién project. It has gathered international exposure over the last 299 years that it wouldn't have gained had it been left to rot as a backwater. Except for one or two decades, Scotland has required funds from England (and respectably the south) to support itself. This trend exists to this day where Scots can get free university education and the English can not - I see that as an unfair disadvantage to the English, because not only do we loose money, we loose the chance to boost productivity because of the extra cost of having to pay for university fees.

And then you have the West Lothian question which simply gives a Scottish MP more say than an English MP, where is the right for one person to have a say over the running of England, when it is not vice versa.

Scotland hasn't lost anything - its gained and will loose and deservedly so when the two countries split.

Scotland has its own powers! What do you think the devolution process and Scottish Parliament was for, England on the other hand has no such parliament. So if they can't fix things despite having more autonomy and control over their affairs, where are they going to improve and create future prosperity when they are essentially being kept afloat by the south?

Actually it wouldn't have anything to do with power control, but a re-balance of where money is spent. The losers would be the regions and periphery. The winners would be London and its environs.

Of the 50mn people living in England, close to 8mn now live in London. Another 10mn live within its metro - thats 18mn people, include surrounding periphery areas that surround London and that increases towards half the population. London and its environs might not be the largest, but it has by far the largest concentration; Birmingham of all cities has the greatest 'catchment'.

So where exactly is £16-30bn going to come from in the north? That is close to every northern man, woman and child paying an extra £1,200 to support their cities, health, police, transport, etc... each and every year. You simply wouldn't be able to do it; it would cripple the north.

I don't think you understand the geographies involved with comparing situations in England and the Netherlands - they have a history of being not-overly dominant because of their situation in Europe and the low land levels. There is no way that we could flick a switch to mastermind the mass-movement of people around the country to 'equalise' our cities. The cost to build-millions of homes around smaller urban areas, the wastelands that would be left from the forced movements......the economic and social cost would be extraordinarily prohibitive.

Christ, people can't even get a conservatory built and you want to re-format the entire landscape! Simply put, the Netherlands is as it is because of centuries of development, just like Britain is.

Like I've mentioned before, the quickest, simplest and most effective way to sort out the north would be to stop the quick remarks about London and the south, work closer together (like Leeds has managed) and look towards business & financial services, high-tech manufacturing and the knowledge economy. Looking to the public service jobs (which already dominates northern cities) is not the way forward, neither is a Ranstad like redevelopment of Britain.

If northerners spent as much time working to make their cities more attractive FDI centres and as productive as London as they do slagging off London and the south, they wouldn't be in the holes that they've dug themselves.

[Marre]

This is London, the majority of people take public transport because it is more convenient...why drive anywhere (unless it is outside London and somewhere remote) when there are buses every few seconds and trains every minute.

Fair point, for all the bad press it gets the London Underground is a very good thing to have.

Also for match-days the trains are diverted to cater for this. Fans from the north could park up near Milton Keynes and catch a train in without having to worry about being late due to congestion. That is what makes Wembley so much better - it has the infrastructure already.

Good point again, like I said I hope you're right - we shall see.

How has it flourished under central government? Do you consider loosing £16bn each and every single year as an example of 'flourishing'; to me that's central government raping everybody. Quite simply for the immense concentration of people in and around London it shouldn't have to go to central government to get the funding for the likes of Crossrail and Thameslink when these projects could easily have been handled by London itself if it had say over where taxes raised in London went to.

Come on Nick, London has done pretty well and if the rest of the country is funded purely by London tax money as you seem to suggest what happens to where does our tax money go?

Got to admit mind Northern railway services are often heavily subsidised because the loadings on their own are not enough to justify their running. But on the other hand Northern regional train services are very infrequent and use pretty poor rolling stock.

Then where does the blame lie? I don't see northerners complaining about globalisation, but you hear them about moan about London - the thread title perfectly illustrates this despite the fact that if anywhere is getting crapped upon, its London.

So every northerner moans about London?

You've presumably met every northerner?

Clearly you haven't reacted well to 'waterway's comments which is fair enough, but please don't presume we're all just complaining about London. Just like I don't presume every southerner looks down on the rest of the country.

There are exceptions such as in Sunderland, but the general observation is that if they were productive, they wouldn't be in their current situation. Quite simply the unions killed off long-term growth in the north.

Exceptions?

I can assure you it's quite the norm, production levels across the North are usually quite good.

How are we toffs that think of other ways to deprive people? Last time I looked, we were the ones being deprived to the tune of £16bn each year! Include the rest of the south and that figure probably rises to £30bn: with that money we could build a high-speed rail network larger than Japan or France!

