Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Alternate Location For LHR 3rd Runway  
User currently offlinekaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2377 posts, RR: 3
Posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7379 times:

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.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b154/Kaitak744/LHR3rdrunway.jpg

44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineshaq From Panama, joined Jun 2007, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7354 times:

It is viable ...
I think it would be the Polderbaan of LHR lol !



Studying hard, for flying right!
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11655 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7265 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.


...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineweb500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 739 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7218 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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!


Boiler Up!
User currently offlinekaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2377 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 2 hours ago) and read 6825 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.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 2):
Also the M25 would be costly to bridge.

The current proposed location of a 3rd runway requires very similar road bridging.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11655 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 1 hour ago) and read 6783 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.



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineTrucker From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 190 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6504 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.

User currently offlineItsonlyme From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6461 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.

User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2092 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6405 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.

User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6408 times:

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? 


User currently offlinehawkercamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6306 times:

http://www.airport-int.com/news/bori...ays-heathrow-should-be-closed.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4794832.ece

I have to admit I am embrassed to say LHR is the gatway to my country!
I hate the place with a passion!

[Edited 2010-02-23 13:34:05]

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13130 posts, RR: 100
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6022 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineLHR380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5970 times:

Quoting Itsonlyme (Reply 7):
A new airport in the Thames and expanding Stansted seem more appealing than expanding Heathrow

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?

Its a national joke that LHR is the gateway to the UK for many major carriers, yet only has 2 runways!!


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5958 times:

Quoting Itsonlyme (Reply 7):
If Heathrow cannot be expanded to serve London for at least 50 years, then anothe option needs to be considered

Will we still be flying in 50 years? Unless we find a viable alternative, the price of oil will have rocketed by then.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 11):
This means as more LHR O&D demand rises

Is this necessarily the case? The growth of FR and U2 over the last 10 years, so that they have far more short haul passengers than say BA, is virtually entirely based on non LHR O&D...

The growth in leisure travel has been the main behicle of growth in recent years, and leisure travellers are far more likely to go to the cheapest flight, from the cheapest airport...



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6858 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5948 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 !
User currently offlineTrucker From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 190 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5845 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.


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6858 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5807 times:

Quoting Trucker (Reply 15):
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.

That one, is something that we BOTH seem to be able to agree upon!   

Anyways, what's the REAL update on the 3rd runway??? (or did I just open a can of worms by asking that???)



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently onlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12475 posts, RR: 37
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5806 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 ...


User currently offlineEDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5761 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.

Relocations happen in business.


User currently offlinemyt332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, RR: 70
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5675 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 14):
which rail line is that anyways?

It goes from London Waterloo to Windsor & Eton Riverside diverging from the Southwest Trains line to Reading at Staines.

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 18):
Relocations happen in business.

I think, if memory serves, he relocated from Manchester to work at Heathrow so he actually knows this!

[Edited 2010-02-24 00:50:47]


One Life, Live it.
User currently offlineLHR380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5597 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.


User currently offlinetheginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5577 times:

What you also have to remember is that those 'lakes' are raised up above the surrounding ground level. So to build anything on top would be quite a climb to get there!

Have a look at the Streetview link below and you will see what I mean:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...QqG4Yet81Iw&cbp=12,290.57,,0,10.28

[Edited 2010-02-24 01:35:54]

User currently offlineEDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5520 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


User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5375 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
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5202 times:

There is exactly one place near London where a world class airport can be built, and is obvious how to build it with minimal impact on a minimal population, I try to upload the image here.

Add a second runway used from or to North only, to reduce the noise for Bishop Stanford, and mirror the same to the other side.



25 Post contains images kgaiflyer : If they can engineer an extended runway at FNC, then they can build a runway anywhere -- maybe even *over* the M25.
26 GCT64 : I agree, STN is the obvious location of additional runway capacity, having far fewer issues than LHR, LGW or LTN. It is relatively easy to envisage t
27 LHR380 : So discriminate passengers flying to LHR, just the thing to do to keep people coming to the UK!! If airlines do move, meaning transfer pax have a hel
28 Itsonlyme : I read somewhere that Star Alliance were extremely interested in the Thames estuary airport. Would that not be an option - have star for example move
29 PlymSpotter : Not for less than they could over the M4 spur though.
30 Post contains images Flyingfox27 : That would be tricky, i did ask that on another forum once and made a photo here. That would be next to impossible lol! They could make Gatwick into a
31 huaiwei : There is nothing engineering cannot do, as long as there is a will to get it done. Building a runway with an underground reservoir across its entire
32 Post contains images PlymSpotter : Unfortunately in the real world will alone is not enough, it's got to be feasible from a cost perspective. I'm not aware of any covered reservoirs on
33 Post contains images Cornish : Remember here folks this is being paid for with private money, NOT government money. Anyhow, it takes a little more than looking at a google earth ma
34 Post contains links cloudyapple : I worked on SG2 and am on the R3 project so can't comment specifically. But in general: You mean like this? http://future.stanstedairport.com/main/ass
35 Post contains images PlymSpotter : Am I right in thinking that planning dictates the maximum footprint of any new terminal building(s) at STN cannot exceed a certain area for a start?
36 Post contains images mainMAN : Precisely. I'm surprised my double decker runway idea has never taken off, staggered of course to allow lower level flights to reach V1 as they emerg
37 Glom : Before Heathrow can expand, everyone else needs to keep up to date. Have you noticed how Google maps still shows the airport layout circa 2005 with th
38 LX138 : This couldn't happen, as others have said - those reservoirs are some of the most important in the South East. The other thing is that that land is ov
39 Trucker : Why? The runways are all parellel and even staggered. Isn't that what ATC generally wants?
40 Post contains links and images PITrules : Lets see... SIN, HND, KIX, NGO, UKB, HKG, etc. OK, so not a 'reservoir', but please explain how a replacing a man made pond is more expensive than bu
41 kgaiflyer : From the perspective of an American who stays frequently at the old Sheraton over on Colnebrook, who rides the U3 and the 76 busses, who walks about
42 Post contains links art : Ockham Common, Surrey? Used to be Wisley airfield. It looks to me that you could build 4 x 10000ft runways without destroying many houses. Why not bui
43 LX138 : I don't think anyone said that it was more expensive than the sea-based option. Eitherhow these examples weren't the greatest to use, all are either
44 FlyCaledonian : Problem is that the rail line that would need the spur built to/from it is the South Western mainline. During the morning/evening peaks that route in
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
LHR 3rd Runway, Status? posted Wed Nov 26 2008 18:26:38 by B747forever
LHR 3rd Runway Protestor Glues Himself To P.M! posted Tue Jul 22 2008 13:25:17 by Cumulus
LHR 3rd Runway Progress? posted Wed Nov 21 2007 08:19:41 by LHR27C
LHR 3rd Runway: They Had Owned The Land posted Sun Oct 22 2006 08:20:11 by Kaitak744
BA: LHR 3rd Runway Sooner Than Later posted Thu Jun 8 2006 00:26:25 by Scotron11
LHR 3rd Runway 'Ruled Out In Short Term' posted Sat Nov 29 2003 10:35:29 by Planesarecool
News Reports That LHR Heathrow Will Get 3rd Runway posted Tue Sep 23 2008 00:32:48 by OA260
LHR: Would 3rd Runway Mean More Domestic Routes? posted Sun Feb 29 2004 17:54:16 by Capital146
For LHR Regulars: Heathrow Runway Ops Now? posted Sat May 3 2003 15:15:48 by Kaitak
3rd Runway For TPE: Axed posted Tue Nov 26 2002 22:09:17 by Bigo747