uta999 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

uta999 wrote:

However, often overlooked is the fact that high speed rail costs around £100B per 100 miles of track, takes 20 years to build, and demolishes more houses, communities, fields, woodland and decimates more AONB than a few extra flights at LHR. The electricity used is a very minor matter when it comes to HSR.

Rubbish. Typical cost is < 10 billion € per 100 miles of 2-way track, even accounting for significant tunnel and bridge construction. TBH, rail projects are often subject to the same NIMBY'ism as any other construction project so it's cheaper and faster to put it in a tunnel than to fight with all the residents and buy the fields and woodland.

UK HS2 is costing £106B for a little over 100 miles FYI.

330 miles but ok

Good. The third runway is the wrong solution in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hopefully Johnson will take this opportunity to please his constituents and bury it forever.

If the south-east of England needs more runways, they need to be in places where the surrounding infrastructure is not already overloaded to breaking point. I politely suggest that anyone who thinks otherwise probably does not live, work or travel near LHR.

Personally I would rather use any other airport in the UK.

NYCAAer wrote:

MrBren wrote:

So when will LHR be overtook by CDG?

That was my first thought, as enplanements at CDG are growing at a faster rate than LHR, and CDG already has 4 runways. During certain times of day, notably late afternoon/early evening, CDG is quieter, so there’s room for it to grow.

This is one of the weakest arguments for expansion at LHR around here. Whoever cares whether CDG is ahead or not? No extra job, extra penny of income or any other tangible benefit would accrue to anyone if LHR is ahead of CDG. So why bring this up?

IWMBH wrote:

I’m not against efforts against global warming. But, in my opinion stopping the growth of airports is not the way. The growth of the airline industry won’t stop and you’ll just push the problem to another place. An effort to force airlines to invest in bio-fuel and make that more affordable will be much better for the environment in the long-run.

blueflyer wrote:

Just ignore these pesky businessmen who think the world resolves around hourly LON-NYC flights. Put a few A380s on the route already and free up slots for other destinations. Rinse and repeat through the network.

The solution are A380’s?

Ridiculous, right? Kinda like suggesting building the third runway trumps everything else.

Airport capacity will eventually grow somewhere around London. But not at any cost. And not if it is unlawful.

The judge ruled the third runway was unlawful because it didn't comply with the government's climate policy. What's to stop the promoters and government from devising a framework to build the runway whilst in compliance? Say a law capping emissions from aircraft activity to current day levels. Which means more efficient, larger aircraft. Maybe BA should have bought a few more A380s after all.

Addressing climate change will have a cost for individuals, companies, and the economy. We are way past the point where it can be done pain-free. The conversations ought to be how we minimize the cost, and who bears it.

Looking purely at BA, there will be no R3 pre 2030 at the earliest.

Keeping emissions at present levels should be doable.

After all there be no B747, and probably no A320ceo or B777.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Rezone LHR as a residential area and build a greenfield airport away from population centers.

I've got a better idea - why not rezone the area around LHR as a whiner-free zone and build a new residential area somewhere else?

peterinlisbon wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Rezone LHR as a residential area and build a greenfield airport away from population centers.

I've got a better idea - why not rezone the area around LHR as a whiner-free zone and build a new residential area somewhere else?

Those who bought houses around airports very well knew the issue, still bought the house because it was slightly cheaper or believed real estate agents sales pitch, and now love to complain. They are not going to sell or move, they will fight even harder.

Airport is probably on one of the most valuable real estate in London metro area, so monetize and build airport somewhere else.

par13del wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

Today’s ruling was surprising in the sense that this was seen to be the easiest of the impediments to the scheme to get over.

I suspect not, if it was that easy the last independent study which selected LHR over all others would have included it.
My assumption is that it was ignored because of the massive size of the LHR project and getting all the necessary experts and mathematicians together to crunch the numbers into something that the layman could understand.

Let's see what happens now, if the government does not appeal, it becomes a private sector item only and the potential is there for the government to become another stumbling block.

I’m not sure I understand.

First, judges are not “layman”. They are - by definition and as the name suggests - legal experts who have taken a decision on the law.

Second, it was not in the Airports Commission’s terms of reference to identify flaws in the promotors schemes. Their job was to advise the government. The government followed their recommendation and have today been told that this is unlawful.

Finally, the government have decided not to appeal the decision.

I do not see where or how this goes any further.

Maybe they should revive the 'Heathrow Hub' proposal where the existing northern runway is lengthened and split into two.. at first it seems a bit radical.. but quite a lot of research has gone into it.

Article here
https://reaction.life/heathrow-bosses-m ... ight-path/

However any new runway at Heathrow will be a mammoth engineering task.. just look at Google maps. . a lot of buildings to be demolished, major roads to be diverted, new transport links to be built.. can't see it happening.

The expensive Govt report by Howard Davis is way out of date by now.

I would suggest that Gatwick and Stansted are obvious candidates for a second runway. . there is little room for expansion at Luton, London City or Southend.

Blerg wrote:

Heathrow should ban all those who advocate against the third runway from flying from there. Then again, none of these greens should be flying from anywhere, they should use eco-friendly transport means like bicycles or paddle boats.

Not all anti-LHR supporters are lefty green loonies, and frankly your rather patronising and stereotyping post is offensive to them.