Oh dear you've not understood my words have you.......I was being sarcastic.

And isn't 30bn the estimated price tag for a North-South high speed railway line?

That would be a good way to start redressing the economic unbalance - that and crossrail to ensure there's no congestion at the London end.

What has been 'taken' from Scotland? Scotland was saved from bankruptcy by England due to Scotland's mess in Panama with the Darién project. It has gathered international exposure over the last 299 years that it wouldn't have gained had it been left to rot as a backwater. Except for one or two decades, Scotland has required funds from England (and respectably the south) to support itself. This trend exists to this day where Scots can get free university education and the English can not - I see that as an unfair disadvantage to the English, because not only do we loose money, we loose the chance to boost productivity because of the extra cost of having to pay for university fees.

And then you have the West Lothian question which simply gives a Scottish MP more say than an English MP, where is the right for one person to have a say over the running of England, when it is not vice versa.

Scotland hasn't lost anything - its gained and will loose and deservedly so when the two countries split.

You'd be best off asking that to a Scottish person, I was merely posing a question about the Scotland situation.

Actually it wouldn't have anything to do with power control, but a re-balance of where money is spent. The losers would be the regions and periphery. The winners would be London and its environs.

Actually it would have a lot to do with 'power control', re-distribution of power would greatly benefit the regions a lot more. I.e. the ability to generate our own wealth and prosperity. Granted it would take a long time to really feel the benefits but it is a pretty long term thing.

Of the 50mn people living in England, close to 8mn now live in London. Another 10mn live within its metro - thats 18mn people, include surrounding periphery areas that surround London and that increases towards half the population. London and its environs might not be the largest, but it has by far the largest concentration; Birmingham of all cities has the greatest 'catchment'.

So where exactly is £16-30bn going to come from in the north? That is close to every northern man, woman and child paying an extra £1,200 to support their cities, health, police, transport, etc... each and every year. You simply wouldn't be able to do it; it would cripple the north.

About 60mn live in the UK, take out the South East (no offence) and that leaves a lot of the populace left.

I don't think you understand the geographies involved with comparing situations in England and the Netherlands - they have a history of being not-overly dominant because of their situation in Europe and the low land levels. There is no way that we could flick a switch to mastermind the mass-movement of people around the country to 'equalise' our cities. The cost to build-millions of homes around smaller urban areas, the wastelands that would be left from the forced movements......the economic and social cost would be extraordinarily prohibitive.

Christ, people can't even get a conservatory built and you want to re-format the entire landscape! Simply put, the Netherlands is as it is because of centuries of development, just like Britain is.

But I never suggested 'flicking a switch' and I never said copy the Netherlands like for like. I suggested that something along the lines of a ranstad type area would be a good move. The Northen Way would seem to be suggesting something similar. No offence like but could you at least fully understand what I am saying (I know it's not that easy but please try) before responding.

Can't help but think you're having a go at me for what others have said.

Like I've mentioned before, the quickest, simplest and most effective way to sort out the north would be to stop the quick remarks about London and the south, work closer together (like Leeds has managed) and look towards business & financial services, high-tech manufacturing and the knowledge economy. Looking to the public service jobs (which already dominates northern cities) is not the way forward, neither is a Ranstad like redevelopment of Britain.

If northerners spent as much time working to make their cities more attractive FDI centres and as productive as London as they do slagging off London and the south, they wouldn't be in the holes that they've dug themselves.

Many regions are already doing what you have suggested and have been doing so for quite a while now. Like I said before Northern cities don't have meetings slagging off London and the South East just like I'm sure Southerners don't all think of ways to have a go at the North.

And a ranstad wouldn't be so much a redevelopment of the regions but more a strengthening of links between cities.

[nick_taylor]

Fair point, for all the bad press it gets the London Underground is a very good thing to have.

Good point again, like I said I hope you're right - we shall see.

Come on Nick, London has done pretty well and if the rest of the country is funded purely by London tax money as you seem to suggest what happens to where does our tax money go?

Got to admit mind Northern railway services are often heavily subsidised because the loadings on their own are not enough to justify their running. But on the other hand Northern regional train services are very infrequent and use pretty poor rolling stock.



So every northerner moans about London?

You've presumably met every northerner?

Clearly you haven't reacted well to 'waterway's comments which is fair enough, but please don't presume we're all just complaining about London. Just like I don't presume every southerner looks down on the rest of the country.



Exceptions?

I can assure you it's quite the norm, production levels across the North are usually quite good.



Oh dear you've not understood my words have you.......I was being sarcastic.

And isn't 30bn the estimated price tag for a North-South high speed railway line?

