Heathrow expansion won't happen
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah I've heard that too, but seems very far out! It would also need billions spent on infrastructure, whereas something along the M4 corridor would already have the rail links, or require only slight additions to either Crossrail and/or the West Coast mainline. LHR is on the right side of town, but should be outside the M25 rather than inside it! Removing LHR traffic from the M25 would solve most of LHR's access issues.
I've been wondering why there has been less promotion of a site just north of the M4 between Reading and Maidenhead, or just south of it between Maidenhead and Bracknell.
Nobody, but nobody, is seriously looking at any alternatives other than a Thames Estuary airport or adding runway capacity at an existing airport.
Or of course the do-nothing option ...
Talk of an all-new airport to the W or NW of London is pure kite-flying.
I really don't have an answer.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sidney, BC, Canada
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alternatives
An answer may be derived from observing the progress of commercial aviation in Japan. After the Narita debacle, the Japanese have only built large airports on reclaimed land. There are many problems with this approach (new Doha airport an example), but not as many and displacing people and confiscating land. The new runway Haneda airport is built on reclaimed (more accurately; generated) land in Tokyo Bay. No such option exists for LHR.
England is a relatively population high density country, especially in the vacinity of London. A more practical approach to expanding commercial aviation capacity in the area would likely be to seriously consider an airport on new land. Such a decision might aggravate those living in coastal communities near to the new facility, but it would offer the benefit of unimpeded approaches and departures and 24 hour operations. There are many good (and not so good) engineering firms with vast experience building such airports. It may be the most cost efficient and hopefully, politically acceptable solution. This approach would also provide vast employment for quite a few years.
As many governments have found out, airport projects tend to generate the NIMBY reaction (Not In My Back Yard). It may not generate quite so much sympathy if a few complain of it impeding their ocean view. Will likely be MORE difficult satisfying the environmentalists!
England is a relatively population high density country, especially in the vacinity of London. A more practical approach to expanding commercial aviation capacity in the area would likely be to seriously consider an airport on new land. Such a decision might aggravate those living in coastal communities near to the new facility, but it would offer the benefit of unimpeded approaches and departures and 24 hour operations. There are many good (and not so good) engineering firms with vast experience building such airports. It may be the most cost efficient and hopefully, politically acceptable solution. This approach would also provide vast employment for quite a few years.
As many governments have found out, airport projects tend to generate the NIMBY reaction (Not In My Back Yard). It may not generate quite so much sympathy if a few complain of it impeding their ocean view. Will likely be MORE difficult satisfying the environmentalists!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney NSW
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cublington?
Is that Stewkley by another name? It's got Leighton Buzzard to the East [BUZAD], Stewkley/Milton Keynes to the North with Woburn [WOBUN] to help orientation and the ground doesnt half roll off steeply when you have finished looking at the flat bit. Stewkley was in the frame in the very late 1960's but think on. The Bucks-Oxford county boundary reflects the terrain and you see in particular how it unfolds if you imagine a line drawn from Brize Norton to Cublington "A". Bounded by cumulus built-up-itis to the east and the Vale to the West the scope for a runway is now much less than it was. I used to refer to the "golf course" twixt Tubney and Frilford as the "proposed" RAF Abingdon Rwy 26 extension when supping some stuff in the "Feathers". It certainly ruffled the plumage. No sense of humour the Brits. Dear God! Forty four years on.... Is the "Feathers" still there, stands the church etc across Barrow Road and is there chicken in the basket for tea?
Salisbury Plain? Rail/road connections could be easily modified for north and south access to this vast piece of real-estate.
The plain is famous for its rich archaeology, including Stonehenge, one of England's best known landmarks. Largely as a result of the establishment of the Army Training Estate Salisbury Plain, the plain is sparsely populated and is the largest remaining area of calcareous grassland in north-west Europe.
Last edited by Easy Street; 10th Sep 2012 at 19:04.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@DaveReidUK
Why are the Estuary or LHR the only two options?! Both have serious drawbacks, but as far as I can tell a 4 runway airport further west along the M4 would have far less drawbacks, more benefit, affect less people and cost far less...why shouldn't it be considered?! (aside from the obvious lack of political will, of course!)
Why are the Estuary or LHR the only two options?! Both have serious drawbacks, but as far as I can tell a 4 runway airport further west along the M4 would have far less drawbacks, more benefit, affect less people and cost far less...why shouldn't it be considered?! (aside from the obvious lack of political will, of course!)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reply to Libertine Winno:
Easy to say when you live in Hertfordshire!
Please explain how (with all it's drawbacks) an estuary airport on reclaimed land affects more people than a 4 runway airport built somewhere along the M4.
