MainMAN From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 2064 posts, RR: 6 Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6115 times:
In terms of regularly operational runways, only LHR, MAN and DUB have more than one, and the reason is this........(thinking)
Because...........there's still not a compelling need for any more runways, with the exceptions of LHR and possibly LGW. BHX needs a longer runway, but the planning process in the UK means that big infrastructural projects take a long, long time to materialise.
With 60 million people crammed into area the size of the Montreal-Toronto corridor, there isn't enough room in the UK to build new runways or even roads without a big ensuing fight. Every time something does get built, it also means the demolition or relocation of 500 year old architecturally listed buildings, or destruption to ancient woodland habitats etc, so it generally doesn't happen.
It's a bit different in North America....there's plenty of r-o-o-m!
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6717 posts, RR: 65 Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6059 times:
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 19): In short, the reason most airports have one operational runway is because they are all derived from WW2 airbases - the land was set aside, and by todays standards its too small for multiple runways.
Gatwick (as did Heathrow) started off as an aerodrome prior to WW2, but it was massively expanded as RAF Gatwick under No. 11 Group Fighter Command. In 1958 it was revamped and opened as London Gatwick, an alterantive to London Heathrow.