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

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Transport, Urban Planning and Infrastructure

Transport, Urban Planning and Infrastructure Shaping space, urbanity and mobility



Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 15th, 2006, 11:42 AM   #81
pricemazda
King of Wishful Thinking
 
pricemazda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lincoln, EU
Posts: 17,568
Likes (Received): 981

But why give a competitive advantage away? Just because we may have others doesn't mean we can afford to be flipant with a major asset.

Its not just the airport that would decline, lots of multinationals have their european headquarters around heathrow precisely because of the global connections it ha.

BA said the only alternative for international passengers is another European city hub, Gatwich and Stansted simply cannot provide the level of service that Heathrow can, the passenger will not shift to another UK airport but the Paris or Amsterdam.
__________________
In Brussels no one hears you scream
pricemazda no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old February 15th, 2006, 12:19 PM   #82
nick_taylor
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth (term time); Bishop's Stortford (out of term time)
Posts: 1,900
Likes (Received): 1

Hence why we need to connect London Stansted to Central London with a quicker transportation route, connect it up with a new railway line into Essex and allow for quicker routes along to Birmingham (ie re-opening of the Varsity Line). At the same time we need to expand Stansted to become either as large a hub or a totally new hub, ie 2030: 200mpppa airport. The longer we leave it, the longer Heathrow and London will fall behind our competitors.
nick_taylor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2006, 01:49 PM   #83
Bob
Registered User
 
Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,325
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricemazda
Who are these people who agree what you say, any evidence?
The White Paper agrees and even Monkey admits that at some point there will be restriction to the growth at Heathrow and he then suggests that a second hub should be developed at Stanstead. We have a window of opportunity (the opening of T5), lets take it and develop a strategy which will not have restrictions that pursuing Heathrow does. Pursuing the third runway gives us, what 10 years and then the very same problems arise again only this time there would be no window of opportunity to take. Why can't we have a strategy that lasts 30? It's not my preferred option but a 4 runway stanstead with a high speed rail link could be built to be a much more successful hub than Heathrow will ever be able to offer.
Bob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2006, 02:30 PM   #84
pricemazda
King of Wishful Thinking
 
pricemazda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lincoln, EU
Posts: 17,568
Likes (Received): 981

I personally think a maglev connecting all the airports and to central London would mean a journey time of under 30 mins from Stansted to Gatwick would be better than using the technology of the past.

But one thing is for certain if BAA gets bought none of this will happen atg all.
__________________
In Brussels no one hears you scream
pricemazda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2006, 02:38 PM   #85
nick_taylor
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth (term time); Bishop's Stortford (out of term time)
Posts: 1,900
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricemazda
I personally think a maglev connecting all the airports and to central London would mean a journey time of under 30 mins from Stansted to Gatwick would be better than using the technology of the past.

But one thing is for certain if BAA gets bought none of this will happen atg all.
A journey between Stansted and Gatwick using maglev would probably be around 15mins (including a Central Londons station).
nick_taylor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2006, 02:44 PM   #86
pricemazda
King of Wishful Thinking
 
pricemazda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lincoln, EU
Posts: 17,568
Likes (Received): 981

i think if this was the way forward the line should go Stansted-Luton-Heathrow-Gatwick in effect turning the airports into Heathrow terminals.
__________________
In Brussels no one hears you scream
pricemazda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2006, 03:52 PM   #87
nick_taylor
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth (term time); Bishop's Stortford (out of term time)
Posts: 1,900
Likes (Received): 1

I don't think that would work. Instead if there was to acutally be anything come about, it would be that there would be two alignments: Heathrow - Central London - Stansted; Luton - Central London - Gatwick. This way you increase connections to all airports involved as well as creating a four spoke airport express service. You could then use this as a basis for the north-south maglev alignment.

Central London - Central Birmingham on a 500kph maglev would take something like 25mins (including stops at stations). A 400kph maglev would take 30mins, while a next generation TGV 350kph would take something like 35mins.

Interestingly a next gen TGV 350kph from Glasgow Central to Central London would take around 2hrs, a 500kph maglev could take 1hr 20mins. In other words you could begin to connect pretty much the major airports of Britain into one gigantic hub with maglev.
nick_taylor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2006, 06:50 PM   #88
LocksRocks
LocksRocks
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 312
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Essex
Save me the emotive stuff please. If rail took many western European routes you could increase runway capacity in the south east by about a third I reckon. This will offer greater capacity than a new runway. As the longer routes are less frequently operated, it would take longer for capacity to be met.