Define more benefit - for whom and how?
Less cost and drawbacks, debatable - considering the rise in the cost of agricultural land has outstripped both residential and the FTSE100 - CPO's for the land required and compensation agreements/soundproofing for areas affected would be astronomic, that's before you put a spade in the ground.
Not to mention the inevitable public inquiry at taxpayers expense and all the local rearguard actions.
Not to mention the additional cost of upgrading the transport infrastructure, Paddington struggles at peak hours, M4 is a disaster especially at the moment.
Not going to get too many objectors in the estuary, under-utilised HS rail-link is practically adjacent, links to both A13//M2 corridors and even the Thames with high speed river buses linking up with Greenwich/Docklands.
Did I miss anything?
Easy to say when you live in Hertfordshire!
Please explain how (with all it's drawbacks) an estuary airport on reclaimed land affects more people than a 4 runway airport built somewhere along the M4.
Define more benefit - for whom and how?
Less cost and drawbacks, debatable - considering the rise in the cost of agricultural land has outstripped both residential and the FTSE100 - CPO's for the land required and compensation agreements/soundproofing for areas affected would be astronomic, that's before you put a spade in the ground.
Not to mention the inevitable public inquiry at taxpayers expense and all the local rearguard actions.
Not to mention the additional cost of upgrading the transport infrastructure, Paddington struggles at peak hours, M4 is a disaster especially at the moment.
Not going to get too many objectors in the estuary, under-utilised HS rail-link is practically adjacent, links to both A13//M2 corridors and even the Thames with high speed river buses linking up with Greenwich/Docklands.
Did I miss anything?
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Not too many objectors in the estuary"...seriously?! Apart from the entire environmental brigade, not just in this country but from across Europe, just for starters.
As for infrastructure, of course there will be upgrades, but that is exactly that; upgrades i.e. improvements to existing infrastructure. There is absolutely nothing in the estuary (apart from a load of birds) and hence there would have to be an entirely new infrastructure built to support the airport alone, costing many times more than mere upgrades to the existing stuff.
As for public enquiries, there will be enquiry after enquiry for whichever is proposed, and probably ones for solution that have been excluded as well, so I hardly think that this proposal is alone in that fact!
I'm well aware that this is just my opinion, and as many people will disagree as those who agree. However, I just can't see how east of London is the best solution even for London, let alone the rest of the country. Remember, this will be the UK's only hub airport, how is anyone from anywhere other than the south east going to be able to get there easily?!
In addition to this, it will be social and economic upheaval on a grand scale. The entire economy of west London will have to move to Kent; how fesible is that? Is Kent able to accomodate that? Will business even bother with the trouble, or just move elsewhere?
As I said, and as we all know, none of the solutions are perfect. But it seems to me that people are being very blinkered in that "it's either LHR or the estuary" when actually both of those still have massive issues that only look less bad when compared to each other, rather than looking at them rationally
As for infrastructure, of course there will be upgrades, but that is exactly that; upgrades i.e. improvements to existing infrastructure. There is absolutely nothing in the estuary (apart from a load of birds) and hence there would have to be an entirely new infrastructure built to support the airport alone, costing many times more than mere upgrades to the existing stuff.
As for public enquiries, there will be enquiry after enquiry for whichever is proposed, and probably ones for solution that have been excluded as well, so I hardly think that this proposal is alone in that fact!
I'm well aware that this is just my opinion, and as many people will disagree as those who agree. However, I just can't see how east of London is the best solution even for London, let alone the rest of the country. Remember, this will be the UK's only hub airport, how is anyone from anywhere other than the south east going to be able to get there easily?!
In addition to this, it will be social and economic upheaval on a grand scale. The entire economy of west London will have to move to Kent; how fesible is that? Is Kent able to accomodate that? Will business even bother with the trouble, or just move elsewhere?
As I said, and as we all know, none of the solutions are perfect. But it seems to me that people are being very blinkered in that "it's either LHR or the estuary" when actually both of those still have massive issues that only look less bad when compared to each other, rather than looking at them rationally
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 49
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue with Heathrow is that it in fact serves many purposes: it's an airport which serves the many businesses in London, the M4 corridor and the South West, it remains an important airport for people living in the rest of the UK, finally it is a transit airport for people who fly to LHR purely to catch a further intercontinental flight or regional flight.
Think about this last category of passengers - flying them to London involves using a scarce resource (airport capacity) and a huge environmental impact (noise) whilst there really is no value added stemming from the fact they are catching a connecting flight in London. All they ever see is the terminal building anyway.