There are many reasons to be anti-expansion at Heathrow, and the simplest is that the airport is in the wrong location for the majority of the population which it serves. Plenty of anti-LHR expansion proponents are pro-aviation. Myself included. Being anti-LHR expansion does NOT equate to being anti-aviation. The LHR expansion debate is a lot more nuanced than that.

Tugger wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Doesn't this ruling imply that any increase in economic activity will violate the law? Any new business any new thing or change? In fact wouldn't any birth technically violate the law?

It seems ludicrous.

Tugg

Technically, you would need to submit proof that every activity works towards the goal of zero emissions by 2050. However, the laws here only concern the government and its actions. So private activities are perfectly fine as long as they comply with the applicable laws, which of course are created by the goverment with the intention to achieve that goal. Government spending on the other hand will need proof that it pushes the UK towards the zero-emission goal or that the added CO2 emissions are offset by other measures.

For LHR these could be:
- reduce emissions in other industries on top of planned reductions, e. g. by increasing the percentage of renewable electricity
- reduce the emissions in aviation overall, e. g. by increasing aviation fuel taxes, forcing airlines to use more efficient aircraft or funding research into environmentally friendly aircraft
- limit the emissions in aviation at LHR specifically, e. g. by setting a cap on slots or ensuring that the new runway reduces delays and thereby improves efficiency
- reduce emissions in other areas at LHR, e. g. by installing more efficient air conditioning systems or adding solar panels on airport property
- offset emissions, e. g. by reforestation or industrial carbon capture methods

The government only needs to show a CO2 balance that is net negative.

But isn't is the private company Heathrow Airport Holdings that is seeking to expand Heathrow and not the UK government?

If tied to their approval of the plan, then that gets into every private business that applies for a business license as the government is "approving" those too. Isn't it also the government that issue birth certificates (to go back to my overly extreme example)?

Tugg

So maybe UK courts are really about Malthusianism and not eugenics after all? Not sure if I should feel better or worse about it...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/23/worl ... ed-uk.html

DobboDobbo wrote:

par13del wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

Today’s ruling was surprising in the sense that this was seen to be the easiest of the impediments to the scheme to get over.

I suspect not, if it was that easy the last independent study which selected LHR over all others would have included it.
My assumption is that it was ignored because of the massive size of the LHR project and getting all the necessary experts and mathematicians together to crunch the numbers into something that the layman could understand.

Let's see what happens now, if the government does not appeal, it becomes a private sector item only and the potential is there for the government to become another stumbling block.

I’m not sure I understand.

First, judges are not “layman”. They are - by definition and as the name suggests - legal experts who have taken a decision on the law.

Second, it was not in the Airports Commission’s terms of reference to identify flaws in the promotors schemes. Their job was to advise the government. The government followed their recommendation and have today been told that this is unlawful.

Finally, the government have decided not to appeal the decision.

I do not see where or how this goes any further.

The climate study should have been done BEFORE the issue became a court case, one could question why the Airports Commission was not aware all the requirements when they made their suggestion. Either they thought the study was not required, too complicated to generate without stated metrics or they just thought the government would ignore it anyway.

SQ317 wrote:

uta999 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Rubbish. Typical cost is < 10 billion € per 100 miles of 2-way track, even accounting for significant tunnel and bridge construction. TBH, rail projects are often subject to the same NIMBY'ism as any other construction project so it's cheaper and faster to put it in a tunnel than to fight with all the residents and buy the fields and woodland.

UK HS2 is costing £106B for a little over 100 miles FYI.

330 miles but ok

Actually only 115 miles has been agreed so far, at a cost of £106B

majano wrote:

NYCAAer wrote:

MrBren wrote:

So when will LHR be overtook by CDG?

That was my first thought, as enplanements at CDG are growing at a faster rate than LHR, and CDG already has 4 runways. During certain times of day, notably late afternoon/early evening, CDG is quieter, so there’s room for it to grow.

This is one of the weakest arguments for expansion at LHR around here. Whoever cares whether CDG is ahead or not? No extra job, extra penny of income or any other tangible benefit would accrue to anyone if LHR is ahead of CDG. So why bring this up?

It would bring in more money and more jobs. CDG could become the largest transit hub in Europe. I think growth as an aviation hub is a big deal.

Tired of this back and forth argument and now do not care. Loved going through Heathrow last summer and the Taj Mahal.......errrrr ......Terminal 5. But when ops at Heathrow becomes the JFK evening rush through out their day, I don't want to hear the complaining from politicians or the"Green" Party.

vhtje wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Heathrow should ban all those who advocate against the third runway from flying from there. Then again, none of these greens should be flying from anywhere, they should use eco-friendly transport means like bicycles or paddle boats.

Not all anti-LHR supporters are lefty green loonies, and frankly your rather patronising and stereotyping post is offensive to them.

There are many reasons to be anti-expansion at Heathrow, and the simplest is that the airport is in the wrong location for the majority of the population which it serves. Plenty of anti-LHR expansion proponents are pro-aviation. Myself included. Being anti-LHR expansion does NOT equate to being anti-aviation. The LHR expansion debate is a lot more nuanced than that.

Then what is your solution ? Big money is being spent building new terminals at Heathrow, don't think its going anywhere.

The A380 was the solution, not a third runway.

Now they are left with neither.

Other places have similar problems, or soon will, e.g. SIN, HKG, JFK...

