Just had this email from a friend regarding this story on the London Olympics:
"£496m for what will, in the end, be a 25,000 seater stadium. I think Mad Vlad's plans for a £50m stand at Tynecastle appear to have been better thought through and costed than this.
"Here's my breakdown of how the new design will pan out: A sunken bowl - so the drainage will be rotten. 55,000 temporary seats - just like the wendy house behind the goal at Brockville? A roof that covers 2/3 of spectators - 1/3 not covered?? That's well designed forthe London weather. A curtain wrapped round the ground to offer extra protection i.e. a big bit of canvas. Catering and merchandising will be grouped into self-contained 'pod' structures - otherwise knows as burger vans...
"I hope those grannies in Scotland getting free prescriptions don't take any funding away from this masterpiece of design".
There's no answer to that, really...
Showing posts with label London 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label London 2012. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Friday, August 24, 2007
Getting Caught Off-Balance
A column written for last month's Scots Independent. Not exactly hot news any more, but still something we're likely to hear a lot more about in the years ahead.
Edinburgh’s transport woes never seem to be very far from the front pages. Over the past decade, there’s been uproar over ‘Greenways’, a guided busway, traffic re-routing, road charging and now, trams. Say it quietly, but despite our superb bus network, many Edinburghers cast envious eyes westwards towards Glasgow and southwards towards London – both cities which had the good sense to keep their overground and underground train networks intact after they had been built.
It’s been a while since I took a trip on the ‘clockwork orange’, but now that I’m working in Westminster, the London Underground is one engineering marvel with which I’m becoming increasingly familiar. However, even its undoubted Edwardian charm and convenience, can’t blind you to the shortcomings of the system.
In summer, commuters are crammed face-to-armpit, in conditions which you would be forbidden to transport cattle. Wires hang out of exposed service ducts, escalators jolt, signals fail, trains jump over gaps in the rails… Altogether, with the exception of perhaps a couple of lines, the impression is of a mass-transit system kept working with twine, gaffer tape and a collective crossing of fingers.
Realising that something needed to be done if London was to secure its position as a key economic centre, a massive upgrade to the system was unveiled back in 2003. However, even once the will had been galvanised, the question still remained of how to pay for it all. In the end, despite the best efforts of Mayor Ken Livingstone and his ex-CIA transport guru Bob Kiley, the then Chancellor Gordon Brown rejected their proposals to fund the upgrades through bond issues, insisting instead on a convoluted PFI arrangement.
Of course, the biggest attraction of PFI for the government is that it it allows the resulting capital investment to be kept 'off balance sheet'. It doesn't cost any less, and in fact over time usually ends up costing the taxpayer significantly more. However, a succession of useful idiots can usually be found to defend PFI, on the spurious grounds that it means a new school or hospital for their constituency, which, we are invited to believe, could not be delivered any other way. And with Gordon Brown sailing perilously close to the edge of his self-proclaimed 'golden rule' of only borrowing to invest over the economic cycle, PFI again won out for the London Underground projects.
One of the successful bidders was an outfit called ‘Metronet’, set up by a consortium made up of Atkins, Balfour Beatty, Bombardier, EDF Energy, and Thames Water. Together, they
won a 30 year, £30bn contract to run and upgrade parts of the network. Last month, it went belly-up, asking Ken Livingstone to call in the administrators. Amidst accusations of inadequate cost controls and poor value from the contracts dished out to the parent companies, the future of the upgrades for which they were responsible must now be in serious doubt.
Think this doesn't affect Scotland? Well, think again. Between them, Transport for London and the private sector will doubtless scrape together the cash necessary to complete the upgrade over time, although having already had their fingers burned once, the City will probably have some tough questions to ask second time round. No, money won't be a problem, if only because the one thing the authorities no longer have on their side is time.
The reason for this is one with which we're likely to become depressingly familiar in the years ahead. Let's rewind to 2005, and the London bid to win the 2012 Olympics. Here's what the report of the IOC Evaluation Commission had to say with respect to the transportation aspects of London's bid:
“During the bid process, substantial London rail transport infrastructure investments have been clearly confirmed, guaranteed and accelerated. Provided that this proposed programme of public transport improvements is fully delivered on schedule before 2012, the Commission believes that London would be capable of coping with Games-time traffic and that Olympic and Paralympic transport requirements would be met”.
In other words, if the programme is not fully delivered, London would not be capable of coping. Failure is unthinkable for the UK government. And since Gordon Brown very generously agreed that the UK government would underwrite any financial overspend incurred by the 2012 games, guess who will be expected to dig as deep as anyone else to make sure it all happens on schedule, even if not on budget?
