Another runway at Heathrow
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.. albeit whilst recollecting lengthy political discussions in the late 1960's, regarding a brand new "DFW-size & style" London Airport, with proposed siting at Wing (yes, true - near Leighton Buzzard). Or Cublington - or Shoeburyness - or Foulness. Those places were all listed as possible locations during the debates at the time.
Eventually the role of "third London airport" went to Stansted, a site that was already an airport, although most would have considered that Luton was the the "third London airport" at that time (early 1970s).
However, being politicians, it was of course eventually decided that the best decision was no decision...
Yet meanwhile, at DFW, CDG, DXB ... and so on, and so forth. Across the globe - except London.
Yet meanwhile, at DFW, CDG, DXB ... and so on, and so forth. Across the globe - except London.
With respect to expanding regional hubs, I'd say that's down to the regions, but some investment funding from HMG would be required. Although more domestic connectivity to/from LHR would always be welcome.
Investment from the government for transport infrastructure is also always welcome and also desperately needed, so why is it an issue in relation to Heathrow, but not, say, in relation to Ringway?
Slight thread drift...
On Friday evening, I was delivering a colleague to T3 on his way home to MEL and we talked about the LHR problem and he said:
SYD has exactly the same problem. The city grew up around the airport and no politician wants to be the one to say which houses must go or which green field site must be chosen for a desperately needed new airport.
Same old, same old.
On Friday evening, I was delivering a colleague to T3 on his way home to MEL and we talked about the LHR problem and he said:
SYD has exactly the same problem. The city grew up around the airport and no politician wants to be the one to say which houses must go or which green field site must be chosen for a desperately needed new airport.
Same old, same old.
Apparently a site for another airport has been ear-marked way out in the western suburbs........
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy H52
Yes tunnelling is very very expensive, especially if critical facilities are on top of it!!
The LGW plans require no public access tunnels just a few minor under tax way tunnels for ramp traffic, little more than a culvert with a top on. The A23 which currently goes under the airport to the west of the rail link will be moved in an arc back towards the M23 with all long stay car parks served from it and a new airport link to the M23 at the current site of J9.
Lets see what the Davis commission has to say, it will be either LGW or LHR not a regional airport for sure
The LGW plans require no public access tunnels just a few minor under tax way tunnels for ramp traffic, little more than a culvert with a top on. The A23 which currently goes under the airport to the west of the rail link will be moved in an arc back towards the M23 with all long stay car parks served from it and a new airport link to the M23 at the current site of J9.
Lets see what the Davis commission has to say, it will be either LGW or LHR not a regional airport for sure
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 76
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for the record, the four short-listed sites by the Roskill Commission were : Cublington (same as Wing) ; Thurleigh (near Bedford) ; Nuthampsted (not far from Stansted) and Foulness.
The subsequent history was not an encouraging precedent!
The subsequent history was not an encouraging precedent!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks anothertyke, I'd forgotten that Cublington and Wing were of course one and the same. Likewise the "Roskill Commission" name had also slipped my mind. Although I'm sure Shoeburyness was also banded around - alas, the mists of time!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply to AndyH52
AndyH52 writes:
Your're quite right, no one has explicitly said this is about using capacity in the regions instead of Heathrow, but I'm sorry that is how it comes across to me (here and the debate on the Manchester thread that preceded creation of this one). Call it the elephant in the room.
So let's be completely clear here. NOBODY has put forward the argument you claim. Which was the point of my earlier reply to you. But you would rather cling to your notion of what you would have preferred us to have said rather than what we actually did say. I follow the Manchester threads very closely, and I cannot recall anybody making the argument you allege on there either. I'm afraid the only elephant in evidence here is the giant one in your own imagination.
The assertion that your objection to Heathrow expansion is purely down to cost just seems a bit hollow. One minute it's the cost. The next it's the potential need for public subsidy
If you find my concerns regarding cost "hollow", that is a problem related to your own interpretation of the facts. It is perfectly valid to object to the costing proposals attached to LHR R3, and I do. I realise that it would make life far simpler for you if I were to adopt the ridiculous argument which you'd like me to make (that MAN can be a solution for SE-originating growth in pax demand), but I can't entertain you with such nonsense. If you want to debate me, you must do so at the level of the arguments I present, not on silly notions which you would love me to argue but which I never will.
