Mizter T wrote:

On 25/09/2016 12:16, Recliner wrote:
There's a short item in today's Sunday Times that suggests that the
government is favouring the Heathrow Hub option:
http://www.heathrowhub.com

This is cheaper than the third runway, needs much less land (and very few
properties will be affected), will be much quicker to build, and will not
increase the noise footprint nearly as much. The scheme as proposed (not by
HAL) also includes a road-rail interchange on the M4 and GWML (and possibly
an HS2 spur), immediately to the north of the airport, with a direct light
rail link to the terminals. However, I think that's really a separate idea.

Crucially, BA is backing this scheme, rather than the third runway:
http://news.sky.com/story/ba-owner-s...cheme-10319759



Interesting. Especially given that the Heathrow Hub proposal was
rejected by the Airports Commission.

It wasn't rejected. It was one of the three preferred options, ahead of
Gatwick. It doesn't add as much capacity as a completely new runway, but is
cheaper, quicker, easier, less disruptive.


If Heathrow is the government's choice then it's still going to face
some almighty opposition, though perhaps given the whole Heathrow
question has been going on for so long - a 'war of attrition' if you
will - maybe some of that opposition could fall by the wayside.

I think Heathrow has been the government's choice for ages. They just
couldn't find a good time to announce it. Had Gatwick been the preferred
choice, it would have been announced before the 2015 election.


Poyle would be razed under the scheme - much of the area is a trading
estate, though there are some residential streets south of Bath Rd that
would have to go. (As would the current T5 Pod Parking!)

The latter would be affected by either of the runway options.