HEATHROW
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed,
You really need to take that chip off your shoulder.
From the consultation
For both Heathrow schemes, there is no Government road spend directly linked
to expansion. The promoter would pay for changes to the M25, A4 and A3044
and any local roads. The Western and Southern Rail schemes are at different
levels of development and, based on current estimates, could cost between
£1.4 billion and £2.5 billion together. The Government would expect this cost to
be partly offset by airport contributions, which would be negotiated when the
schemes reach an appropriate level of development.
You also seem to think this will be paid in full upfront before construction begins. It would be over a series of staged payments spread over many years. In the meantime the privately funded works would be attracting 20%VAT, income taxes for workers, Corporation tax on business involved, etc. etc.
Obviously you have. Luckily the teams of well qualified people working for the investors haven't though so the money is there.
Amazing, you already know what the transfer will be like? You are obvioulsy an airport design expert as well as business investment guru. Why hire all the consultants when they could just come up to the North West and ask you?
Ahh, that's why.
Enough of the North/South claptrap please. Modern investment comes from international banks and funds with well researched risk assessments. If the investment is not forthcoming that is not because of anything happening in the south.
In that case lets build them too. What has that got to do with Heathrow?
Stop banging that drum Shed, many of these people have learnt their skills and become very comfortable financially because of these large projects. There will always be the need to travel to work on these kinds of schemes. Many of the tunnellers on Crossrail came from a mining background in Yorkshire. Transport engineering is like that and always has been.
You really need to take that chip off your shoulder.
I'm under the impression that taxpayers will foot the bill for the support works in the vicinity of LHR required to make the R3 project work. TfL puts that sum at £10Bn - £20Bn.
For both Heathrow schemes, there is no Government road spend directly linked
to expansion. The promoter would pay for changes to the M25, A4 and A3044
and any local roads. The Western and Southern Rail schemes are at different
levels of development and, based on current estimates, could cost between
£1.4 billion and £2.5 billion together. The Government would expect this cost to
be partly offset by airport contributions, which would be negotiated when the
schemes reach an appropriate level of development.
You also seem to think this will be paid in full upfront before construction begins. It would be over a series of staged payments spread over many years. In the meantime the privately funded works would be attracting 20%VAT, income taxes for workers, Corporation tax on business involved, etc. etc.
based on the sound business case of LHR expansion.
Now that is a fine piece of work which I must have missed!
Now that is a fine piece of work which I must have missed!
Besides, how can we be so sure that customers will choose a stressful terminal transfer at LHR over a straightforward single-terminal transfer at AMS? AMS has every chance of continuing to be considered the preferred proposition for transit passengers.
At the cost proposed it is not possible to get it right. A financial calamity is guaranteed at R3 prices.
The life has been sucked out of the regions. This imbalance must be redressed. There are stalled projects of merit just desperate for funding scattered right across regional UK.
Direct investment into long-sidelined regional projects of merit would deliver substantial tangible benefits. Not just during a relatively brief construction phase but long afterwards too.
Sending the hired-help home for the weekend? You appear to be under the impression that sucking talent out of the regions is a positive thing. It isn't. A policy of distributing public infrastructure investment equitably across the UK would see these hoardes deployed near to their homes with far greater economic benefit.
You're right. The Home Counties will do rather well out of it too.
This also belies the oft quoted Long Haul needs feed to support xyz marginal routes - No one ever gives an example because at thirty % and declining there are rather few routes where the feed makes the difference between operating or not a particular route to/from Heathrow.
Clearly the proportion of transfer traffic varies by route. The only published stats I have for that breakdown are about 10 years old - if you have any more recent ones, perhaps you could share them ?
If we discount UK domestic transfer traffic (out of a total of 6% of LHR pax, it isn't going to skew the results much) then we are left with Europe-to-Europe transfer traffic and the balance where one or both legs involves a longhaul flight.
Given our location near the top left corner of Europe, it's not immediately obvious why intra-European transfer traffic should account for an overwhelming proportion of transfer traffic, particularly as almost half the seats out of LHR are on longhaul routes.
Logic would suggest that there must be a fair number of longhaul routes that contribute significantly to the 30%.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leaving the rail developments aside, I'm not aware of any plans for more tarmac on the M4, other than the currently proposed scheme (whether R3 goes ahead or not) to turn it into a "smart" motorway à la M42/M3 by utilising the hard shoulder.
Whether the M25 tunnel plan represents an "upgrade" is a moot point. We're told it will gain a lane in each direction, but I wouldn't be surprised if that gets trimmed back once the infrastructure costs start to be firmed up.
Whether the M25 tunnel plan represents an "upgrade" is a moot point. We're told it will gain a lane in each direction, but I wouldn't be surprised if that gets trimmed back once the infrastructure costs start to be firmed up.
