Latest Heathrow master plan

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

tim...

2019-06-18 09:57:14 UTC

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,

but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption whilst they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

tim

Graeme Wall

2019-06-18 10:44:39 UTC

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no
business at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of
disruption whilst they rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport
entirely unreasonable

Highly unlikely ever to happen.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

tim...

2019-06-18 11:35:23 UTC

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no
business at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption
whilst they rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely
unreasonable

Highly unlikely ever to happen.

I'm glad you agree with me

:-)

tim

Post by Graeme Wall
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Roland Perry

2019-06-18 11:37:40 UTC

Post by tim...
I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no
business at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of
disruption whilst they rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport
entirely unreasonable

Highly unlikely ever to happen.

Boris did promise to lay down in front of the bulldozer, after all.

--
Roland Perry

Recliner

2019-06-18 11:50:21 UTC

Highly unlikely ever to happen.

Boris did promise to lay down in front of the bulldozer, after all.

True to form, I gather he's backed down from that commitment.

tim...

2019-06-18 16:40:17 UTC

Highly unlikely ever to happen.

Boris did promise to lay down in front of the bulldozer, after all.

True to form, I gather he's backed down from that commitment.

but that doesn't mean that he's backed away from not liking it

and therefore might cancel it when he has the lever to do so

Recliner

2019-06-18 20:46:38 UTC

Highly unlikely ever to happen.

Boris did promise to lay down in front of the bulldozer, after all.

True to form, I gather he's backed down from that commitment.

but that doesn't mean that he's backed away from not liking it
and therefore might cancel it when he has the lever to do so

Johnson changes his principles more often than his hairdo. It suited him
(and his successor) to oppose Heathrow expansion while mayor of London (I
think Khan was pro-expansion when he was a transport minister).

Boris got quieter on the subject when he became MP for a constituency with
many Heathrow workers, and might well flip if he becomes PM and discovers
that the business community that he's already offended, and key Tory donors
strongly support Heathrow expansion.

Graeme Wall

2019-06-18 12:01:15 UTC

Highly unlikely ever to happen.

Boris did promise to lay down in front of the bulldozer, after all.

Promises promises!

Is that when he expects to be kidnapped by an alien spaceship?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Arthur Figgis

2019-06-18 18:34:52 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
Boris did promise to lay down in front of the bulldozer, after all.

Have they got one with a big enough cab to take all the people offering
to drive it?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Recliner

2019-06-18 12:11:13 UTC

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:44:39 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no
business at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of
disruption whilst they rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport
entirely unreasonable

Highly unlikely ever to happen.

Do you mean Heathrow expansion at all, or this particular version of
the plan?

Graeme Wall

2019-06-18 12:47:19 UTC

Post by Recliner
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:44:39 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no
business at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of
disruption whilst they rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport
entirely unreasonable

Highly unlikely ever to happen.

Do you mean Heathrow expansion at all, or this particular version of
the plan?

Can't see any major expansion of Heathrow happening. It is going to be
bogged down in legal and political arguments for decades. If you need
another runway in the south east, Gatwick or Stansted are the more
logical choices, they have the space and the basic infrastructure to
support expansion. Heathrow, infamously, doesn't have the infrastructure
to adequately support its current operations.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Recliner

2019-06-18 13:56:47 UTC

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:47:19 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:44:39 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no
business at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of
disruption whilst they rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport
entirely unreasonable

Highly unlikely ever to happen.

Do you mean Heathrow expansion at all, or this particular version of
the plan?

It'll be interesting to see if this plan finally takes off. It's been
around, in one form or another, for many years, but it finally seems
to have some momentum now.

I think Gatwick's cheapo (£0.5bn) second runway probably will happen,
well before Heathrow gets another runway. The Gatwick project is
relatively small, and I don't know if it even needs planning
permission (as it doesn't require any expansion of the airport
footprint, new terminals, new roads, etc).

Technically, it's not a new runway, just moving one of the existing
runways 12m sideways and widening it. The agreement not to use both
runways at once runs out this summer, so there shouldn't be any real
obstacles in the way. It has much more political support than Heathrow
has, mainly because its flightpaths don't cross London.

But, given Stansted's spare capacity, I don't think it will be even
requesting a second runway any time soon.

Roland Perry

2019-06-18 14:26:15 UTC

Post by Recliner
But, given Stansted's spare capacity, I don't think it will be even
requesting a second runway any time soon.

Apart from this (admittedly old) one?

http://stopstanstedexpansion.com/maps.html

--
Roland Perry

Recliner

2019-06-18 14:57:41 UTC

Post by Recliner
But, given Stansted's spare capacity, I don't think it will be even
requesting a second runway any time soon.

Apart from this (admittedly old) one?
http://stopstanstedexpansion.com/maps.html

That proposal was abandoned years ago by the previous owner. The current
owner shows no interest in investing in a new runway.

Roland Perry

2019-06-18 15:04:02 UTC

Post by Recliner
But, given Stansted's spare capacity, I don't think it will be even
requesting a second runway any time soon.

Apart from this (admittedly old) one?
http://stopstanstedexpansion.com/maps.html

That proposal was abandoned years ago by the previous owner. The current
owner shows no interest in investing in a new runway.

Sure, but there's a plan on the back burner. It takes decades for these
things to mature.

--
Roland Perry

Recliner

2019-06-18 15:12:57 UTC

Post by Recliner
But, given Stansted's spare capacity, I don't think it will be even
requesting a second runway any time soon.

Apart from this (admittedly old) one?
http://stopstanstedexpansion.com/maps.html

That proposal was abandoned years ago by the previous owner. The current
owner shows no interest in investing in a new runway.

Sure, but there's a plan on the back burner. It takes decades for these
things to mature.

So are you agreeing or disagreeing with what I said ("I don't think it will
be even requesting a second runway any time soon")?

Roland Perry

2019-06-19 11:29:51 UTC

Post by Recliner
But, given Stansted's spare capacity, I don't think it will be even
requesting a second runway any time soon.