So LHR will have to be bypassed.
The question becomes, how much sir travel and thus business doesn't happen?

Could another European hub become #1 and take the business away?

vhtje wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Heathrow should ban all those who advocate against the third runway from flying from there. Then again, none of these greens should be flying from anywhere, they should use eco-friendly transport means like bicycles or paddle boats.

Not all anti-LHR supporters are lefty green loonies, and frankly your rather patronising and stereotyping post is offensive to them.

There are many reasons to be anti-expansion at Heathrow, and the simplest is that the airport is in the wrong location for the majority of the population which it serves. Plenty of anti-LHR expansion proponents are pro-aviation. Myself included. Being anti-LHR expansion does NOT equate to being anti-aviation. The LHR expansion debate is a lot more nuanced than that.

So what if it's offensive to them? Why should I care about them when they are delusional and destructive in their views and attitudes. Or are your cute feeling hurt?

Fact that demand from LHR remains at an all time high is best proof that the location is not an issue. If the airport was stagnating, if the slots there were not as expensive as they are today and if airlines didn't mind moving to Gatwick, Luton or Stansted... then your argument would be ok. However what we are seeing here is a few fanatics blocking the whole project which is a key economic factor of one of the world's most important and influential capitals. So no, blocking the third runway at Heathrow will not save the polar bears.

uta999 wrote:

SQ317 wrote:

330 miles but ok

Actually only 115 miles has been agreed so far, at a cost of £106B

Just an FYI to show how much the UK are overpaying:
37 miles for 3.7 billion €
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendlinge ... ed_railway
66 miles for 5.3 billion €
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg ... ed_railway
75 miles for 3 billion €
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt%E2 ... ed_railway
110 miles for 6 billion €
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne%E ... _rail_line
35 miles for 10 billion CHF (pure tunnel)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

YIMBY wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

uta999 wrote:

However, often overlooked is the fact that high speed rail costs around £100B per 100 miles of track, takes 20 years to build, and demolishes more houses, communities, fields, woodland and decimates more AONB than a few extra flights at LHR. The electricity used is a very minor matter when it comes to HSR.

That is not a fair assumption as the main costs (for the UK HS2) stem from compensation and bad supervision.

I know it does not count as HSR but still there are 200km/h+ possible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

160km of tunnel with 115km of track build for $10B. For half the costs of the HS2 they probably could build one tunnel from London to Birmingham without destroying anything on the surface.

Very interesting idea.

To build a double track electric railway through the forest costs about 10 M€/km. For challenging terrain it could be twice as much and for easy terrain half of that. Anything more is land acquisition, compensation and demolition costs. Tight environments like cities might add logistics costs.

Building a tunnel costs about 5 M€/km for good rock, for bad rock 10-20 M€/km. England is presumably bad rock, but anyway you are probably very right that it might be cheaper to build a long tunnel. Building tunnel under land is much cheaper than under sea or through a mountain, because you can bore frequent holes to the ground for logistics, ventilation etc. Otherwise the logistics in the long tunnel would add exponential costs. Anyway, the safety costs may explode, I have no idea how much.

I just cannot understand how the British can plan to spend so much for a normal railway. Neither do I capture why the runway costs such a sum that in any normal country would be sufficient to connect all airports (LHR, LCY, LGW, STN, LTN) with a fast railway.

Crossrail costs about £20Bn and that is for a 120km line under London with a lot of stations and curavature. I guess if it would not be under London and just a 120km line straight under the country side the cost would be half of that. The stations, the curvature and the enormous safety needed adds a lot of cost compared to a tunnel under a forest or field without the need for stations.

Dutchy wrote:

Qazar wrote:

Humans are funny, aren't they?

- Build airport far away from the city so that you have room for expansion and you don't have to worry about bothering people with noise
- Years later developers discover there is a lot of land around that new airport and some may like to live there because they travel a lot (or for enthusiasts.. LOL)
- More people buy homes there (knowing there is a major airport) because "Hey, that's a really neat development... and nah, the airplanes don't bother me!"
- Then all of a sudden noise becomes a problem.... You didn't know what an airplane engine sounds like?

I'm surprised they don't want to shut down the whole thing!

I think London, as for New York (JFK, LGA, EWR), should look at efficiency and consolidate all 4 major airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Lutton and Stansted) into one GIGA AIRPORT off some location somewhere outside London.... A monstrosity with 8 runways 8 terminals (you name it) ... Also, adopt a law that the area surrounding the airport is protected for future expansion and no one can willingly move there, or around there, and start complaining about the noise! This way environmentalists get to be happy at the reduced carbon footprint 1 airport will generate versus 4; while airport authorities gain efficiencies and reduced costs!

My feelings exactly, just build a giant monstrous airport in the middle of the North Sea, serving: Amsterdam (the Netherlands), London, Brussels (Belgium), (and perhaps even Paris). Build a hyperloop system to it, et voila, many of the inter European routes are served with hyperloops and intercontinental travel is concentrated in one place. With the hyperloop it should be possible to connect to the relevant city within the hour. It could be paid for by selling the land of all the airports for real estate development. Problems solved and an environmentally friendly solution (and keeps us connected to our British-friends, so it would serve as a great symbol as well). Ah well, if only someone would give me an order to do a visibility study

then those who care about ocean environment will object the new giant airport as the construction and operation of the airport will destroy the ocean and the home of many ocean animals....

hongkongflyer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Qazar wrote:

Humans are funny, aren't they?

