You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
As above. By the time planning is argued about. Court Cases are heard. Arguments over finance. Arguments by politicians. Construction and subsequent delays. I expect if it ever gets completed then it will be at the very least 20 years, probably longer.
The cost will be beyond astronomical. I suspect HS2 (which was binned because of the expense) will be small fry compared to what Heathrow will set us back!
Will need to put it in the will for the grandkids to review.
Never mind that, have you seen it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8p579g5g5o
Who thought that designing it as a massive pistol was a grand idea?
There'll be a legal challenge from some environmental group or other and it'll get binned off again after 4 years of back and forth and £70m in legal fees, appeals, consultations and revisions.
The cost will be beyond astronomical. I suspect HS2 (which was binned because of the expense) will be small fry compared to what Heathrow will set us back!
The irony being that the benefits from doing HS2 in full far outweigh any expansion of an airport in the SE.
Can somebody explain the complexity of the problem?
Obviously we hear about it all the time but I've never delved into the subject past the headlines and don't fully understand it.
Why is it so difficult? Why does it have to be Heathrow? Why not another airport, or even entirely new one? Why do we need it?
There is nowhere to build a third runway that is not already in use. The picture above shows it nicely. Large areas will need to be flattened and the M25 rebuilt into a tunnel. Why Heathrow? Because it the most important airport in the world obvs. Luton or Stansted would be better with the money spent giving them better connections.
There’ll be a legal challenge from some environmental group or other and it’ll get binned off again after 4 years of back and forth and £70m in legal fees, appeals, consultations and revisions.
The new bunch of commies running the show are outlawing objections to planning aren't they?
Heathrow and completing projects?
Considering that the tunnels to access terminals two and three are being refurbished and that project is about seven years late in finishing and hundreds of millions over budget, I’d imagine the third runway won’t be finished and in use for at least another 30 years. No doubt when/if it gets finished it’ll also be hundreds of millions over budget.
I doubt I’ll see it finished in my lifetime - and I’m 57!
Never.
Like the Stonehenge tunnel. Not in my lifetime.
have it finished in an afternoon. 2 week warranty.
Slightly off topic, but that reminded me of this... mental!
Busy airports can see about 6000kg of rubber deposits on the runways per day!!!
Why Heathrow? Because it's already a connection airport used by so many airlines.
Why is it needed? Because a lot of planes spend a lot of time in holding patterns waiting to land. And lots of planes waiting to depart.
Heathrow has been is need of additional runways for a long time. There is no easy solution sadly.
Never ever. I don't think it will get started.
I very much I'll fly out of LHR before it's completed. There'll be so many objections to it. It'll be delayed for at least a decade. If it ever starts it'll be late & so over budget it'll make HS2 look like a bargain. Didn't this gov oppose any development when in opposition? Funny how that's changed. I wonder what other promises they are going to break before the next election?
It'll be just like the Airbus A380... From concept to commercial flight, it had become almost totally irrelevant.
If they started building a 3rd runway tomorrow, it'll still be 15yrs in the making... By 2040 other airports in the UK will have become much more important for international travel, the draw of Heathrow having once been the world's busiest airport will no longer be relevant, and it will have been a crazy long and expensive exercise in futility!
There's bound to be some air traffic controllers on here but many years ago I was sat in a room at West Drayton with some of the top bods from LATCC who were bouncing around the idea of a third runway (actually 5th and 6th in their terms)
They ended up concluding that, in short, it causes more problems to the operation of UK airspace than it solves on the ground, and additional capacity at Heathrow would come at the expense of the likes of Stansted, Luton and London City. It could also impact our European neighbours as any change to that part of the UKs aieapce will have knock on effects to how flights are passed from one ATC agency to another.
We could have spent a few months building a simulation to confirm this but they basically shelved the project so I didn't get to find out if their opinion panned out. We did spend bit of time looking at operations with the proposed T5 so that dates it a bit. Hopefully that's all been looked at and will be fully addressed before the bulldozers start rolling.
It’ll be scrapped because teleportation will be invented by then.
no- patents will be bought up by car/oil companies.
tunnels to access terminals two and three are being refurbished and that project is about seven years late
and some of the work done so far will have to be rectified as it has been installed incorrectly.
