HEATHROW

[Fairdealfrank]

Round in circles

This is going round in circles again.

It is not about public spending in the north and south it's about Heathrow. The clue is in the thread's title.

Anyone who thinks that the money earmarked for a third runway will be spent in the north if the runway is not built is severely deluded, because this is private sector money.

Sums it up nicely - don't the most succesful businesses put the bulk of their resources behind their most succesful products to get the max out of them? - it works for economies too, investment in the south east can return a multiple on investment in the regions. The south east could survive without the regions but not vice versa (the Scots demonstrated their understanding of this a year ago) - the truth may hurt and we may not like it but it is still the truth.

It works for the UK's constituent countries as well. If one or more of the 3 smaller constituent countries decide to leave the UK, the UK survives. If England leaves, it's the end of the UK. Better of course if all stick together.

Oops sorry, going off topic, apologies.

I also note the South-West are in favour of Heathrow expansion because of the benefits their region will receive.

Good, back on topic now. It's not just the southwest, the entire country is in favour.

[Walnut]

Now we know the true value of road pollution (VW scandal) is being stuck in the proposed 800mtr tunnel under R3 a Health & Safety issue?

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Anyone who thinks that the money earmarked for a third runway will be spent in the north if the runway is not built is severely deluded, because this is private sector money.

Sorry Frank, can't let you away with that one! Funding proposals call for a minimum of £5Bn from the public purse with claims running to £20Bn dependent on source. This of course includes infrastructure upgrades on surrounding roads / railways as a consequence of LHR R3 approval. And it is not delusional to suppose that there are alternative uses for public sector infrastructure funding. Each pound allocated can only be used once. If yet another vast sum is nodded through for the SE, that money cannot then be used in the regions where it is long overdue and acutely needed.

the entire country is in favour.

On the contrary, the country is extremely divided on this issue. There is no consensus. That is why this topic attracts passionate debate.

Moving on, I would like to pick up on one other point raised on the R3 issue: connectivity. If a British company wishes to do business in Chongqing, Duluth or Hyderabad, do contributors here honestly subscribe to the myth that contracts will never be signed if there isn't a non-stop flight between LHR and these destinations? Have you ever heard of one-stop connections via hubs such as DXB, PEK or ORD? This is routine for business travellers in reality. A couple of hours additional journey time will not kill international commerce. Besides, the real truth is that London's greatest demand for increased runway capacity is driven by the leisure sector, not business. Those flights to PMI, AGP and TFS may not be glamorous enough for some, but they all require SE runway space. As do flights servicing inbound tourism. Over coming years, London will have to cope with far more growth to Mediterranean resorts than to regional China.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Shed-on-a-Pole

If a British company wishes to do business in Chongqing, Duluth or Hyderabad, do contributors here honestly subscribe to the myth that contracts will never be signed if there isn't a non-stop flight between LHR and these destinations? Have you ever heard of one-stop connections via hubs such as DXB, PEK or ORD? This is routine for business travellers in reality. A couple of hours additional journey time will not kill international commerce.

It's true that even Heathrow, in their Airport Commission submissions to the effect that "Britain does more trade with countries that can be reached by direct flights", concede that it's not at all clear which way round the cause-and-effect link works.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Shed, classic! Ignore and deflect the inconvenient truth.

"that is still multiple times the NE equivalent. Or that of any other region."

It isn't.

Firstly, you still fail to compare like-for-like. Excluding private and joint public/private investment, London gets £770 versus the UK average of £400. Nowhere near the "multiple times" you continue to claim - although I note you've downgraded that multiple
"London is getting almost THIRTEEN TIMES (!!!!) per head what a NE resident is receiving."

Second, with 76% of the traffic using the M4/M25 junction not related to LHR, Public finance investment would still be required to improve traffic flows. So the £5Bn to £20Bn (dependent on source) you quote will still be required, regardless of expansion. An inconvenient truth for you.

Third, spending that £5-20bn in the North-East won't have the multiplier effect that it would as part of the R3 project. So yes you could spend it up there but the benefits case is much, much weaker. It's better for the UK - not just one of the regions. Another inconvenient truth.

Fourth, why do you think there's so much private/public investment in the South-East? I agree the difference between £770 & £2500 is stark however it's the result of private investment. Clearly, private investors aren't interested in investing to the same degree, elsewhere in the UK. Another inconvenient truth.

Finally, even the North East supports an expanded Heathrow. Unsurprisingly, there are anti-expansionists across the UK so you're in the minority. Another inconvenient truth.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

T&N - I am not going to engage in this silly style of typing up a series of outbursts and adding the suffix "inconvenient truth!" after each one. That is knockabout kindergarten stuff. Besides, that phrase is closely associated with a former US presidential candidate whose own wild claims under that title have been widely discredited. However, I will address factual points raised.

Firstly, you are presuming that the research published by Spatial Economics Research (your source) is superior to that of the Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (my source). It may indeed be so, but I don't know this and neither do you. It is a moot point. But neither source can be discarded because the other suits our case better.

