UKC

So a third runway at Heathrow is going to cost around £18 billion. Why does what is basically just a great big strip of concrete or tarmac with a few connecting bits cost about 13 times as much as something as complex as the new Queensferry crossing over the Forth? What am I missing?

In reply to Robert Durran:


Maybe some pretty lights?

In reply to marsbar:


I'm sure the bridge will have pretty lights too (so that planes can see it too!)

In reply to Robert Durran:

What you're missing is that a massive tunnel is going to have to be made for the M25 (the new runway will pass over it).

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


The bridge still seems disproportionately expensive to me!

In reply to Robert Durran:

It's more than just a bridge. The whole motorway has to be diverted too. Probably 2 or 3 miles of new road, in a deep cutting. Also some lakes/gravel pits have to be filled. Sadly, a lot of this is at present a nature reserve. Plus of course they have to pay for rehousing hundreds (thousands?) of residents of Harmondsworth etc.

In reply to Robert Durran:

few houses need buying as well which given where Heathrow is accounts for most of the cost.

There is a shedload of associated development eg one terminal getting replaced with hotels, others being upgraded, a new one and some mini ones. New transit system connecting them all up.
It isnt so much a new runway as a general rebuild to increase capacity.

In reply to Robert Durran:

We could build a 21st Century 200 mile railway line for around 3 times the cost.
But it ain't daarn Sarf! How much has Crossrail cost, £15B?

In reply to Robert Durran:

A horrifically large amount of the money will go towards fighting legal battles and meeting the huge costs imposed on any major engineering project by public opposition.

If we'd gone ahead with the first proposition we would probably have been able to pay for it with the money already spent on countless government studies and proposals for and against

In reply to Robert Durran: You have to apply basic budgeting on large scale civil projects in the UK; the runway is a few hundred million, the infrastructure to make it operational around 2-3 billion, the majority of cash is then totally wasted on things not needed or never used (workers usually flog this stuff on ebay after or do other jobs with it - cushty) , massive percentages are bribes, there's money poured into jobs for the boys, loads mysteriously disappears and some gets pissed up the wall in sweeteners. Anything left after all that goes toward court cases investigating all that shit. Job well done.

In reply to Steve Perry:


So is this not happening with the new Forth crossing?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Without a doubt, it happens on them all

In reply to Steve Perry:


So you havn't answered my question then!

In reply to Robert Durran:


I did, it's the answer with the smiley face.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I bet a billion will be spent on security, policing, stopping protestors etc... Presumably within the 18Bn is the cost of compulsory purchasing a large amount of land in the London area, compensation for businesses impact during the building phase etc.. It is a lot money, but not startling given it's location. I've heard of folk building an office north of the border for just a couple of hundred workers and the cost heading into several hundred million, so it's not hard to imagine cost spiralling.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Your forgetting the most important thing.
The inevitable budget overrun means it will probably end up costing closer to 30bn

In reply to Robert Durran:

A BBC report had the phrase "...this village will be demolished.." in it. Whish I suspect rather brutally highlights where a lot of cost is.

In reply to Steve Perry:

Lucky we don't live in a corrupt country then.........

In reply to Robert Durran:

It's worth looking at the map.

M25 tunnel, loads more departure gates disconnected from the terminal which presumably means another stupid automated monorail that's slower than walking, all sorts of infrastructure, two entire villages and farmland to buy as well as legal challenges. A new runway has a lot more equipment than a bridge - runway lighting (bet that's not cheap compared to road lighting due to standards, redundancy etc), ILS ground equipment etc.

Add in complications of having a lot of the connecting work happening inside such a busy and always operational airport.

I suspect there's an awful lot more ground work to do for a runway than a bridge, they take a hell of a pounding, even if you're not building one specified for SSTO spaceplanes and the related hypersonic stratospheric airplanes. (We are not because we're pretending that the future isn't coming).

In reply to summo:


Really! That sounds worse than the Scottish Parliament building, which has the reputation of being one of the most badly managed construction projects in history, cost about £450m, but hosts several thousand staff plus all the other functional space.

We built a new office block for 2000 staff, plus big public library and a small conference facility for about £40m three years ago, decent design as well, won quite a few awards.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Also, the runway is 50% longer and twice as wide as the Forth Crossing, and will also require quite a bit of depth, soil preparation etc so say twice as "deep". So that 1.5*2*2=6 times the cost, very crudely, before you get in to everything else.

