wrote:

When you're in a bust you don't start spending billions on vanity
projects. Even in the boom years heathrow could cope with the
passenger numbers so why build a new runway now when they're
dropping?? Its like saying "oh , theres less traffic on the roads -
lets build some bypasses!"

Surely it's the best time to build public infrastructure?

Building companies are desperate for work and labour is plentiful,
things can be built cheaper and will be ready for when the demand picks up

"Tony Polson" wrote in message


Boris Toffson's Thames Estuary Airport plan is something of an
embarrassment for the Tory party. He is shaping up to be as much of a
thorn in the Tories' side as Ken Livingstone was in his party's.

With one key difference: Ken never had ambitions beyond London politics,
but Boris does. This makes him a rival for whoever is leading the Tory
party, whereas Ken never had any leadership ambitions outside London.
But it might also make him more careful (ie, he probably won't do the
rightwing equivalent of Chavez type deals).

On Jan 15, 12:18*pm, Tony Polson wrote:
EE507 wrote:

The Tories can't decide whether they object to an expansion of airport
capacity on principle, or whether, as Boris says, it's just Heathrow
that is unsuitable. Rather like Labour didn't reverse rail
privatisation when they came to power, I suspect the Tories wouldn't
reverse any decision on Heathrow. Anyway, let's wait for the official
announcement.

The Tories have already stated, unequivocally, that they will cancel any
planned third runway at Heathrow when (if) they get into power.

What political parties say in opposition does not in any way reflect
what they do in power. I fully expect the Tories' green gloss to start
flaking as soon as they win the election, and to be a mere memory
within three years.

Peter Masson wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:48:31 on
Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Peter Masson remarked:
So there might be a case for diverting HEx (in tunnel, not wandering
all round Cricklewood) to St Pancras.

Would this be a new station at St Pancras, or maybe sharing the Kent
domestic platforms, which might be over-specified. On the other
hand, if Thameslink2012 does in fact include through-running from
the GN services on the ECML, there will greater spare capacity at KX.

I envisage an underground terminus, possibly double ended, with one
entrance from the concourse at St Pancras (near the access to the
Thameslink platforms, and another with an entrance from Euston (may
need a travelator).

It makes more sense to extend the Kent domestics from St P to Heathrow, with
a reversal at St P.

On Jan 15, 12:07*pm, Huge wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:05:11 -0800, boltar2003 wrote:
On Jan 15, 11:46*am, "tim....." wrote:
If there is no business case for the plan, the banks wont lend BAA the
funds.

Given who caused the current crisis

And who do think that is?

The answer was in the rest of the sentence you snipped. The braincell
done a bunk again has it?

B2003

"EE507" wrote in message

On Jan 15, 12:18 pm, Tony Polson wrote:
EE507 wrote:

The Tories can't decide whether they object to an expansion of
airport capacity on principle, or whether, as Boris says, it's just
Heathrow that is unsuitable. Rather like Labour didn't reverse rail
privatisation when they came to power, I suspect the Tories wouldn't
reverse any decision on Heathrow. Anyway, let's wait for the
official announcement.

The Tories have already stated, unequivocally, that they will cancel
any planned third runway at Heathrow when (if) they get into power.

What political parties say in opposition does not in any way reflect
what they do in power. I fully expect the Tories' green gloss to start
flaking as soon as they win the election, and to be a mere memory
within three years.

Actually, it's fading already, reflecting the change in voters' concerns
(from ecology to the economy).

"John Rowland" wrote in
message
Peter Masson wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:48:31 on
Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Peter Masson remarked:
So there might be a case for diverting HEx (in tunnel, not
wandering all round Cricklewood) to St Pancras.

Would this be a new station at St Pancras, or maybe sharing the Kent
domestic platforms, which might be over-specified. On the other
hand, if Thameslink2012 does in fact include through-running from
the GN services on the ECML, there will greater spare capacity at
KX.

I envisage an underground terminus, possibly double ended, with one
entrance from the concourse at St Pancras (near the access to the
Thameslink platforms, and another with an entrance from Euston (may
need a travelator).

It makes more sense to extend the Kent domestics from St P to
Heathrow, with a reversal at St P.

But as I understand it, Heathrow Hub is just the first station on HS2,
en-route to the midlands or the west, not a terminus. I doubt that the
current St P has enough domestic platforms (on either side) to be the
London Terminus for the high speed link to the north. Also, are they
long enough?

wrote:

When you're in a bust you don't start spending billions on vanity
projects. Even in the boom years heathrow could cope with the
passenger numbers so why build a new runway now when they're
dropping?? Its like saying "oh , theres less traffic on the roads -
lets build some bypasses!"

On the contrary: building things requires labour, which can be got more
cheaply in a bust, and employing people helps mitigate the bust.
Furthermore, building things disrupts journeys, and disrupts fewer journeys
in a bust. So busts are the right time to build infrastructure, using the
money that the government saved up during the boom.... except they didn't
save any.

On Jan 15, 1:52*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
On the contrary: building things requires labour, which can be got more
cheaply in a bust,

Not if some of the cheap labour does a runner to another country. I
have no figures at hand but I wouldn't be surprised if theres a slow
leakage of poles and other east europeans from the UK right now
especially given the current exchange rate of the pound.

B2003

On 15 Jan, 14:07, wrote:

On Jan 15, 1:52*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
On the contrary: building things requires labour, which can be got more
cheaply in a bust,

Not if some of the cheap labour does a runner to another country. I
have no figures at hand but I wouldn't be surprised if theres a slow
leakage of poles and other east europeans from the UK right now
especially given the current exchange rate of the pound.


No leakages with Poles, they're great plumbers.

Being serious - yes, many Poles have been heading back to Poland which
at least until recently was beginning to boom, not quite sure how
they're holding up at the moment. It's not so much exchange rates,
though that's a factor, more about jobs - there were lots of jobs
coming on stream in Poland, and fewer in the UK. Of course now in the
UK jobs are rapidly becoming scarcer.

(I think the trend is - or at least was - mirrored with other eastern
Europeans, though in a rather less pronounced way than with Poles and
Poland.)