The Elizabeth Line (Crossrail)



It will never happen.

Westminster types fund nothing that they can't see out of their office window

Also because London and the SE has the population density to support a high frequency mass transit system. Move the Elizabeth Line to the north east and it would be mostly empty.

That's not to say that much more money shouldn't be spent in the regions but not building infrastructure in London doesn't help the rest of the country.
 
Nobody is asking for the tube up here obviously. But £18.9b for a new line? Nowhere outside of London gets anywhere near that for improvement, travel links and quality of life. Before anyone moans I think London is class.
 
Nobody is asking for the tube up here obviously. But £18.9b for a new line? Nowhere outside of London gets anywhere near that for improvement, travel links and quality of life. Before anyone moans I think London is class.
It's explained (to a certain degree) in that Twitter thread above.

We are an outlier in the western world with having a capital that is bigger than most of England's other cities combined. It skews all sorts of investment decisions.
 
It's explained (to a certain degree) in that Twitter thread above.

We are an outlier in the western world with having a capital that is bigger than most of England's other cities combined. It skews all sorts of investment decisions.
Fair enough. Certainly don’t deny the facts in the Twitter thread I just can’t be arsed to read it. The difference between London and any other city in the UK is frightening mind in terms of quality of life.
 
Also because London and the SE has the population density to support a high frequency mass transit system. Move the Elizabeth Line to the north east and it would be mostly empty.

Part of the problem is that what you say is a bit chicken & egg.

The NE doesn't have the population density because it gets very little spent on it, so doesn't attract enough jobs & people move away. Start spending on other places, and things might actually change.
 
London have always taken the piss.

They are happy to spend £18.9bn to take a few minutes off the journey time of some Canary Wharf worker. This is, apparently, "necessary". Meanwhile, services are being closed down in the North East.

It's like the Hunger Games. I am still pleased that the tributes from our district won on Saturday, though.
 
Part of the problem is that what you say is a bit chicken & egg.

The NE doesn't have the population density because it gets very little spent on it, so doesn't attract enough jobs & people move away. Start spending on other places, and things might actually change.
It’s Catch 22 though. If they put the investment in, more people would come to the region and you’d have the indigenous folk complaining about the influx of “bloody southerners” and complain how their kids couldn’t afford to get on the housing ladder as property prices soared due to demand and lack of supply.
 
Part of the problem is that what you say is a bit chicken & egg.

The NE doesn't have the population density because it gets very little spent on it, so doesn't attract enough jobs & people move away. Start spending on other places, and things might actually change.

One answer would be to devolve the spending and planning powers to the regions so it's not ministers and civil servants in Westminster deciding on what kind of transport system each part of the country needs.
 
There's a good thread here about why that happens:
As I posted earlier in the thread, 70% of that figure was paid for by London via levying private development.
I've only skimmed through that thread and its spinoffs but found it absolutely fascinating and will set some time aside tomorrow to do it justice.

This stopped me in my tracks though!

To reach the same population as London, you would need to add together the entire populations of the following cities:

Birmingham, Glasgow, Liverpool, Bristol, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Edinburgh, Leicester, Coventry, Bradford,
Cardiff, Belfast, Notttingham, Kingston upon Hull, Newcastle upon Tyne, Stoke on Trent, Southampton, Derby, Portsmouth AND Brighton.

THAT'S How big London is. It's effing HUGE. London is as big as the next 21 largest urban centres in the UK COMBINED.
 
It’s Catch 22 though. If they put the investment in, more people would come to the region and you’d have the indigenous folk complaining about the influx of “bloody southerners” and complain how their kids couldn’t afford to get on the housing ladder as property prices soared due to demand and lack of supply.

Surely, that's the inevitable consequence of "leveling up" of sharing London's money around the country more expensive housing, more immigration and higher beer prices. Be careful what you wish for
 
I've only skimmed through that thread and its spinoffs but found it absolutely fascinating and will set some time aside tomorrow to do it justice.

This stopped me in my tracks though!
No mention about how London got that way, namely disproportionate investment in London and the South East over two centuries.

Yet another vestige of this class war where only one side is allowed to fight.
 
Last edited:
It’s Catch 22 though. If they put the investment in, more people would come to the region and you’d have the indigenous folk complaining about the influx of “bloody southerners” and complain how their kids couldn’t afford to get on the housing ladder as property prices soared due to demand and lack of supply.

True, but even if we got trillions I don't ever think it'd get as out of hand London.

It would be nice just to get enough to properly improve public transport & reduce the brain drain
 
No mention about how London got that way, namely disproportionate investment in London and the South East for two centuries.

Yet another vestige of this class war where only one side is allowed to fight.

It's known as the "Primate city" effect where the capital/biggest city is much larger than the second biggest and acts as the centre for finance, politics, culture, media etc.

Another example is Bangkok which is much bigger than Chiang Mai. Whereas in Germany, the US and other countries there is not one city with all of the power.

 
It's known as the "Primate city" effect where the capital/biggest city is much larger than the second biggest and acts as the centre for finance, politics, culture, media etc.

Another example is Bangkok which is much bigger than Chiang Mai. Whereas in Germany, the US and other countries there is not one city with all of the power.

The fact that the nearest comparable example is Thailand is hardly reassuring.

Plus, they also have a Royal Family with disproportionate wealth and influence, don't they ?
It’s Catch 22 though. If they put the investment in, more people would come to the region and you’d have the indigenous folk complaining about the influx of “bloody southerners” and complain how their kids couldn’t afford to get on the housing ladder as property prices soared due to demand and lack of supply.
As opposed to southern rentier types buying up northern housing stock to rent out ?

Just because they don't live here doesn't mean that they don't affect the local property market.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top