In reply to Robert Durran:

This may shed some light on the matter: youtube.com/watch?v=DaaHGAB8yTY&

In reply to wintertree:


The future is here already, and it's in Cornwall:

http://www.spaceportnewquay.co.uk/

In reply to MG:

Also the runway will be open in bad weather like snow.... Oh hang on...

In reply to Robert Durran:

This might help - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4... figure 11.1 on page 225.

I've not read this in detail but the figure suggests that the cost of the runway is only about 1% of the total with terminal buildings and land the main components at about a quarter each.

In reply to Robert Durran:

as others have said, lots of additional infrastructure around the runway (terminal etc), rather an expensive 'bit of of tarmac' in the first place, moving people out of the way etc. It will be an immense job.

But huge amounts will also disappear to the back handers, paying for people to give their opinions that aren't needed but they're important people and friends of important people, huge delays due to important people bickering, people that are unnecessary making huge messes to try and justify their role, then all the problems caused by trying to do the actual WORK on the cheap and messing around the contractors...essentially ridiculous bureaucracy. Nothing that has the government involved gets done efficiently.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It should have been built years ago, and I cannot still believe that its going to take 10 years before they even start building the thing.

As a country we need our heads examining, we could easily do it for less without the consultations and time wasting, and that money could then go to the NHS....

We have seriously lost the plot somewhere......

In reply to neilh:


Indeed, neilh, what's going on? FACT 1, Heathrow says that 75 million people either arrived or departed from the airport in 2015 (a average of 205,400 every day, split between arriving and departing). FACT 2, lots of people oppose expansion at Heathrow. 1. I wonder how many of those people flew from Heathrow in 2015? 2. I wonder how many of the opponents live nearby and are saying NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard)?

I'm trying to stick to facts and then wondering rather than give opinions.

In reply to abseil:

I wonder how many of the opponents won't have a back yard when it's finished? Or a front one. Or a house.

In reply to neilh:

Now where have I heard that before.


So much easier in North Korea

In reply to The New NickB:

There has been so much consultation on this its ridiculous.........

In reply to Robert Durran:

It will all be paid for by a booming home tourist industry trading on a devalued pound.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I can't understand why they seem to want all the freight going through heathrow, surely they could move the freight services out to somewhere on the coast where the planes could come in to land/take off over the sea and keep heathrow for passengers.

Also, what's wrong with all the regional airports? could we not have 2 hub airports, one in the south and one in "The Northern Powerhouse"?

In reply to gethin_allen:

A lot of the freight comes in the belly of passenger services. Pure freight services do use smaller / regional airports.

In reply to Robert Durran:


£1 billion for the costs of materials and labour and the other £17 billion for the bungs and backhanders. That's how it works in this country.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

The UK is in fact among the least corrupt countries in the world - around 10th.

In reply to MG:

Agreed, this corruption explanation is pure childish BS.

I can't help but feel we are solving past and current probems for a huge future investment. I really think demand will be less from international hub airports in two decades, let alone beyond. Still, I'm more convinced in this business case than I am for HS2.

In reply to MG:


who did they pay to get that result?

In reply to KevinD:

meta-corruption?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Very light level reading...but the BBc have got an article up where they discuss the new airports and runways being built by other countries, and the thing that stood out is that £18b is WAY higher than they're spending for much more. eg. massive scandal of an airport in Germany planned for €1.7b now looking more like €7

So maybe questioning £18b (no doubt going to go up, and there's huge cost already gone in getting this far before it begins) is pretty sensible.

In reply to Robert Durran:

well why don,t they just build a massive bridge over the built up area, and land the planes on that!!

much cheapness!!

In reply to Robert Durran:

Building a treadmill that big is pretty complex...

In reply to Robert Durran:


I think its because one hell of a lot of people want to make a profit out of it. But I could be wrong.

In reply to MG:


That seems nonsense to me. I'm sure a runway has to be pretty robust and very big, but it is clearly massively lower tech than a huge cable stay bridge.

