How about having an extra runway at Gatwick and Stanstead?
I know that the Locals won't like it but it would be a whole lot cheaper, and the roads and railways are there already
Boris island would cost a fortune, is next to ship that could blow up any time soon and would suffer from birdstrike issues.
And that's before you get started on the environmental stuff
I'm fascinated by the Boris Island proposal from an engineering perspective. I'm a sucker for Mega Engineering ans some of the new airports in Asia are amazing. However, upon refection I have to admit that it's not really practical. London already has a major hub airport and I cannot see how it could operate with two. Any proposal to close Heathrow would be political suicide due to the job losses.
So, the main problems we have are
a) need to increase capacity in the SE over the next 20-50 years
b) improve Heathrow so that it's not running at 99% capacity
In terms of adding a new runway then Stansted would be far the easiest and cheapest. All you would have to do is upgrade the railway line from Liverpool Street and onwards to the Midlands via Cambridge. From a personal perspective, this would be my option. I'm only 30 minutes from Stansted and would welcome expansion as it would mean having to schelp down to LGW and LHR less often.
As for Heathrow, I really do think a 3rd runway will come back onto the agenda despite how difficult it would be politically and the lack of surrounding space.
There's a good article in the Telegraph on the pros and cons of each option
[QUOTE=LostFool;56025178 London already has a major hub airport and I cannot see how it could operate with two. Any proposal to close Heathrow would be political suicide due to the job losses.
[/QUOTE]
Any job losses at Heathrow would be counterbalanced by gains at the new airport. Heathrow could become an ordinary non-hub airport? Heathrow is still near London and the whole area could be redeveloped - residential, business other.
Your post seems to suggest Heathrow can only stay the same or grow. I definitely think there are other possibilities for Heathrow.
To other posters, HS1 or other rail lines could be adapted to have a proper stop at Boris Island. At the moment a lot of this traffic is going via London Underground which isn't really suited to all these people with their large suitcases.
Any job losses at Heathrow would be counterbalanced by gains at the new airport. Heathrow could become an ordinary non-hub airport?
Having LHR as anything but a very small airport would cause problems with flight routing into Estuary Airport - as it is London City Airport would probable have to close or restrict even more the types of aircraft that could use it. A new London Airport should replace much of the need for existing London Airports.
For example a large enough airport would remove the need for BA to have operations at both Gatwick & Heathrow which would get rid of passengers on one ticket having to travel between the two as their own cost in time, money and inconvenience - which will discourage people from flying BA.
Any job losses at Heathrow would be counterbalanced by gains at the new airport. Heathrow could become an ordinary non-hub airport? Heathrow is still near London and the whole area could be redeveloped - residential, business other.
Your post seems to suggest Heathrow can only stay the same or grow. I definitely think there are other possibilities for Heathrow.
To other posters, HS1 or other rail lines could be adapted to have a proper stop at Boris Island. At the moment a lot of this traffic is going via London Underground which isn't really suited to all these people with their large suitcases.
But would they though? Heathrow generates around 100,000 jobs and many of those jobs are very well paid, the average BAA salary is iirc around £29,000. Also who will run the new airport? Surely if your going to bulldoze its main asset it should be BAA, especially given their pumping around £1 billion a year into LHRs infrastructure without a third runway.
Any job losses at Heathrow would be counterbalanced by gains at the new airport. Heathrow could become an ordinary non-hub airport? Heathrow is still near London and the whole area could be redeveloped - residential, business other.
It's fine saying jobs would be "counterbalanced" but not if it was your job. Many specialist positions would surely locate but for others in catering, security, cleaning etc would just be lost and hired locally around the new airport. That's potentially tens of thousands of non- and semi-skilled jobs lost to the local economy.
The whole reason that there are so many business parks around Heathrow is precisely because it is a major international airport. If Heathrow was downgraded or closed then many would probably move away so it's hard to see how enough new businesses could be attracted to the area to compensate.
Interesting idea. Even if it's not a long term solution it could add some short to mid term capacity. Build a high speed underground rail link between the two and Northolt could easily become the 3rd (or even 4th) runway and Terminal 6.
BAA were using the argument that Heathrow is now a hub airport with many people not starting or ending their trip at Heathrow and hence they shouldn't be forced to sell Stansted. So it looks as if the 3rd runway is back on the agenda.
Interesting idea. Even if it's not a long term solution it could add some short to mid term capacity. Build a high speed underground rail link between the two and Northolt could easily become the 3rd (or even 4th) runway and Terminal 6.
And HS2 will run half a mile north of RAF Northolt (albeit in a tunnel).
BAA were using the argument that Heathrow is now a hub airport with many people not starting or ending their trip at Heathrow and hence they shouldn't be forced to sell Stansted. So it looks as if the 3rd runway is back on the agenda.
Which is actually the truth and more to the point both airports compete in very different markets. There are no tour operators or budget airlines at Heathrow, there are no fast food chains there either.
You will find these things at Gatwick and Stansted.
Interesting idea. Even if it's not a long term solution it could add some short to mid term capacity. Build a high speed underground rail link between the two and Northolt could easily become the 3rd (or even 4th) runway and Terminal 6.
