Quote:
Originally Posted by 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!
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.
Prev
Linear Mode