- Build airport far away from the city so that you have room for expansion and you don't have to worry about bothering people with noise
- Years later developers discover there is a lot of land around that new airport and some may like to live there because they travel a lot (or for enthusiasts.. LOL)
- More people buy homes there (knowing there is a major airport) because "Hey, that's a really neat development... and nah, the airplanes don't bother me!"
- Then all of a sudden noise becomes a problem.... You didn't know what an airplane engine sounds like?

I'm surprised they don't want to shut down the whole thing!

I think London, as for New York (JFK, LGA, EWR), should look at efficiency and consolidate all 4 major airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Lutton and Stansted) into one GIGA AIRPORT off some location somewhere outside London.... A monstrosity with 8 runways 8 terminals (you name it) ... Also, adopt a law that the area surrounding the airport is protected for future expansion and no one can willingly move there, or around there, and start complaining about the noise! This way environmentalists get to be happy at the reduced carbon footprint 1 airport will generate versus 4; while airport authorities gain efficiencies and reduced costs!

My feelings exactly, just build a giant monstrous airport in the middle of the North Sea, serving: Amsterdam (the Netherlands), London, Brussels (Belgium), (and perhaps even Paris). Build a hyperloop system to it, et voila, many of the inter European routes are served with hyperloops and intercontinental travel is concentrated in one place. With the hyperloop it should be possible to connect to the relevant city within the hour. It could be paid for by selling the land of all the airports for real estate development. Problems solved and an environmentally friendly solution (and keeps us connected to our British-friends, so it would serve as a great symbol as well). Ah well, if only someone would give me an order to do a visibility study

then those who care about ocean environment will object the new giant airport as the construction and operation of the airport will destroy the ocean and the home of many ocean animals....

Something has. to give and this would be easier to deal with.

It’s very simple. A Heathrow with three runways in eight years time would be much greener, cleaner, quieter and far far better for the planet than it is today. Even with more flights, spread across three approaches rather than just one.

Zero delays vs 20 minutes now, Mixed mode runways means less 2 mile taxiing for both A & D. The entire ground service fleet would be mainly electric and the whole airport carbon neutral by then too.

More and more vehicles on surrounding roads would also switch to electric. I would even like to see a congestion zone setup around LHR to cut down on useless journeys to the airport in favour of 80% tram, bus or rail.

So yes, a larger, better LHR would help the polar bears, verses “Take up the hold, delay 15 minutes”

Now it is dead in the water... It has been ruled illegal and the tory government will not try do anything it seems for appealing it.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 62786.html

uta999 wrote:

It’s very simple. A Heathrow with three runways in eight years time would be much greener, cleaner, quieter and far far better for the planet than it is today. Even with more flights, spread across three approaches rather than just one.

Zero delays vs 20 minutes now, Mixed mode runways means less 2 mile taxiing for both A & D. The entire ground service fleet would be mainly electric and the whole airport carbon neutral by then too.

More and more vehicles on surrounding roads would also switch to electric. I would even like to see a congestion zone setup around LHR to cut down on useless journeys to the airport in favour of 80% tram, bus or rail.

So yes, a larger, better LHR would help the polar bears, verses “Take up the hold, delay 15 minutes”

Nah, LHR will quickly reach 100% capacity with 3 runways, and delays and pollution will just be of a bigger magnitude.

I think it's probably a good thing a 3rd runway will not be built.
Do the world and London really need more overtourism, overconsumption of travel and an increase of pollution.
The current Corona pandemic has also demonstrated how quickly people will change travel habits or stay at home even with the slight risk of catching a relatively benign disease.
To me that demonstrates how unnecessary flying is to most.

uta999 wrote:

SQ317 wrote:

uta999 wrote:

UK HS2 is costing £106B for a little over 100 miles FYI.

330 miles but ok

Actually only 115 miles has been agreed so far, at a cost of £106B

The £106bn costing is for the full network. If they only build phase 1 it's not going to be £106bn.

par13del wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

par13del wrote:

I suspect not, if it was that easy the last independent study which selected LHR over all others would have included it.
My assumption is that it was ignored because of the massive size of the LHR project and getting all the necessary experts and mathematicians together to crunch the numbers into something that the layman could understand.

Let's see what happens now, if the government does not appeal, it becomes a private sector item only and the potential is there for the government to become another stumbling block.

I’m not sure I understand.

First, judges are not “layman”. They are - by definition and as the name suggests - legal experts who have taken a decision on the law.

Second, it was not in the Airports Commission’s terms of reference to identify flaws in the promotors schemes. Their job was to advise the government. The government followed their recommendation and have today been told that this is unlawful.

Finally, the government have decided not to appeal the decision.

I do not see where or how this goes any further.

The climate study should have been done BEFORE the issue became a court case, one could question why the Airports Commission was not aware all the requirements when they made their suggestion. Either they thought the study was not required, too complicated to generate without stated metrics or they just thought the government would ignore it anyway.

Ah - understood.

The Airports commission reported in 2015, the Paris climate agreement was 2016 (so the airport commission would not have been aware of it).

The legal challenge was not a challenge of the airport commission, it was a challenge of the Secretary if State’s National Policy Statement, which was from 2018 (and therefore he was aware of the Paris Climate Agreement - he was advised to ignore it and that was unlawful).