Now, addressing some of the numbers which you quote from Spatial Economics. Firstly, that GBP400 UK Average figure which you quote (it is actually the English average BTW) includes London. This of course has the effect of making that GBP400 number far higher than it would otherwise be. Next, the GBP770 figure which you quote relates to projects where the public sector is sole funder. It is therefore appropriate to use the higher GBP2500 number which includes projects which are partially funded by the public sector. And based upon those numbers - from the research which you cite - my 'multiples' claim is validated. As for your noting that I have downgraded my original multiple, this is a nod to the maths provided by Spatial Research. Neither of us can say that Sheffield P.E.R.I.'s numbers were the invalid ones.

Next, M4/M25 measures. What upgrades may or may not be required there in the future is pure speculation. What will or will not be funded is unknown. I see no 'inconvenient truth' established there. I see conjecture.

On spending GBP5Bn-20Bn in the NE. Firstly, let's be quite clear. I have never proposed anything of the sort. As for what the multipliers and benefits of an undefined future notional project might be, nobody knows. Claims to the contrary make no sense. By the way, I propose fairer distribution of public infrastructure expenditure around the regions generally, targeted at projects of high merit. I have never suggested a single 'big-hit' one-off project. And whilst I support a fair deal for the NE (amongst others) note that it is not my own region. As for your contention that spending in the SE will in all cases provide better ROI than spending in the regions: utter hogwash. Although I can certainly appreciate the advantage to SE interests of promoting this myth!

There is , as you say, significantly higher private investment in the SE than in the regions. However, much of this goes on projects to which the public sector contributes. There is a need for this investment model to be encouraged regionally.

Finally, it seems that you have conducted a nationwide plebiscite on support for LHR R3. Amazing. Care to share your full results with us?

[Trash 'n' Navs]

That's funny coming from you Shed. I reckon every post you write is pure conjecture.

You've ignored something (again) to further your opinion. The source of the figures I quoted was HM Treasury (their 'Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis Tables ' to be exact). Are you saying their numbers "were the invalid ones"?

Good luck with convincing your MP to vote against LHR expansion.

[Skipness One Echo]

There is , as you say, significantly higher private investment in the SE than in the regions. However, much of this goes on projects to which the public sector contributes. There is a need for this investment model to be encouraged regionally.

Hang on, public spending is the only thing that keeps some parts of the country going, given that there are towns which are dying and the world left behind. I grew up in one of them, all the public money in the world in the hands of "local government" just was ****ed up the wall. Are you asking for more public subsidy for places which have fallen so far behind that no business can see a return on investment?

[eggc]

I find the last line quite amusing Trash, considering no politician will have the balls to approve such a move. It's biggest support was Labour, but note the "was"...even they, with a new leader, have changed their minds and now don't support the idea.

IMO its more good luck convincing them to do it !

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

I am glad that you are amused, T&N. However, far from 'ignoring' the figures you quote I used them in my reply to you (see paragraph three of my earlier posting). And, no, I do not label any of the statistics provided as invalid. I argued that we cannot know which set of data quoted have used the superior methodology in reaching their conclusions. By the way, statistical data (especially forecasts) are subject to inaccuracy whoever the sponsor / publisher may be. That includes Spatial, Sheffield, HMG agencies and everybody else.

Ah, my MP. Well, I haven't raised the subject of my local MP at all. But it just so happens that he is brother to a good friend of mine. Maybe I should take up your suggestion and have a chat!

Interesting to note that you have resorted to the 'personal attack' style of response again. I guess asking you to justify your one-man national opinion survey was a bit much?

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Are you asking for more public subsidy for places which have fallen so far behind that no business can see a return on investment?

No, Skipness. As made abundantly clear in earlier postings I am calling for an equitable distribution of public sector funding for infrastructure investment. And that does not mean 13:1, 8:1 or even 5:1 in favour of London (depending on which statistical methodology you prefer). Please remember that the communities you propose to write off pay taxes to the exchequer at the same rates as Londoners. They deserve their fair share in return.

By the way, are you familiar with the concept that investment attracts investment? Invest some capital to improve an area's functionality and private investment will follow. London's Docklands is a fine example of this principle in action. There are many areas of the UK which would benefit from similar thinking.

Taking your own example of Scotland (which now has considerable control over its own infrastructure spending) we see the recently re-opened borders railway. It is too early to quote statistics, but the early signs are that communities all along that route will benefit from new investment as a result. Exactly the kind of project we need to back.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Originally Posted by Shed-on-a-Pole

statistical data (especially forecasts) are subject to inaccuracy whoever the sponsor / publisher may be. That includes Spatial, Sheffield, HMG agencies and everybody else.

So why did you introduce suspect data claiming it to be fact and the basis for your "THIRTEEN TIMES claim?

I guess asking you to justify your one-man national opinion survey was a bit much?

Nope, keep guessing.

To summarise your argument, you'd rather invest £5bn of public money to better regions within the UK (but not the South East) but not £20bn of private/public to better ALL regions within the UK?