Yep, that's right - us. Doubtless London will be festooned with Union Flags come 2012, but somehow, I suspect that having been sent a bill but not an invite to share in the goodies, the corresponding reaction from Scotland will end up being less than supportive. It doesn't seem like much of a Union dividend to me.
Edinburgh’s transport woes never seem to be very far from the front pages. Over the past decade, there’s been uproar over ‘Greenways’, a guided busway, traffic re-routing, road charging and now, trams. Say it quietly, but despite our superb bus network, many Edinburghers cast envious eyes westwards towards Glasgow and southwards towards London – both cities which had the good sense to keep their overground and underground train networks intact after they had been built.
It’s been a while since I took a trip on the ‘clockwork orange’, but now that I’m working in Westminster, the London Underground is one engineering marvel with which I’m becoming increasingly familiar. However, even its undoubted Edwardian charm and convenience, can’t blind you to the shortcomings of the system.
In summer, commuters are crammed face-to-armpit, in conditions which you would be forbidden to transport cattle. Wires hang out of exposed service ducts, escalators jolt, signals fail, trains jump over gaps in the rails… Altogether, with the exception of perhaps a couple of lines, the impression is of a mass-transit system kept working with twine, gaffer tape and a collective crossing of fingers.
Realising that something needed to be done if London was to secure its position as a key economic centre, a massive upgrade to the system was unveiled back in 2003. However, even once the will had been galvanised, the question still remained of how to pay for it all. In the end, despite the best efforts of Mayor Ken Livingstone and his ex-CIA transport guru Bob Kiley, the then Chancellor Gordon Brown rejected their proposals to fund the upgrades through bond issues, insisting instead on a convoluted PFI arrangement.
Of course, the biggest attraction of PFI for the government is that it it allows the resulting capital investment to be kept 'off balance sheet'. It doesn't cost any less, and in fact over time usually ends up costing the taxpayer significantly more. However, a succession of useful idiots can usually be found to defend PFI, on the spurious grounds that it means a new school or hospital for their constituency, which, we are invited to believe, could not be delivered any other way. And with Gordon Brown sailing perilously close to the edge of his self-proclaimed 'golden rule' of only borrowing to invest over the economic cycle, PFI again won out for the London Underground projects.
One of the successful bidders was an outfit called ‘Metronet’, set up by a consortium made up of Atkins, Balfour Beatty, Bombardier, EDF Energy, and Thames Water. Together, they
won a 30 year, £30bn contract to run and upgrade parts of the network. Last month, it went belly-up, asking Ken Livingstone to call in the administrators. Amidst accusations of inadequate cost controls and poor value from the contracts dished out to the parent companies, the future of the upgrades for which they were responsible must now be in serious doubt.
Think this doesn't affect Scotland? Well, think again. Between them, Transport for London and the private sector will doubtless scrape together the cash necessary to complete the upgrade over time, although having already had their fingers burned once, the City will probably have some tough questions to ask second time round. No, money won't be a problem, if only because the one thing the authorities no longer have on their side is time.
The reason for this is one with which we're likely to become depressingly familiar in the years ahead. Let's rewind to 2005, and the London bid to win the 2012 Olympics. Here's what the report of the IOC Evaluation Commission had to say with respect to the transportation aspects of London's bid:
“During the bid process, substantial London rail transport infrastructure investments have been clearly confirmed, guaranteed and accelerated. Provided that this proposed programme of public transport improvements is fully delivered on schedule before 2012, the Commission believes that London would be capable of coping with Games-time traffic and that Olympic and Paralympic transport requirements would be met”.
In other words, if the programme is not fully delivered, London would not be capable of coping. Failure is unthinkable for the UK government. And since Gordon Brown very generously agreed that the UK government would underwrite any financial overspend incurred by the 2012 games, guess who will be expected to dig as deep as anyone else to make sure it all happens on schedule, even if not on budget?
Yep, that's right - us. Doubtless London will be festooned with Union Flags come 2012, but somehow, I suspect that having been sent a bill but not an invite to share in the goodies, the corresponding reaction from Scotland will end up being less than supportive. It doesn't seem like much of a Union dividend to me.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Dear Oh Dear Oh Dear
Dear God. Just when you thought the London Olympics couldn't get any more farcical, this happens:
"This is the vision at the very heart of our brand," said London 2012 organising committee Chairman, Seb Coe.
"It will define the venues we build and the Games we hold and act as a reminder of our promise to use the Olympic spirit to inspire everyone and reach out to young people around the world. It is an invitation to take part and be involved.."
And from Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell, we have: "This is an iconic brand that sums up what London 2012 is all about - an inclusive, welcoming and diverse Games that involves the whole country. It takes our values to the world beyond our shores, acting both as an invitation and an inspiration."
(With thanks to Mr Eugenides for the tip off and the logo image).
UPDATE: Since this is for the most part a respectable, family blog, I'm not going to add the animated cartoon porn version of the logo - you'll just have to find it for yourselves. However, here's one that someone called Matt Le Gresley sent to the BBC website:
Class!
"This is the vision at the very heart of our brand," said London 2012 organising committee Chairman, Seb Coe.
"It will define the venues we build and the Games we hold and act as a reminder of our promise to use the Olympic spirit to inspire everyone and reach out to young people around the world. It is an invitation to take part and be involved.."
And from Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell, we have: "This is an iconic brand that sums up what London 2012 is all about - an inclusive, welcoming and diverse Games that involves the whole country. It takes our values to the world beyond our shores, acting both as an invitation and an inspiration."
How can anyone say that in public without dissolving into a fit of the giggles? Frankly, the guy who designed the 'Tiswas' logo should sue!
(With thanks to Mr Eugenides for the tip off and the logo image).
UPDATE: Since this is for the most part a respectable, family blog, I'm not going to add the animated cartoon porn version of the logo - you'll just have to find it for yourselves. However, here's one that someone called Matt Le Gresley sent to the BBC website:
Class!
Thursday, March 15, 2007
£9bn... Do I Hear £12bn?
Having just come out of a horrific accountancy exam this lunchtime, I'm loathe to start talking about numbers. However, with today's confirmation that the official cost of the 2012 London Olympics has hit £9.3bn, I'm afraid I can't help myself.
When I last blogged on this and mentioned a figure of £10bn, the official cost was still £2.4bn. Nonetheless, the following day (21 November 2006), it was announced that costs had increased by £900m to £3.3bn.
Appearing before the Commons culture, media and sport committee, Minister Tessa Jowell told us that this rise was partly due to a doubling in the price of steel, along with a decision to revise transport costs to take into account inflation (!) in the years to 2012. It also included an extra £400m to pay "delivery partner" CLM to make sure the games came in on budget and on time.
Jowell duly gave assurances to the committee that 'This project is under control. Cost control is a daily part of the rigour'. Yet just four short months later, another £6bn has been added to a figure which, according to Jowell, already represented a project 'under control'.
This is just one project amongst many big infrastructure projects due to come 'on-line' around 2012, including the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link, an Edinburgh Tram Network and the start of a replacement Forth Road Bridge. Since the date of the Olympics can't move, the only variable that can be altered is the amount of money we throw at the project, doubtless to the detriment of the costs on other projects - and don't the contractors just know it.
'Dripping roast' doesn't even begin to describe the bonanza that awaits the construction industry at our expense. Most public sector projects seem to run over budget and behind schedule, but the shower of blisteringly incompetent Panglossians we have in government right now seem determined to set some new kind of Olympic record of their own. Quite frankly, I wouldn't even trust them to sell union jack tat to spectators outside the games.
When I last blogged on this and mentioned a figure of £10bn, the official cost was still £2.4bn. Nonetheless, the following day (21 November 2006), it was announced that costs had increased by £900m to £3.3bn.
Appearing before the Commons culture, media and sport committee, Minister Tessa Jowell told us that this rise was partly due to a doubling in the price of steel, along with a decision to revise transport costs to take into account inflation (!) in the years to 2012. It also included an extra £400m to pay "delivery partner" CLM to make sure the games came in on budget and on time.
Jowell duly gave assurances to the committee that 'This project is under control. Cost control is a daily part of the rigour'. Yet just four short months later, another £6bn has been added to a figure which, according to Jowell, already represented a project 'under control'.
This is just one project amongst many big infrastructure projects due to come 'on-line' around 2012, including the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link, an Edinburgh Tram Network and the start of a replacement Forth Road Bridge. Since the date of the Olympics can't move, the only variable that can be altered is the amount of money we throw at the project, doubtless to the detriment of the costs on other projects - and don't the contractors just know it.
'Dripping roast' doesn't even begin to describe the bonanza that awaits the construction industry at our expense. Most public sector projects seem to run over budget and behind schedule, but the shower of blisteringly incompetent Panglossians we have in government right now seem determined to set some new kind of Olympic record of their own. Quite frankly, I wouldn't even trust them to sell union jack tat to spectators outside the games.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Olympic sized overspends - coming to a tax bill near you
I don't normally bother to read The Observer. The Guardian I can usually tolerate (the outstandingly dreadful Polly Toynbee excepted), but the insufferable, hand-wringing, self-satisfied London-centric view of the world held by its Sunday stablemate, can almost always be relied upon to spoil what's left of my weekend.
