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

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?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

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.

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 08:00:27 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?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 08:00:27 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. Even many bus users don't pay fares (ie, they have bus passes).

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.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

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.

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?

Even many bus users don't pay fares (ie, they have bus passes).

That's only a small part of the bus traffic at Heathrow. And remember
HEx is paying for itself (both capital investment and operating costs).
--
Roland Perry

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.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

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.