Apart from this (admittedly old) one?
http://stopstanstedexpansion.com/maps.html

That proposal was abandoned years ago by the previous owner. The current
owner shows no interest in investing in a new runway.

Sure, but there's a plan on the back burner. It takes decades for these
things to mature.

So are you agreeing or disagreeing with what I said ("I don't think it will
be even requesting a second runway any time soon")?

Depends what you mean by "soon". Apparently 2050 is the kind of
timescale these airports are planned around, plus however long the 3rd
runway has already been in the pipeline.

Should the current LHR plan "hit the buffers", Stansted have a
mothballed plan they might well decide to dust off.

--
Roland Perry

Graeme Wall

2019-06-18 16:27:35 UTC

Post by Recliner
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:47:19 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:44:39 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no
business at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of
disruption whilst they rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport
entirely unreasonable

Highly unlikely ever to happen.

Do you mean Heathrow expansion at all, or this particular version of
the plan?

It'll be interesting to see if this plan finally takes off. It's been
around, in one form or another, for many years, but it finally seems
to have some momentum now.

The last third runway proposals, that involved wiping out Sipson and
Harmondsworth, got about this far before collapsing.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Recliner

2019-06-19 07:02:04 UTC

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption whilst they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption? It's more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

Basil Jet

2019-06-19 07:09:04 UTC

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption whilst they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption? It's more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

I suspect they'll build a temporary road either side of the motorway,
divert the traffic onto that and then dig down and build a roof where
the old carriageway was. There'll probably be a 50 mph limit for a year
while the temporary road is being used.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Nine Horses - 2005 - Snow Borne Sorrow

Recliner

2019-06-19 07:53:25 UTC

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption whilst they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption? It's more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

No. They'll build the diverted, sunken, bridged M25 to the west of the
current road, with no disruption to road or air traffic during the
building, which might take a couple of years.

The only disruption will come at the end, when the traffic is diverted to
the new route. My guess is that the northbound traffic will be moved first,
with a few weeks of lane 1 closures required while they connect the new to
the old carriageways, then an overnight closure for the final switch to be
made. The same procedure would then be followed a few months later to
divert the southbound carriageway to the new alignment.

It will all be much less disruptive than when the motorway was widened a
few years ago.

Roland Perry

2019-06-19 11:21:43 UTC

Post by Recliner
They'll build the diverted, sunken, bridged M25 to the west of the
current road, with no disruption to road or air traffic during the
building, which might take a couple of years.
The only disruption will come at the end, when the traffic is diverted to
the new route. My guess is that the northbound traffic will be moved first,
with a few weeks of lane 1 closures required while they connect the new to
the old carriageways, then an overnight closure for the final switch to be
made. The same procedure would then be followed a few months later to
divert the southbound carriageway to the new alignment.

The amount of work you would be expecting them to do "overnight" beggars
belief.

--
Roland Perry

Basil Jet

2019-06-19 11:39:32 UTC

The amount of work you would be expecting them to do "overnight" beggars
belief.

I disagree, I don't think even an overnight closure is required. You
reduce it to one lane overnight while you repaint most of the
carriageway to have four (five?) lanes curving onto the altered
alignment. You stop the traffic for a minute while you "change the
points" and route the one traffic lane into a different coned alignment
over the already painted area. You then remove the earlier cone route
and finish painting the carriageway. Then put concrete barriers guarding
the abandoned route and remove all the cones. It's quite common for the
M25 to be down to one lane at night, and far preferable to shutting it.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Nine Horses - 2005 - Snow Borne Sorrow

Roland Perry

2019-06-19 12:59:39 UTC

The amount of work you would be expecting them to do "overnight"
beggars belief.

I disagree, I don't think even an overnight closure is required. You
reduce it to one lane overnight while you repaint most of the
carriageway to have four (five?) lanes curving onto the altered
alignment. You stop the traffic for a minute while you "change the
points" and route the one traffic lane into a different coned alignment
over the already painted area. You then remove the earlier cone route
and finish painting the carriageway. Then put concrete barriers
guarding the abandoned route and remove all the cones. It's quite
common for the M25 to be down to one lane at night, and far preferable
to shutting it.

Don't give up the day job.

--
Roland Perry

Clive D.W. Feather

2019-06-19 11:43:48 UTC

Post by Recliner
The only disruption will come at the end, when the traffic is diverted to
the new route. My guess is that the northbound traffic will be moved first,
with a few weeks of lane 1 closures required while they connect the new to
the old carriageways, then an overnight closure for the final switch to be
made. The same procedure would then be followed a few months later to
divert the southbound carriageway to the new alignment.

The amount of work you would be expecting them to do "overnight" beggars
belief.

I disagree.

Build the two new carriageways. At each end, cut them off very close to
the edge of northbound lane 1 (there's no hard shoulder, right? if there
is, adjust description accordingly).

Cone off northbound lane 1. Spend a week or two filling in the narrow
gap between the old and new northbounds at each end.

Not sure that you even need a closure to switch over. Simply move all
the cones.

Repeat for the southbound (though this time you're closing lane 4).

--
Clive D.W. Feather

Recliner

2019-06-19 12:08:22 UTC

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:43:48 +0100, "Clive D.W. Feather"

The amount of work you would be expecting them to do "overnight" beggars
belief.

I disagree.
Build the two new carriageways. At each end, cut them off very close to
the edge of northbound lane 1 (there's no hard shoulder, right? if there
is, adjust description accordingly).
Cone off northbound lane 1. Spend a week or two filling in the narrow
gap between the old and new northbounds at each end.
Not sure that you even need a closure to switch over. Simply move all
the cones.
Repeat for the southbound (though this time you're closing lane 4).

Yes, that's what I'm expecting.

tim...

2019-06-19 16:54:39 UTC

Post by Recliner
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:43:48 +0100, "Clive D.W. Feather"

The amount of work you would be expecting them to do "overnight" beggars
belief.

