Polomarc

Plenty of discussion on LBC this morning, Mayor of London states that "Sir Howard's figures on cost of estuary airport are "wrong"

T8191

It's 25 miles ... without bends in the track. I'll let the mathematicians here examine the acceleration/braking and cruising speed factors

No surprise there! The Mayor of London is fixated with the Estuary concept, and will brook no disagreement.

Internaut

I think the LHR expansion (perhaps with an extra runway at LGW) is the best option, but it's still going to take years, if not decades. It's times like this I wonder if we should be more like the Chinese (i.e. all opposition bought off, shot or disappeared already ).

britishchris

Using highly scientific methods (holding a ruler up to google maps) this plan would mean the train would go through my house. I am therefore completely against it

KARFA

I think the Heathwick idea has been dreamed up by someone who has never used LHR. It may look good on paper but it isn't realistic. Yes there should be a better link between LGW-LHR, but a formal two site hub is a bit pie in the sky. Considering how much we don't like transferring between terminals at LHR, and the connection times that need to be built in, I can't imagine anyone is going to want to do a connection between the two sites with less than 2 hours.

Just build another runway at LGW and another at LHR for god's sake.

GregWTravels

If you look at page 25 of this document from Heathrow on the proposal, they show the road layout changes in orange. They propose moving most of the interchange to the north, with the westbound M4 to southbound M25 ramp going underground. The M25 south of the interchange passes under the runway for a short stretch, and Bath Road is routed further south and in tunnels through the airport.

sl1ppy

It's for the good of the country man!!

oscietra

Spot on.

There's a notable bias that it appears those nearing the end of their careers prefer the sticking plaster of Heathrow, whereas those of us with a chance of actually using the airport in 50 years time are getting ignored, or not making their voice felt.

Time for a bold, youthful strategy for the long term, and that doesn't include a sticking plaster for Heathrow.

KARFA

I had a look at this and right at the end is a passage on evolution beyond the thrid runway. This one caught my eye:



If the north west runway is the preferred one at the end of the day why not do this and get two new runways in one go rather than buidling a third and having to go through all this again in 30 years time.

kpriestnal

Living in the north of England I am for the Estuary option. Operate Heathrow 24hrs until then.

sl1ppy

+1 on being like the chinese.
In the short term, extra runway at LHR, after that, well it depends on transport links. High Speed Rail should also play a part.

If there are more runways at LHR though what does that do to BA's value, presumably 'slot's' would become almost worthless??

oscietra

People seem to think adding a runway at LHR would be both easy, quick and cheap. It would be none of those, requiring considerable demolition of existing roads, homes and additional terminal and stand construction via compulsory purchase of very expensive high value land, taking at least five years to construct, and if tunnels and other construction is required, considerable expertise.

Any LHR solution would only operate 75% of the day due to the midnight-6am curfew; a Thames Hub would operate 24/7 - so three runways at LHR = 2.25 runways in real terms vs. 4 fully operational runways at a hub. The midnight-6am period is increasingly useful for Asian traffic in a way that simply wasn't the case 20 years ago.

Probably tens of billions for any extra capacity at worn out LHR - not far short of the cost of THames Hub's greenfield construction opening up a whole new part of the country to trade and commerce represented by the Thames Hub.

Then there's the supporting infrastructure to get the additional millions using the airport to and from Heathrow.

More runways at LHR actually consolidates BA's position, as it would still be dominant there and would be able to add more services in a way that is impossible now. Moving to the Estuary would be worse for BA as its LHR slot portfolio (probably worth billions) would evaporate in value and other competitors would be able to grow properly in the UK market, increasing competition and reducing airfares.

You're right that this *would* be the best option, but only if you aren't concerned with the surrounding area. It discounts the fact that those two runways would require overflying of some of the most densely populated parts of London, or some of the leafier parts of Berkshire. It's an environmental noise/pollution/crash risk nightmare.

Plus you'd need another three or four terminals and hundreds of stands - no mention of those in the Heathrow proposals.

Plus, where's the supporting infrastructure to get all the people to and from this new hub? It would require a serious road and rail programme, adding further pollution and compulsory land purchase to an already congested part of the country.

Then where will all the extra workers live? Housing isn't getting cheaper and you can't expect baggage handlers to live in £500,000 houses. We'll all end up paying for it in increased fares.

clarkeysntfc

Indeed. Plus the Isle of Grain option could operate 24 hours a day without anything like the noise issues of LHR.

KARFA

Must admit after having another look I am being persuaded by your argument. Perhaps Isle of Grain is much better as a long term solution, with 4 runways to start with. Yes there are problems (airpsace, moving staff etc.) but there would be 20 years to sort that out whilst it is being constructed. Sadly I don't think anyone is government is going to do it, and the airport commision seems to be almost ruling it out as well.

DYKWIA

This is just a Yes, Minister sketch.

Produce an initial report that recommends producing a more detailed report. The detailed report will recommend a consultation, and the consultation will recommend further feasibility reports. The feasibility reports will generate further options that will require an initial report. The new initial report will recommend a more detailed report...

30 years down the line everyone will be dead or have forgotten about it.