Crossrail on time on Budget…But

[wholbr]

Hi everybody
Crossrail is a 118-kilometre (73-mile) railway line that is under construction in England. It is due to begin full operation in 2018, serving London and its environs by providing a new east-west route across Greater London. Work on the central part of the line (a tunnel under central London with connections to existing lines that will become part of Crossrail ) began in 2009 and is currently Europe's largest construction project.

Crossrail's aim is to provide a high-frequency commuter passenger service that will link parts of Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, via central London, to Essex and South East London. The new line will relieve the severe passenger overcrowding on several London Underground lines such as the Central, Metropolitan and District lines which are the current main east-west tube passenger routes along with the Heathrow branch of the Piccadilly line.

The project's main feature is 42 km (26 miles) of new tunnels. The main tunnels will run from near Paddington Station to Stratford via central London and Liverpool Street Station. Services will run from Reading to Shenfield ( north east of London ) and Abbey Wood (to the south east). Nine-car trains will run at frequencies of up to 24 trains per hour in each direction through the central tunnel section.

The cost of the project is a staggering 15 Billion pounds British Sterling equivalent to 24 Billion U.S dollars or 26 Billion Australian dollars at current exchange rates which is being brought forward from national taxation.

The above has caused much debate as to whether people living in other large cities or rural locations should be paying for a project which they perhaps see as not benefiting them in any way. The counter argument is that the increased infrastructure will further enhance London as one of the world's leading commercial and financial centres which will bring benefits to all regions of the country.

Therefore, the argument is could projects such as crossrail ever be built without nationwide financing. If so should the people of liverpool be paying for infrastructure projects in other parts of the country. Should the people of Chicago be contributing to an upgrade of the New york subway system or taxpayers in Melbourne pay for a better rail system in Sydney.

If the answer is no, how will such huge but urgently needed rail projects be constructed.

Bill

 

[JCitron]

Hi Bill,

This is how projects such as this are done in the US. We have a federal tax on gasoline that goes to the national highway fund, which also partially funds mass transit and railroad infrastructure. The other monies raised come from bonds, including state contributions, and from UMTA, which is the Urban Mass Transit Administration. We also pay for Amtrak out of a fund setup by our congress which is outside of all this, however, Amtrak does receive some funding for services it supplies to various states that whish to have it. Maine, for example wanted passenger service to Portland and now New Brunswick. They have a special state budget setup for the rail service and this funding is matched by contributions from New Hampshire for it's stations served, and from Massachusetts where the service originates. The remaining funds come from the national Amtrak fund.

It's probably more complicated than this, but I see nothing wrong with ensuring that all areas have access to rail as well as highway and even air transport. We have to remember that, at least in the US, the interstate highway system and air transport were paid for out of taxes levied on the railroads, who were also building and maintaining their own systems at the same time, and were struggling to stay profitable as the these subsidized industries were pulling business away from the railroads.

Transport infrastructure is not a matter of taxes and profits but is a national security consideration. If for some reason the airports couldn't be used, the railroads could still move troops and residents, just as they did in WWI and WWII, more efficiently than the highways could ever do.

John

 

[BLACKWATCH]

Out of interest John, what percentage of your petrol/diesel price at the pump, is actually TAX ?
Here in the UK, it is over 50%, & the users see very little of that going into the infrastructure, in fact
the motorist in the UK actually pays to prop up the health & welfare state, while being told we are greedy to want our own personal transport.

 

[johnwhelan]

I suspect that the UK is rapidly becoming London and other parts. London has a bus service that works and ridership is up, many other parts of the UK bus ridership is down but those routes don't get the same level of "subsidy"? that other parts do. Essentially there is a profitable bit of London providing services and some wealthy foreigners living there paying relatively low rates of tax, it has a government made up of ex-public school boys. Industry was essentially allowed to go under because of the high value of the pound with North Sea Oil and I think the phrase is a week is a long time in politics.