I disagree.
Build the two new carriageways. At each end, cut them off very close to
the edge of northbound lane 1 (there's no hard shoulder, right? if there
is, adjust description accordingly).
Cone off northbound lane 1. Spend a week or two filling in the narrow
gap between the old and new northbounds at each end.
Not sure that you even need a closure to switch over. Simply move all
the cones.
Repeat for the southbound (though this time you're closing lane 4).

Yes, that's what I'm expecting.

I have never in my life seen construction companies do this

even when the new road is well away from the old route

It costs millions extra to do it that way

tim

Recliner

2019-06-19 20:07:17 UTC

Post by Recliner
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:43:48 +0100, "Clive D.W. Feather"

The amount of work you would be expecting them to do "overnight" beggars
belief.

I disagree.
Build the two new carriageways. At each end, cut them off very close to
the edge of northbound lane 1 (there's no hard shoulder, right? if there
is, adjust description accordingly).
Cone off northbound lane 1. Spend a week or two filling in the narrow
gap between the old and new northbounds at each end.
Not sure that you even need a closure to switch over. Simply move all
the cones.
Repeat for the southbound (though this time you're closing lane 4).

Yes, that's what I'm expecting.

I have never in my life seen construction companies do this
even when the new road is well away from the old route
It costs millions extra to do it that way

Why would it cost any extra? You have a completely segregated work site to
the west of the existing road, to build the new, lowered carriageways, with
runway and taxiway bridges. This might take 2-3 years, and won't affect the
existing motorway, except for a few lane closures while a safety wall is
built between the existing northbound carriageway and the work site.

When the new carriageway is ready, you need to close lane 1 of the old
northbound carriageway for a few weeks while the physical connection of the
road surfaces is made, and then an overnight closure for first the M4-bound
traffic to be diverted, and then again when the through traffic is
switched. A few months later, a similar process is used to connect the
southbound.

It won't be nearly as disruptive as when the M25 was widened to 12 lanes in
the area.

tim...

2019-06-19 20:31:54 UTC

Post by Recliner
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:43:48 +0100, "Clive D.W. Feather"

Post by Recliner
The only disruption will come at the end, when the traffic is
diverted
to
the new route. My guess is that the northbound traffic will be moved first,
with a few weeks of lane 1 closures required while they connect the
new
to
the old carriageways, then an overnight closure for the final switch
to
be
made. The same procedure would then be followed a few months later to
divert the southbound carriageway to the new alignment.

The amount of work you would be expecting them to do "overnight" beggars
belief.

I disagree.
Build the two new carriageways. At each end, cut them off very close to
the edge of northbound lane 1 (there's no hard shoulder, right? if there
is, adjust description accordingly).
Cone off northbound lane 1. Spend a week or two filling in the narrow
gap between the old and new northbounds at each end.
Not sure that you even need a closure to switch over. Simply move all
the cones.
Repeat for the southbound (though this time you're closing lane 4).

Yes, that's what I'm expecting.

I have never in my life seen construction companies do this
even when the new road is well away from the old route
It costs millions extra to do it that way

Why would it cost any extra?

because you have to build a "throw away" access road to the new build road.

The alternative of accessing via the current road is "free" but causes some
of that road to need closing

Recliner

2019-06-19 20:56:52 UTC

Post by Recliner
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:43:48 +0100, "Clive D.W. Feather"

Post by Recliner
The only disruption will come at the end, when the traffic is
diverted
to
the new route. My guess is that the northbound traffic will be moved first,
with a few weeks of lane 1 closures required while they connect the
new
to
the old carriageways, then an overnight closure for the final switch
to
be
made. The same procedure would then be followed a few months later to
divert the southbound carriageway to the new alignment.

The amount of work you would be expecting them to do "overnight" beggars
belief.

I disagree.
Build the two new carriageways. At each end, cut them off very close to
the edge of northbound lane 1 (there's no hard shoulder, right? if there
is, adjust description accordingly).
Cone off northbound lane 1. Spend a week or two filling in the narrow
gap between the old and new northbounds at each end.
Not sure that you even need a closure to switch over. Simply move all
the cones.
Repeat for the southbound (though this time you're closing lane 4).

Yes, that's what I'm expecting.

I have never in my life seen construction companies do this
even when the new road is well away from the old route
It costs millions extra to do it that way

Why would it cost any extra?

because you have to build a "throw away" access road to the new build road.

I take it you've never looked at a map of the area, or even Google Maps?

Post by tim...
The alternative of accessing via the current road is "free" but causes some
of that road to need closing

There are plenty of other existing roads, including the A4, they can use
for access to the work sites.

Recliner

2019-06-19 21:06:31 UTC

Post by Recliner
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:43:48 +0100, "Clive D.W. Feather"

Post by Recliner
The only disruption will come at the end, when the traffic is
diverted
to
the new route. My guess is that the northbound traffic will be moved first,
with a few weeks of lane 1 closures required while they connect the
new
to
the old carriageways, then an overnight closure for the final switch
to
be
made. The same procedure would then be followed a few months later to
divert the southbound carriageway to the new alignment.

The amount of work you would be expecting them to do "overnight" beggars
belief.

I disagree.
Build the two new carriageways. At each end, cut them off very close to
the edge of northbound lane 1 (there's no hard shoulder, right? if there
is, adjust description accordingly).
Cone off northbound lane 1. Spend a week or two filling in the narrow
gap between the old and new northbounds at each end.
Not sure that you even need a closure to switch over. Simply move all
the cones.
Repeat for the southbound (though this time you're closing lane 4).

Yes, that's what I'm expecting.

I have never in my life seen construction companies do this
even when the new road is well away from the old route
It costs millions extra to do it that way

Why would it cost any extra?

because you have to build a "throw away" access road to the new build road.

I take it you've never looked at a map of the area, or even Google Maps?

Post by tim...
The alternative of accessing via the current road is "free" but causes some
of that road to need closing

There are plenty of other existing roads, including the A4, they can use
for access to the work sites.