Northolt is too small and too distant. The present runways are just over 5,000 feet, and realistically you need about 8,000 ft with overruns for an international airport. There isn't enough space on the site for that. If you are going to knock down houses for the expansion then you might as well do it on the same site as Heathrow and not have a 6 mile gap to worry about. The idea that HS2 could also act as a high speed transit between Northolt and Heathrow is far fetched. It could only be done with additional lines in parallel.
Northolt could take the "spoke" traffic away from the Heathrow hub, but then you have the problem of getting these feeder passengers to and from Heathrow.
I don't think that aircraft noise is that much of a problem these days, but many people do. Spreading the noise footprint over a much larger area would mean Northolt affects far more people than a third runway at Heathrow.
Boris Johnson's plans for a new four-runway airport in the Thames Estuary have been categorically dumped by the Government-backed Davies Commission.
Several independent studies published by the commission over the summer appeared to sound the death knell for the project, though. The studies highlighted the significant environmental and financial challenges of building a hub airport on the Hoo Peninsula in the inner Thames Estuary, which is home to several protected wildlife habitats. The costs of an Estuary Airport have also been estimated at up to £112bn.
Comments
I'm fascinated by the Boris Island proposal from an engineering perspective. I'm a sucker for Mega Engineering ans some of the new airports in Asia are amazing. However, upon refection I have to admit that it's not really practical. London already has a major hub airport and I cannot see how it could operate with two. Any proposal to close Heathrow would be political suicide due to the job losses.
So, the main problems we have are
a) need to increase capacity in the SE over the next 20-50 years
b) improve Heathrow so that it's not running at 99% capacity
In terms of adding a new runway then Stansted would be far the easiest and cheapest. All you would have to do is upgrade the railway line from Liverpool Street and onwards to the Midlands via Cambridge. From a personal perspective, this would be my option. I'm only 30 minutes from Stansted and would welcome expansion as it would mean having to schelp down to LGW and LHR less often.
As for Heathrow, I really do think a 3rd runway will come back onto the agenda despite how difficult it would be politically and the lack of surrounding space.
There's a good article in the Telegraph on the pros and cons of each option
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/9023283/Options-for-Thames-estuary-airport-expansion.html
[/QUOTE]
Any job losses at Heathrow would be counterbalanced by gains at the new airport. Heathrow could become an ordinary non-hub airport? Heathrow is still near London and the whole area could be redeveloped - residential, business other.
Your post seems to suggest Heathrow can only stay the same or grow. I definitely think there are other possibilities for Heathrow.
To other posters, HS1 or other rail lines could be adapted to have a proper stop at Boris Island. At the moment a lot of this traffic is going via London Underground which isn't really suited to all these people with their large suitcases.
For example a large enough airport would remove the need for BA to have operations at both Gatwick & Heathrow which would get rid of passengers on one ticket having to travel between the two as their own cost in time, money and inconvenience - which will discourage people from flying BA.
But would they though? Heathrow generates around 100,000 jobs and many of those jobs are very well paid, the average BAA salary is iirc around £29,000. Also who will run the new airport? Surely if your going to bulldoze its main asset it should be BAA, especially given their pumping around £1 billion a year into LHRs infrastructure without a third runway.
It's fine saying jobs would be "counterbalanced" but not if it was your job. Many specialist positions would surely locate but for others in catering, security, cleaning etc would just be lost and hired locally around the new airport. That's potentially tens of thousands of non- and semi-skilled jobs lost to the local economy.
The whole reason that there are so many business parks around Heathrow is precisely because it is a major international airport. If Heathrow was downgraded or closed then many would probably move away so it's hard to see how enough new businesses could be attracted to the area to compensate.
Interesting idea. Even if it's not a long term solution it could add some short to mid term capacity. Build a high speed underground rail link between the two and Northolt could easily become the 3rd (or even 4th) runway and Terminal 6.
Also, in today's Guardian fresh calls for 3rd runway at Heathrow to be considered.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/01/government-negligent-third-heathrow-runway
And HS2 will run half a mile north of RAF Northolt (albeit in a tunnel).
Which is actually the truth and more to the point both airports compete in very different markets. There are no tour operators or budget airlines at Heathrow, there are no fast food chains there either.
You will find these things at Gatwick and Stansted.
Northolt could take the "spoke" traffic away from the Heathrow hub, but then you have the problem of getting these feeder passengers to and from Heathrow.
I don't think that aircraft noise is that much of a problem these days, but many people do. Spreading the noise footprint over a much larger area would mean Northolt affects far more people than a third runway at Heathrow.
Boris Johnson's plans for a new four-runway airport in the Thames Estuary have been categorically dumped by the Government-backed Davies Commission.
Several independent studies published by the commission over the summer appeared to sound the death knell for the project, though. The studies highlighted the significant environmental and financial challenges of building a hub airport on the Hoo Peninsula in the inner Thames Estuary, which is home to several protected wildlife habitats. The costs of an Estuary Airport have also been estimated at up to £112bn.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/11068568/Boris-Island-airport-plan-dumped-by-Davies-Commission.html