And Bangalore managed to become an international business centre without an international airport so all this stuff about hampering growth - do me a favour. Flexible labour, cheap rent and skilled staff are more important than a nice airport if you're investing somewhere. London is the financial capital of Europe and it won't change because of the flexibility and volume of labour on offer. If an airline flies to Europe, it will fly to London if it knows what its doing.
Bangalore airport currently can't cope with business demands and a new airport is under constuction that will have 2 runways and a 40m capacity.
Business is dictated from the global markets and global companies base themselves in these cities but require links to the rest of the world. If those links are there, comapanies are happy stay, if not they move to another global market city. Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam etc. They sustain each other, the companies give the nation wealth, the airlines serve the companies needs and the airports provide jobs in the region. Take a link out of the chain and things go tits up.
LocksRocks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2007, 02:56 PM   #89
Salif
I am very f**king nice!
 
Salif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Northumbria
Posts: 5,001
Likes (Received): 27

Even with a third runway surely Heathrow is still going to need even more runways to cope?
Salif no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2007, 03:02 PM   #90
Bob
Registered User
 
Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,325
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salif View Post
Even with a third runway surely Heathrow is still going to need even more runways to cope?
Indeed. 5 or 6 runways would be good. The airport is permanently flawed. Stop gap expansion now passes on the problem for about 10 years and creates and even bigger one.
Bob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2007, 03:39 PM   #91
TallBox
Registered User
 
TallBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,754
Likes (Received): 127

I used to support maximising the capacity at Heathrow by building more runways and terminals, but now I really think it's a futile effort. It's not just a case of renewing the existing capacity but future-proofing Heathrow for the next several decades - 30 years - at least. Therefore, probably best to start anew and build a truly massive airport.

However, one option I wouldn't mind seeing (wet dream) is a maglev orbital connection around London, connecting up all the airport.

Passengers could check in at any of the airports and then take the train to a particular one for their flight. Just an idea
TallBox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2007, 04:19 PM   #92
Salif
I am very f**king nice!
 
Salif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Northumbria
Posts: 5,001
Likes (Received): 27

Where to build a new massive airport though?

Not the Thames Estuary, would be environmentally unsuitable.

Has to be close to London and on existing transport corridors which can be upgraded.

All of the proposals for a new airport have been for areas located well away from London. And unfortuantley not all of the airports passengers are going to arrive by high speed train/maglev so other modes of transport have to be considered aswell.

Could of course CPO all the urban sprawl which has built up around Heathrow.

Either way we've got to stop people building around airports.
Salif no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2007, 05:26 PM   #93
Monkey
BANNED
 
Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Londinium
Posts: 14,324
Likes (Received): 13

Just add one new runway to Heathrow and two new runways to Stansted. Problem solved - and you have the perfect platforms for competing alliances that will be the future of the global aviation industry.
Monkey no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2007, 01:05 AM   #94
Martin S
LIVERPOOL
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,602
Likes (Received): 550

The argument that I have a lot of difficulty with is the one that states that expanding Heathrow would be in the national interest. Here in Liverpool, our airport has expanded rapidly over the last decade to the extent that we have flights to many of the major European capital or principal cities - Amsterdam, Belfast, Paris, Berlin, Oslo, Warsaw, Rome, Dublin, Madrid, however we are denied a service to our own capital city.

Having a Heathrow service would be of great benefit to Liverpool. The range of destinations is many times that available from our own airport or nearby Manchester and it would be literally our gateway to the world and be of great economic benefit. However, we cannot get useful slots at this airport because airlines want to use them for more profitable services to the USA or other long range destinations.

A large proportion of the passengers using Heathrow are merely transferring from one plane to another and not visiting Britain at all. This may be in the airlines and the BAAs interest but hardly in the national interest. Therefore, if Schipol or Charles de Gaulle becomes the main international hub airport for passengers from Britain, I don't see why we in Liverpool should lose much sleep over it.

Of course, adding more runways at Heathrow would resolve this problem but it just cannot be done.

You can't get away from the fact that there is nowhere for Heathrow to expand without massive disruption to communities and people's lives. Some forummers will consider that is a price worth paying but I doubt that many of them live in the affected areas.

The argument that the airport was there before the houses came along (surely not sufficient justification to demolish them?) is only half true. The demolition of property will affect villages dating back to the Middle Ages.

There is also the fact that assurances were given at the Terminal Five inquiry that a third runway was not required. What does it say about us if we are prepared to tear up these agreements when they no longer suit us?

The basic problem with Heathrow is that it is the last of the pre-war airports. OK, I realise it was opened in 1946 but it responded to the challenge of pre-war aviation, which was the preserve of the well to do and important industry leaders and government officials.

I read somewhere that Heathrow was initially intended to cater for 100,000 passengers per annum. Although I assume that was a misprint and the correct figure should have been 1,000,000, even so we are now looking at passenger throughputs around 80 times that figure. Nobody in their right mind would ever consider building a massive airport like that in such a built up location with flight paths over central London. Its another case of the boiling frog - allowing things to get worse gradually till they become unbearable.

Ken Livingstone is right to say that this is an example of British short-termism.

When the local authorities in Bavaria realised that the expansion of Munich's pre-war airport would eventually blight the city, they decided that a new airport was required. They spent several years carrying out studies and chose a new location about 30 miles north of the city.

The airport wasn't built right away, this was the 1970s and the new airport would not be required until the 90s. However, by planning ahead they were able to ensure that, when the new airport was eventually built, it would have adequate transport connections and no development would take place in the area that would affect or be affected by the new airport.

The airport was eventually built and opened in the early 90s. The changeover took one day and the old Munich Airport closed, much to the relief of the local residents.

Now, Munich - a much smaller city than London - has a modern airport with two autonomous runways and space to build a further two should the need arise. I suppose we could have done the same if the 1970s Maplin airport scheme had gone ahead.

I think London is going to have to look long and hard at what further airport expansion can be tolerated. I just don't think that the third runway is a viable option.
__________________
Martin S no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2007, 09:08 AM   #95
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 74,927
Likes (Received): 6200

London needs 3 new runways in 5 years - Ryanair

LONDON, Aug 3 (Reuters) - Europe's largest budget airline, Ryanair , said on Friday that London needed a minimum of three new runways in the next five years.

"A minimum of three in the next five years...at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted," Chief Executive Michael O'Leary said at a news conference.

Ryanair has opposed a new runway at Stansted, but this is because it feels the 4-billion-pound ($8.1 billion) project is too expensive.

Ryanair said earlier it was releasing 2.7 million seats for travel through September, October and November for 10 pounds one way.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg | Moscow | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Sydney | Hanoi | Bangkok | Prague

New York, London, Seoul, Taipei, Mumbai, Tokyo, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2007, 11:35 AM   #96
Peyre
Waiting for 122
 
Peyre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Harrow-On-The-Great-Big-Fucking-Hill, London
Posts: 3,798
Likes (Received): 0

If airways are to be built, the Airlines should put up the cash to help relocate people who's homes need to be knocked down.

I agree, expand Heathrow at any cost. We added a new terminal now we should add a runway.

We should also improve the transportation links from other London airports to the city centre.
__________________
Help Save London's future. Show your opposition to UNESCO attempting to undermine London's sovereignty

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/ldntower/
Peyre no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2007, 12:48 PM   #97
Martin S
LIVERPOOL
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,602
Likes (Received): 550

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
London needs 3 new runways in 5 years - Ryanair

LONDON, Aug 3 (Reuters) - Europe's largest budget airline, Ryanair , said on Friday that London needed a minimum of three new runways in the next five years.

"A minimum of three in the next five years...at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted," Chief Executive Michael O'Leary said at a news conference.

Ryanair has opposed a new runway at Stansted, but this is because it feels the 4-billion-pound ($8.1 billion) project is too expensive.

Ryanair said earlier it was releasing 2.7 million seats for travel through September, October and November for 10 pounds one way.
There is an agreement in place that no second runway will be built at Gatwick until 2019. There is also an agreement in place (arising from the T5 inquiry) that no third runway will be built at Heathrow. In addition, there is no place to build a third runway at Heathrow to any civilized standards, so it cannot be done.

