11 thoughts on “The government should ditch Crossrail to help balance the books”

  1. Posted 09/10/2008 at 16:53 | Permalink

    Five of the six large government projects I looked at in ‘They Meant Well: government project disasters’ [Hobart Paper 160, 2007]ended up costing taxpayers about twice the ‘planned’ amount. A similar scale of overspending is not uncommon for large transport projects: the Channel Tunnel cost 87 per cent over budget (though this was not at taxpayers’ expense). One ‘lesson’ from my book was that governments find it hard to abandon projects (the first Channel Tunnel project being an exception).

  2. Posted 09/10/2008 at 16:53 | Permalink

    Five of the six large government projects I looked at in ‘They Meant Well: government project disasters’ [Hobart Paper 160, 2007]ended up costing taxpayers about twice the ‘planned’ amount. A similar scale of overspending is not uncommon for large transport projects: the Channel Tunnel cost 87 per cent over budget (though this was not at taxpayers’ expense). One ‘lesson’ from my book was that governments find it hard to abandon projects (the first Channel Tunnel project being an exception).

  3. Posted 10/10/2008 at 10:58 | Permalink

    Agree with comments on Crossrail.

    However the price mechanism comments on Tube are ridiculous. Your argument is as mis-guided as hardened socialists demanding huge tax increases on the rich.

    If the cost of travel increases where there is little alternative – this will create wage inflation in central London. Businesses will be encouraged to move overseas rather than change their hours or move to the periphery to keep their costs down.

  4. Posted 10/10/2008 at 10:58 | Permalink

    Agree with comments on Crossrail.

    However the price mechanism comments on Tube are ridiculous. Your argument is as mis-guided as hardened socialists demanding huge tax increases on the rich.

    If the cost of travel increases where there is little alternative – this will create wage inflation in central London. Businesses will be encouraged to move overseas rather than change their hours or move to the periphery to keep their costs down.

  5. Posted 10/10/2008 at 16:03 | Permalink

    I won’t comment on whether I agree with Richard about tube prices but it is not a “ridiculous” argument. Space is scarce in London – road space, rail space, office space, tube space. Tube space should not be artificially under-priced. Because the tube is a monopoly and controlled by the same entity that controls its competitors, it is difficult to know whether the price is too high, too low or just right. If it is too low, taxes would be too high – which does not help businesses either.

  6. Posted 10/10/2008 at 16:03 | Permalink

    I won’t comment on whether I agree with Richard about tube prices but it is not a “ridiculous” argument. Space is scarce in London – road space, rail space, office space, tube space. Tube space should not be artificially under-priced. Because the tube is a monopoly and controlled by the same entity that controls its competitors, it is difficult to know whether the price is too high, too low or just right. If it is too low, taxes would be too high – which does not help businesses either.

  7. Posted 04/08/2009 at 15:24 | Permalink

    I understand that govt. is short of fund for Cross rail project , could some explain to me if this the case, then why they keep buying building on Cook’s Rd, Stratford which they only need for temporary basis.

  8. Posted 04/08/2009 at 15:24 | Permalink

    I understand that govt. is short of fund for Cross rail project , could some explain to me if this the case, then why they keep buying building on Cook’s Rd, Stratford which they only need for temporary basis.

  9. Posted 04/08/2009 at 15:38 | Permalink

    Sonia – the government appropriates property along new transport routes a long time before construction actually begins through the compulsory purchase procedure. Unfortunately this means if the project never goes ahead the properties may remain abandoned or used as temporary accommodation for ‘homeless’ families on benefits.

    Some houses along the North Circular road have been boarded up for years after the Department of Transport bought them for planned road widening schemes that never took place.

    The UK, saddled with debt, can no longer afford Crossrail, which is a wasteful, uneconomic scheme anyway – so there is a danger that property will end up derelict for no reason.

  10. Posted 04/08/2009 at 15:38 | Permalink

    Sonia – the government appropriates property along new transport routes a long time before construction actually begins through the compulsory purchase procedure. Unfortunately this means if the project never goes ahead the properties may remain abandoned or used as temporary accommodation for ‘homeless’ families on benefits.

    Some houses along the North Circular road have been boarded up for years after the Department of Transport bought them for planned road widening schemes that never took place.

    The UK, saddled with debt, can no longer afford Crossrail, which is a wasteful, uneconomic scheme anyway – so there is a danger that property will end up derelict for no reason.

  11. Posted 16/06/2015 at 03:09 | Permalink

    Any update to this, now that Crossrail costs projected to be between £14.8bn and the most expensive parts of the project have been completed?

Comments are closed.