AndyH52 - Thankyou for a very thoughtful reply. You are clearly experienced in the field of capital infrastructure projects.
I would like to come back on some of your points, however.
I suspect the original comment was in relation to business-representative organisations such as the Institute of Directors or the CBI as opposed to local politicians and interest groups?
T&N clearly stated that "all sectors" were in agreement with the report. I think it is fair to interpret his intentions exactly as written.
[/QUOTE] Is it? HAL's construction cost estimate is £11.1bn [/QUOTE]
Is it [an extraordinarily expensive project]? Well, yes, it is. These are very large numbers even at the low-end estimates supplied by HAL.
Of this all but £1.2 billion would be privately funded.
I'm rather sceptical about this bit. Sir Peter Hendy, Commissioner of Transport for London for the past nine years (and new head of Network Rail) puts the cost of supporting surface access works at £10Bn. This is a man very well placed to know. And I don't believe that HAL will be funding £8.8Bn of that.
a forecast benefit of £147bn still represents a BCR of over 14
I accept your expertise in this field. I do, however, have my doubts about the reliability of this underlying £147Bn figure. Unfortunately, I suspect I won't be around 60 years from know to tell everybody "I told you so!"
Most of the projects listed by SHED, whilst of benefit to the localities in question, would struggle to achieve a BCR of 5
Whilst I accept the mathematical principles of BCR as you explain them, I don't think that any of us are in a position to ascribe a value to a project such as the Liverpool to Newcastle rail upgrade until considerable research has been carried out. And even then, a forecast going out 60 years would be as vulnerable as the LHR R3 forecast.
London contributed £126bn in taxes...Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield combined generated around £38bn
This frequently quoted statistic comes with a major inherent flaw. There are many corporate entities which declare their profits from a London HQ address but whose revenues are derived from operations nationwide and internationally. As the home to many corporate HQ's, this statistic overplays London's tax-raising status vis-a-vis the rest of the country. Many of the taxed profits are in reality earned in the UK regions.
capital funding - which this would be- is effectively an investment that can generate a return and hence be reinvested elsewhere
But isn't this the very same capital funding of which £260M has just been cancelled for Transpennine electrification because Network Rail got its sums wrong? The problem is that the regions are seeing nothing like their rightful share of capital funding.
LHR already accounts for getting on one third of the £3bn of APD that flows into the Treasury each year.
Yes, but international transfer passengers using LHR don't pay any of that APD. And we're constantly told how important they are ... we should spend £20Bn+ to accommodate more of them. As for UK domiciled passengers, or incoming visitors to the UK, they will pay APD just the same whichever airport they use. At least, that is so under the current system (which may soon change).
This may reinforce a view that any public funds spent to enable more passengers to fly through Heathrow would be recouped over time through increased tax revenues.
Except that those UK passengers who are eligible to pay APD would likely do so via LGW/STN/LTN etc. if LHR is unable to accommodate their preferred journey option. Most travel of this sort will happen anyway ... the only variable is the departure point.
And now to Skipness:
Some of this might be better place on a thread titled "Apparent injusticies rained down on Northeners" on JetBlast surely
Remind me Skipness ... who introduced the subject of the Channel Tunnel into this debate? Oh that's right ... it was
YOU!. Remind me Skipness ... who introduced the London Olympics and tram projects into this debate? Oh that's right ... it was
YOU! I merely ran with the topics which you chose to put into play, and the chain of events I related are a matter of public record. So if reference to those topics belongs in JetBlast, who should have introduced them there?
YOU!!!
Filed next to one about BOAC forcing Sabena longhaul from Ringway......
I see you're still working hard to introduce Manchester Airport into the discussion at any opportunity. Next you will claim that LHR R3 opponents are motivated only by a narrow-minded desire to 'support' MAN. We are all MAN fanboys after all, aren't we? Not credible participants in a key national debate. Unfortunately, I have not been discussing MAN in this debate. There is no reason to refer to it.
I think a new runway at LHR will be more of an national asset than the second runway at MAN ever was
And indeed it should be, especially if it costs between £20Bn-£40Bn to deliver. But since you mention it, MAN's second runway was delivered for £172M [£253M inflation-adjusted]. And based on that sum it represents stellar value. At the end of its lifespan - hopefully many decades from now - it will have paid for itself many times over. And it was privately funded. No multiple billions from the public purse made it happen.
Who came up with that layout deserves <edited>
The MAN layout is sub-optimal, but you imply there was a choice. There wasn't. This was the only solution which could conceivably achieve planning approval.