Cheerio John

 

[rjhowie]

A bit sweeping there of johnwhelan though fully entitled to his opinion of course! Britain had to change and modernise and in may areas we could no longer compete due to the Third World being able to unercut so a bit sweeping to just dismiss everything. As for being run by ex-public schoolboys (interestingly north of the Kingdom here is Scotland public schools are what we call the Local Council ones!). Whether governments are run by ex-private schoolboys or boys from former poor estates is a too class envy thing. It doesn't matter a jot whether they are ex-private or ex-State schools it is the policy side have to concentrate on. Both of the two main paries that form governments have ex-private boys as does the third lot so a bit dates there I am afrain on that attitude.

As for London the excessive rise in population has meant strainson everything - housing and indeed transport. Mainly due to immigration and their big families so the city has to cope with the practicalities of this. The previous administration nationally and locally in London did much on transport which tells one something beyond class conciousness. On a wider basis than the capital projects are being looked at and advances made on the rail system due to the imported rise in population so should we somehow just not bother with rail improvements for mundane reasoning? Whether rail is under private or public ownership is an arguable arena whilst the same time there are more ridership figures that beat the old ones when the railways were taken over by the State. Since the return figures have been again mushrooming.

With all sorts of things happening - doubling a single line, modernising the stock or system, re-opening lines these are all the things we should concentrate not some historical and non-rail bias. Up here re-openings have well broken the target travel figures and i do hope this continues elsewhere in the Kingdom across England and Wales. Unfortunately N. Ireland is different as the railway (and bus) is still in State control and unlike the mainland, NI Rlys have to maintain tracks themselves. It is the only part of GB where re-openings have not happened (one line is mothballed but being kept in hopes for the future). But even there the NIR has seen travelling figures rise dramatically and the lowest line a year or so was 17%! The Londonderry main has seen almost doubling and modern trains and efforts have seen them doing well.

Finally (!), the USA is a large place and with modern competition from road and air seen a terrible decline which is sad for any rail supporter. Many there will just accept that as an answer yet there are other large places where rail has seen a strengthening. On two visits to the ex-colonies (!) years ago I made a point of inter-city travelby train and enjoyed it.We are fortunate in Gt Britain with our railways and more power and strength to future plans and extension.

 

[wholbr]

Hi John, Blackwatch' rhowie and everybody.

Out of interest John, what percentage of your petrol/diesel price at the pump, is actually TAX ?
Here in the UK, it is over 50%, & the users see very little of that going into the infrastructure, in fact
the motorist in the UK actually pays to prop up the health & welfare state, while being told we are greedy to want our own personal transport.

Blackwatch, although I would agree with you that the fuel duty for road vehicles is still excessive in the UK there has been no percentage increase in that fuel duty since 2010. Along with the foregoing fuel duty is part of overall national taxation of which a percentage goes into infrastructure projects such as the 15 billion needed to finance crossrail.

Ticket prices on the national rail network have risen by percentage far more than the cost of fuel for road vehicles in the last five years and yet British citizens are still turning to rail transport in vast numbers. The reason for the foregoing is simply that rail travel is quicker and more reliable in terms of time than trying to travel on the U.K.’s congested road and motorway network. People can also work while they are on a train which is impossible while driving a car.

The cost of crossrail will pale into insignificance (when and if) high speed 2 begins construction with the estimated cost at present projected at over 200 billion for the full line to be built between London and Manchester.

With Britain and Europe’s love affair with the car seemingly over, no one doubts the demand is there for these rail infrastructure projects to be constructed, the question is should all the population pay the costs of the construction or just the percentage of the population that will directly benefit from the developments.

As John stated, in the United States these projects have always been accepted as a federal cost. In Britain and some other states within the European Union the national taxation for the above seems to be increasingly challenged by those who feel they will have no benefit gain from their construction. In other words, should the population of the deprived areas such as Cornwall pay for better transport for the population of London which is seen by them (Rightly or wrongly) as a very wealthy section of the country.

