http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=black-hole-costs-you-pound-25-000&method=full&objectid=21217871&siteid=93463-name_page.html
33rd year AADHIKAR
0225 GMT Thursday 06 June 2013
AADHIKAR Media Foundation Editor © Muhammad Haque
Founding News Editor
Shah M Azizul Haque
AADHIKAR Media Foundation established with the publication of AADHIKAR the weekly on Monday 19 December 1980 from London E1 UK.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
KHOODEELAAR! asking GLA member Valerie Shawcross: Now you have heard Boris Johnson's' crass 'replies' to your questions, will YOU do the decent thing
KHOODEELAAR! asking GLA member Valerie Shawcross: Now you have heard Boris Johnson's' crass 'replies' to your questions, will YOU do the decent thing and DISOWN Crassrail yourself?
[To be continued]
http://londonreconnections.blogspot.com/2009/03/mayors-question-time-0309-crossrail.html
Mayor's Question Time - 03/09: Crossrail
Elephant & Castle, regeneration proximity, consultations on contributions, funding through fare raises, what's happened so far.
How were the decisions made to place Elephant and Castle and Nine Elms to include in the area of benefit for Crossrail – at which meeting, on which advice and where is the supporting documentation. - Valerie Shawcross
The proposed alterations to the London Plan to enable the raising of financial contributions towards the cost of Crossrail from developments through S.106 agreements were agreed for initial consultation with the London Assembly and the GLA Functional Bodies via the Mayoral decision making process (MD218) in November 2008.
I agree that charges should be sought from office developments within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and the northern part of the Isle of Dogs. CAZ is defined in the London Plan (Policy 5G.1 and map 5G.1, pp 352-3, London Plan February 2008). Elephant and Castle and Nine Elms fall within the CAZ boundary.
The rationale for using CAZ to define a charging zone for Crossrail contributions is set out in the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance and the supporting research documents from TfL and their consultants. These were published in December 2008 together with the proposed Alterations and can be found on the GLA’s website at: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/crossrail/index.jsp.
Are there any regeneration schemes closer than 3 kilometres to a rail station that have not be included and are there any other schemes 3 kilometres or further from the nearest Crossrail station that have been included in the same way? - Valerie Shawcross
I am afraid that it is extremely difficult to answer your specific questions without a more precise definition of what is meant by “regeneration scheme” (which could cover a very broad range of potential development). Officers in the London Plan team would be glad to help, and I would invite you to contact them.
The draft alterations to the London Plan to enable the raising of financial contributions towards the cost of Crossrail from developments through S.106 agreements propose that charges should be sought in from office developments:
Within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ);
The northern part of the Isle of Dogs (IoD); and
Around Crossrail stations beyond central London, in circumstances set out in paragraph 4.20 of the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance.
I am currently considering responses to these proposals and I may expand on the advice given on the latter category when I issue the public consultation draft versions of the proposed alterations and draft SPG shortly. This could affect the answer to your questions.
Will you publish all the responses you have had to the consultation about contributions from developments for Crossrail? - Mike Tuffrey
Yes.
I have received 35 responses to the initial consultation (including the formal one from the Assembly Planning and Housing Committee). I am still considering the issues they have raised.
I intend to launch the public consultation on the Crossrail Alteration in April. When I do, the responses received will be placed on the GLA website.
If there is a substantial decline in fares revenue due to the recession will you have to consider raising fares beyond RPI + 1% in order to cover Crossrail costs? - Jenny Jones
The borrowing that TfL is undertaking for the Crossrail funding package is based on future Crossrail fare income from when services begin in 2017.
I can assure you that in putting together the funding package a variety of scenarios were assessed to ensure that TfL’s financial position remains robust and I am confident that it is and will be.
If you fail to raise £300m towards the cost of Crossrail from section 106 agreements on large developments of new commercial office space in the Central Activities Zone will you have to consider raising fares beyond RPI + 1% in order to cover Crossrail costs? - Jenny Jones
I envisage being able to raise £300m of Section 106 contributions, £100m of which has already come through an agreement with Wood Wharf on the Isle of Dogs.
