Heathrow expansion won't happen
Psychophysiological entity
Thread Starter
Looking afresh, there's a lot of folk living between the the airport and the M4. Zooming in gives some indication of the hundreds of lives that would be affected by the north runway.
The golden mile of hotels. Last trip home I got chatting to a manager in one of the major name hotels. He told me they were going to build another one down the road. Also, another big name was doing the same. Can this 'strip' survive being between the existing and new runways?
Also, it's less than 1,800M from the eastern end of the existing, to the road itself. How is that going to buy the above mentioned requirement for spacing?
Last and not least. Is the Three Magpies still there?
The golden mile of hotels. Last trip home I got chatting to a manager in one of the major name hotels. He told me they were going to build another one down the road. Also, another big name was doing the same. Can this 'strip' survive being between the existing and new runways?
Also, it's less than 1,800M from the eastern end of the existing, to the road itself. How is that going to buy the above mentioned requirement for spacing?
Last and not least. Is the Three Magpies still there?
beamender99, I think that area to the west is the M25 junction works that were done for T5 as this is an old plan.
I would have thought that finding your hotel suddenly in the middle of one of the busiest airports in the world that had just been upgraded to to a world class 'hub' would be a good thing.
I would have thought that finding your hotel suddenly in the middle of one of the busiest airports in the world that had just been upgraded to to a world class 'hub' would be a good thing.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that area to the west is the M25 junction works that were done for T5 as this is an old plan.
I would have thought that finding your hotel suddenly in the middle of one of the busiest airports in the world that had just been upgraded to to a world class 'hub' would be a good thing.
The old info I had indicated the A4 Bath Road in a tunnel plus the M4 spur totally realigned.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR
There is only one solution for the expansion of LHR and that would by definition mean obliterating Harlington and Harmondsworth. Potentially two new parallel runways could be built and also meaning the re-routing or tunneling of the M4 freeway. Whoever has the balls to get this idea accepted and pay off all the local residents will have to have a conscience similar to Stalin however, I doubt anyone's political career would survive this. Now, if you'd have disguised this building work and re-location as a part of the Olympic Village, you'd have had tens of thousand of people smiling happily and waving Union Jacks as the bulldozers drove off over the horizon.
No one has mentioned Wisley which still has a nice stretch of concrete parallel to LHR's 09/27. Of course, the locals in Guildford would arm their Range Rovers and protest wildly if even an ultralight dared put some air under its wings, but who would have thought that even twenty years ago that Farnborough would have become such an important business airfield? As someone earlier posted, the NIMBY argument is a disease we are all infected by, but in the meantime, Schiphol and Frankfurt are moving forwards and LHR is standing still.
No one has mentioned Wisley which still has a nice stretch of concrete parallel to LHR's 09/27. Of course, the locals in Guildford would arm their Range Rovers and protest wildly if even an ultralight dared put some air under its wings, but who would have thought that even twenty years ago that Farnborough would have become such an important business airfield? As someone earlier posted, the NIMBY argument is a disease we are all infected by, but in the meantime, Schiphol and Frankfurt are moving forwards and LHR is standing still.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding was the runway was going to be located to the north of the A4 and south of the M4 and cross the M4 spur with a bridge.
The runway was planned to be much shorter than the other two and take the the narrow body traffic, the advantage of this is that only the village of Sipson would have to be flattened and to be quite honest apart fron the 17th century pub it won't be much of a loss ( I advocate giving the residents at least six times the current value of their property to move, that way the people affected by the airport get a good deal and the money grabbing professional protest lawyers who always parasite on big projects will get very little).
I really can't see what all the fuss is about, the UK needs this runway now, so what we now need is a politician with the balls to give very large payments to those affected and to cut the lawyers out of the loop after all the terminal 5 enquiry was very expensive and if the money spent on that had been distributed to those effected by the expansion almost all the protest would have evaporated, after all tree hugging may be fun but money hugging wins every time!
The runway was planned to be much shorter than the other two and take the the narrow body traffic, the advantage of this is that only the village of Sipson would have to be flattened and to be quite honest apart fron the 17th century pub it won't be much of a loss ( I advocate giving the residents at least six times the current value of their property to move, that way the people affected by the airport get a good deal and the money grabbing professional protest lawyers who always parasite on big projects will get very little).
