AndyH52 writes:
Your're quite right, no one has explicitly said this is about using capacity in the regions instead of Heathrow, but I'm sorry that is how it comes across to me (here and the debate on the Manchester thread that preceded creation of this one). Call it the elephant in the room.
So let's be completely clear here. NOBODY has put forward the argument you claim. Which was the point of my earlier reply to you. But you would rather cling to your notion of what you would have preferred us to have said rather than what we actually did say. I follow the Manchester threads very closely, and I cannot recall anybody making the argument you allege on there either. I'm afraid the only elephant in evidence here is the giant one in your own imagination.
The assertion that your objection to Heathrow expansion is purely down to cost just seems a bit hollow. One minute it's the cost. The next it's the potential need for public subsidy
If you find my concerns regarding cost "hollow", that is a problem related to your own interpretation of the facts. It is perfectly valid to object to the costing proposals attached to LHR R3, and I do. I realise that it would make life far simpler for you if I were to adopt the ridiculous argument which you'd like me to make (that MAN can be a solution for SE-originating growth in pax demand), but I can't entertain you with such nonsense. If you want to debate me, you must do so at the level of the arguments I present, not on silly notions which you would love me to argue but which I never will.
By the way, there are no grounds for confusion concerning my stance on the costs issue. My earlier postings make it abundantly clear to any reader that I object to the publicly-funded proportion of the overall proposed cost attached to LHR R3.
as a passenger from the north who is quite prepared to travel via Heathrow
It is a free market. Each to their own. Good luck to you. I hope your domestic connection doesn't get cancelled. Enjoy the tedious double security-screening experience. And the stressful terminal transfer if your onward flight doesn't happen to operate from T5.
you seem quite in favour of public subsidy for infrastructure projects provided it's in the north (well Manchester, anyway)
Yet another example of what you would like me to have argued for rather than what I ever actually have. I have very clearly argued for a levelling-out of public-funding for infrastructure initiatives across all regions. London and the SE have enjoyed a conveyor belt of multi-billion pound infrastructure investments over recent years; the regions still patiently await their first £1Bn+ initiative. I have no objection to the concept of public investment in infrastructure - actually, quite the contrary - but the time has come for the regions to play catch-up for a while before the SE gets yet another sequential turn tapping national resources. By the way, any reader here is free to check back that I've argued for regional investment generally. I have NEVER argued on behalf of Manchester in isolation. I realise that it would suit your personal agenda very nicely if I had actually done that, but this is yet one more example of you wanting to debate me on what you would like me to have argued for rather than for what I ever have argued for.
IF the expansion of Heathrow costs the estimated £16.9 billion, and IF it requires £2.9 billion of public investment
Going for the low-balled estimates to strengthen your case, I see. I could just as easily go for the highest (from TfL). But as I said to Felixflyer, the true cost will likely fall somewhere between the extremes. However, that £2.9Bn public investment figure is a new one. Estimates ranging from £8Bn to £20Bn are the numbers on the table.
new rolling stock for the train services to MAN
Are you referring to the ageing cascaded former-Thameslinks Class 319's? A big improvement on the Pacers they replace, but not new. And minimal interior refurbishment, too.
any investment in our infrastructure is much needed and much welcomed
Well I agree with that sentence at least. However, have you noticed that all regional infrastructure initiatives start with that pesky letter 'M'? Nobody is arguing that the regions are getting no public investment whatsoever, simply that they are falling woefully short of their rightful share. As for the 'Northern Hub' initiative, rail professionals point out that this is a series of loosely-connected essential upgrades required to stop the Northern rail network from grinding to a halt, dressed-up as a single major innovation for PR value. It encompasses the entire North of England and still comes in at sub-£1Bn.
i think part of the challenge in this debate is understanding just how much complex infrastructure projects cost these days
And that is why it is not "hollow" for me to object to LHR R3 on the grounds of cost. Specifically the publicly-funded portion thereof. Long overdue alternative investments in regional infrastructure priorities offer much better ROI to the taxpayer than yet more initiatives in the SE in the medium-term. Let the SE digest its latest super-innovations (Crossrail, re-invented Thameslink, East End (Olympics-related) renovation, HS1, Underground mega-upgrades etc) for a while and give the regions their long-overdue turn with the public largesse.
If you do return to the discussion AndyH52, please debate us on the arguments which have been made. Not those "how it came across to me" imaginings, or ridiculous claims which you like to attribute to us but which nobody has actually argued. And an apology for your original accusation against what you call "Manchester supporters" would still be much appreciated.