Gutless Goverment?
Just playing with a thought experiment and a few internet sources.
Is there enough capacity at the London airports collectively? Just everybody wants the spare capacity to be at LHR, where it isn't.
On that basis - is the real need a high speed - surface or underground - secure (so potentially airside) transport system between the major London airports?
Could the city that is arguably best in the world at building and running underground railways do something like this?
http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=STN-LGW-L...X=540x540&PM=*
(Sorry can't seen to get the image to embed, you'll have to click on it)
By my reckoning the fastest current tube trains could do the longest slices of that in an hour - faster than you used to get through security.
Downside is that that diagram would require about 250m of tunnel - or about the length of the current underground system. That, apparently would cost around £90bn. That's really quite a lot of money and doesn't compare well to £19nm for the new Heathrow runway + infrastructure.
Okay, let's simplify it...
http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=STN-LTN-L...X=540x540&PM=*
That's about 79 miles, just it'll now take a couple of hours to get from LGW to STN. Cost around £28bn - similar order of magnitude to the LHR runway.
Would that do the job, keep everybody happy, and be environmentally efficient?
I'm just thinking onto the keyboard here by the way, not offering a serious proposal. Unless it turns out to be a brilliant worldchanging idea, in which case I'm delighted to take all the credit.
G
Is there enough capacity at the London airports collectively? Just everybody wants the spare capacity to be at LHR, where it isn't.
On that basis - is the real need a high speed - surface or underground - secure (so potentially airside) transport system between the major London airports?
Could the city that is arguably best in the world at building and running underground railways do something like this?
http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=STN-LGW-L...X=540x540&PM=*
(Sorry can't seen to get the image to embed, you'll have to click on it)
By my reckoning the fastest current tube trains could do the longest slices of that in an hour - faster than you used to get through security.
Downside is that that diagram would require about 250m of tunnel - or about the length of the current underground system. That, apparently would cost around £90bn. That's really quite a lot of money and doesn't compare well to £19nm for the new Heathrow runway + infrastructure.
Okay, let's simplify it...
http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=STN-LTN-L...X=540x540&PM=*
That's about 79 miles, just it'll now take a couple of hours to get from LGW to STN. Cost around £28bn - similar order of magnitude to the LHR runway.
Would that do the job, keep everybody happy, and be environmentally efficient?
I'm just thinking onto the keyboard here by the way, not offering a serious proposal. Unless it turns out to be a brilliant worldchanging idea, in which case I'm delighted to take all the credit.
G
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I admire your optimism, Genghis, if you hope to pursue anyone to build even 79 miles of tunnels. Remember the Channel Tunnel debacle? That is only 22 miles.
Maybe Elon Musk will provide his solution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop
It might be attractive to him, being a very high visibility project. If he were to, there might be a knighthood in it for him.
Maybe Elon Musk will provide his solution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop
It might be attractive to him, being a very high visibility project. If he were to, there might be a knighthood in it for him.
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The weakness of any mass-transit system is the risk of terrorist activity, requiring 'security' that will obstruct rapid transfers.
It would be nice to have a high-speed 'tube' that would whisk passengers from one airport to another within 'minutes', but the current political climate (terror, not government) would negate the benefits.
It would be nice to have a high-speed 'tube' that would whisk passengers from one airport to another within 'minutes', but the current political climate (terror, not government) would negate the benefits.
On the whole I think that if the government decided that what we should have is a network of horse drawn carriages between airports, or to re-open Lyneham as a new hub, or a northern hub at the former RAF Macrihanish - the industry and wider community can make that work for the benefit of the whole UK.
Various people here have made suggestions that are more sensible than anything I've posted in the paragraph above
The problem we have is that HM government, like the previous coalition government, or like the labour government before that - simply are too scared to make a decision. So, they keep kicking it into the long grass - and I'd be willing to place a modest wager that next summer they'll try and do that again.
What the UK needs, and is not getting it from a succession of feeble minded governments, is a bit of clear leadership. We could then bicker happily in the background about whether the solution a government decides upon is optimal or not - and almost certainly we would (and the environmental lobby definitely will, and quite right too, that's their job!). But, with that decision, everybody can work towards maximising exploitation of the situation presented.
