HEATHROW

[jabird]

Aside from a pamphlet showing the routes, Heathrow actually does little for the cyclist - probably because they can't find a way to make money out of us.

The problem with cycling is that the money is never a direct financial benefit, so anything that helps us out comes via planning bribes or greenwash policy statement.

At an airport we have an additional problem that very few people will actually cycle to the airport to catch a flight - and that's the same even at airports in cities with very high cycling rates (AMS, CPH etc). You just don't stuff a 23kg suitcase in your panniers, and even if you're going on a cycling holiday, chances are bike goes in a box, then car or taxi to airport.

So that's why cycling has been brought up in the context of R3. Reading through the TfL document, together with known policies of the 3 main parties, there is a widely held view that the air and noise pollution problems around LHR make the idea of a 3rd runway impossible.

This then gets countered back with all the economic arguments about why LHR R3 is the only option, and why doing nothing is also not on the menu.

So they only way to break the stalemate is a significant reduction in local air pollution, the majority of which is caused by road vehicles.

You can't take out the through traffic very easily, nor can you do much to discourage people from driving to the airport - for example, if the airport were made to raise parking charges, the off-site operators would just cash in.

So the only real hope to get this through is a significant reduction in local traffic, and that includes staff movements to and from the site. Some of this will come through bus and rail improvements, but these are all very capital intensive. Hence, the cycling schemes can help towards the case for a third runway, and they are the cheapest way of doing so.

[BBK]

I think the country missed its chance back in the 70s when it might have developed the site at Wing between Aylesbury and Leighton Buzzard. It will have to be best UK fudge now so my money's still on runway 3 at LHR and a second at LGW.

Watch this space.

[PAXboy]

I'm not a betting man but I bet:

1. R3 - but started in the next 5 years, possibly closer to 10.
2. LGW x2? = Never.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Fairdealfrank.

Boris Island is surely unviable for many reasons, firstly many of the LHR workers live around the West . Wouldn't be too far for many to travel if its way east ?."

Er Nigel, have been arguing consistently over the years that Silver Fantasy Island is a non-starter for a variety of reasons.

You are right, people wouldn't be able to commute, it's much too far and it would not be a difficult, long and expensive commute anyway (accross London, many changes).

They either move (unlikely) or Silver/Fantasy Island wouldn't have an experienced work force (more likely). This would involve the recruitment and training expenses of starting from scratch, while simultaneously creating an unemployment and redeployment problem in the Thames valley. Brilliant!

Quote: "Perhaps the only viable option would be to have a 4 runway airport to the west or north west of London. You already have road and rail connections close by and the workers could stay put.

However Im not from the London area and have no idea if there is such a location with enough land free ??

Nigel"

Yes this is correct and was recomended in 1971, when they were looking at a third London airport and recommended Cublington (Bucks, near Aylesbury).

We already have a large 2-rwy airport west of London: Heathrow. It makes sense to build on what we have, there is sufficient land around Heathrow, to the north of the airport and spreading west from there. Tunneling part of the M25 and A4 would be necessary, but probably preferable to demolishing Stanwell and Stanwellmoor. Sipson is already blighted and has been for years (because of the dithering).

Bear in mind that a 3rd and 4th rwy at Heathrow don't have to be as long as the existing 2.



Quote: "At an airport we have an additional problem that very few people will actually cycle to the airport to catch a flight - and that's the same even at airports in cities with very high cycling rates (AMS, CPH etc). You just don't stuff a 23kg suitcase in your panniers, and even if you're going on a cycling holiday, chances are bike goes in a box, then car or taxi to airport."

Would imagine that it would be employees/staff cycling on to the airport rather than pax.



Quote: "I think the country missed its chance back in the 70s when it might have developed the site at Wing between Aylesbury and Leighton Buzzard. It will have to be best UK fudge now so my money's still on runway 3 at LHR and a second at LGW.

Watch this space."

No, that was one of the sites looked at for in 1971 when they recommended Cublington. As mentioned above they were looking for a site for a "third" London airport.

This implies that it would have been a relatively small 1-rwy job not a 4-rwy Heathrow replacement. In the end neither site was chosen and Stansted took over the role of being the "third" London airport.

What Luton was supposed to be at that time who knows!

Think Heathrow will have 4 parallel rwys before Gatwick sees a second. A 4-rwy Heathrow makes another at Gatwick unnecessary.

Wouldn't like to put a timescale on it, just hope to live long enough to see it, and reap the benefit (as a pax)!

[anothertyke]

From memory Wing and Cublington were pretty much the same option. But they were certainly not a one runway concept. From distant memory they were a two runway concept with capacity to expand to four.

The world then was very different. The Govt/planners owned the slots, no alliances, heavily regulated model. The whole concept of hub and spoke and frequent flier miles really came out of US deregulation at the end of the 70s. It's interesting to speculate on how a third London airport would have panned out but that's like wondering what would have happened if Churchill hadn't come to power in 1940. It's history.

[BBK]

FDF/anothertyke

I'm not young but not old enough to remember the debate that well.

Regarding it being a third London airport and not a LHR replacement I'm not sure anyone would have envisaged the huge growth in air travel that we take for granted now. In those days a holiday for my family was a week on the south coast. My late father had mixed views about the issue. He realised that had the plan gone ahead it would have meant the destruction of a lovely part of rural Bucks. However, as an aviation tech author he would have had no problem finding work.

Wing/Cublington are indeed next to each other! Wasn't the pressure group against the scheme called W.A.R.A or something similar.

Edited to add:

History - London's Third Airport

It was Wing Airport Resistance Association. Power of google!

[DaveReidUK]

From memory Wing and Cublington were pretty much the same option. But they were certainly not a one runway concept. From distant memory they were a two runway concept with capacity to expand to four.

Correct.

[keel beam]

The third and/or fourth runway for LHR is all very well to cope with increased air traffic but significant expenditure is required on the infrastructure surrounding LHR and beyond.

The route in to London would need at least an 8 lane or 10 lane motorway, further lane expansion for the M25, M4 from the west and M3 from the south west. That will mean a lot of houses will required to be knocked down to make way for all this development.

I think the east London Hub Airport proposal would not give the substantial benefits to the economy that an expanded LHR would.

[DaveReidUK]

I can accept close, as was first suggested, but with all the problems you mention. I just don't get how this has now been watered down to "reduce", as some kind of acceptance that the FBI argument is nonsense.

Bit of a non-sequitur there.

The TfL paper posits two options, were a Thames hub airport to be developed. One, obviously is the closure of Heathrow, releasing the land from reuse.

The other is what TfL term "a significant reduction in size and scope" of LHR - in effect transforming it into a West London equivalent of LCY:

• reduced runway length
• aircraft size limit
• local O&D traffic only

I don't understand how proposing either of those options constitutes "acceptance" that the Thames hub scenario is "nonsense".

[racedo]

There are Pros and Cons in relation to planning for an Island airport and also for LHR

Pro
-Massive Capital infrastructure project that would create 100,000 jobs across a 5 year time frame potentially many more in spin off maybe another 250,000
-Opportunity for airport operators to plan in a new airport with minimum staffing requirements to keep costs down. Knock on effect of 40,000 additional jobless in West London is a big issue.
-Opportunity of Govt to focus land around LHR for business / housing
-Remove the log jam of traffic on M25

Con
-Too Bloody far. Businesses all along M3/M4 are not going to want to spend an extra hour or two getting out to the Thames Island no matter how attractive it is. BHX /LGW /LTN and BRS potentially become a viable option.
-Staffing...........If you have a specialised occupation where you can only work in an airport then you will travel out to the Island or go to work at another airport. However the majority of people at LHR have a job not an occupation (not trying to be condescending looking at reality) where then can work elsewhere not in same industry but elsewhere.

LHR is too crowded and takes ages to get to But unfortunately its what you got and without causing major employment and other issues expanding it will be what occurs.

[jabird]

I'm not sure anyone would have envisaged the huge growth in air travel that we take for granted now.

do you mean the growth to where we are now, or continued exponential growth ad infinitum? This seems to be the basis on which the FBI concept is propagated, and this is highly unlikely. Yes, we have reasons why people will continue to fly, and there will be the growth areas in Asia and Latin America, but markets like the USA, on which much of LHR's dominance lies, are pretty mature.

I can accept a case for a 3rd short runway, but not one for a new airport on the scale being suggested in the Thames, or at least not without depending on the huge volumes of "virtuous circle" transfer passengers mentioned in the model. Somehow they've forgotten that the transfer pax are not as valuable as o&d, so an airport relying on ever-larger numbers of them is a financial house on the sand as well as a technical one.

The third and/or fourth runway for LHR is all very well to cope with increased air traffic but significant expenditure is required on the infrastructure surrounding LHR and beyond.

Except that there is infrastructure already in place around LHR, whereas a new airport means starting from scratch, so a far bigger problem.

I don't understand how proposing either of those options constitutes "acceptance" that the Thames hub scenario is "nonsense".

No, when they are proposing that LHR merely "tones itself down" instead of their original plan to close it, it demonstrates that the arguments for the fantasy airport are getting weaker. Either way - tone down or close, both scenarios present huge problems for the new airport. Obviously, leaving LHR open as it is cannot happen either.

Would imagine that it would be employees/staff cycling on to the airport rather than pax.

Yes, and this is the problem. For any other type of development, you can say "we will generate x,000 vehicle movements per day, so we will mitigate this by adding 0.5x worth of road improvements, and we will also improve the local pedestrian / cycle / public transport system to the point that there's a reduction in vehicles of another 0.5x - thus there's no net change in traffic.

You can't do this so easily for an airport, as very few passengers will cycle, but you can provide a comprehensive cycling network around your site and you can provide money for a network in the nearby areas, thus reducing traffic and air pollution.

These are the biggest challenges LHR faces if it wants to expand - not the pollution from the aircraft, which is largely dispersed at height, but ground level air pollution and traffic congestion caused by road vehicles.

[Dannyboy39]

No doubt BoJo and the NIMBYs in Hounslow and the rest of West London will use yesterday's tragedy to enhance their political anti-Heathrow aims.

Worth remembering that the occurance at KSFO is about 1 to 10 million event, if not less likely.

[DaveReidUK]

Ah, but expect the plan to built R3 sticking out into the Bay, sorry Staines Reservoir, to now be scrubbed.

[jabird]

No doubt BoJo and the NIMBYs in Hounslow and the rest of West London will use yesterday's tragedy to enhance their political anti-Heathrow aims.

Well our friend Silver is active on that thread, so can anyone tempt him over here for an opinion?

[DaveReidUK]

Well our friend Silver is active on that thread, so can anyone tempt him over here for an opinion?

I would expect that the reason he hasn't is that he doesn't consider it remotely relevant ...

[vctenderness]

Heathrow's two runways should be extended and then cut in half to add capacity think tank says

The move would nearly double capacity at the airport which currently handles 480,000 flights a year but is already 99 per cent full, it argues.

Full Story:
Divided runways 'to fix Heathrow' | Mail Online

MailOnline




Would this actually work? I guess Jock knows what he's talking about.

[fatmed]

How would this work in the case of a last minute go around if aircraft were taking off further down the strip?

[FRatSTN]

I think the biggest concern is aborted landings but I'd think that aborted landings would easily get 1000ft above departures from the runway in front and not only that, they would probably turn away before they reach the threshold of the new runway anyway.

I can't see why though they can't just build two more runways to the north of the airport just south of the M4 motorway parallel to the existing runways. Much of that land is flat fields anyway, perfect for runway construction and there would be less of a need to divert major roads under tunnels.

Whilst it would be awful for the people of Harmondsworth, Sipson and Harlington to lose their homes, it's not like they didn't know what they were getting into.

Look at places like Dubai. If they want new infrastructure, whether it be airports, runways, 7 star hotels, 2,000ft high skyscrapers or new land out at sea in the shape of a palm, they just get on and build it!!! In Britain, we just debate it for years or end up just doing the typical British "do nothing" policy, all because some people in West London are worried about more noise.

To be fair, if you don't like noise, pollution and congestion, you shouldn't be living near Heathrow, or in London at all for that matter!

I've stayed in West London loads in areas like Acton and been through areas like Brentford and rarely do you even know that there's an airport there in terms of noise and pollution, so it must only be areas very close, literally a mile or 2 who are so severely affected.

Also, people need to understand that adding more runways would potentially reduce noise and pollution as aircraft won't be waiting at holding points for departure and stuck in holding patterns over London! It's not necessarily about doubling the size of Heathrow, it's about increasing the capacity to reduce delays, pollution, congestion, noise etc.

This solution is the wisest way to add capacity since the branding, competitive, financial, economic aspect of expanding Heathrow is far better than expanding elsewhere and as awful as it may sound, this shouldn't even be comparable to or prevented by the people of West London being frightened they could get more noise or congestion!

[DaveReidUK]

Heathrow's two runways should be extended and then cut in half to add capacity think tank says

This is hardly news - it was first floated (and commented on here) back in March:



http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...ml#post7737947

It was a lunatic proposal back then, and it is now.

[Fairdealfrank]

Stand corrected on Cublington/Wing, but don’t think for a minute that all 4 rwys would ever have been built. Eventually, Stansted took on the role intended for Cublington/Wing and it has ……ONE rwy.




Quote: “The third and/or fourth runway for LHR is all very well to cope with increased air traffic but significant expenditure is required on the infrastructure surrounding LHR and beyond.

The route in to London would need at least an 8 lane or 10 lane motorway, further lane expansion for the M25, M4 from the west and M3 from the south west. That will mean a lot of houses will required to be knocked down to make way for all this development.”

Much of the infrastructure is already there, though clearly improvements would be necessary, such as better rail connections (some are already planned), and improved road/motorway junctions, and doubtless this would be done incrementally. An 8/10 lane M4 up to London won’t ever happen and would be pointless. There’s nowhere to channel the traffic at Chiswick/Hammersmith already with just 6 lanes.

Quote: “I think the east London Hub Airport proposal would not give the substantial benefits to the economy that an expanded LHR would.”

100% agreement!!

Quote: “The TfL paper posits two options, were a Thames hub airport to be developed. One, obviously is the closure of Heathrow, releasing the land from reuse.

The other is what TfL term "a significant reduction in size and scope" of LHR - in effect transforming it into a West London equivalent of LCY:
reduced runway length
aircraft size limit
local O&D traffic only
I don't understand how proposing either of those options constitutes "acceptance that the Thames hub scenario is "nonsense".

Very simple: for the “Thames hub scenario” to work, there has to be no Heathrow.

The two scenarios proposed for Heathrow takes no account of the views of the Shareholders of Heathrow. As a private company, these have to be taken into account ….. otherwise it’s off to the High Court.

Heathrow reduced to a “West London equivalent of LCY” would guarantee premium business the ability to fly to AMS, CDG and FRA for long haul flights (easier than going to Silver Island). This would great for AF, KL and LH, catastophic for BA and VS.

So even a cut-down Heathrow makes Silver Island unviable, but obviously TFL aren‘t going mention that are they!

Quote: “Heathrow's two runways should be extended and then cut in half to add capacity think tank says”

This one’s been reheated from a proposal from a retired pilot.

Another stumbling block would be the loss of segregated mode and rwy alternation, which is actually quite important!

Maybe try it at LGW first, they're already on mixed mode.


Quote: “I can't see why though they can't just build two more runways to the north of the airport just south of the M4 motorway parallel to the existing runways. Much of that land is flat fields anyway, perfect for runway construction and there would be less of a need to divert major roads under tunnels.

Whilst it would be awful for the people of Harmondsworth, Sipson and Harlington to lose their homes, it's not like they didn't know what they were getting into.”

Exactly, and it’s still fewer homes demolished overall, and the retention of segregated mode and rwy alternation.