LHR is the UK's most valuable port for trade. More valuable than Felixstowe or Southampton. Failure to invest in its expansion will see the UK drop down the work rankings due to lack of connectivity and trade. Investing in a few projects up North won't prevent it. Investing in R3 will support UK exports - not just London.

[eggc]

Trash wrote (then deleted) :

You claim not everyone supports LHR R3. Where's your evidence? Did you conduct a one man plebiscite?

Just a quick question Trash, do BA count in this universal support for R3 ? What about good old Boris ? Labour ?

I think Shed could prove they don't support it, and I suspect many other groups, parties, organisations and individuals.

To suggest LHR expansion is supported by everyone is just plain ridiculous.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

EGGC, I've never said "everyone" supports R3.

Equally I've never claimed BA, Boris & the flip-flopping Labour party represent "everyone".

From the surveys I've seen, there is more support for R3 than against.

The Commission made a cogent argument with solid evidence. Since it published it's recommendation I've seen even stronger and more widespread support.

[eggc]

Seems I'm nit picking, but that's not how this reads to me...

"You claim not everyone supports LHR R3. Where's your evidence?"

One thing that is clear to me, and a massive problem for the project...support is far from across the board.

Red tape, politics and more will be (already is) a huge hurdle...not one I am sure will be jumped at anytime soon.

[AerRyan]

Heathrow is a great example to Irish people that beating around the bush is not just an Irish trait. I can see no opposition that over-rules the economic benefits of a RWY3. The more its delayed, the less the economic benefit.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

So why did you introduce suspect data claiming it to be fact and the basis for your "THIRTEEN TIMES claim?

What are you on about? The Sheffield research deserves as much respect as any of the data you have presented. Unless you can discredit it. Which you have not done so far.

To summarise your argument

You have not summarised my argument. You have concocted a twisted parody of it which suits your personal agenda. My actual argument is there for all to read in my own earlier postings on this topic.

LHR is the UK's most valuable port for trade

LHR's current status is not the issue here. The debate surrounds the stratospheric cost of providing expansion from this point forward versus the ROI which will result. There is a very substantial opportunity cost associated with allocating public funds to supporting this project as opposed to alternatives. Opposition is justified.

You want this debate to be straightforward. Unfortunately, it isn't.

[Fairdealfrank]

question for Shed

Shed, is your opposition to Heathrow expansion based on the amount of public expenditure to be spent on the associated surface road and rail infrastructure improvements?

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Follow-Up From Post 3631

Frank - Thankyou for your question. Sorry it has taken me a couple of days to respond. Multiple demands on my time beyond PPRuNe. Actually, I plan to answer your question in a second posting (after this one). The reason for that is to be found in my recent post No.3631 on this thread in which I referred to claims made in a newspaper article dating from late July which is unfortunately no longer accessible via its original link. The good news is that I have now located alternative coverage of the same news-story. It is logical to first report back on that as I promised, then answer your question with this new information taken into account.

The story was entitled: Airports Commission Accused of Burying Evidence. The version I printed off originated from Putneysw15.com, but there are alternative sources reporting the story. The gist of the story is that the Airports Commission "were hell bent on presenting Heathrow as the best option".

The report arises from the discovery of a letter penned by two of the commission's expert advisers which calls into question the reliability of growth forecasts used to justify the recommendation. These two advisers are named as Professor Peter Mackie and Mr Brian Pearce. They take issue with the forecast produced by PWC which suggests that LHR R3 (NW) will add £147Bn to GDP in a timeframe of 60 years.

According to PM and BP, the methodology used by PWC to reach this conclusion is experimental and has never been tested against a live project. Using the government's established approach to economic modelling, the predicted number for LHR expansion is £33.6 - 54.8Bn. In their letter, they warn that the PWC figures include "a high degree of overlap between the direct and wider impacts ... double counting ... and rely on economic growth and other assumptions which are at the extreme end of the range."

PM and BP highlight the risk of "exaggeration by media" if care is not taken to caveat these figures. Using the £147Bn figure could mislead the public and "qualifiers such as up to do not give a flavour of the likely median or mean outcome across the economic scenarios."

In response to these claims, a number of council leaders issued comments. Typical amongst these is Wandsworth Council Leader Ravi Govindia: "It's clear the commission has based its recommendation to expand Heathrow on a grossly exaggerated economic case. Their own expert advisers tore apart the PWC growth forecasts but their evidence was buried and ignored. Sir Howard and his team were hell bent on presenting Heathrow as the best option and refused to let reality get in the way."

Well, what a story. Curious that it did not (apparently) receive broader coverage beyond the local news in afew London boroughs.

I would like to extend my thanks to regular PPRuNe contributor 'MANFOD' for drawing my attention to the original 'South London Today' coverage of this story.

[Fairdealfrank]

Frank - Thankyou for your question. Sorry it has taken me a couple of days to respond. Multiple demands on my time beyond PPRuNe. Actually, I plan to answer your question in a second posting (after this one).

Look forward to it Shed.