daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 25th, 2005, 05:47 PM   #21
NothingBetterToDo
Better To Do Nothing
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 10,481
Likes (Received): 13

I dont think Heathrow is the right place for a 3rd runway, if you look at maps (or for those of you who have google earth ) = u can see just how close it is to the built up areas of London. A third runway would mean even more air traffic flying of the city, this is increase noise and air pollution and could be bad if an airplane crashed e.t.c.

I think it would be best to expand stanstead - its in a less built up area but is still very close to London (it usually takes us just over half an hour to drive there from North london).
NothingBetterToDo no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 25th, 2005, 06:26 PM   #22
pricemazda
Titter ye not.
 
pricemazda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: EU
Posts: 17,642
Likes (Received): 1384

you have to say though for those people who live around heathrow, the airport has been there since the end of the war, the overwhelming majority of housing was built after meaning those people knew about the airport. Most people will also depend on Heathrow directly or indirectly for employment. So Heathrows success is their success.
__________________
In Brussels no one hears you scream
pricemazda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2005, 08:01 PM   #23
Nick in Atlanta
Registered User
 
Nick in Atlanta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,154
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricemazda
you have to say though for those people who live around heathrow, the airport has been there since the end of the war, the overwhelming majority of housing was built after meaning those people knew about the airport.
Yes, I believe they call that "moving to the nuisance," and I have very little sympathy for people who buy a house at a discount due to its location (such as near an airport) and then complain about the the annoyance. Anyone who chooses to live near an active airport should be prepared for the airport to eventually increase its activity.

Regarding the future of T4, if BA is moving all flights to T5 when completed, who gets T4?
Nick in Atlanta no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2005, 08:24 PM   #24
nick_taylor
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth (term time); Bishop's Stortford (out of term time)
Posts: 1,818
Likes (Received): 9

eddyk - T5 will be larger than LAX and the all the current Heathrow Terminals in terms of size.


Something like 70,000 are directly employed at the airport (making it a fully functioning town in its own right). Millions more are dependent on Heathrow as the world's largest international airport.


Heathrow is the world's busiest 2 runway airport in the world, while London Gatwick is the world's busiest 1 runway airport in the world. In the UK its common to get as much out of one runway before another is required. The new A380's and more advanced flight control systems (which are being pioneered in the UK because of the current situation) will enable greater expansion capability of the current runways. This though is only for the short-medium term as the new runways at Stansted (2012), Gatwick (2019) and Heathrow (2020) will be the only way out of constant growth.

The crazy thing is, London handles as many people as entire countries! It currently handles 130mppa - thats 1/3 larger than the city that comes closest at around 90mppa (New York, Chicago, etc). By 2030, London could be handling something like 300-400mppa and London will have three airports handling over 100mppa (minimum) each. Just like Chicago and Atlanta act as the aviation hubs for the US, London acts as the aviation hub for the world.
nick_taylor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2005, 09:13 PM   #25
Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: United States... Not For Long :-)
Posts: 579
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick in Atlanta
Regarding the future of T4, if BA is moving all flights to T5 when completed, who gets T4?
T1 - T4 already look crappy, by the time T5 opens up they'll look third world in comparison. Heathrow needs to bulldoze 'em all one by one until the entire field resembles Atlanta Int'l with its optimized linear layout of concourses. Add a second giant terminal to mirror T5 on the opposite end, and you've got the airport London deserves!
Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2005, 09:32 PM   #26
NothingBetterToDo
Better To Do Nothing
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 10,481
Likes (Received): 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricemazda
you have to say though for those people who live around heathrow, the airport has been there since the end of the war, the overwhelming majority of housing was built after meaning those people knew about the airport. Most people will also depend on Heathrow directly or indirectly for employment. So Heathrows success is their success.
Oh i completly agree.... i hate it when people buy houses under the flightpath and the start to complain. However a third runway would probably mean a whole new flightpath where there wasnt one before - so i think those people would have some right to be annoyed.

Last edited by NothingBetterToDo; August 25th, 2005 at 10:59 PM.
NothingBetterToDo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2005, 09:51 PM   #27
crazyevildude
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 1,145
Likes (Received): 158

Weren't they talking about building a fourth airport for London, bigger than any of the the existing ones to handle the huge increases in traffic through London? I think it was going to be in the south east towards Kent. Or did those plans fall through?.