Clive D.W. Feather

2019-06-19 20:07:58 UTC

Post by tim...
I have never in my life seen construction companies do this
even when the new road is well away from the old route
It costs millions extra to do it that way

Come and look at the A14 rebuild between Girton and Swavesey. It's being
done in a similar way.

--
Clive D.W. Feather

Roland Perry

2019-06-19 20:21:14 UTC

Post by tim...
I have never in my life seen construction companies do this
even when the new road is well away from the old route
It costs millions extra to do it that way

Come and look at the A14 rebuild between Girton and Swavesey. It's being
done in a similar way.

And there's only disruption to the through traffic for two isolated
overnight periods (while they switch some virtual points)?

You have got-to-be-joking.

--
Roland Perry

Clive D.W. Feather

2019-06-19 20:59:12 UTC

Post by tim...
I have never in my life seen construction companies do this
even when the new road is well away from the old route
It costs millions extra to do it that way

Come and look at the A14 rebuild between Girton and Swavesey. It's being
done in a similar way.

And there's only disruption to the through traffic for two isolated
overnight periods (while they switch some virtual points)?
You have got-to-be-joking.

Let's see when it happens.

At the moment, the next disruption is a closure this weekend to demolish
what's left of the old Bar Hill flyover. Closures for this sort of
thing, or installing gantries, seem to be more disruptive than switching
the alignment.

--
Clive D.W. Feather

tim...

2019-06-19 20:35:48 UTC

Post by tim...
I have never in my life seen construction companies do this
even when the new road is well away from the old route
It costs millions extra to do it that way

Come and look at the A14 rebuild between Girton and Swavesey. It's being
done in a similar way.

fortunately, I have no need to travel that way frequently anymore

but when i did, the plan was that the exit that I used every day was to be
closed in order to facilitate the rebuilt

And on the one occasion that I did travel that way, there was certainly
cones along the whole of the road closing off lanes and restricted speed
limits

tim

Roland Perry

2019-06-19 13:29:25 UTC

The amount of work you would be expecting them to do "overnight" beggars
belief.

I disagree.
Build the two new carriageways. At each end, cut them off very close to
the edge of northbound lane 1 (there's no hard shoulder, right? if there
is, adjust description accordingly).
Cone off northbound lane 1. Spend a week or two filling in the narrow
gap between the old and new northbounds at each end.
Not sure that you even need a closure to switch over. Simply move all
the cones.
Repeat for the southbound (though this time you're closing lane 4).

Presumably all the rerouting of traffic on the A14 project is going
swimmingly, to a similar plan?

--
Roland Perry

Clive D.W. Feather

2019-06-19 20:07:04 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
Presumably all the rerouting of traffic on the A14 project is going
swimmingly, to a similar plan?

All the bits I've seen have been.

For example, the new temporary northwestbound entry slip at Bar Hill was
done that way. There's lots of bits of new carriageway waiting to be
connected (e.g. northwestbound between the services north of Bar Hill
and the Swavesey intersection, though I think that's waiting for the
Lolworth bridge to be completed).

Or, for another example, the diversion of the westbound A14 loop on to
the M11 (or possibly temporarily-not-M11). Or the diversion of the
northwestbound A1307 between Girton and the new Dry Drayton roundabout.

--
Clive D.W. Feather

Roland Perry

2019-06-19 20:24:59 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
Presumably all the rerouting of traffic on the A14 project is going
swimmingly, to a similar plan?

All the bits I've seen have been.
For example, the new temporary northwestbound entry slip at Bar Hill was
done that way. There's lots of bits of new carriageway waiting to be
connected (e.g. northwestbound between the services north of Bar Hill
and the Swavesey intersection, though I think that's waiting for the
Lolworth bridge to be completed).
Or, for another example, the diversion of the westbound A14 loop on to
the M11 (or possibly temporarily-not-M11). Or the diversion of the
northwestbound A1307 between Girton and the new Dry Drayton roundabout.

You are obviously familiar with a completely different A14 to the one
where I've endured [Milton to Girton] numerous lane and carriageway
closures, contraflows, and other such disruption, for what's got to be
two years now. Luckily I don't have much reason to travel Girton the
Huntingdon, but I'm sure that's just as chaotic.

--
Roland Perry

David Cantrell

2019-06-20 09:48:49 UTC

Post by Basil Jet
I suspect they'll build a temporary road either side of the motorway,
divert the traffic onto that and then dig down and build a roof where
the old carriageway was. There'll probably be a 50 mph limit for a year
while the temporary road is being used.

A 50mph limit? Horrors! Why, that's the same speed that that part of the
motorway normally runs at!

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

engineer: n. one who, regardless of how much effort he puts in
to a job, will never satisfy either the suits or the scientists

Graeme Wall

2019-06-20 10:02:24 UTC

Post by David Cantrell

A 50mph limit? Horrors! Why, that's the same speed that that part of the
motorway normally runs at!

In your dreams!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

tim...

2019-06-19 08:47:18 UTC

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption whilst they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption? It's more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

they are going to put the whole road in a tunnel (presumably from the way
it's described not by building a raft on top of it)

how can that not cause major disruption?

tim

Recliner

2019-06-19 08:54:07 UTC

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption whilst they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption? It's more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

they are going to put the whole road in a tunnel (presumably from the way
it's described not by building a raft on top of it)
how can that not cause major disruption?

You've obviously not looked at the map, or read this thread.

tim...

2019-06-19 09:57:29 UTC

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption whilst they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption? It's more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

they are going to put the whole road in a tunnel (presumably from the way
it's described not by building a raft on top of it)
how can that not cause major disruption?

You've obviously not looked at the map,

what is "The Map" - I guess there is one, but no I didn't get to see it (You
can blame that on my out of date browser if the original article included a
link)

Post by Recliner
or read this thread.

as one of the first to reply, that would have been difficult

tim

Recliner

2019-06-19 11:04:50 UTC

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption whilst they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption? It's more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

they are going to put the whole road in a tunnel (presumably from the way
it's described not by building a raft on top of it)
how can that not cause major disruption?