SQ317 wrote:

uta999 wrote:

SQ317 wrote:

330 miles but ok

Actually only 115 miles has been agreed so far, at a cost of £106B

The £106bn costing is for the full network. If they only build phase 1 it's not going to be £106bn.

SQ317 is correct, albeit the £106bn is considered a “worst case” scenario for the full 330 miles of phases 1 and 2.

So Boris has deliberately killed off the 3rd runway to save face. Could he now be planning an announcement to build Boris Island instead, and presumably close LHR.

I think not.

vhtje wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Heathrow should ban all those who advocate against the third runway from flying from there. Then again, none of these greens should be flying from anywhere, they should use eco-friendly transport means like bicycles or paddle boats.

Not all anti-LHR supporters are lefty green loonies, and frankly your rather patronising and stereotyping post is offensive to them.

There are many reasons to be anti-expansion at Heathrow, and the simplest is that the airport is in the wrong location for the majority of the population which it serves. Plenty of anti-LHR expansion proponents are pro-aviation. Myself included. Being anti-LHR expansion does NOT equate to being anti-aviation. The LHR expansion debate is a lot more nuanced than that.

vhtje,

I appreciate your nuanced reply and fully agree with the content. But "blerg"s reply goes to show that this forum is as far from nuanced and as close to black and white imaginable.

What LON would need most in my opinion, would be a green field airport with excellent rail connection to downtown, negating the need for five airports in close proximity. This airport congestion makes airspace around LON incredibly inefficient and hard to navigate.
MUC, minus the horrendously slow rail connection, or ICN could be a blueprint.

But yeah, real estate is hard to secure in south-east England.

FluidFlow wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

That is not a fair assumption as the main costs (for the UK HS2) stem from compensation and bad supervision.

I know it does not count as HSR but still there are 200km/h+ possible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

160km of tunnel with 115km of track build for $10B. For half the costs of the HS2 they probably could build one tunnel from London to Birmingham without destroying anything on the surface.

Very interesting idea.

To build a double track electric railway through the forest costs about 10 M€/km. For challenging terrain it could be twice as much and for easy terrain half of that. Anything more is land acquisition, compensation and demolition costs. Tight environments like cities might add logistics costs.

Building a tunnel costs about 5 M€/km for good rock, for bad rock 10-20 M€/km. England is presumably bad rock, but anyway you are probably very right that it might be cheaper to build a long tunnel. Building tunnel under land is much cheaper than under sea or through a mountain, because you can bore frequent holes to the ground for logistics, ventilation etc. Otherwise the logistics in the long tunnel would add exponential costs. Anyway, the safety costs may explode, I have no idea how much.

I just cannot understand how the British can plan to spend so much for a normal railway. Neither do I capture why the runway costs such a sum that in any normal country would be sufficient to connect all airports (LHR, LCY, LGW, STN, LTN) with a fast railway.

Crossrail costs about £20Bn and that is for a 120km line under London with a lot of stations and curavature. I guess if it would not be under London and just a 120km line straight under the country side the cost would be half of that. The stations, the curvature and the enormous safety needed adds a lot of cost compared to a tunnel under a forest or field without the need for stations.

It should be much less than half. For underground urban railways it is the stations that cost most, and London adds all extra costs.

uta999 wrote:

So Boris has deliberately killed off the 3rd runway to save face. Could he now be planning an announcement to build Boris Island instead, and presumably close LHR.

I think not.

You think think the PM told the public servants to ignore the law and not produce the required report, the same PM who endured ridicule for supporting and not killing the project that was supposed to kill him when he laid down in front of the first bulldozers?

Perhaps we are afraid to hold the experts responsible for the failure because we need to believe in them, easier to blame dime a dozen politicians.
The LHR expansion has spanned numerous governments and at least 3 PM's in recent times, I think the professionals around the project need to stand up and get booted.

Dahlgardo wrote:

uta999 wrote:

It’s very simple. A Heathrow with three runways in eight years time would be much greener, cleaner, quieter and far far better for the planet than it is today. Even with more flights, spread across three approaches rather than just one.

Zero delays vs 20 minutes now, Mixed mode runways means less 2 mile taxiing for both A & D. The entire ground service fleet would be mainly electric and the whole airport carbon neutral by then too.

More and more vehicles on surrounding roads would also switch to electric. I would even like to see a congestion zone setup around LHR to cut down on useless journeys to the airport in favour of 80% tram, bus or rail.

So yes, a larger, better LHR would help the polar bears, verses “Take up the hold, delay 15 minutes”

Nah, LHR will quickly reach 100% capacity with 3 runways, and delays and pollution will just be of a bigger magnitude.

I think it's probably a good thing a 3rd runway will not be built.
Do the world and London really need more overtourism, overconsumption of travel and an increase of pollution.
The current Corona pandemic has also demonstrated how quickly people will change travel habits or stay at home even with the slight risk of catching a relatively benign disease.
To me that demonstrates how unnecessary flying is to most.

You do know you are on an aviation enthusiast site, right?

Please define overtourism because you sound like an elitist using code words to rail against a growing class of people from formerly third world countries with the ability to travel, to actually travel.

FluidFlow wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

That is not a fair assumption as the main costs (for the UK HS2) stem from compensation and bad supervision.