I also don't have sympathy with people who live near airports, I have a friend who lives about 100 yards from Cardiff airports perimetre fence, and although obviously it is nothing like as busy as the London airports, the noise isn't too bad. It's no worse than living right next to a busy railway line (which I used to). And don't the airports compensate these people, and provide them with the latest sound proofing and stuff for free?.
crazyevildude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2005, 09:57 PM   #28
Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: United States... Not For Long :-)
Posts: 579
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyevildude
Weren't they talking about building a fourth airport for London, bigger than any of the the existing ones to handle the huge increases in traffic through London? I think it was going to be in the south east towards Kent. Or did those plans fall through?
I believe you're referring to what's known as the "LOX Report," published back in late 2003 for a four-runway 120M PPA integrated hub between London and Oxford:



http://www.pleiade.org/lox_preface.html

I've been told by Londoners that the project has been rejected in favor of adding more runways at the region's existing airports.
Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2005, 10:07 PM   #29
NothingBetterToDo
Better To Do Nothing
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 10,481
Likes (Received): 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyevildude
Weren't they talking about building a fourth airport for London, bigger than any of the the existing ones to handle the huge increases in traffic through London? I think it was going to be in the south east towards Kent. Or did those plans fall through?.

I also don't have sympathy with people who live near airports, I have a friend who lives about 100 yards from Cardiff airports perimetre fence, and although obviously it is nothing like as busy as the London airports, the noise isn't too bad. It's no worse than living right next to a busy railway line (which I used to). And don't the airports compensate these people, and provide them with the latest sound proofing and stuff for free?.
I think there where plans to build an airport on a marsh in kent - next to the thames estuary. But locals kicked up a fuss as did nature lovers so i dont think anything is going to happen with that.

Too be honest i agree with you that living under a flightpath isnt too bad. My Nan lives literally right under the Flightpath for Dublin airport (about 4 miles away from the airport itself). Its really not very bad and you get so used to the noise after a day or 2 that you dont even notice them. And Dublin is a suprisingly busy airport with planes coming in every few mins.
NothingBetterToDo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2005, 10:17 PM   #30
pricemazda
Titter ye not.
 
pricemazda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: EU
Posts: 17,642
Likes (Received): 1384

To be fair to these people however i used to live in Brentford which about 4 miles from Heathrow and right under the flight path and it gets ridiculously noisey, but i knew that when i moved, the only annoying thing was in summer when you wanted to have the windows open.

But i see your point about a 3rd runway, it would presumably have new flight paths and that would be unfair. But surely BAA would compensate those affected and they spend thousands on sound proofing peoples homes. The local council coulld also stipulate that all new buildings have a high standard of sound proofing.

The airport proposal for Cliffe in the Thames Estuary was a diversion for the governments Airports white paper designed to make people realise that expansion at Stansted and maybe Heathrow was the least worst option.
__________________
In Brussels no one hears you scream
pricemazda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2005, 10:27 PM   #31
Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: United States... Not For Long :-)
Posts: 579
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricemazda
The airport proposal for Cliffe in the Thames Estuary was a diversion for the governments Airports white paper designed to make people realise that expansion at Stansted and maybe Heathrow was the least worst option.
That's what I don't understand... what made LOX such a horrible idea? You link it with dedicated high speed rail into central London, it would get you in and out of the city just as fast as Heathrow. And it's out of people's way, rather than in the middle of developed areas.
Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2005, 10:32 PM   #32
pricemazda
Titter ye not.
 
pricemazda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: EU
Posts: 17,642
Likes (Received): 1384

Money. It would have meant the government having to pay for a high speed rail link. Expansion at Heathrow or Stansted doesn't cost them a penny.
__________________
In Brussels no one hears you scream
pricemazda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2005, 10:32 PM   #33
Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: United States... Not For Long :-)
Posts: 579
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricemazda
Money. It would have meant the government having to pay for a high speed rail link. Expansion at Heathrow or Stansted doesn't cost them a penny.
... Bloody money!
Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2005, 11:10 PM   #34
Rational Plan
Registered User
 
Rational Plan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Slough
Posts: 3,662
Likes (Received): 675

Well money is an important consideration. After a recent Government white paper on future airport capacity examined all the options. While the Cliffe airport option would have the advantage of flight paths over the Thames estuary and therefore relatively few people would be affected by aircraft noise the site is fairly remote from existing motorways and rail lines. A massive amount of money would have to be spent on infrastucture with only relatively small number of passengers using it in the first few years. It was decided that the only way that would pay in a relistic time frame would be to close Heathrow. Research showed that there was only going to be one truly effective hub in the London area.

