matt_world2004
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 4,504
They should be required to have Heathrow rail stations in zone 6 for both pay as you go and season ticket purposes as condition of any airport expansion.
Are they not led by two different organisations? Western Rail Link is DfT/Network rail and is planned regardless of whether Heathrow gets its third runway. But is the airport expansion not a predominantly private venture?
They should be required to have Heathrow rail stations in zone 6 for both pay as you go and season ticket purposes as condition of any airport expansion.
Or reduce the tfl rail access fees and lower hex faresI guess that might need some funding from Heathrow to bring about too.
Left in a siding: the rail link that could make Heathrow greener
but regardless of the policy, there’s a common denominator to their success: investment in alternatives. Whether cities adopt congestion pricing or regulations to restrict vehicle use, they must improve transit services,
As the examples of London and Oslo show, both congestion pricing and vehicle restrictions can gain public support and effectively reduce car use in urban centers. However, regardless of whether cities chose to pursue one or the other, their success will depend on investing in alternatives and giving more road space to those other uses.
Well in case you haven’t noticed, there’s an election going on for the next Tory leader and hence PM. And one of the candidates (can you guess who) is against Heathrow expansion full stop. One wonders what will happen if (likely when) Boris gets in. (Let’s hope we don’t have another inquiry over the feasibility of Boris Island).
Someone should grill the candidates on Heathrow, and in particular easier ground transport access from outside London, aka western and southern (actually south western) access lines.
Looks like Boris is rowing back on his opposition to Heathrow.Well in case you haven’t noticed, there’s an election going on for the next Tory leader and hence PM. And one of the candidates (can you guess who) is against Heathrow expansion full stop. One wonders what will happen if (likely when) Boris gets in. (Let’s hope we don’t have another inquiry over the feasibility of Boris Island).
Someone should grill the candidates on Heathrow, and in particular easier ground transport access from outside London, aka western and southern (actually south western) access lines.
Looks like Boris is rowing back on his opposition to Heathrow.
So he's no longer lying down, he's just lying.
Which is surely the point - they get a massive regulatory advantage by being allowed to increase their customers by 50% while their competitors for the London air market aren't, therefore they should be paying significantly towards infrastructure enhancements to get this higher number of people there, rather than demanding the taxpayer foot the entire bill of subsidising their effective monopoly - I know we have recently flirted with 'Third Way' corporatist economics (with taxpayers subsidising certain private profits even in good times, and also paying off certain private losses) but it should have died with the banker bailouts. If nothing else Heathrow taking a positive approach (like, say Gatwick's) to paying towards support infrastructure would help reduce opposition to their deeply controversial project.I guess that might need some funding from Heathrow to bring about too.
Which is surely the point - they get a massive regulatory advantage by being allowed to increase their customers by 50% while their competitors for the London air market aren't, therefore they should be paying significantly towards infrastructure enhancements to get this higher number of people there, rather than demanding the taxpayer foot the entire bill of subsidising their effective monopoly
In the case of the Elizabeth line fares, they didn't pay a penny towards the construction of the project, based on them being "full" and thus apparently unable to see any benefit.
As a precondition of Heathrow expansion, parliament has stipulated that the proportion of passengers travelling to and from the airport on public transport must rise from 39% to 50%.
Heathrow agrees that the economic and environmental benefits are clear. A spokeswoman said: “Heathrow is keen that this project is moved forward at the earliest opportunity, and we will pay our share towards the cost.”
To expand on the un-snipped part: it was in fact the Civil Aviation Authority which stopped BAA/Heathrow paying any contribution as it was found to fall outside the airport's remit. The cost would have had to have been recovered from landing fees and that was found to clash with the legal requirements laid on BAA/Heathrow.SNIP
In the case of the Elizabeth line fares, they didn't pay a penny towards the construction of the project, based on them being "full" and thus apparently unable to see any benefit. If the airport is to be 50% bigger then the "full" argument bares no weight anymore and they owe money towards Crossrail.
I do agree.
In the Guardian article linked above they say:
I think they should pay all of it.
In the consultation they are making a big thing of how the pollution in the area will be reduced because of the public transport plans. The plans being consulted on do however include the construction of some very large new car parks but the plans for rail are only mentioned in passing. This is what annoys me.
They are also planning major works on the M25 and the early construction of Southern Access would mitigate those road works. I think the airport should build that before being allowed to start work on the M25.
The current network rail plans for Western Access will take 5 years to build.
I think they should be starting work now on this new rail link.
unless the plans have become a lot more extensive, the M25 works are for two reasons:They are planning major works on the M25 and the early construction of Southern Access would mitigate those road works. I think the airport should build that before being allowed to start work on the M25.
There is some side benefit from this too. In particular if the trains from the south-west are extended through Heathrow to link with the Hex paths to Old Oak and Paddington it provides much better access to HS2 from a big slice of the network south-west of London. This would of course require Heathrow to stop seeing Hex as a moneyspinning luxury shuttle and more as part of the rest of the network - which they may be more keen to do when they see the amount of passengers that Crossrail takes away from it.I think they should pay all of it.
As a matter of national transport strategy (if only we had one), government should make sure the Southern Access is built in conjunction with Heathrow expansion. It could and should have been built relatively cheaply when T5 and M25 widening happened more than ten years ago. It will be absolutely inexcusable if it doesn't happen this time.
As I've already said multiple times in relation to the new access schemes - Heathrow can't afford the rail schemes and the runway + terminal hence the need for external funding for rail. The Heathrow scheme is about maxing out CAA regulated RAB to maximise tax efficiency for the owners.What is needed is someone (Heathrow) to stump up the cash to make the tunnels happen. .
A specific document on surface access states: ‘We can deliver our mode share targets without Western and Southern Rail Links’. It adds: ‘We can do this through targeted improvements to bus and coach services and by varying the level of our vehicle access charge we can do this through targeted improvements to bus and coach services and by varying the level of our vehicle access charge.'
Heathrow said it will put income from road user charges towards improving public transport, raising the possibility that passengers, rather than the airport, will pay for new rail links.
Plans to divert the M25 through a tunnel under Heathrow's third runway would mean years of disruption for drivers while it is built, the RAC has warned.
Crossrail will make a reasonable dent in the gap they need to close especially as regards stopping services.Another rather depressing take on https://www.transport-network.co.uk/Expansion-at-what-cost-Heathrow-publishes-masterplan/15944
Indeed - the Western Rail access connecting to the reliefs shown the main purpose is to turn many GWML stations to the west into P&R sites for staff.My understanding is that the main cause of traffic at Heathrow are those who work there, often at unsocial hours and have free / cheaper parking spaces. Local travel reports always tie in traffic problems with main shift start / end times.
An action to ban on site parking & replace it with P&R trains would be an ideal solution.
My understanding is that the main cause of traffic at Heathrow are those who work there, often at unsocial hours and have free / cheaper parking spaces. Local travel reports always tie in traffic problems with main shift start / end times.
An action to ban on site parking & replace it with P&R trains would be an ideal solution.