Heathrow-2
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lewes, UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Fair enough, I stand corrected.
My experience has been of a reasonably regular weekday commute between J3 and J2, from which I was never diverted during all the time it was being smartened. I must just have been lucky.
My experience has been of a reasonably regular weekday commute between J3 and J2, from which I was never diverted during all the time it was being smartened. I must just have been lucky.
Improvements and major road projects | M4 junctions 3-12: smart motorway
Included is the estimate £586m to £862m, scheduled 2016/2017 to 2021/2022, now to start summer 2018 so end 2023?
Included is the estimate £586m to £862m, scheduled 2016/2017 to 2021/2022, now to start summer 2018 so end 2023?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless every passenger arrives on a bike or even better a tandem , it is fancifil to think what they have now will cope let alone what will occur when they get RW3.
The convergangance of 3 motorways means they will need to double the number of lanes within a 20 odd mile radius.just to keep up with current demand let alone Rw3.
The whole area is frequently gridlocked.
We are trying to squeeze in capacity into an area for which it simply wasnt designed.
The convergangance of 3 motorways means they will need to double the number of lanes within a 20 odd mile radius.just to keep up with current demand let alone Rw3.
The whole area is frequently gridlocked.
We are trying to squeeze in capacity into an area for which it simply wasnt designed.
Last edited by Navpi; 16th May 2018 at 07:07.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK....Didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification.
But on reflection, it's hardly a strong business case if you say ' We'll do X providing the Government prevent our competotors from doing the same thing '
So presumably the Nigerian is saying that he's only waiting for a definitive answer from the Government before investing himself ?
Heard that one before - many times...About number #4 on the list of ' How to make things difficult in Africa for your competitors '
Maybe the UK Governent should adopt a ' Show us the money, first ' policy - you know, just to be on the safe side....
But on reflection, it's hardly a strong business case if you say ' We'll do X providing the Government prevent our competotors from doing the same thing '
So presumably the Nigerian is saying that he's only waiting for a definitive answer from the Government before investing himself ?
Heard that one before - many times...About number #4 on the list of ' How to make things difficult in Africa for your competitors '
Maybe the UK Governent should adopt a ' Show us the money, first ' policy - you know, just to be on the safe side....
By the way, and I stand to be corrected, I think the LGW scheme envisaged a need for around £1 bn on the station and some of the upgrade costs on the railway on the approaches to Gatwick. Not sure about the M23.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is fancifil to think what they have now will cope let alone what will occur when they get RW3.
The converggence of 3 motorways means they will need to double the number of lanes within a 20 odd mile radius.just to keep up with current demand let alone Rw3.
The converggence of 3 motorways means they will need to double the number of lanes within a 20 odd mile radius.just to keep up with current demand let alone Rw3.
This is why the argument against the third runway based on the cost to the taxpayer of the M4/M25 reconfiguration is such a red herring.
In actuality it is reasonable to suggest that doing both these projects in harmony would save costs significantly as well as only having 1 period of works and diversions etc in what must be one of the busiest intersections in the UK.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not forget, a third runway at Heathrow was approved previously.
BAA at that point owned both Heathrow and Gatwick and chose to expand LHR. BAA was then sold to a Spanish company and suddenly, it wasn't seen as a good idea to allow BAA to own both LHR & LGW and they were made to sell LGW.
The new owners of Gatwick then realised that they could expand their asset with help from the taxpayer and came up with a plan which they said, could rival LHR. We then had this 'Third runway needed anywhere near London' debate which is meaningless as expansion of the two airports is based on entirely different principles.
What is true is that and expanded Heathrow would bring a hub and relieve the pressure on Gatwick. An expanded Gatwick would do nothing to help LHR's case.
BAA at that point owned both Heathrow and Gatwick and chose to expand LHR. BAA was then sold to a Spanish company and suddenly, it wasn't seen as a good idea to allow BAA to own both LHR & LGW and they were made to sell LGW.
The new owners of Gatwick then realised that they could expand their asset with help from the taxpayer and came up with a plan which they said, could rival LHR. We then had this 'Third runway needed anywhere near London' debate which is meaningless as expansion of the two airports is based on entirely different principles.
What is true is that and expanded Heathrow would bring a hub and relieve the pressure on Gatwick. An expanded Gatwick would do nothing to help LHR's case.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And there you have hit the nail on the head. There is no way this road system will not be approved for major improvements at some point either before LHR expansion or in the following few decades.
This is why the argument against the third runway based on the cost to the taxpayer of the M4/M25 reconfiguration is such a red herring.
In actuality it is reasonable to suggest that doing both these projects in harmony would save costs significantly as well as only having 1 period of works and diversions etc in what must be one of the busiest intersections in the UK.
This is why the argument against the third runway based on the cost to the taxpayer of the M4/M25 reconfiguration is such a red herring.
In actuality it is reasonable to suggest that doing both these projects in harmony would save costs significantly as well as only having 1 period of works and diversions etc in what must be one of the busiest intersections in the UK.
