jambalaya – Member

@gavin planes take off and land in same direction – into the wind. So both uphill in your example, no ?

Are you Chris Grayling by any chance?
Neither of you seem to have no idea about how airports work!

Well I think what happens is that the planes fly. Into the wind as far as able. Well whenever I drive past Heathrow they normally are landing but sometimes taking off which would seem to support that theory. I’m no airport designer but fundamentally a runway is used in boh directions. Anyway, my previous post about builders in the south pasted this link https://youtu.be/T8dB4YnLSsE. I think it reminds me of the third runway too.

it’ll mean there’s 50% more planes.

i.e. 50% more pollution.

Yes but also 50% more passengers, 50% more sets of airport taxes, 50% more chances for people to get here from wherever – I think this is what a lot of people have their eye on.

There’s a lot of discussion about ground capacity in the south East which is good. Expansion was always going to happen.

I’m looking forward to how they’re going to redesign the airspace above the south East to cope with the increased levels of traffic. At the moment, its already complex and overcrowded. Unlike ground space, where you can bulldoze a village or two for more room, the sky is finite.

It also means 50% more taxis on the M4 ! 😯

That part of the M25/west london/slough/M4 is already a traffic nightmare, now its gonna have a million more cars runway + flyingover the m4 flyover which is already over the A4.

JG Ballard must be loving it

JG Ballard? Oh, dystpian fiction..

molgrips – Member
JG Ballard?

Crash (the novel) was set in the M25/M4 corrridor, as you cruise (in stationary traffic) over the crumbling M4 flyover into London, chugging pollution onto the streets of Hounslow and Brentford below, you are now greeted by the shiny elevated dispaly showrooms of mercedes, audi, kia?!

It really is the home of auto-erotica!

Actually runway expansion at Heathrow will mean less pollution than the alternative options of expanding other airports. Despite the additional capacity airlines will still choose to operate bigger, larger capacity aircraft in and out of the airport so fewer but larger aircraft that are far more efficient and less polluting than more smaller aircraft. Also with airlines operating out of fewer ‘mega hubs’ rather than splitting their fleets and operations across several airports will mean far more efficient infrastructure for getting passengers to and from the airport, which is far more polluting and environmentally unfriendly by an order of magnitude or two than the actual operation of the aircraft themselves.

Also with airlines operating out of fewer ‘mega hubs’ rather than splitting their fleets and operations across several airports will mean far more efficient infrastructure for getting passengers to and from the airport, which is far more polluting and environmentally unfriendly by an order of magnitude or two than the actual operation of the aircraft themselves.

So how about decent rail links for Heathrow then? Like I dunno, a new railway line linking it and Paddington all across London..? But of course, such a thing would be terrible and useless, if you listen to Northerners 🙂

EDIT just checked the map – Crossrail is going to be even more useful than I thought! Straight into the City from the West.

HS2 will serve Heathrow.

Got an email from Heathrow this morning. Not sure of this has been posted before but here is a link to their pro-expansion website with details of what happens next.

Taking Britain Further

https://your.heathrow.com/takingbritainfurther/?CMP=CRM412201410

Its not a problem landing aircraft on a slope up north (Leeds Bradford Airport), so why would it be down south?

I wonder to what extent this is being used as post-Brexit economic stimulus?

molgrips – Member
I wonder to what extent this is being used as post-Brexit economic stimulus

absolutely
heathrow, hinkley, HS2 all absolutely essential now, lack of foreign investors in the UK post brexit, means itll have to be taxpayer funded stimulus
however
Squaring this with our construction skills gap; from brickies to surveyors, that is already hindering growth (shortage leading to 6% wage rise in construction dragging up the 2% average)

and Mays push to reduce immigration will be nigh on impossible

absolutely
heathrow, hinkley, HS2 all absolutely essential now, lack of foreign investors in the UK post brexit, means itll have to be taxpayer funded stimulus

Make you minds up. Its not long ago that people were attacking the government for using foreign investors to “subsidise” UK infrastructure (merci mes amis) and now they are being criticised for gov infrastructure. What do people want?

What do people want?

both

our own governmemt keen to improve the countries infrastructure at a local level as well as big national projects, like these

and keeping us an outward looking place (with single market access and freedom of movement) that attracts investors to generate jobs and grow the economy

criticisms of hinkley or HS2 for example are definitely not just about the source of funding

To keep foreigners out, apparently.

Oops, wrong thread.

heathrow, hinkley, HS2 all absolutely essential now, lack of foreign investors in the UK post brexit, means itll have to be taxpayer funded stimulus

If only there’d been some long term plan to foster home-grown talent eh? We could have used EU membership to allow people to train overseas and bring skills back. If we’d been planning to become more insular, that is.

Although why anyone in power would want to do that is a mystery.

Actually runway expansion at Heathrow will mean less pollution than the alternative options of expanding other airports. Despite the additional capacity airlines will still choose to operate bigger, larger capacity aircraft in and out of the airport so fewer but larger aircraft that are far more efficient and less polluting than more smaller aircraft. Also with airlines operating out of fewer ‘mega hubs’ rather than splitting their fleets and operations across several airports will mean far more efficient infrastructure for getting passengers to and from the airport, which is far more polluting and environmentally unfriendly by an order of magnitude or two than the actual operation of the aircraft themselves. [/I]

Except that model doesn’t quite seem to be in now, witness the slowdown in A380 sales.

Well there we go:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37779423

molgrips – Member 
So the terminals can now handle the traffic of two runways, but the third runway is going to take some traffic from them? So they are going to be emptier?

Some pro Heathrow business and airline folk were on the radio saying about how this was going to be so great for business as it can allow 1000+ more flights (a day?). Not then the reason that was being thrown about from airlines that an extra runway would allow the load to spread out and we can be rid of the stacks over London and cope with incidents and weather.

All that will happen is capacity will fill to max again, we have 1000 more planes in the sky, so we’ll need extra stacks up there, more pollution and noise, and then there’s a demand for a 4th runway.

Meanwhile more traffic on the M25 to get people to Heathrow, and the extra lanes already built to ease congestion have instead just filled to capacity, so likewise more lanes need to be built, which will fill to capacity.

Though how they’ll add more lanes once a runway is over the road, I’m not sure.

I think they should have the runway go across the M25 and put traffic lights on the road. Just enough time between each plane to floor it across before the next one 😀

Whichever way you slice it, the thinking on HTR is so short sighted it makes Mr Magoo look like he’s 20/20..

Civil engineering projects in this country are so poorly conceived it’s criminal..

I’d love to know of any in the last decade that could be reasonably described as a success I.e. At the very least they were on time & on budget…

mrlebowski

The new forth road bridge. On time and under budget.

All that will happen is capacity will fill to max again, we have 1000 more planes in the sky, so we’ll need extra stacks up there, more pollution and noise, and then there’s a demand for a 4th runway.

You will need the demand for the extra flights.

Meanwhile more traffic on the M25 to get people to Heathrow, and the extra lanes already built to ease congestion have instead just filled to capacity, so likewise more lanes need to be built, which will fill to capacity.

If the infrastructure is done right it shoudl aliviate some pressure. If you could link LHR into the rail mainlines properly from the North then it make it a more attractive proposition.

…If you could link LHR into the rail mainlines properly from the North then it make it a more attractive proposition.

Yes, this could be done.

No, it won’t be.

They need to destroy 800 homes for expand the airport, how many more to widden the m25 and train lines?

mrlebowski

The new forth road bridge. On time and under budget.

Not this country 😉

Sad thing is they don’t have to build a new runway. They ‘just’ need to deal with the current inefficiency. Ages ago a guy was on the radio saying if they really wanted to , they could sort out the 50% inefficiency to solve the problems. However, no one wants to take on such a big task since it’s (supposedly) easier to just build another runway and ignore the trail of devastation in its wake (extra pollution, destroying people’s lives etc)…

The new forth road bridge. On time and under budget.

That’s one out of how many?

Give me a few more than that & might believe it’s possible……..MIGHT……

That section is already the busiest part of the M25 (according to the BBC), which probably makes it busiest in the country ?!

So an extra 1000 flights a day will mean a huge increase in traffic, would require a wideningband redesign of the junction, as well as the runway ramp.
10 years of 50 limit and night closures, would be my prediction

Just to put some realism in there 100 flights is one every 1min 26ish… If they are just landing so landing and taking off is one every 40s, I’ve never seen a runway that tight. Where did that number come from

Yup having lived near the flightpath its one every 90 seconds over your head
Have lain in bed counting!

mikewsmith – Member 
Just to put some realism in there 100 flights is one every 1min 26ish… If they are just landing so landing and taking off is one every 40s, I’ve never seen a runway that tight. Where did that number come from

Was on the radio from some pro Heathrow business and airline types, but figures seem to be all over the place. I didn’t catch if they meant per day or week.

Zac (anti) claims 300,000 extra a year – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/15/zac-goldsmith-investors-beware-i-will-never-let-a-third-runway-b/

So around 800 a day.

I’ve seen various articles suggest 200,000 extra, so more like 500 extra a day.

Just been reminded by someone – the T5 public inquiry took just under 4 years…..

Yup having lived near the flightpath its one every 90 seconds over your head

One ever 90s is about 500/day (what lands must take off etc)

It must be a very compelling to case to build it on top of the M25 when we have so many fields without motorways in them.

Fields are kind of useful… The space on top of the m25 isn’t

How many runway size fields are there in close proximity to Heathrow?

UKIP are backing Goldsmith .
so Brexit V remain ?

tjagain – Member

The new forth road bridge. On time and under budget.

Not really brain surgery- it’s a fixed price contract with realistic timescales. (it’s still got room to slip if we have a bad winter mind, the nominal deadline is IIRC march 2017)

It’s more interesting for what it says about the way public sector bidding normally works though- they had 39 bids for the contract and all but 2 backed out when they discovered they were going to be held to the bid.