| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Expectations being managed on Hammersmith Bridge | |
| Posted by: | Mark Evans | |
| Date/Time: | 01/07/25 09:02:00 |
| This is surprising because I would have expected you to have expertise across the range of all kinds of stupid. The issue that Andrew raises comes down to the way that the government assesses infrastructure and transport projects in terms of cost benefit. This tends to bias spending towards areas which already have had a lot of investment - for instance Crossrail was completed because it bolted on to an existing transport network and was guaranteed to have a high level of use from day one. Proposals to make investment outside of London didn't meet these tests as well because if you build or upgrade a rail lines, you don't have a densely populated area and other lines feeding into it to ensure high usage. The cost benefit analysis done on Hammersmith Bridge looks very positive and will probably be far better that other schemes competing for the money. However, there is growing recognition that the skewed nature of government investment has left our economy chronically unbalanced and limited its growth potential. It may be that the solution for Hammersmith Bridge is that a toll and contributions from the council and TfL reduce the amount needed from the central fund but it seems to me highly unlikely that the government would decide to put half of the initial tranche towards one project in London. |