Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Airlines, Airports & Routes
Reload this Page >

Another runway at Heathrow

Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Another runway at Heathrow

Old 9th Jul 2015, 20:13
  #421 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
Reading around I think they'll nail LHR3 on the pollution argument -

The report really ducks the issue - but the Courts won't.....
I don't see how. The worst location for emissions is up on the M4 near J4 and there's more traffic going passed it to the businesses north of the M4 than down to LHR. It queues there back to J4B. Can't blame the airport for that.

Last edited by Trash 'n' Navs; 9th Jul 2015 at 20:16. Reason: Got the Junctions mixed up...
Trash 'n' Navs is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 07:58
  #422 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
r3 ( wherever it may be...tra la la )

funny (peculiar) to think that the british govt (plus british architects, british engineers plus a lot of locals of course) , in another place, could construct a whole airport ( never mind one pesky runway), the size of heathrow plus numerous rail and road links in around 7 years. what foresight to build on such a scale in a country of only 6 million.... yes I know there was more to it than that but just read wikipedia on chep lap kok and weep.
portmanteau is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 10:22
  #423 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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!"

Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 10th Jul 2015 at 22:00.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 10:27
  #424 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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!"
It's a national asset in the same way MAN is a regional asset, in the same way what's good for MAN is good for Yorkshire and Merseyside. Or does trickledown not apply regionally.....?
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 10:40
  #425 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
costs

shedonnapole, agree on insouciant attitude to spiralling costs. in my innocence I thought things cost more due to inflation. its been very low for some time so what basis is there for these rising costs? its not just runway builders either.
portmanteau is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 10:56
  #426 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
According to this report (from 2011) only 2.5% of the jobs created at MAN are taken by people living in Yorkshire and around 5% in Merseyside, so "trickle down" is probably appropriate...unless things have changed since 2011. I doubt it.

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.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...96952980,d.d24
682ft AMSL is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 11:02
  #427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Skipness - the arguments concerning 'trickledown' relate to the true extent of its effects (in all instances, not just LHR). Hence my use of the word 'overwhelmingly' in the quote you highlight, as opposed to suggesting zero benefit beyond the SE. What is very clear, however, is that the regions will benefit by an order of magnitude more from long-overdue direct infrastructure investment than from vastly overpriced LHR R3 trickledown.

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.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 11:18
  #428 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 75
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree that finance does matter, the 19B projected cost is about the amount the Chancellor suggested the UK national deficit would decrease this fiscal year and that is for the whole of the UK.!!!
Walnut is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 11:53
  #429 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This "we in the North" stance against Heathrow simply doesn't resonate with what I see and hear.
But that is not the argument. It is "we in the North" demand a fair share of the national public transport infrastructure budget before the SE gets yet another sequential turn at the trough.

This isn't anti-MAN
Absolutely, and note that I have never made this a debate about Manchester Airport. However, Skipness frequently introduces MAN into the debate. LHR-expansion advocates love to imply that LHR objections spring from trivial desires for enhanced planespotting opportunities at MAN! :-) NO ... it really is all about the big picture. If objectors can be dismissed as planespotters / narrow-minded 'locals' / 'supporters' etc etc, then our arguments can be more easily trivialised as motivated by petty jealousy, rather than by reasoned economic logic and a desire for equitable distribution of public resources.

Seems entirely logical that links into this global hub (and other) are seen by many as a valuable driver of economic activity.
Include me in that number. I have always acknowledged this. But the cost of making additional links into LHR possible has to be priced at an economically justifiable level. I contend that the return on investment is so poor based on prices cited that direct infrastructure investment in regional infrastructure priorities represents a far superior investment for UKplc. Remember that public funds (GBP10Bn?) allocated to LHR R3 cannot then be used elsewhere ... funds can only be allocated once (as the recent rail funding cutbacks amply demonstrate). There is an implied 'opportunity cost' involved in deploying national public funds at LHR rather than on other projects of merit around the UK. This is not being factored into the LHR R3 'benefits' calculations, and that mindset needs to change.