Heathrow is close to London, all the airlines want to fly there, the relative cost of new runway and 6th terminal would be relatively small incomparsion to the benefits and best of all the government does not have to spend any of its own money to do it.

One of the early recommedations of the report was to 1st build an extra runway at Stansted. This was considered an easy option as there is comparitively little development and Labour constituencies. But already it is facing problems as the airlines at Heathrow are threatening to go to court to stop the fees paid at Heathrow from cross subsidising Stansted and Ryanair complaining about the cost of the proposed development at Stansted as being to extravengent for an airport dominated by low cost carriers.

As far as development around Heathrow the majority of the housing stock dates from before World War two with a significant portion built before the 1960's. A long time before the jet age. As Heathrow has expanded so has the area covered by noise as new holding stacks and more aircraft land.

The new proposed third runway would be to the north of the Airport where the majority is preserved greenbelt. The scheme would still require the demolition of over 700 homes. The new runway would be signifcantly shorter and would be designed to be used by b737 A320 size aircraft. This would mean that new runway would take less land, but also it noise foot print would be much smaller as the smaller jets are quieter and take off more steeply than large jets.

The main legal objection is that the area is already exceeding europeans standards on Nox levels. Though most of this pollution is caused by the A4, M4 and M25 the airport is a major factor. I suspect that the stipulation that a decision will not be made until 2013 about whether to go ahead on the assesment of air pollution conditions, is to allow improvements to the catalytic convertors to work its way through the vehicle fleet and therfore reduce air pollution. BAA is alo investgating converting its ground vehicles to either Hydrogen/LPG or electric as circumstances dictate. Plus its looking at an automated personal transit system to link up the carparks and hotels to the terminals as a way of reducing the bus fleet.
Rational Plan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2005, 11:23 PM   #35
pricemazda
Titter ye not.
 
pricemazda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: EU
Posts: 17,642
Likes (Received): 1384

Did they not talk about boxing the motorway in a tunnel.
__________________
In Brussels no one hears you scream
pricemazda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 26th, 2005, 03:36 AM   #36
CHANEL
WhAtEvEr
 
CHANEL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SiN CiTy
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 5

will post more pics later.
CHANEL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 26th, 2005, 06:09 AM   #37
Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: United States... Not For Long :-)
Posts: 579
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rational Plan
...The new runway would be signifcantly shorter and would be designed to be used by B737 A320 size aircraft...
What percentage of aircraft that use Heathrow would be able to use this third runway? I thought this airport is a major international gateway, which means a vast majority of aircraft are widebodies. Which would make this third runway a waste if it weren't large enough to handle the big guys.
Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 26th, 2005, 07:19 AM   #38
p5archit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Toronto, Vienna, Amsterdam
Posts: 533
Likes (Received): 1

Just was wondering...Are those satillite terminals off to the back of T5 also under construction, or are they planned for a later phase?

Torontos airport, even though it is new, i have to admit is a giant waste of money. It may have an impressive new entrance and some nice structural steel trusses, but overall my impression is a negative one..Its dull, white everywhere, no colours, no vegetation and absolutely the most pathetic retail and food options.. Heathrow on the other hand, although old in some cases, blew Torontos new airport right out of the water...


p5
p5archit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 26th, 2005, 10:26 AM   #39
samsonyuen
SSLL
 
samsonyuen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canary Wharf > CityPlace
Posts: 8,350
Likes (Received): 314

I went to the Open House last September, that thing's gonna be huge!
samsonyuen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 26th, 2005, 05:49 PM   #40
mofo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Boston
Posts: 6
Likes (Received): 0

Are these terminals to accommodate the new A380's that will be flying into Heathrow Soon?
__________________
---It’s all about surface area---
mofo no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu