DON'T FORGET THE BILL!
Taking Portmanteau's example a stage further, HKG (CLK) cost around GBP12Bn to deliver in 1998 terms, which equates to GBP19.5Bn in today's money. So a project to deliver ONE new runway at LHR is actually likely to cost more than building HKG (partially on land reclaimed from the sea!!!) at today's rates. And as we know, Istanbul's new super airport is projected to cost just GBP8Bn.
I note that once again, since the Davies Report was published, we on here (and the journalists, politicians etc.) have slipped back into focussing on operational considerations whilst the crazy price-tag gets scarcely a mention. The money DOES matter, specifically the publicly-funded portion.
Why is it that a vital rail-electrification project in the North - forecast to cost GBP260M (that's an "M" by the way) is 'delayed indefinitely' due to Network Rail funding shortfalls, yet we dismiss an estimated GBP10Bn (that's a 'B' by the way) of public funding requirement associated with a modest one-third expansion of LHR as if it were inconsequential?
MP Graham Stringer recently pointed out that the overspend on the Jubilee Line alone exceeded the capital expenditure on transport in ALL OTHER REGIONS OF ENGLAND for 18 months!!! London and the SE has been swallowing up NINETY-TWO PERCENT of all capital expenditure on transport. Going forward, it is projected that over the next decade public spending on transport infrastructure will be GBP460 per NW resident versus GBP3095 per London resident. The figures for the NE are far worse.
This obscene investment gap must close. London apologists like to dismiss regional concerns by claiming that we provincials resent London and the SE enjoying world-class infrastructure innovations (the 'sour grapes' argument). Not so. But what we do object to is being continuously overlooked for our own turn in the sun. We want our fair share - our regional economies desperately need it - and that is NOT 8% of transport infrastructure funding split amongst 70% of the population. Who are all taxed at the same rates as Londoners.
Vast sums of public funding MUST NOT be signed-off for more super-scale London infrastructure projects (LHR R3 support works, Crossrail 2 etc.) until AFTER the regions have had a series of essential catch-up infrastructure innovations approved and fully funded. Balance must be established ... note that I don't use the word "restored"!
I'm sure we'll soon be treated to the usual dismissive responses informing us that LHR R3 will be a windfall for the regions. Please don't patronise us with such hogwash. LHR expansion is overwhelmingly a project for the benefit of London and the SE. As Sir Richard Leese neatly put it: "In my experience, trickledown really does mean a trickle!"
If you really think that no LHR third rwy means infrastructure investment in the north, you would be disappointed.
If LHR Ltd and other investors are prohibited from building a third rwy, do you really think that
they will invest in northern infrastructure?
Do you not realise that even with no third rwy, further public sector investment in surface access infrastructure around LHR will be necessary?
Perhaps not surprisingly, very strong support for LHR expansion in this part of the world and the North East. Business leaders, chambers of commerce etc. This "we in the North" stance against Heathrow simply doesn't resonate with what I see and hear. I suspect very similar in Merseyside too. This isn't anti-MAN, but simply reflects LHR's status as one of a handful of global hub airports. Seems entirely logical that links into this global hub (and other) are seen by many as a valuable driver of economic activity.
Most of the north and the rest of the UK (except possibly GIP-owned airports) actually support LHR expansion: the problem is with the rich London NIMBYs, who of course, live nowhere near Heathrow.
By the way, Skipness, the Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds (- Sheffield / Bradford) - York - Newcastle rail corridor is also a national asset in the same way LHR is. Although I do realise that you're probably choking on your lunch contemplating that concept.
Of course it is and let’s hope that LHR expansion and HS3 are both pushed through quickly under the national infrastructure planning arrangements.
Oh hell, another flock of pigs just flew by, it’s becoming an epidemic!
M4 J3 to J4 Road widening
M4 Airport Spur Road widening
M4 J2 to J3 Road widening
M4 J4 and J4B Road widening
M4 Large M4 Junction 4b replacement
M4 Higher capacity @ M4 J4a
M4 Capacity improvements to existing main airport tunnel
The above, and M25 widening will be needed without a third rwy, all part of the UK's trunk road infrastructure and therefore used by drivers other than those going on or off the airport.
A third rwy could make it happen a little earlier and therefore it would be cheaper (fewer years of the costs of dithering, delay and procrastination).
M25 M25 tunnelling costs (south of junction 15)
A4 Diversion of A4 road alignment, dual carriageway
A3044 Diversion of A3044 road alignment, dual carriageway
Airport Roads Airport Way/Southern Perimeter Road, interchange, grade-separated junction and
flyover/bridge structures
Heathrow Road Tunnel Southern Road Tunnel/Southern Perimeter Road Interchange
Airport One Way One way system for western campus
It’s likely that LHR Ltd would have to pay for some of this.
Rail - Southern Rail Access to Staines
Not now happening, but any other southern rail access scheme would be part of the UK's rail infrastructure and therefore used by pax other than those going on or off the airport.
Alongside these proposals I've also thrown in the concept of a new ‘hub station’ on the Great Western Main Line (GWML) to the north of the airport boundary. This would be located close to Iver and would be linked to the airport by a direct Automated People Mover (APM). The objective would be to provide enhanced rail access to the airport, with all services on the GWML stopping at
the hub station,
Not happening, not needed. The western access rail link is going ahead anyway enabling trains to/from the west to access LHR.
OK I haven't read into this but my view is not an extra runway but an extra airport. Upper Heyford is just a few miles from the M40. A link road would be comparatively cheaper to build. Plus the infrastructure of course. I have been saying this for years. What is the argument about using this facility?
It’s too far away! One reason perhaps why nearby Kidlington never took off as "London-Oxford Airport".