Can't see upgrading rail station at LGW costing abillion quid. Expanding Reding with all sorts of flyovers etc was less than 750mm and came in under budget and ahead of rime
|
Originally Posted by LGS6753
(Post 10148610)
Quite wrong, I'm afraid. LHR handles around 70m passengers per year - that's just under 200,000 per day. of those at least half use public transport to get in/out of the airport, so 100,000 per day.
CAA stats show 61% of LHR pax don't use public transport. The proportion of those who do is rising, but only slowly - from 33% to 39% over the last 25 years. At that rate, it will be another 40 years before the public transport modal share reaches 50%. |
In the next few years we will get the western rail link and Crossrail going into Heathrow. Further ahead HS2 will be able to link into Crossrail too. All these will make public transport more attractive. I would expect that 50% to be reached before any new runway is in use.
|
VS LHR BOS LAS and Barbados changes. Interesting when BA also reshuffled LAS |
Crosrail has morphed into Heathrow connectivity which to be fair is bizarre. It was always designed to support Londoners in the West getting to the East. It has now somehow become an artery of Heathrow which in some resoects is good for Heathrow passengers but a total disaster for London commuters.
There link to the East will be swamped by holidaymakers with masses of luggage. |
Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo
(Post 10148397)
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?
Another reason is that in Leeds you have the option of KLM from LBA, which as far as I'm aware is not subsidised. This delivers pretty much all the connectivity you get at LHR, albeit via AMS. In short, there is no real advantage to the Leeds city region from LHR runway 3. |
Originally Posted by Prophead
(Post 10148535)
It isn't, I used to do this drive every day. Most of the traffic on the M4 is going into London and most of the traffic on the M25 is going straight past the airport. If it was all going to/from LHR then the link roads would never be able to cope.
You say you used to drive this every day. 1 - how did you measure these asserted traffic flows? 2 - over what period did you measure? 3 - how many cars ended up at LHR, where did the other cars continue on to? |
Originally Posted by LGS6753
(Post 10148610)
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.
The point is that LHR causes much of the traffic on the M25/4. I don't see anything from you that denies or opposes that view. |
Originally Posted by Dobbo_Dobbo
(Post 10148837)
"Most of the traffic on the M4 is going into London". You say you used to drive this every day. 1 - how did you measure these asserted traffic flows? 2 - over what period did you measure? 3 - how many cars ended up at LHR, where did the other cars continue on to? |
Originally Posted by Gonzo
(Post 10148955)
I’ve worked at LHR for 20yrs, and I agree with Prophead. The majority of cars on the M25/M4 do not go to/from LHR. The fundamental point remains that additional journeys on this busy section of the road/motorway network, caused by an expanded LHR, results in a requirement for expensive construction of additional road capacity. |
Crosrail has morphed into Heathrow connectivity which to be fair is bizarre. It was always designed to support Londoners in the West getting to the East. It has now somehow become an artery of Heathrow which in some resoects is good for Heathrow passengers but a total disaster for London commuters. |
Crosrail has morphed into Heathrow connectivity which to be fair is bizarre. It was always designed to support Londoners in the West getting to the East but there will also be journeys in and around LHR caused by businesses, families and individuals who have located in the area because of its proximity to LHR. The fundamental point remains that additional journeys on this busy section of the road/motorway network, caused by an expanded LHR, results in a requirement for expensive construction of additional road capacity. To build an upgraded interchange around LHR anyway, have Crossrail and HS2 running into it and the Western rail link onto the GWR, then choose to favour Gatwick for expansion is just crazy. |
Originally Posted by Prophead
(Post 10149107)
Do you know how many people live in the Thames valley and work in West London? Also the amount of traffic that goes between the M1/M40 and M3/M4? Much of this has nothing to do with the airport
Note: I'm not criticising LHR for generating economic activity - in my view that is clearly a good thing. However you can't have it both ways and claim credit for the economic boost on the one hand but disassociate the costs of it (e.g. increased road capacity, environmental damage) on the other. It is a completely unrealistic stance to take. |
Dobbo, I'm not sure whether you are arguing for or against expansion at LHR but you provide another good reason for it.
Heathrow has, as you say created much growth and employment in a large area. All those businesses you mention above pay tax. The jobs created attract income tax, the companies pay corporation tax and the services attract VAT. So why is it so unthinkable that some of this tax goes towards expansion that would lead to more of that income in the future? |
Originally Posted by Prophead
(Post 10149135)
Dobbo, I'm not sure whether you are arguing for or against expansion at LHR but you provide another good reason for it.
Heathrow has, as you say created much growth and employment in a large area. All those businesses you mention above pay tax. The jobs created attract income tax, the companies pay corporation tax and the services attract VAT. So why is it so unthinkable that some of this tax goes towards expansion that would lead to more of that income in the future? If LHR were to come up with a credible, deliverable scheme and were willing to take on 100% of the financial risks and costs, they should be allowed to get in with it ASAP. That HHL have come up with a gold plated scheme, tried to pawn as much risk as possible onto the UK taxpayer, and are prepared to ride roughshod over their environmental and legal obligations leads me to the conclude that the current management team have no intention of ever doing so. Untill they do present a credible scheme, the strongest financial case for expansion, and the lowest risk to the UK taxpayer, is at LGW, and they should be allowed to proceed ASAP. |
More book-cooking by Heathrow
Heathrow yesterday published the latest quarterly instalment of its Booker Fiction Prize submission aka the "Fly Quiet and Green" results: Fly Quiet & Green League Table Q1 2018
If anything, this quarter's FQ&G results are even murkier than usual. While the basic proposition isn't rocket science - identify LHR's 50 busiest airlines (by number of movements) during the quarter in question, compare their performance on seven environmental metrics and combine their scores in a league table - Heathrow manages to fail at each stage of the process. For a start, Vueling (daily LCG plus 1-2 daily BCN in Q1) is conspicuously absent from the results but Korean (one daily ICN plus the odd 777F) gets included. Likewise JAL (2 daily HND) is omitted, but PIA and Kuwait (both 10 pw) are in the league table. Go figure. When it comes to calculating the league table rankings, Heathrow has already acknowledged that it massages the results to favour whichever airline is flavour of the month, so it should come as no surprise that SAS, this time around, gets propelled from its rightful Number 3 slot to the top of the table. Other airlines that have been awarded unjustified hikes up the table include Lufthansa and and Austrian (both 10 places higher than their performance merits), while heading in the other direction China Southern has clearly offended Heathrow and gets an unjustified 11-place demotion. Aer Lingus, which actually comes out top based on its performance, get unfairly relegated to third place which oddly it shares with Etihad, whose performance only merits 7th position. On average, every airline gets awarded an extra 235 points (nearly 25% of the available 1000-point maximum) over and above the score that its environmental performance actually qualifies for. That's one way of making your operators look greener, I suppose. :O In a final twist, for each metric Heathrow awards airlines a Red, Amber or Green "RAG" classification based on the performance bands set for that indicator. So, for example, BA Longhaul gets a Red for being 38th out of the 50 airlines for violations of the late-night movements quota. Virgin Atlantic, Qantas, El Al and EgyptAir, are all lower-placed (worse) than BA for the night flights metric, but inexplicably only get an Amber for it. You couldn't make this stuff up, though somebody clearly has. :O |
To choose Gatwick over LHR would likely go down as one of the biggest infrastructure planning blunders of the century.
There would likely come a time, when we have HS2, Crossrail & HS4 operational and huge numbers of people are having to travel to Gatwick via Heathrow. The rest will have to go via central London but probably choose to drive instead of that creating more traffic on the M25. Of course if Gatwick is expanded a huge M4/M25 upgrade will likely go ahead at some point anyway at great expense to the taxpayer. |
Let Stansted & LGW pay for a new runway at each and sell LHR for building land - all those affordable houses......
|
Let Stansted & LGW pay for a new runway at each and sell LHR for building land - the tax payer would make a fortune................ Dobbo has already mentioned the large amount of jobs and industry that LHR supports in West London and Thames Valley. What would happen to all this and who would end up paying? The land would be less valuable if the airport wasn't there. |
All those businesses you mention above pay tax. The jobs created attract income tax, the companies pay corporation tax and the services attract VAT. So why is it so unthinkable that some of this tax goes towards expansion that would lead to more of that income in the future? My two pennies.... Land Purchase - Heathrow should pay Site development - Again, Heathrow should pay Transport links (Motorway/Rail), 50/50 between Heathrow and TfL/DfT Everything else - Probably Heathrow as well, unless i miss something major But then we're into the charging airlines more, which is also a contentious issue (for another time)... |
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:36. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.