You've obviously not looked at the map,

what is "The Map" - I guess there is one, but no I didn't get to see it (You
can blame that on my out of date browser if the original article included a
link)

Post by Recliner
or read this thread.

as one of the first to reply, that would have been difficult

If you now read the thread, I pointed out that the buried/bridged
motorway will be built on a new alignment, to the west of the current
M25, so building it won't disrupt the existing motorway or flights.
Only the short period of linking the old carriageways and new
diversion will cause any disruption, and that should be short (mainly
a few days or weeks of lane closures, then a few hours of complete
closure while the traffic is switched to the new route).

Basil Jet

2019-06-19 11:11:23 UTC

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption whilst they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption? It's more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

they are going to put the whole road in a tunnel (presumably from the way
it's described not by building a raft on top of it)
how can that not cause major disruption?

You've obviously not looked at the map,

what is "The Map" - I guess there is one, but no I didn't get to see it (You
can blame that on my out of date browser if the original article included a
link)

Post by Recliner
or read this thread.

as one of the first to reply, that would have been difficult

Are you talking about the earlier plan where the existing M4 M25
junction was half-removed and replaced by a weird junction further west?
The picture in the BBC article seems to be describing not that, but a
different plan where the M25 keeps its present horizontal alignment.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Nine Horses - 2005 - Snow Borne Sorrow

Recliner

2019-06-19 11:31:49 UTC

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption whilst they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption? It's more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

they are going to put the whole road in a tunnel (presumably from the way
it's described not by building a raft on top of it)
how can that not cause major disruption?

You've obviously not looked at the map,

what is "The Map" - I guess there is one, but no I didn't get to see it (You
can blame that on my out of date browser if the original article included a
link)

Post by Recliner
or read this thread.

as one of the first to reply, that would have been difficult

It's being moved slightly to the west, but not enough to change the M4
junction. You can see the curve to the new diverted alignment in one
of the images in these articles:

"Images released by the airport indicate that the M25, which widens to
12 lanes past Heathrow, would be rebuilt in a tunnel west of its
present route.

Two openings in the tunnel between the taxiways and runway would
improve stability, ventilation and visibility on the road."

<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-plans-runway-over-m25-in-30-year-expansion-f58v9f2ts?shareToken=3416809e5a92ad594cefa79d3391e8a7>

<https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9319310/heathrow-airport-expansion-revealed-third-runway-finished-2026/>

Roland Perry

2019-06-19 13:18:52 UTC

Post by Basil Jet
Are you talking about the earlier plan where the existing M4 M25
junction was half-removed and replaced by a weird junction further west?
The picture in the BBC article seems to be describing not that, but a
different plan where the M25 keeps its present horizontal alignment.

It's being moved slightly to the west, but not enough to change the M4
junction. You can see the curve to the new diverted alignment in one
"Images released by the airport indicate that the M25, which widens to
12 lanes past Heathrow, would be rebuilt in a tunnel west of its
present route.
Two openings in the tunnel between the taxiways and runway would
improve stability, ventilation and visibility on the road."
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-plans-runway-over-m25-in-30
-year-expansion-f58v9f2ts?shareToken=3416809e5a92ad594cefa79d3391e8a7

If anything, that shows the M25 bending slightly east, straightening the
existing alignment between J14 and J15.

Post by Recliner
<https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9319310/heathrow-airport-expansion-reveal
ed-third-runway-finished-2026/>

The map and artists impression there aren't even consistent (at the
granularity of the width of a 6+6 lane motorway).

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry

2019-06-19 11:24:15 UTC

Post by Recliner
I pointed out that the buried/bridged
motorway will be built on a new alignment, to the west of the current
M25, so building it won't disrupt the existing motorway or flights.
Only the short period of linking the old carriageways and new
diversion will cause any disruption, and that should be short (mainly
a few days or weeks of lane closures, then a few hours of complete
closure while the traffic is switched to the new route).

It's far too close to the intersection with the M4 for the geometry to
work. Not only that, Heathrow's own information shows the M25 route
undiverted (only local roads have new corridors):

<https://aec.heathrowconsultation.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/06/
P1-11-Local-Roads-Diverted.jpg>

--
Roland Perry

Recliner

2019-06-19 12:34:04 UTC

It's far too close to the intersection with the M4 for the geometry to
work. Not only that, Heathrow's own information shows the M25 route
<https://aec.heathrowconsultation.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/06/
P1-11-Local-Roads-Diverted.jpg>

Thanks for that. That map clearly confirms the M25 diversion to the
west: it has a more pronounced curve under the runways than the
current route. It's a small enough diversion not to need any changes
to the M4 junction.

I've overlaid a translucent Google Map view on top of the new map, and
you can clearly see the diversion.

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/48091808766/in/dateposted-friend/lightbox/>

Graeme Wall

2019-06-19 13:03:37 UTC

Thanks for that. That map clearly confirms the M25 diversion to the
west: it has a more pronounced curve under the runways than the
current route. It's a small enough diversion not to need any changes
to the M4 junction.
I've overlaid a translucent Google Map view on top of the new map, and
you can clearly see the diversion.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/48091808766/in/dateposted-friend/lightbox/>

That confirms it is going to be foul of the current interchange which is
going to be less easy to adapt.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Recliner

2019-06-19 13:29:08 UTC

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:03:37 +0100, Graeme Wall

Thanks for that. That map clearly confirms the M25 diversion to the
west: it has a more pronounced curve under the runways than the
current route. It's a small enough diversion not to need any changes
to the M4 junction.
I've overlaid a translucent Google Map view on top of the new map, and
you can clearly see the diversion.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/48091808766/in/dateposted-friend/lightbox/>

That confirms it is going to be foul of the current interchange which is
going to be less easy to adapt.

Yes, it looks like there will have to be a small adjustment to the
northbound slip roads, but that should be relatively easy, as it will
make them straighter.

Graeme Wall

2019-06-19 14:50:29 UTC

Post by Recliner
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:03:37 +0100, Graeme Wall

Thanks for that. That map clearly confirms the M25 diversion to the
west: it has a more pronounced curve under the runways than the
current route. It's a small enough diversion not to need any changes
to the M4 junction.
I've overlaid a translucent Google Map view on top of the new map, and
you can clearly see the diversion.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/48091808766/in/dateposted-friend/lightbox/>

That confirms it is going to be foul of the current interchange which is
going to be less easy to adapt.

Yes, it looks like there will have to be a small adjustment to the
northbound slip roads, but that should be relatively easy, as it will
make them straighter.

Except you have to take the change in levels into account which will
involve major construction works and you can't build the new sliproad
alongside and move the traffic over.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Recliner

2019-06-19 15:14:24 UTC

Post by Recliner
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:03:37 +0100, Graeme Wall

Thanks for that. That map clearly confirms the M25 diversion to the
west: it has a more pronounced curve under the runways than the
current route. It's a small enough diversion not to need any changes
to the M4 junction.
I've overlaid a translucent Google Map view on top of the new map, and
you can clearly see the diversion.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/48091808766/in/dateposted-friend/lightbox/>

That confirms it is going to be foul of the current interchange which is
going to be less easy to adapt.

Yes, it looks like there will have to be a small adjustment to the
northbound slip roads, but that should be relatively easy, as it will
make them straighter.

Except you have to take the change in levels into account which will
involve major construction works and you can't build the new sliproad
alongside and move the traffic over.

There won't be any change of levels where the new and old carriageways meet
— that'll be further south. But I agree that the connection stage will be
more complicated as it'll involve the slip roads as well as the main
carriageways.

I think what they might do would be to first move the northbound M25
traffic for the M4 on to the diversion so that it can then use the new slip
roads. The new through carriageway can then be extended over the old slip
roads to connect to the old through carriageway.

Basil Jet

2019-06-19 17:02:45 UTC

Thanks for that. That map clearly confirms the M25 diversion to the
west: it has a more pronounced curve under the runways than the
current route. It's a small enough diversion not to need any changes
to the M4 junction.
I've overlaid a translucent Google Map view on top of the new map, and
you can clearly see the diversion.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/48091808766/in/dateposted-friend/lightbox/>

That confirms it is going to be foul of the current interchange which is
going to be less easy to adapt.

... although no bridges in either junction will have to be rebuilt.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Nine Horses - 2005 - Snow Borne Sorrow

Graeme Wall

2019-06-19 17:53:50 UTC

Thanks for that. That map clearly confirms the M25 diversion to the
west: it has a more pronounced curve under the runways than the
current route. It's a small enough diversion not to need any changes
to the M4 junction.
I've overlaid a translucent Google Map view on top of the new map, and
you can clearly see the diversion.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/48091808766/in/dateposted-friend/lightbox/>

That confirms it is going to be foul of the current interchange which
is going to be less easy to adapt.

... although no bridges in either junction will have to be rebuilt.

If the new layout is foul of the current junction how is that going to work?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Basil Jet

2019-06-19 18:18:21 UTC

Thanks for that. That map clearly confirms the M25 diversion to the
west: it has a more pronounced curve under the runways than the
current route. It's a small enough diversion not to need any changes
to the M4 junction.
I've overlaid a translucent Google Map view on top of the new map, and
you can clearly see the diversion.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/48091808766/in/dateposted-friend/lightbox/>

That confirms it is going to be foul of the current interchange which
is going to be less easy to adapt.

... although no bridges in either junction will have to be rebuilt.

If the new layout is foul of the current junction how is that going to work?

Unless you have sight problems, you can work out everything I know from
the flickr image above.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Nine Horses - 2005 - Snow Borne Sorrow

Graeme Wall

2019-06-19 18:43:19 UTC

Thanks for that. That map clearly confirms the M25 diversion to the
west: it has a more pronounced curve under the runways than the
current route. It's a small enough diversion not to need any changes
to the M4 junction.
I've overlaid a translucent Google Map view on top of the new map, and
you can clearly see the diversion.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/48091808766/in/dateposted-friend/lightbox/>

That confirms it is going to be foul of the current interchange
which is going to be less easy to adapt.

... although no bridges in either junction will have to be rebuilt.

If the new layout is foul of the current junction how is that going to work?

Unless you have sight problems, you can work out everything I know from
the flickr image above.

I currently do have sight problems but that diagram clearly shows the
slip roads from the new alignment being foul of the existing layout. I'm
hoping to go and see the actual documents in the library tomorrow so may
get a better idea then.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Basil Jet

2019-06-19 19:09:11 UTC

Thanks for that. That map clearly confirms the M25 diversion to the
west: it has a more pronounced curve under the runways than the
current route. It's a small enough diversion not to need any changes
to the M4 junction.
I've overlaid a translucent Google Map view on top of the new map, and
you can clearly see the diversion.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/48091808766/in/dateposted-friend/lightbox/>

That confirms it is going to be foul of the current interchange
which is going to be less easy to adapt.

... although no bridges in either junction will have to be rebuilt.

If the new layout is foul of the current junction how is that going to work?

Unless you have sight problems, you can work out everything I know
from the flickr image above.

The bridges are all in the centres of the junctions, and the roads in
those area are unchanged, unlike the roads on the southern part of the
M4 junction or the northern part of the T5 junction. (I'm not counting
gantries as bridges.)

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Prefab Sprout - 1985 - Steve McQueen

Roland Perry

2019-06-19 19:36:05 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
I currently do have sight problems but that diagram clearly shows
the slip roads from the new alignment being foul of the existing
layout. I'm hoping to go and see the actual documents in the library
tomorrow so may get a better idea then.

Talking of gantries; along with lamp-posts, central reservation
barriers, and all the other street furniture, they'd have to be removed
along the affected stretches to make the "set of points, with road cones
swapping the flow overnight" operation postulated up-thread.

--
Roland Perry

Recliner

2019-06-19 20:27:09 UTC

Yes, that's true. There would need to be some overnight closures leading up
to the actual switch. Some items could be removed well in advance, during
other works. Removal of overhead gantries would obviously require overnight
closures, but could be done well in advance. Presumably there won't be more
than one overhead gantry in each of the shirt connection zones.