The M4 might get the so-called smart motorway treatment west of the M25.
The M3/M4/M25 motorways in the area will need junction improvements sooner or later, third rwy or not.
The so-called smart motorway on the M3 is an irrelevance and causing chaos and gridlock. What is needed is a serious upgrade to the M3/M25 junction rather than 20-odd miles of driving on the hard-shoulder.
Quote:
No. The prohibitive cost means that challenges against this crazy proposal must continue.
So you think the costs should be pushed up further by continued challenges because you do not agree with the proposal?
No. The prohibitive cost means that challenges against this crazy proposal must continue.
So you think the costs should be pushed up further by continued challenges because you do not agree with the proposal?
Yesterday's consultation document contained a revised "3R MasterPlan" drawing which, given its publication date, it would be reasonable to assume represents the most recent thinking about the R3 layout.
It's not a very hi-res image, but it's possible to discern the following differences between that and previous versions:
a) T6A is moved further north to be more or less opposite T5A
b) T6B and T6C satellites are merged into a single, long satellite and moved further east. That, in turn, reduces the length of the M25 tunnel, which now only goes under two E-W taxiways and R3, whereas previously it also went under two N-S taxiways as well
c) Two new parallel N-S taxiways to the west of T6A
d) Removal of the proposed A4 tunnel, the roundabout at Poyle and the link road to M25 J14
e) Appropriation of the area between R3 and the former A4, i.e. everything westward from the end of Blunts Avenue
f) A new road from the A3044 Holloway Lane/Harmondsworth Road junction, running along the northern edge of R3 to join the old A4 roughly halfway along the Colnbrook bypass.
It's not a very hi-res image, but it's possible to discern the following differences between that and previous versions:
a) T6A is moved further north to be more or less opposite T5A
b) T6B and T6C satellites are merged into a single, long satellite and moved further east. That, in turn, reduces the length of the M25 tunnel, which now only goes under two E-W taxiways and R3, whereas previously it also went under two N-S taxiways as well
c) Two new parallel N-S taxiways to the west of T6A
d) Removal of the proposed A4 tunnel, the roundabout at Poyle and the link road to M25 J14
e) Appropriation of the area between R3 and the former A4, i.e. everything westward from the end of Blunts Avenue
f) A new road from the A3044 Holloway Lane/Harmondsworth Road junction, running along the northern edge of R3 to join the old A4 roughly halfway along the Colnbrook bypass.
Gatwick's arguement was predicated on being allowed to expand with Heathrow constrained, Heathrow believes they could expand even if LGW got another runway, mainly because they could still fill LHR at a premium.
BA don't want the competition that a third runway would bring anymore than they wanted VS to be allowed to move from LGW or AA/UA to buy slots from TW/PA.
It's less critical since it bought BD of course, but as 50% of the new slots go to incumbent carriers, BA could obtain quite a few for itself, and realise its expansion plans, without having to spend billions in the "secondary slot market".
Quote:
How is it a "vanity project" when there is clearly demand for a 3rd runway?
Perhaps because those demanding won't be paying for it?
How is it a "vanity project" when there is clearly demand for a 3rd runway?
Perhaps because those demanding won't be paying for it?
Quote:
Tears of the Moon you do remind me of Shed on a pole in a way
I was about to say the same thing.
Tears of the Moon you do remind me of Shed on a pole in a way
I was about to say the same thing.
Tears of the Moon - are you really Shed on a Pole? You lack the same ability to make a point in under a million words.....
Pages 242-244 have been quite nostalgic, but nostalgia is not what it used to be!
- Secretary of State announced final decision: 2 September 2016
- High Court Challenge period ended: 15 October 2016
- Start of enabling works: by end March 2017
- Start of main works: Late autumn 2017
- End of works: End of March 2022
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed,
Where are you getting your figure of £10bn+ from? Have you read the latest consultation or are you just cherry picking whatever suits you agenda.
The government has already made millions from this project and continues to do so. Every part of the consultation, design and construction is liable for a variety of taxation.
So now tell us shed, what exactly are these projects you are so sure provide such a sound business case over and abover LHR? Are they struggling to get investment purely because it is all being spent in the SE?
Where are you getting your figure of £10bn+ from? Have you read the latest consultation or are you just cherry picking whatever suits you agenda.
Ah yes. You never quite grasp this bit. Public funds spent on support infrastructure to make LHR R3 work cannot be simultaneously allocated to other projects. The money is gone.
So now tell us shed, what exactly are these projects you are so sure provide such a sound business case over and abover LHR? Are they struggling to get investment purely because it is all being spent in the SE?
HAL reportedly acknowledged a couple of years ago, at one of its public meetings, that it had set up Back Heathrow and was funding it on an ongoing basis.
Presumably Heathrow has tightened the reins on its astroturf campaigning offshoot, as we haven't seen any more claims like this one lately:
Presumably Heathrow has tightened the reins on its astroturf campaigning offshoot, as we haven't seen any more claims like this one lately:
"the [Airports] Commission agreed that [a second runway at Gatwick] could lead to the decline or even closure of Heathrow"
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed did you just rejoin pprune to go over old ground for the umpteenth time? There's nothing new being added here. LHR expansion is now government policy and Labour is nowhere and even the SNP are on board as they recognise it will have some tangible benefits in linking Scotland to the wider world. If the SNP can agree with Theresa May on the regional benefits of having a proper functioning hub airport then we can finally see some progress.
Many short haul feeders bleed red, however many of those long haul money makers would be smaller and less competitive if that short haul feed went away. Many of us will be familiar about how money can be made to look wasted if we drop it into a different budget.
The core reasons airlines continue to choose LHR over LGW is the ability to connect. Whilst LHR may not be the dominant hub it once was in some markets, it was enough for Delta, American and every other major legacy long haul with the exception of Emirates to drop LGW for LHR. The only long haul BA/VS have at LGW is beach fleet leisure and assorted strategic Norwegian spoilers like LGW-JFK (for the 3rd time).
Even easyJet are investigating the possibility of using T4 at LHR once R3 is built. What an economic asset and driver this can be if we get it right.
btw Shed you'd really be more at home here :
Jet Blast - PPRuNe Forums
Many short haul feeders bleed red, however many of those long haul money makers would be smaller and less competitive if that short haul feed went away. Many of us will be familiar about how money can be made to look wasted if we drop it into a different budget.
The core reasons airlines continue to choose LHR over LGW is the ability to connect. Whilst LHR may not be the dominant hub it once was in some markets, it was enough for Delta, American and every other major legacy long haul with the exception of Emirates to drop LGW for LHR. The only long haul BA/VS have at LGW is beach fleet leisure and assorted strategic Norwegian spoilers like LGW-JFK (for the 3rd time).
Even easyJet are investigating the possibility of using T4 at LHR once R3 is built. What an economic asset and driver this can be if we get it right.
btw Shed you'd really be more at home here :
Jet Blast - PPRuNe Forums
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 6th Feb 2017 at 12:16.
The so-called smart motorway on the M3 is an irrelevance and causing chaos and gridlock
The M42 smart M-way seems to work quite well to me.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're assuming it's a linear negative trend. In reality, it's cyclical. Airlines yield manage so when point-to-point loads/yields are strong you see transfers decline & vice versa. The recent decline in transfer volumes is starting to reverse again to a growing share.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Leeds
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness, your comment that Easyjet are looking at LHR ops from T4 just backs up the argument that extra runway capacity in the south east is necessary to meet point to point short haul demand. Why does that have to be at Heathrow?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed did you just rejoin PPRuNe to go over old ground for the umpteenth time? There's nothing new being added here. LHR expansion is now government policy and Labour is nowhere and even the SNP are on board as they recognise it will have some tangible benefits in linking Scotland to the wider world. If the SNP can agree with Theresa May on the regional benefits of having a proper functioning hub airport then we can finally see some progress.
Who knows why we need another 4 months of consultations, one would have thought that almost 50 years of dithering should be long enough for all options and all the pros and cons to have been explored!
Many short haul feeders bleed red, however many of those long haul money makers would be smaller and less competitive if that short haul feed went away. Many of us will be familiar about how money can be made to look wasted if we drop it into a different budget.
The core reasons airlines continue to choose LHR over LGW is the ability to connect. Whilst LHR may not be the dominant hub it once was in some markets, it was enough for Delta, American and every other major legacy long haul with the exception of Emirates to drop LGW for LHR. The only long haul BA/VS have at LGW is beach fleet leisure and assorted strategic Norwegian spoilers like LGW-JFK (for the 3rd time).
Even easyJet are investigating the possibility of using T4 at LHR once R3 is built. What an economic asset and driver this can be if we get it right.
With a third rwy the main obstacles and disincentives to it being at LHR now (eye-watering slot prices plus chronic congestion and delays) will disappear. The same could apply to BE and others who operate the thinner domestic/shorthaul feeder routes.
btw Shed you'd really be more at home here :
Jet Blast - PPRuNe Forums
Jet Blast - PPRuNe Forums
Quote:
The so-called smart motorway on the M3 is an irrelevance and causing chaos and gridlock
The construction of it (which seems to be taking years) is, but it's not finished yet, so impossible to judge the "in-service" impact yet.
The M42 smart M-way seems to work quite well to me.
The so-called smart motorway on the M3 is an irrelevance and causing chaos and gridlock
The construction of it (which seems to be taking years) is, but it's not finished yet, so impossible to judge the "in-service" impact yet.
The M42 smart M-way seems to work quite well to me.
The M3 is not proned to major bottlenecks apart from the area around the M3/M25 junction where the slip roads aren't long enough. A couple of miles of 5 lanes is needed on the M3 to allow joining traffic to merge and leaving traffic to move into the correct lanes, 20-odd miles of hard shoulder driving is not. As for one lane only westbound under the M25 bridge, that's asking for trouble!
Too late now.
Yes I scratched my head regarding the EasyJet reference as well.
What price triple daily connectivity to Liverpool, Teeside, IOM etc or 3 a day to Palma, Malaga and ibiza?
What price triple daily connectivity to Liverpool, Teeside, IOM etc or 3 a day to Palma, Malaga and ibiza?
U2 are unlikely to do the likes of LPL, MME, IOM, etc., it will be on the thicker routes giving BA a run for its money. IAG might retalliate with more VY routes to/from LHR in order to give U2 a run for its money, who can say.
Like BA, U2 does not have small enough aircraft for these thinner routes. Expect to see the likes of BE and BD regional on the thinner routes, as they have suitable aicraft for these.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does that have to be at Heathrow?
Hub connectivity is useless without a strong p2p market with some possible exceptions like DXB and Emirates where postion and critical mass win the deal. It's a free market guys, if we expand LHR we improve regional connectivity to the world as well as improve P2P options to local business and leisure. They come together, easyJet and BA, sitting alongside Aer Lingus strong on London terminating as well as feeding Air Canada.
Flybe is the best bet for the likes of LPL which could offer business a good deal for a premium.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You asked why I was quoting £10Bn+ and whether I was cherry-picking a number to suit my agenda. Well, the range quoted by TfL was £10Bn - £20Bn.
I prefer to work from the latest consultation which states
For both Heathrow schemes, there is no Government road spend directly linked
to expansion. The promoter would pay for changes to the M25, A4 and A3044
and any local roads. The Western and Southern Rail schemes are at different
levels of development and, based on current estimates, could cost between
£1.4 billion and £2.5 billion together. The Government would expect this cost to
be partly offset by airport contributions, which would be negotiated when the
schemes reach an appropriate level of development.
Gross misallocation of capital is actually a good thing because the exchequer will collect afew pence in the pound as tax! The word desperation leaps to mind.
The estimate for the jobs created alone from expansion is 77,000. That's a lot of income tax. It is not desperation but economics. The project has a sound business case and should go ahead.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A friend of mine was looking for a house to rent after relocating to Heathrow. He found a really nice detached place between Maidenhead and Windsor. The garden backed onto the M4 but the bottom of the garden included a wooded area so you would never know the M4 was there.
Anyway, the rent was unbelievably cheap and when he asked why was told that it was owned by the Highways Agency who had apparently bought lots of similar properties all along the motorway so they could widen the M4. The deal was as soon as it was agreed you had 3 months notice to relocate. This was around 2008 and he is still there.
Anyway, the rent was unbelievably cheap and when he asked why was told that it was owned by the Highways Agency who had apparently bought lots of similar properties all along the motorway so they could widen the M4. The deal was as soon as it was agreed you had 3 months notice to relocate. This was around 2008 and he is still there.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for using NPV, I don't see the benefit of using a rarely used measure. What's the point - rarely used suggests it's of no use in these projects.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for using NPV, I don't see the benefit of using a rarely used measure. What's the point - rarely used suggests it's of no use in these projects.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My reading of it is that it was the Treasury who used it and the Select Committee were questioning why, as it was rarely used, but also pointing out that the demand scenario adopted happened to be the one that gave the best result for Heathrow.
"Of the four investment measures used to evaluate the proposals, only this seldom-used net public value measure presents a clear case for a third runway at Heathrow, Mr Tyrie said."
Isn't he suggesting that the method was only used because it gave the result the government wanted?
"Of the four investment measures used to evaluate the proposals, only this seldom-used net public value measure presents a clear case for a third runway at Heathrow, Mr Tyrie said."
Isn't he suggesting that the method was only used because it gave the result the government wanted?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah OK, I'm with you now. Yes, that's what he seems to be arguing but I don't believe it's for altruistic reasons - his bias taints his challenge.
So what about DfT bias? Well, I severely doubt HMG set out with a "LHR or bust" mentality - in fact the AC TOR specifically opened it to consider UK capacity.
So what about DfT bias? Well, I severely doubt HMG set out with a "LHR or bust" mentality - in fact the AC TOR specifically opened it to consider UK capacity.