I know it does not count as HSR but still there are 200km/h+ possible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

160km of tunnel with 115km of track build for $10B. For half the costs of the HS2 they probably could build one tunnel from London to Birmingham without destroying anything on the surface.

Very interesting idea.

To build a double track electric railway through the forest costs about 10 M€/km. For challenging terrain it could be twice as much and for easy terrain half of that. Anything more is land acquisition, compensation and demolition costs. Tight environments like cities might add logistics costs.

Building a tunnel costs about 5 M€/km for good rock, for bad rock 10-20 M€/km. England is presumably bad rock, but anyway you are probably very right that it might be cheaper to build a long tunnel. Building tunnel under land is much cheaper than under sea or through a mountain, because you can bore frequent holes to the ground for logistics, ventilation etc. Otherwise the logistics in the long tunnel would add exponential costs. Anyway, the safety costs may explode, I have no idea how much.

I just cannot understand how the British can plan to spend so much for a normal railway. Neither do I capture why the runway costs such a sum that in any normal country would be sufficient to connect all airports (LHR, LCY, LGW, STN, LTN) with a fast railway.

Crossrail costs about £20Bn and that is for a 120km line under London with a lot of stations and curavature. I guess if it would not be under London and just a 120km line straight under the country side the cost would be half of that. The stations, the curvature and the enormous safety needed adds a lot of cost compared to a tunnel under a forest or field without the need for stations.

The new part of Crossrail is a fraction of that, as on the surface it mainly runs on existing railways. Yes there have been upgrade works, but the main expense is for the 13 miles of tunnelling and new stations in Central London

uta999 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

uta999 wrote:

However, often overlooked is the fact that high speed rail costs around £100B per 100 miles of track, takes 20 years to build, and demolishes more houses, communities, fields, woodland and decimates more AONB than a few extra flights at LHR. The electricity used is a very minor matter when it comes to HSR.

Rubbish. Typical cost is < 10 billion € per 100 miles of 2-way track, even accounting for significant tunnel and bridge construction. TBH, rail projects are often subject to the same NIMBY'ism as any other construction project so it's cheaper and faster to put it in a tunnel than to fight with all the residents and buy the fields and woodland.

UK HS2 is costing £106B for a little over 100 miles FYI.

HS2 is really expensive as to reduce its environmental impact, a lot of it will be in tunnel. Plus land in the southeast of England is REALLY expensive

CRJockey wrote:

vhtje wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Heathrow should ban all those who advocate against the third runway from flying from there. Then again, none of these greens should be flying from anywhere, they should use eco-friendly transport means like bicycles or paddle boats.

Not all anti-LHR supporters are lefty green loonies, and frankly your rather patronising and stereotyping post is offensive to them.

There are many reasons to be anti-expansion at Heathrow, and the simplest is that the airport is in the wrong location for the majority of the population which it serves. Plenty of anti-LHR expansion proponents are pro-aviation. Myself included. Being anti-LHR expansion does NOT equate to being anti-aviation. The LHR expansion debate is a lot more nuanced than that.

vhtje,

I appreciate your nuanced reply and fully agree with the content. But "blerg"s reply goes to show that this forum is as far from nuanced and as close to black and white imaginable.

What LON would need most in my opinion, would be a green field airport with excellent rail connection to downtown, negating the need for five airports in close proximity. This airport congestion makes airspace around LON incredibly inefficient and hard to navigate.
MUC, minus the horrendously slow rail connection, or ICN could be a blueprint.

But yeah, real estate is hard to secure in south-east England.

I thought the whole point of being an ecologist was to save the environment. How does it improve the environment to bring in bulldozers and destroy what is already there, only to build it all again somewhere else? You could build houses on the land at Heathrow, but then what about the thousands of jobs held by people in the local community - hotels, logistics, cargo, car rental catering companies are all there. All of those people would also have to move to the new location and the result would be a desolate area of the city with decaying unused warehouses, empty hotels and high unemployment. All the investment made over the last decades - the Heathrow Express, roads, Picadilly Line extension etc would go to waste.

Any new airport that is further away would vastly increase the number and length of road journeys and have to build new roads, railways and flatten a huge area of land. And as Manston has showed, if it's far away most people would just ignore the new airport and use the other existing ones as they would be closer, unless you somehow forced them to use it. It would have to be very far away because there is no empty space anywhere around London. And also this is the UK we're talking about, not Las Vegas where you can just find a flat patch of desert and build whatever you want. Mostly you have rolling hills which would have to be flattened and wherever it is, the locals will fight to oppose it and we'd have another 50 years of consultations and reviews before they even got started. Even if you build in the sea ecologists would complain about the ducks or whatever wild animals are there.

william wrote:

You do know you are on an aviation enthusiast site, right?

Please define overtourism because you sound like an elitist using code words to rail against a growing class of people from formerly third world countries with the ability to travel, to actually travel.

Regarding being an aviation enthusiast, I always appreciate quality rather than quantity.
I couldn't care less about 3000 new A320NEOs or whatever.
More is not always better.

If you're unfamiliar with overtourism, try to spend a weekend in London or Paris or whatever European major city of your choice.
Then you will know.

The rise in wealth and decrease in travel cost has spawned an unsustainable increase in airtravel, both in terms of carbon emissions and pollution.
I don't understand why everbody needs to fly 5-10 times per year just because they can afford it.
There are plenty of other ways to have a nice holiday other than airtravel.

