Come on, Skip. I'd like to believe you're better than that. Cheap shot. Debate me on the arguments I have presented. Trying to plant words in my mouth diminishes your credibility.
Your core argument, presented time after time, is LHR R3 is overpriced and taking too much taxpayer subsidy, consequently that taxpayer money should be spread more evenly out of the congested SE and there are many deserving causes in your own region. You also support the ME3 at your local airport whilst saying minimising the need for en effective hub in the UK. At core, IMHO that's localism vs national interest and being selective your rationale for what's good for one airfield versus another.
LHR R3 is many multiples beyond that threshold.
In your worst case scenario view, this was not the view of the independent commission employed to make a difficult yet fair decision.
Some experts argue that costs are under-stated and will rise still further.
Mr Moylan being one
See up.
According to some very well-informed professionals, the full 100%. With the door left open for more on top before final delivery some 10-15 years hence. See Channel Tunnel for an example of how this can happen.
Good analogy, you clearly think it should never have been built to be consistent? Perhaps we should close the Chunnel and build a new one from Manchester to Calais, in interests of "
fairness"? Also, let's be honest, lack of fairness is your core arguement, and I have sympathy. It isn't fair, business isn't fair.
It is suggested by TfL that the public contribution required for LHR support works alone falls between GBP12-18Bn.
These experts? They pay blue collar peeps £50K to open and close train doors on trains that don't need drivers.
You think TFL honestly budget this at
EIGHTEEN BILLION pounds.
Is that per month? My daily experience of TFL suggests it just might be. Again, they just need managing to prevent (further) stupidity