If it should come about national taxation could not or did not pay for such projects it is difficult to see any city or individual area of any country being able to build such infrastructure projects from within their own local finances. Therefore it can be argued that such projects however badly needed will not be built With the UK and other European countries transport systems then Failing to move forward in any meaningful way.

Bill

 

[JCitron]

Out of interest John, what percentage of your petrol/diesel price at the pump, is actually TAX ?
Here in the UK, it is over 50%, & the users see very little of that going into the infrastructure, in fact
the motorist in the UK actually pays to prop up the health & welfare state, while being told we are greedy to want our own personal transport.

It varies by state plus the federal.

The current rate for federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. Massachusetts adds another 21 cents per gallon, which is one of the highest in the country with California being the highest, I think.

The average price per gallon for unleaded in my area is currently at $3.59 per gallon. Some areas are bit less, and many are much higher where the station owners take advantage of location, like being near the interstate. This I know this price is probably low compared to Europe, UK, and elsewhere, but everything is relative, I suppose to the economy.

The real price, sans the taxes is about $3.20 per gallon. In Mass. it works out to be about 11% counting both federal and state taxes.

Interesting that gasoline excise taxes in your country fund the NHS. Wouldn't it be more appropriate if it came out of alcohol and cigarettes instead?

John

 

[wholbr]

Hi again everybody

I suspect that the UK is rapidly becoming London and other parts. London has a bus service that works and ridership is up, many other parts of the UK bus ridership is down but those routes don't get the same level of "subsidy"? that other parts do. Essentially there is a profitable bit of London providing services and some wealthy foreigners living there paying relatively low rates of tax, it has a government made up of ex-public school boys. Industry was essentially allowed to go under because of the high value of the pound with North Sea Oil and I think the phrase is a week is a long time in politics.

Cheerio John

John, when I believed I had finally retired in October last year I had been requested by the Somerset county council to sit on and advisory body to look into public transport in the county. That body never completed is consultations with the travelling public as we were interrupted by the severe flooding to affect the county that winter.

However, we completed a number of meetings with various interested organisations and the general public before we were suspended. At every one of those meetings we were told by those attending that there needed to be much better scheduling between the bus timetables and those of the rail operators at local stations.

It went without doubt to all of us sitting on the advisory body that should the above come about then the bus ridership would increase dramatically in line with those of the Home Counties following better connections to local rail stations.

Bill

 

[amigacooke]

Interesting that gasoline excise taxes in your country fund the NHS. Wouldn't it be more appropriate if it came out of alcohol and cigarettes instead?

Treasury receipts are not ring fenced so it all goes into one big pot and expenditure is taken from the one big pot.

Where does my money go is an interesting site for UK government spending

 

[JCitron]

Treasury receipts are not ring fenced so it all goes into one big pot and expenditure is taken from the one big pot.

Where does my money go is an interesting site for UK government spending

The US is a bit more segregated when it comes to budgets. The money may go to the Department of Treasury, but it is divided out to various budgetary needs. Massachusetts, however, works a bit differently. We are a commonwealth and we have a general fund where the tax revenues go into one big pot and then spent, mostly by the people in office!

John

 

[kws4000]

Taxes levied on railroad fuel in the USA is designated as "Deficit Reduction Tax".
Funding for infrastructure not supported by taxes is paid by sale of bonds, increasing the deficit.

Large railroad projects involving private carriers in the USA are typically a mix of RR cash and government debt, unless it is totally company-funded.

Oxymoronic? I just got my new voter's ID card today, I use it, therefore I CAN complain. Do I?
Then again, I hate going to cities in the first place.

 

[pfx]

To return to Bill's original point, the input from Scottish taxpayers works out at around £4.2 billion of the project. HS2 will receive a comparible sum from the Scottish taxpayer. Then you have taxpayers in Northern Ireland who are totally isolated from both systems. Do they benefit?

