Climate Change Kills Third Heathrow Runway.

Climate Change Kills Third Heathrow Runway.

Author
Discussion

BoRED S2upid

19,641 posts

239 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
kev1974 said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3146581/Ca...

Putting aside that that article says that this LHR runway report cost a ridiculous £20m to compile, and that Boris is likely to just ignore it anyway, even at that cost.

The article talks about introducing a £20-£30 tax for being dropped off at the airport (including by taxi). No no no! Why does this country always want to use the stick and not the carrot. Why not focus on making the public transport to the airport so good and so efficient that nobody wants to go by car/road!

(I'm aware that some airports such as Luton already have a dropoff charge although as far as I know none are as high as £20 and they're all for the purposes of the privately owned airport squeezing a few more quid out of their customers rather than to put cars off).
They need to take a look at shanghai. Maglev and standard trains being integrated into the airport.

Thankyou4calling

10,595 posts

172 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
I'm opting out of this thread. I'm sure I won't be missed.

I'll still read it but my next contribution ( probably a cut and paste) will be in 2025.

Thanks all.

saaby93

32,038 posts

177 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
I still dont understand why they cant take over one of those big bases like Fairford, Brize or whats the one up near Thetford

And Filton - what happened to that since it was mothballed

If youve ever been to see the Queen in her residence at Windsor, American tourists ' Why does She let so many planes fly over here'




Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 2nd July 13:03

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
saaby93 said:
I still dont understand why they cant take over one of those big bases like Fairford, Brize or whats the one up near Thetford
Well it's because replacing Heathrow with its terminals and car parks and transport network and TWO long runways with some old airfield with ONE runway wasn't a good way of getting increased capacity.

Pan Pan Pan

9,777 posts

110 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
Hackney said:
Scuffers said:
as for noise, it's way quieter now that it has been for at least 60 years, no more 707's, Concorde, VC10's, etc etc etc. the current airline fleets are getting ever more quiet.

My main point though is if you don't like the noise, why live there?
Thanks for quoting wiki and proving my point.

There's a difference between accepting the status quo - tolerating the existing noise - and wanting more noise. Or is your logic as bad as your maths?
No. Anyone who doesn't like aircraft noise, but then buys a house near a known `international' airport is insane. The airfield / airport was in existence long before much of the housing development.
For heaven knows how many decades, forecasts for the global aviation industry, have shown that it will increase, not decrease , so buying a house near an aviation facility which is known by just about everyone will be increasing its activity when one doesn't like aircraft noise, is also insane.
Also airports by their very global nature are 24/7 operations, Or do you expect airlines from the other side of the world, to hold flights just because it will be night time at the destination airport? Anyone who thinks about international aviation as a `local' issue, perhaps needs to look a bit further than their back yard fence. Their whingeing is made worse by the fact that many who do this, seem to have no difficulty using them, when `they' want to go on holiday, or attend a foreign business meeting.

saaby93

32,038 posts

177 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
There are still people around who helped build the place in the 40s so it was able to take over from Croydon.
Dont forget Northolt already acts as a pseudo 4th runway in all but name near the M40
1,687 m × 46 m (5,535 ft × 151 ft), (Heathrow 3,902ft 12,802 & 3,660 12,008)

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


The main issue is with its purpose. If its as a hub and 90% of traffic is just so people and goods can hop off one plane to another it doesnt actually need to be where it is.


Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 2nd July 14:18

0000

13,812 posts

190 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
The airport or the third runway?

Blaster72

10,772 posts

196 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
Pan Pan Pan said:
truck71 said:
Blaster72 said:
truck71 said:
LHRFlightman said:
Do you understand why both runways are used for arrivals between 6-7? Because if you did you'd know that with a 3rd runway at the very worst you'll have 1 week in 3 with NO ARRIVALS at all, and possibly 2 in 3 depending upon the restrictions placed upon the airport.

In Richmond, when the aircraft are landing 27R they are barely audible. On the new runway that won't be heard at all.
What's 27R? Interested as I spend quite a bit of time in Richmond and live about a mile north of the flightpath in Chiswick.
It's the designation for the North runway when they're taking off towards the West and landing from the East
Thanks.

In which case I'd disagree with the statement made by LHR Flightman that the aircraft are barely audible- you have to raise your voice in conversation when they pass. I walked across Richmond Green at 730 last night and the lack of noise was noticeable as the aircraft were landing in the opposite direction (I think they switch mid afternoon). I'd agree the modern A380's are much quieter than the older 747's etc but they are still chuffin noisy at what I'd guess is a few thousand feet.

Other than being a total nimby my biggest objection to Heathrow expansion is the infrastructure would need huge improvement in an area that is already space challenged. Putting cost to one side, trying to squeeze more transport links between the A30/M4 will be tricky although not impossible.

