PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11114 posts, RR: 63 Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5796 times:
They supply a large part of West London and Berkshire with water, so they are quite important. They also occupy a larger land area than the propsed new runway would, so it would be just as difficult to resite them and purchase land as it would for the currently proposed runway. Also the M25 would be costly to bridge.
web500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 588 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5749 times:
although not demolishing any houses, look at the departure/ arrival path, it is directly over the town of Stanwell, that will get a whole lot of protests. but on the bright side if BAA can get that runway, they'll most likely have enough room for a fourth runway!
kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5356 times:
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 2): They also occupy a larger land area than the propsed new runway would, so it would be just as difficult to resite them and purchase land as it would for the currently proposed runway.
This these are water reservoirs, and can thus take any shape, relocating them to some other farm land near by should not be a problem.
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11114 posts, RR: 63 Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5314 times:
Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 4): This these are water reservoirs, and can thus take any shape, relocating them to some other farm land near by should not be a problem.
It's not that simple unfortunately. The reservoirs are constructed with a waterproofing of 5 inch thick concrete, perfect hardcore for a runway, but that's millions of tonnes of old concrete which has got to be broken, crushed and before that an equal (if not larger amount) which has to be poured in the construction of new reservoirs. You'd have a hard job re-sighting the reservoirs too, there isn't enough connected open land in the vicinity. Yes it's possible, but the cost would be prohibitive and you're at least doubling the number of NIMBY's you'll annoy. Also there's at least one SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) which would need to be destroyed (Stanwell Moor).
Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 4): The current proposed location of a 3rd runway requires very similar road bridging.
The M4 spur has 6 lanes of traffic, a bus lane, plus two hard shoulders, the M25 has ten lanes of traffic and two hard shoulders. The difference is that you could shut the M4 spur completely to assist construction with moderate inconvenience thanks to the infrastructure improvements T5 brought, but you couldn't do the same for the M25 - it could only be done a few lanes at a time, and that hikes the cost and difficulty.
Trucker From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 178 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5035 times:
I'm thinking this runway could be put on pillars where it crosses the reservoirs so they wouldn't necessarily have to be filled in. And bridging the M25 shouldn't be that much different than how they bridged I285 when they put the new runway in at ATL. For the most part they kept that road open during the construction. There does appear to be alot of houses at the east end but if the runway were only 7000' long which I beleive is the plan for the runway on the north side, that would put the end of the runway farther away from those houses. Still would probably get alot of complaining though.
Itsonlyme From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4992 times:
As time goes on im beginning to sour more and more on further expansion of Heathrow. I just think its shortsighted. We are gonna be back here soon saying how can we expand it more. I know this might be hard for the UK nowadays, but why not think big and think long? If Heathrow cannot be expanded to serve London for at least 50 years, then anothe option needs to be considered. There are no easy options. A new airport in the Thames and expanding Stansted seem more appealing than expanding Heathrow. What if Stansted was expanded, the rail link to London upgraded, perhaps more links to London added, and what if Stansted became a high speed rail rub, for the new proposed HS2 rail link? Its more logical to link London (St Pancras) with the north via Stansted then link it via Heathrow, which could not be done. A third runway is going to have so much opposition, i just dont think its worth it as opposed to other things.
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1831 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4936 times:
It really does not look like there is enough political will to build a third runway. Perhaps they should give up and focus improving Heathrow for now and planning a new airport for the future. Airlines will just have to use larger planes.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10661 posts, RR: 100 Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4553 times:
Quoting AADC10 (Reply 8): It really does not look like there is enough political will to build a third runway. Perhaps they should give up and focus improving Heathrow for now and planning a new airport for the future. Airlines will just have to use larger planes.
I agree there is no political will for a 3rd runway at LHR. But it is messy at best for a 'new airport.
LTN wanted four London airports each with two runways. The issue is having *one* location to hub at. There is a reason US based airlines fought for a mere 27 additional slot-pairs at LHR.
Instead of hubbing at LHR, passengers do have the option to hub at a non-London airport. I've given up hope of a 3rd LHR runway. This means as more LHR O&D demand rises... it will be traffic going to other hubs for travel onwards to secondary cities and less through traffic at LHR.
Quoting Itsonlyme (Reply 7): i just dont think its worth it as opposed to other things.
"other things" would be a 2nd runway at LTN and eventually LGW. London seems headed for four twin runway airports.
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6178 posts, RR: 74 Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4479 times:
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 9): You appear to have selected an area with 3 reservoirs, a major motorway and a railway line.
No offense but at what stage did you think that would be a good idea?
Hmmm... let's see that runway's westward departure will go right over Windsor???? And if you land from the east, it'll surely peeve off quite a few residents....
I think it's cheaper to just mow down Stanwell and build the runway there than the over 3 reservoirs a bloody busy and unchokeable motorway... and... which rail line is that anyways?
Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 4): he current proposed location of a 3rd runway requires very similar road bridging.
The bridging, if I remember correctly would be for the connecting taxiways... the rest are just roads that'll be closed down... and if it hits the M4 spur... it's a spur... not the main highway... Choke one or 2 lanes off that section of the M-25 for the construction and the whole of the South East England would slow down, and anything between the M4 and the M3 will probably stop! Then LGW will start complaining because the M23 is choked to death because of it! LOL
Quoting Trucker (Reply 6): I'm thinking this runway could be put on pillars where it crosses the reservoirs so they wouldn't necessarily have to be filled in.
Have an accident and contaminate the water supply of X millions of people... nice idea
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Trucker From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 178 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4376 times:
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 14): Have an accident and contaminate the water supply of X millions of people... nice idea
That's a bit over dramatic. Yea you might get an oil slick on the surface but it would hardly contaminate the entire reservoir. And the water that comes out the tap is hardly what's in the reservoir.
Everyday you have trucks carrying gasoline, diesel fuel, and other such liquids along with HAZMAT products over bridges that cross reservoirs, lakes, and rivers that are used as a public water supply. Any of these trucks could get in a wreck and end up in the water.
But it's kind of a none issue since a runway on pillars will never happen. I was just kind of a thought. I'm inclined to agree with the people that think we'll see the Chinese on the moon before we see a 3rd runway at LHR.
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11950 posts, RR: 37 Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4337 times:
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 16): Anyways, what's the REAL update on the 3rd runway??? (or did I just open a can of worms by asking that???)
There was court action recently in relation to it; indeed, I think it's ongoing. Other than that, everything is stuck until the next election. I don't think Planning Permission has even been submitted. You can be sure that BA's (and no doubt other UK carriers') press departments are in overdrive, desperately trying to ensure that Dave Cameron doesn't get into No.10, as that would really stuff things up ...
EDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4292 times:
Quoting LHR380 (Reply 12): And what happens to LHR and the thousands of people that leave near by and work at the airport if a new airport is opened and carriers leave LHR?
The same as happened to many workers in other industries that saw local employers close down and relocate staff elsewhere in the country. At least in the instance of LHR you are talking about alternatives in the same region. By comparison in the late 1950s & early 1960s thousands of steel workers were relocated (or made redundant if they declined to move) from the Lanarkshire (just outside Glasgow) steel mills to Corby Northamptonshire. If LHR were to close in favour of a new airport then at least you would have the option of commuting.
LHR380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4128 times:
Quoting EDICHC (Reply 18): If LHR were to close in favour of a new airport then at least you would have the option of commuting.
With all those jobs you were not talking about the amount of people that work at LHR, about 30,000 or so.
The main thing is most of the areas around LHR would empty as its filled with airport workers. Your talking about Feltham, Bedfont, Stanwell, West Drayton, even Hounslow and the surrounding areas. All would be suddenly empty if LHR closed. I don't think there has been a mass movement like that in my life time. Schools, shops, and everything else you need where there are a lot of people would close as there would be no one there as they would have moved.
And commute to where the "proposed" new airport would be, HA, yea, that would be about 3 hours. Why does the airport have to close and why do I have to move. Expand the airport and make LHR something to be proud of. I already am, but it could be much better.
EDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4051 times:
Quoting LHR380 (Reply 20): Why does the airport have to close and why do I have to move. Expand the airport and make LHR something to be proud of.
I think you just answered your own question there. There is no real room for further realistic expansion at LHR, certainly not to meet the needs of the future. Until now LHR has really just been playing catch-up to (just about) meet current needs. Compared to the many airports I transit through, LHR is a nightmare and easily the worst major hub I have encountered in any developed country.
By the time the 3rd runway is opened the number of pax figures passing through LHR will already be saturating the facilities there. Face facts LHR is a cramped sub-standard facility that's located in the wrong place for future growth needs. Oh and I haven't forgotten T5, but not everyone is transiting through T5
Cornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 56 Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3906 times:
Quoting kaitak744 (Thread starter): Are those lakes south west of LHR very important? (are they used for anything?)
Building a 3rd runway here requires demolishing almost no structures, and requires reclaiming land and burring the M25 (an idea more likely to go through with the public I think)
This runway may look like it is far, but it is not. The new runway at FRA will be approximately this far from the terminals.
As a local and a person who knows a thing or two about airport planning at Heathrow I can give you couple of pointers why this is an absolute non-starter.
This actually would cost a spectacular amount more to build than the currently proposed R3 - and remember it is private money funding the runway, not from the government purse.
First things first, the reservoirs them selves are raised, - it is not flat ground there. The cost of removal and demolishment and infill would be vastly higher than the removal of Sipson. Add in the fact you would also have to remove most of Stanwell as it would fall within the PSZ of the runway. Stanwell again is far bigger than Sipson. Noise wise, despite how it may look on the map, it would affect a far greater number of people than the current R3 option.
Another problem would be a fairly sizeable ridge/hill at the western end of the runway around the area of the Runnymede. This could welll prove to be too big an obstacle to allow any runway.
So if you were to do it, you would still have the same political problems, but you would be building something that would cost many times more than the current plans.....
Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work