LHR 3rd runway argument won't go away

[Schnellzug]

Also, queueing on the ground for a takeoff slot.

I really don't think that linking London's airports by high speed rail will work. There simply isn't enough synergy between LHR, LGW and STN, especially given that BAA nolonger owns LGW and is being forced to sell STN.

All the more reason to get away from london.

 

[WestCoast]

All the more reason to get away from london.

Birmingham is the prime candidate for developement with HS2, but if it costs a fortune to get there from London, it will be another Stansted.

Many people seem to forget that Stansted was actually developed in part to relieve Heathrow and Gatwick, but BA and co. deemed it too far from London and felt that it didn't meet their needs.

So, Stansted had to court the emerging low cost airlines instead, it was never really designed with the purpose of becoming a "low cost" airport in mind. The terminal was well designed, airy and the original gates are linked by a transit train instead of just a walkway. However, they stuffed it full of shops/bars/restaurants and added a more "low cost" pier when Ryanair became the largest user.

 

[SwindonPkwy]

For a great many reasons, wealth and economic activity in the UK will always be concentrated in London and the South East. Regional airports do have a place but above all London and its airports need good connections with the rest of the world. Is HS2 going to redress the North South divide? A little, maybe, but for me it is all about improving London's connectivity.

*ducks back down behind parapet*

 

[Heinz57]

I completley agree with you there.

On the airport front I think its rather unfortinate. If someone wants to fly to somewhere far off, like LA, Australia, South Africa. We have to travel down to London for any of these destinations (that is of course with the acception of Emirates from BHX and MAN). Which is a shame, it often puts the cost of our travel up (train or pretrol to London, or maybe for some its a flight down).

I find it rather unfortinate that all the airlines focus there long reach destinations on London. Why cant someone offer direct services to these from somewhere like Manchester? There used to be quite a few, BA operated some to the US, Cathay used to operate direct HKG - MAN and Qantas used to operate a limited service to Manchester. Why did they have to stop, there's deffinatly the market for it. Half the country! Pretty much everyone from the Midlands upwards would, given the choice, probably opt to travel from MAN rather than LHR, because of travel distance to the airport

 

[HSTEd]

Is HS2 going to redress the North South divide?

It may not be that good at doing it, but slashing travel times to the North is the only way to erase said divide that stands a chance of working.


Ie. make the North as rich as the South by making the North the South.

 

[starrymarkb]

I completley agree with you there.

On the airport front I think its rather unfortinate. If someone wants to fly to somewhere far off, like LA, Australia, South Africa. We have to travel down to London for any of these destinations (that is of course with the acception of Emirates from BHX and MAN). Which is a shame, it often puts the cost of our travel up (train or pretrol to London, or maybe for some its a flight down).

I find it rather unfortinate that all the airlines focus there long reach destinations on London. Why cant someone offer direct services to these from somewhere like Manchester? There used to be quite a few, BA operated some to the US, Cathay used to operate direct HKG - MAN and Qantas used to operate a limited service to Manchester. Why did they have to stop, there's deffinatly the market for it. Half the country! Pretty much everyone from the Midlands upwards would, given the choice, probably opt to travel from MAN rather than LHR, because of travel distance to the airport

Low Yields, especially in business (Continental withdrew Bristol to Newark as despite good loadings in Economy, Business was empty) and a lack of feed from other countries (BA flights from Heathrow are fed from the entire European network). Also most European Countries have a single long haul hub (Germany is about the only one to manage two successfully).

 

[Schnellzug]

For a great many reasons, wealth and economic activity in the UK will always be concentrated in London and the South East. Regional airports do have a place but above all London and its airports need good connections with the rest of the world. Is HS2 going to redress the North South divide? A little, maybe, but for me it is all about improving London's connectivity.

*ducks back down behind parapet*

I really don't think the perpetual growth of London is really sustainable. I really think that gigantic mega-cities, like London, that rely entirely on the "Financial industry" and the Media and so on would become dinosaurs if (when?) the Capitalist system collapses under its own weight, and will be in real danger of becoming ghost towns. But that may just be Marxism coming out there.

