Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 08:27:00 on Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:

The transport authority instead estimates that the development, which could
lead to heavier congestion on London's roads, buses and trains, will have a
£18.4bn price tag.

Is that figure net or gross of the fares the extra passengers will be
paying?

It's a capital cost, not an operating cost. And most road users don't pay
fares.

But how much of the £18bn is new roads, let alone ones TfL will be
responsible for?


The article goes on to say:

The Airports Commission estimated that the cost of Heathrow expansion to
TfL would be £5.7bn in its publication about the future of airport
expansion released last summer. The money, it said, would be spent on
renovations such as widening the M4 or creating an M25 tunnel that would go
underneath the runway.

TfL's higher figure also takes into account public transport upgrades,
including changes to the South West Main Line and Great Western Main Line,
and bus improvements.

Some of the work would be necessary even without the third runway, TfL
admitted, while stressing that the development would accelerate the need
for the upgrades.

"It is entirely in the realms of possibility that some of the schemes would
be deemed necessary at some unspecified time in the future," said a
spokesman for TfL. "The point is they're not currently envisaged - planned
or committed - but if Heathrow expansion is progressed, they would
absolutely be needed."

John Holland-Kaye, chief executive of Heathrow, said TfL's estimate was a
"long list of anything that might be needed across London".

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 08:37:27 on Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:

The political costs will be less at Gatwick, but the transport costs may be
even more than Heathrow. Doubling the number of airport passengers will
probably require some major, and very expensive railway and motorway
upgrades, including to the Brighton main line, M23 and M25.

Rail and road are both operating at capacity currently, so yes.

Isn't there already a plan to do a major re-vamp of the station?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:52:38 on Mon, 25 Apr
2016, Graeme Wall remarked:

Have you seen the cost of moving the M25 underground?

If that doesn't come from the Heathrow budget, then I agree the numbers
are being massaged.

The best option is to build it at Birmingham

Who paid for the recent A45 diversion?
--
Roland Perry

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 09:04:53 on Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:

The transport authority instead estimates that the development,
which could
lead to heavier congestion on London's roads, buses and trains,
will have a
£18.4bn price tag.

Is that figure net or gross of the fares the extra passengers will be
paying?

It's a capital cost, not an operating cost. And most road users don't pay
fares.

But how much of the £18bn is new roads, let alone ones TfL will be
responsible for?


The article goes on to say:

The Airports Commission estimated that the cost of Heathrow expansion to
TfL would be £5.7bn in its publication about the future of airport
expansion released last summer. The money, it said, would be spent on
renovations such as widening the M4 or creating an M25 tunnel that would go
underneath the runway.

I always thought the Highways Agency was in charge of those motorways,
not TfL; but putting that to one side it does look as if the majority of
the money will be going on public transport, which will then pay much of
it back through fares.

--
Roland Perry

On 25/04/2016 09:58, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 25/04/2016 09:37, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 25/04/2016 09:14, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 25/04/2016 09:00, Recliner wrote:
From
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...rt-for-london/

Quote:

Heathrow's controversial proposal to build a third runway would place a
£16bn burden on Transport for London, the agency has said, as it would
require upgrades to the road and railway networks that service the airport.

TfL said Heathrow had "substantially underestimated" the impact of the
extra runway, as it released a figure eight times higher than the £2.2bn
that the airport had calculated.

The transport authority instead estimates that the development, which could
lead to heavier congestion on London's roads, buses and trains, will have a
£18.4bn price tag.

Heathrow has previously promised that £1.2bn would be raised through public
contributions, with the airport spending another £1bn, leaving a shortfall
of more than £16bn.

... continues


Haven't they put off the announcement yet again?


The government has deferred its announcement till after the referendum. And
perhaps it will find some other reason after that.

But assuming that it will eventually have no choice but to stop dithering,
the chances are that it will turn out that both LHR and LGW have allowed
for only modest contributions to the public transport improvements outside
their perimeters. They've almost certainly assumed that most of the
expensive enhancements to the local roads and railways will be paid for by
the government, not the airports. And this could be the sticking point with
both proposals.


Costs at LGW, whoever pays, are going to be a lot less than at LHR. Not
sure what the relative political cost will be. No leading politician
has nailed himself to the mast of opposing Gatwick expansion so you will
mainly be dealing with the usual nimbies, many of whom will moan but
carry on voting tory anyway so they can effectively be ignored.


The political costs will be less at Gatwick, but the transport costs may be
even more than Heathrow. Doubling the number of airport passengers will
probably require some major, and very expensive railway and motorway
upgrades, including to the Brighton main line, M23 and M25.


