Mizter T wrote:
On 25/09/2016 16:10, Recliner wrote:
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.
Mea culpa... I was going to check, but decided to let my faulty memory
serve me instead. I shall go and have another look at the Commission's
report.
From
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440316/airports-commission-final-report.pdf
We have concluded that the best answer is to expand Heathrow’s runway
capacity.
A brand new airport in the Thames Estuary, while appealing in theory, is
unfeasibly expensive, highly problematic in environmental terms and would
be hugely disruptive for many businesses and communities. Gatwick, by
contrast, has presented a plausible case for expansion. It is well placed
to cater for growth in intra-European leisure flying, but is unlikely to
provide as much of the type of capacity which is most urgently required:
long-haul destinations in new markets. Heathrow can provide that capacity
most easily and quickly. The benefits are signifcantly greater, for
business passengers, freight operators and the broader economy. All
passengers will benefit from enhanced competition.
Our choice at Heathrow is in favour of the Northwest Runway proposal by
the airport operator. The so-called Heathrow Hub is an imaginative idea,
which has usefully opened up thinking about the way the airport operates,
but for the reasons we explain is less attractive from a noise perspective.
The Northwest Runway scheme is technically feasible and does not involve
massive, untested infrastructure. The costs are high, but financeable by
the private sector, in our judgement and that of investors.
....
13.2 Each of the three schemes shortlisted for detailed consideration was
considered a credible option for expansion, capable of delivering valuable
enhancements to the UK’s aviation capacity and connectivity. They would
each also have negative environmental effects, which would need to be
carefully managed, though in all three cases the schemes’ developers have
sought to limit those where possible through careful design.
13.3 Nonetheless, the Commission has unanimously concluded that the
proposal for a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport, in combination
with the signi cant package of measures to address its environmental and
community impacts described below, presents the strongest case. It delivers
more substantial economic and strategic bene ts than any other shortlisted
option, strengthening connectivity for passengers and freight users and
boosting the productivity of the UK economy, and strikes a fair balance
between national and local priorities. The Commission’s terms of reference
required it to make recommendations designed to maintain the UK’s position
as a global hub for aviation: Heathrow expansion is the most likely route
to achieving that.
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.
George Osborne's choice, yes. But there's not been a government decision
per se on it.
Agreed, but I think most ministers and MPs (with some well-known
exceptions) favour Heathrow.
There have been all sorts of rumours and whispers about the issue
though, with some seemingly credible ones also pointing to the choice
being Gatwick, with the subtext that Heathrow was just too difficult.
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.
OK, though I wasn't seeking to make a serious point from that!
I was just thinking about the immediate localities that will be
affected. I'm not sure to what degree Colnbrook and Poyle have been hit
by planning blight re the possibility of a Heathrow extension - it has
certainly badly affected Sipson and Harmondsworth.
Which would actually survive under this proposal. HAL would be the owner of
some newly valuable properties!
On a broader view, siting London's main airport at Heathrow was
something of a folly.
Probably, but I'm not sure there was a good place to site a major
four-runway airport anywhere convenient for London. London didn't have the
Denver option.