looks relatively doable to me - I imagine we may be involved in part of it given the works we did at T5
https://your.heathrow.com/takingbritainfurther/m25withexpansion/
UK airport expansion: third runway at Heathrow receives government approval.
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
looks relatively doable to me - I imagine we may be involved in part of it given the works we did at T5
https://your.heathrow.com/takingbritainfurther/m25withexpansion/
More likely he'll let others fight to the death for freedom
I'm not being funny, but take a look at the traffic right now
It's not going to be quick to move that part of the M25 underground. And no one talks about it.
It's not going to be quick to move that part of the M25 underground. And no one talks about it.
The finished product might be great, but the M25 is one of the busiest roads in the world (probably)
Were will the runway be built? NW or SW?
NW almost definitely
thanks mate. I know London's geography as much as Moyes know about football
Having said that, a 16 (not 14) lane M25 is definitely what should happen though. Really, every motorway in world should be 16 lanes split into 4 sections of 4 lanes.
Middle sections :- fast traffic staying on motorway (undisrupted by everything else)
Left section / right section :- traffic coming on/off the motorway and slow traffic.
Goldsmith's going to force a by-election: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37764269
Could be very interesting.
Could be very interesting.
LDems are favs for the seat!!
For anyone who has the misfortune to have to use that stretch of the M25 on a regular basis, you'll already know it is an almost permanent traffic jam as it is. Any lane closures there will be a fecking nightmare.
I think we need to reduce the number of vehicles on the roads, particularly for short-ish journeys in Greater London. And shifting some element of freight/supply to other times of day, or onto other forms of transport. We expand the London Underground for passenger travel, why not for the movement of goods and materials too? The above-ground equivalent would be the canals that we used to use decades past.
Rail freight tends to only travel by rail for part of its journey. It would still need someone to unload it onto a van, and then that van to deliver it to all the stores.
The thing is, reducing the number of vehicles on the road is just not going to happen. At least, not until self driving cars, which we really shouldn't count on. I love trains, but for the vast majority, it's just not practical. Maybe Cross-Rail 2 and Cross-Rail 3 will help those involved with the London catchment area, but trains are much harder than just building a road.
But reducing the amount of road-freight we get to and from Europe, just so we can get more air-freight makes little sense to me. Road Freight is by far the biggest freight sector
There is no where for that road freight and road passengers transport to go.
If we tried to cut the number of cars and lorries used in half, we'd have to increase the number of trains available by 10 times or more
Jesus, the Tories helpfully emailed me a list of quotes from the likes of the BCC, IoD, the CBI and so forth, praising the decision. As a west London resident, I aren't interested in being in that echo chamber. Good on Zac for standing up for what he believes in and hope he wins.
Sorry people of West London. Looks like you've got to lube up, bend over and take one for the good of our GDP.
We already do through our tax receipts.
Good news for the country. Bad news for people who live near Heathrow, but it's been the UK's major airport for a lot longer than many of them have lived there.
Well done Theresa May in making the right decision even if for the wrong reasons.
Those who live in the South East and think this is only going to affect people living around Heathrow might be in for a surprise in the next 10 years
How so?
Im starting to understand the rest of Britain does not like Londoners very much. Which is quite ridiculous consider that it basically the hand that feeds the UK.
As i stated on last page a new heathrow runway will add another roughly 800 aircraft per day into the sky of the london area which is already full.
Most london airports including Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, Northolt and London City all have departure routes that conflict with that of Heathrows.
For example. Most heathrow northbound departures go to about 6,000 ft initially. Thats the highest you can go until you enter the airways system. Luton eastbounds initially go south then east and have to stay at 4,000 (below heathrow outbounds) before climbing to 5,000 where they stay below stansted outbounds.
London city northbounds have to stay at 3,000ft until clear of Luton eastbounds then climb over luton inbounds.
luton westbounds have to stay at 5 below heathrow inbounds and outbounds.
Northolt westbounds have to go under Heathrow outbounds and inbounds and they actually STOP Luton outbounds until they are clear of west london.
Heathrow has 4 'stacks' which are holding areas for inbounds. 2 per runway, one north and one south of said runway. These holds are full, all the time.
Another runway means another 1 or 2 holds. Where do they go? What town are they going to sit over? Holds are usually about 20 miles away from said airport.
The London Terminal control area is full. The traffic levels where we are at the moment are expected to increase up to about 30% by 2020. Thats without a new runway.
Having new departure and inbound routes and holds will force other airports' routes to be moved (which they need to do already to be fair). This will mean departure routes and holding patterns over towns where there are none at the moment. This means massive public consultation covering the entire london Terminal control area which spreads from bristol to cambridge and oxford to east essex. Whos going to pay for that?
Then of course you've got gatwick and stansted planning second runways (planning regardless of heathrow decision).
Well a lot of them dont, that's true. But a lot of them grudgingly move there to find work and realise its actually quite cool and end up staying there.
Anyway, as Ive said before several times (and probably in this thread) the government should close Westminster for this refurb and move the House of Commons somewhere in the North - Manchester or Birmingham. Id like them to do that and then stay up there to be honest. We should try to create a more multi polar economy, in the US you have Washington as the political capital, New York as the financial / commercial capital and then LA as a kind of cultural capital - well, a capital for the film industry anyway. I know the UK is a lot smaller but if London was the commercial capital but the political capital was moved north it would pull some business north with it which would be good for everyone. London is far too congested and could use the relief.
They should also build a massive hub airport up there as well, Birmingham would be a rational choice for that given its centrality in England. Yes businesses would rather be in West London right now but they'd get over it.
Jesus, I didnt realise that the "Britains skys are full" wasn't empty rhetoric. I have a lot of questions, but they'll have to wait for another time
Just read somewhere that 1/3 of Heathrow passengers are hub passengers. That is, they don't leave the airport but transit onwards.
Presumably the majority of those are on to other destinations in Europe.
Now, I know there would be some complications in doing it but it's there potential in the idea of a "hub-only" airport? You alleviate even 1/2 or 2/3 of Heathrows hub passengers and you are doing a big help for capacity without expanding anything.
Obviously I understand that Heathrow is a big hub because it has loads of flights which go to many destinations - which would be the obvious significant block to the idea to overcome - but I don't think it can't be overcome.
The hub could be anywhere. In the north if you like. Would be much cheaper. Etc.
Presumably the majority of those are on to other destinations in Europe.
Now, I know there would be some complications in doing it but it's there potential in the idea of a "hub-only" airport? You alleviate even 1/2 or 2/3 of Heathrows hub passengers and you are doing a big help for capacity without expanding anything.
Obviously I understand that Heathrow is a big hub because it has loads of flights which go to many destinations - which would be the obvious significant block to the idea to overcome - but I don't think it can't be overcome.
The hub could be anywhere. In the north if you like. Would be much cheaper. Etc.
The problem is, as your numbers say, 2/3 passengers DO leave the airport.
Let's say you've got 400 seats on Boeing 747 coming in from LAX. And let's use your numbers (ish), and say 100 of them are going on to other destinations, whilst 300 of them leave the airport to see London.
By building a "Hub" in the middle of nowhere, you are going to have to reduce the number of incoming flights by 3/4ths (2/3rds) to fill each plane. Instead of four planes a day from LAX to Heathrow, maybe there will only be 1. Instead of 1 plane a day from Chicago, maybe there will only be 1 a week.
Heathrow works as a hub, because it's in London. 75% of passengers want to see London and the UK. If it was 10% that wanted to see London and the UK, or maybe even 20%, then it might work, but there aren't planes that only carry passengers to London and planes that only carry passengers to the Hub.. it's the same planes.
tl;dr, Imagine a plane carries just 10-50 people that are using Heathrow as a Hub and the vast majority that want to stay in the UK. By moving the planes elsewhere you lose the London element, and without the London element getting enough people to fill the plane will be difficult.
Last edited:
Instead, what we need is a direct train between Heathrow and Gatwick. Allowing Gatwick to serve as a second arm of the London Hub.
The train needs to be free (for those with tickets at Heathrow and Gatwick), easy to use (walking escalators to the shuttle to London West (Heathrow)), direct, fast and clean. 25 miles.
The train needs to be free (for those with tickets at Heathrow and Gatwick), easy to use (walking escalators to the shuttle to London West (Heathrow)), direct, fast and clean. 25 miles.
All fair points. But then by adding an extra run way aren't you effectively saying that, there is enough demand to fill planes over and above what is already filling the planes?
Very much agree with a direct link between Gatwick and Heathrow.
Very much agree with a direct link between Gatwick and Heathrow.
There is definitely additional demand at Heathrow, Gatwick, and probably elsewhere.
But as the airport gets bigger and bigger it gets easier and easier to add even more flights. Maybe because of this extra capacity, Heathrow can add flights on Tuesdays to Minnesota, Shenzen, Boston and Pasay. And because of those extra flights, Heathrow can add an extra flight on Monday from Catania, and an extra flight on Wednesday to Bologna.
The Hub-ee-ness grows and grows as the airport gets bigger.
Until we have another financial crisis anyway.
I think it would be impossible to move all this traffic away at this point.
What is on my mind is, why the feck is it going to take us 9 years to finish it?
Ther countries have done bigger airport projects in half that time.
Ther countries have done bigger airport projects in half that time.
Not enough immigrants.
I'd be surprised if it gets done in 9 years. All we have here is the decision to go with Heathrow. Yet to come is approval by the house, agreement on finalised plans and designs, and countless legal suits.
Edit: and the impression many MPs give is that they are against Heathrow.
There is a heck of a long road to go yet.
The ridiculous thing is by the time its built we will be pretty much where we are now, bursting at the seams of our capacity and needing to build more. We should definitely be looking to do a second one somewhere.
Birmingham and Gatwick will be built before Heathrow is. Maybe even Stansted.
I don't quite see why airports like Luton for example aren't expanded to be international. They have great links to London, and for people who are looking to go in to Europe have great links to Europe. And no real issue of space.
I actually like Luton airport though I think I'm the only one.
Luton has been going through a renovation for a year or two now and is getting better. It's a nightmare to get to from the south though.
Unless you can get onto the Thameslink train which goes all the way there. The reason why I liked it was probably a lot down to the fact that when I lived in London that train was quite convenient for me, which gave me Gatwick to the south and Luton to the north.
What? Are you mad? Thats the ENTIRE issue for luton.
That airport moves more passengers/aircraft per sq ft than any airport in Europe.
The airfield perimeter on the north side is luton, cant go there.
To the west is luton and dunstable, cant go there.
Literally a foot South and east of the airfield perimeter is Hertfordshire. The airport and all the money it earns goes to bedfordshire who own the lease on the airport. So hertfordshire gets all the noise and none of the income. At both ends of the runway there is a significant drop (they built the thing on a hill).
They literally cant expand anywhere, although they would love to. Which is a shame because the catchment area and travel links are v good and going to get better with the expansion (benefit of an airport still owned by the council it gets good rd links considering).
And what do you mean by expanded to be international? Its the 5th busiest airport in UK and 99%of their flights are international. I assume you mean trans atlantic? Well that is down to their runway length and as said incredibly small size geographically, just cant park the big ones
I know absolutely nothing about the practicalities and politics of Luton expansion but surely Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire can bury their centuries old animosity and come to some kind of arrangement?