HEATHROW
Oh Shazbat!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Leeds, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do wonder if there is a measure of positioning this to force the Thames Estuary plan but make it "Let them think they came up with it themselves".
First we have the decision to build the 3rd runway with the compulsary purchase around Sibson. Then, ooops, we find that the noise & pollution estimates have been understated. Next we find, ooops, the cost is a whopping £13bn+. Now we find, ooops again, that they forgot to state that a crash zone was right over a major motorway insection.
So now Joe Public may well be starting to think that there may be merit in a wholly new airport. "Oh alright then, if that's what you want..."
Or am I giving our leaders more credit than they deserve?
First we have the decision to build the 3rd runway with the compulsary purchase around Sibson. Then, ooops, we find that the noise & pollution estimates have been understated. Next we find, ooops, the cost is a whopping £13bn+. Now we find, ooops again, that they forgot to state that a crash zone was right over a major motorway insection.
So now Joe Public may well be starting to think that there may be merit in a wholly new airport. "Oh alright then, if that's what you want..."
Or am I giving our leaders more credit than they deserve?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Age: 86
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be highly sceptical about the Times article. I read somewhere that they have the highest number of bought-in (some say un-checked) stories of all the broadsheets. Certainly an estuary airport is the answer but Parliaments are only for five years so there are all sorts of stumbling blocks.
Once again, we should remember that all the reasons why a 3rd runway at LHR would not be feasible environmentally or financially were brought out during the consultation leading upto the White Paper called The Future of Air Transport, produced by the Department for Transport (Alistair Darling in charge) in 2003.
Public Safety Zones, pollution levels etc were all cited as problems that would be nearly impossible to overcome.
Notwithstanding, the determination of the Department and its supine Secretary of State (A. Darling) to give BAA what it wanted, regardless of the interests of the country or indeed the facts, led to the infamous conclusion that each BAA airport round London should have a new runway; a conclusion that could have been written on a fag packet before £100m was spent on consultants.
The placement of around 26 BAA staff in the Department to "assist" with the evaluation of other proposals meant that it came as no surprise that these were all kicked into touch.
Since then BAA has been sold to a bunch of Spaniards who had to borrow heavily to finance the purchase; a debt which is now encumbering the business.
The safety zone issue is only one; the White Paper reminds us that thereare mandatory EU limits for levels of pollutants in the air, irrespective of the source. In supporting development of a new runway at Heathrow, it specified that this support was "provided that stringent environmental limits can be met".
Unfortunately, they cannot be if a new runway is built with the stated increases in ATMs and passenger movements. The ATMs generate pollution from aircraft, and the passenger movements generate pollution from surface transport. The increase in pollution from both these sources would put the air around Heathrow far above the EU limits.
So while the Department said what BAA wanted it to say, it covered its ass by adding the proviso "provided that stringent environmental limits can be met", knowing full well that they can't be. Both they and the BAA hoped that when they said, 3 or 4 years later, that the runway should go ahead this little caveat to the Government's support would be forgotten.
Mind you, one solution under discussion at that time was to control the surface transport emissions by tunnelling the M4 from Chiswick to Reading, and possible quite a long stretch of the M25 as well. Doing so would allow the 3rd runway to go ahead, and probably wouldn't cost much more than £12.5bn; the reason that it was rightly deemed to be an absurd solution at the time.
Of course £12.5bn is a ridiculous figure as an investment in a third runway.
But, hold on, tunnelling the M4 and M25 as suggested would solve the PSZ issue, now wouldn't it! In a Government that is clearly incapable of even basic financial arithmetic (Northern Rock?) crazier things have happened.
Public Safety Zones, pollution levels etc were all cited as problems that would be nearly impossible to overcome.
Notwithstanding, the determination of the Department and its supine Secretary of State (A. Darling) to give BAA what it wanted, regardless of the interests of the country or indeed the facts, led to the infamous conclusion that each BAA airport round London should have a new runway; a conclusion that could have been written on a fag packet before £100m was spent on consultants.