I really can't see what all the fuss is about, the UK needs this runway now, so what we now need is a politician with the balls to give very large payments to those affected and to cut the lawyers out of the loop after all the terminal 5 enquiry was very expensive and if the money spent on that had been distributed to those effected by the expansion almost all the protest would have evaporated, after all tree hugging may be fun but money hugging wins every time!
I really can't see what all the fuss is about, the UK needs this runway now, so what we now need is a politician with the balls to give very large payments to those affected and to cut the lawyers out of the loop after all the terminal 5 enquiry was very expensive and if the money spent on that had been distributed to those effected by the expansion almost all the protest would have evaporated, after all tree hugging may be fun but money hugging wins every time!
Offer the affected residents 20% over the current value of their property plus free relocation to anywhere in the UK. People would be fighting to get in line.
This kind of national infrastructure project is where we should take our cues from the way the French run things: if it is of substantial, provable benefit to the nation, which most agree another runway at LHR would be, then just go ahead with it using minimum red tape.
There isn't time for a 'greenfield' solution, so expansion has to take place at an existing airport with a lot of infrastructure already present. Planning for a totally new hub can go ahead in parallel but we need another runway now (or yesterday). The space between LHR and the M4 has been deliberately left mostly undeveloped, precisely for an opportunity like this. Anyone who bought a house there within the last 50 years will know that.
My understanding was the runway was going to be located to the north of the A4 and south of the M4 and cross the M4 spur with a bridge.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: EU
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there was an urgent need for capacity for London, why not utilise Stansted better. It must be operating at 50-60% capacity, there is space for another terminal too, even a temporary one.
Paxing All Over The World
The problem with STN, Depone, is that it's not LHR. The whole of the South East i sgeared towards LHR, not least the M4 corridor.
Of course, if govts had made up their mind to do the job properly in the 1970s, or the 1980s, or the 90s etc.
Of course, if govts had made up their mind to do the job properly in the 1970s, or the 1980s, or the 90s etc.
If there was an urgent need for capacity for London, why not utilise Stansted better. It must be operating at 50-60% capacity, there is space for another terminal too, even a temporary one.
Apart from the fact that they just don't want to fly there.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A radical, cheap, quick option that's probably totally infeasible
Just a suggestion from someone who has no aviation experience except as passenger, during which I've noticed how much runway is unused even when I'm in a long-haul widebody. Couldn't the northern runway at LHR be extended a bit and made to function as two shorter runways? It looks to me as though it could then handle twice as many small- and medium-sized aircraft, which account for a surprisingly (to me) large number of movements at LHR. At peak times for jumbos it could function, as now, as one longer runway. I am sure it's unprecedented, and in any case wouldn't be ideal, but it seems to me much the cheapest and least disruptive option, and one which could be implemented much more quickly than any other. It's probably unworkable, but I'd like to know why before withdrawing gracefully from this discussion.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 49
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Offer the affected residents 20% over the current value of their property plus free relocation to anywhere in the UK. People would be fighting to get in line.
The space between LHR and the M4 has been deliberately left mostly undeveloped, precisely for an opportunity like this. Anyone who bought a house there within the last 50 years will know that.
What's wrong with Gatwick?
I think we need to distinguish between the need for capacity and the need for a hub.
Capacity is NOT the problem. There is no 'urgent need for capacity'. Ample airport capacity is available in London and the South East and there is nothing to stop airlines using it.
DaveReid is partly correct in saying that airlines don't want to fly to Stansted. To expand upon that point, airlines don't want to fly to Stansted because the opportunities for seamless connections are virtually non-existent. That makes it less attractive for passengers (because the opportunities to connect to another flight are limited) and less attractive to airlines (because they can't top up point to point traffic with transfer traffic).
And therein lies the problem. Major airlines want to fly to and from hubs because they are a financial game changer. And our primary hub is overloaded and barely suitable for purpose. So that is the real problem - not shortage of airport capacity but shortage of hub capacity.
I've previously advocated the use of Stansted - not as an alternative to Heathrow but as a replacement. But I do accept the arguments made by many that this would be very difficult to make workable in terms of the workforce, the support services and the commercial activity which has grown up around Heathrow.