They’ve only recently taken offsite & disposed of the last cabins that were part of the T5 build village. They’ll need to buy & install new ones soon for the 3rd runway.
The road and rail connections to the place are all at / above capacity as well. M25 around the M3 / M4 junctions - we all know what that's like. Crossrail is already exceeding all expectations, I think about 1 in every 5 rail journeys in the UK is made on Crossrail, 220m passengers per year.
It's not a viable proposition for any number of reasons but it sounds big and impressive and gives good "we'll kickstart the economy" soundbites. Then it'll be sunk and the Government can blame the greens, the NIMBYs, the woke...
Meantime it'll be used as an excuse why we can't afford cycle lanes, wind farms, electric buses, faster trains...
M25 around the M3 / M4 junctions – we all know what that’s like
Yup and looking at the design above it definitely makes things worse. One of the few amusements sitting in a jam round there is seeing the planes right overhead but now I will be sitting in a jam in a tunnel.
God knows how much the ventilation system is going to have to cost.
Why do we need it?
because Labour have screwed up everything they have touched so far.
Its their way of boosting the economy and screwing the environment.
If they truly want to boost the economy build more hospitals, but then that didn’t go too well with Labour last time …
I will have retired and left the area (I live two miles from the end of the proposed runway). And I’m 57. How about a prediction that Son2 won’t land on it, and he’s 24 and now flying EZY. It will be that long. Gatwick will have dual operations by 2030, however.
And if you want to talk about ”tunnelling competence”, Heathrow have still not reinstated the bike access tunnel to Terminals 2/3 and it’s been under renovation for FIVE years already. Don’t hold your breath.
Not a chance in hell it will ever be built. I worked with the team putting together the first DCO. There's hundreds, not tens of millions needed to even get the plans in front of a planning team.
PFAS in the groundwater from Heathrow is the next big headline problem, check in here in 18 months.
Not sure that’s a sensible solution.
You said easy not sensible. Make air travel expensive and/or have fewer flights. Better for the environment and no extra runway needed!
The bats and newts will scupper it, the little ninja bastards!
You said easy not sensible. Make air travel expensive and/or have fewer flights. Better for the environment and no extra runway needed!
People and freight have to travel. If not by air, then how? Ferry? Rail? Which is worse?
I don’t understand why this is a political hot potato. Yes the government will grant planning permission at some point but then that should be it. The airport is owned by a private company. Surely it should be responsible for funding the money and paying for the whole build and management of all the contractors. Why would the taxpayers pay for it. Unless we are getting a serious chunk of the shares in return it’s shouldn’t see a penny of taxpayers money
Never. It's a stupid backwards ridiculous antisocial damaging uneducated ill-considered corrupt ignorant thoughtless shallow decision that should never have been approved in the first place, and I say this as someone who works there.
Heathrow is a hub. Expanding it increases transfer passengers who don't spend anything in the UK. How the hell does this help business? It doesn't, but it helps Heathrow Airport Ltd, which is a shopping centre which has to deal with pesky flights from time to time.
You'll still be holding as the increased air traffic has to fit into the same London airspace. And of course you'll pay through the nose for the privilege. It's utter bollocks that it'll be handled by electric aircraft, which will never work.
What it has done is cause everyone to forget about objecting to planned expansion at Gatwick and Stansted.
Edit: forgot to add that Heathrow has absolutely zero reliable public transport options from the north. Or the west. Or the south. But you can connect via train in central London and pay for the most expensive rail transfer in the world, conveniently owned by Heathrow.
People and freight have to travel. If not by air, then how? Ferry? Rail? Which is worse?
Air and sea freight are the worst. Rail is the best from an emissions perspective. Freight has to travel, in a lot of cases people don't. It's a choice, not a necessity. Make it more expensive and fewer people will choose it.
Another 'never' here. It will see £millions spent on consultants, architects and legal people, but the world is changing faster than this process will.
The airport is owned by a private company. Surely it should be responsible for funding the money and paying for the whole build and management of all the contractors. Why would the taxpayers pay for it.
If I understand correctly Heathrow will pay for the runway, while the tax payer pays for any changes to the infrastructure which is not privately owned, such as changes to the M25.
Quote from Rachel Reeves on the radio this morning saying she wants "spades in the ground" by the end of this Parliament with a view to it being operational by 2035.
