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

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.

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.

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!)

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.

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.


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.

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.

On a broader view, siting London's main airport at Heathrow was
something of a folly.

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.

On 25/09/2016 16:56, Recliner wrote:

The Commission's report did also include under Safety considerations:

"12.24 The CAA did note the lack of precedent for the Heathrow Extended
Northern Runway concept and indicated that it would need more detailed
development. It was emphasised, however, that the CAA remained
open-minded on the concept and open to further engagement."

And even Heathrow Hub's own press release on their safety study had:

"Hazards arising during normal operations and emergency situations,
including go-arounds and overruns, were examined using a combination of
quantitative and qualitative techniques. The initial assessment
concluded that the proposed Heathrow Hub concept has the potential to be
safe, but that further analysis and evidence would be required to prove
this in detail."

I'm not qualified to judge the risks of "tandem" runways. But I do know
one economist said it'd be really, really hard to assess the cost if a
go-around or overrun allowed Heathrow to beat Tenerife's record of 583

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In message , at 16:25:37 on Sun, 25 Sep
2016, Mizter T remarked:

On a broader view, siting London's main airport at Heathrow was
something of a folly.

iirc it was farmland which was commandeered as a wartime airstrip.

meme
They only built Windsor castle at the end of the runway later.
/meme

From the kerfuffle about where to put the third London Airport, if
people had objected to Heathrow's expansion, we'd perhaps be stuck with
one of the world's busiest International airports in the middle of
Croydon.
--
Roland Perry

On 25/09/2016 17:54, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:25:37 on Sun, 25 Sep
2016, Mizter T remarked:

On a broader view, siting London's main airport at Heathrow was
something of a folly.

iirc it was farmland which was commandeered as a wartime airstrip.

Which was only a pretence conjured up by Harold Balfour and others in
order to establish a fact on the ground - i.e. a big aerodrome - using
wartime requisition powers.


meme
They only built Windsor castle at the end of the runway later.
/meme

From the kerfuffle about where to put the third London Airport, if
people had objected to Heathrow's expansion, we'd perhaps be stuck with
one of the world's busiest International airports in the middle of Croydon.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 16:25:37 on Sun, 25 Sep 2016,
Mizter T remarked:

On a broader view, siting London's main airport at Heathrow was something
of a folly.

iirc it was farmland which was commandeered as a wartime airstrip.

meme
They only built Windsor castle at the end of the runway later.
/meme

From the kerfuffle about where to put the third London Airport, if people
had objected to Heathrow's expansion, we'd perhaps be stuck with one of
the world's busiest International airports in the middle of Croydon.

The issue with LHR being London's main airport in the wrong place is "should
it have been moved before T4 was given permission"

IMHO the answer to that is "Absolutely"

tim

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.

"massive untested infrastructure"?

[I'm intrigued by the phrase but don't have time to read the report.]