The placement of around 26 BAA staff in the Department to "assist" with the evaluation of other proposals meant that it came as no surprise that these were all kicked into touch.
Since then BAA has been sold to a bunch of Spaniards who had to borrow heavily to finance the purchase; a debt which is now encumbering the business.
The safety zone issue is only one; the White Paper reminds us that thereare mandatory EU limits for levels of pollutants in the air, irrespective of the source. In supporting development of a new runway at Heathrow, it specified that this support was "provided that stringent environmental limits can be met".
Unfortunately, they cannot be if a new runway is built with the stated increases in ATMs and passenger movements. The ATMs generate pollution from aircraft, and the passenger movements generate pollution from surface transport. The increase in pollution from both these sources would put the air around Heathrow far above the EU limits.
So while the Department said what BAA wanted it to say, it covered its ass by adding the proviso "provided that stringent environmental limits can be met", knowing full well that they can't be. Both they and the BAA hoped that when they said, 3 or 4 years later, that the runway should go ahead this little caveat to the Government's support would be forgotten.
Mind you, one solution under discussion at that time was to control the surface transport emissions by tunnelling the M4 from Chiswick to Reading, and possible quite a long stretch of the M25 as well. Doing so would allow the 3rd runway to go ahead, and probably wouldn't cost much more than £12.5bn; the reason that it was rightly deemed to be an absurd solution at the time.
Of course £12.5bn is a ridiculous figure as an investment in a third runway.
But, hold on, tunnelling the M4 and M25 as suggested would solve the PSZ issue, now wouldn't it! In a Government that is clearly incapable of even basic financial arithmetic (Northern Rock?) crazier things have happened.
Paxing All Over The World
Thames Estuary did not proceed for the simple reason that not enough pax live that side of London and all the ground routes lead neatly into EGLL, due to history.
Many pax come from the central and southern part of the UK, the Shires of: Oxford, Warwick, Buckingham, Hertford, Berk and Hamp, as well as Surrey and Sussex. Whilst many Londoners could cheerfully go East or West to get to the main airport, it is all the rest that cannot. If Thames Estuary was built, you will still need a field somewhere to the west of the capital. Airlines would not run flights from two airports and the problem would not be solved.
Further, property (both domestic and business) has been built and priced around EGLL, West London and the M4 corridor for 50 years. If you cut the traffic of the airport in half, you would remove profits and investment from millions of people and companies. No politician is going to do that.
LCY took care of much of the European commuter problem for the City and has done well for many locals in Essex and Kent too.
So ... expand EGLL or leave it the same? Personally, I agree with the view that they have missed the boat (pun intended) and the peak of air travel will be over. Keeping an artificial cap on EGLL expansion makes it more profitable than a larger site operating at less than capacity. BAA will find that they might encounter the law of diminishing returns. The 3rd might be needed but it is not required.
Many pax come from the central and southern part of the UK, the Shires of: Oxford, Warwick, Buckingham, Hertford, Berk and Hamp, as well as Surrey and Sussex. Whilst many Londoners could cheerfully go East or West to get to the main airport, it is all the rest that cannot. If Thames Estuary was built, you will still need a field somewhere to the west of the capital. Airlines would not run flights from two airports and the problem would not be solved.
Further, property (both domestic and business) has been built and priced around EGLL, West London and the M4 corridor for 50 years. If you cut the traffic of the airport in half, you would remove profits and investment from millions of people and companies. No politician is going to do that.
LCY took care of much of the European commuter problem for the City and has done well for many locals in Essex and Kent too.
So ... expand EGLL or leave it the same? Personally, I agree with the view that they have missed the boat (pun intended) and the peak of air travel will be over. Keeping an artificial cap on EGLL expansion makes it more profitable than a larger site operating at less than capacity. BAA will find that they might encounter the law of diminishing returns. The 3rd might be needed but it is not required.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thames Estuary did not proceed for the simple reason that not enough pax live that side of London and all the ground routes lead neatly into EGLL, due to history.
being acceptable, and of course would have the major advantage that it couldn't be surrounded by houses.