So - I think there is a very fundamental question to be asked. Is Heathrow the only game in town? If so, all the other arguments and all the other options become superfluous.
Capacity is NOT the problem. There is no 'urgent need for capacity'. Ample airport capacity is available in London and the South East and there is nothing to stop airlines using it.
DaveReid is partly correct in saying that airlines don't want to fly to Stansted. To expand upon that point, airlines don't want to fly to Stansted because the opportunities for seamless connections are virtually non-existent. That makes it less attractive for passengers (because the opportunities to connect to another flight are limited) and less attractive to airlines (because they can't top up point to point traffic with transfer traffic).
And therein lies the problem. Major airlines want to fly to and from hubs because they are a financial game changer. And our primary hub is overloaded and barely suitable for purpose. So that is the real problem - not shortage of airport capacity but shortage of hub capacity.
I've previously advocated the use of Stansted - not as an alternative to Heathrow but as a replacement. But I do accept the arguments made by many that this would be very difficult to make workable in terms of the workforce, the support services and the commercial activity which has grown up around Heathrow.
So - I think there is a very fundamental question to be asked. Is Heathrow the only game in town? If so, all the other arguments and all the other options become superfluous.
Last edited by Andy_S; 15th Sep 2012 at 17:48.
DaveReid is partly correct in saying that airlines don't want to fly to Stansted.
To expand upon that point, airlines don't want to fly to Stansted because the opportunities for seamless connections are virtually non-existent.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you ever talk to a developer they always prefer to build new rather than renovate or adapt existing structures. This I believe will be a major problem with building a third runway at LHR. The runway will need taxiway links to the existing airport, which will have to be threaded through the existing traffic links, the current M4 spur is a case in point. Most people currently use this access & so how the airport will function whilst this link is being rebuilt is beyond belief. Even now the M4 & M25 are close to capacity so extra traffic will just make things worse. So whilst it may seem sensible to have a total hub concept, the 10yrs of disruption whilst the building is undertaken will just as surely drive traffic away.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, time for a reality check.
Heathrow third runway involves relocation of the motorway spur, relocation of the M4, relocation of M25 intersection, purchase of Sipson village, relocation of Bath Road, new access point to Heathrow terminals 1,2 & 3, new terminal for 3rd.runway (terminal 6), new access to new terminal, demolition of a few hotels on Bath Road, rebuilding of demolished hotels, need I go on?
It's a non starter. Unless you are prepared to wait for 20 years for a bunch of politicians prepared to make a decision to proceed with a third runway, by which time Heathrow will need a 6th. runway. Face it guys. It ain't going to happen.
What should happen is for a Government with foresight to just jump in ahead of the competition in Europe and build a 22nd century airport that will blow the rest of Europe out of the water. Let's hope it's a UK government!
Okay, time for a reality check.
Politicians in the Houses of Parliament don't have the foresight to think more than the next sound-bite. So, I predict that there will be X number of years of "Third runway propaganda", followed by X number of years of "debate", followed by X number of years of "consultation" and then it will go back to ....
Oh, hang on a minute. Isn't that where we are now?
IT NEEDS A DECISION
And it ain't going to happen in this Parliament. That's something they have actually made a decision on. "A 3rd. runway will not happen in this parliament".
Oh, dear.
Meanwhile, in Europe......
Er, now how many runways does, Paris Charles de Gaulle, Amsterdam Schiphol and Frankfurt have?
Well, actually it doesn't matter, because Heathrow is losing traffic daily due to the lack of available capacity.
I wonder how many airlines are being turned away, daily, from using Heathrow?
Okay, DaveReidUK, time to step forward and give us some statistics that will allow us to see how much money is being lost by UK plc, (i.e. you and me) each and every day.
Lost traffic from Heathrow is a gain for....?
Heathrow third runway involves relocation of the motorway spur, relocation of the M4, relocation of M25 intersection, purchase of Sipson village, relocation of Bath Road, new access point to Heathrow terminals 1,2 & 3, new terminal for 3rd.runway (terminal 6), new access to new terminal, demolition of a few hotels on Bath Road, rebuilding of demolished hotels, need I go on?
