Another runway at Heathrow
Paxing All Over The World
Whether it has technically lost it's 'prime hub' status, we are long past the tipping point. If R3 opened today we might be able to claw it back - but I doubt it. The M.E. carriers and the true Europeans have won the battle.
WW has always (publically) stated that he presumed R3 would not go ahead.
WW has always (publically) stated that he presumed R3 would not go ahead.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The media have said the review is to look at high air pollution caused by the M4, I can not see that being rerouted Also did anyone see Boris Johnson give his acceptance speech where he said publicly that a 3rd R/W would be built over his dead body
Perhaps he should be made Transport minister?
Perhaps he should be made Transport minister?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See they 've put off the decison again to consult on air pollution -
that could kill the thrird runway stone dead
that could kill the thrird runway stone dead
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about the M4 but the M25 will need a major rework. Its already shambolic and will be complete gridlock with even a modest increase in LHR passengers.
Bo jo
I read it the other way !
As PM you are making thee first big cabinet decision of the new Parliament in a few weeks.
....but you immediatley appoint a major political heavyweight to your inner circle? Somebody dead against it, highly vociferous, who would cause major trouble and would take many backbenchers with him.....
I think they are already planning for a No myself, the air quality issue is a highly convenient escape route for something that has not been costed in the manifesto !
Bo jo
I read it the other way !
As PM you are making thee first big cabinet decision of the new Parliament in a few weeks.
....but you immediatley appoint a major political heavyweight to your inner circle? Somebody dead against it, highly vociferous, who would cause major trouble and would take many backbenchers with him.....
I think they are already planning for a No myself, the air quality issue is a highly convenient escape route for something that has not been costed in the manifesto !
Last edited by Bagso; 11th May 2015 at 15:42.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.but you immediatley appoint a major political heavyweight to your inner circle? Somebody dead against it, highly vociferous, who would cause major trouble and would take many backbenchers with him.....
You could argue it either way Bagso. That as a known opponent he may be used to persuade others against R3, or, as Skip suggests, it may bind him in to the concept of collective Cabinet responsibility. However, given his hostility to R3, he could of course resign (if he's got something to resign from) and retire to air his opinion from the back benches.
On a separate note, some of us from another thread were probably pleased and relieved to hear Cameron mention the Northern Powerhouse again in his short speech outside number 10 after his visit to the Queen. If R3 does get the go-ahead, I feel the government will need to translate rhetoric into action to reassure the regions that serious infrastructure investment, even when privately funded, is not being confined to London and the south east.
I can't see the Regulator will allow hiking the current landing fees etc to pay for the extension, this is against all the concept of regulated charges. They already disallowed funding of the Crossrail rail extension HAL previously said they would do, which as far as Heathrow is concerned will not require any capital investment on airport property, and will presumably likewise take the same view of capital investment for the future being paid for out of current operating charges. The whole cost quoted for R3 looks substantially gold-plated anyway (I think they are putting in land costs at current valuation where quite a lot of the required land has already been steadily acquired by BAA/HAL over the years), which I hope the regulator has the professional advisors to identify.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Girona
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air pollution concerns at Heathrow "just a sham"
It is a shade disconcerting to see this line trotted out here by several posters recently.
EU air pollution limits, rather than anything Boris-the-Clown says or does, have been the dagger at the heart of the LHR/R3 debate for more than a decade now. It is astonishing that the professionals (sic) who post here seem so oblivious of this fact.
EU air pollution limits, rather than anything Boris-the-Clown says or does, have been the dagger at the heart of the LHR/R3 debate for more than a decade now. It is astonishing that the professionals (sic) who post here seem so oblivious of this fact.
Last edited by BigFrank; 11th May 2015 at 21:03. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BigFrank is absolutely right, in that air pollution in the LHR area has long been seen as the most intractable barrier to the airport's expansion, even if the air pollution is much more due to non airport-related road traffic on the M4 and M25.
However, the recent Supreme Court judgement might actually favour LHR expansion, ironically. It could force the UK Government to address the air pollution issue irrespective of whether R3 goes ahead. And once that problem is solved, it conveniently removes the obstacle to expanding LHR.
However, the recent Supreme Court judgement might actually favour LHR expansion, ironically. It could force the UK Government to address the air pollution issue irrespective of whether R3 goes ahead. And once that problem is solved, it conveniently removes the obstacle to expanding LHR.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM is wide of the mark on the regulator's approach to setting Heathrow's airport charges. The CAA is very relaxed on 'pre-funding', ie making today's users pay for tomorrow's capacity. Heathrow's charges were increased before T5 opened, a deliberate policy decision by CAA to avoid sharp changes in user charges.