By the way, there are no grounds for confusion concerning my stance on the costs issue. My earlier postings make it abundantly clear to any reader that I object to the publicly-funded proportion of the overall proposed cost attached to LHR R3.
as a passenger from the north who is quite prepared to travel via Heathrow
It is a free market. Each to their own. Good luck to you. I hope your domestic connection doesn't get cancelled. Enjoy the tedious double security-screening experience. And the stressful terminal transfer if your onward flight doesn't happen to operate from T5.
you seem quite in favour of public subsidy for infrastructure projects provided it's in the north (well Manchester, anyway)
Yet another example of what you would like me to have argued for rather than what I ever actually have. I have very clearly argued for a levelling-out of public-funding for infrastructure initiatives across all regions. London and the SE have enjoyed a conveyor belt of multi-billion pound infrastructure investments over recent years; the regions still patiently await their first £1Bn+ initiative. I have no objection to the concept of public investment in infrastructure - actually, quite the contrary - but the time has come for the regions to play catch-up for a while before the SE gets yet another sequential turn tapping national resources. By the way, any reader here is free to check back that I've argued for regional investment generally. I have NEVER argued on behalf of Manchester in isolation. I realise that it would suit your personal agenda very nicely if I had actually done that, but this is yet one more example of you wanting to debate me on what you would like me to have argued for rather than for what I ever have argued for.
IF the expansion of Heathrow costs the estimated £16.9 billion, and IF it requires £2.9 billion of public investment
Going for the low-balled estimates to strengthen your case, I see. I could just as easily go for the highest (from TfL). But as I said to Felixflyer, the true cost will likely fall somewhere between the extremes. However, that £2.9Bn public investment figure is a new one. Estimates ranging from £8Bn to £20Bn are the numbers on the table.
new rolling stock for the train services to MAN
Are you referring to the ageing cascaded former-Thameslinks Class 319's? A big improvement on the Pacers they replace, but not new. And minimal interior refurbishment, too.
any investment in our infrastructure is much needed and much welcomed
Well I agree with that sentence at least. However, have you noticed that all regional infrastructure initiatives start with that pesky letter 'M'? Nobody is arguing that the regions are getting no public investment whatsoever, simply that they are falling woefully short of their rightful share. As for the 'Northern Hub' initiative, rail professionals point out that this is a series of loosely-connected essential upgrades required to stop the Northern rail network from grinding to a halt, dressed-up as a single major innovation for PR value. It encompasses the entire North of England and still comes in at sub-£1Bn.
i think part of the challenge in this debate is understanding just how much complex infrastructure projects cost these days
And that is why it is not "hollow" for me to object to LHR R3 on the grounds of cost. Specifically the publicly-funded portion thereof. Long overdue alternative investments in regional infrastructure priorities offer much better ROI to the taxpayer than yet more initiatives in the SE in the medium-term. Let the SE digest its latest super-innovations (Crossrail, re-invented Thameslink, East End (Olympics-related) renovation, HS1, Underground mega-upgrades etc) for a while and give the regions their long-overdue turn with the public largesse.
If you do return to the discussion AndyH52, please debate us on the arguments which have been made. Not those "how it came across to me" imaginings, or ridiculous claims which you like to attribute to us but which nobody has actually argued. And an apology for your original accusation against what you call "Manchester supporters" would still be much appreciated.
Your're quite right, no one has explicitly said this is about using capacity in the regions instead of Heathrow, but I'm sorry that is how it comes across to me (here and the debate on the Manchester thread that preceded creation of this one). Call it the elephant in the room.
So let's be completely clear here. NOBODY has put forward the argument you claim. Which was the point of my earlier reply to you. But you would rather cling to your notion of what you would have preferred us to have said rather than what we actually did say. I follow the Manchester threads very closely, and I cannot recall anybody making the argument you allege on there either. I'm afraid the only elephant in evidence here is the giant one in your own imagination.