The answer to my original question seems to be that an awful lot more is being done than just building the actual runway and that the difficulties with the runway's location add hugely to the cost. I wonder how the costs of the two projects would compare if they were being built on otherwise little used and uncontentious land - I'd like to bet the bridge would be a lot more. And that the cost of the actual runway is pretty much peanuts.

In reply to Robert Durran:



While I expect the cost of building the actual runway is much higher than most of us would imagine,,,,

I was wondering earlier whether it would make more sense for them to do a proper out of town in a less problematic area terminal and put a decent transport link to it for a better price. But was only a thought.

In reply to Scarab9:



Boris island?

I wondered whether a second runway at Gatwick and a super-highspeed (underground?)shuttle link between the two airports effectively making them one might have been the answer.

In reply to gethin_allen:


What "Northern Powerhouse" - don't you mean the "Northern Suburbs of London" once HS2 is built?

In reply to Robert Durran:




yeah some thing like that.

In reply to Scarab9:
Howard Davies reviewed that. Tt was even more expensive and more damaging to the environment.....in effect a non starter

In reply to neilh:


fair doos!

In reply to Robert Durran:

Sit on a plane belonging to a major air carrier anywhere in the world and pick up the magazine and there is usually a set of maps of major world airports. They all look well-planned and logically laid out ... except one. Yes, you guessed it, London Heathrow.

Heathrow is a nighmare.

The alternative? Encourage more traffic to other airports and develop those airports appropriately.

Imagination and vision may be necessary which, considering we have a Conservative government, may be asking a lot.

For a start, we need one airport in Scotland with a two 4000m runways and one in the north of England with two 4000m runways. Then we need effective rail connections for both of those and recognition of the possibility of further development.

Manchester already has two big 3000m runways, a good railway connection, gone the tunnel route for roads, an effective freight operation, and has no large conurbation under the normal take-off direction. Good job guys.

£18bn and we still don't get a sensible logical airport? Idiots.

In reply to Jim Fraser:
Well I am sure all the committees etc which have looked at this long and hard appreciate your well informed comments.........!howard davies''s review was quite clear cut on the way forward.no political bottle to act imho.

In reply to Offwidth:


As is your insistence in personally insulting anybody who's opinion or viewpoint differs from yours.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

No one has insulted you

It's also not a matter of opinion but a fact.

In reply to Dave Garnett:



I think the Stornoway site is more likely to actually get developed? Either way 40 years from now people are going to be debating building a hypersonic stratoliner (and SSTO) runway at Heathrow...

In reply to marsbar:


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pretty+lights&oq=pretty+lights&aq...

In reply to Robert Durran:


I'm not a highway engineer, but I'd have thought the requirements for a *very* level surface is more demanding on a runway than a roadway. To achieve that, there must surely be a lot of support and strengthening work done below ground than one might imagine. They also have to take impact loads, not just running loads or whatever the correct term is for moving, live loads required of roads (and bridges).

Having said that, it would be interesting to see a breakdown of the main components of both, to see what percentage of the total cost the actual physically constructed elements are.

In reply to Robert Durran:

And now we have no chance of meeting our climate change agreements.

In reply to Robert Durran:

And is it worth it? No one will want to come here and no one can afford to go abroad post Brexit. Apparently.

In reply to Robert Durran:

This whole thing seems to me like one big metaphor for the challenge currently facing the human race. On the one hand we need to reduce emissions, reduce energy use, preserve our natural habitat..fly less. On the other we apparently need to have more capacity to move more people more efficiently between A&B. Because why? It's the economy stupid.

We seem incapable of making any decision to change our ways 'growth' always wins. We are a plague on the planet.

*sigh*.

In reply to neilh:

Regional airports are forever bleating about not enough slots at Heathrow and this clearly highlights the dependency on a flawed facility. Avoiding Heathrow is a great policy for passenger and freight. I have successfully minimised visits to Heathrow (by me or my freight) for the last couple of decades and I am happy with that.

From Scotland, if you are headed out across the world, whether east or west, I have seen few reasons not to go via Schipol (KLM). And the coffee and cakes at Schipol are so much better than any London airport. It is also true that the flights to the USA from Edinburgh and Glasgow are pretty useful and I have used those (usually United).

I am impressed with the improvements in rail access that have occurred at Luton and Gatwick over the years.

