Heathrow Southern Link proposals

[Wolfie]

Presumably the Court of Appeal blocking the third runway at Heathrow today makes this perhaps less likely to happen?

 

[Wolfie]

His estuary airport has always been a mad fantasy that nobody else supports. It's in the wrong place, there is no local population to work there or any infrastructure and would cause economic collapse to the west of London. In terms of cost it would make HS2 look like a village bypass.

Heathrow is in absolutely the wrong place and should have been closed at least 30 years ago. Glad that the Court of Appeal saw sense.

 

[edwin_m]

Heathrow is in absolutely the wrong place and should have been closed at least 30 years ago. Glad that the Court of Appeal saw sense.

So where is the right place?

 

[duffield]

Presumably the Court of Appeal blocking the third runway at Heathrow today makes this perhaps less likely to happen?

Additionally the court has announced that the government will *not* appeal the decision, so I guess the third runway is well and truly dead.

Edit: I thought that was it, but apparently Heathrow itself will *attempt* to appeal to the supreme court despite the lack of government support, and despite them not being a party to the case. So, as you were, more waiting required!

 

[Wolfie]

Additionally the court has announced that the government will *not* appeal the decision, so I guess the third runway is well and truly dead.

Given Boris' view of Heathrow expansion it gives him a neat out...

 

[Wolfie]

So where is the right place?

Somewhere where most flights don't have to go over the city with the largest population in Europe would be a good start...

 

[civ-eng-jim]

Presumably the Court of Appeal blocking the third runway at Heathrow today makes this perhaps less likely to happen?

I know that the motive for the Western link proposal isn't dependent on a third runaway and would have thought that the Southern Link isn't either.

The funding for either link will now likely be wholly from pubic bodies. As has been alluded to, Heathrow is at capacity and the rail links won't increase the airport's income so HAL are unlikely to stump up any cash. Having done a bit of reading that appears to be the reason why HAL didn't fork out for Cross Rail as they had initially promised to. I doubt HAL care how people get to the airport and nor are they responsible for improving the poor air quality on the heavily congested public roads feeding the airport. Highways England, local authorities, central government, emission targets and such like will be the drivers (so to speak) for reducing car use to the airport.

 

[camflyer]

Heathrow is in absolutely the wrong place and should have been closed at least 30 years ago. Glad that the Court of Appeal saw sense.

If we were building a major hub airport from scratch we wouldn't choose Heathrow but it is where it is 40 and it's probably years too late to completely move it.

 

[camflyer]

Given Boris' view of Heathrow expansion it gives him a neat out...

And that view is nothing to do with climate change but purely down to his own political self interests.

 

[Ianno87]

Heathrow is in absolutely the wrong place and should have been closed at least 30 years ago. Glad that the Court of Appeal saw sense.

Somewhere where most flights don't have to go over the city with the largest population in Europe would be a good start...

Heathrow is quite "central" (ish) for the UK population. Boris Island (for example) really wouldn't be, across the opposite side of London for most....

 

[Edvid]

Additionally the court has announced that the government will *not* appeal the decision, so I guess the third runway is well and truly dead.

Heathrow Airport will appeal to the Supreme Court, according to The Telegraph and Evening Standard.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So where is the right place?

I would have thought somewhere like Stansted, although not perfect, would arguably be far more suitable if much better transport connections there were built. Close enough to London to only be a short train-ride away on a dedicated rail link, but far enough away that flights taking off and landing aren't destroying air quality right in the middle of where a few million people live.

 

[PTR 444]

Heathrow is in absolutely the wrong place and should have been closed at least 30 years ago. Glad that the Court of Appeal saw sense.

So where is the right place?

You’d be surprised that from Heathrow, it can take just as long to drive to Dartford as it does to Bristol. Moving the airport further east would be a great inconvenience for anywhere west of the M25, and that would be quite a significant proportion of the British population (think Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Bristol and Southampton combined) who would have to orbit half of London to get to the new airport.

 

[ainsworth74]

A reminder that this thread is about the Heathrow Southern Link. We have a thread running to discuss today's decision on Heathrow Expansion and it's implications which can be found here. If anyone wants to discuss whether or not Heathrow is in the wrong place please do so on a new thread. Otherwise we need to keep to the topic of this thread which is about.

Thanks,
ainsworth74

 

[camflyer]

I would have thought somewhere like Stansted, although not perfect, would arguably be far more suitable if much better transport connections there were built. Close enough to London to only be a short train-ride away on a dedicated rail link, but far enough away that flights taking off and landing aren't destroying air quality right in the middle of where a few million people live.

The local council has just refused permission for Stansted to expand. It is sure to be appealed but STN has its own fair share of Nimbys

 

[The Ham]

As the issue is down to the emissions of the country it could be argued that Heathrow would only be allowed to expand of it could demonstrate that it was going to take steps to reduce emissions to offset the emissions created from the extra flights.

The obvious thing to do would be to improve access to the airport by rail.

 

[Skymonster]

The western link will increase rail capacity into the airport and reduce emissions from road vehicles, even if it does not increase air traffic through the airport as a result. In light of today’s court decision ruling the third runway should not go ahead because it would mean emissions targets could not be met, it would be absolute madness to block the western rail link.

 

[matt_world2004]

As the issue is down to the emissions of the country it could be argued that Heathrow would only be allowed to expand of it could demonstrate that it was going to take steps to reduce emissions to offset the emissions created from the extra flights.

The obvious thing to do would be to improve access to the airport by rail.

And put it in zone 6 for pay as you go and ticketing purposes.

 

[crablab]

A distinct advantage of a Southern link would be those currently commuting into London from Egham/Virginia Water/etc. being able to change at Heathrow for Crossrail.

 

[MotCO]

The funding for either link will now likely be wholly from pubic bodies.

Are you sure?

Joking aside, surely the whole purpose of a rail link would be to ease the access to the airport, irrespective whether or not a third runway is built. Planes are getting larger, so an increase in passengers is not dependent on a third runway.

A link may also enable a better Gatwick / Heathrow connection, so that Gatwick could help provide additional capacity for Heathrow without the need for another runway.

Further, transferring motorists to rail would also help reduce congestion on the M25.

 

[Facing Back]

Somewhere where most flights don't have to go over the city with the largest population in Europe would be a good start...

I agree that Heathrow isn't the best spot for a huge airport but in the interests of pedantry, London isn't the city in Europe with the highest population.

 

[kevin_roche]

As the issue is down to the emissions of the country it could be argued that Heathrow would only be allowed to expand of it could demonstrate that it was going to take steps to reduce emissions to offset the emissions created from the extra flights.

The obvious thing to do would be to improve access to the airport by rail.

I agree, but there is also a possible argument that the new runway will stop the usual stacking of incoming flights in the evening and morning peak. That would reduce emissions quite a lot (as long as it wasn't used for new services too).

 

[Bald Rick]

I agree, but there is also a possible argument that the new runway will stop the usual stacking of incoming flights in the evening and morning peak. That would reduce emissions quite a lot (as long as it wasn't used for new services too).

Nice argument, but the whole purpose of the third runway is (was?) to operate more flights. A lot more!

 

[hwl]

I agree, but there is also a possible argument that the new runway will stop the usual stacking of incoming flights in the evening and morning peak. That would reduce emissions quite a lot (as long as it wasn't used for new services too).

Stacking is much more prevalent at certain times of day (the flights are uniformly spread out) and has actually reduced with the changes on the ground with T5 and T2 (still in progress) as the traffic jams on the ground were / are part of the issues. Plenty more they could do to improve the taxiing traffic flow issues and delays but low BCR.

May be they will get on with finishing the full T2 and other stuff in the pipeline with fewer distractions.

Part of any revised environmental case for a third runway will need to see the airport deliver a much greater proportion of passengers getting to/from the airport by public transport with investment commitments that can't be walked away from.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

As people have rightly said:
- Too late to move the airport now
- Desperately need to do something to even remove 25% of Gatwick traffic such as to get a major relief to rail passengers in Surrey and Sussex
- Stick a third runway (would be nice to see a fourth...) down at Heathrow to get rid of stacking and to improve connectivity through the hub and spoke model
- Much closer to HS2, GWML (etc) than Gatwick or Stansted etc
- Build the bloody thing...

 

[hwl]

Nice argument, but the whole purpose of the third runway is (was?) to operate more flights. A lot more!

Gatwick (+30%) and Dublin* (+90%) are in far better position to deliver extra flights with just runways and no extra terminal additions or changes and thus at far lower cost compared to Heathrow.

*and the ability to preclear US immigration

 

[Bald Rick]

Gatwick (+30%) and Dublin* (+90%) are in far better position to deliver extra flights with just runways and no extra terminal additions or changes and thus at far lower cost compared to Heathrow.

*and the ability to preclear US immigration

Agree entirely.

Don’t rule out a post Brexit deal to enable US immigration at a U.K. airport. Birmingham and / or Manchester would make things very interesting!

 

[hwl]

- Desperately need to do something to even remove 25% of Gatwick traffic such as to get a major relief to rail passengers in Surrey and Sussex

Really? Gatwick has level of getting to/from the airport by public transport that other airports should be aspiring too.

You are presumably aware of the CARS (Croydon Area Renewal Scheme) proposal?

 

[hwl]

Agree entirely.

Don’t rule out a post Brexit deal to enable US immigration at a U.K. airport. Birmingham and / or Manchester would make things very interesting!

Nothing stopping UK airports having done it years ago apart form political will and airport spending £££ on building changes and staffing!
And far cheaper to do all the terminal alterations (inc semi segregation) needed and Birmingham /Manchester or even Gatwick than at Heathrow where you would end up needing to do it at T 2,3, 4 & one of the T5 satellite terminals.

Heathrow should start to be getting worried with the legal process delays by what is happening at Dublin - the concrete pouring on 2nd runway has been going on for 5 months already (first flights 2021) and the airport charges have been capped at current very low levels by the regulator at ~1/3 of the proposed Heathrow post R3/T6 prices.

If going to the US, tax and airport fees wise a combination of local UK airport to Dublin is on to a winner and the extra capacity tap gets added in 2021.

 

[Wolfie]

As people have rightly said:
- Too late to move the airport now
- Desperately need to do something to even remove 25% of Gatwick traffic such as to get a major relief to rail passengers in Surrey and Sussex
- Stick a third runway (would be nice to see a fourth...) down at Heathrow to get rid of stacking and to improve connectivity through the hub and spoke model
- Much closer to HS2, GWML (etc) than Gatwick or Stansted etc
- Build the bloody thing...

Talk about blindness in the sight of the facts! Doubtless from someone who lives nowhere near the damn place. Every expansion at Heathrow is promised to be the last and every time they come back asking for more. It already blights too many lives in London. Enough is enough!