HS2 is being sold as improving links to Manchester and Leeds, with possible extensions to Glasgow and Edinburgh. Given the cost of the core project, I wouldn't hold my breath on seeing the Scottish sections happening. The benefits will be concentrated around the stations on the route so while not confined to London, benefits may not be far reaching.

In the case of Crossrail I'd be inclined to say it offers no benefit to anyone beyond Reading or Shenfield beyond driving up the cost of property as the commuter belt becomes larger. It's purely a London-centric project. Not sure I'm convinced how much benefit would escape the pull of London's 'gravity'.

 

[wholbr]

Hi everybody.
I believe the posting by pfx completely sums up the feelings of very many regarding the current and planned spending by the UK government on the rail infrastructure. With regard to HS2 I am one who is yet to be convinced that the size of the British mainland necessitates the need for trains to travel at 250 mph. The line will also yet again complement the rail infrastructure of London by way of the first stage of development being the London to Birmingham connection.

Therefore, with the foregoing in mind it would seem that once more the whole of the British Isles population will be asked to pay for a further upgrade to the Capitals rail infrastructure and then will be left trusting to luck as to whether at some time in the future even the next section to Manchester will be constructed.

Surely, if this government or any future UK government is prepared to spend £200 billion on the nation’s rail infrastructure would it not be better to entirely upgrade the existing rail network throughout the country and thereby benefit the whole population rather than just sections adjacent to the HS2 development.

Should not the people of Cornwall deserve to have a HST rail service which will have them connected to the rest of the country in a few hours rather than the five hours it takes just to get to London at present? Should not the people of Northern Ireland deserve to have a good modern rail service even though they are not directly connected to the mainland. These two communities are after all still part of the British taxpaying community and should be treated equally as so. The same sentiments as the foregoing could be expressed in terms of North Wales, Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Scotland beyond Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen.

With regard to crossrail, I do support national taxation being the provider of finance for the development. At present I am once again regularly travelling from North Somerset to London by way of the great Western main line and the London Underground. In the foregoing I would have to say on many mornings passenger congestion and overcrowding at Reading and then on the Metropolitan, Central and district lines of the London underground are quite simply indescribable. Anyone would have to state that if you Packed cattle that way in railway cars you would undoubtedly be prosecuted……..say no more.

However, if all the British nation are to pay for the above situation to be remedied through the construction of crossrail, then this and any other future UK government will have to ensure that further rail spending is equally distributed throughout the country to the benefit of all British taxpayers.


Bill

 

[johnwhelan]

My suspicion is that better value for money could come from upgrading existing lines, allowing higher coaches, most of Europe uses double decker coaches, in the US and Canada dual stacked containers have had a huge impact on freight costs. Perhaps I should have been more specific about public school, at the moment I think something like 50+% of the cabinet went to Eton, nothing against that of course but it gives a very one sided view of the world. I feel you need to have a more varied input to get better decisions.

Big simple projects have always been welcomed by politicians everywhere, more complex solutions aren't so politically attractive even if their rates of return are higher. Even in Toronto where the choice is between a subway and light rail the politicians prefer subway rather than spend the money on light rail which would carry more people to more destinations.

Cheerio John

 

[broadwater]

KEEP POLITICS OUT OF TRAINZ.

 

[amigacooke]

Perhaps I should have been more specific about public school, at the moment I think something like 50+% of the cabinet went to Eton, nothing against that of course but it gives a very one sided view of the world. I feel you need to have a more varied input to get better decisions.

John, you could not be more wrong.