In reply to Robert Durran:


That seems a good idea to ignorant me. Heathrow's 22 miles from Gatwick in a straight line and a Maglev does 250+ MPH at top speed, making a journey time of what between the two, perhaps 12-15 minutes?

In reply to abseil:

Why on earth not add runways to both Gatwick and Stansted, regardless of the Heathrow plans? Both of these could be made at a small fraction of the cost of the Heathrow expansion.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

would agree, heathrow is just a nightmare. I always route via Copenhagen, apart from being nearer, you have road, rail, metro all within 100-200m of bag drop or collection. One big terminal, accessing all gates, plus the little things like free and plentiful trolleys, free wifi that isn't time limited and works etc... the fact that the same group owns/manages many of the UK airports shows, regardless of if it is pure dead brilliant Prestwick or chaotic manchester... they are generally a less than pleasant experience.

In reply to John Stainforth:


yeah, heathrow was built in the wrong place. Should have been built on the north side of London, right next to main train lines North and M1 or A1, just outside what is now M25. The idea that if you travel from anywhere North you either drive and park, or train/tube it via central London is just a joke, for what is alleged to be one of the most critical airports in the world.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

I'm fully aware corrupt practice occurs in the UK, it just isn't adding huge extra costs to major builds like Heathrow. I was responding to this opinion (which to me is childish and wrong) and actually thought what you said was OK, in the sense I thought it was intended as a joke. In contrast, planning incompetance and ineptitude has added huge costs on many major UK projects (large overspends and/or huge delays).

In reply to John Stainforth:


Because a single hub allows more connecting flights - that is the point of a hub.

In reply to John Stainforth:
All this was covered endlessly in Howard Davies's report. In summary:

1. Developing another airport south of London does not serve at all the needs of those who live North of London including the rest of the country. In other words Gatwick is a waste of space.

2. Generally the cost of both enviromental and transport factors are far less with the Heathrow development than other ideas.Particulalry the environmental aspects of the infrastructure for supporting those developments.

He has been on the radio enough times spelling out the hard truths very neatly.

My own take on it is if they could do the development elsewhere ticking all the boxes they would do so. It really is the best of the bad options- just like the US election.

In reply to neilh:

I understand the arguments why Gatwick/Luton can't be a major hub airport. But surely giving them some extra capacity would help relieve the pressure on heathrow?

In reply to bigbobbyking:


flattening Luton and replacing it with an airport certainly does have a lot going for it.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Why not have the new runway in a tunnel? It would solve the noise problem, avoiding icing and the need for runway snow clearance, and with a bit of imagination the heat generated could be the basis of a combined heat and power scheme.

And before anyone points out the obvious, take-off would be be through an aircraft carrier style ski-jump exit ramp through a hole in the roof which could be tastefully landscaped to conceal it.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I feel you should be offering your services as a consultant ...

In reply to Dave Garnett:



Perhaps a swimming pool that slides back to allow for launch? Perhaps more appropriate for Boris Island.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Yes, I'm thinking of a little venture, perhaps UndergroundAirportSolutions.com or, better, BlueSkyMining.com if I sort out rights with Midnight Oil.

Given the number of consultancies who must already have been paid more than enough for me to retire on to propose undeliverable ideas, I don't see why I shouldn't do the same, and I can promise to do it much quicker.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


What about a treadmill ? that way it only needs to be as long as an aircraft.

In reply to GrahamD:

Err....... no.......

Though a big enough fan might do the trick.

In reply to GrahamD:

How about a simulator for the plane and another for the destination. By the time the new airport is built computing power will make things like 3-D virtual environments very realistic.

I'm sure the cost would come down dramatically if they built an airport just west of Reading with good links to stop the rest of the country having to go to Heathrow. This would create extra capacity for Heathrow, lower the cost, and be better for the environment. And shock horror it may only take 60 minutes to still get into London.......

In reply to Offwidth:

They would have to go some to get a simulation to be as depressing as the real Heathrow experience

In reply to Dave Garnett:



There´ s an uncompleted underground airfield down the road from me, my stainless steel supplier is rumoured to be built on top of it. One of Hitlers ideas to defend the Alpine Fortress with jet fighters.

In reply to GrahamD:

I don't know... maybe by then Doom IX !?

In reply to Offwidth:

What's all this talk above about tunnelling? Grayling tells us it's going to be a ramp specifically to avoid a tunnel (which would mean closing/moving the M25 with years of gridlock).

In reply to MG:

Denouncing someone's opinion as "childish" and "BS" is pretty insulting.


Oh yes it's a fact that there is no corruption in the UK.

It's only a couple of weeks ago that the manager of the national football team was sacked for corruption. We also had the expenses scandal, the second homes scandal, the cash for questions scandal, Neil Hamilton with his 25 grand in a brown envelope and all that. I live in a town where not so long ago half the local councilors were jailed for corruption.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

>Oh yes it's a fact that there is no corruption in the UK.


I didn't know there was a UK football team.

In reply to GrahamD:

I think LHR terminal 5 is actually a success story. I am against the third runway, because of the disruption it will cause for years and the enormous costs of paying off all the people who will have their houses and hotels knocked down.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
Of course no one said there was no corruption. Having to go back decades to Hamilton's pathetic attempts rather illustrates the point that it is not serious however.

Which town?

In reply to MG:

One you would not want to fly to?

In reply to John Stainforth:


But terminal 5 is, to all intents and purposes, a different Airport. That's the problem. The airport, parking and access are still just a maze of roads and chuggy old buses

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
I didn't denounce you, my post wasn't about you. I thought your post was a joke. I agreed with MG and still think its ridiculous and childish to suggest a large portion of the Heathrow costs will be corrupt. Equally on a project that size some corrupt practice would be pretty much certain. Surely you are not saying you are serious about what you said?

"£1 billion for the costs of materials and labour and the other £17 billion for the bungs and backhanders. That's how it works in this country."

Some sensible views on UK corruption are to be found here:

http://www.transparency.org.uk/corruption/corruption-statistics/uk-corrupti...

In reply to Offwidth:

My original comment was half joking but also half serious. It was a semi humourous satirical comment about the way things work in this country. I'm a qualified civil engineer (though I haven't worked in that business for decades) so I know first hand just how much corruption there is in construction. I know full well that no major construction project can take place in this country without a lot of people creaming off a lot of money for themselves for doing basically nothing. Just ask yourself for example how much of that £18 billion will be taken up by "consultancy" fees for various fat cats.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


But that is not the same as corruption.

In reply to Robert Durran:


It's only not the same as corruption because it is permitted by law. The project could go ahead absolutely fine without all these consultancy fees to fat cats that significantly inflate the budget. I can guarantee there will also be a lot of illegal corruption going on too.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


Like buying something is only not stealing because it is permitted by law?

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

I think it's actually all the bureaucratic steps to avoid corruption that cost so much. Fair open highly regulated bidding processes, legal challenges, environmental enquiries. highly paid consultants at every stage., testing and regulation and certification at every stage. You're right that it's a complete gravy train for many involved and it forces costs up, but its not corruption.

Nonetheless, I would seriously hope that the main costs here are the additional buildings, the additional roads and disruption, and the huge cost of compulsory purchased property.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


True, we good just arbitrarily concrete over a large swathes of prime real estate, ignoring all the pesky problems consultants deal with, like noise, environment, planning, traffic, design, cost control, safety. And yes this would be a lot cheaper, if vastly less effective overall. Most people wouldn't regard doing the above as corruption, however.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Don't be crass.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


Not crass - just highlighting the daftness of your claim that legal consultancy is corruption.

In reply to MG:


That's not what I meant. That's proper work. I was on about somebody getting paid a telephone figure sum to spend two minutes rubber stamping the decision to give the contract to supply the steel to The Right Honorable So and So's son's company, that sort of thing.

In reply to Robert Durran:


It's not daft to consider somebody getting paid huge sums of tax payer's money for doing nothing as corruption.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Can you give examples of what work it is that consultants have been paid large sums by the taxpayer to do that you regard it not daft enough to regard as nothing?

In reply to MG:



I didn't have to go back to Hamilton in the 90's to illustrate my point, it was just a good example that popped into my head while I was typing. The other examples I mentioned are all either current or very recent. As for the town, I would have thought that was blindingly obvious from my user name.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
Hmm having read about that, I understand your cynicism a bit more. But it's not typical, and actually again rather pathetically small beer. Fiddling expenses. Come on! Do it properly if you going to be corrupt!!