London either needs to start building a completely new airport or some serious thinking needs to be done about the future of air travel.
__________________
Martin S no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2007, 02:56 PM   #98
SmartCity
Building Sustainability
 
SmartCity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,537
Likes (Received): 36

All the better for regional airports. There should be a certain amount of overspill into the regions when the London airports are full. I don't consider this option as ideal, but there are still a large amount of gaps at the regional airports that would provide a reasonable level of growth. This was one of the things mentioned in the draft White Paper for Aviation when looking at the possibilities.
__________________
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously."
Your Local Airport Forum | Aviation Photography Gallery | Support the little red fury things against the grey invaders and join the Red Squirrel Forum
SmartCity no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2007, 11:31 AM   #99
Rational Plan
Registered User
 
Rational Plan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Slough
Posts: 3,287
Likes (Received): 271

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMARTCITY View Post
All the better for regional airports. There should be a certain amount of overspill into the regions when the London airports are full. I don't consider this option as ideal, but there are still a large amount of gaps at the regional airports that would provide a reasonable level of growth. This was one of the things mentioned in the draft White Paper for Aviation when looking at the possibilities.
Its hard to judge about the pros and cons of this. The regional airports are now growing faster and adding more destinations. But mainly to other European destinations, and in effect offering hubbing opportunites at other European gateways. This means that we are building up the strength of European hubs.

A large hub that links lots of cities accross the globe requires a large number of regional flights to support the passenger numbers on these long thin routes (in terms of passenger numbers).

As the number of trips rise some long haul trips can be supported from regional airports either due to strong immigrant links or strong tourist demand. Which means that there a lot of UK cities now have flights to New York, Miami or Dubai plus a variety of connections to India or Pakistan depending on the local ethnic make up.

The only other hub that could develop is Manchester, but it suffers from not having a strong airline based there as a major hub. This is a bit of a chicken and egg scenario for Manchester. Will the airport ever grow large enough to attract an airline to base large number of flights their to offer good interlining opportunities. In one sense what difference does it make, the airport will still grow quite large from just origin and destination traffic. Look at Gatwick its up to 34 million PAX with relatively little interlining compared to Heathrow.

But if Manchester could turn itself a true inter continental hub, then the level of inward investment would soar. Many Global companies like to base themselves near to such hubs. Would Dallas or Atlanta have achieved the same levels of growth without their super hubs, many people doubt it.

It is argued that the London can only support one proper Hub. That Hub is Heathrow. Unless Heathrow is closed no airline is going to willing move to a more remote airport especially when passengers are willing to pay more for Heathrow. It would take one of alliances transferring out of Heathrow to a new facility and massively expanding their flights, for that to work.

Their only two options I can see, they actually build a third runway and Heathow maintains it position or the city slowly loses its competitive advantage. We would probably not notice that much, as how can you tell if 20 years down the line you are not as rich as you should have been.
Rational Plan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007, 02:51 PM   #100
Martin S
LIVERPOOL
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,602
Likes (Received): 550

I don't think anyone disputes the level of pressure there is to expand Heathrow. I remember reading a Heathrow promotional magazine celebrating the airport's fiftieth anniversary, ten years ago, which stated that airlines were prepared to have arrivals and departures from different terminals and at different times on different days of the week rather than move to another airport.

The point is though that Heathrow's continued expansion is at an ever greater environmental cost - something which should be unacceptable in this day and age. Now, to allow this growth to continue, a third runway is required and this will involve the demolition of 700 homes and the expansion of the noise footprint over another swathe of London. This is at a time when concern about global warming is increasing and will not go away.

I'm not convinced that pegging Heathrow to its current size would necessarily encourage airport expansion outside of the south east but then I am not convinced that this would lead to the economic decline that is feared.

If the demand for slots at Heathrow exceeds supply, one solution would be to increase landing charges, which are presently very low. That is unlikely to deter the City types but should deter the hen parties going for a weekend in Dublin. It might also deter the transfer traffic that would probably be better catered for at a European Airport. Then, more slots could be freed up by train services being substituted for inland air services.

The closeness of Heathrow to central London will always guarantee its success. It just needs to be recognised that the continued growth in passenger volume is not sustainable.
__________________
Martin S 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



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 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