If it were my decision I'd choose the Thames Estuary solution, it's the only strategy that can be designed to cope with required capacity in the South East. As others have said a third runway at Heathrow would almost seem to be standing still.
Many years ago I landed a helicopter on the test platform used to assess the possibility of building an airport in the Thames estuary. After getting back I found out that deep piles had been used to construct the platform, but that these were in fact continuing to sink into the mud of the estuary. From the data gained it was determined (at the time) that the cost of piling the area to form the airport area would not be financially viable. This however might not still be the case now.
Aren't there a lot of birds around too? Birds + Engines isn't a good mix.

Besides, Greenpeace will uncover a Great Crested Wingnut nest within 5 seconds of a decision to build there being made. It's a non starter.

saaby93

32,038 posts

177 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
Is this the plan? We know how to hande roadworks now so I dont suppose relocating the M4/m25 junction will cause too much disruption


drivin_me_nuts

17,949 posts

210 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
For the day they cut the first sod, I reckon it will be 7 years before it opens. The chaos around there will make the current M25 05:00 - 09:00 and 15:00 - 19:00 queues a thing of fond memory. Whoever gives this the nod better be damned sure of the actual benefits because it's one hell of a fk up if the proposed flight demand does not materialise.

edit: and just to deal with the back-flow of traffic towards the M40 and southwards towards J10 will require these to be widened as well. If that is not included in the grand plan, the traffic jams on the M25 will become the stuff of queuing legends.

Edited by drivin_me_nuts on Thursday 2nd July 14:51

Terminator X

14,921 posts

203 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
Derek Smith said:
Scuffers said:
up, depressing isn't it?

Britain, a once proud country with the best engineering in the world reduced to pathetic hand-wringing and Nimbys
Is either Heathrow or Gatwick in your backyard?
no, but so what?

Heathrow has been there for 100+ years and as a major airport since WW2, nobody can possibly live there that was there before it was.

Buy a house under the flightpath, live with the noise.

How many of the people affected actually work for or around heathrow?, would you rather they just closed it and went somewhere else (and throw some 250,000 people out of work?)
What about when they change them though without asking of course? You then find yourself under it without choosing to be. They would never do that though whistle

TX.

truck71

2,328 posts

171 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
drivin_me_nuts said:
For the day they cut the first sod, I reckon it will be 7 years before it opens. The chaos around there will make the current M25 05:00 - 09:00 and 15:00 - 19:00 queues a thing of fond memory. Whoever gives this the nod better be damned sure of the actual benefits because it's one hell of a fk up if the proposed flight demand does not materialise.

edit: and just to deal with the back-flow of traffic towards the M40 and southwards towards J10 will require these to be widened as well. If that is not included in the grand plan, the traffic jams on the M25 will become the stuff of queuing legends.

Edited by drivin_me_nuts on Thursday 2nd July 14:51
And this is it. The Western section of the M25 is probably the most heavily congested in the country, to put further pressure on it without significant improvement will be counter productive to the increased aircraft capacity. The M4 into London is a car park up to 10 in the morning and anytime after 5ish in the afternoon. The capacity needs to come from somewhere but it isn't as simple a bulldozing some mediocre villages and laying some concrete.

All that jazz

7,632 posts

145 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
truck71 said:
Thanks.

In which case I'd disagree with the statement made by LHR Flightman that the aircraft are barely audible- you have to raise your voice in conversation when they pass. I walked across Richmond Green at 730 last night and the lack of noise was noticeable as the aircraft were landing in the opposite direction (I think they switch mid afternoon).
They may switch from the north to the south runway (or vv.) but they'll only switch which end they land and take off if the wind changes direction. Unless the wind is so light that its speed hardly registers on the dial, they will always land and take off into the wind.

truck71 said:
If it were my decision I'd choose the Thames Estuary solution, it's the only strategy that can be designed to cope with required capacity in the South East.
Aside from the huge transport infrastructure changes that would need to happen to connect it to London across vast marshland full of the "lesser spotted newt", there is also the problem that the estuary is basically mud down to a very deep depth which would cost insane amounts of money to sort out before the land mass above it could be created, HKG style. But something else that's very important and often overlooked with the estuary plan is that area suffers REALLY badly from low level fog, like all the time, and that will cause a lot of delays and diversions.

I'll raise TY4Cs bet and say that they'll still be talking about it in 20 years time, never mind 10. None of the politicians have the balls to do anything about it and it's just a can kicking exercise for the next government to deal with.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
FFS look at all the amazing feats of engineering and fantastically beautiful buildings or bridges or other projects that have been built in the UK over the centuries .

Is it really too difficult to make a decision about and then actually build a new runway or even a whole new airport. Pathetic.

Pan Pan Pan

9,777 posts

110 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
truck71 said:
drivin_me_nuts said:
For the day they cut the first sod, I reckon it will be 7 years before it opens. The chaos around there will make the current M25 05:00 - 09:00 and 15:00 - 19:00 queues a thing of fond memory. Whoever gives this the nod better be damned sure of the actual benefits because it's one hell of a fk up if the proposed flight demand does not materialise.

edit: and just to deal with the back-flow of traffic towards the M40 and southwards towards J10 will require these to be widened as well. If that is not included in the grand plan, the traffic jams on the M25 will become the stuff of queuing legends.

Edited by drivin_me_nuts on Thursday 2nd July 14:51
And this is it. The Western section of the M25 is probably the most heavily congested in the country, to put further pressure on it without significant improvement will be counter productive to the increased aircraft capacity. The M4 into London is a car park up to 10 in the morning and anytime after 5ish in the afternoon. The capacity needs to come from somewhere but it isn't as simple a bulldozing some mediocre villages and laying some concrete.

I think one of the objections to enlarging LGW, was that it would only benefit areas south of London in terms of access. Passengers travelling from the North would have to take a significant detour West or East around the M25 to reach Gatwick, unless a new North South route directly through central London was built.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
Blaster72 said:
CAPP0 said:
Terrorism - is nobody REALLY considering the difference in the potential impact of a plane being downed on, say, the newly-developed Battersea vs a plane coming down in fields halfway between Lingfield and E Grinstead?
Yes, all airport planning is led by this vital piece of work rolleyes
yes, because Lockerbie was close to a huge airport....

saaby93

32,038 posts

177 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
el stovey said:
FFS look at all the amazing feats of engineering and fantastically beautiful buildings or bridges or other projects that have been built in the UK over the centuries .

Is it really too difficult to make a decision about and then actually build a new runway or even a whole new airport. Pathetic.
Charles de Galle

bodhi

10,333 posts

228 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
saaby93 said:
Charles de Galle
That didn't take much planning however. From what I can tell from flying through it, the French basically crumpled a big airport up into a ball, threw it at Paris, sat back and said "That will do us".

Pan Pan Pan

9,777 posts

110 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
Blaster72 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
truck71 said:
Blaster72 said:
truck71 said:
LHRFlightman said:
Do you understand why both runways are used for arrivals between 6-7? Because if you did you'd know that with a 3rd runway at the very worst you'll have 1 week in 3 with NO ARRIVALS at all, and possibly 2 in 3 depending upon the restrictions placed upon the airport.

In Richmond, when the aircraft are landing 27R they are barely audible. On the new runway that won't be heard at all.
What's 27R? Interested as I spend quite a bit of time in Richmond and live about a mile north of the flightpath in Chiswick.
It's the designation for the North runway when they're taking off towards the West and landing from the East
Thanks.

In which case I'd disagree with the statement made by LHR Flightman that the aircraft are barely audible- you have to raise your voice in conversation when they pass. I walked across Richmond Green at 730 last night and the lack of noise was noticeable as the aircraft were landing in the opposite direction (I think they switch mid afternoon). I'd agree the modern A380's are much quieter than the older 747's etc but they are still chuffin noisy at what I'd guess is a few thousand feet.

Other than being a total nimby my biggest objection to Heathrow expansion is the infrastructure would need huge improvement in an area that is already space challenged. Putting cost to one side, trying to squeeze more transport links between the A30/M4 will be tricky although not impossible.

If it were my decision I'd choose the Thames Estuary solution, it's the only strategy that can be designed to cope with required capacity in the South East. As others have said a third runway at Heathrow would almost seem to be standing still.
Many years ago I landed a helicopter on the test platform used to assess the possibility of building an airport in the Thames estuary. After getting back I found out that deep piles had been used to construct the platform, but that these were in fact continuing to sink into the mud of the estuary. From the data gained it was determined (at the time) that the cost of piling the area to form the airport area would not be financially viable. This however might not still be the case now.
Aren't there a lot of birds around too? Birds + Engines isn't a good mix.

Besides, Greenpeace will uncover a Great Crested Wingnut nest within 5 seconds of a decision to build there being made. It's a non starter.
Yup! as Captain Sully, the pilot who landed his airbus on the Potomac a few years ago following a bird strike can testify to.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
truck71 said:
If it were my decision I'd choose the Thames Estuary solution, it's the only strategy that can be designed to cope with required capacity in the South East. As others have said a third runway at Heathrow would almost seem to be standing still.
the left of field stupid solution.

even if it was financially feasible (which it's not without massive government support), to provide road access to it would be laughable, it's bad enough already with the traffic to the Kent ports and you want to add a Heathrow to it?

IF you were going to pick a place to put a new mega airport, you would go north, not east, and being blunt, it's just not feasible without the corresponding investment in rail/road links to places people will want to get to.

Heathrow is only now going to get cross-rail access in the next few years, just how many decades away would starting again take?

Stuff the NIMBY's and just get on with it, (and forget 3rd, make it 3rd and 4th runway) along with a second runway for Gatwick to provide some real competition.