But quite a lot could be done with just lane closures. For example, the
central reservation won't be affected while the northbound carriageway is
moved across in two stages. Later, when it's time to move the southbound
traffic, much of the structure removal and connection work will be done
during closures of the fast lane. The final switchover will require an
overnight closure while the 'points are switched'.

Graeme Wall

2019-06-19 19:48:20 UTC

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:24:15 +0100, Roland Perry

Thanks for that. That map clearly confirms the M25 diversion to the
west: it has a more pronounced curve under the runways than the
current route. It's a small enough diversion not to need any changes
to the M4 junction.
I've overlaid a translucent Google Map view on top of the new map, and
you can clearly see the diversion.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/48091808766/in/dateposted-friend/lightbox/>

That confirms it is going to be foul of the current interchange
which is going to be less easy to adapt.

... although no bridges in either junction will have to be rebuilt.

If the new layout is foul of the current junction how is that going to work?

Unless you have sight problems, you can work out everything I know
from the flickr image above.

I currently do have sight problems but that diagram clearly shows the
slip roads from the new alignment being foul of the existing layout.
I'm hoping to go and see the actual documents in the library tomorrow
so may get a better idea then.

What about the sliproads?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Recliner

2019-06-19 20:07:17 UTC

Thanks for that. That map clearly confirms the M25 diversion to the
west: it has a more pronounced curve under the runways than the
current route. It's a small enough diversion not to need any changes
to the M4 junction.
I've overlaid a translucent Google Map view on top of the new map, and
you can clearly see the diversion.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/48091808766/in/dateposted-friend/lightbox/>

That confirms it is going to be foul of the current interchange which
is going to be less easy to adapt.

... although no bridges in either junction will have to be rebuilt.

If the new layout is foul of the current junction how is that going to work?

You first connect the completed new carriageway and its M4 slip road to the
old slip road just before it splits into the east and west bound links. For
the next few months, traffic heading for the M4 will be diverted to the new
northbound carriageway, while through traffic will continue to use the
existing carriageway. During this time, the new carriageway will be built
through the old northbound slip road to connect to the ood carriageway.
Again, there will be and closures for a few weeks and an overnight complete
closure as the final connection is made.

Southbound is easier, but, again, connecting traffic from the M4 might
continue to use the old carriageway for a little while after the through
M25 traffic has been diverted to the new carriageway.

Basil Jet

2019-06-19 22:59:50 UTC

Post by Recliner
You first connect the completed new carriageway and its M4 slip road to the
old slip road just before it splits into the east and west bound links. For
the next few months, traffic heading for the M4 will be diverted to the new
northbound carriageway, while through traffic will continue to use the
existing carriageway. During this time, the new carriageway will be built
through the old northbound slip road to connect to the ood carriageway.
Again, there will be and closures for a few weeks and an overnight complete
closure as the final connection is made.
Southbound is easier, but, again, connecting traffic from the M4 might
continue to use the old carriageway for a little while after the through
M25 traffic has been diverted to the new carriageway.

I don't know what the limit is on how close junctions are allowed to be
on motorways, but that might put the T5 junction and the M4 junction too
close together during the interim, leading to dangerous weaving.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Feist - 2011 - Metals

Recliner

2019-06-19 23:09:12 UTC

Why would they be any closer than they are now? In any case, there are
much closer motorway junctions elsewhere.

Basil Jet

2019-06-19 23:27:43 UTC

Why would they be any closer than they are now?

Because at the moment the traffic for the M4 leaves the main carriageway
a fair distance north of the A4, whereas you would have this traffic
using the new tunnel route (and the through M25 traffic using the old
route) for a few months, which puts the bifurcation point inches north
of the convergence point at the north end of the T5 junction. That's not
going to work. Similar for the southbound. The traffic to and from the
M4 and the traffic to and from Watford has to remain together throughout
the construction to avoid dangerous weaving at the north end of the T5
junction (although obviously the northbound can switch to the new tunnel
months before the southbound does).

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Feist - 2011 - Metals

Recliner

2019-06-20 00:04:51 UTC

Why would they be any closer than they are now?

I don't think it would be possible for the northbound through and M4
junction traffic to stay together throughout, as the new through route cuts
through the existing slip road to the M4. So there would have to be at
least a short period of a few weeks of separation while the through route
is linked at the northern end, through the current M4 junction slip road.
Maybe there would have to be restrictions on the use of the junctions
during that transition period? For example, T5 to M4 traffic might be
rerouted.

Southbound might be easier, and it might be possible to keep the traffic
flows together. Or, again, M4 to T5 traffic could be temporarily rerouted
for a few weeks.

Basil Jet

2019-06-20 07:00:45 UTC

Why would they be any closer than they are now?

I don't think it would be possible for the northbound through and M4
junction traffic to stay together throughout, as the new through route cuts
through the existing slip road to the M4. So there would have to be at
least a short period of a few weeks of separation while the through route
is linked at the northern end, through the current M4 junction slip road.
Maybe there would have to be restrictions on the use of the junctions
during that transition period? For example, T5 to M4 traffic might be
rerouted.
Southbound might be easier, and it might be possible to keep the traffic
flows together. Or, again, M4 to T5 traffic could be temporarily rerouted
for a few weeks.

The M4 to T5 or T5 to M4 isn't the problem, because it keeps left
through the pinch point. The problem northbound is the Gatwick to
Slough traffic cutting from right to left exactly where the T5 to
Watford traffic is cutting from left to right, and southbound the Slough
to Gatwick traffic cutting from left to right exactly where the Watford
to T5 traffic is cutting from right to left.

So there is no way the bifurcation point or merge point south of the M4
junction will be moved to the north end of the T5 junction even for a
one minute period, unless the motorway was down to one lane there, which
is only feasible in the middle of the night.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Feist - 2017 - Pleasure

Recliner

2019-06-20 08:12:09 UTC

Why would they be any closer than they are now?

