So, Heathrow........

fluxo

It seems that many of these large projects are extremely expensive sounding these days. E.g., the refurb job for parliament is going to be more expensive than it cost to build the place originally. HS2 is going to cost almost as much as it cost to put a man on the moon. Our new nuclear power station is enormously more expensive than the Finnish version.

When it's this expensive it pretty much ensures only a small part of our infrastructure is going to get upgraded.

Oswald

As I said earlier, compare to the cost (and timescales) of the previous runway we built in the UK.  OK, it was completed 15 years ago, but Manchester Airport runway 2 cost 'just' £172 million.  Bit of a difference!

fluxo

That's a crazy difference. Is someone getting ripped off here?

This isn't a government funded project, right?

IronGiant

Don't forget that upwards? of 1000? people are going to have their houses compulsory purchased and property isn't cheap round there.  But it does seem like it's a lot.

Oswald

True.  I'm not sure how many people lost their homes due to the Manchester Airport expansion, but I suppose it was far less than that.  I guess the Gatwick option would have been much cheaper then, if this is one of the main reasons for the crazy Heathrow cost...?

EDIT:  783 homes will be demolished at Heathrow. If each home costs £1 million (unlikely), then that's 'only' £783 million of the £20 Billion  project costs.  I wonder where the other > £19 Billion will go...?  

Heathrow v Gatwick: What are the airport expansion proposals?

EarthRod

Don't forget this might not happen, there are many hurdles and processes to go through. There will of course be the usual public consultation (ho ho) process and likely to be put to the MPs vote (ho ho ho) in parliament next year.

IronGiant

Thanks, I was forgetting quite how big a number a billion is

krish

Possibly another toothless local referendum like last time, where I'd vote NO again
London Borough of Hillingdon - Heathrow referendum: Hillingdon votes against expansion

tapzilla2k

It's got nothing to do with Boris. There are legitimate problems with building in the Thames Estuary, including the knock on effects to Wildlife and a certain explosive laden boat that sank in the area. It would be quicker, cheaper and likely safer to expand Heathrow and Gatwick. Or look for suitable land with the ability to build a High speed train link to London.

I wouldn't be dismissive of people, who are directly effected by this decision. Even the ones who manage to stay will likely see property values plummet due to the increased noise.

Being an aviation nerd (amongst many other interests), I know just how much of a mess Heathrow is and it's down to it's origins in the 1930's and use as an RAF base during WWII, then subsequent handing over into the public sector etc. If you really wanted to sort Heathrow out, you'd bulldoze the lot and start again. Also I know the transport links are not great as friends from the US usually put on a grim face before they leave for the Heathrow.

It's the easy option for Government. Can you imagine the howls of protest being flung at them for even attempting to build in the Thames Estuary ? Or elsewhere for that matter. There is a Yes Minister episode that comes to mind that dealt with Transport.

Not going to happen, Politicians do not have the conviction to carry it out. Otherwise Heathrow would have had it's third runaway 20-30 years ago and we'd have probably already built a new international airport by now. Then comes the question of who pays for it.

That's because they get on with it. As much as we like to ridicule other countries for many things, planning permission and getting things built ain't one of the things we can ridicule other countries about. Even the ITER test reactor being built in the South of France will likely be up and running before Heathrow gets a third runway, and that is well off schedule.

Sonic67

Heard some of it on the radio last night.

It depends. A lot of it, I think, is funded by Heathrow.

Then you can view it as the benefit to the country from increased business that will benefit the economy, now and onwards. So ultimately we end up better off. The same with having high speed rail links etc. You have this stuff, business comes here. It's why the SNP ultimately backs it as they think improvements to Heathrow means better links to Scotland.

The changes to the M25 the government would have to fund I think.

Then there's the environmental issue. Either it is worse for having more runways and more aircraft or it is better as aircraft won't be stacked up, flying around waiting to land and burning up fuel.

There seems to be that many cross party talking heads with a view it makes Brexit look easy.