Quote (by Shed): "I understand 'the harsh realities of how this market works' very well, and it boils down to this: cost of delivering LHR R3 exceeds benefits to be derived therefrom by an order of magnitude!"
What is the basis for this assertion? I'm no defender of the costs of the R3 scheme, which I also believe to be too high, but all the Davies analysis suggests substantial economic benefits from the R3 scheme. The Business Case and Sustainability Assessment estimates overall economic benefits ranging between £112bn and £211bn, several times the cost of the project. See
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...west-final.pdf
The financial viability assessment estimates that HAL would have to increase its airport charges by around £10 per passenger to generate a commercial return on the investment, even if all of Davies's £6bn of surface access costs are paid for by HAL. Given the very high slot values at Heathrow, such an increase in airport charges is extremely unlikely to choke off demand. And, of course, HAL's own estimates of the scheme costs are a fair bit lower than Davies, implying a smaller increase in airport charges.
Overall the business case for R3 looks pretty robust. Unless, Shed, you've seen other evidence?
As for the TfL arguments about higher surface access costs, be careful what you wish for. Their basic argument is that congestion in the Heathrow area is already unacceptable at peak times, and that further growth would only worsen this, even if Heathrow's contribution to overall road traffic (etc) accounts for only a minority of current and future congestion. That's a very dangerous argument, which if applied more widely would rule out pretty much any airport expansion in busy conurbations. It would certainly rule out Gatwick R2, given the already unacceptable congestion on the London-Brighton rail line, the terrible state of road links into London from the south, and the permanent congestion on the Surrey/Kent stretch of the M25. Perhaps more relevant to Shed, Bagso and myself, it could also rule out any expansion of MAN, on the basis of congestion on the M56, M60 and indeed other motorways that are affected by traffic into the airport, potentially including the M6 and the M62. It's a very dangerous argument and one that needs to be knocked on the head.