Leaving the rail developments aside, I'm not aware of any plans for more tarmac on the M4, other than the currently proposed scheme (whether R3 goes ahead or not) to turn it into a "smart" motorway à la M42/M3 by utilising the hard shoulder.
Whether the M25 tunnel plan represents an "upgrade" is a moot point. We're told it will gain a lane in each direction, but I wouldn't be surprised if that gets trimmed back once the infrastructure costs start to be firmed up.
The M4 cannot be widened to 4 lanes east of the A312 Hounslow/Hayes junction because it narrows from 3 to 2 lanes for the "elevated section". The bottleneck is bad enough as it is!
The M4 might get the so-called smart motorway treatment west of the M25.
The M3/M4/M25 motorways in the area will need junction improvements sooner or later, third rwy or not.
The so-called smart motorway on the M3 is an irrelevance and causing chaos and gridlock. What is needed is a serious upgrade to the M3/M25 junction rather than 20-odd miles of driving on the hard-shoulder.
Quote:
No. The prohibitive cost means that challenges against this crazy proposal must continue.
So you think the costs should be pushed up further by continued challenges because you do not agree with the proposal?
Same nonsense as wealthy remainiacs using the courts to frustrate brexit.
Yesterday's consultation document contained a revised "3R MasterPlan" drawing which, given its publication date, it would be reasonable to assume represents the most recent thinking about the R3 layout.
It's not a very hi-res image, but it's possible to discern the following differences between that and previous versions:
a) T6A is moved further north to be more or less opposite T5A
b) T6B and T6C satellites are merged into a single, long satellite and moved further east. That, in turn, reduces the length of the M25 tunnel, which now only goes under two E-W taxiways and R3, whereas previously it also went under two N-S taxiways as well
c) Two new parallel N-S taxiways to the west of T6A
d) Removal of the proposed A4 tunnel, the roundabout at Poyle and the link road to M25 J14
e) Appropriation of the area between R3 and the former A4, i.e. everything westward from the end of Blunts Avenue
f) A new road from the A3044 Holloway Lane/Harmondsworth Road junction, running along the northern edge of R3 to join the old A4 roughly halfway along the Colnbrook bypass.
Hope they've left some room for a 4th rwy!
Gatwick's arguement was predicated on being allowed to expand with Heathrow constrained, Heathrow believes they could expand even if LGW got another runway, mainly because they could still fill LHR at a premium.
This exactly why LHR's business case is more credible than LGW's: LHR's expansion plans are not affected by developments at LGW or any other UK airport.
BA don't want the competition that a third runway would bring anymore than they wanted VS to be allowed to move from LGW or AA/UA to buy slots from TW/PA.
It's also posturing. As the largest carrier at LHR, and 1 of only 2 carriers based there, it is much more affected by the operational constraints and extra expense caused by delays: queues to take off, queues to land, and the fact that at flights to/from LHR take
at least 30 minutes longer than they should. Its competitors don't have this nonsense at their bases. A third rwy ends this problem for BA.
It's less critical since it bought BD of course, but as 50% of the new slots go to incumbent carriers, BA could obtain quite a few for itself, and realise its expansion plans, without having to spend billions in the "secondary slot market".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tears of the Moon 
No. I think that common sense should make a welcome appearance to secure cancellation of this wildly-overpriced LHR R3 vanity project in the national interest.
How is it a "vanity project" when there is clearly demand for a 3rd runway?
How is the LHR third rwy a vanity project and HS2 isn't?
Quote:
How is it a "vanity project" when there is clearly demand for a 3rd runway?
Perhaps because those demanding won't be paying for it?
See above, HS2 will be for the elite who can afford the fares, paid for the by ordinary taxpayers who can't.
Quote:
Tears of the Moon you do remind me of Shed on a pole in a way
I was about to say the same thing.
Tears of the Moon - are you really Shed on a Pole? You lack the same ability to make a point in under a million words.....
Me too!
Pages 242-244 have been quite nostalgic, but nostalgia is not what it used to be!