Discussion
As a resident of East Sheen, which is on the Heathrow flight path, I find the decision disappointing. At the moment, unless the wind is from the east which is unusual, we get aircraft directly overhead either from very early morning until 3pm or from 3pm until late at night. At least, we get some kind of a break.
However, with a new runway we will have non stop overflying for up to eighteen hours a day.
On the bright side, we'll be retired and off to the sticks well before the new runway comes into operation.
However, with a new runway we will have non stop overflying for up to eighteen hours a day.
On the bright side, we'll be retired and off to the sticks well before the new runway comes into operation.
I'm glad it didn't happen.
The prospect of closing Heathrow and turning the local area into a ghost town was ridiculous.
I think that expansion of Gatwick would be the better option though.
What we really need is a high speed link between all of London's airports, and I have just read that they have finally seen sense and decided to "plumb" Heathrow into the main line with a station at Terminal 5. Why this has not been done before, and we have had to rely on a bus from Feltham, I will never know!
I personally think expansion of Gatwick is the better option, and with the high speed rail link, I think that this could work really well.
The prospect of closing Heathrow and turning the local area into a ghost town was ridiculous.
I think that expansion of Gatwick would be the better option though.
What we really need is a high speed link between all of London's airports, and I have just read that they have finally seen sense and decided to "plumb" Heathrow into the main line with a station at Terminal 5. Why this has not been done before, and we have had to rely on a bus from Feltham, I will never know!
I personally think expansion of Gatwick is the better option, and with the high speed rail link, I think that this could work really well.
the idea of spending £100Bn (and watch that balloon) on a vanity project like this is just laughable.
Heathrow, love it or hate it, is where it's at, it used to have more than 2 runways!
if you must go out-of-town, Stansted is the sensible option, but it desperately needs better ground links.
Heathrow, love it or hate it, is where it's at, it used to have more than 2 runways!
if you must go out-of-town, Stansted is the sensible option, but it desperately needs better ground links.
Scuffers said:
the idea of spending £100Bn (and watch that balloon) on a vanity project like this is just laughable.
Heathrow, love it or hate it, is where it's at, it used to have more than 2 runways!
if you must go out-of-town, Stansted is the sensible option, but it desperately needs better ground links.
For a fraction of £100bn you could expand Heathrow to the west and help mitigate noise problems over west London.Heathrow, love it or hate it, is where it's at, it used to have more than 2 runways!
if you must go out-of-town, Stansted is the sensible option, but it desperately needs better ground links.
Cynical may thinks this is a long game.
Since Boris has announced his candidacy for the Uxbridge seat at the next election I do wonder if he supported the Thames Estuary project in a 'long play' strategy. He did the right thing for Londoners campaigning for this and no more Heathrow expansion but was prevented by higher powers (and by coincidence got voted in by lots of SW Londoners in the LHR flightpath). Now I suspect a lot of people in his target district work at Heathrow, and apart from the residents of Sipson and Harmondsworth (think I got the right village name?), the rest of the locals will be pro LHR expansion.
Since Boris has announced his candidacy for the Uxbridge seat at the next election I do wonder if he supported the Thames Estuary project in a 'long play' strategy. He did the right thing for Londoners campaigning for this and no more Heathrow expansion but was prevented by higher powers (and by coincidence got voted in by lots of SW Londoners in the LHR flightpath). Now I suspect a lot of people in his target district work at Heathrow, and apart from the residents of Sipson and Harmondsworth (think I got the right village name?), the rest of the locals will be pro LHR expansion.
Murph7355 said:
I think it's a shame something radical has been binned.
An airport built well away from urban centres with flightpaths that could be kept equally distant surely has massive benefits. Fast, mass transit links cover the downsides (other centres cope along these lines).
Agree, living in Battersea and be woken up every morning at 4.30am at the moment, the thought of doubling the flights over Central London is madness. An airport built well away from urban centres with flightpaths that could be kept equally distant surely has massive benefits. Fast, mass transit links cover the downsides (other centres cope along these lines).
I think the decision is regrettable. It is a timid decision.
I also despise Heathrow at an almost molecular level. A rubbish airport in entirely the wrong place. Someone with a pair of balls should have moved it 40 years ago to somewhere upwind from the prevailing wind for a start.
Give the gig to Gatwick. Invest heavily in the Midlands and Manchester too - if only to try and balance the disproportionate influence London has on the UK overall.
I also despise Heathrow at an almost molecular level. A rubbish airport in entirely the wrong place. Someone with a pair of balls should have moved it 40 years ago to somewhere upwind from the prevailing wind for a start.
Give the gig to Gatwick. Invest heavily in the Midlands and Manchester too - if only to try and balance the disproportionate influence London has on the UK overall.
toppstuff said:
I think the decision is regrettable. It is a timid decision.
I also despise Heathrow at an almost molecular level. A rubbish airport in entirely the wrong place. Someone with a pair of balls should have moved it 40 years ago to somewhere upwind from the prevailing wind for a start.
Give the gig to Gatwick. Invest heavily in the Midlands and Manchester too - if only to try and balance the disproportionate influence London has on the UK overall.
that's backwards thinking...I also despise Heathrow at an almost molecular level. A rubbish airport in entirely the wrong place. Someone with a pair of balls should have moved it 40 years ago to somewhere upwind from the prevailing wind for a start.
Give the gig to Gatwick. Invest heavily in the Midlands and Manchester too - if only to try and balance the disproportionate influence London has on the UK overall.
Look, I am not saying I love heathrow, but put it this way, I live 100 miles north of it, and there are 7 closer options to me, yet I will always choose heathrow given the choice..
the reasons for this are simple, convenience.
