Heathrow-Colne Valley
Again, this is a long term expensive proposal, albeit a more realistic one than Boris's white elephant vanity project. It does seem a shame to lose the 2 existing 2.5mi. rwys and have them replaced by rwys of just 1.8 mi..
Because of the time scale involved to construct "Heathrow-Colne Valley", a third and fourth rwy at LHR will still be necessary (as would be the case with the estuary proposals) to cope in the interim.
It may not be just the Wraysbury reservoir that has to go, the Queen Mother reservoir looks vulnerable too. The costs of this plus road diversions and tunneling plus railway and shuttle construction on such a large scale may make it uneconomic for BAA to contemplate on its own.
However, keeping LHR in tact and adding two narrow spaced rwys north of the airport, parallel to, but further west of the existing rwys seems to be the best remedy. This maintains the status quo for those currently under the flightpath, keeps road diversions/tunnelling to a minimum, and keeps aircraft higher over populated parts of the new flightpaths. This may be affordable and practical for BAA.
However, if, and it's still a big if, we decide to go down the road of an "entirely new hub airport in the UK", this or something similar is the way forward.
Forget about Heathrow with just one rwy. How would the proceeds of the sale of the land go towards funding the vanity project? If BAA sold the land, they would receive the income, it's as simple as that! Apart from anything else, years of litigation would ensure this will never happen.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 7th Oct 2012 at 22:27.
Reason: clarity