So I'll stick with my previous time estimate of "never".
f I understand correctly Heathrow will pay for the runway
Building it requires a tunnel, literally the footings of the runway, Heathrow Airport should be paying for it not tax-payers. Likewise if Heathrow airport want a better junction at M25 they should pay for it.
Lots of cynicism in here, seems to reflect the state of the nation at the moment.
Large infrastructure projects inevitably take a long time to plan and build. All the more so when it's in a highly urbanised area. If that's unacceptable then what should we do instead, nothing? Just never do anything that's going to take more than a couple of years? That doesn't seem very sensible.
Building it requires a tunnel, literally the footings of the runway, Heathrow Airport should be paying for it not tax-payers. Likewise if Heathrow airport want a better junction at M25 they should pay for it.
Yes I'm inclined to agree that they should at least contribute significantly to it, and looking further that may well be the case. The below article says that Heathrow will also pay for the "associated works" which I assume includes the tunnel.
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/heathrows-third-runway-set-for-take-off/
Putting aside the rights and wrongs of any particular project, why are we completely unable to get on and complete infrastructure work in this country? It feels like they've spent most of the past decade putting up some gantries so people can drive on various motorway hard shoulders.
Just in my area they've spent well over a year now adding a cycle lane to a short section of the Leeds ring road, about five sorting out a bypass to about two miles of the A59, and even more talking about an obviously necessary pedestrian footbridge crossing a dual carriageway so that people can get to the local railway station (second period of consultation incoming on that one).
Never.
It's a stupid idea to grab headlines. If we really need more capacity Manchester is a better bet
I work in the public sector and we are trying to build something that ticks all of the government boxes to support entrepreneurs, innovation, job creation, wellbeing etc. It is a UK Gov funded project. The site includes one listed building. We are four years in and at least another 12 months before we can start construction (after demolishing the listed building). So will be six years in total for one small site. Its crazy, impossibly difficult and frustrating. So no chance at all of runway being built in 10 years if the rules remain as they currently are.
and don't get me started on bats.....
If we really need more capacity Manchester is a better bet
That was at least part of the intention behind HS2.
Use the train to unlock capacity at both Birmingham and Manchester Airports. The new T2 at Manchester is genuinely impressive although frankly anything would look good next to the total shitheap that is T3 (which will soon be closed and redeveloped).
Putting aside the rights and wrongs of any particular project, why are we completely unable to get on and complete infrastructure work in this country?
There is a complete lack of any long-term plan or strategy for anything. Everything - transport, the NHS, education - is a political football and petty politicians will scupper the plans a previous politician approved simply to "have their say" or "put their mark on something". So something can be started, stopped, restarted under a different scope (which requires expensive re-design, re-procurement), then be subject to legal challenge, paused again, stopped because general election. It's an endless circle of consultations, re-design, stop / go (which doesn't inspire confidence in the project so few companies want to work on it and those that do want gold-plated insurance up to the hilt) and also short-term funding streams which can be redirected or cut at the whim of politicians.
Plus you have lobby groups (often very well-funded oil / auto ones) campaigning against things like sustainable travel, trains etc and you have a ragtag bunch of very poorly funded environmental groups campaigning against airports, roads etc.
Add in NIMBYs, minor things like there is simply not enough room in this country to be efficiently ploughing roads, railway and airports though places, the last remaining vestiges of our natural environment like newts, bats, orchids, listed buildings, archeological sites...
Also the Treasury has way too much say in a lot of this, they get cold feet at the thought of writing large cheques over long-terms.
Large infrastructure projects inevitably take a long time to plan and build. All the more so when it’s in a highly urbanised area. If that’s unacceptable then what should we do instead, nothing?
In the case of expanding airport infrastructure, then yeah. It seems fundamentally incompatible with climate change.
High speed rail on the other hand, go for it. They should build out HS2 as originally planned so far as I'm concerned.
I also can't believe for a second that it will be delivered for anywhere near the previous estimate of £14bn. They need to move an entire town, BA Headquarters will go, currently industrial units will go, massive engineering on roads and utilities, tunnels always go over budget. Huge legal challenges, lawyers making money, potential changes of Governments during the construction time. I'll be amazed if they can bring it in for less than double that cost.
God I could go on and on about this.
What always cracks me up, is that the politicians want a visual representation that they are doing something to make aviation more environmentally friendly, hence big infrastructure projects on the ground that people can see.
Where the real inefficiencies are, is in the sky, with the route structures etc. People can't see this so can't quantify it.
Invest in the route structure to allow aircraft continuous climb and descents for fuel efficiency and use the rest of the money to finish HS2. This would take away a lot of the domestic traffic, which RWY 3 is getting built for anyway!
They should build out HS2 as originally planned so far as I’m concerned.
This.
Internal transfers are the problem. Reduce them by better linking up airports (and the UK more generally) by rail.
As for freight… air should be the last resort. Refocus on markets and suppliers closer to home. Real honest long term thinking for this means closer cooperation with, and eventually joining, the EU.
I'm struggling to reconcile support for this v apparently no support for our own hydrocarbon industry.
Excuse my complete ignorance, but does approval for Heathrow also take into account emissions over the expected life of this construction project plus operation?
It feels like they have made yet another very bad judgment call by attaching themselves politically and economically to this white elephant to end all white elephants. On so many fronts it seems like a bad idea.
Economic - infrastructure and growth options (especially nearer term), is it really above better systems of public transport across the country, or other large infrastructure projects like more rail capacity - high speed or otherwise? The realisation of benefits are so far in the future and as a proportion of GDP increase fairly modest. Oh, and a tunnel for the M25! Just steer clear of navigating London for about 15 years.
Environmental - Speaks for itself really, from the build to the operational phase, nothing positive.
Political - They've locked themselves in to defending/fighting this bad decision and all its attendant consequences for the remainder of the parliament/until it gets canned - whichever is sooner. It's gifted political capital to opponents (including their own in the form of Sir Sadiq), who may coalesce around other regional options. It's going to eat up time not discussing or thinking about anything else. It's illuminating that all of this will have been thoroughly workshopped, but still chosen in preference.
There's so much else to go at. As mentioned on another thread, they could reap quicker and more longer lasting economic benefits, expending less political capital, by joining A customs union (not necessarily THE customs union). The right wing/pro brexit furore over that would be small beans in comparison to this lumbering joke of an idea. And a very clear majority actually want to see closer EU ties for economic reasons.
Oh, and a tunnel for the M25! Just steer clear of navigating London for about 15 years.
Given the disruption the Wisley junction changes are causing, I honestly cannot comprehend how doing this would lead to anything other than total gridlock at any time of day other than in the middle of the night.
Op was inviting us to place bets. So, I'm going with
Completion: 2042
Cost: £49bn
Hopefully STW (and I) will still be going by then so I can come back to celebrate my foresight.
Op was inviting us to place bets. So, I’m going with
Completion: 2042
That'll be just about the time that the climate collapse (exacerbated by cheap flights and airport expansions) has become so severe that no-one will be able to fly anywhere due to constant storms and flooding.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npkl o"> http://BBC News - Consent for Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields was unlawful - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo
Well, the legal precedents do not look good.
Can you 1/3 or 1/2 build a runway? As HS2, where the money was squandered on the first 100miles.
This will be one of those ‘the start of the project is closer to the building of the pyramids than it is to the completion date’ type memes
As mentioned above - this is not the infrastructure project the country needs. Highspeed rail is though. HS2 to Scotland and HS3 would be real game changers. Flying should be scaled back, not encouraged.
Being on the same side as Boris Johnson in an argument is unsettling...
They need to move an entire town
To be fair, Harmondsworth is a small village, with only a Grade 1 listed medieval barn that will apparently be relocated (along with the A4). The reason the airport points out over the M25 is 1) length required for big jets (not 727/A320's) and 2) avoids demolishing Sipson as well! Houses in the area have been bought up by the airport for years. You can spot them as you cycle through by the generic net curtains. There is a nice route from Harmondsworth to Sipson to Harlington and finally Heston. Few traffic lights, light traffic. I use it as part of my commute. The plans are impressive and well thought through. Delivery, however? Just moving the Heathrow detention centre will be traumatic (it's heading to a field near T4)
Being on the same side as Boris Johnson in an argument is unsettling…
Boris was against it purely because he was busy pushing "Boris Island" airport in the Thames Estuary. And - while I have no wish to give any idea of his any approval as such - it was still a better idea than expanding Heathrow.
Boris was against it purely because he was busy pushing “Boris Island” airport in the Thames Estuary. And – while I have no wish to give any idea of his any approval as such – it was still a better idea than expanding Heathrow.
I'd forgotten about Boris Island.... cripes, file with the garden and northern ireland bridges...
Surely it's more sensible to link up the existing airports so that transfers can occur that way? Currently to get from Heathrow to Gatwick is either a coach on the M25/M23 or a train to London and back, that's madness. Likewise, connect Luton and Stanstead so you end up with a high-speed arc linking Gatwick-Heathrow-Luton-Stanstead. Treat the whole lot as a linked-up super airport with 6 runways and you'll have more capacity than an expanded Heathrow could ever offer.
As for the bet, put me down for never.
As mentioned above – this is not the infrastructure project the country needs.
The problem is that some big lobby and campaign groups think that for any given major infrastructure project and will fight it through planning, then through the courts and then on the ground.
I 100% agree with you on HS2 - but that is a good illustration of the above.
The anouncement that this is a much needed infrastrucutre project really boiled my blood, never mind the diluted / cancelled infrastrucutre projects in the north being cancelled. Same old stuff, different party. Re-opening up old railway stations and upgrading part-finished services would have a mch bigger impact.
Being a Sheffield based person I'm based, but a decent road connection to Mnachester would be great, as would 101+ easy extension to the Tram network would stop the gridlock in our city, I expect pretty much every city outside of London has a similar set of urgent requirements. Pretty much nothing has changed in the last 30 years, or planned to in the next 20.
Will we see Boris Johnson lying down in front of the JCB's - this project has to be worth it for that alone.
As for the bet 2049 and £130bn cost.
@HarryTuttle idea is a good one. Luton to Stansted airport is 43km in a straight line and it needs to be HS. (Gatwick Heathrow is 42km but a bit more challenging because of rivers and reservoirs) and Luton is 43km from there). How much for 120km of very high speed rail (TGV speeds)?
How much for 120km of very high speed rail (TGV speeds)?
UK prices or "countries that can actually do this stuff properly" prices?
Also you won't get TGV speeds on a line of that nature but you should easily get HS1 speeds - the Javelins operate at 220kph, Eurostar is cleared for 300kph on sections of the line but not all of it. With only 45km between stations, it's not a huge amount of time to get it up to speed then slow it down again; faster speeds simply results in more time to accelerate to it and less time you can stay at that speed. That said, the Javelins can do 0-160kph in 90 seconds if the line / signalling actually allows that.
45km at 200kph is 12 minutes but obviously it won't be at that speed the whole time. Call it 18 minutes station to station.
France did it right by banning all internal domestic flights.
Where there were train alternatives, not just a total ban I thought.
The issue in the UK is twofold. Firstly geography, as we have islands and Northern Ireland. Secondly political - we have got rid of so many rail lines and squandered opportunity to improve what we do have, with an over-focus on the south east.
I'd like to see a general encouragement of less air travel... and an increase in taxation of all aviation proportionate to the real cost of its environmental harm. Unsurprisingly the aviation industry is pushing for lower taxation to maximise profits as we speed our way towards some likely oblivion. Oh, and sometime around 2045 and 8 times over-budget.
Economic – infrastructure and growth options (especially nearer term), is it really above better systems of public transport across the country, or other large infrastructure projects like more rail capacity – high speed or otherwise?
Are any private companies proposing to build those other large infrastructure projects with their own money?
I don't think we should be comparing the privately funded Heathrow 3rd runway with what would be publicly funded rail projects and the like?
I'm sure if some investors came along saying they would stump up the cash to finish HS2 properly then we would do.
Oh, and sometime around 2040
Like I said earlier, not in my lifetime.
I don’t think we should be comparing the privately funded Heathrow 3rd runway with what would be publicly funded rail projects and the like?
There would probably be more economic/environmental benefit from linking all the London Airports than just one expensive strip of tarmac and a tunnel outside Southall. If we had the will Southend could be added to the chain too as that's 47km away but would require a big trench through Chelmsford (I'm not seeing a down side ? ) and 85km more would take it back to Gatwick.
why don’t they add the extra runway to somewhere less congested?
The south east is already chockablock.
if the govt is looking for regional equality, they’ll have to bite the bullet and move the economic focus away from London.