That would be a good way to start redressing the economic unbalance - that and crossrail to ensure there's no congestion at the London end.



You'd be best off asking that to a Scottish person, I was merely posing a question about the Scotland situation.



Actually it would have a lot to do with 'power control', re-distribution of power would greatly benefit the regions a lot more. I.e. the ability to generate our own wealth and prosperity. Granted it would take a long time to really feel the benefits but it is a pretty long term thing.



About 60mn live in the UK, take out the South East (no offence) and that leaves a lot of the populace left.



But I never suggested 'flicking a switch' and I never said copy the Netherlands like for like. I suggested that something along the lines of a ranstad type area would be a good move. The Northen Way would seem to be suggesting something similar. No offence like but could you at least fully understand what I am saying (I know it's not that easy but please try) before responding.

Can't help but think you're having a go at me for what others have said.



Many regions are already doing what you have suggested and have been doing so for quite a while now. Like I said before Northern cities don't have meetings slagging off London and the South East just like I'm sure Southerners don't all think of ways to have a go at the North.

And a ranstad wouldn't be so much a redevelopment of the regions but more a strengthening of links between cities.Indeed London is thankful for having the London Underground, ut it only got it for two reason:
- High density and immense catchments
- Private investment (the London Underground was built by private companies and wealthy individuals)

4 stations and sitting on several high-frequency lines....I'd think that it would be safe to believe so!

How has London been doing pretty well? Unable to build the likes of Crossrail because of funds being diverted elsewhere, it has had to explore Congestion Charging and other measures to try and control pollution, noise, and traffic congestion. The poorest wards in the country, aren't in the north, they are slap bang in London and it so happens that Crossrail would actually go through these areas. The north isn't solely reliant upon the south, but without the south, most services would collapse...Keep in mind that the NHS budget for 2006-07 is £96bn.....the south is loosing something like £30bn each each; it doesn't take a genius to work out that if the south stopped the flow of money, there would have to be large cut backs in public services of which the north is already too heavily dependent upon. And that is the problem: the north has far too many public sector jobs and not enough private sector jobs. Without private jobs, there aren't going to be many internal or external investors which means innovation is held back forcing a stagnation of the economy. It could be argued that axing these jobs would be of a benefit to the north so that it forces a mass-reorganisation to push forward.

The reason here is simple: the population is too dispersed. Rail networks require high concentrations to ensure that load capacity is more effectively used. Oddly however, for the last decade, the average age of regional commuter trains has been lower than that of London and London commuter services despite the London commuter network moving 3x as many people.

It is a general perception from my experience - not everyone fits this category, as I have mentioned it is a malaise less present in Leeds, but elsewhere it is far too common. You only have to look at the UK & Ireland sub-forums and note the posts moaning about London and the south.

Sarcasm doesn't work on forums.

£30bn is for a north-south maglev line. The irony is though, the south could actually redirect its northern subsidy for two years and actually get it built which would help the north....yet because of the dependency on the public sector in the north that would mean job losses.

Scots get off far too lightly in this country and are worse than northerners.

If it was power control, London would be gaining money, not loosing it! Politicians and more public sector jobs doesn't aid growth, the private sector is there for that and that is what needs to be encouraged.

Take away the south-east and London and its environs, and you'd have just under 2/3'sof the UK population. That is significant considering the land area difference between the two areas.

I think you'll find that the mud-slinging isn't started by southerners, its started by northerners, with southerners responding with the cold truth. This thread is case in example.

[mczamalek]

Heywood Jabuzov....Marge Inoverrer

[Marre]

Indeed London is thankful for having the London Underground, ut it only got it for two reason:
- High density and immense catchments
- Private investment (the London Underground was built by private companies and wealthy individuals)

Yeah I know, which leaves me surprised that my nearets city (Newcastle) has it's own underground metro system (albiet much much smaller) when the loadings don't really justify it. A street running tram network would have been more appropriate I reckon.

How has London been doing pretty well? Unable to build the likes of Crossrail because of funds being diverted elsewhere, it has had to explore Congestion Charging and other measures to try and control pollution, noise, and traffic congestion. The poorest wards in the country, aren't in the north, they are slap bang in London and it so happens that Crossrail would actually go through these areas.

The Docklands is quite good, sure the Tories designated that as some sort of special economic area back when ti wasn't so good.

