[Anonymous]

[Cedric_Statherby]

Well, that is debateable, of course, as it depends what you mean by successful. But in economic terms (and even more narrowly in GDP terms), it is undeniably true. And any number of economists will give you thousands of answers as to why. Here is just one, a quote from the HK Airport Authority Chairman, speaking at the centenary celebrations of powered flight in HK:

“We are very proud to experience the evolution of the old Kai Tak airport into the current Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) through this photo exhibition. It is interesting to see how the airport has changed over the years to cater to the needs of the city; for example, without the visionary decision to build a new and larger airport with two runways on Lantau, Hong Kong would have had to turn away millions of passengers and large volume of air cargo; and Hong Kong might not have grown into the thriving and vibrant city it is today.”

“Currently, the HKAA is working on HKIA Master Plan 2030 to map out the airport’s long-term development for the next 20 years,” he added. “Timely planning and investment will help Hong Kong avoid the same situation that Kai Tak faced, maintain HKIA’s world-class airport experience and help drive the city’s economic growth for years to come.”

Point 1, the HKAA is a publicly owned, HK-managed entity: no nonsense in HK about privatising essential infrastructure and then allowing foreigners to buy it and (mis-) manage it at several degrees’ remove from accountability to the people the infrastructure serves. And if one of the freest and most laissez faire cities in the world understands that, why has the UK sold off and relinquished any direct control over all the nuts and bolts of the UK that need to work in order for the country to prosper?

Point 2, why are UK politicians so unable to see the blindingly obvious need for long term planning when it comes to essential major infrastructure? Does anyone think there is a “Heathrow Master Plan 2030” anywhere? Is there any chance they will think ahead and build capacity in advance of it being needed? Just to ask the question is laughable …

[Gin&Tonic]

I can agree with most of what is written being a professional who was dependent on Lhr for a profession and now in Hong Kong. One point to note though was Hong Kong should have had the planning in place already for a third runway rather than now have to go through the length environmental studies and planning involved, One can’t imagine that if the original studies would have included provision for a third runway its impact would be any more or less now than at the original planning stage,.

[VintageKrug]

…one should however remember that Hong Kong was in fact British when all this new airport/infrastructure was planned and that in large part the airport itself was designed and built by British contractors.

It’s also somewhat disingenuous to claim that building the new airport was plain sailing; it was first suggested in 1974 and not started until 1991.

So there’s no reason why we can’t replicate this kind of infrastructure back home, and I think the Olympics has given a boost to public confidence in larger infrastructure projects. We’re not muppets at this, after all we did build a train tunnel under the Channel.

The new HKIA only took six years to become operational; once planning was approved, there’s no reason Winston Churchill International would take any longer to construct.

[canucklad]

The new HKIA only took six years to become operational; once planning was approved, there’s no reason Winston Churchill International would take any longer to construct…..

Have you listened to the non-commital bluster from our decision makers and politicians

[VintageKrug]

To be fair the politicians are the representatives of their constituents, and you only have to read the nonsense spouted here by supposedly educated people who believe a short Third Runway, closed for six hours per day, built on a boundary constrained site, on some of the most expensive real estate in the country and causing even more aircraft to overfly central London is the right long term strategic solution for the UK.

The problem here is one of educating the public to demand the politicians have a strategic solution, and boot out the short Third Runway not on flakey environmental grounds but on the very real basis that it will be full the second it opens, and we’ll all be having the very same debate again in less than a decade, by which time money which could have gone towards the Thames Hub will have been squandered.

There’s a perfect opportunity right now, just as we need stimulus to get us properly out of Labour’s recession, to begin an infrastructure programme of works to make the Thames Hub accessible, and construct an airport in due course, with an entirely reasonable target of first flight in 2020, probably only a year or so later than a short Third Runway and associated terminal would take to construct over the village of Sipson.

Despite my frustration at yet another Enquiry (sp?) it does seem to be the right thing to do, if only to ensure R3 is excluded and the public can be bought in to the more complex Thames Hub proposal. However, it does seem that it will be the next Parliament which will be left to make the decision, which is a missed opportunity.

[BeckyBoop]

VK, One reason as to why the public have an issue in to accepting the Thames Hub is the cost. How do you educate the public to accept paying close to 50bn for a new airport?

[stevescoots]

HKIA was rushed through, succesfully as it was the perfect model for legally expatriating coffers from the HK goverment back to the UK before china took over 🙂 amazing waht we can do when motivated!

of course I could just be a cynic 🙂

as to asnwer the original question, it boils down to the diffrence in society between HK and UK, HK’s are service orientated and believe if you going to do something, do it properly. Uk goverment private industry and goverment in general believe in charge as much as you can and give as low a service as possible

[VintageKrug]

Spot on re: the motivation for driving through HKIA asap, stevescoots. Though I’d only cautiously endorse your second point, I think things are gradually improving here in the UK.

Back to Becky’s point:

1. Can you tell me the cost of the proposed short Third Runway?

2. Can you tell me the Opportunity Cost of turning away people, cargo and aircraft for which there is no capacity at LHR over the next 25 years,even if a short Third Runway is built, as well as the cost of all the delays and holding caused by curfews and lack of available runways?

3. Can you tell me the proportion of the new airport which could be privately financed, without resort to the public purse?

Dig a little deeper, Becky.

You see the Thames Hub investment would create enormous value, increase efficiency and provide a much need economic stimulus from construction in the short term, and hugely valuable economic benefits in the longer term, for generations to come.

You can’t simply look at a major infrastructure projects purely in terms of cost, as would be the case if you were buying a new sofa (or “settee”).

These will be productive assets which will last generations, and are of a completely different order to the sorts of assessments which it appears are being made by the public, which is probably why the public is best left out of this; they are causing all this wobbling by the politicians.

[canucklad]

Vk…. A brand new airport wherever it might be……………………

Can I ask you how long in realistic terms do you think it would take from today 28/08/2012 to a passenger flying off to a far flung destination….

Before you come back with 2020ish, i used the word realistic !

You need to take into account….Committees of all sorts, different colours of Parliamentary papers, lawyers making a killing as regardless of where it’s going to be built there will be local opposition ( Stansted!!) Not forgetting the inevitable delay as the public/private finance argument rages and then the almost guaranteed super duper airport turns into a mere shadow of Norman Foster’s vision ?

[VintageKrug]

STANSTED STANSTED STANSTED!!!

If you’re going to be posting on this forum, it only takes a second to learn how to spell STANSTED!!

Realistically if the button was pushed now, I think there could be a first “heavy” flight from a runway in the Thames Estuary in 2020. Flying a passenger off is a different answer, but shortly thereafter (within 2-3 years of 2020). HKIA only took six years to get going, and they had to level an island!

The short Third Runway and Thames Hub would still face the same committees of enquiry etc. as planning for the Third runway lapsed some time ago. So I don’t think that’s a particular differentiator.

[canucklad]

Apologies VK…re-check my post….

Please try and answer the question, the button isn’t going to get pushed today…If it was then i would be in full agreement with you and would look forward to using Winston Churchill International !

[VintageKrug]

Phew! I’ll leave my Stansted reference as others are similarly afflicted.

It took them 6 years to deliver HKIA, 6 years for the Olympics, I don’t think it would take much longer to deliver one working runway and a useable terminal at Thames Hub; the primary constraint would be access to the site for large volumes of passengers, not the construction of the airport/runways themselves.

In terms of road access, M6 toll took three years from site clearance in 2000, with construction beginning in spring 2002 and was all completed by December 2003.

Don’t know how long it wold take to build a rail link, but Heathrow Express (though much shorter line, only part of which was new) was started in 1993 and finished in 1998, though there was a tunnel collapse which delayed construction significantly.

But again, planning is the main issue, really.

Get some political gumption and go for it with a green light next week with funding (both private and public) and an 8-10 year timeframe is perfectly possible for two runways with a cargo terminal and an interim passenger terminal.

No reason at all that someone like Boris couldn’t push through planning by next summer, with breaking ground happening in 2014, airport operation 6-8 years after that and fully linked by 2024, when the sell off of LHR could begin, adding much needed housing and a decent slice of the money for constructing Winston Churchill.

Even the short Third Runway would not be operational before 2018 at the earliest, so it’s not the quick fix many people think it would be…in the scheme of things an extra six years’ wait for a whole new airport seems reasonable.

[Cedric_Statherby]

VK

Agree with your contributions, and thank you for stating the case for Boris Island again. Not only is expanding Heathrow the wrong and least cost-effective answer, it also perpetuates the error of a major airport just to the west of London – so that aeroplanes stack over the city and the noise, smell etc wafts in on the prevailing winds.

One point in your first post I must ask to be allowed to comment on. Hong Kong was indeed British when CLK was planned and built, but the Hong Kong Government (which I am proud to have worked for in the 1990s, though not in the field of transport) was fully autonomous in such matters and largely staffed by local Chinese, and the ex-pats who were there were both 100% committed to the Hong Kong way of doing business and largely dismissive of the bunglers in Whitehall.

I will admit that it did help having only an indirect form of democratic representation and accountability – for one thing it meant that Hong Kong was spared the sight of a Transport Secretary so patently putting the interests of her 100,000-odd consituents in Putney ahead of the interests of the country she is a minister of. Whether or not her opposition to a third runway is well-founded, the reason she gives (a commitment to her own personal electorate) is ego-centric and surely unworthy of a minister of the Crown.

[VintageKrug]

Interesting insight into the way HKIA came about.

As ever, I think your summary of the Busted Flush LHR vs. Airport of Tomorrow WCI is spot on.

Honestly, I wouldn’t set much store by one individual’s constituency affiliations. You have no doubt also worked for the Government here, and know as well as I do that personal Ministerial affiliations don’t count for much; the bluster from JG is all show for the constituents to assure her re-election; if she was told a short Third Runway was the way forward, that would be her policy. Thankfully, it is not.

You’re also spot on that this needs to be taken out of government hands; thankfully we’ve got the engineering know-how to build the Thames Hub.

And much of the investment could be privately sourced (I just don’t understand the idiots who say we can’t afford it – we’re not buying a sofa (or settee!) here, this is a productive asset).

Sadly, Planning Permission and a commitment to redevelop the Heathrow site is needed from Government, though IMHO it would be better taken out of government hands, perhaps run by an independent committee like the MPC, though of course that’s not as independent as it’s made out to be.

It’s certainly a thorny problem, but we owe it to the next generation to make some bold decisions.

[Author]

Posts