LHR expansion would cause increased traffic, that would trigger the requirement to expand the roadway capacity.
It is therefore a cost to the UK taxpayer directly caused by LHR expansion.
While the M25 is extremely important to LHR a huge number of passengers come and go from central London and do not use the M25 at all and most of them use the two rail links available from London to the airport.
I am not saying further expansion will not put more rpessure on the roads but the issue id London needs a hub airport to continue to compete with Paris FRA AMS of those only Paris has two airports but there is little need to ever transit between them . LHR on the other hand has a huge amount to transit pax and needs them to support route development . And this si the problem , expanding LGW or STN does nothing at all to meet that need. Expanding Gatwick just allows more Easyjet and bucket and spade travel and does nothing for business. Stansted is Ryanair world , enough said.
So the Govt -oddly enough the Tories again- putting party before country -faff around forever about expanding LHR because of fear of loss of a few west London seats mostly in safe areas. pitiful.
as for cost overuns it never ceases to amaze me how this happens, for most of my career I ahve been involved wioth projects costing 500M to 1Bn USD so not gigantic but not small . Most have cost overruns but of the order of 5-15% , the kind of ones we have on Uk projects of x times the estimate are unthinkable and it is astonishing to me and many of my colleagues that any infrastructure project can suddenly end up costing three, four or five times the estimate and then the same contracting and implementation team goes on to get another major contract. Can't all be backhanders and freemasons surely
I am not saying further expansion will not put more rpessure on the roads but the issue id London needs a hub airport to continue to compete with Paris FRA AMS of those only Paris has two airports but there is little need to ever transit between them . LHR on the other hand has a huge amount to transit pax and needs them to support route development . And this si the problem , expanding LGW or STN does nothing at all to meet that need. Expanding Gatwick just allows more Easyjet and bucket and spade travel and does nothing for business. Stansted is Ryanair world , enough said.
So the Govt -oddly enough the Tories again- putting party before country -faff around forever about expanding LHR because of fear of loss of a few west London seats mostly in safe areas. pitiful.
as for cost overuns it never ceases to amaze me how this happens, for most of my career I ahve been involved wioth projects costing 500M to 1Bn USD so not gigantic but not small . Most have cost overruns but of the order of 5-15% , the kind of ones we have on Uk projects of x times the estimate are unthinkable and it is astonishing to me and many of my colleagues that any infrastructure project can suddenly end up costing three, four or five times the estimate and then the same contracting and implementation team goes on to get another major contract. Can't all be backhanders and freemasons surely
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the M25 is extremely important to LHR a huge number of passengers come and go from central London and do not use the M25 at all and most of them use the two rail links available from London to the airport.
I am not saying further expansion will not put more rpessure on the roads but the issue id London needs a hub airport to continue to compete with Paris FRA AMS of those only Paris has two airports but there is little need to ever transit between them . LHR on the other hand has a huge amount to transit pax and needs them to support route development . And this si the problem , expanding LGW or STN does nothing at all to meet that need. Expanding Gatwick just allows more Easyjet and bucket and spade travel and does nothing for business. Stansted is Ryanair world , enough said.
So the Govt -oddly enough the Tories again- putting party before country -faff around forever about expanding LHR because of fear of loss of a few west London seats mostly in safe areas. pitiful.
as for cost overuns it never ceases to amaze me how this happens, for most of my career I ahve been involved wioth projects costing 500M to 1Bn USD so not gigantic but not small . Most have cost overruns but of the order of 5-15% , the kind of ones we have on Uk projects of x times the estimate are unthinkable and it is astonishing to me and many of my colleagues that any infrastructure project can suddenly end up costing three, four or five times the estimate and then the same contracting and implementation team goes on to get another major contract. Can't all be backhanders and freemasons surely
I am not saying further expansion will not put more rpessure on the roads but the issue id London needs a hub airport to continue to compete with Paris FRA AMS of those only Paris has two airports but there is little need to ever transit between them . LHR on the other hand has a huge amount to transit pax and needs them to support route development . And this si the problem , expanding LGW or STN does nothing at all to meet that need. Expanding Gatwick just allows more Easyjet and bucket and spade travel and does nothing for business. Stansted is Ryanair world , enough said.
So the Govt -oddly enough the Tories again- putting party before country -faff around forever about expanding LHR because of fear of loss of a few west London seats mostly in safe areas. pitiful.
as for cost overuns it never ceases to amaze me how this happens, for most of my career I ahve been involved wioth projects costing 500M to 1Bn USD so not gigantic but not small . Most have cost overruns but of the order of 5-15% , the kind of ones we have on Uk projects of x times the estimate are unthinkable and it is astonishing to me and many of my colleagues that any infrastructure project can suddenly end up costing three, four or five times the estimate and then the same contracting and implementation team goes on to get another major contract. Can't all be backhanders and freemasons surely
I guess we can all agree that the current state of Government and Parliament is one of the worst scenarios imaginable for getting a controversial scheme through the hoops. But I don't think it's mainly about Putney and Richmond, I think it's more about the cost of the scheme, whether the customers collectively will be willing to pay the price to them, and whether the scheme is deliverable. If you read the Select Committee report you can see the nervousness about a number of features of the scheme. These include whether moving the facilities to the west of the M25 have been fully planned and costed and whether disruption on the motorway network during construction has been fully costed. It's not so much a matter of cost overruns, although years of legal cases are obviously a big source of planning risk. But at this point it's more a matter of whether we actually have a fully itemised cost estimate, particularly outside the fence, and who ultimately is going to pay what.
It's one of those schemes where it feels like it should be a no-brainer until you start looking at the numbers and whether they add up. Then you begin to wonder if the scheme is just too ambitious.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cause of the traffic is LHR. The road network is not perfect, but it works.
And it doesn't work much of the time.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as for cost overuns it never ceases to amaze me how this happens,
The legal wrangling over what is and isn't allowed goes on long after the project is completed.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London needs a hub airport to continue to compete with Paris FRA AMS of those only Paris has two airports but there is little need to ever transit between them . LHR on the other hand has a huge amount to transit pax and needs them to support route development . And this si the problem , expanding LGW or STN does nothing at all to meet that need. Expanding Gatwick just allows more Easyjet and bucket and spade travel and does nothing for business. Stansted is Ryanair world , enough said.
2 - one of the main beneficiaries of an expanded LHR is likely to be EasyJet, who intend to take over Terminal 4. As EZY are not a hub and spoke carrier, they offer no benefit over and above an expanded operation at LGW, STN. Of course, LHR is far more expensive that these, which is why LGW offers a better financial return for UK plc.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but that is just wrong. Traffic from the M1 round to the M23 including the M40 M4 & M3 is all likely to go round the M25 past Heathrow. Then you have the M4 & A4 into and out of London. LHR is just part of a very busy interchange.
And it doesn't work much of the time.
And it doesn't work much of the time.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dobbo Dobbo as you are Leeds based, why is an expanded LGW good for your region in terms of UK PLC as it doesn't even have a LBA or MAN connection to help you out?
Also Virgin have just announced that LGW-LAS is moving to LHR to better connect with partner airlines AF/KL and Delta, hub capacity 1.01 right there.
Also Virgin have just announced that LGW-LAS is moving to LHR to better connect with partner airlines AF/KL and Delta, hub capacity 1.01 right there.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 16th May 2018 at 15:39.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but you are burying your head in the sand if you think LHR isn't the primary cause of traffic in and around the M4/M25 interchange.
you are burying your head in the sand if you think LHR isn't the primary cause of traffic in and around the M4/M25 interchange.
Then add those who commute into the airport. 76,500 employees. Again, some will use public transport, they will come from all directions, and their shift times will cover at least 18 hours a day. In total, perhaps the same number as passengers. Sum total of cars using M4/M25 junction, something over 5,000 cars per hour. My generous estimates compare with a capacity of over 20,000 vehicles per hour on a 4-lane motorway.
If you look at a map Dobbo Dobbo you will see that both the M4 and M25 service some of the most densely-populated and affluent parts of the UK, so your assertion from Leeds is about as far from the truth.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the reason for Heathrow expansion is to increase connectivity, then in theory it shouldn't matter whether the expansion is at Heathrow or, say, Aberdeen.
If the reason for Gatwick expansion is to increase connectivity, then it will need a whole bunch of airlines to redirect inbound and outbound services from Heathrow to Gatwick - which certainly hasn't happened in the past. Very few airlines, since PanAm, have shut down at Heathrow and moved to Gatwick and I can't think of any that prospered from a Heathrow > Gatwick move.
On the other hand, if the reason for expansion at either or both is to facilitate an increase in O&D traffic into the UK, then the obvious answer has to be something, somewhere, more central inside the UK and which would probably be 10x cheaper and easier to realise. Not too sure where and how, though, so expansion at Stansted to the north, perhaps Oxford to the west, and Southampton to the south would appear to offer the travelling public huge advantages at significantly less cost to the UK Government than pouring £billions of public money into either of Gatwick or Heathrow.
Well, that's how I see it.
If the reason for Gatwick expansion is to increase connectivity, then it will need a whole bunch of airlines to redirect inbound and outbound services from Heathrow to Gatwick - which certainly hasn't happened in the past. Very few airlines, since PanAm, have shut down at Heathrow and moved to Gatwick and I can't think of any that prospered from a Heathrow > Gatwick move.
On the other hand, if the reason for expansion at either or both is to facilitate an increase in O&D traffic into the UK, then the obvious answer has to be something, somewhere, more central inside the UK and which would probably be 10x cheaper and easier to realise. Not too sure where and how, though, so expansion at Stansted to the north, perhaps Oxford to the west, and Southampton to the south would appear to offer the travelling public huge advantages at significantly less cost to the UK Government than pouring £billions of public money into either of Gatwick or Heathrow.
Well, that's how I see it.