It's a non starter. Unless you are prepared to wait for 20 years for a bunch of politicians prepared to make a decision to proceed with a third runway, by which time Heathrow will need a 6th. runway. Face it guys. It ain't going to happen.
What should happen is for a Government with foresight to just jump in ahead of the competition in Europe and build a 22nd century airport that will blow the rest of Europe out of the water. Let's hope it's a UK government!
Okay, time for a reality check.
Politicians in the Houses of Parliament don't have the foresight to think more than the next sound-bite. So, I predict that there will be X number of years of "Third runway propaganda", followed by X number of years of "debate", followed by X number of years of "consultation" and then it will go back to ....
Oh, hang on a minute. Isn't that where we are now?
IT NEEDS A DECISION
And it ain't going to happen in this Parliament. That's something they have actually made a decision on. "A 3rd. runway will not happen in this parliament".
Oh, dear.
Meanwhile, in Europe......
Er, now how many runways does, Paris Charles de Gaulle, Amsterdam Schiphol and Frankfurt have?
Well, actually it doesn't matter, because Heathrow is losing traffic daily due to the lack of available capacity.
I wonder how many airlines are being turned away, daily, from using Heathrow?
Okay, DaveReidUK, time to step forward and give us some statistics that will allow us to see how much money is being lost by UK plc, (i.e. you and me) each and every day.
Lost traffic from Heathrow is a gain for....?
Okay, DaveReidUK, time to step forward and give us some statistics that will allow us to see how much money is being lost by UK plc, (i.e. you and me) each and every day.
Psychophysiological entity
Thread Starter
I have to say, when I started this thread, I had a nagging doubt in the back of my mind that even the current levels of aviation are not sustainable, so is this expenditure on expansion a remotely viable financial risk?
What is surprising about this vigorous cyber-conversation, is the positive feel for the continued expansion being necessary at all. My darker thoughts at the time of writing contained images of flattened villages/townships, new hotels halted mid-move, and rows of new kit parked anywhere the owners can find space. Okay, the modern world isn't fueled by negative thinking, but I've seen a collapse here in the 1980s Texas, that left five banks ruined and many, many square miles of abandoned dreams. The point being that all happened because of a natural swing in the local economy, with no other major factor - like global warming or major conflicts in oil producing countries - having to be taken into account.
Relatively small world-stage changes can cause a sudden and huge decline in the rewards from investments in aviation, so I feel that it's not so much a question of the current need per se, but more being in possession of a set of predictions accurate enough to spend these unimaginable fortunes.
What is surprising about this vigorous cyber-conversation, is the positive feel for the continued expansion being necessary at all. My darker thoughts at the time of writing contained images of flattened villages/townships, new hotels halted mid-move, and rows of new kit parked anywhere the owners can find space. Okay, the modern world isn't fueled by negative thinking, but I've seen a collapse here in the 1980s Texas, that left five banks ruined and many, many square miles of abandoned dreams. The point being that all happened because of a natural swing in the local economy, with no other major factor - like global warming or major conflicts in oil producing countries - having to be taken into account.
Relatively small world-stage changes can cause a sudden and huge decline in the rewards from investments in aviation, so I feel that it's not so much a question of the current need per se, but more being in possession of a set of predictions accurate enough to spend these unimaginable fortunes.
Psychophysiological entity
Thread Starter
With all the ills that you list why is a new runway OK for Gatwick and not Heathrow ?
I can see the point about a major hub being a vital part of the whole concept, and that would be fine on a greenfield site. However, anywhere in the surrounds of Heathrow, the sheer magnitude of the losses that have to be born in demolition and compensation - before the first profit-making structure is built, is just bewildering. And that doesn't take into account the heartache of the hundreds of people directly affected.
All of it would be an investment in the nation's future - if, and it's a big if, aviation can keep expanding. Personally, I don't think it can.
I know global warming is a subject for Jet Blast, but just the recent calculations on the reduction of reflectivity with the loss of the polar icecap would stop me being an investor. That little snippet of science is a profound indicator of how one phenomenon can feed another and rapidly go into thermal runaway. Literally, in this case.
Okay, a post from an optimist please.