I want to see the regions confidently demanding their own rightful slice of the cake, not praying that crumbs will trickle down from the rich man's feast.

EDIT: More issues with the 'quote' boxes, I see. Let's see if this correction works ... Quote boxes successfully sorted!

Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 10th Jul 2015 at 12:19.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 13:10
  #430 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Include me in that number. I have always acknowledged this. But the cost of making additional links into LHR possible has to be priced at an economically justifiable level. I contend that the return on investment is so poor based on prices cited that direct infrastructure investment in regional infrastructure priorities represents a far superior investment for UKplc. Remember that public funds (GBP10Bn?) allocated to LHR R3 cannot then be used elsewhere ... funds can only be allocated once (as the recent rail funding cutbacks amply demonstrate). There is an implied 'opportunity cost' involved in deploying national public funds at LHR rather than on other projects of merit around the UK. This is not being factored into the LHR R3 'benefits' calculations, and that mindset needs to change.
How can any calculations be taken seriously until the cost to the taxpayer is narrowed down and ONLY those extra works directly caused by LHR expansion are taken into account. The cost of widening the M25 will be taken on whatever happens at LHR. Other parts of the M25 are being widened now and that area is already one of the worst affected. This work will likely be carried out before any shovel goes in the ground in connection with R3 so lumping the whole cost into that pot is not an accurate reflection of the added cost.

With a bit of joined up thinking and good planning the R3 related work could be done in conjunction with any already planned improvements but I don't believe for a minute this would happen. It is more likely that the M25 will be widened causing delays and congestion only to be reworked again a few years later.

In regards to comparing UK based projects with similar in places like Asia and the Far East. Please take into account construction related fatality/injury figures(or at least those that have actually been published and can be believed). H&S comes at a cost but when you see some of the numbers from those areas it is worth every penny.
felixflyer is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 14:29
  #431 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shed-on-a-Pole
it really is all about the big picture...

... the cost of making additional links into LHR possible has to be priced at an economically justifiable level. I contend that the return on investment is so poor based on prices cited that direct infrastructure investment in regional infrastructure priorities represents a far superior investment for UKplc
Shed, can you tell me which "big picture" use of taxpayers money will generate 211B (that's 'billion' by the way) and 70k jobs? Surely you have some value from the re-electrification project?
Trash 'n' Navs is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 21:06
  #432 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Response to Trash 'n' Navs - WARNING: Partially Off-Topic

Surely you have some value from the re-electrification project?
Now there is a sore point! Electrification planned for the North is grinding to a halt. The current 260M project has been "indefinitely delayed" due to a national overspend at Network Rail. The simple answer to your question is YES, there would / will be value from it if / when the work is ever completed. The project must be funded and delivered before we see that value.

Shed, can you tell me which "big picture" use of taxpayers money will generate 211B (that's 'billion' by the way) and 70k jobs?
Firstly, the numbers. The Davies Report states that "59-77000 additional direct, indirect and induced jobs [will be created]" by LHR R3. The forecast boost to GDP is 147Bn spread over 60 years. Long-term aviation-related forecasts of this nature are notoriously unreliable anyway (think 9/11, 2008 banking crisis, LCC revolution etc. in recent times), but these are the guidelines we must work with. Long-term aviation forecasts made even 30 years ago seem laughable now, let alone over a period twice that long.

I have been wary of wandering too far "off-topic" in this thread entitled: "Another Runway for Heathrow". But how can I resist a special request to nominate some pressing regional priorities which would substantially benefit UKplc as a whole?

First, some caveats. As I understand the system, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland now make their own decisions on infrastructure priorities for their respective countries. I support proportional taxpayer funding to enable the identified priorities to be successfully delivered. As a resident of NW England, it is not appropriate for me to suggest that I know better than they do what their infrastructure priorities should be.

Secondly, I have no doubt that the West Midlands, East Midlands, South West and East of England have projects of outstanding merit requiring public funding. I leave it to residents of those regions to identify what their individual transport infrastructure priorities should be. I fully support funding of these priorities in proportion to the percentage of the population served by the upgrades. Note that significant upgrades to the Great Western rail line from London to the SW (including electrification), and on the London Liverpool St to Norwich line are being delivered.

