[Anonymous]

[oasis1221]

One quick fix for Heathrow’s runway shortage,short of taking on the costly North territory expansion beyond M4, is an expansion from within.

I am proposing building a third runway parallel to the existing south runway.

It is going to entail eliminating Terminal 4 as well as BA’s hangers which can be relocated to the north of the existing northern runway.

Runway slots have become more precious than parking spots at this important airport.

Dr. Rafal Badri(<a href="mailto:[email protected]“>[email protected])
270 East 270th St.,
Cleveland,Ohio
USA 44132

[Henkel.Trocken]

You really cannot be serious.

[CXDiamond]

Agree, mad idea. London needs a new airport, not sticking plaster on the old one. Thames estuary or Thames valley towards Reading. Either would be suitable. LHR really cannot be mended. It’s embarrassing arriving there with visitors from overseas. Imagine what a colleague from Hong Kong makes of their arrival in the UK when they left HKG.

[NTarrant]

The original third runway was for it to be in the north if I recall. It is not a case of “mending” LHR it is a case of expanding the capacity.

Boris island will never happen, the environmental impact is far too great and in any case we are talking decades, whereas a third runway could be built in a decade.

[VintageKrug]

I don’t disagree with what you’ve written, though I believe the environmental concerns for the Isle of Grain site could be overcome.

The issue, to my mind, if the third runway was built, is what next?

Where does LHR go for the additional capacity – not just runways, but also stands to park aircraft – needed for next century?

[transtraxman]

My information is that for runways to be used independently then they have to be at least 1350 meters apart (and parallel). If they are closer then you restrict their use.

That means that it is only possible to insert one runway between the existing northern one and the M4.

If you apply the same criteria to the south then between the southern runway and the SW train rail line you can just fit one runway in from the reservoirs to the A315 (just). However, you would have to demolish an inordinate number of houses and businesses but neither T4 nor the Cargo Terminal. This would probably be a step too far.

A third runway parallel to the northern runway, yes, certainly and second runways at the other three main airports, starting with Gatwick asap.

[VintageKrug]

I think Gatwick has to be the priority in the short term.

There’s that nice church, but apart from that everything else could be relocated fare more cheaply than at LHR.

Install a High Speed railway from the City and it could be just as well connected to London as LHR is.

LHR would work if the M4 was put in a tunnel, the railway line was similarly put underground to permit southern expansion and a strategy was set out to use some of the reservoir space for terminals/stands. All that probably just as expensive as the Isle of Grain suggestion, and destroys existing infrastructure into the bargain.

Even after all that, LHR would still be constrained for further expansion, still largely closed between midnight and 0600, and still have the pollution and risk of a serious distaster as aircraft overfly Central London.

The Estuary Airport deserves serious consideration:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2057015/Thames-Estuary-airport-design-Lord-Norman-Foster-unveiled.html

Others may prefer their prejudices re-enforced by a similar article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/18/boris-island-airport-thames-estuary?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

[Henkel.Trocken]

‘VintageKrug – 04/03/2012 16:19 GMT

I think Gatwick has to be the priority in the short term.

There’s that nice church, but apart from that everything else could be relocated fare more cheaply than at LHR.’

Far not fare.

‘All that probably just as expensive as the Isle fo Grain suggestion, and destroys existing infrastructure into the bargain.’

I think it’s the Isle of Grain.

Does anyone really read the Daily Mail? I’m quite shocked by the idea. The reporting is about as reliable as finding an edible meal in BA F.

[Bucksnet]

Oasis, who is talking about expansion north of the M4.

VK, what good would putting the M4 in a tunnel do if you are building a new runway in the south.

TTM, I don’t know where you got the 1,350 metre separation from but it’s a lot less than that; look at SFO :-

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=37.617937,-122.373834&spn=0.028384,0.038581&t=h&z=15

Which can take simultaneous landings :-

http://www.airliners.net/photo/EVA-Air/Boeing-777-35E-ER/1968870/M/&sid=782c7d3288155f8fa15ebfd81b296211

Everything between the A4 and M4 north of Heathrow needs to be flattened. Build 2 runways just south of the M4, then the start of a new interlinked terminal complex, or large single terminal. The existing northern runway and central area can then be taken out of service to finish off the new terminal(s). Then flatten the rest of the existing site and build 2 more runways in the south.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

This is the answer

http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/~bat/GA/OT-MODEL/mg-cs-cloudbase-2.jpg

[MartynSinclair]

Bucksnet – whilst I cant quote chapter and verse, the FAA distance between runways will be different to the CAA

I would still favour using the airports that surround Heathrow. Invest in speedy transfers to London Northolt, Farnborough, Luton etc. This will create jobs, ease conjestion at Heathrow and provide easier access to more airports for more people. Why does the answer have to rely soley on exapnding an already overworked airport.

“You dont want to have to change airports” I hear you all scream.

It could in some circumstances be made easier, quicker and cheaper (for the airlines) for pax to change airports rather than terminals.

I have no idea how to create a speedy exit from the Heathrow area. But it may also ease some of the conjestion on the M4 and M25 with pax having more airport choices.

[Bucksnet]

Martyn, changing airports will always be more difficult and longer than changing terminals, and what about foreign nationals in transit who have no need/no wish/no ability to enter the UK. We need an efficient hub airport, and once expanded, Heathrow would not be overworked would it?

The FAA would not allow dangerous procedures to be followed when aircraft are landing. Surely the CAA rules are not that much different. What I have said before is that each pair of runways can have one for landing and one for takeoffs. The 2 runways used for landings would be quite a distance away from each other.

There is more than enough space for an efficient, first class, world class hub airport to be built in the area currently occupied by Heathrow and the land south of the M4. CP/DVD assets in the cabinet office will never allow this as it would be a massive benefit to the UK economy, and instead promote massive money wasting projects like HS2 and Boris Island.

[MartynSinclair]

I was certainly not implying the FAA procedures are dangerous, just different, from the CAA/JAA

I understand that changing airports may not be ideal. The fact remains that Heathrow has not obtained PP to build a third runway (yet) and with Boris Island being “considered”, then surely existing pieces of concrete, currently being used as airports, should also be considered.

Managing passenger flows is really of equal importance as aircraft movements.

[Bucksnet]

Martyn, the so called ‘third’ runway scheme is a total farce. It would make Heathrow more of a mess than it already is, and would have houses and other buildings in the middle.

Flatten the whole site and rebuild from scratch!

[Author]

Posts