Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick
Posted by: Thomas Barry
Date/Time: 03/02/15 23:44:00

Perhaps you'd like to point to all the myriad rail projects the governments of 1948 to 1993 chose to invest in. No? How about all the road projects? Ah yes, that's why Heathrow's got two motorways to it.  Heathrow was built right at the start of about half a century of domination of government policy by the ideology of roads, which is why it had roads built to it from day one, then upgraded pretty much every decade since.  I fail to see how the Southern Railway would have raised the capital in a world where railways were seen as declining any more easily than BR would have wrung it out of the Treasury at the time.

The Piccadilly Line only got built out to Heathrow because it was very cheap to do compared with any other option and by the time BR shaped up into an efficient businesslike organisation in the early 1980s and started growing traffic the government's ideology preferred to let BAA develop a privately funded line. This is how we ended up in the absurd situation that the only mainline link to Heathrow is priced at a premium and is not included in London's centrally set fare scales, smartcard ticketing etc. like it would be in a sensible country.

To illustrate quite how unlikely it would have been to have got a rail link built back then, this article from 1964 blames low usage of Gatwick on it being built rail served with no motorway:

Many of the arguments are suspiciously familiar 51 years later.

[also I note that 20 years of rail privatisation haven't resulted in SWT building tracks to Heathrow, has it?]

Entire Thread
TopicDate PostedPosted By
Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 11:23:00 David Cuss
   Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 11:33:00 Richard Greenhough
   Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 11:35:00 Alan Clark
      Re:Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 11:45:00 David Cuss
         Re:Re:Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 11:53:00 Ken Munn
            Re:Re:Re:Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 12:02:00 Julian Pavey
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 12:40:00 Ken Munn
            Re:Re:Re:Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 12:03:00 Carl Wynne
            Re:Re:Re:Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 12:20:00 Richard Greenhough
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 12:29:00 Carl Wynne
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 12:54:00 Michael Robinson
      Re:Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 12:38:00 Richard Greenhough
         Re:Re:Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 23:44:00 Thomas Barry
      Re:Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 12:51:00 Will Watson
         Re:Re:Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 13:09:00 Alan Clark
            Re:Re:Re:Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 13:25:00 Jonathan Bingham
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 23:55:00 Thomas Barry
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick04/02/15 10:20:00 Jonathan Bingham
                     Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick04/02/15 14:48:00 Thomas Barry
   Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 13:15:00 Rick Sanders
   Three, not two03/02/15 15:29:00 Thomas Barry
      Re:Three, not two03/02/15 15:47:00 Richard Greenhough
         Re:Re:Three, not two03/02/15 17:02:00 Claudia Jachtmann
            Re:Re:Re:Three, not two03/02/15 17:14:00 Colin Jordan
         Re:Re:Three, not two04/02/15 00:10:00 Thomas Barry
   Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 19:15:00 David Cuss
      Re:Re:Heathrow v. Gatwick03/02/15 22:00:00 Claudia Jachtmann

Forum Home