Heathrow Expansion

[hidetheelephants]

Make a fking decision already; 13 years of labour jerking off, 5 years of coalition wkery, now at least 2 years of tory self-abuse. Pick one and get the fk on with it!

[B'stard Child]

hidetheelephants said:

Make a fking decision already; 13 years of labour jerking off, 5 years of coalition wkery, now at least 2 years of tory self-abuse. Pick one and get the fk on with it!

Why just one? Pick all three - we'll need the capacity one day so do them all - Added bonus shuts the NIMBY up who rather have it built elsewhere

[Tryke3]

Pathetic, these bunch of amateurs will get us a good deal from europe apparently, they must be laughing their socks off over the channel. The needs of the few trump the needs of whole nation ffs

Theresa May will be a catastrophe, she might as well instate Bojo as PM, at least I will be amused while loosing my house, the thick bh

[anonymous-user]

So our new PM moves from the PMs who 'Got things done' group to the dithering 'unable to make a decision'' group.

How disappointing.

Every fool can see we need new runways at Heathrow and Gatwick. Just dhow done leadership and get in with it.

[eharding]

el stovey said:

So our new PM moves from the PMs who 'Got things done' group to the dithering 'unable to make a decision'' group.

How disappointing.

Every fool can see we need new runways at Heathrow and Gatwick. Just dhow done leadership and get in with it.

Yep. Crosswind runways, a sound investment in these days of turbulent climate change. 3000m North/South tarmac for Heathrow and Gatwick, job done.

[greygoose]

Everyone knows it is a difficult decision but we have had endless reviews with nothing happening, why not just say a new runway will never be built and get it over with as that seems to be the only option that suits the politicians of all parties? At this rate we will be having debates about a spaceport to Mars before this ever gets built (unless the spaceport is 200 miles from London).

[Welshbeef]

greygoose said:

Everyone knows it is a difficult decision but we have had endless reviews with nothing happening, why not just say a new runway will never be built and get it over with as that seems to be the only option that suits the politicians of all parties? At this rate we will be having debates about a spaceport to Mars before this ever gets built (unless the spaceport is 200 miles from London).

We frankly need 3 new runways

Gatwick
BHX
Heathrow?

Planning for the future growth.

Or build a new airport on the M40 Oxford to Stockenchurch loads of room (Greenbelt)

[GT03ROB]

Welshbeef said:

We frankly need 3 new runways

Gatwick
BHX
Heathrow?

Planning for the future growth.

Or build a new airport on the M40 Oxford to Stockenchurch loads of room (Greenbelt)

Why Birmingham though Welsh? Surely further north is the better to service the northern powerhouse? I'd have though greater capacity at Manchester would be a better answer than Birmingham if the north needs it. I'd guess something out on the M40 towards Oxford would be nearly as bad as Boris Island.

[Welshbeef]

GT03ROB said:

Why Birmingham though Welsh? Surely further north is the better to service the northern powerhouse? I'd have though greater capacity at Manchester would be a better answer than Birmingham if the north needs it. I'd guess something out on the M40 towards Oxford would be nearly as bad as Boris Island.

Boris Island solely would serve London anyone West of London then has Bristol Soton BHX Gatwick Cardiiff.


Oxford in the countryside build it with 4 runways it will be on the HS2 line and prevent any house building new it.

Why we left the Perry Oaks and all he other farms before Heathrow be turned into urban spread is beyond me.

[jdw100]

I read in one article that a new Heathrow runway would take ten years to build and cost £1bn to complete.

I may be missing something here but how can a strip of tarmac (yes I know it's better than that) take 10 years to lay and cost that much.

If the article had said a year I would have thought, that sounds about right but ten years?

I'm guessing it has heating elements, special drainage etc but even so...

What's a runway 2km? That's about 50cm a day. Surely we can do better than that?

[FN2TypeR]

jdw100 said:

I read in one article that a new Heathrow runway would take ten years to build and cost £1bn to complete.

I may be missing something here but how can a strip of tarmac (yes I know it's better than that) take 10 years to lay and cost that much.

If the article had said a year I would have thought, that sounds about right but ten years?

I'm guessing it has heating elements, special drainage etc but even so...

What's a runway 2km? That's about 50cm a day. Surely we can do better than that?

The two current runways are 3.9 and 3.6 kilometers in length. A quick google suggests that a 747 needs a runway length of roughly 2.3km depending on the variant although I'd imagine the weight/payload will vary that dramatically.

http://www.heathrow.com/company/company-news-and-i...

We aren't just talking about a bit of tarmac dumped on top of some hardcore here, building a runway is surely a big, big undertaking.

Edited by FN2TypeR on Wednesday 19th October 08:33

Edited by FN2TypeR on Wednesday 19th October 09:11

[aeropilot]

jdw100 said:

I read in one article that a new Heathrow runway would take ten years to build and cost £1bn to complete.

I may be missing something here but how can a strip of tarmac (yes I know it's better than that) take 10 years to lay and cost that much.

To be honest you're missing almost everything, let alone something...!!

There is a massive amount of work associated with the 3rd runway, this isn't just laying a strip of tarmac in a field.

New runway, new taxy ways, new Terminal, new associated infrastructure to get access to it, new infrastructure to connect everything including baggage transfer etc., comms to ATC & rest of LHR, public transport extensions to Terminal, drainage and sewerage connections, river diversions, road diversions.........and the list goes on....

[jdw100]

aeropilot said:

To be honest you're missing almost everything, let alone something...!!

There is a massive amount of work associated with the 3rd runway, this isn't just laying a strip of tarmac in a field.

New runway, new taxy ways, new Terminal, new associated infrastructure to get access to it, new infrastructure to connect everything including baggage transfer etc., comms to ATC & rest of LHR, public transport extensions to Terminal, drainage and sewerage connections, river diversions, road diversions.........and the list goes on....

It said runway not terminal or associated infrastructure.

I can think of quite a few amazing looking airports I have been through (out here in AP region) that can take A380s and didn't take ten years to build.

It just seems a long time to me and I was surprised. If that what it takes I guess that's what it takes then.

[Dr Murdoch]

Also the demolition of Sipsom village, once all the existing residents are moved on of course (I imagine that won't be the work of a moment)

[Dicky Knee]

jdw100 said:

I read in one article that a new Heathrow runway would take ten years to build and cost £1bn to complete.

I may be missing something here but how can a strip of tarmac (yes I know it's better than that) take 10 years to lay and cost that much.

If the article had said a year I would have thought, that sounds about right but ten years?

I'm guessing it has heating elements, special drainage etc but even so...

What's a runway 2km? That's about 50cm a day. Surely we can do better than that?

A bit over £17 billion is the current cost so probably around £20 billion when done. HS2 is currently estimated at £55 billion to Birmingham just to put that into perspective.

[aeropilot]

jdw100 said:

aeropilot said:

To be honest you're missing almost everything, let alone something...!!

There is a massive amount of work associated with the 3rd runway, this isn't just laying a strip of tarmac in a field.

New runway, new taxy ways, new Terminal, new associated infrastructure to get access to it, new infrastructure to connect everything including baggage transfer etc., comms to ATC & rest of LHR, public transport extensions to Terminal, drainage and sewerage connections, river diversions, road diversions.........and the list goes on....

It said runway not terminal or associated infrastructure.

I can think of quite a few amazing looking airports I have been through (out here in AP region) that can take A380s and didn't take ten years to build.

It just seems a long time to me and I was surprised. If that what it takes I guess that's what it takes then.

Whats the point of isolating the runway from the other stuff....you can't build one without the other

And the rest of the world doesn't have the problems we have in the UK dealing with legal challenges from NIMYS, idiotic political interference, ill informed journos stirring up hornets nests, and Christ knows what other crap we have to deal with that adds billions in cost and years extra to every infrastructure project in the UK.
It makes you weep.....

[hidetheelephants]

Building stuff on a live airport makes things more complicated, expensive, time-consuming and generally a massive pain in the arse.

[The Don of Croy]

jdw100 said:

It just seems a long time to me and I was surprised. If that what it takes I guess that's what it takes then.

You are not alone. Some bod ran the numbers and calculated the actual blackstuff associated with the airport came in under £1 billion.

The other £16 odd Billion is for public enquiries, moving Swampy MkIII out of his new tree abode, placating the locals, looking for rare and endangered wildlife, oh, and moving Europe's busiest motorway.

[aeropilot]

The Don of Croy said:

jdw100 said:

It just seems a long time to me and I was surprised. If that what it takes I guess that's what it takes then.

You are not alone. Some bod ran the numbers and calculated the actual blackstuff associated with the airport came in under £1 billion.

The other £16 odd Billion is for public enquiries, moving Swampy MkIII out of his new tree abode, placating the locals, looking for rare and endangered wildlife, oh, and moving Europe's busiest motorway.

You can another billion to the cost for another years delay....just the same as what the Govt did with the 2 x new RN carriers. They can't see the wood for the trees in that the longer you enforce delay, the more staff costs are incurred to keep your team of people sitting around doing not a lot for another year.......someone has to pay for that, not thet a politician would have a clue about such things given most of them have never had a real job.

[plasticpig]

GT03ROB said:

Why Birmingham though Welsh? Surely further north is the better to service the northern powerhouse? I'd have though greater capacity at Manchester would be a better answer than Birmingham if the north needs it. I'd guess something out on the M40 towards Oxford would be nearly as bad as Boris Island.

Manchester airport already has two runways and currently runs at 50% of it's capacity