 

[radamfi]

If you look at Germany, you can see that country is very decentralised with various activities concentrated in different parts of the country. Berlin is the capital, but the financial centre is in Frankfurt, and important industrial areas are as far apart as North Rhine-Westphalia and Bavaria. There is no need for one region to be dominant.

 

[Wolfie]

There's just one departure to JFK from MAN now, by American. And one to Newark by United (Continental)



Yep 26. 17 of them are to JFK, the remaining 9 are to Newark.

Served by BA, American, Virgin, Delta and United (Continental).

Just going back to the 3rd runway, if I may, personaly I'm for the 3rd runway and 6th terminal expansion plans. I think that'll be the better option.
I don't get Mr Johnson's idea 'To save the planet I'm proposing to spend billions of pounds we don't have to build a wopping big 4 runway airport on recalimed land in the themes estury. Which will have more flights than Heathrow. An airport for London, which'll be nowhere near London'

Basicaly making it all somebody elses problem.

Heathrow already makes life miserable for a big chunk of the population of London (not only those in the vacinity but most of South and North London also - I live in Islington and regularly get woken up at 0600 by Heathrow bound flights in summer). It is the only major airport where you have to fly over the city it serves to access it! Expansion would make that a lot worse, would violate just about every noise and pollution limit there is. Oh, and expect the mother of all court battles as a great swathe of London's population chips in to sue the rear-end off whatever clown Govt tried to approve it - you better believe that Londoners are not prepared to have an even worse quality of life to satisfy NIMBYs elsewhere!!!

 

[Nym]

Yet those londoners won't realise that there would most likely be a net reduction in noise thanks to less circling aircraft with them being able to take direct continus decent approaches that will result in less fuel burn and less noise from lower throttle operation levels.

 

[Mike395]

Im sure I read somewhere that he liuked the idea but again the NIMBYs in Thanet dont want a working airport let alone a cross-atlantic service there..

Id be suprised if Manston survived much longer as anything as even FlyBe have pulled out.

The attitude of most local residents here (I'm a Thanet resident, albeit for not much longer now) astounds me to be honest - we're at least 2 hours travel time from any major airport, and yet we don't want any more than one or two flights a day into our local airport on our doorstep (night flights are currently barred into and out of Manston, for a start). Flybe have said themselves that the reason they're pulling out is that there isn't the market - and we only have ourselves to blame for that.

I agree with you, I think Manston will be gone as a commercial airport within the next couple of years, I can't see one or two Cargolux flights a week plus the Jersey/Newmarket Holidays charters alone being viable.

 

[Heinz57]

It is the only major airport where you have to fly over the city it serves to access it!

Not true, there's loads of major airports world wide where you have to fly over the city, often the aproaches are even lower than LHR.

Yet those londoners won't realise that there would most likely be a net reduction in noise thanks to less circling aircraft with them being able to take direct continus decent approaches that will result in less fuel burn and less noise from lower throttle operation levels.

Yep. It would serve Heathrow so well. They could use two runways for simultanious parralel landings, and one for departures.
It will have enviromental benafits both in the air and on the ground. Reduced circling in the air, and if they use it for parralel departures then its also reduced waiting times on the ground.

And then if they go with this new airport option, nobody is thinking of the added problem and polution of everyone needing to commute from the East Coast into london. As with LHR your practicaly there anyway.

Oh and the polution of the airports construction. Including the constant digging of the many mechanical diggers and dreggers needed to build the re-claimed island for the airport. Disturbing the flow of the river, and the life that exists in the estury.

 

[rb311]

In this brave new world of globalization, aviation is the main channel for business. And just as business is a competition, so is travel. If the UK is not prepared to offer a competitive product to the world of international business then the UK will not compete.

The current crop of political half wits which constitutes recent UK governments simply does not appreciate this fact. Not only are these political brain voids confident that stifling Heathrow's expansion is a whiz idea, they think that airline passengers have a bottomless pocket full of cash dedicated to splashing out on air travel; hence the relentless increase APD.

By expanding Heathrow you are minimizing the rate of marginal environmental disturbance. There is already an airport there with lots of aircraft movements. By opening a 3rd runway there will be more aircraft movements, but only a marginal % increase.

Open a new airbase in the middle of the Thames Estuary and you go from 0 to 100% disturbance overnight. Oh and don't think that opening Boris Island will shut Heathrow. LHR's owners won't want to see £billions of investment go down the tubes just because a bunch of political numpties believes it's a good idea to clog up a perfectly serviceable river estuary with a pointless airport.

An airport which apart from irrevocably damaging the river's ecosystem, and it's wildlife population, will need a huge and local workforce to service it. From whence might they come ? I know! They can commute from where they currently live in Hounslow, adding more and more sooty carbon footprints to the surface of the planet, whilst reducing the size of their monthly disposable incomes.

And on to the hoary old subject of hs2, anyone who thinks a fast rail link to London will boost the economies of Great Northern Towns will need to pause for a re-thought. It will simply increase the range of commutable travel to London and encourage more business to re-locate to the capital.

Best off keeping the slow coach to the north or our friends in Manchester and Leeds will find the nice 15minute walk to work, transform overnight into a gloriously expensive commute on a high speed train, which incidentally, has the carbon footprint of an asteroid smash, but no one will own up to that inconvenient truth.

 

[HSTEd]

In this brave new world of globalization, aviation is the main channel for business. And just as business is a competition, so is travel. If the UK is not prepared to offer a competitive product to the world of international business then the UK will not compete.

The current crop of political half wits which constitutes recent UK governments simply does not appreciate this fact. Not only are these political brain voids confident that stifling Heathrow's expansion is a whiz idea, they think that airline passengers have a bottomless pocket full of cash dedicated to splashing out on air travel; hence the relentless increase APD.

By expanding Heathrow you are minimizing the rate of marginal environmental disturbance. There is already an airport there with lots of aircraft movements. By opening a 3rd runway there will be more aircraft movements, but only a marginal % increase.

Open a new airbase in the middle of the Thames Estuary and you go from 0 to 100% disturbance overnight. Oh and don't think that opening Boris Island will shut Heathrow. LHR's owners won't want to see £billions of investment go down the tubes just because a bunch of political numpties believes it's a good idea to clog up a perfectly serviceable river estuary with a pointless airport.

An airport which apart from irrevocably damaging the river's ecosystem, and it's wildlife population, will need a huge and local workforce to service it. From whence might they come ? I know! They can commute from where they currently live in Hounslow, adding more and more sooty carbon footprints to the surface of the planet, whilst reducing the size of their monthly disposable incomes.

And on to the hoary old subject of hs2, anyone who thinks a fast rail link to London will boost the economies of Great Northern Towns will need to pause for a re-thought. It will simply increase the range of commutable travel to London and encourage more business to re-locate to the capital.

Best off keeping the slow coach to the north or our friends in Manchester and Leeds will find the nice 15minute walk to work, transform overnight into a gloriously expensive commute on a high speed train, which incidentally, has the carbon footprint of an asteroid smash, but no one will own up to that inconvenient truth.

Businesses already did relocate to London, increasing the commuting radius from London simply allows people on lower paid jobs in London to afford housing further from the capital and thus at lower cost.

Essentially it aims to erase the north-south divide by expanding the "South" to include the "North", which in my opinion is the only viable option.

As for the carbon footprint, if we were to embrace sanity and start a crash nuclear newbuild programme the carbon footprint would be the same as the carbon footprint for a Paris-Lyon commute, which is to say effectively zero.

As for the noise disruption, if you were to build an airport in the Thames Estuary and do so properly, say at Shivering Sands, you would cause effectively no noise pollution to any populated areas as both the approach and take off corridors would be entirely over the sea.
As for the "destroys ecosystems" argument, the same could be said for any form of land reclamation project ever, the area reclaimed would not be that extreme, additionally at Shivering Sand you are far from the borders of the ecosystem so the area is relatively barren.

And as for the "It wont close Heathrow" argument, it would atleast allow the termination of all nighttime flying at Heathrow and frankly if Parliament were to vote to direct the CAA to withdraw Heathrow's operating licence there is absolutely nothing BAA could do about it, especially if Parliament were to use the "blights the lives of nearby residents" argument should it go to court in the EU.

Additionally if the UK was to embrace sanity and start spamming nuclear newbuild everywhere possible, the commute from Hounslow to the Shivering Sand facility would be on an electrically powered train in all likelyhood and would thus have the same carbon footprint as the HS train journey.... that is to say zero.

(And yes, I believe that any reasonable Thames Estuary airport should be out at Shivering Sand where it is well clear of anyone, its not that much more expensive and additionally has reduced ecological effects)

 

[LE Greys]

I have to say I've never liked the estury airport idea much, and not just because of the problems it will cause for wildlife. That can be mitigated to a certain extent (and it's not as if the Thames is a pristine river anyway). I'd be more concerned about a massive project built low in the water on what is likely to be an incresingly flood-prone stretch of tidal water. Unless it's possible to build the mother of all aircraft carriers, then a serious storm surge could be a major problem (to put it mildly). Then there's the fact that it's absolutely miles from London and on the "wrong" side for most of the country. Heathrow is at least on the "right" side for anywhere west and most places north.

If we need more airport capacity, would it not make more sense to improve Gatwick and Stansted? There's just about enough room for a second runway at Gatwick and already a second runway at Stansted that could be upgraded. None of the approach routes from either airport overflies Greater London. Yes, it reduces connectivity, but I've often thought that it might be possible to use Crossrail and something resembling Airtrack to link the airports up.

 

[starrymarkb]

Heathrow is indeed in a good position, pretty much all National Express coaches from the West and South Wales call on their way into London, its also not much of a detour for services from Birmingham that come in on via the M40 or M3

Boris Island might be directly accessible from Kent or Essex, but from anywhere else it would be a trip round the M25 or public transport into London and then on an Airport Express train/bus (probably at Premium Fare) out to the island. It's also a very long way out from the city it serves (so much so that Ryanair's Stansted would be closer then the main airport). I can see a lot of traffic from the regions routing via Schiphol as it would be easier/quicker to get to then Boris Island (even including a taxi from the Polderbaan)

 

[SwindonPkwy]

"not that much more expensive"

Really?

 

[HSTEd]

Really?

Even shivering sand is quite sheltered, so the landfill neccesary (as I understand it even the Isle oF Grain proposal requires significant landfill) isn't massively greater or more difficult technically.

The most expensive part of a Thames Gateway Airport project is the transport links into Central London, and the expensive parts of those (the bits in central London) have to be purchased either way.

 

[DarkestDreams]

I read somewhere that Birmingham Airport only runs at 55% capacity. It's only an hour from London now (less after HS2 is finished) - this is on par with the time it takes to get to Stanstead!

 

[LE Greys]

Even shivering sand is quite sheltered, so the landfill neccesary (as I understand it even the Isle oF Grain proposal requires significant landfill) isn't massively greater or more difficult technically.

The most expensive part of a Thames Gateway Airport project is the transport links into Central London, and the expensive parts of those (the bits in central London) have to be purchased either way.

Sheltered from wind perhaps, but not storm surges. I suppose it might be an opportunity for a second Thames barrier (which is probably going to be needed soon).

 

[Ivo]

I suppose it might be an opportunity for a second Thames barrier (which is probably going to be needed soon).

Such a thing has been discussed on countless occasions between Essex and Kents CCs. A bridge linking the two, roughly between either Canvey Island and Grain or Shoeburyness and Sheerness, is thought to be the preferred option with a barrier as part of the project. Nothing to do with an airport...

The most expensive part of a Thames Gateway Airport project is the transport links into Central London, and the expensive parts of those (the bits in central London) have to be purchased either way.

Why would that be the most expensive part? I would suggest the construction of the physical island would be far greater, especially once problems like removal of earth and relocation of any species are factored in.

The scheme would have too great an environmental cost to be worthwhile - but in terms of construction and also in terms of long-term damage. At least the old Maplin Sands idea from the 70s used a far simpler location that is less of a threat ecologically.

 

[LE Greys]

Such a thing has been discussed on countless occasions between Essex and Kents CCs. A bridge linking the two, roughly between either Canvey Island and Grain or Shoeburyness and Sheerness, is thought to be the preferred option with a barrier as part of the project. Nothing to do with an airport...

That's not surprising, a bit of joined-up thinking might help.

Why would that be the most expensive part? I would suggest the construction of the physical island would be far greater, especially once problems like removal of earth and relocation of any species are factored in.

The scheme would have too great an environmental cost to be worthwhile - but in terms of construction and also in terms of long-term damage. At least the old Maplin Sands idea from the 70s used a far simpler location that is less of a threat ecologically.

This sounds strange, but the access costs probably would be very high. Imagine the difference between a block-shaped sandcastle and a linear sandcastle. The linear one needs a lot more reinforcement to prevent it collapsing, because it is so thin. The other version, going under the Thames, requires tunnels, although you do have an easy way to get rid of the spoil. That pushes costs up a lot. It's surprising really, but I think the M13 to link Maplain Sands to London would have cost more than the airport itself. It would have run south of Southend (work it out).

 

[pablo]

Has anyone actually read Forster's proposals?

http://www.halcrow.com/News/latest-news/Halcrow-and-Foster-Partners-launch-Thames-Hub-vision/

http://www.fosterandpartners.com/News/461/Default.aspx

 

[LE Greys]

Has anyone actually read Forster's proposals?

http://www.halcrow.com/News/latest-news/Halcrow-and-Foster-Partners-launch-Thames-Hub-vision/

http://www.fosterandpartners.com/News/461/Default.aspx

Interesting. The new barrier is there, plus a London Orbital Railway. I'm a bit sceptical about the "comprehensive environmental management strategy that minimises the impact of development and provides opportunities to create significant new wildlife habitats to more than offset losses elsewhere", though.

 

[Ferret]

I read somewhere that Birmingham Airport only runs at 55% capacity. It's only an hour from London now (less after HS2 is finished) - this is on par with the time it takes to get to Stanstead!

When you see what Gatwick manage with one runway, I'm not sure BHX is anywhere near 55% capacity use at the moment! I really wish there was more there for me to aim my camera at, but the reality is that BHX is too close to London and Manchester.

 

[SwindonPkwy]

As much as I would like the UK to have the best integrated transport system in the world, all the infrastructure comes at a very high cost. Over the next 20 years HS2 (amongst other projects) will soak up the country's capital expenditure. Just where would the money come from?

 

[WestCoast]

It's alright saying expand Birmignham and everyone heading to/from London will hop on HS2, but how much will it cost to do that? I doubt it would be the same as an Oyster fare to Heathrow and the train fare may add a substantial cost onto the airfare.

Plus, it won't actually solve the problem of maintaining a global airline hub with connections, unless BA shift all operations up to Birmingham, which is unlikely. BA rejected Stansted as a hub in the '90s.

 

[SwindonPkwy]

It is arguable that London's three main airports have evolved so that they economically and geographically suit the markets they best serve.
Gatwick, to the south, has a large proportion of charter flights to the Mediterranean. Also, the flights to Florida generally take a more southerly route across the Atlantic.
Stansted, further from London and to the North East, has found its niche with low cost carriers with many flights to the emerging markets of Eastern Europe.
Heathrow, being the closest of the three to central London, is the preferred choice of the business traveller. Being to the West, it is well positioned for the great many flights that cross the Atlantic. Of course many flights do head East, but that's the point; for a hub airport, East needs to meet West.
It is interesting that forcing BAA to sell both LGW and STN is designed to increase competition. It's difficult to see any significant shift in the carriers serving them.

 

[HSTEd]

Why would that be the most expensive part? I would suggest the construction of the physical island would be far greater, especially once problems like removal of earth and relocation of any species are factored in.

The scheme would have too great an environmental cost to be worthwhile - but in terms of construction and also in terms of long-term damage. At least the old Maplin Sands idea from the 70s used a far simpler location that is less of a threat ecologically.

There are no species on Shivering Sand that are not found elsewhere in the Thames Estuary in drastically greater numbers.

Additionally the water there is quite shallow, hence the name.
Dumping rock to form a berm around the island is really very cheap, the only costs are rent on the neccesary vessels and the neccesary rock, once the berm around the projected island is completed you can complete the island using standard earthmoving equipment (or using those polystyrene blocks from railway embankments for non load bearing areas).
Building tunnels and huge underground box stations very quickly becomes insanely expensive.

 

[SwindonPkwy]

No offense HSTEd, but Shivering Sands is roughly the same distance from London as Cambridge or Brighton. You would be better off building a Kansai style airport off the coast of Folkstone; at least HS1 is close by.