Certainly a considerable amount of transport infrastructure would be required, but with maglev trains capable of reaching 300mph+ a suitable system could easily be designed that could make it viable.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
""The minority report from the Roskill commitee opened with the statement that made that very point and recommended that Cubblinton should be the site, not the Maplin sands, for the 3rd London airport. However I have a feeling that nowadays Maplin is about the only place that would stand any chance.""
I agree, but Cublington was thrown out on environmental grounds and popular opposition even 35 years ago - remember "no wings at Wing" ? It was then that Maplin (ne Foulness) was reconsidered (it had been one of the three options under Roskill). Maplin was dropped due to the mid-1970s economic crisis, and so we then went with expanding LHR, LGW and later STN.
I agree, but Cublington was thrown out on environmental grounds and popular opposition even 35 years ago - remember "no wings at Wing" ? It was then that Maplin (ne Foulness) was reconsidered (it had been one of the three options under Roskill). Maplin was dropped due to the mid-1970s economic crisis, and so we then went with expanding LHR, LGW and later STN.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Holland
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doomed
If...or maybe when....the third runway gets built..far to much ego and face saving going on for it to be stopped methinks...then what will scupper any benefit... will be the tender loving intelligent handling by BAA...
If their oppo's in nefarious bizzynes BA are involved in any major way...like having it named summat like ' Willy's way' the fate is well and truly sealed...EGLL will never recover...they cannot even get a baggage system sorted...
12 & 'alf billion quid...
A few specialist hossy's or an education system that might not creak so much...but I suppose a bit of concrete slabbing with a few fancy lines drawn this way and that...is a tad more aesthetic to the average politico's eye...
Alternatively how many wars could be funded by our glorious leaders with it?...either a couple of minor skirmishes or a moderate sized spat I would wager...depends on how lucky they are...
Is a third runway needed?..probably...but they will screw it up somehow...'tis wot they do'....
If their oppo's in nefarious bizzynes BA are involved in any major way...like having it named summat like ' Willy's way' the fate is well and truly sealed...EGLL will never recover...they cannot even get a baggage system sorted...
12 & 'alf billion quid...
A few specialist hossy's or an education system that might not creak so much...but I suppose a bit of concrete slabbing with a few fancy lines drawn this way and that...is a tad more aesthetic to the average politico's eye...
Alternatively how many wars could be funded by our glorious leaders with it?...either a couple of minor skirmishes or a moderate sized spat I would wager...depends on how lucky they are...
Is a third runway needed?..probably...but they will screw it up somehow...'tis wot they do'....
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: British Airspace
Age: 53
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forcing the Thames Estuary Airport plan? Nah - thye're just trying to encourage our nice shiny new second (third, fourth) runway proposal for Stansted.
Seems such a good option now.
Seems such a good option now.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love aircraft and I love flying as a PPL but I cannot see how a third runway at Heathrow is going to solve any long term problems with capacity.
I've lived in Fulham below the 27L and 27R approaches ever since I was born and even I now get fed up with the noise from aircraft flying over every 2 mins from early morning till late at night. The recent 777 incident at Heathrow also concerns me. Had it "landed" any earlier it could have killed hundreds of people on the ground as well as those in the aircraft.
I wish they'd just bulldoze Lydd and turn it into the new "London Airport" and move all the Heathrow flights there. Failing that why not reclaim some land from the sea like they did in Hong Kong and build a new airport in the Thames Estuary.
I've lived in Fulham below the 27L and 27R approaches ever since I was born and even I now get fed up with the noise from aircraft flying over every 2 mins from early morning till late at night. The recent 777 incident at Heathrow also concerns me. Had it "landed" any earlier it could have killed hundreds of people on the ground as well as those in the aircraft.
I wish they'd just bulldoze Lydd and turn it into the new "London Airport" and move all the Heathrow flights there. Failing that why not reclaim some land from the sea like they did in Hong Kong and build a new airport in the Thames Estuary.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cairo
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an interesting article in the Economist that argues the real answer is to let the 30% of passengers who transit Heathrow (rather than originate or complete their journey there) go elsewhere (FRA, AMS, CDG). The UK does not derive any real economic benefit from transit passengers, although BA and BAA might.