That said, yesterday's feature on the train wreck that threatens to become of the London Olympics, was worth the cover price alone. Marking a change in tone from their previous sycophantic coverage of the bid, it exposed what many critics of the games have been saying all along: namely, the benefits will be confined in their entirety to London; the 'maximum' £2.4bn price tag had all the integrity of a Labour party fundraiser; and that Lottery Funds will likely end up being plundered to try and plug the gap.
In addition to the howler of forgetting to include VAT in the projected costs, the estimated cost of buying and decontaminating land has tripled from £478m to £1.44bn. The cost of building 40,000 new homes has also risen from £0.5bn to around £1.5bn - another tripling of the original estimate.
£1bn was set aside originally for this 'regeneration', which included that £478m for buying and decontaminating the land. This would in turn have left a balance of £522m for those 40,000 houses to be built, equating to a construction cost of just £12,500 each. Now, I'm no surveyer and I'm certainly no builder, but even I know that you can't build a house for £12,500.
Therefore, even if the £478m purchase & decontamination costs were solid, it should have been blindingly obvious that there wasn't going to be enough left over for the housebuilding to follow. With the overall £1bn figure for regeneration being so obviously wrong, shouldn't it have encouraged someone somewhere to probe a little harder into the quality of the other forecasts?
Brian Coleman, Chair of the London Assembly, now estimates that the cost of the project could rise as high as £10bn and beyond. However, while some of these cost rises can be put down to straightforward sleight-of-hand and others to simple incompetence, one further figure deserves our attention. Namely, the security budget, which has increased from £190m to £850m following, we are told, the 7/7 attacks on the London Underground.
Now I'm sorry, but they can't be allowed to get away with this. The Atlanta bombing in 1996 showed that there were those prepared to target the Olympic games. And in the aftermath of 9/11, the government did not miss an opportunity to remind us how British cities were also under threat from terrorist attack. All 7/7 did was confirm that thesis, so why the sudden need to increase this element of the budget by a factor of 4.5?
Were those costing the bid unaware of the security threat, did they simply underestimate it, or is there perhaps another explanation? Surely no-one would be brazen enough to exploit public fears over terrorism to pad the security element of the costs, just so the other cost increases look a bit more reasonable, would they?
That said, yesterday's feature on the train wreck that threatens to become of the London Olympics, was worth the cover price alone. Marking a change in tone from their previous sycophantic coverage of the bid, it exposed what many critics of the games have been saying all along: namely, the benefits will be confined in their entirety to London; the 'maximum' £2.4bn price tag had all the integrity of a Labour party fundraiser; and that Lottery Funds will likely end up being plundered to try and plug the gap.
In addition to the howler of forgetting to include VAT in the projected costs, the estimated cost of buying and decontaminating land has tripled from £478m to £1.44bn. The cost of building 40,000 new homes has also risen from £0.5bn to around £1.5bn - another tripling of the original estimate.
£1bn was set aside originally for this 'regeneration', which included that £478m for buying and decontaminating the land. This would in turn have left a balance of £522m for those 40,000 houses to be built, equating to a construction cost of just £12,500 each. Now, I'm no surveyer and I'm certainly no builder, but even I know that you can't build a house for £12,500.
Therefore, even if the £478m purchase & decontamination costs were solid, it should have been blindingly obvious that there wasn't going to be enough left over for the housebuilding to follow. With the overall £1bn figure for regeneration being so obviously wrong, shouldn't it have encouraged someone somewhere to probe a little harder into the quality of the other forecasts?
Brian Coleman, Chair of the London Assembly, now estimates that the cost of the project could rise as high as £10bn and beyond. However, while some of these cost rises can be put down to straightforward sleight-of-hand and others to simple incompetence, one further figure deserves our attention. Namely, the security budget, which has increased from £190m to £850m following, we are told, the 7/7 attacks on the London Underground.
Now I'm sorry, but they can't be allowed to get away with this. The Atlanta bombing in 1996 showed that there were those prepared to target the Olympic games. And in the aftermath of 9/11, the government did not miss an opportunity to remind us how British cities were also under threat from terrorist attack. All 7/7 did was confirm that thesis, so why the sudden need to increase this element of the budget by a factor of 4.5?
Were those costing the bid unaware of the security threat, did they simply underestimate it, or is there perhaps another explanation? Surely no-one would be brazen enough to exploit public fears over terrorism to pad the security element of the costs, just so the other cost increases look a bit more reasonable, would they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