I was 20 yo. before my first flight, and 27 for my first intercontinental flight, so I'm not talking from a priviledged background.

I firmly believe some behaviorial regulating mechanisms, like increased taxes, need to be put in place to decrease demand for airtravel, and for sea cruises as well.

So, I applaud the apparent no-go for a 3rd runway at LHR.

Meanwhile in the rest of the world .
"China And India To Build 320 New Airports In Next 10 Years"
https://www.thegwpf.com/forget-heathrow ... -airports/

That's a hell of a lot of airports.. no doubt some will want to connect with London too.

I suspect our current Government wants to wash it hands of the third runway issue at Heathrow and hope the issue goes away for another 10 years or so..

Dahlgardo wrote:

Regarding being an aviation enthusiast, I always appreciate quality rather than quantity.
I couldn't care less about 3000 new A320NEOs or whatever.
More is not always better.

If you're unfamiliar with overtourism, try to spend a weekend in London or Paris or whatever European major city of your choice.
Then you will know.

The rise in wealth and decrease in travel cost has spawned an unsustainable increase in airtravel, both in terms of carbon emissions and pollution.
I don't understand why everbody needs to fly 5-10 times per year just because they can afford it.
There are plenty of other ways to have a nice holiday other than airtravel.

I was 20 yo. before my first flight, and 27 for my first intercontinental flight, so I'm not talking from a priviledged background.

I firmly believe some behaviorial regulating mechanisms, like increased taxes, need to be put in place to decrease demand for airtravel, and for sea cruises as well.

So, I applaud the apparent no-go for a 3rd runway at LHR.

I agree with that. I live in a country where you can fly on a 777 to the beach (45 minutes flight), and in city with a monumental airport and a ridiculously high number of tourists. However, I miss the days when airports were fun and we used to walk on the tarmac to the plane. Nowadays, airports are not fun anymore. Let LHR stay as it is. Businesses can always pay a premium.

does the aviation industry in Britain involve only LHR? FFS the time it takes you to get through customs and on the train or underground might as well fly to one of the other 4 in the area to get into the centre of London

bluefrog wrote:

does the aviation industry in Britain involve only LHR? FFS the time it takes you to get through customs and on the train or underground might as well fly to one of the other 4 in the area to get into the centre of London

You would think so.

I always used to fly into LHR, but now Gatwick. For business I base in Windsor (not at the castle). Although many relatives and friends live in the South West, and the travelling distance is greater, your rental car is only 30-60 seconds walk from the rental company desks, great for pick up and drop off.

Fond memories of Stanstead and Luton for holidays on Viscounts, Comets and 111's, then later welcoming Court's new Tristar as an employee of the leasing company involved.

Dutchy wrote:

hongkongflyer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

My feelings exactly, just build a giant monstrous airport in the middle of the North Sea, serving: Amsterdam (the Netherlands), London, Brussels (Belgium), (and perhaps even Paris). Build a hyperloop system to it, et voila, many of the inter European routes are served with hyperloops and intercontinental travel is concentrated in one place. With the hyperloop it should be possible to connect to the relevant city within the hour. It could be paid for by selling the land of all the airports for real estate development. Problems solved and an environmentally friendly solution (and keeps us connected to our British-friends, so it would serve as a great symbol as well). Ah well, if only someone would give me an order to do a visibility study

then those who care about ocean environment will object the new giant airport as the construction and operation of the airport will destroy the ocean and the home of many ocean animals....

Something has. to give and this would be easier to deal with.

Yes you are right but this is the political situation nowadays.
Wherever you want to build the airport,
someone will object it.

On the bright side, is it possible that no longer having a path to third runway could encourage BA to pick up some cheap A380s? Perhaps the ones leaving LH?

I know this is a pipe dream but I badly want this to happen.

Dahlgardo wrote:

william wrote:

You do know you are on an aviation enthusiast site, right?

Please define overtourism because you sound like an elitist using code words to rail against a growing class of people from formerly third world countries with the ability to travel, to actually travel.

Regarding being an aviation enthusiast, I always appreciate quality rather than quantity.
I couldn't care less about 3000 new A320NEOs or whatever.
More is not always better.

If you're unfamiliar with overtourism, try to spend a weekend in London or Paris or whatever European major city of your choice.
Then you will know.

The rise in wealth and decrease in travel cost has spawned an unsustainable increase in airtravel, both in terms of carbon emissions and pollution.
I don't understand why everbody needs to fly 5-10 times per year just because they can afford it.
There are plenty of other ways to have a nice holiday other than airtravel.

I was 20 yo. before my first flight, and 27 for my first intercontinental flight, so I'm not talking from a priviledged background.

I firmly believe some behaviorial regulating mechanisms, like increased taxes, need to be put in place to decrease demand for airtravel, and for sea cruises as well.

So, I applaud the apparent no-go for a 3rd runway at LHR.

I would rather see taxes on the corporations that benefit financially rather than the passengers spending the money. A system that discourages frequent flights, or flights between outrageously short distances would be good to see. Replace highly frequent small airplanes with less frequent high CASM larger airplanes, and you have minimal impact on passengers, minimal impact on airline profits, and a great impact on the enviornment. What do you think is greener? Three E175s flying from SEA-SFO, or just one A321?

speedbird52 wrote:

On the bright side, is it possible that no longer having a path to third runway could encourage BA to pick up some cheap A380s? Perhaps the ones leaving LH?