But, no decision, no progress. That is where we are.
G
Various people here have made suggestions that are more sensible than anything I've posted in the paragraph above
The problem we have is that HM government, like the previous coalition government, or like the labour government before that - simply are too scared to make a decision. So, they keep kicking it into the long grass - and I'd be willing to place a modest wager that next summer they'll try and do that again.
What the UK needs, and is not getting it from a succession of feeble minded governments, is a bit of clear leadership. We could then bicker happily in the background about whether the solution a government decides upon is optimal or not - and almost certainly we would (and the environmental lobby definitely will, and quite right too, that's their job!). But, with that decision, everybody can work towards maximising exploitation of the situation presented.
But, no decision, no progress. That is where we are.
G
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northolt has a tiny hourly capacity on easterlies (Effectively zero in poor weather) due to LHR approaches.
1600m isn't very long for any kind of range either.
The airports commission looked at all these options. They simply aren't practicle.
1600m isn't very long for any kind of range either.
The airports commission looked at all these options. They simply aren't practicle.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those offering alternatives to LHR/LGW (especially those touting MAN), I thought I'd post the AC TOR because having read the recommendation, I reckon ALL of these have been considered (and discounted for one reason or another).
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/airports-commission/about/terms-of-reference
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/airports-commission/about/terms-of-reference
Terms of reference
The purpose and objectives of the Airports Commission
The Airports Commission will examine the scale and timing of any requirement for additional capacity to maintain the UK’s position as Europe’s most important aviation hub, and it will identify and evaluate how any need for additional capacity should be met in the short, medium and long term.
It should maintain a UK-wide perspective taking appropriate account of the national, regional and local implications of any proposals.
It should engage openly with interested parties and members of the public, providing opportunities to submit evidence and proposals and to set out views relevant to its work.
It should seek to engage with a range of stakeholders, including with local and devolved government as well as the opposition, to build consensus in support of its approach and recommendations.
The Commission should report no later than the end of 2013 on:
• its assessment of the evidence on the nature, scale and timing of the steps needed to maintain the UK’s global hub status; and
• its recommendation(s) for immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity in the next 5 years – consistent with credible long term options
The assessments and recommendations in the Commission’s interim report should be underpinned by a detailed review of the evidence in relation to the current position in the UK with regard to aviation demand and connectivity, forecasts for how these are likely to develop, and the expected future pattern of the UK’s requirements for international and domestic connectivity.
Its assessments of potential immediate actions should take into account their economic, social and environmental costs and benefits, and their operational deliverability. It should also be informed by an initial high-level assessment of the credible long-term options which merit further detailed development.
The Commission should report no later than summer 2015 on:
• its assessment of the options for meeting the UK’s international connectivity needs, including their economic, social and environmental impact;
• its recommendation(s) for the optimum approach to meeting any needs; and
• its recommendation(s) for ensuring that the need is met as expeditiously as practicable within the required timescale.
The Commission should base the recommendations in its final report on a detailed consideration of the case for each of the credible options. This should include the development or examination of detailed business cases and environmental assessments for each option, as well as consideration of their operational, commercial and technical viability.
As part of its final report in summer 2015, it should also provide materials, based on this detailed analysis, which will support the government in preparing a National Policy Statement to accelerate the resolution of any future planning applications for major airports infrastructure.
The purpose and objectives of the Airports Commission
The Airports Commission will examine the scale and timing of any requirement for additional capacity to maintain the UK’s position as Europe’s most important aviation hub, and it will identify and evaluate how any need for additional capacity should be met in the short, medium and long term.
It should maintain a UK-wide perspective taking appropriate account of the national, regional and local implications of any proposals.
It should engage openly with interested parties and members of the public, providing opportunities to submit evidence and proposals and to set out views relevant to its work.
It should seek to engage with a range of stakeholders, including with local and devolved government as well as the opposition, to build consensus in support of its approach and recommendations.
