[canucklad]

Well AD,…..You’ll be sorry that you’ve got me started, a ranting tirade against the trams

Our Trams are pretty much a case study on how not to go about managing a capital project…..and unfortunately all too regularly is replicated elsewhere in the UK

In Edinburgh, this manifested itself into the “perfect” balls up

1)Politicians at National level abdicating responsibility

2)Local politicians ( No councillors) out of their depth, and worse pretending to know what they where doing —- Tried to find a clip of them being interviewed by Paxman…..actually felt sorry for them , it was so clear they didn’t have a clue.” Waffle this waffle that”

3)The SNP government then having to take over at National level, something they opposed in the first place

4)Bilfinger Berger AG carpet bagging the process…..My friend is a consultant for a Scottish utility, and he told me that our German “partners” signed the contract knowing they had just struck a gold mine, there was so many loopholes in the contract that they could exploit——BLACKMAIL !!

5)Other companies jumping on the cash cow ( Edinburgh Rate payers and businesses) i.e The gas company demanding that a back up, back up emergency vehicle be constantly on site in case of leaks !! And it goes on…

6)Lazy workers doing nothing…..Every time I pass , there is idle machines or 2/3 people watching another work…I’ve seen Haymarket been dug up and re-laid 3 times now!!! Kerching…

This whole project was never designed to deliver on time, rather a chance for greedy companies to motor into town fleece the city and move on…

Edinburgh is now paying 3 times the original tendor for less than half of what was promised , over 3 years late and counting and still you get politicians and contractors trying to positive spin….

Pathetic…..And London wants to build an airport that can compare to Chep Lap KoK….

The seeds of what went wrong in Edinburgh , have already been well and truly sown down south…

[VintageKrug]

Apart from anything else, the trams blight every single bl**dy taxi journey into the city, as the cabbies ceaselessly bleat on about how awful it is.

Even when, actually, once it’s finally finished it will be really rather good.

It should be remembered that many of the contracting firms which built HKG were British, and much of that expertise is retained within the sorts of firms likely to bid to build Thames Hub.

[canucklad]

I totally agree with you VK…..The British are world leaders at delivering high profile projects all around the globe….

It is an enigmatic oxymoron that bewilders and befuddles…..why are we are so hopeless at home ?……

And I take it you have declined my impossible challenge….

Oh.. it’s a Friday, so i’m going to cross threads….. If any group of people will survive past 11.11AM this morning it will be the taxi drivers at EDI !!

[BigDog.]

In another major indicator that the future UK airport infrastructure will be based upon developing current facilities, Heathrow Airport (ex BAA) announce a £3 billion investment for 2014-2019

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9844808/Heathrow-backs-future-with-3bn-investment.html

[TerryMcManus24]

…..why are we are so hopeless at home ?……

How many Engineers do we have as Hon Members in the House of Commons…..that’s why..

[TerryMcManus24]

UK airport infrastructure will be based upon developing current facilities, Heathrow Airport (ex BAA) announce a £3 billion investment for 2014-2019…

More Starbucks and knicker shops……

[transtraxman]

I have been saying this for a long time.

No new greenfield sites, no estuary sites – new airport facilities will only be built on existing ones, be they overcrowded Heathrow, legally restricted Gatwick, or underused Luton. This is more true when vast investment is going on at existing airfields, but will be more so when game changing investment decisions are made which means the picture cannot be changed – read here the HS2 loop into Heathrow.

It takes so long for people to get the message.

[BigDog.]

…”The government should reject the “Boris Island” Thames Estuary airport plan and expand Heathrow instead, a report by MPs has said.”..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22469502

…”The MPs argue a third runway at Heathrow is necessary instead and even suggest a fourth runway might have merit.”

In his inimitable style, Boris responded “The committee is putting four fingers up to hundreds of thousands of Londoners”

[AnthonyDunn]

@ BigDog. – 09/05/2013 23:56 GMT

No idea whether or not you heard Boris on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme in which he was up against Louise Elsom (?), the Labliar chair of the Commons’ Transport Select Ctte. Whereas the latter was all over the financial costs and environmental aspects of any Thames Estuary proposal, they were completely silent on the costs and environmental impact of any mooted LHR expansion to four runways shifted to the west of the existing site. Johnson lost no time in pointing up the somewhat partial stance being taken by the TSC.

[canucklad]

No apologies for copying and pasting my thoughts on 3 different threads generated by the same government leak tactiics

VK…..What you are now seeing is the tried and trusted methodology of drip,drip,drop of news…….Our equivalent of the Potomac 2 step….

I listened to Louise Ellman on radio 5 live this morning……Forget her Labour credentials, she was definitely being interviewed in her role as Vice chairman of the Select Committee!!

The questions I would now be asking is timescales and 3 or 4 runways at LHR !

[VintageKrug]

It’s important to differentiate “Boris Island” – which was an early proposal sited in the middle of the Estuary – from Lord Foster’s Thames Hub, which is illustrated in the report above. Though the error does seem to be so widely perpetuated that it’s become commonplace to confuse the two.

There is no evidence wildlife would be adversely affected, once mitigations were in place. Especially when set against the broader economic and environmental benefits of the new airport. Boris was speaking this morning about the mitigation plan which will be set out later in the year.

It is not yet possible for anyone to assert that a new hub would be “prohibitively expensive” as it hasn’t been properly costed yet. The airport itself would easily be funded by Sovereign Wealth, Pension Infrastructure or other private funds, and there’s no reason toll roads and other funding options wouldn’t bear a large part of the cost of opening up huge swathes of land ripe for development along the East London corridor to the new Transport Hub.

This is investment, not just typical “spend” and the two should not be confused.

We haven’t heard what the cost of this 3/4 runway LHR proposal would be, but it won’t be inexpensive – re-routing the M25, purchasing land, removing reservoirs, adding rail and tube stations, pollution and cost as aircraft taxi further to take off and land…the list goes on.

A larger Heathrow would also require a “huge public investment in new ground infrastructure” which would be necessary to expand LHR over some of the most high value land in the country, in an already overly congested M4 corridor, right next to the World Heritage site which is Windsor Castle.

References to “unacceptable consequences” of closing Heathrow don’t seem to consider that the land would be hugely valuable as a mixed development of housing, university, Shopping Mall and Business Park. The terminal Sheds are perfectly designed to be very easy to change use – T5 is not dissimilar to a Westfield, in more ways than I would care to note!

I don’t believe this report by the Labour controlled Transport Select Committee is a huge blow to Boris – to a certain extent “they would say that wouldn’t they” and he certainly seemed very upbeat in Today this morning.

The important report will be the interim findings of the Davies Commission which makes its interim findings at the end of 2013. My predictions are that it will recommend:

(1) a four runway hub, but not at LHR.

(2) another runway and terminal at LGW to be built, but not commissioned, prior to 2019 when the Council embargo ends.

(3) It may recommend another runway at Stansted, though the problem there is more about transport links with London than lack of runway capacity.

(4) better use of regional airports, possibly via reducing APD taxes in the regions.

Finally, why is it that adding runways at space-constrained LHR is a long term solution when four is the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM number space will allow, and the runways must be closed 6 hours per day, instantly reducing the effectiveness of the investment by 25% vs. other options? It doesn’t stack up.

[BigDog.]

Krughandles 13:38
…the runways must be closed 6 hours per day, instantly reducing the effectiveness of the investment by 25% vs. other options?..

I guess the little bit of business acumen he demonstrated on a previous thread was a flash in the pan. Taking 6hrs of darkness as a proportion of 24hrs and declaring that it is a 25% reduction in the effectiveness of the investment is naïve in the extreme. Does he really believe that dead of night hours would remotely be as valuable as peak time slots/pax numbers/revenues ? It is that which doesn’t stack up

[BigDog.]

It appears LHR will remain as a hub airport, but is a second London hub airport viable? The airport commission may think so.

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2013/05/17/44078/airports+commission+hints+at+two-hub+solution.html

Personally I think not, as any alliance moved to another place (LGW?) may view it as getting the short straw – both in terms of geographic location and being remote from where the real action is. Skyteam already have their own major hub within close proximity/easy access.

However the Airports Commission, who will make the ultimate recommendation, to be accepted/ignored by parliament, is hinting at a 2 hub solution. Although desirable from a cost perspective, I cannot see it developing into a hub, let alone an alliance opting to leave LHR, so is this a none starter? How could an alliance be incentivised to move?

[BigDog.]

Meanwhile it appears LHR would be happy with just a third runway…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10065104/Heathrow-three-runways-sufficient.html

So all the runes are indicating a mildly expanded LHR with a third runway, no mixed mode and slightly extended hours for earlier landings and quiet aircraft. Plus development of an existing airport.

[AnthonyDunn]

BigDog. – 17/05/2013 18:20 GMT

And even those pitiful ambitions will be fought over tooth and nail for a decade or so whilst our competitors comprehensively steal a march on us. One has to ask oneself sometimes just how badly will future generations look on us for having failed to invest in building the infrastructure (roads, rail, electricity generation and distribution plus airports) or the basic housing that the country needs. Everything appears to degenerate into naked Nimbyism.

But I bet that there will be some dodgy tax cuts on offer from Cameroon and his crew come May 2015…

[Author]

Posts