Brimstone wrote:
> "JNugent"
noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:>>Tony Dragon wrote:
>>>JNugent wrote:
>>>>Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>As always, too little too late.
>>>>>Yes it's good that Crossrail is to go ahead(I'll believe it when I
>>>>>can ride through it), but it should have been in place for the
>>>>>Olympics (if we've got to have them then we should at least have
>>>>>decent transport) and it should go to more destinations each side of
>>>>>London.
>>>>[ ... ]
>>>>[ ... ]
>>>>Unless I'm missing something, the map shows that
>>>>the "outer ends" of the scheme are run over
>>>>existing track, meaning that one can travel west
>>>>from Maidenhead by interchanging there, and east
>>>>from Brentwood by changing there, as well as
>>>>south-east from Abbey Wood. There will also be an
>>>>interchange possibility at Stratford for the CTRL
>>>>(serving Kent destinations with further change
>>>>possibilities).
>>>>>Crossrail has been talked about for twenty years or more and has been
>>>>>trimmed back and trimmed some more. As usual, it's the Treasury that
>>>>>blocks progress.
>>>>How unreasonable for the Treasury to be hesitant
>>>>about spending our money on something that the
>>>>vast majority of us will find of absolutely no
>>>>use, eh?
>>>I hear that they are improving roads in Yorkshire, it is unlikly that I
>>>will use them, so should I ask for a rebate from the treasurery?
>>One thing you can be certain about (given that road construction and
>>maintenance is over-charged for by about a factor of four) is that
>>Yorkshire drivers pay for Yorkshire's roads without your assistance, and
>>then some. So sleep easy.
>>Crossrail is an exceptionally expensive scheme which make no mistake, is
>>principally for the benefit of Central London employers. They could not
>>locate there without the concentration of public transport; it is not
>>difficult to identify the beneficiaries or to charge them for it.
>>If they ever decided they didn't want to meet the costs of Central London
>>location, they could always move their operations to a part of the country
>>where their employees would have meaningful choices as to where they live
>>(in relation to the workplace, coupled with meaningful choice over
>>travel-to-work modes.
> Do you have any idea what the business rates are in Central London compared
> to Middlesborough?
Given the likely cost to the Exchequer (ie, the
taxpayer) of things like Crossrail, not nearly
enough in Central London - certainly a drop in the
ocean compared to the external transport costs
imposed by the concentration of so much employment
in such a small, inaccessible, area
["inaccessible" from the likely residential
locations of those likely to be employed there,
that is].
But I've got additional disappointing news for you
- the business rate is unified across the country
with a single poundage rate. Not for nothing is it
officially called the "Unified "Business Rate".