The 'Heathrow needs a third runway or the City of London dies' argument collapses if you take out transit passengers.
The logical place for Heathrows third runway is the Continent.
The 'Heathrow needs a third runway or the City of London dies' argument collapses if you take out transit passengers.
The logical place for Heathrows third runway is the Continent.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nairn, Highland
Age: 85
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a member of the RSPB and several other wildlife protection societies. But when these bodies complain about destruction of existing habitats (eg the Thames Estuary) they conveniently forget to mention all the new wildlife habitat that is being created, eg old gravel pits, the Great Fen project in Cambridgeshire, coastal marshes.
Win some, lose some. I cannot accept that any wildlife objections should take precedence over building a new airport in the Thames. The corollary to a new airport there would be the downsizing of Heathrow over the next century which would release huge areas of potential habitat. Even with the inevitable building of housing, think of all that heathland that could be created for the benefit of wildlife.
Go for the Thames, ignore the views of the RSPB and other wildlife bodies. We "conservationists" do not always agree with everything our "leaders" say.
Heathrow is in a daft place (but a lot of fun for pilots - well I used to enjoy the views of London)
Jack
Win some, lose some. I cannot accept that any wildlife objections should take precedence over building a new airport in the Thames. The corollary to a new airport there would be the downsizing of Heathrow over the next century which would release huge areas of potential habitat. Even with the inevitable building of housing, think of all that heathland that could be created for the benefit of wildlife.
Go for the Thames, ignore the views of the RSPB and other wildlife bodies. We "conservationists" do not always agree with everything our "leaders" say.
Heathrow is in a daft place (but a lot of fun for pilots - well I used to enjoy the views of London)
Jack
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was born and bred in Hayes, and as a schoolboy spotter I watched London Airport start its growth into Heathrow.
I thought then and I think now that there are few bits of Harlington and Sipson that would not be improved by a four-foot thick layer of concrete.
I thought then and I think now that there are few bits of Harlington and Sipson that would not be improved by a four-foot thick layer of concrete.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an interesting article in the Economist that argues the real answer is to let the 30% of passengers who transit Heathrow (rather than originate or complete their journey there) go elsewhere (FRA, AMS, CDG). The UK does not derive any real economic benefit from transit passengers, although BA and BAA might.
The 'Heathrow needs a third runway or the City of London dies' argument collapses if you take out transit passengers.
The logical place for Heathrows third runway is the Continent.
The 'Heathrow needs a third runway or the City of London dies' argument collapses if you take out transit passengers.
The logical place for Heathrows third runway is the Continent.
Of course the UK gets economic benefit on from them, a lot of them travel on UK airlines which if I am not mistaken pay money to the UK and benefit the economy. Take the transit passengers out and then the economic benefit will go elsewhere and not the UK!!
If the passengers went elsewhere so would some of BA's operation, meaning job loses in the UK! Maybe Open Skies is going to do some of that, but that is another debate!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love the way people from all over have opinions here, well I'm a local boy thesed days so here's my view. To builld a whopping new airport in the Thames Estuary would do a lot of damage to the wildlife lets be honest, I have no doubt of that. There are genuine sites of rare wildlife, the decision becomes is it worth concreting it over?This new mega airport would also be on the wrong side of London. Furthermore, the Heathrow site itself would still be a concrete nightmare, this time of housing and probably shops.....Slough and the surrounding area is what is generally called a "dump" anyway. Richmond is a bit noisy but hey it's gotta be quiter than the BAC111s and Tridents of old. So third runway it is for me. The airport's been there for 60 + years, no one was forced to live under the flightpath and the only real option is to chuck concrete into the ocean on the wrong side of town. If you think Terminal 5 was a wee disappointment, the new London Thames Gateway would set records I have no doubt.....
