please empty your brain below
|
"Conversely, they would retain the full amount of any cost savings"
Fat chance......
scrumpy | 15.12.16 - 8:05 a.m. | #
|
|
Perhaps they could cut costs by not bothering with building Ticket Offices and staffing them, oh no I forgot they have done that already.
FishIslandskin | 15.12.16 - 8:16 a.m. | #
|
I wonder what quid pro quo the Mayor will extract from the SoS to encourage the Mayor to proceed?
Alternatively perhaps the Mayor will "withdraw his labour" in what "should properly be called a trade dispute rather than politics" (a play on RSSB CEO's observations on the GTR/RMT/ASLEF dispute)!
100andthirty | 15.12.16 - 8:45 a.m. | #
|
|
I'm minded to muse on the honourable member's for Harrow East grasp of transport issues, but on this occasion indeed a revealing titbit.
Michael T | 15.12.16 - 8:58 a.m. | #
|
|
Is that a 'YES'or a 'NO' then?
Boxer | 15.12.16 - 9:28 a.m. | #
|
|
Well I am glad that's been cleared up.
Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 15.12.16 - 9:32 a.m. | #
|
Well, yes, the critical thing is the terms of the existing funding agreement, and in particular whether TfL has not just "committed to the agreed budget of £284.4m" but also "agreed to meet any costs incurred over that budget".
Are the terms of thet funding agreement public? FOI request?
Andrew | 15.12.16 - 9:38 a.m. | #
|
|
"The Mayor" who signed this agreement presumably being Boris, noted for his wise decisions on matters relating to transport.
Andrew | 15.12.16 - 9:40 a.m. | #
|
|
Well, this suggests TfL did indeed take on the funding risk as directed by the Mayor in March 2015, with TfL required to contribute yet more funds last November, and the cost already £14m over the DfT budget, plus another £3m for the land of no commercial value. What is the current estimate of the cost?
Andrew | 15.12.16 - 9:46 a.m. | #
|
@ Andrew - as you have found TfL are committed to the fixed budget and associated funding contributions. They are also stuck with the risk of any cost overruns. There's no way round this as things stand as the other parties will, unsurprisingly, not wish to provide more money or take on more risk.
Therefore we are left with three plausible scenarios.
1. TfL can descope / achieve efficiencies to bring costs & risk back within the budget.
2. TfL can descope / achieve efficiencies to bring costs lower to a point where it can fund the overrun.
3. TfL is unable to get costs and risks down to an acceptable level and therefore it says "sorry can't do this, we can't fund the expected overrun and btw the project is no longer worth doing at the anticipated cost". Over to you Mr Grayling, Mr Hammond and friends in Herts and Watford.
I wouldn't like to guess as to which outcome is most likely. One thing we do have to be careful about is programme slippage to the point where planned signalling / track works to link the line into NR's tracks lose the already planned possession slot and then things get really expensive, difficult and late.
PC | 15.12.16 - 12:39 p.m. | #
|
or 4. TfL funds the budget overrun by making cuts elsewhere on the system. Not popular with Londn voters, but may make political capital that Home Counties services are safe in the mayor's hands.
or 5. TfL funds the budget overrun by taking the hit in the short term but recovering it through zoning of services on the line when it opens to maximise revenue. (You want it, you pay for it). Including moving Watford High Street to Zone 9, and Croxley to Zone 6 if the numbers stack up.
timbo | 15.12.16 - 1:20 p.m. | #
|
|
or 6. They leave space for one of the two new stations and only build one of them, Vicarage Road, splitting the service to Watford Met.
Uncle Audrey | 15.12.16 - 4:19 p.m. | #
|
|
Still looking forward to what London Reconnections have to say - just under 6.5 hours of Thursday left for them to post something today.
Andrew | 15.12.16 - 5:34 p.m. | #
|
|
To cancel after all that has preceded and the diverse sources of the majority of funding for demonstrable benefits would be madness. If TfL can't negotiate a better deal from the contractors, then they should de-scope to the point where the service can still be provided but perhaps with more basic facilities, then re-scope later as budgets permit.
Dr Strabismus | 15.12.16 - 6:39 p.m. | #
|
|
No one has played a blinder here. Seems some behind the scenes jockeying for position for me as I can't believe they won't build it given what has been sunk in so far. One less station on the new line might do it.
Mark | 15.12.16 - 8:47 p.m. | #
|
London Reconnection article here.
Interesting reading..... not sure who has the upper hand here, I would think Sadiq. I wonder be interested in why TW were ruled out or ruled themselves out. Still puts a slightly different perspective on taking over outside London rail lines.
Roger | 16.12.16 - 3:31 p.m. | #
|
January update from Construction News:
Construction News has learned that the organisation, which is under pressure to cut costs, is carrying out value-engineering work to see how best to bring down the cost of the project.
TfL confirmed that it was re-evaluating the affordability of the project and the benefits the extension of the line would deliver.
TfL said this week that it was still aiming for the line to be finished by 2020.
London Underground director of strategy and service development David Hughes said: “Since taking over the Metropolitan line extension in November 2015, we have undertaken substantial design development and enabling work, which is due to complete in spring next year.
“We continue to work with Hertfordshire County Council and the DfT to ensure the affordability of the project. There’s a growth fund in the [TfL] business plan for transport projects which will unlock growth and regeneration.
“The list of projects covered by the fund is still being reviewed but could include the Metropolitan line extension.”
diamond geezer | Homepage | 05.01.17 - 11:35 p.m. | #
|
FOI request, answered 10th January 2017.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/metropolitan_line_extension
(similar response to comment above)
diamond geezer | Homepage | 15.01.17 - 5:09 p.m. | #
|
Update from the Watford Observer:
The elected mayor of Watford has confirmed that work has stopped on the Metropolitan Line extension.
Following a meeting with the key stakeholders, Mayor Dorothy Thornhill said that Affinity Water has pulled out of the extension, formerly known as the Croxley Rail link.
But she said design work, which Secretary of State for Transport Chris Grayling assured is a contractual obligation, is continuing.
diamond geezer | Homepage | 25.01.17 - 9:58 p.m. | #
|
|
|
TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy
|