I agree, however, that the CAA needs to be tough on 'gold plating', certainly much tougher than they were with T5. BA and easyJet have already made this point.
As for land costs etc, such issues are likely to be addressed in the upcoming policy document from CAA setting out how they would approach the future regulation of Heathrow if a new runway is approved. The CAA will focus on its statutory duties, which include a requirement to take into account the ability of the airport operator to finance the new investment.
I agree, however, that the CAA needs to be tough on 'gold plating', certainly much tougher than they were with T5. BA and easyJet have already made this point.
As for land costs etc, such issues are likely to be addressed in the upcoming policy document from CAA setting out how they would approach the future regulation of Heathrow if a new runway is approved. The CAA will focus on its statutory duties, which include a requirement to take into account the ability of the airport operator to finance the new investment.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear dear old Boris hinted on LBC radio this morning that he might have to introduce a conjestion charge on roads around Heathrow because of the pollution problem. That is going to go down really well I think not.
Heathrow Airport congestion charge proposed - BBC News
The difference is that Heathrow's proposal applied to entering the airport, and HAL would get the money, whereas Boris's proposal to extend the London Congestion Charge means that his own Transport for London would get the money 
I really do get fed up with "green" schemes which are nothing more than a money grab by the proposers. They actually hope the number of cars is not reduced, as otherwise their income for their shareholders (HAL) or the staff's gold-plated pension fund (TfL) is reduced.
I really do get fed up with "green" schemes which are nothing more than a money grab by the proposers. They actually hope the number of cars is not reduced, as otherwise their income for their shareholders (HAL) or the staff's gold-plated pension fund (TfL) is reduced.
Paxing All Over The World
Boris will do what he's always done:
- Posture and burble publically
- Work behind the scenes to fix things.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BBC, "Making It Clear !
"We understand from various sources that Heathrow is full"
"Whats the answer"
"a new runway"
"where",
"same place"
Does business want this",
"yes, call somebody in the City"
"What about the environment"
"Call HACAN"
"what about Gatwick"
er .....hesitation
"move on"
The end
...and that is basically how every media outlet with the BBC leading the charge reports this topic. Top heavy on rhetoric, very light on detail.
We have a problem with airport capacity, the answer is a new runway, that becomes a soundbite, the soundbite is placed in the hands of the BBC but it needs mileage , nay credibility who does one get to cover.
"step forward Kamal Ahmed BBC Business Editor and a former congregation member at the Daily Telegraph Editor"
hmmmm, maybe time to introduce some spin ?
Kamal needs a City Heavyweight to support "a view"
"know anybody"
"indeed, a colleague in The City"
"who would that be"
"xxxxxx CEO xxx, very pro LHR "
and thus the BBC is snared, its filled airtime, created an infograph of plane after plane landing every 3 sec' and generated a misplaced philosophy based not on all the facts but on flimsy, frothy top end stuff that doesn't get anywhere near some real detail. But what it does do is reinforce in the minds of whoever chooses to listen that this the stark choice we face without mentioning any of the challenging or nasty bits.
So what of that detail ?
Maybe i'm missing something but there is not a word on timescales.
We are talking 20 years.....say it again slowly 20 years !
The timescales are so stretched half of us here won't be here, and the other half won't remember what it was we were
debating !
So how on earth can you plan now, based on something that won't see the light of day until 2035 ?
5 Years fines 10 Ok, but 20 ?
And what of a connection to that other project limping along in the sidings ...a semi national...ish high speed rail link ?
Pretty much a given in any other country. How on earth do you make the most of this expansion if Heathrow does not have a connection to HS2 ? If this other shambles of a project does see the light of day (and at the time of writing the costings had been misplaced from the Tory manifesto) would you not want a swift direct link so everybody including us Mancs can bask in this tsunami of economic prosperity that the 3rd runway will bring us ?
Apparently not, in order to connect "swiftly" from The Midlands or The North Of England we will all have to change in "North Acton", lug our bags up 2 escalators, then down two more, yomp across 4 platforms, then get another train that deposits us in the centre of Heathrow where we can then get a bus to take us to the right terminal , and all this 2 hours after alighting from a mode of transport that apparently will got us to North Acton in less than an hour in the first place !!!!!!!
Over exaggeration just a bit , but a damn sight near the reality.
If rail connections are convoluted what of roads how do you make the most of the expansion unless in tandem you upgrade the M25/M40/M4 and the M3. Surely these will require overwhelming surgery ?
Is this not the type of detail that should form a pretty firm platform of debate ?
"We understand from various sources that Heathrow is full"
"Whats the answer"
"a new runway"
"where",
"same place"
Does business want this",
"yes, call somebody in the City"
"What about the environment"
"Call HACAN"
"what about Gatwick"
er .....hesitation
"move on"
The end
...and that is basically how every media outlet with the BBC leading the charge reports this topic. Top heavy on rhetoric, very light on detail.
We have a problem with airport capacity, the answer is a new runway, that becomes a soundbite, the soundbite is placed in the hands of the BBC but it needs mileage , nay credibility who does one get to cover.
"step forward Kamal Ahmed BBC Business Editor and a former congregation member at the Daily Telegraph Editor"
hmmmm, maybe time to introduce some spin ?
Kamal needs a City Heavyweight to support "a view"
"know anybody"
"indeed, a colleague in The City"
"who would that be"
"xxxxxx CEO xxx, very pro LHR "
and thus the BBC is snared, its filled airtime, created an infograph of plane after plane landing every 3 sec' and generated a misplaced philosophy based not on all the facts but on flimsy, frothy top end stuff that doesn't get anywhere near some real detail. But what it does do is reinforce in the minds of whoever chooses to listen that this the stark choice we face without mentioning any of the challenging or nasty bits.
So what of that detail ?
Maybe i'm missing something but there is not a word on timescales.
We are talking 20 years.....say it again slowly 20 years !
The timescales are so stretched half of us here won't be here, and the other half won't remember what it was we were
debating !
So how on earth can you plan now, based on something that won't see the light of day until 2035 ?
5 Years fines 10 Ok, but 20 ?
And what of a connection to that other project limping along in the sidings ...a semi national...ish high speed rail link ?
Pretty much a given in any other country. How on earth do you make the most of this expansion if Heathrow does not have a connection to HS2 ? If this other shambles of a project does see the light of day (and at the time of writing the costings had been misplaced from the Tory manifesto) would you not want a swift direct link so everybody including us Mancs can bask in this tsunami of economic prosperity that the 3rd runway will bring us ?
Apparently not, in order to connect "swiftly" from The Midlands or The North Of England we will all have to change in "North Acton", lug our bags up 2 escalators, then down two more, yomp across 4 platforms, then get another train that deposits us in the centre of Heathrow where we can then get a bus to take us to the right terminal , and all this 2 hours after alighting from a mode of transport that apparently will got us to North Acton in less than an hour in the first place !!!!!!!
Over exaggeration just a bit , but a damn sight near the reality.
If rail connections are convoluted what of roads how do you make the most of the expansion unless in tandem you upgrade the M25/M40/M4 and the M3. Surely these will require overwhelming surgery ?
Is this not the type of detail that should form a pretty firm platform of debate ?
Last edited by Bagso; 13th May 2015 at 06:27.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso
The politics of HS2 are beyond me, but there was an interesting article in the FT over the weekend (behind a paywall I'm afraid).
It contrasted the very poor benefit/cost ratio of HS2 with the very attractive forecast for LHR R3 (even at the grossly inflated cost estimates for R3).
It wouldn't surprise me if HS2 gets quietly dumped, especially if the North-West politicians/council leaders finally realise that all it will do is further reinforce the dominance of London. I've always been mystified as to why Richard Leese and others have been so supportive of HS2.
The politics of HS2 are beyond me, but there was an interesting article in the FT over the weekend (behind a paywall I'm afraid).
It contrasted the very poor benefit/cost ratio of HS2 with the very attractive forecast for LHR R3 (even at the grossly inflated cost estimates for R3).
It wouldn't surprise me if HS2 gets quietly dumped, especially if the North-West politicians/council leaders finally realise that all it will do is further reinforce the dominance of London. I've always been mystified as to why Richard Leese and others have been so supportive of HS2.
Odd how it is the 'Make Britain Greater Still' brigade who are the most opposed to things like this and then they sit back and whine (wine too) about how the frogs and krauts (their words not mine) always end up better off than us
PB.
And the best reason of all for building R3 is that Boris would be part of the foundations and we would no longer have to put up with his cartoon clown disguise for a very nasty ultra right ambition.
PB.
And the best reason of all for building R3 is that Boris would be part of the foundations and we would no longer have to put up with his cartoon clown disguise for a very nasty ultra right ambition.