Have you seen the cost of moving the M25 underground? As for the rail
links, wherever you put the runway it is going to be a major headache
trying to add extra services into London, there isn't a major terminal
that isn't nearing saturation point. The best option is to
build it at Birmingham and use HS2 to get the passengers to and from London.


Which may be exactly what happens if both the LHR and LGW options fail on
cost grounds. I don't think either plan allows realistic costs for the
external public transport enhancements, with both plans assuming that the
public sector will pick up those costs.

As for rail links, with Heathrow, Crossrail will have to pick up most of
the extra passengers to London, with the new western rail link picking up
those headed towards the west. There will probably also need to be a link
to Staines to connect to the SWT routes.


They've been talking about a link to Staines since I lived there and
that was 1957!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 25/04/2016 10:12, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:52:38 on Mon, 25 Apr
2016, Graeme Wall remarked:

Have you seen the cost of moving the M25 underground?

If that doesn't come from the Heathrow budget, then I agree the numbers
are being massaged.

The best option is to build it at Birmingham

Who paid for the recent A45 diversion?

Good question, Ian?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 08:37:27 on Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:

The political costs will be less at Gatwick, but the transport costs may
be
even more than Heathrow. Doubling the number of airport passengers will
probably require some major, and very expensive railway and motorway
upgrades, including to the Brighton main line, M23 and M25.

Rail and road are both operating at capacity currently, so yes.

Isn't there already a plan to do a major re-vamp of the station?

I think so; they have already added a 7th platform at Gatwick which eases a
lot of the operating difficulties that terminating trains caused there. The
circulation areas upstairs need to be de-cluttered and I think there is a
longer term plan to replace the 1980s vintage station altogether.

At East Croydon there is space reserved for an extra 2 platforms, complete
with an extra-long footbridge that has already been built to serve them.
There are also plans for other capacity upgrades in the East Croydon area,
but these will probably only allow for additional capacity on the London
Bridge/Thameslink route; the only capacity enhancements available in the
Victoria direction are to run longer trains.

http://www.londonreconnections.com/ has a lot of detailed information about
this.

In terms of the road links I think there are plans to implement
hard-shoulder running on the M23 north of the airport; there might be some
reconstruction (or, more likely, strengthening) required to a viaduct in the
Redhill/Nutfield area to achieve this, otherwise it should be fairly
straightforward. The expensive bit is the M23 airport spur and interchange,
which badly needs upgrading now.

The M23 and M25 J6 to J8 were built pretty much as a whole in the mid-70s
and the M23 bit is still as-built so it's probably due an upgrade anyway.
Various M25 widening projects between Godstone and the A3 happened in the
early 90s and they have used up the space for the original hard-shoulder at
all/most of the bridges, so any further widening or hard-shoulder running on
the M25 would require nearly all the bridges to be rebuilt or widened.

--
DAS

On 25/04/2016 11:03, Graeme Wall wrote:


They've been talking about a link to Staines since I lived there and
that was 1957!


Why Staines? I recall the old Railbus service went to Woking which links
with the SWT mainline?

--
Colin

On 25/04/2016 11:00, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 09:04:53 on Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:
[...]
The transport authority instead estimates that the development,
which could lead to heavier congestion on London's roads,
buses and trains, will have a £18.4bn price tag.

Is that figure net or gross of the fares the extra passengers will
be paying?

It's a capital cost, not an operating cost. And most road users
don't pay fares.

But how much of the £18bn is new roads, let alone ones TfL will be
responsible for?

The article goes on to say:

The Airports Commission estimated that the cost of Heathrow expansion to
TfL would be £5.7bn in its publication about the future of airport
expansion released last summer. The money, it said, would be spent on
renovations such as widening the M4 or creating an M25 tunnel that
would go underneath the runway.

I always thought the Highways Agency was in charge of those motorways,
not TfL; but putting that to one side it does look as if the majority of
the money will be going on public transport, which will then pay much of
it back through fares.


Er... re the last point - where on earth do you get that idea from, let
alone that level of certainty?

Public Transport Financing module 101 might be needed here!

On 25/04/2016 16:19, Colin Reeves wrote:
On 25/04/2016 11:03, Graeme Wall wrote:


They've been talking about a link to Staines since I lived there and
that was 1957!


Why Staines? I recall the old Railbus service went to Woking which links
with the SWT mainline?


There still is a bus between the airport and Woking. To get there by
rail it is proposed to build a line from T5 to Staines across Stanmwell
Moor to link into the existing network. Unfortunately the north to west
curve at Staines has recently been built on so trains would have to
reverse at Staines to reach Woking.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.