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not use the existing R/W at Northolt with a high speed link from there to LHR. To demolish 700+ homes in order to build a 3rd R/W anywhere near a general election would be political suicide for Brown & his friends. The M4 M25 is regularly gridlocked around this point at present so whats the point of expanding Heathrow capacity when the ground transport links are inadequate.
Bringing Northolt into better, productive use was among the excellent ways of improving quickly and cheaply the runway capacity around London, by using non-BAA properties, that the BAA managed to get the Dept for Transport to kick into touch in the 2003 White Paper.
Another was the scheme, that was entirely financed by the private sector, to place a 2000ft runway, parallel to LGW at Redhill with an 8-minute suspended monorail connection to LGW South to feed connecting traffic. The owners of Redhill already owned all the land needed for this project. The runway and terminal would have relieved LGW of 125,000 ATM by short-haul and UK regional services, thus allowing LGW's long-haul traffic to grow, and thereby removing the need for LHR to have a third runway. Opposition was confined to a relatively low number of people who lived close to the present airfield.
When BAA realised that the Redhill scheme was
(a) Very feasible and a very sound business proposition and,
(b) Being taken seriously by DfT
they pulled out all the stops to get it killed, including enlisting NATS (which had just been bailed out of bankruptcy by BAA) to make outrageous statements about operational viability, such as "You cannot operate a parallel runway at Gatwick", later necessarily modified to "we don't know if it can be done without studying it, and we are not going to study it". When they were asked about the plan for a BAA-owned parallel runway at LGW they said ...............
"No problem".
And the Secretary of State concurred. Now he is the Chancellor of the Exchequer; I wonder why the British economy is rapidly collapsing?
Another was the scheme, that was entirely financed by the private sector, to place a 2000ft runway, parallel to LGW at Redhill with an 8-minute suspended monorail connection to LGW South to feed connecting traffic. The owners of Redhill already owned all the land needed for this project. The runway and terminal would have relieved LGW of 125,000 ATM by short-haul and UK regional services, thus allowing LGW's long-haul traffic to grow, and thereby removing the need for LHR to have a third runway. Opposition was confined to a relatively low number of people who lived close to the present airfield.
When BAA realised that the Redhill scheme was
(a) Very feasible and a very sound business proposition and,
(b) Being taken seriously by DfT
they pulled out all the stops to get it killed, including enlisting NATS (which had just been bailed out of bankruptcy by BAA) to make outrageous statements about operational viability, such as "You cannot operate a parallel runway at Gatwick", later necessarily modified to "we don't know if it can be done without studying it, and we are not going to study it". When they were asked about the plan for a BAA-owned parallel runway at LGW they said ...............
"No problem".
And the Secretary of State concurred. Now he is the Chancellor of the Exchequer; I wonder why the British economy is rapidly collapsing?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: OXF
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxboy, as much as I understand the reasoning, Thames Gateway would, once Crossrail is complete, make much more sense... That's why Crossrail was demanded in the first place (i.e. shift lots of SLF from one end of London to the other without bothering with UG/Bus/Taxi/Car/OG). Thanks to parliamentary inaction and the like, Crossrail's been sitting around gathering dust for at least a decade (well, the bill was finally passed, but that still doesn't mean they'll jump into action anytime soon).
This eternal dithering is going to cost London a lot more than 12 billion for a new runway at LHR, a proposed fourth runway around 2020 (for probably another 25 billion if the 12 billion is anything to go by), or a brand new airport for around the 12 billion mark.
The Economist has a great piece on this... I don't have my copy on me, but if you go to a newsagent that stocks it, you can't miss it... it has a huge headline on this on the front cover. Perhaps I should scan it in and post it.
S.
This eternal dithering is going to cost London a lot more than 12 billion for a new runway at LHR, a proposed fourth runway around 2020 (for probably another 25 billion if the 12 billion is anything to go by), or a brand new airport for around the 12 billion mark.
The Economist has a great piece on this... I don't have my copy on me, but if you go to a newsagent that stocks it, you can't miss it... it has a huge headline on this on the front cover. Perhaps I should scan it in and post it.
S.