The north isn't solely reliant upon the south, but without the south, most services would collapse...Keep in mind that the NHS budget for 2006-07 is £96bn.....the south is loosing something like £30bn each each; it doesn't take a genius to work out that if the south stopped the flow of money, there would have to be large cut backs in public services of which the north is already too heavily dependent upon. And that is the problem: the north has far too many public sector jobs and not enough private sector jobs. Without private jobs, there aren't going to be many internal or external investors which means innovation is held back forcing a stagnation of the economy. It could be argued that axing these jobs would be of a benefit to the north so that it forces a mass-reorganisation to push forward.

I agree.

I think you'll find that the mud-slinging isn't started by southerners, its started by northerners, with southerners responding with the cold truth. This thread is case in example.

That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation, it's like you're casting judgements against entire swathes of people based on what you've read/heard from others.

[Downtown Bolivar]

This is extremely entertaining reading--it reminds me the arguments we get into in New York State about Upstate versus NYC. The fact is that enormous cities like London, and their residents don't realize the enormous cost to other regions. Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham Vs. London--Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse Vs. NYC. You will hear the very same arguments from NYC that Nick Taylor uses for London. Usually it amounts to "quit crying because you are recieving a nice subsidy from us. The subsidy comes with a steep price--government corruption, absurd regulations that only hurt smaller cities, tax costs associated with those regulations, which all result in unattractive places to do business and economic doldrums. So thanks for nothing.

[nick_taylor]

Yeah I know, which leaves me surprised that my nearets city (Newcastle) has it's own underground metro system (albiet much much smaller) when the loadings don't really justify it. A street running tram network would have been more appropriate I reckon.

The Docklands is quite good, sure the Tories designated that as some sort of special economic area back when ti wasn't so good.

I agree.

That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation, it's like you're casting judgements against entire swathes of people based on what you've read/heard from others.Indeed it would, but it had the sufficient alignments to allow for its construction. Birmingham and Manchester don't offer this.

The Tories might have started it off, but they invested very little. The DLR was originally meant to be a sort of something just above a bus....so much for that, its had to undergo hefty re-investment to bring the entire network up to higher standards to allow for more services and longer trains.

Well you don't get much of it in the south....rarely do you see threads on forums or discussions on the north being idiots...in fact it tends to be in response to something said by a northerner.

[mczamalek]

Nick <cough>

[Swede]

^What? What is that even supposed to mean? it just looks like a failed falme-baiting (failed due to language skills, or rather, the lack thereof).

[mczamalek]

Taylor <cough>

[Marre]

Indeed it would, but it had the sufficient alignments to allow for its construction. Birmingham and Manchester don't offer this.

The Tories might have started it off, but they invested very little. The DLR was originally meant to be a sort of something just above a bus....so much for that, its had to undergo hefty re-investment to bring the entire network up to higher standards to allow for more services and longer trains.

Well you don't get much of it in the south....rarely do you see threads on forums or discussions on the north being idiots...in fact it tends to be in response to something said by a northerner.

To be fair Birmingham and Manchester have used old heavy rail alignments for their tram networks. The Tyne & Wear metro system uses much of the old third rail suburban network with some new stretches. Quite unusual for such a project to take place in the UK I feel (a new underground system).

Saw your contribution on the transport infrastructure forum........seems that you're banned though which I can't understand.

You might be surprised to hear I'm very much in favour of crossrail. Infact not just that but crossrail 2 and 3 aswell. Got nothing against London, just desperatley wish the economic unbalance in the UK could be redressed. But not by supressing growth in London - that is never the way.

You're correct in what you say about needing denser populations in other UK cities. Looking at a map of Greater Manchester they could do with filling the whole geographic boundary with populace. My question is where do you get this extra populace from and how?

[Marre]

This is extremely entertaining reading--it reminds me the arguments we get into in New York State about Upstate versus NYC. The fact is that enormous cities like London, and their residents don't realize the enormous cost to other regions. Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham Vs. London--Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse Vs. NYC. You will hear the very same arguments from NYC that Nick Taylor uses for London. Usually it amounts to "quit crying because you are recieving a nice subsidy from us. The subsidy comes with a steep price--government corruption, absurd regulations that only hurt smaller cities, tax costs associated with those regulations, which all result in unattractive places to do business and economic doldrums. So thanks for nothing.

I beleive there is ignorance on both sides of the 'divide' when it comes to issues like this. The core of my argument is that powers should be spread to those who know what to do with it. Let each area have full control over it's own direction.

[nick_taylor]

To be fair Birmingham and Manchester have used old heavy rail alignments for their tram networks. The Tyne & Wear metro system uses much of the old third rail suburban network with some new stretches. Quite unusual for such a project to take place in the UK I feel (a new underground system).

Saw your contribution on the transport infrastructure forum........seems that you're banned though which I can't understand.

You might be surprised to hear I'm very much in favour of crossrail. Infact not just that but crossrail 2 and 3 aswell. Got nothing against London, just desperatley wish the economic unbalance in the UK could be redressed. But not by supressing growth in London - that is never the way.

You're correct in what you say about needing denser populations in other UK cities. Looking at a map of Greater Manchester they could do with filling the whole geographic boundary with populace. My question is where do you get this extra populace from and how?I got banned for having the unfortunate ability to set people right, especially mods who use their position as a springboard for their flawed views on the world (so many that it could be a book).

Yet, the forum has generally been on the downward slope for the last year and a half. Construction threads were and still are bogged down in wasteful posts; sometimes you'd waste your time sifting through pages of bile to find no new updates. Forumers who used to contribute real news have either left or contribute far less because their posts are unlikely to be seen amongst the hordes of five word sentences. I'd suspect that those in the construction sector who were rumoured to use the site have long since given up, which is rather ironic as I'm taking steps to starting my own property company!

The skybars tend to be nearly as big as the construction sub-forums and are updated more frequently than the actual construction threads of which the website was meant to be about. To top it off, while military sub-forums were created to massage the egos of some, construction threads were not backed up meaning the likes of the entire series of Swiss Re construction threads was lost when the site was hacked.

So why bother with a forum that is drowning in its own success of attracting morons who spam threads, spread racism, rampant inaccuracies. With people like Coth in charge, then you know you have a problem.


For a start, you need to get the northern cities to re-image themselves as nodes of London, much like Leeds has done. This will bring in investment, people and jobs, yet future construction projects have to aim at increasing density, not sprawl out. From then on it should be a cycle of success.

[Marre]

For a start, you need to get the northern cities to re-image themselves as nodes of London, much like Leeds has done. This will bring in investment, people and jobs, yet future construction projects have to aim at increasing density, not sprawl out. From then on it should be a cycle of success.

Is that a diplomatic way of saying 'leech off London's growth but in a good way'?

Re population density: in cities such as Newcastle and Liverpool there are large areas in the metropolitan area that have terraced homes. I beleive both have displayed plans to bull doze many of them and replace them with multi-storey homes.

I'd quite like to see those big housing blocks I see so often in Germany.

Perhaps if they did that in Newcastle's West End the viability of extending the metro tunnel from St James Park to the west end would increase?

[nick_taylor]

Is that a diplomatic way of saying 'leech off London's growth but in a good way'?

Re population density: in cities such as Newcastle and Liverpool there are large areas in the metropolitan area that have terraced homes. I beleive both have displayed plans to bull doze many of them and replace them with multi-storey homes.

I'd quite like to see those big housing blocks I see so often in Germany.

Perhaps if they did that in Newcastle's West End the viability of extending the metro tunnel from St James Park to the west end would increase?Better to be a part of the solution, rather than feeding off its benefits. With Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham, etc...acting as nodes, London would have an immense catchment in regards to business and financial service connectivity that would be unrivalled by any other centre. This way, the northern cities would expand economically, while London would have to then subsidise the north less.

You mean the apartment blocks surrounding a courtyard - they would be a great way to maximise density, but not bring the claustrophobia of the 60's council estates. The fact is, these areas have to built to a high standard using good materials - the catchment would be more then enough for most cities to support high-frequency rail services.

The more people = the more likelihood that there would have to be extensions. What the local authorities would need to do is make it practical and as easy as possible to develop high-rises and high-density developments along that area.

[Marre]

Better to be a part of the solution, rather than feeding off its benefits. With Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham, etc...acting as nodes, London would have an immense catchment in regards to business and financial service connectivity that would be unrivalled by any other centre. This way, the northern cities would expand economically, while London would have to then subsidise the north less.

You mean the apartment blocks surrounding a courtyard - they would be a great way to maximise density, but not bring the claustrophobia of the 60's council estates. The fact is, these areas have to built to a high standard using good materials - the catchment would be more then enough for most cities to support high-frequency rail services.

The more people = the more likelihood that there would have to be extensions. What the local authorities would need to do is make it practical and as easy as possible to develop high-rises and high-density developments along that area.

I see now, if this was done the rest of the UK could prosper aswell and there would be more money for both London and the rest of the country to invest in infrastructure. Looking at it this way if the regional cities were to grow aswell (enconomically and by populace) then eventually the transport links between these cities could then be upgraded also?

If it happened this way could the regional cities be the subject of a crossrail type service themselves (on a smaller scale of course)?

Yes the ones surrounding a court yard, they provide a very nice living environemnt I feel. And finally get rid of those horrible 60's designs once and for all.