I don't think it would be possible for the northbound through and M4
junction traffic to stay together throughout, as the new through route cuts
through the existing slip road to the M4. So there would have to be at
least a short period of a few weeks of separation while the through route
is linked at the northern end, through the current M4 junction slip road.
Maybe there would have to be restrictions on the use of the junctions
during that transition period? For example, T5 to M4 traffic might be
rerouted.
Southbound might be easier, and it might be possible to keep the traffic
flows together. Or, again, M4 to T5 traffic could be temporarily rerouted
for a few weeks.

The M4 to T5 or T5 to M4 isn't the problem, because it keeps left
through the pinch point. The problem northbound is the Gatwick to
Slough traffic cutting from right to left exactly where the T5 to
Watford traffic is cutting from left to right, and southbound the Slough
to Gatwick traffic cutting from left to right exactly where the Watford
to T5 traffic is cutting from right to left.
So there is no way the bifurcation point or merge point south of the M4
junction will be moved to the north end of the T5 junction even for a
one minute period, unless the motorway was down to one lane there, which
is only feasible in the middle of the night.

Perhaps the simplest approach would be to close the T5/M25 northbound
connection for a short period while they work round the clock to connect
the new through carriageway at the northern end, cutting through the
existing slipway. T5 traffic could be diverted via the A3113 or Colnbrook
Bypass.

tim...

2019-06-19 16:47:06 UTC

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption
whilst
they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption? It's more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

they are going to put the whole road in a tunnel (presumably from the way
it's described not by building a raft on top of it)
how can that not cause major disruption?

You've obviously not looked at the map,

what is "The Map" - I guess there is one, but no I didn't get to see it (You
can blame that on my out of date browser if the original article included a
link)

Post by Recliner
or read this thread.

as one of the first to reply, that would have been difficult

tim...

2019-06-19 16:50:41 UTC

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption
whilst
they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption? It's more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

they are going to put the whole road in a tunnel (presumably from the way
it's described not by building a raft on top of it)
how can that not cause major disruption?

You've obviously not looked at the map,

what is "The Map" - I guess there is one, but no I didn't get to see it (You
can blame that on my out of date browser if the original article included a
link)

Post by Recliner
or read this thread.

as one of the first to reply, that would have been difficult

The plans that I can see show the new road so close that the idea that it
wont disrupt the current M25 is fiction.

Post by Recliner
Only the short period of linking the old carriageways and new
diversion will cause any disruption, and that should be short (mainly
a few days or weeks of lane closures, then a few hours of complete
closure while the traffic is switched to the new route).

If you think that they can link a new route into a current motorways by only
diverting traffic for a few weeks then you have never seen how they do this

IME they narrow the road where the connection is to be made for the full
term of the works. They do this because they need access to the new road
for construction vehicles - how else are they going to build it?

tim

Recliner

2019-06-19 20:07:17 UTC

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption
whilst
they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption? It's more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

they are going to put the whole road in a tunnel (presumably from the way
it's described not by building a raft on top of it)
how can that not cause major disruption?

You've obviously not looked at the map,

what is "The Map" - I guess there is one, but no I didn't get to see it (You
can blame that on my out of date browser if the original article included a
link)

Post by Recliner
or read this thread.

as one of the first to reply, that would have been difficult

The plans that I can see show the new road so close that the idea that it
wont disrupt the current M25 is fiction.

If you think that they can link a new route into a current motorways by only
diverting traffic for a few weeks then you have never seen how they do this
IME they narrow the road where the connection is to be made for the full
term of the works. They do this because they need access to the new road
for construction vehicles - how else are they going to build it?

They won't need access to the existing M25 to build the new structures to
the west — why would they?

They will only need lane closures for a few weeks at the connection points,
as they physically link the new and old road surfaces. The only
complication is at the northern point, as the new northbound carriageway
will pass through the existing slip roads to the M4, so the connection will
have to be in two phases.

tim...

2019-06-19 20:32:48 UTC

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption
whilst
they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption?
It's
more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

they are going to put the whole road in a tunnel (presumably from the way
it's described not by building a raft on top of it)
how can that not cause major disruption?

You've obviously not looked at the map,

what is "The Map" - I guess there is one, but no I didn't get to see it (You
can blame that on my out of date browser if the original article
included
a
link)

Post by Recliner
or read this thread.

as one of the first to reply, that would have been difficult

The plans that I can see show the new road so close that the idea that it
wont disrupt the current M25 is fiction.

If you think that they can link a new route into a current motorways by only
diverting traffic for a few weeks then you have never seen how they do this
IME they narrow the road where the connection is to be made for the full
term of the works. They do this because they need access to the new road
for construction vehicles - how else are they going to build it?

They won't need access to the existing M25 to build the new structures to
the west — why would they?

because they don't helicopter all the construction stuff in, do they

tim

Recliner

2019-06-19 21:06:31 UTC

Post by Recliner
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001>

well I don't know about the rest,
but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no
business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption
whilst
they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption?
It's
more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

they are going to put the whole road in a tunnel (presumably from the way
it's described not by building a raft on top of it)
how can that not cause major disruption?

You've obviously not looked at the map,

what is "The Map" - I guess there is one, but no I didn't get to see it (You
can blame that on my out of date browser if the original article
included
a
link)

Post by Recliner
or read this thread.

as one of the first to reply, that would have been difficult

The plans that I can see show the new road so close that the idea that it
wont disrupt the current M25 is fiction.

If you think that they can link a new route into a current motorways by only
diverting traffic for a few weeks then you have never seen how they do this
IME they narrow the road where the connection is to be made for the full
term of the works. They do this because they need access to the new road
for construction vehicles - how else are they going to build it?

They won't need access to the existing M25 to build the new structures to
the west — why would they?

because they don't helicopter all the construction stuff in, do they

Of course not.

Why don't you at least look at a map before posting an inane question like
that?

Basil Jet

2019-06-19 22:45:43 UTC