The assertion that your objection to Heathrow expansion is purely down to cost just seems a bit hollow. One minute it's the cost. The next it's the potential need for public subsidy
If you find my concerns regarding cost "hollow", that is a problem related to your own interpretation of the facts. It is perfectly valid to object to the costing proposals attached to LHR R3, and I do. I realise that it would make life far simpler for you if I were to adopt the ridiculous argument which you'd like me to make (that MAN can be a solution for SE-originating growth in pax demand), but I can't entertain you with such nonsense. If you want to debate me, you must do so at the level of the arguments I present, not on silly notions which you would love me to argue but which I never will.
By the way, there are no grounds for confusion concerning my stance on the costs issue. My earlier postings make it abundantly clear to any reader that I object to the publicly-funded proportion of the overall proposed cost attached to LHR R3.
as a passenger from the north who is quite prepared to travel via Heathrow
It is a free market. Each to their own. Good luck to you. I hope your domestic connection doesn't get cancelled. Enjoy the tedious double security-screening experience. And the stressful terminal transfer if your onward flight doesn't happen to operate from T5.
you seem quite in favour of public subsidy for infrastructure projects provided it's in the north (well Manchester, anyway)
Yet another example of what you would like me to have argued for rather than what I ever actually have. I have very clearly argued for a levelling-out of public-funding for infrastructure initiatives across all regions. London and the SE have enjoyed a conveyor belt of multi-billion pound infrastructure investments over recent years; the regions still patiently await their first £1Bn+ initiative. I have no objection to the concept of public investment in infrastructure - actually, quite the contrary - but the time has come for the regions to play catch-up for a while before the SE gets yet another sequential turn tapping national resources. By the way, any reader here is free to check back that I've argued for regional investment generally. I have NEVER argued on behalf of Manchester in isolation. I realise that it would suit your personal agenda very nicely if I had actually done that, but this is yet one more example of you wanting to debate me on what you would like me to have argued for rather than for what I ever have argued for.
IF the expansion of Heathrow costs the estimated £16.9 billion, and IF it requires £2.9 billion of public investment
Going for the low-balled estimates to strengthen your case, I see. I could just as easily go for the highest (from TfL). But as I said to Felixflyer, the true cost will likely fall somewhere between the extremes. However, that £2.9Bn public investment figure is a new one. Estimates ranging from £8Bn to £20Bn are the numbers on the table.
new rolling stock for the train services to MAN
Are you referring to the ageing cascaded former-Thameslinks Class 319's? A big improvement on the Pacers they replace, but not new. And minimal interior refurbishment, too.
any investment in our infrastructure is much needed and much welcomed
Well I agree with that sentence at least. However, have you noticed that all regional infrastructure initiatives start with that pesky letter 'M'? Nobody is arguing that the regions are getting no public investment whatsoever, simply that they are falling woefully short of their rightful share. As for the 'Northern Hub' initiative, rail professionals point out that this is a series of loosely-connected essential upgrades required to stop the Northern rail network from grinding to a halt, dressed-up as a single major innovation for PR value. It encompasses the entire North of England and still comes in at sub-£1Bn.
i think part of the challenge in this debate is understanding just how much complex infrastructure projects cost these days
And that is why it is not "hollow" for me to object to LHR R3 on the grounds of cost. Specifically the publicly-funded portion thereof. Long overdue alternative investments in regional infrastructure priorities offer much better ROI to the taxpayer than yet more initiatives in the SE in the medium-term. Let the SE digest its latest super-innovations (Crossrail, re-invented Thameslink, East End (Olympics-related) renovation, HS1, Underground mega-upgrades etc) for a while and give the regions their long-overdue turn with the public largesse.
If you do return to the discussion AndyH52, please debate us on the arguments which have been made. Not those "how it came across to me" imaginings, or ridiculous claims which you like to attribute to us but which nobody has actually argued. And an apology for your original accusation against what you call "Manchester supporters" would still be much appreciated.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And a brief response to Fairdealfrank
Investment from the government for transport infrastructure is also always welcome and also desperately needed, so why is it an issue in relation to Heathrow, but not, say, in relation to Ringway?
The issue here is two-fold. Firstly, the scale of the projected public-funding requirement relating to LHR R3 in absolute terms. And secondly, the fact that ALL recent large-scale [£1Bn+] public-investment in infrastructure initiatives has gone exclusively to projects located in London and the SE. There are a number of compelling infrastructure priorities in the regions which deserve their own bite of public funding before the SE feasts yet again on national resources.
Incidentally, the type of projects I'm referring to are the recently-proposed HS3, a transpennine motorway linking Sheffield with cities west of the Pennines, and a complete replacement for Liverpool Lime Street Station with its massively-congested Victorian bottleneck approaches. Other regions put forward similar compelling projects, though I'll let people more familiar with those regions outline their own priorities. BTW, I'm not aware of any move from MAN to request large-scale public-funding from the exchequer at this time. The proposals for the terminals redevelopment project call for private-sector financing.
The issue here is two-fold. Firstly, the scale of the projected public-funding requirement relating to LHR R3 in absolute terms. And secondly, the fact that ALL recent large-scale [£1Bn+] public-investment in infrastructure initiatives has gone exclusively to projects located in London and the SE. There are a number of compelling infrastructure priorities in the regions which deserve their own bite of public funding before the SE feasts yet again on national resources.
Incidentally, the type of projects I'm referring to are the recently-proposed HS3, a transpennine motorway linking Sheffield with cities west of the Pennines, and a complete replacement for Liverpool Lime Street Station with its massively-congested Victorian bottleneck approaches. Other regions put forward similar compelling projects, though I'll let people more familiar with those regions outline their own priorities. BTW, I'm not aware of any move from MAN to request large-scale public-funding from the exchequer at this time. The proposals for the terminals redevelopment project call for private-sector financing.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 73
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MidlandDeltic
NO, because Paris & the other continental hubs have never been of any importance to C.I. travellers. Mostly, we do not have a service to any of them & Paris, the only one which has had a service over the years, has never had more than 2 SH360s (for a short while - the rest of the time it was a DH8 once a day).
NO, because Paris & the other continental hubs have never been of any importance to C.I. travellers. Mostly, we do not have a service to any of them & Paris, the only one which has had a service over the years, has never had more than 2 SH360s (for a short while - the rest of the time it was a DH8 once a day).
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah - the CI isn't really a "global financial hub" - it's the place where people from the City could live/work and stay to close to home without paying their share of the taxes........................
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 DME
Age: 53
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to debate me, you must do so at the level of the arguments I present, not on silly notions which you would love me to argue but which I never will
Having said that, my feelings on the matter (which you are so dismissive of) are formed in part by observing some of the 'outrage' expressed when the Airports Commission decided that Manchester wasn't the answer to the problem it had decided it was looking to solve (which I grant you isn't necessarily the problem they were originally asked to look in to), and the subsequent assertions that public funds shouldn't be spent facilitating south east airport expansion but be spent in the North (which does in the current wider narrative increasingly mean Greater Manchester). It may be a case of adding 2 and 2 and getting 5 but it's a reasonable assumption to make.
By the way, there are no grounds for confusion concerning my stance on the costs issue. My earlier postings make it abundantly clear to any reader that I object to the publicly-funded proportion of the overall proposed cost attached to LHR R3.
It is a free market. Each to their own. Good luck to you. I hope your domestic connection doesn't get cancelled. Enjoy the tedious double security-screening experience. And the stressful terminal transfer if your onward flight doesn't happen to operate from T5
Long overdue alternative investments in regional infrastructure priorities offer much better ROI to the taxpayer than yet more initiatives in the SE in the medium-term
By the way, in terms of your issue around quotes, if you insert "quote" at the start of the text you want to quote and "/quote" at the end (but swap the "" for [ ]) it should show up with the blue box (I had to use " " as using [ ] makes the quote function work!)
Last edited by AndyH52; 19th Jun 2015 at 19:31. Reason: Trying to be helpful over quotes...
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The LGW plans require no public access tunnels just a few minor under tax way tunnels for ramp traffic, little more than a culvert with a top on.
The A23 which currently goes under the airport to the west of the rail link will be moved in an arc back towards the M23 with all long stay car parks served from it and a new airport link to the M23 at the current site of J9.
The issue here is two-fold. Firstly, the scale of the projected public-funding requirement relating to LHR R3 in absolute terms. And secondly, the fact that ALL recent large-scale [£1Bn+] public-investment in infrastructure initiatives has gone exclusively to projects located in London and the SE. There are a number of compelling infrastructure priorities in the regions which deserve their own bite of public funding before the SE feasts yet again on national resources.
And clearly the scale of the investment is larger now than it would have been had the rwy(s) been built in the 1970s (for example, back then there was no M25).
As you should know, dithering and indecision comes with a price, not just infrastructure costs but also the endless reviews, studies and commissions over the intervening 40 years.
Incidentally, the type of projects I'm referring to are the recently-proposed HS3, a transpennine motorway linking Sheffield with cities west of the Pennines, and a complete replacement for Liverpool Lime Street Station with its massively-congested Victorian bottleneck approaches. Other regions put forward similar compelling projects, though I'll let people more familiar with those regions outline their own priorities. BTW, I'm not aware of any move from MAN to request large-scale public-funding from the exchequer at this time. The proposals for the terminals redevelopment project call for private-sector financing.
It's not either/or.
Actually it looks like its "neither/nor" to the above AND to more rwys at Heathrow.
Presumably, at some point in the past, you've had a poor experience at LHR? You may be reassured to know that the 2013 CAA passenger survey recorded an 87% satisfaction rate with LHR, and Heathrow was voted 3rd best airport in Europe and 8th in the world in the 2014 Skytrax awards. So thankfully most passengers don't seem to suffer the experience you did.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If an MP says the cost is X you can triple it and
add 10% !
One other thing is troubling me.
There seems to be a lot of jostling from the back.
Who exactly is going to operate this tsunami of domestic connectivity ?
Heathrow plc clearly want it - the airport operator.
A number of domestic points - airport's again !
But which airline are we talking about ?
ie those who will actually be providing the service ?
Presumably we want BA to invest in a speculative fleet of short haul aircraft for Teesside, Humberside Etc ? Where incidently they can go head to head with a F70 3 times a day to Schipol
Or maybe a dozen new A320s just to increase frequency to MAN EDI GLA Etc to every 30 mins ?
Maybe somebody will follow the Virgin Red formula which inexplicably failed based on "lack of frequency "......
Or what about Flybe who were costed out of LGW as at today's prices....not 10 years hence!
Answers on a postcard !
add 10% !
One other thing is troubling me.
There seems to be a lot of jostling from the back.
Who exactly is going to operate this tsunami of domestic connectivity ?
Heathrow plc clearly want it - the airport operator.
A number of domestic points - airport's again !
But which airline are we talking about ?
ie those who will actually be providing the service ?
Presumably we want BA to invest in a speculative fleet of short haul aircraft for Teesside, Humberside Etc ? Where incidently they can go head to head with a F70 3 times a day to Schipol
Or maybe a dozen new A320s just to increase frequency to MAN EDI GLA Etc to every 30 mins ?
Maybe somebody will follow the Virgin Red formula which inexplicably failed based on "lack of frequency "......
Or what about Flybe who were costed out of LGW as at today's prices....not 10 years hence!
Answers on a postcard !
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If an MP says the cost is X you can triple it and
add 10% !
add 10% !
One other thing is troubling me.
There seems to be a lot of jostling from the back.
Who exactly is going to operate this tsunami of domestic connectivity ?
Heathrow plc clearly want it - the airport operator.
A number of domestic points - airport's again !
There seems to be a lot of jostling from the back.