If we did not raise the sum then we would of course have to look at a range of options. However, rather than speculate on a series of variables at a point sometime in the future, I want to emphasize that the research that we have undertaken shows that raising this sum between now and 2026 (the period to be covered by the proposed London Plan policy enabling collection of these contributions) should be possible.
Crossrail is part of the route out of the recession in London and crucial in supporting future growth and jobs. Crossrail unlocks development opportunities and enables the intensification of the London economy especially in the key business districts and locations like Wood Wharf.
Crossrail is a marker of future confidence in London and particularly for investors and developers in taking forward future schemes. This in turn provides the basis for the Section 106 element of the funding package.
When will you publish the profile of Transport for London’s and the Government’s funding contributions to Crossrail? - Jenny Jones
This was initially outlined in the Crossrail Heads of Terms published 26 November 2007 which covers TfL and DfT contributions from 2008/09 onwards. It has been updated in the recent TfL Business Plan covering the TfL contributions from the period 2009/2010 onwards (and these contributions will also be in future Business Plans). The DfT contributions will be published via an annual statement on Crossrail financing. The first of these statements is due to be published this summer.
What specific Crossrail projects have been funded and have gone ahead this year? What is the total cost underspend on the projected expenditure for this financial year and what will you do with this underspend? - Jenny Jones
Crossrail is not a series of separate projects but a complex programme of integrated activities to deliver 118km of underground and surface railway for London and the South-East. Crossrail Ltd (CRL), a subsidiary of Transport for London, has been charged with delivering the programme on time and within the budget of £15.9bn.
The programme is being funded as a whole, and the concept of under or over-spend is only relevant to the overall funding constraint of £15.9bn. CRL expects to deliver the programme within the approved budget and is not currently projecting any over or under-spend, although the effort to identify and capture savings will continue to be a vital part of CRL's aims. However, given we are in the first year of a nine year programme, and the £15.9bn budget must be viewed as a whole, any potential savings would be determined towards the end of the programme.
The expenditure on the programme will be phased over the duration of the works, and annual business planning by CRL and TfL will take full account of this through to financial year 2017/18. This planning will be focussed on the core Crossrail objective of bringing the project within the approved budget of £15.9bn and CRL remains confident that this will be delivered.
Delivery has reached the point at which scheme design is effectively complete and detailed design packages are being tendered. A programme partner has been appointed and appointment of a project delivery partner is imminent. Compulsory purchase of affected property along the route has commenced, and enabling works are under way. Related work for the construction of stations being undertaken by CRL's works partners, London Underground and Network Rail, has already commenced. Although these activities, and the momentum they are giving to the programme, are significant, the delivery of Crossrail is still at an early stage.
[To be continued]
http://londonreconnections.blogspot.com/2009/03/mayors-question-time-0309-crossrail.html
Mayor's Question Time - 03/09: Crossrail
Elephant & Castle, regeneration proximity, consultations on contributions, funding through fare raises, what's happened so far.
How were the decisions made to place Elephant and Castle and Nine Elms to include in the area of benefit for Crossrail – at which meeting, on which advice and where is the supporting documentation. - Valerie Shawcross
The proposed alterations to the London Plan to enable the raising of financial contributions towards the cost of Crossrail from developments through S.106 agreements were agreed for initial consultation with the London Assembly and the GLA Functional Bodies via the Mayoral decision making process (MD218) in November 2008.
I agree that charges should be sought from office developments within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and the northern part of the Isle of Dogs. CAZ is defined in the London Plan (Policy 5G.1 and map 5G.1, pp 352-3, London Plan February 2008). Elephant and Castle and Nine Elms fall within the CAZ boundary.
The rationale for using CAZ to define a charging zone for Crossrail contributions is set out in the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance and the supporting research documents from TfL and their consultants. These were published in December 2008 together with the proposed Alterations and can be found on the GLA’s website at: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/crossrail/index.jsp.
Are there any regeneration schemes closer than 3 kilometres to a rail station that have not be included and are there any other schemes 3 kilometres or further from the nearest Crossrail station that have been included in the same way? - Valerie Shawcross
I am afraid that it is extremely difficult to answer your specific questions without a more precise definition of what is meant by “regeneration scheme” (which could cover a very broad range of potential development). Officers in the London Plan team would be glad to help, and I would invite you to contact them.
The draft alterations to the London Plan to enable the raising of financial contributions towards the cost of Crossrail from developments through S.106 agreements propose that charges should be sought in from office developments:
Within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ);
The northern part of the Isle of Dogs (IoD); and
Around Crossrail stations beyond central London, in circumstances set out in paragraph 4.20 of the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance.
I am currently considering responses to these proposals and I may expand on the advice given on the latter category when I issue the public consultation draft versions of the proposed alterations and draft SPG shortly. This could affect the answer to your questions.
Will you publish all the responses you have had to the consultation about contributions from developments for Crossrail? - Mike Tuffrey
Yes.
I have received 35 responses to the initial consultation (including the formal one from the Assembly Planning and Housing Committee). I am still considering the issues they have raised.
I intend to launch the public consultation on the Crossrail Alteration in April. When I do, the responses received will be placed on the GLA website.
If there is a substantial decline in fares revenue due to the recession will you have to consider raising fares beyond RPI + 1% in order to cover Crossrail costs? - Jenny Jones
The borrowing that TfL is undertaking for the Crossrail funding package is based on future Crossrail fare income from when services begin in 2017.
I can assure you that in putting together the funding package a variety of scenarios were assessed to ensure that TfL’s financial position remains robust and I am confident that it is and will be.
If you fail to raise £300m towards the cost of Crossrail from section 106 agreements on large developments of new commercial office space in the Central Activities Zone will you have to consider raising fares beyond RPI + 1% in order to cover Crossrail costs? - Jenny Jones
I envisage being able to raise £300m of Section 106 contributions, £100m of which has already come through an agreement with Wood Wharf on the Isle of Dogs.
If we did not raise the sum then we would of course have to look at a range of options. However, rather than speculate on a series of variables at a point sometime in the future, I want to emphasize that the research that we have undertaken shows that raising this sum between now and 2026 (the period to be covered by the proposed London Plan policy enabling collection of these contributions) should be possible.
Crossrail is part of the route out of the recession in London and crucial in supporting future growth and jobs. Crossrail unlocks development opportunities and enables the intensification of the London economy especially in the key business districts and locations like Wood Wharf.
Crossrail is a marker of future confidence in London and particularly for investors and developers in taking forward future schemes. This in turn provides the basis for the Section 106 element of the funding package.
When will you publish the profile of Transport for London’s and the Government’s funding contributions to Crossrail? - Jenny Jones
This was initially outlined in the Crossrail Heads of Terms published 26 November 2007 which covers TfL and DfT contributions from 2008/09 onwards. It has been updated in the recent TfL Business Plan covering the TfL contributions from the period 2009/2010 onwards (and these contributions will also be in future Business Plans). The DfT contributions will be published via an annual statement on Crossrail financing. The first of these statements is due to be published this summer.
What specific Crossrail projects have been funded and have gone ahead this year? What is the total cost underspend on the projected expenditure for this financial year and what will you do with this underspend? - Jenny Jones
Crossrail is not a series of separate projects but a complex programme of integrated activities to deliver 118km of underground and surface railway for London and the South-East. Crossrail Ltd (CRL), a subsidiary of Transport for London, has been charged with delivering the programme on time and within the budget of £15.9bn.
The programme is being funded as a whole, and the concept of under or over-spend is only relevant to the overall funding constraint of £15.9bn. CRL expects to deliver the programme within the approved budget and is not currently projecting any over or under-spend, although the effort to identify and capture savings will continue to be a vital part of CRL's aims. However, given we are in the first year of a nine year programme, and the £15.9bn budget must be viewed as a whole, any potential savings would be determined towards the end of the programme.
The expenditure on the programme will be phased over the duration of the works, and annual business planning by CRL and TfL will take full account of this through to financial year 2017/18. This planning will be focussed on the core Crossrail objective of bringing the project within the approved budget of £15.9bn and CRL remains confident that this will be delivered.
Delivery has reached the point at which scheme design is effectively complete and detailed design packages are being tendered. A programme partner has been appointed and appointment of a project delivery partner is imminent. Compulsory purchase of affected property along the route has commenced, and enabling works are under way. Related work for the construction of stations being undertaken by CRL's works partners, London Underground and Network Rail, has already commenced. Although these activities, and the momentum they are giving to the programme, are significant, the delivery of Crossrail is still at an early stage.
KHOODEELAAR! TOLD YOU SO! THAT Gordon Brown was wrong to ignore sound advice to scrap wasteful Crossrail...
0450 Hrs GMT London Wednesday 1 April 2009:
KHOODEELAAR! TOLD YOU SO! THAT Gordon Brown was wrong to ignore sound advice about the urgent need to make overdue investment in maintaining the EXISTING London transport infrastructure. Khoodeelaar! has analyzed the crassness of the Crossrail scam for more than 5 years now. And in that time, on a daily sometimes hourly, basis, we have uncovered evidence that has consistently vindicated our own findings.. Each and every single time.. For more than FIVE years so far... What is significant is that the Guardian, which has been as servile to Big Business Crossrail scam agenda as the London EVENING nonstandard STANDARD, has been publishing these little items [see the latest one we have reproduced below from the Guardian web site which posted it in the past few hours only] showing a variety of funding shortfalls on existing London transport provisions. Yet neither the Guardian nor the ‘London EVENING nonstandard STANDARD’ has had the ethics or the morality or the economic competence to show that these shortfalls and problems c an be easily resolved by scrapping the wasteful Crossrail... Many times over. This is why we have been describing as CRASS b both the Crossrail scam itself and those who have been irrationally backing it...In the piece we reproduced below, the Guardian’s ignorant ‘transport’ ‘reporter’ Dan Milmo says that ‘Transport for London’ [=TfL] is cutting vital work due to the ‘economic circumstance’ but fails to say that TfL DOES have more than enough money to avoid those cuts. That money is unduly wastefully allocated to CRASSrail. Not only are the two CRASSRail scam-backing ‘mainstream newspapers’ suppressing the truth on this occasion to shield their CROSSRAIL scam agenda-setting controllers from accountability, they also behaved identically over the Channel 4 Dispatches item broadcast on Monday [30 March 2009] about Boris Johnson. BOTH the Guardian and the London EVENING nonstandard STANDARD focussed hypocritically on a bit of Boris Johnson thuggery from the alleged past. We say alleged past because we do not believe that Boris Johnson has overcome the propensities that his friend ship with Darius Guppy had highlighted in the past. Both the Guardian and the London EVENING nonstandard STANDARD failed to question the C Channel el 4 Dispatches programme’s real shortcomings and failures. Instead BOTH titles [the Guardian and London EVENING nonstandard STANDARD] in effect praised that shoddy and artificial edition of the Dispatches programme. How shoddy and artificial? Because all the information the Dispatches programme claimed to have researched and ‘discovered’ had been known already. And ESPECIALLY the incident of Boris Johnson having participated in a plot to have another journalist beaten up. ‘Another journalist’ refers to the fact that at the time of that plot, Boris Johnson had been himself employed as a journalist. In fact the incident was covered in more than one detailed report not along after it happened. And, just for the records, the KHOODEELAAR! campaign publications have updated the same incident in the past 2 years! This has been as part of our evidential demonstration of the flaws in those who have been peddling Crossrail scam... We have chronicled the conduct of the Guardian, the BBC and in some additional detail the London EVENING nonstandard STANDARD. We have been doing this to maintain the veracity of our cause which is that the transport needs of London cannot be abused as a cover for Big Business and their stooges and touts to loot public money. That public money should be used first of all responsibly. And responsibility necessarily entails the active application of relevance and urgency. And appropriateness. And productivity. That the money and any resource including any attendant power must not be wasted. And that money must not be looted.. It is clear that as far as the CROSSRAIL scam is concerned, neither the Guardian - nor the London EVENING nonstandard STANDARD, nor indeed the BBC -wants to acknowledge the existence of the universally relevant - or any - requirement or criteria or standard of accountability.. This is why we have also said that the people inside the BBC and those of their counterparts on the Guardian and the London EVENING nonstandard STANDARD who have perpetuated the suppression of the truth about Crossrail must all belong to a secret cult. Or a secret society. For had they not done so, they would have allowed the truth to be included in their peddling promotion an propaganda for Big Business ploy to loot £Billions of UK public money under cover of London Crossrail.…They would also have shown that the biggest failure in the list of Boris Johnson's failures should have been featured as the failure to tell the truth about why he has become Ken Livingstone’s most fanatic successor for the Big Business ploy...
[To be continued]
Tube station work halted after discovery of £400m funding gap
Dan Milmo
The Guardian, Wednesday 1 April 2009
Article history
Tube passengers will have to endure cramped conditions at some of London's busiest stations after the discovery of a £400m funding hole forced the postponement of vital upgrade work yesterday.
The London Underground funding gap, which already stood at an estimated £5bn, has widened further after a new shortfall of £400m was revealed and forced a last-minute revision to the capital's transport budget. The London mayor, Boris Johnson, ordered the postponement of work on stations that was formerly the responsibility of Metronet - the public-private partnership contractor that collapsed two years ago.
Transport for London, the mayor's transport body, said another funding hole of £400m has been found in Metronet's books since it was taken over by TfL. Metronet is responsible for three-quarters of London's tube lines including the District, Circle and Central lines. TfL added that its budget had been squeezed further by a drastic revision in tube passenger forecasts, from 3.5% growth to zero.
Peter Hendy, London's transport commissioner, said: "Lower projections for future fare revenue caused by the deterioration in the wider economy and the drain on TfL's resources caused by the collapse of Metronet means that some work planned for 2009-10 must be cancelled or deferred until a later date."
TfL admitted that its budget for the financial year to March 2010, hastily rewritten to accommodate the passenger numbers and Metronet, remained under review. "There continues to be pressure on the TfL budget as a result of the economic circumstances," said the spokesman.
London businesses warned that there was "no case" for postponing tube upgrades to fund less important policies, such as Johnson's pledge to bring back the distinctive Routemaster bus. Jo Valentine, chief executive of the London First business group, said: "There is no case, absolutely none, for robbing from the vital tube modernisation programme to pay for eye-catching but less-effective initiatives elsewhere."
TfL and the mayor's office are at loggerheads with the government over the tube's funding. The Department for Transport refuses to top up the £40bn awarded to TfL over seven years. However, TfL's fares income, which was supposed to match the £40bn settlement, could miss targets.
KHOODEELAAR! TOLD YOU SO! THAT Gordon Brown was wrong to ignore sound advice about the urgent need to make overdue investment in maintaining the EXISTING London transport infrastructure. Khoodeelaar! has analyzed the crassness of the Crossrail scam for more than 5 years now. And in that time, on a daily sometimes hourly, basis, we have uncovered evidence that has consistently vindicated our own findings.. Each and every single time.. For more than FIVE years so far... What is significant is that the Guardian, which has been as servile to Big Business Crossrail scam agenda as the London EVENING nonstandard STANDARD, has been publishing these little items [see the latest one we have reproduced below from the Guardian web site which posted it in the past few hours only] showing a variety of funding shortfalls on existing London transport provisions. Yet neither the Guardian nor the ‘London EVENING nonstandard STANDARD’ has had the ethics or the morality or the economic competence to show that these shortfalls and problems c an be easily resolved by scrapping the wasteful Crossrail... Many times over. This is why we have been describing as CRASS b both the Crossrail scam itself and those who have been irrationally backing it...In the piece we reproduced below, the Guardian’s ignorant ‘transport’ ‘reporter’ Dan Milmo says that ‘Transport for London’ [=TfL] is cutting vital work due to the ‘economic circumstance’ but fails to say that TfL DOES have more than enough money to avoid those cuts. That money is unduly wastefully allocated to CRASSrail. Not only are the two CRASSRail scam-backing ‘mainstream newspapers’ suppressing the truth on this occasion to shield their CROSSRAIL scam agenda-setting controllers from accountability, they also behaved identically over the Channel 4 Dispatches item broadcast on Monday [30 March 2009] about Boris Johnson. BOTH the Guardian and the London EVENING nonstandard STANDARD focussed hypocritically on a bit of Boris Johnson thuggery from the alleged past. We say alleged past because we do not believe that Boris Johnson has overcome the propensities that his friend ship with Darius Guppy had highlighted in the past. Both the Guardian and the London EVENING nonstandard STANDARD failed to question the C Channel el 4 Dispatches programme’s real shortcomings and failures. Instead BOTH titles [the Guardian and London EVENING nonstandard STANDARD] in effect praised that shoddy and artificial edition of the Dispatches programme. How shoddy and artificial? Because all the information the Dispatches programme claimed to have researched and ‘discovered’ had been known already. And ESPECIALLY the incident of Boris Johnson having participated in a plot to have another journalist beaten up. ‘Another journalist’ refers to the fact that at the time of that plot, Boris Johnson had been himself employed as a journalist. In fact the incident was covered in more than one detailed report not along after it happened. And, just for the records, the KHOODEELAAR! campaign publications have updated the same incident in the past 2 years! This has been as part of our evidential demonstration of the flaws in those who have been peddling Crossrail scam... We have chronicled the conduct of the Guardian, the BBC and in some additional detail the London EVENING nonstandard STANDARD. We have been doing this to maintain the veracity of our cause which is that the transport needs of London cannot be abused as a cover for Big Business and their stooges and touts to loot public money. That public money should be used first of all responsibly. And responsibility necessarily entails the active application of relevance and urgency. And appropriateness. And productivity. That the money and any resource including any attendant power must not be wasted. And that money must not be looted.. It is clear that as far as the CROSSRAIL scam is concerned, neither the Guardian - nor the London EVENING nonstandard STANDARD, nor indeed the BBC -wants to acknowledge the existence of the universally relevant - or any - requirement or criteria or standard of accountability.. This is why we have also said that the people inside the BBC and those of their counterparts on the Guardian and the London EVENING nonstandard STANDARD who have perpetuated the suppression of the truth about Crossrail must all belong to a secret cult. Or a secret society. For had they not done so, they would have allowed the truth to be included in their peddling promotion an propaganda for Big Business ploy to loot £Billions of UK public money under cover of London Crossrail.…They would also have shown that the biggest failure in the list of Boris Johnson's failures should have been featured as the failure to tell the truth about why he has become Ken Livingstone’s most fanatic successor for the Big Business ploy...
[To be continued]
Tube station work halted after discovery of £400m funding gap
Dan Milmo
The Guardian, Wednesday 1 April 2009
Article history
Tube passengers will have to endure cramped conditions at some of London's busiest stations after the discovery of a £400m funding hole forced the postponement of vital upgrade work yesterday.
The London Underground funding gap, which already stood at an estimated £5bn, has widened further after a new shortfall of £400m was revealed and forced a last-minute revision to the capital's transport budget. The London mayor, Boris Johnson, ordered the postponement of work on stations that was formerly the responsibility of Metronet - the public-private partnership contractor that collapsed two years ago.
Transport for London, the mayor's transport body, said another funding hole of £400m has been found in Metronet's books since it was taken over by TfL. Metronet is responsible for three-quarters of London's tube lines including the District, Circle and Central lines. TfL added that its budget had been squeezed further by a drastic revision in tube passenger forecasts, from 3.5% growth to zero.
Peter Hendy, London's transport commissioner, said: "Lower projections for future fare revenue caused by the deterioration in the wider economy and the drain on TfL's resources caused by the collapse of Metronet means that some work planned for 2009-10 must be cancelled or deferred until a later date."
TfL admitted that its budget for the financial year to March 2010, hastily rewritten to accommodate the passenger numbers and Metronet, remained under review. "There continues to be pressure on the TfL budget as a result of the economic circumstances," said the spokesman.
London businesses warned that there was "no case" for postponing tube upgrades to fund less important policies, such as Johnson's pledge to bring back the distinctive Routemaster bus. Jo Valentine, chief executive of the London First business group, said: "There is no case, absolutely none, for robbing from the vital tube modernisation programme to pay for eye-catching but less-effective initiatives elsewhere."
TfL and the mayor's office are at loggerheads with the government over the tube's funding. The Department for Transport refuses to top up the £40bn awarded to TfL over seven years. However, TfL's fares income, which was supposed to match the £40bn settlement, could miss targets.