Thirdly, I do not propose that 10Bn of public money should necessarily be allocated to a single project. A combination of public / private financing spanning several priority projects across a number of regions should produce the best ROI for the taxpayer in terms of employment impact and increasing the UK GDP.

I note that you challenge me to nominate some specific transport infrastructure priorities in the regions. For reasons explained earlier, I will do so for the North as the region I am best placed to comment upon. This does not imply lack of support for similar initiatives in the other English regions.

1) Comprehensive rail upgrade covering the Northern trunk route:
Liverpool - Warrington - [Manchester Airport -] - Manchester Picc - Salford Central - Manchester Vic - Stalybridge - Huddersfield - Dewsbury - [Sheffield / Bradford / Doncaster -] - Leeds - [-Hull] - York [-Scarborough] Thirsk - Northallerton - Darlington - Durham [Middlesbrough / Sunderland] - Chester-le-Street - Gateshead - Newcastle.

Just pause for a moment to consider the population relying on this route. Playing the Greater London population card against this doesn't work at all. The manufacturing capacity of these cities combined is formidable and absolutely vital to the future prosperity of UKplc.

This project, incorporating the 'HS3' proposals (as yet unfunded) should include full electrification, widening of most of the route to 4 tracks [ECML North of Leeds already offers this], platform lengthening to accommodate longer trains, and - most importantly - the replacement of 2-car 'Pacers' and 3-car 'Express' trains with a fleet of new-build 10-car modern trains with high-speed capability and the reliability to support high-frequency services. Capacity is a bigger issue on this line than service frequency.

In tandem with the above, other lines across the North require urgent upgrades and replacement of rolling stock, electrification, and greater capacity to offer freight paths [Leeds - Settle - Carlisle route, Calder Valley Line etc.]

At Liverpool, Lime Street Station requires a total rebuild (or more practically, a new-build station at a more suitable location). It is estimated that Lime Street's Victorian cuttings on the approach to the station limit Liverpool to HALF the number of services which a city of this stature should be supporting. Frequency to London Euston is limited for this reason; many major UK cities have no direct service to Liverpool due to capacity constraints. A resolution to the Lime Street bottleneck would be vastly more beneficial to Merseyside than a handful of daily A319's to LHR. And it would come at a fraction of the price.

Manchester Piccadilly Station also requires major re-working if it is ever to accommodate the full vision of HS2, HS3 and the 'Northern Hub'. Two additional through-platforms have been approved, but this is just a start. Manchester also lacks a single major hub for buses. Services currently terminate on numerous random side-streets strewn across the city. Most people don't know where services depart from. Long cross-city walks from bus to bus are required. This is completely unacceptable. The Manchester Piccadilly Station upgrade should be designed as a comprehensive rail / tram / bus hub interchange to finally eliminate the issues outlined above.

A spur line should be constructed to link the Altrincham-Chester line to Manchester Airport from the West, opening up Cheshire and North Wales to direct services. North Wales is desperate to secure rail access to Manchester Airport. It is considered a priority by the Welsh Assembly.

Other lines served by the 'Northern' franchise have also been massively neglected (eg. Carlisle - Hexham - Newcastle). Northern Rail is unfairly demonised by Westminster as the franchise which requires the highest subsidy. But it is also the only major franchise which operates exclusively rural and urban-commuter services. The more lucrative inter-city routes come under the Transpennine franchise, so they cannot cross-subsidise operations as other franchises can. Hence the elevated subsidy requirement. They should not be penalised for having to cope with this Whitehall-created botch-job scenario. Major upgrades are urgently required. The NE in particular is woefully under-invested with public funds for transport infrastructure.

2) ROADS

Key priorities should include extending the M67 [from around Hyde] to the M1 near SHEFFIELD. This South Pennine motorway link has been a neglected priority for years. This motorway would directly tie in South Yorkshire to the major conurbations of Greater Manchester, Merseyside and through to North Wales. How about that for boosting jobs and UK GDP? More expensive than LHR R3? I don't think so!