Who exactly is going to operate this tsunami of domestic connectivity ?
Heathrow plc clearly want it - the airport operator.
A number of domestic points - airport's again !
But which airline are we talking about ?
ie those who will actually be providing the service ?
ie those who will actually be providing the service ?
BE (see below as well) also comes to mind, it has raised the possibility of operating some thin domestic routes to/from NHT in the absence of LHR access. A network of that nature would almost certainly work at LHR.
BD regional may return, and there could of course be others, who can say?
With a third rwy the eye-watering costs of acquiring slots goes away and new carriers would be allocated 50% of the new slots. Thus LHR potentially opens up to a plethora of smaller carriers.
Presumably we want BA to invest in a speculative fleet of short haul aircraft for Teesside, Humberside Etc ? Where incidently they can go head to head with a F70 3 times a day to Schipol
Or maybe a dozen new A320s just to increase frequency to MAN EDI GLA Etc to every 30 mins ?
Maybe somebody will follow the Virgin Red formula which inexplicably failed based on "lack of frequency "......
Or what about Flybe who were costed out of LGW as at today's prices....not 10 years hence!
(1) at LHR there is an ability to feed longhaul flights (and plenty of them), for example, maybe BE could feed BA and other Oneworld, and BD regional doing the same for Star;
(2) access to many more pax including premium business pax;
(3) many many more potential connecting pax to make thin routes viable.
This is not really possible at LGW, or where it is, it will be on a much smaller scale.
Answers on a postcard !
Paxing All Over The World
Fairdealfrank
I don't think entirely so. There would doubtless be some political deal in the early years but you would see differential costs for the main runways and lower for the 4rd 9as it woul dbe for short haul.
But, having established a lucrative market - I can't see it going away altogether.
With a third rwy the eye-watering costs of acquiring slots goes away and new carriers would be allocated 50% of the new slots. Thus LHR potentially opens up to a plethora of smaller carriers.
But, having established a lucrative market - I can't see it going away altogether.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep beating the drum bagso, the only winners will be Paris and Frankfurt.
Paxing All Over The World
Suzeman
That's the first time in a VERY long time that I've seen another posting agreeing with me. Thanks Suzeman, I've been saying it's too loate for ten years.
I predict that the Davies Commissison will have been <insert word of your choice> and they will choose LGW2. Even if they chose LHR3, it would only be of limited use for the reasons I have stated so many times.
Too late Skippy, too late. They've won.
I predict that the Davies Commissison will have been <insert word of your choice> and they will choose LGW2. Even if they chose LHR3, it would only be of limited use for the reasons I have stated so many times.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah Skip glad you are still with us.
My remarks seemed plausible as BA would simply see there market share diminished, so little enthusiasm in that area.
Flybe mentioned Northolt so they seem lukewarm as well do they not ?
As Suzeman etc have pointed totally academic .....
My remarks seemed plausible as BA would simply see there market share diminished, so little enthusiasm in that area.
Flybe mentioned Northolt so they seem lukewarm as well do they not ?
As Suzeman etc have pointed totally academic .....
Last edited by Bagso; 23rd Jun 2015 at 12:18.
Paxing All Over The World
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes tunnelling is very very expensive, especially if critical facilities are on top of it!!
The LGW plans require no public access tunnels just a few minor under tax way tunnels for ramp traffic, little more than a culvert with a top on. The A23 which currently goes under the airport to the west of the rail link will be moved in an arc back towards the M23 with all long stay car parks served from it and a new airport link to the M23 at the current site of J9.
The LGW plans require no public access tunnels just a few minor under tax way tunnels for ramp traffic, little more than a culvert with a top on. The A23 which currently goes under the airport to the west of the rail link will be moved in an arc back towards the M23 with all long stay car parks served from it and a new airport link to the M23 at the current site of J9.
Lets not also forget that Ferrovial is also one of the worlds leading tunnelling contractors and just built the tunnels for a major part of Crossrail amongst others.
Last edited by felixflyer; 24th Jun 2015 at 08:11.