Stansted is easier for me to get to, but it's a joke of an airport, no mainstream services outside of the low-cost EU stuff, one runway, hopeless to get to aside by car, it's just not a 'hub'
only way it could work is a massive expansion, 2+ more runways, proper rail links to the city and north, etc.
Gatwick's not an option, yes it's close enough to the city, but it's f**king hopless to get to from anywhere else in the country.
the idea of creating an island for it is even more laughable, just how are people going to get there? the road/rail network in that area is already stuffed, and the last airport island costs way over budget and is sinking.
yes, a nice shiney new mega-airport would be great, preferably north of the city, with proper rain/tube links into the city and rail/road to the rest of the UK, the real question is where do you propose to get the £100Bn+ from to pay for it all and are you going to then forcibly shut Heathrow (to get the airlines to use your new hub).
then we get to the costs of the infrastructure to support this new hub, rail/road links (look what cross-rail costs), fuel pipelines/storage, etc etc etc..
I can see that £100Bn doublinging easily.
toppstuff said:
I think the decision is regrettable. It is a timid decision.
I also despise Heathrow at an almost molecular level. A rubbish airport in entirely the wrong place. Someone with a pair of balls should have moved it 40 years ago to somewhere upwind from the prevailing wind for a start.
Give the gig to Gatwick. Invest heavily in the Midlands and Manchester too - if only to try and balance the disproportionate influence London has on the UK overall.
I agree, what is even worse is that a final decision hasn't even been reached and the seemingly endless inquiries continue so politicians can avoid upsetting anyone before the election. The paralysis in this country over big projects is terrible.I also despise Heathrow at an almost molecular level. A rubbish airport in entirely the wrong place. Someone with a pair of balls should have moved it 40 years ago to somewhere upwind from the prevailing wind for a start.
Give the gig to Gatwick. Invest heavily in the Midlands and Manchester too - if only to try and balance the disproportionate influence London has on the UK overall.
hidetheelephants said:
Brilliant waste of time and money to bring us right back to where we started, only 3 years down the road; dazzling. A runway at Heathrow and another at Gatwick will barely touch the sides of what's needed, by the time they're built more capacity will be required; another 20+year wait after that?
Spot on.LGW and LHR both needed another runway years ago. Now we have yet more short termism resulting in NOTHING happening again and starting from scratch one the next occupants of number 10 decide to start a review and consultation process.
toppstuff said:
I think the decision is regrettable. It is a timid decision.
I also despise Heathrow at an almost molecular level. A rubbish airport in entirely the wrong place. Someone with a pair of balls should have moved it 40 years ago to somewhere upwind from the prevailing wind for a start.
Give the gig to Gatwick. Invest heavily in the Midlands and Manchester too - if only to try and balance the disproportionate influence London has on the UK overall.
why on earth do you despise LHR?I also despise Heathrow at an almost molecular level. A rubbish airport in entirely the wrong place. Someone with a pair of balls should have moved it 40 years ago to somewhere upwind from the prevailing wind for a start.
Give the gig to Gatwick. Invest heavily in the Midlands and Manchester too - if only to try and balance the disproportionate influence London has on the UK overall.
It has:
1) Good m-way access to the the rest of the country (m25,m4,m3,m40).
2) Direct tube links from the terminals in to West London and central london
3) Fast train service to central london
4) Some state of the art new terminals, with the old ones being refurbed/replaced
5) Excellent range of airlines/flight options.
IMHO LHR needs 1 (or two) new runways, and a train link to HS2 and Paddington/Bristol main line it it would be a great asset to the whole country.
In comparison LGW is stuck out on a limb 'under' london with 1 m-way link M23 then M25) and little option if the M23 is snookered traffic wise. Train service in to London is good, but no better than LHR.
Boris Island was always a joke... isolated on the 'wrong side' of London from the rest of the country, far too many SSSI and sensitive areas near it to ever allow it to be built. It would only ever have served east london and Kent well.
I thought Boris made some good points.
Ok maybe BI wasn't ideal but his main point was we do need to make some decisions. Heathrow/Gatwick, Gatwick/Heathrow its been bandied about for years and years and nothing has been done while the problem has got worse.
We need decisive action.
Crawley is a s
thole, could we not just level the place and build a massive airport there?
Ok maybe BI wasn't ideal but his main point was we do need to make some decisions. Heathrow/Gatwick, Gatwick/Heathrow its been bandied about for years and years and nothing has been done while the problem has got worse.
We need decisive action.
Crawley is a s
thole, could we not just level the place and build a massive airport there?
toppstuff said:
I think the decision is regrettable. It is a timid decision.
I also despise Heathrow at an almost molecular level. A rubbish airport in entirely the wrong place. Someone with a pair of balls should have moved it 40 years ago to somewhere upwind from the prevailing wind for a start.
Give the gig to Gatwick. Invest heavily in the Midlands and Manchester too - if only to try and balance the disproportionate influence London has on the UK overall.
Gatwick is a badly run airport and the local roads and rail infrastructure are way behind what is needed. I also despise Heathrow at an almost molecular level. A rubbish airport in entirely the wrong place. Someone with a pair of balls should have moved it 40 years ago to somewhere upwind from the prevailing wind for a start.
Give the gig to Gatwick. Invest heavily in the Midlands and Manchester too - if only to try and balance the disproportionate influence London has on the UK overall.
McWigglebum4th said:
Well unless they do the sensible thing and build an airport to the north of london next to HS2 then it is the most half arsed decision ever
Birmingham is already next to HS1. From the Birmingham International railway station it takes 70 minutes into Euston.There doesn't seem a lot of enthusiasm for Birmingham airport currently, so the fact HS2 might knock a few minutes off the time to London isn't going to make a great deal of difference.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff