Post by @ChrisMayLA6@mastodon.me.uk

What differentiates a major successful infrastructure project (Thames Tideway Tunnel) from other failing or failed projects (i.e. HS2); Harry Beck (on LinkedIn) argues the key things is the 'super sewer' had long term political commitment behind it.

Well, that may very weil be true... but from the North of England, the real distinction is its location (like Crossrail, another completed infrastructure project) it serves London.

Things that benefit London somehow go better!

#politics #London

#politics #london

3 Replies

1 Boost

Peter Brown

@peterbrown@mastodon.scot yesterday

@ChrisMayLA6 yes, the amount of money spent on London transport infrastructure is eye-watering. It seems the rest of the country is expected to make a profit but London is heavily heavily subsidised.
The image below is not up-to-date, but I don’t think it’s very far from the truth.
#SubsidyJunkies

Photo shows how London receives about 10 times as much financial support to transport than any other area of the UK

Doug 🌈🇨🇦 :verified:

@Oldfartrant@mstdn.ca 11 hr. ago

@peterbrown @ChrisMayLA6
Public Transport shouldn't make a profit. The reason Public Transport exists is because a business can't make a profit. But the shops and markets that profit from riders of Transit do. It maintains a vibrant healthy village or town center at low cost. London would probably be abandoned without Public Transit.

David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)

@david_chisnall@infosec.exchange yesterday

@peterbrown @ChrisMayLA6

And even the smaller numbers are not evenly distributed. I recall one article a while ago contrasting a per-capita number for London that was a bit lower than the current one with a figure of £7.50 for the county with the least spending per capita on public transport. That was less than a one-week pass on a privatised bus service where I was living.

And yet, we were always told that transport in London was so good because the high population density meant that it cost less to operate per capita.

I suspect the big difference is that, in London, rich people take public transport. If the population density is low enough that roads are not too congested to use (last time I took a taxi in London, it was slower than walking) then public money gets diverted to road infrastructure and the well-off people opt out of public transport entirely. And then they lobby to reduce funding. But if taking a car isn’t a better option, suddenly they start caring about it.