So you are advocating yet MORE money for transport in London! You point out that London "generates a far higher GDP per head than any other region". There's a reason for that - it gets the required infrastructure investment!
Unlike the rest of Europe, the UK is 'capital centric', and to a very marked degree. We need infrastructure investment elsewhere to change that - HS2 was going to be one such enabler, but that has withered on the vine. The elephant in the railway room at present is the gap between Handsacre where HS2 will terminate in a Staffordshire field (where WCML + HS2 means a 6-line railway becomes 2 line with flat junctions at Colwich and Stafford!), and Crewe, where it would link the rest of the country to the high speed spine.
UK will not achieve its potential without addressing transport in all the areas where it constrains success and growth. We must stop being drawn into the spurious argument around competing demands on constrained/capped funding and focus on all proposals which deliver “local” benefit to our economy.
The proposal to extend the Bakerloo Line to Hayes over main line tracks, more than 12 miles from central London, is peculiar. It's too far for a tube line with many and frequent stops, and therefore a longer journey time. The service will be more frequent, but with very large numbers of new homes to be built only those boarding at Hayes itself, or maybe the first station down the line, will get a seat. I see the case for extending the Bakerloo southwards from Elephant and Castle, but not that far.
Christian, you are right about transport and urban development having a symbiotic relationship. The prime example is the development of London Docklands, where a new transport system was put in to contribute to the development, and it has been enormously successful. You can see other examples in Stratford, originally spurred by the Olympic Games, and at Nine Elms where there was substantial development in advance of the Northern Line extension. But it is not just on London. There has been massive development in the Salford area following the extension of Manchester Metrolink in around 2001, and in Nottingham and Edinburgh. It has been said, with some justification, that building a new transport link is an urban development project that carries people as a side benefit.
The benefit-cost ratio formula is biased against railways, as despite today's wi-fi equipped table seating, all time spent in transit is considered time wasted. In addition, doesn't the Treasury ultimately provide a higher level of subsidy to road-based competition?
London is a powerhouse because the whole of the UK has contributed to a per person transport subsidy far greater than anywhere else. The reality is that levelling up has to come at cost in terms of investment subsidy from the government. The majority of the UK live outside London and need that catch up investment in rail and metro now, not cancelled like MMR electrification or even another platform at Piccadilly
So you are advocating yet MORE money for transport in London! You point out that London "generates a far higher GDP per head than any other region". There's a reason for that - it gets the required infrastructure investment!
Unlike the rest of Europe, the UK is 'capital centric', and to a very marked degree. We need infrastructure investment elsewhere to change that - HS2 was going to be one such enabler, but that has withered on the vine. The elephant in the railway room at present is the gap between Handsacre where HS2 will terminate in a Staffordshire field (where WCML + HS2 means a 6-line railway becomes 2 line with flat junctions at Colwich and Stafford!), and Crewe, where it would link the rest of the country to the high speed spine.
UK will not achieve its potential without addressing transport in all the areas where it constrains success and growth. We must stop being drawn into the spurious argument around competing demands on constrained/capped funding and focus on all proposals which deliver “local” benefit to our economy.
The proposal to extend the Bakerloo Line to Hayes over main line tracks, more than 12 miles from central London, is peculiar. It's too far for a tube line with many and frequent stops, and therefore a longer journey time. The service will be more frequent, but with very large numbers of new homes to be built only those boarding at Hayes itself, or maybe the first station down the line, will get a seat. I see the case for extending the Bakerloo southwards from Elephant and Castle, but not that far.
Christian, you are right about transport and urban development having a symbiotic relationship. The prime example is the development of London Docklands, where a new transport system was put in to contribute to the development, and it has been enormously successful. You can see other examples in Stratford, originally spurred by the Olympic Games, and at Nine Elms where there was substantial development in advance of the Northern Line extension. But it is not just on London. There has been massive development in the Salford area following the extension of Manchester Metrolink in around 2001, and in Nottingham and Edinburgh. It has been said, with some justification, that building a new transport link is an urban development project that carries people as a side benefit.
The benefit-cost ratio formula is biased against railways, as despite today's wi-fi equipped table seating, all time spent in transit is considered time wasted. In addition, doesn't the Treasury ultimately provide a higher level of subsidy to road-based competition?
London is a powerhouse because the whole of the UK has contributed to a per person transport subsidy far greater than anywhere else. The reality is that levelling up has to come at cost in terms of investment subsidy from the government. The majority of the UK live outside London and need that catch up investment in rail and metro now, not cancelled like MMR electrification or even another platform at Piccadilly
Well said!