UK cabinet

David Cameron, Eton College.
Nick Clegg, Caldicott School and Westminster School
William Hague, Wath-on-Dearne Comprehensive School
George Osborne, St Paul's School
Theresa May, Holton Park Girls' Grammar School and Wheatley Park Comprehensive School
Philip Hammond, Shenfield School
Chris Grayling, Royal Grammar School
Michael Fallon, Epsom College
Vince Cable, Nunthorpe Grammar School
Iain Duncan Smith, St. Peter's RC Secondary School,
Jeremy Hunt, Charterhouse School
Eric Pickles, Greenhead Grammar School
Nicky Morgan, Surbiton High School
Justine Greening, Oakwood Comprehensive School
Edward Davey, Nottingham High School
Patrick McLoughlin, Cardinal Griffin Roman Catholic School and Staffordshire College of Agriculture
Alistair Carmichael, Islay High School
Theresa Villiers, Francis Holland School
Stephen Crabb, Tasker Milward School
Sajid Javid, Downend School and Filton Technical College
Elizabeth Truss, Roundhay School
Danny Alexander, Lochaber High School

Unless 1 in 22 is equal to over 50%.

 

[rjhowie]

So they didn't all go to a private school and there were those elsewhere in the opposition who went to one too. Think johnwhelan's point about not being against that is fair enough too. Anyway, as I said, I can understand the pressures on London but at the same time the rest of Gt Britain must continue to be progressive on our rail system in general.

When Dr Beeching cut big chunks he was lambasted but in many cases he was right as the line that passed my former home in Glasgow had been running empty for decades for example. However at the time there was not the foresight to realise that there would be population moves and many places have changed well beyond what they were like in the 1960's. As for the comment about HS, I must say that having been a train lover since I was a bairn that personally i would rather see the money spent on modernising some routes and re-opening others.

 

[JCitron]

I've been thinking about this a bit more...

Bobby I agree there are some lines that truly shouldn't have been opened in the first place and those that were foolishly closed, or at least the ROW wasn't protected for future generations. There are so many areas that could use train service today that foolishly let it go only 30 years ago. That aside, the HSR system is great in smaller regions and countries that can support it as it can move lots of people and goods quickly with little impact on the surrounding area as much as many people complain about the railroads.

Regarding connecting the poorer, northern regions with the more prosperous southern regions... We have a similar layout over here. Our northern areas in New England where the northern-most states have little or no industry and are quite poor compared to areas to the south closer to Boston. We lost our industry long before the great rush to Asia as the shoe and textile industries closed in the 1950s through the 1970s. What were once large mills teaming with workers have become small industries, yuppie lofts, and tiny shops. As the cities shrunk, the rail lines were closed down. The mainline have remained between the bigger cities, for the most part, but the rest of the region has lost much over the years. When the commuter service was reintroduced in the 1980s between Haverhill and Boston, the trains became an instant success as people found them more convenient than driving into Boston. The demographics have also changed too since people live out here 35 miles from Boston and commute into the big city since the aforementioned industries are long gone. What were once working cities have now become bedroom communities aligned with Boston, and like the outlying cities in the UK are more like very far suburbs of London.

There was quite a stink put up when NARP announced the reopening of train service to Portland Maine (ME) many years ago now. A group from New Hampshire, which is the most anti-rail state in the region, fought the proposal. It turned out there was a bus company paying off officials to prevent the trains, but eventually the rail service opened. This isn't truly HSR, but it sure is faster and more comfy riding a train along the seacoast to Portland than it is driving the clogged interstate. The thing is the towns that have accepted the rail service, including those in New Hampshire, have done quite well. The areas closest to the stations, and being a very old route, the stations are in the towns rather then out in the boondocks, the towns now see more local business brought on by the very frequent train travelers. Dover New Hampshire (NH) for example has a beautiful stone station which now houses an ice cream and snacks restaurant. With the University of New Hampshire up in Durham which is nearby, there are many students waiting for trains and other rides, and the restaurant has seen an uptick in business. The same situation exists in other parts of the line as well. There are smaller businesses opening up where people buy stuff while waiting for other passengers or where people go to also purchase tickets, which are usually not sold at the station anymore here but are sold at a registered vendor nearby.