The Commission should report no later than the end of 2013 on:
• its assessment of the evidence on the nature, scale and timing of the steps needed to maintain the UK’s global hub status; and
• its recommendation(s) for immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity in the next 5 years – consistent with credible long term options
The assessments and recommendations in the Commission’s interim report should be underpinned by a detailed review of the evidence in relation to the current position in the UK with regard to aviation demand and connectivity, forecasts for how these are likely to develop, and the expected future pattern of the UK’s requirements for international and domestic connectivity.
Its assessments of potential immediate actions should take into account their economic, social and environmental costs and benefits, and their operational deliverability. It should also be informed by an initial high-level assessment of the credible long-term options which merit further detailed development.
The Commission should report no later than summer 2015 on:
• its assessment of the options for meeting the UK’s international connectivity needs, including their economic, social and environmental impact;
• its recommendation(s) for the optimum approach to meeting any needs; and
• its recommendation(s) for ensuring that the need is met as expeditiously as practicable within the required timescale.
The Commission should base the recommendations in its final report on a detailed consideration of the case for each of the credible options. This should include the development or examination of detailed business cases and environmental assessments for each option, as well as consideration of their operational, commercial and technical viability.
As part of its final report in summer 2015, it should also provide materials, based on this detailed analysis, which will support the government in preparing a National Policy Statement to accelerate the resolution of any future planning applications for major airports infrastructure.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Or-E-Gun, USA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now or Never?
By the time the debaters in/near London get the third RWY designed and built, it will be time to begin the debate about Number FOUR! Or, migrate even more long haul traffic to the suburban airports.
London's geographic location is convenient for SLC, but unless the ultimate destination is the UK, connecting in Europe is usually a far smarter idea. Even for those flying well beyond Europe, flying (shopping/buying) with our feet will eventually get their attention. Another substantial reason to bypass the UK entirely is those truly abusive 'departure taxes.' IIRC, they apply to all SLC, even those simply in transit. A'dam, several points in Germany and France and a handful of others provide improving transit connections, better facilities and a far more pleasant experience for the transit passenger. My personal favorite when the connection is viable, remains Munich. While the Germans may get puckered a bit too tightly about security details, at least they are POLITE about it. The UK used to be polite, but much of that has changed in the last 8-10 years. Those frequently transiting the UK also recognize that they have become more that a little sloppy about the details. In recent years, if my destination is within the UK, I aim for one of the suburban airports. If headed elsewhere, I connect elsewhere.
---Long retired driver still interested, but really little more than a Frequent Flyer
London's geographic location is convenient for SLC, but unless the ultimate destination is the UK, connecting in Europe is usually a far smarter idea. Even for those flying well beyond Europe, flying (shopping/buying) with our feet will eventually get their attention. Another substantial reason to bypass the UK entirely is those truly abusive 'departure taxes.' IIRC, they apply to all SLC, even those simply in transit. A'dam, several points in Germany and France and a handful of others provide improving transit connections, better facilities and a far more pleasant experience for the transit passenger. My personal favorite when the connection is viable, remains Munich. While the Germans may get puckered a bit too tightly about security details, at least they are POLITE about it. The UK used to be polite, but much of that has changed in the last 8-10 years. Those frequently transiting the UK also recognize that they have become more that a little sloppy about the details. In recent years, if my destination is within the UK, I aim for one of the suburban airports. If headed elsewhere, I connect elsewhere.
---Long retired driver still interested, but really little more than a Frequent Flyer
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right, dave APD doesn't apply to transit pax but otherwise No Fly has hit the nail; people WILL bypass the UK if it means struggling through a congested, outdated, poorly-connected airport and they'll take their business investment, tourism and money elsewhere.
Uproar that's entirely predictable, given that the published alternation programme leads communities to expect 8 hours' respite from overflying aircraft, which in practice rarely happens.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should air quality be a blocker when it isn't for any other form of transport? Figures for road traffic have been many times permitted levels for ages without attracting much comment.
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
London have restrictions on polluting vehicles (starting with the Congestion Charge)
Goods vehicles are regulated:-
If you want to drive a lorry, bus, coach or other specialist heavy diesel vehicle in the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) without paying a daily charge, it needs to meet certain emissions standards.
Goods vehicles are regulated:-
If you want to drive a lorry, bus, coach or other specialist heavy diesel vehicle in the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) without paying a daily charge, it needs to meet certain emissions standards.