Also required is an M62 by-pass to the North of the current route, rejoining the current M62 around Rochdale. This measure would circumvent the lines of stationary traffic which accumulate daily where the heavily-used M60 and M62 trunk routes become one single motorway for several miles. Two major motorways into one just doesn't work.

A short section of motorway should be constructed to relieve the heavily-congested section of the A556 used by traffic linking from the M60/M62 to the M6 Southbound.

No doubt there are similar advantageous improvements required east of the Pennines which I lack the local knowledge to highlight here. But those projects which I have cited demonstrate the scale of initiatives urgently required in the North alone. Combined with the needs of other long-neglected English regions, the problem becomes apparent to anybody with the will to see the reality.

London is NOT the only game in town. It must not be allowed to continue hogging 92% of the national public expenditure on transport infrastructure. LHR R3 should NOT be considered a priority for 10Bn of public funds set against this backdrop. And don't get me started on the proposed cost of Crossrail 2!!!

So, Trash 'n' Navs ... thankyou for asking. I wander off-topic by personal request! But these issues are of vital importance, not just for their direct economic implications, but also to head off growing discontent over neglect of the regions in favour of London and the SE. A 'Disunited Kingdom' will be the inevitable outcome of continuing 'more-of-the-same' SE-only transport infrastructure investment.

Oh, and YES ... these projects DO have the potential to create 70000 jobs. And a substantial boost to GDP. Will it exceed 147Bn or 211Bn over 60 years? Very likely, but nobody really knows. And we certainly don't know that for LHR R3 either!

Thanks for asking!!! :-)

Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 11th Jul 2015 at 15:10.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2015, 08:57
  #433 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Shed, a detailed response but you've not persuaded me that public funds invested as you suggest would generate the same (or greater) value to the UK. Too much supposition and you easily write off the Davies assumptions but expect me to accept yours without evidence.

All sectors endorse the Davies report so I'm going with it.

Make your arguments about infrastructure investment "up there" to your MP.

Global economy is shaky, trade slowing and the UK needs to grow its export market. As an island, you need an air-bridge. Industry, Davies, airlines & airports "up north" endorse LHR. The investment rate of return is one of the highest of any large-scale projects.

Build it.

Last edited by Trash 'n' Navs; 11th Jul 2015 at 12:51.
Trash 'n' Navs is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2015, 10:20
  #434 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
T&N -

Too much supposition and you easily right off the Davies assumptions but expect me to accept yours without evidence.
I regard all 60-year financial forecasts with profound scepticism based upon the track-record of previous examples. Of Davies' numbers I wrote:

The forecast boost to GDP is 147Bn spread over 60 years ... these are the guidelines we must work with.
So whilst I expressed my reservations about long-term forecasting I accepted that "we must work with" these numbers. That cannot be described as "righting off" Davies' assumptions. [Should it be "writing off?"]

With respect to potential returns from the projects I outlined, I wrote:

Will it exceed 147Bn or 211Bn over 60 years? Very likely, but nobody really knows
Now, if I was "expecting you to accept my numbers without evidence", is that really the way I would express myself?

nobody really knows. And we certainly don't know that for LHR R3 either!
As you can read for yourself, I am not asking you to accept my numbers as it is impossible to forecast accurately 60 years out. And the same limitation applies to Davies' forecast and every other forecast of this kind.

All sectors endorse the Davies report so I'm going with it
Come on, now ... who are you kidding? Have you asked TfL? GIP? MAG? HACAN? Boris, Zak? YOU personally may disagree with those who oppose LHR R3, but to deny that opposition exists is plain silly.

Make your arguments about infrastructure investment "up there" to your MP
But the big decisions are made "down there". That is a big part of the problem. We must act accordingly.

the UK needs to grow its export market. As an island, you need an air-bridge
This island has multiple major airports, seaports and a Channel Tunnel. Exporting our products is not a problem. LHR R3 represents a 'nice to have' one-third increase in aircraft movements at one of those airports, deliverable only at a price which should shock anybody with basic maths skills.

The investment rate of return is one of the highest of any large-scale projects.
This response is based on faith. None of us knows the future, especially financial forecasts 60 years out. What we do know is that LHR R3 is extraordinarily expensive to deliver here and now. The projected cost appears to rise at frequent intervals. There is a desire for capacity enhancement there rather than a true need for it. And there are multiple projects of merit competing for the public portion of funds which can only be allocated one time.

Build it.
Don't build it. Costs too much. Better uses elsewhere for the public element of funding.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2015, 11:43
  #435 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
No just wondering how mixing apples and pears furthers your argument. One brings in much needed international investment from across the world, our clients deal much more with one than er.....Leeds Railway station. I think when you say "the same way", you're stretching things to breaking point.
This response is based on faith. None of us knows the future, especially financial forecasts 60 years out. What we do know is that LHR R3 is extraordinarily expensive to deliver here and now
Like the Channel Tunnel. Don't build that? The London Olympics? Don't hold them? The Edinburgh Trams? Actually, that last one, beyond barmy(!)
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2015, 12:55
  #436 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No just wondering how mixing apples and pears furthers your argument
The subject of this particular exchange is transport infrastructure projects competing for scarce state funding. That is the link. Wholly valid comparison in that context.

Leeds Railway station.
Huh? Leeds Railway Station??? The example I cited was the entirety of a major rail trunk route linking several of the UK's most important manufacturing regions and centres of population. Not just one station. Your quote is akin to comparing LHR T5 car park as opposed to the whole of LHR. How does mixing apples and pears further your argument?

Like the Channel Tunnel. Don't build that?
An interesting choice to make your point, Skipness. The Channel Tunnel stands testament to corruption and incompetence at the highest levels of British politics. It was justified to the nation as a project not just for London and the SE, because we were promised daily services from the regions to Paris and Brussels as part of the deal. They even built a rail depot in Manchester with "L' Eurostar habite ici" painted on the side. But they never ran one revenue service. They claimed it wouldn't be viable without ever attempting to sell one ticket. It is a shame on Britain that nobody was prosecuted over the Channel Tunnel scandal. It is a premium example of why folks outside the SE have so little trust for infrastructure decisions made at Whitehall. By the way, the Channel Tunnel project is also one of the finest examples of a massive cost overrun in a major UK engineering project ... 80% over budget ...could LHR R3 follow in its wake?

The London Olympics? Don't hold them? The Edinburgh Trams?
You are on a roll with your choices, Skipness! Did you know that in direct response to the surprise award of the Olympics to London, the Government cancelled previously-approved funding for ALL light-rail projects around the UK except for the Edinburgh tram route which ran very close to the constituency of the sitting transport secretary? These funds were diverted from the regions to Olympics-related projects in London directly because of this. Labour councils in Greater Manchester effectively went to war with Labour at Westminster over this decision. One positive derived from all this is that the relationships forged between the Greater Manchester local authorities as a direct result have persisted and flourished through to the present day, paving the way for the pragmatic approach they now have to doing business with Conservative Chancellor George Osborne. Andy Burnham in particular is livid about that, as demonstrated by his furious reaction the the local NHS devolution proposal.

Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 11th Jul 2015 at 13:07.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2015, 13:28
  #437 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm perplexed that Government involvement in other projects is usually met with universal derision.

Uncosted expenditure, over runs, late delivery etc !

.... does the "proposed" Government stance on providing blank cheque "assurances" to Heathrow investors therefore not cause the slightest wiff of alarm ?

Apparently not.......

Last edited by Bagso; 11th Jul 2015 at 14:35.
Bagso is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2015, 15:09
  #438 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 DME
Age: 53
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A few comments, in no particular order...

I regard all 60-year financial forecasts with profound scepticism based upon the track-record of previous examples.
Forecasts are just that. They give an indication of how things would work out under the current circumstances and assumptions so that you can compare different options. Also, don't confuse an inability to control costs with assessing whether a project has delivered the benefits that were predicted. There is no track record established yet as the current Treasury model hasn't been in use for 60 years.

Come on, now ... who are you kidding? Have you asked TfL? GIP? MAG? HACAN? Boris, Zak? YOU personally may disagree with those who oppose LHR R3, but to deny that opposition exists is plain silly
I suspect the original comment was in relation to business-representative organisations such as the Institute of Directors or the CBI as opposed to local politicians and interest groups?

What we do know is that LHR R3 is extraordinarily expensive to deliver here and now
Is it? HAL's construction cost estimate is 11.1bn - with 85% of those costs benchmarked though its supply chain, i.e. the contractors who would most likely be bidding for the work. That is a high level of cost certainty, yet despite this Davies still deemed it appropriate to inflate the costs further through additional risk, contingency and optimism bias allowances (even though these are are effectively the same thing). That 11.1bn buys a new runway, taxiways, apron space, 1.5 terminals plus satellites, a 50% bigger cargo centre and all of the expensive, underground infrastructure needed to connect it all together. On top of that they estimate a further 2.1bn in access infrastructure which includes not just the costs of building the southern rail access, but buying the rolling stock and the costs of operating and maintaining the line. Then there is 3.6bn of "community compensation".

Of this all but 1.2 billion would be privately funded.

Bagso's concerns about a government 'blank cheque' I suspect are somewhat misplaced. I cannot see any circumstance where government would underwrite anything other than the public transport / access infrastructure element of the scheme, as to underwrite the stuff within the airport boundary would probably breach competition regulations.

As a benchmark, the third runway at HKG (which also includes a new terminal, aprons, etc) is currently estimated at 11.76bn (HK$141.5bn).

Thirdly, I do not propose that 10Bn of public money should necessarily be allocated to a single project. A combination of public / private financing spanning several priority projects across a number of regions should produce the best ROI for the taxpayer in terms of employment impact and increasing the UK GDP.
Most of the capital infrastructure projects that I have been involved in over recent years have demonstrated a BCR (Benefit Cost Ratio) of between 2 and 5 - i.e. for every pound spent you get between 2 and 5 back. Even if you take a pessimistic view of taxpayer contribution towards access infrastructure - 10bn - a forecast benefit of 147bn still represents a BCR of over 14, which is significant. Most of the projects listed by SHED, whilst of benefit to the localities in question, would struggle to achieve a BCR of 5, which means you would have to fund just over 29bn of those projects to achieve the same projected level of economic benefit. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be funded, but it explains why projects in the SE tend to secure funding more easily.

It is "we in the North" demand a fair share of the national public transport infrastructure budget before the SE gets yet another sequential turn at the trough
Trouble is, most of the northern core city economies take more out of the public purse than they put in, so it is taxpayers in London and the SE that subsidise our infrastructure investment. A recent report by Centre for Cities ('Mapping Britain's Public Finances') estimated that London contributed 126bn in taxes...Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield combined generated around 38bn. For the same period (2013/14) the GLA received 10.2bn in spend on 'infrastructure, economy and environment' whilst the above-mentioned northern cities received 5.7bn.

Remember that public funds (GBP10Bn?) allocated to LHR R3 cannot then be used elsewhere ... funds can only be allocated once
Not entirely true. Revenue funding can indeed only be spent once, but capital funding - which this would be- is effectively an investment that can generate a return and hence be reinvested elsewhere. A lot of the devolution discussions that are going on hinge on the case of government investment generating the best return through increased growth.

Also, remember that LHR already accounts for getting on one third of the 3bn of APD that flows into the Treasury each year. This may reinforce a view that any public funds spent to enable more passengers to fly through Heathrow would be recouped over time through increased tax revenues.
AndyH52 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2015, 16:12
  #439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
#401 refers

It is surface access costs which this refers.
Bagso is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2015, 16:54
  #440 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some of this might be better place on a thread titled "Apparent injusticies rained down on Northeners" on JetBlast surely. Filed next to one about BOAC forcing Sabena longhaul from Ringway......


I think a new runway at LHR will be more of an national asset than the second runway at MAN ever was. Who came up with that layout deserves <edited>
Skipness One Echo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.