Outside of these small benefits, the destination cities of Portland, and more recently New Brunswick, ME have seen an increase in tourists. Portland always had its harbor and other cultural areas to visit. New Brunswick, on the other hand, only had the Naval Airbase, which has been closed in recent years. With Amtrak now running up to New Brunswick, there is now an increase in people visiting the area as this line is also the terminus of another shortline that runs passengers to Wiscasset, Bath, New Castle, and eventually to Rockland Maine which has always been a tourist destination like Wiscasset, however, there are only back roads and lots of traffic making the trip arduous at best. The Main Eastern Railroad runs frequent trains to and from New Brunswick and Rockland that are usually sold out with reservations. The service has proven so popular with the locals as well and this has become a means of commuting between the outlying areas and New Brunswick where people then catch the train to Portland for the day, or take it all the way to Boston. With both Amtrak sold out and the MER service packed, the regional officials are considering increasing trains and extending the service up to Augusta on other MER trackage that it recently acquired from Pan Am Railways. And more recently another rail line has come back into the limelight. The 1985 closure of the famous Maine Central Mountain Division by Pan Am Railways left many heads scratching. Parts of the line were allowed to be paved over while other sections washed out. As the line has been slowly claimed back by nature, the area residents have been pushing for a reopening. It appears this maybe happening sooner than not. The state of New Hampshire actually purchased its portion of the line, and Maine has rehabilitated portions of it already. That aside, there has been someone interested in running not just freight across from Portland Maine to St. Johnsbury Vermont again, but he also wants to run passenger service as well. This was once a popular passenger line and Amtrak has been eying the line again for service up to North Conway where the Conway Scenic Railway runs its famous trains through the Franconia Notch.

So as much as people complain about the initial costs, noise, and disruption, once the service is in place, many places benefit.

 

[Roy3b3]

Hey guys, if it all comes about, then England gets another great railway. When I saw the title "Crossrail on Time on Budget", I thought one of you British guys may have stretched your 'free' time and created a decent layout of this new line. So I was a bit disappointed not to see it on the DLS already. I guess I shouldn't jump the gun too quickly then. Cheers from OZ.
Roy3b3

 

[wholbr]

HI Everybody.

Hey guys, if it all comes about, then England gets another great railway. When I saw the title "Crossrail on Time on Budget", I thought one of you British guys may have stretched your 'free' time and created a decent layout of this new line. So I was a bit disappointed not to see it on the DLS already. I guess I shouldn't jump the gun too quickly then. Cheers from OZ.
Roy3b3

Roy3b3, in your posting you have stated something which occurred to me when I opened this thread, that being crossrail would be an excellent route project for some ambitious trainzer to create. I have been up to London today and while travelling back to Paddington on the underground central line I was giving the route some further thoughts. Crossrail will be a 72 mile route on completion but over 40 miles of that will be underground through the new tunnels. Therefore, our content creator (who ever that may be) would not have to worry about line side scenery creation for a very large part of the route which would make it “just simple” to create.

Also it has to be said if you have seen one London Underground station you have seen them all. Therefore on creation of the first underground station on the line at let’s say Paddington, you could simply then copy and paste that same station all along the rest of the line just changing the name on each occurrence.

Undoubtedly, the more you think about it, you realise that our trainz route creator could have the whole of crossrail finished well in time for the release of T:ane. That would then be released as premium payware with the cost to purchaser matching the real construction price of crossrail. Without a doubt, everybody would be falling over themselves to buy it.

So as much as people complain about the initial costs, noise, and disruption, once the service is in place, many places benefit.

John, thank you for your great above posting at position #18 on this thread which I have thoroughly enjoyed reading on the train back from London this evening. Your final paragraph which I have reproduced above I believe sums up the true benefit of investing in rail infrastructure wherever that may be throughout the world.

Bill.
Posted from the 18:30 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads first great Western service at the end of a very long day with a further short connection to make. (other than that I must be getting old).