I know this is a pipe dream but I badly want this to happen.

I would hope so too but I think their widebody fleet requirement is spoken for until the 772 ERs need replacing at the back end of this decade.

hongkongflyer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Qazar wrote:

Humans are funny, aren't they?

- Build airport far away from the city so that you have room for expansion and you don't have to worry about bothering people with noise
- Years later developers discover there is a lot of land around that new airport and some may like to live there because they travel a lot (or for enthusiasts.. LOL)
- More people buy homes there (knowing there is a major airport) because "Hey, that's a really neat development... and nah, the airplanes don't bother me!"
- Then all of a sudden noise becomes a problem.... You didn't know what an airplane engine sounds like?

I'm surprised they don't want to shut down the whole thing!

I think London, as for New York (JFK, LGA, EWR), should look at efficiency and consolidate all 4 major airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Lutton and Stansted) into one GIGA AIRPORT off some location somewhere outside London.... A monstrosity with 8 runways 8 terminals (you name it) ... Also, adopt a law that the area surrounding the airport is protected for future expansion and no one can willingly move there, or around there, and start complaining about the noise! This way environmentalists get to be happy at the reduced carbon footprint 1 airport will generate versus 4; while airport authorities gain efficiencies and reduced costs!

My feelings exactly, just build a giant monstrous airport in the middle of the North Sea, serving: Amsterdam (the Netherlands), London, Brussels (Belgium), (and perhaps even Paris). Build a hyperloop system to it, et voila, many of the inter European routes are served with hyperloops and intercontinental travel is concentrated in one place. With the hyperloop it should be possible to connect to the relevant city within the hour. It could be paid for by selling the land of all the airports for real estate development. Problems solved and an environmentally friendly solution (and keeps us connected to our British-friends, so it would serve as a great symbol as well). Ah well, if only someone would give me an order to do a visibility study

then those who care about ocean environment will object the new giant airport as the construction and operation of the airport will destroy the ocean and the home of many ocean animals....

But there might be a solution to all of this, just bring back flying boats! there's lots of water out there and lots of places for them to dock at. No noise, no land taken away, easy access, and if you find the right engine to use, no harm to the environment. /sarc

Source: https://crikey-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com ... 10x407.jpg. I mean it is on the internet, so everything is possible, right?

hongkongflyer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

My feelings exactly, just build a giant monstrous airport in the middle of the North Sea, serving: Amsterdam (the Netherlands), London, Brussels (Belgium), (and perhaps even Paris). Build a hyperloop system to it, et voila, many of the inter European routes are served with hyperloops and intercontinental travel is concentrated in one place. With the hyperloop it should be possible to connect to the relevant city within the hour. It could be paid for by selling the land of all the airports for real estate development. Problems solved and an environmentally friendly solution (and keeps us connected to our British-friends, so it would serve as a great symbol as well). Ah well, if only someone would give me an order to do a visibility study

then those who care about ocean environment will object the new giant airport as the construction and operation of the airport will destroy the ocean and the home of many ocean animals....

Environmentalists are the least of the problems facing an airport in the North Sea. The North Sea is a busy place and an airport doesn't fit in that easiliy given the economic interests of others (maritime industry, shipping companies, fishermen). Moreover, there is also the problems with birds (not a real friend of planes), which is probably much worse at sea than at the current locations.

https://to70.com/could-schiphols-future-be-at-sea/

I'm an aviation enthusiast. I'm also a democracy enthusiast. It's rather alarming how many people here think business and government should be able to do what they like, even if it's against the law. There are countries where that is how things work, and I'm quite sure most of you would rather not live in them.

There's a lot of nonsense in this thread about NIMBYs and whiny neighbours etc. While some obviously get a great sense of something (not sure what) from having a good rant about them, they're completely irrelevant to this. The judgement was just a reading of the law i.e. that as UK law stands the project is illegal. That has nothing to do with whether you are for or against the runway on principle, but whether you are for or against the rule of law in principle. As has been noted, the UK government can quite easily pass law to reverse this situation. However, the current Prime Minister made a very big point of opposing the third runway so that's fairly unlikely. That is despite being head of a very right wing government, for those interested it goes back to when he was Mayor of London...like our friend across the Atlantic he is a populist and will say whatever he thinks the people want in any given moment.

I don't want to live in a country where the government can just ignore the law. it seems many of you do, be careful what you wish for, one day it could be used for something you're not so keen on...

I think people do tend to overestimate the importance of the third runway, Heathrow has only just slipped from being the world's busiest international airport despite these constraints. Amsterdam isn't runway constrained but is movement constrained. If more people end up transferring in Paris, great, that will make zero difference to the UK economy. Given Brexit will inevitably constrain Britain's growth and trade for some time (losing your free trade agreement with the worlds biggest trading block on your doorstep does that, no the deal we have done with Fiji won't make up for it), it really isn't a very big deal.

uta999 wrote:

Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling putting the project in turmoil.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693

Heathrow Airport: Plans for third runway plans in tatters after legal defeat

https://news.sky.com/story/heathrow-air ... t-11944267

My guess is that they will use any means possible to stop the runway. Using the environmental argument about CO2 emissions would have only been one of many options they are pursuing.