So, Heathrow........

domtheone

Report backs third Heathrow runway - BBC News

Not read the report/detail yet but, imo, madness.

They dismiss the future proof option straight away and then come out with the option guaranteed to be political dynamite.

Can kicked down the road again, me thinks.

blackrod

It should have been done years ago but that is easy said when I live 200 miles away. Its the poor buggers who will lose their home or end up under its flight path I feel for.
Only flown from Heathrow a few times and every experience was horrible though I understandnd the new terminals are much better.

pragmatic

Unless they build direct high speed rail link between airports, there is always gonna be demand for a hub, having to go between different airports for connections is simply a non goer as it is.

It would likely cost more too.

Boris island seems the best option, if you've got a load of cash, well except if you're a rare bird or slug or something and really particular where you nest.

Otherwise expand the lot of them, two run ways in the smaller ones (inc Birmingham/Manchester), three at Gatwick and four at Heathrow. Give them all permission to do that, see which ones actually happen and the market will ultimately decide.  

The people who live around Heathrow don't get much sympathy, the airport has been there longer than most of them (where houses have been build because of the work Heathrow provides) while the expansion has been on the cards for almost as long.

blackrod

Manchester already has 2 runways (although ludicrously you have to cross one to get to the other) so the fact Heathrow only has 2 still is madness.

tapzilla2k

The idea has been kicking around for decades and has never come to fruition due to some pretty fundamental problems and the cost (last estimate was £24 billion). There's also this major hazard to deal with SS Richard Montgomery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wetland birds are under enough threats as it is already and habitat loss has been pretty big, I do not want to see habitats wrecked for an airport that will probably cost too much and may well need Government intervention to force airlines to use it. Plus you'd have to spend a hell of a lot of money on other infrastructure to support the airport on a local level, along with viable transport links into London, and Boris Island would probably hit the West London Economy pretty hard. So while you'd probably keep those living near Heathrow happy, you'd upset a whole host of other people. Boris Island would likely be pure folly.

domtheone

And your last sentence explains why we never seem to get ahead of the curve as far as infrastructure goes.

It is the best option for the future but so many people are stuck in the present/past.

pragmatic

Apparently last London/SE runway (excluding city airport) was build 70 years ago, and the Heathrow question has been kicking about for nearly 50 years.

A government with balls, when was it last seen?

Greg Hook

The Gatwick second runway solution seems to be the best for all concerned. It seems to tick all the boxes compared to Heathrow.  Whatever the decision it will not be good for the environment, but it seems Gatwick will cost significantly less.

I've a feeling whoever makes the decision has some invested interest in Heathrow.

Enki

There are no ifs, no buts about it .

Iain42

Saw something on tv last night regarding Gatwick.  It claimed that the area had almost full employment, and that to support a new runway there, huge increases in the local population and infrastructure were required.  I would imagine that's not quite so true for Heathrow.

Besides Gatwick can be even more of a pig to get to from north of London than Heathrow is.