What the government could consider is building a purely transit airport, optimized for handling passengers switching between long haul and connecting flights. The location of such an airport should be purely governed by cost of land/reclamation, environmental impact, access to airways. I guess the business case for such an airport is too weak and the airport must serve terminal in addition to connecting passengers.
Thames Estuary makes sense if Heathrow continues to operate, is somewhat down scaled and focuses on terminal rather than connecting passengers.
Golf-Sierra
Think about this last category of passengers - flying them to London involves using a scarce resource (airport capacity) and a huge environmental impact (noise) whilst there really is no value added stemming from the fact they are catching a connecting flight in London. All they ever see is the terminal building anyway.
What the government could consider is building a purely transit airport, optimized for handling passengers switching between long haul and connecting flights. The location of such an airport should be purely governed by cost of land/reclamation, environmental impact, access to airways. I guess the business case for such an airport is too weak and the airport must serve terminal in addition to connecting passengers.
Thames Estuary makes sense if Heathrow continues to operate, is somewhat down scaled and focuses on terminal rather than connecting passengers.
Golf-Sierra
there really is no value added stemming from the fact they are catching a connecting flight in London
I'd hardly call that "no value added".
Airline Economics 101.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 49
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except that the 35% (on average) of connecting passengers on each flight to/from Heathrow make many routes viable when they would otherwise not be.
I'd hardly call that "no value added".
Airline Economics 101.
I'd hardly call that "no value added".
Airline Economics 101.
Bear in mind also that with the huge cost of a slot at LHR airlines need to schedule fewer larger planes to spread the cost. A high capacity transit hub may make it feasible to schedule smaller feeder aircraft serving more numerous terminal destinations. So instead of driving/taking the train to T.E. you might be able to catch a connecting flight via small jet/turboprop from your local airport in the UK/north of France/Belgium/Holland etc.
Econometrics 101 ;-)
Golf-Sierra
Last edited by Golf-Sierra; 11th Sep 2012 at 09:30.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing in the estuary which is both a positive and negative, of course there will have to be links to existing infrastructure and in some cases completely new infrastructure created.
I don't see this as being either Heathrow or an other, I see this as trying to put together an integrated air travel infrastructure for the whole of Southern England, the point about the infrastructure already in place to serve Heathrow is valid and it makes no sense to relocate Heathrow.
Heathrow has finite capacity which needs to be addressed, Golf-Sierra makes a very good point about transit passengers, however they also have to share the connecting flights which means there will be an issue of cross London commuting which will need to be fast and efficient.
No chance of Manston expanding?
I don't see this as being either Heathrow or an other, I see this as trying to put together an integrated air travel infrastructure for the whole of Southern England, the point about the infrastructure already in place to serve Heathrow is valid and it makes no sense to relocate Heathrow.
Heathrow has finite capacity which needs to be addressed, Golf-Sierra makes a very good point about transit passengers, however they also have to share the connecting flights which means there will be an issue of cross London commuting which will need to be fast and efficient.
No chance of Manston expanding?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGW could be sorted with a 1500m runway at Redhill, domestic terminal and a transit shuttle across to the main LGW site.
LHR? What really is wrong with Northholt anyway? Why can't the same idea of moving the smaller aircraft over to do the near connections happen?
LHR? What really is wrong with Northholt anyway? Why can't the same idea of moving the smaller aircraft over to do the near connections happen?
And what about the distribution? Is it 35% +- 5% across the board, or 90% for some routes, 5% for others?
Few would argue that UK Plc doesn't need a hub airport at all, and a hub (by definition) is an airport with a significant proportion of connecting traffic.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The hub argument is purely based on connectivity. One passenger may travel from the US, via LHR and on to HKG for example, never actually setting foot in London. However, another passenger on that same flight to HKG from LHR will be based in London due to the connections with HKG. Each of those passengers individually does not justify the route economically to an airline, but combined it enables airlines to put on the route, thus providing connectivity both to transit and point to point passengers all on one route (ignore the actual destinations, they are just an example!)
It is the very reason why Qantas have just signed a deal with Emirates to fly though their Dubai hub. Why else would anyone fly to the desert?! The answer is that, from DXB, you can connect to pretty much every European city via a direct flight, meaning that any city in Europe is within one connecting flight from any city in Australia, which is pretty powerful route planning.
It is the very reason why Qantas have just signed a deal with Emirates to fly though their Dubai hub. Why else would anyone fly to the desert?! The answer is that, from DXB, you can connect to pretty much every European city via a direct flight, meaning that any city in Europe is within one connecting flight from any city in Australia, which is pretty powerful route planning.