Heathrow Expansion
Discussion
Gandahar said:
Most people in London tend to take the train, cab or tube to get to a station. So the area outside that is more likely to get the car. For people living in Essex, Kent, West and East Sussex and even Surrey Gatwick might be better as you do not have the M11, M1, M40 to cross to get to Gatwick.
Also, it's no point getting near, up to the M4 and then getting stuck. How does the M23 for delays compared to the M4 just near to Heathrow?
For people in London driving to either the M25 is more of a problem than the M/23. for people from outside it the M25 is still the problem. I've driven to and got the train to Heathrow from within the M25 this year, and driven to Gatwick. Driving to both is theoretically much quicker, even allowing for traffic its quicker to get to them for 9am. The difference is parking costs...well unless i was to get the express train to either.Also, it's no point getting near, up to the M4 and then getting stuck. How does the M23 for delays compared to the M4 just near to Heathrow?
Gandahar said:
Most people in London tend to take the train, cab or tube to get to a station. So the area outside that is more likely to get the car. For people living in Essex, Kent, West and East Sussex and even Surrey Gatwick might be better as you do not have the M11, M1, M40 to cross to get to Gatwick.
Also, it's no point getting near, up to the M4 and then getting stuck. How does the M23 for delays compared to the M4 just near to Heathrow?
Even when I used to live in (East London it wasn't easy to get to Heathrow, I'm usually out on the first flight of the day and it's such a long and slow journey on the Underground that it's not viable for early flights, so the best option was to drive and hope that M25 was behaving (which it often wasn't, even before someone decided to build a runway on top of it's busiest section). Now that I live in Suffolk my first preference for European flights is Stansted, then Gatwick, and Heathrow as a last and final choice.Also, it's no point getting near, up to the M4 and then getting stuck. How does the M23 for delays compared to the M4 just near to Heathrow?
Robertj21a said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
In reality, we need to the new runway at Heathrow and, in addition, a second runway at Gatwick and a genuine high-speed rail link (sub 30 mins and non stop) from central London to Stansted.
To all those talking about Birmingham/East Mids/Leeds Bradford, just get a grip; this is about strengthening our economy and keeping London as a global hub, not about helping Provincials get to Alicante that bit easier every summer
What a stupid post.To all those talking about Birmingham/East Mids/Leeds Bradford, just get a grip; this is about strengthening our economy and keeping London as a global hub, not about helping Provincials get to Alicante that bit easier every summer
Do you honestly feel that LHR is easy to get to for most people across the country ? - of course it's not (unless you live in London/S East). Why shouldn't businesses be able to use BHX/EMA etc far more than they do at present if it also eases the pressure on LHR ?
I promise not to use big words and to stop if you get scared or the thinking hurts too much....
ClaphamGT3 said:
Do you want me to explain the concept of a hub and spoke aviation strategy?
I promise not to use big words and to stop if you get scared or the thinking hurts too much....
Maybe this will help.I promise not to use big words and to stop if you get scared or the thinking hurts too much....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlIdzF1_b5M
anonymous said:
[redacted]
One time I booked a cab the driver turned up late, said not to worry because he knew a quick route through town, ended up stuck on the M4 spur and missed my flight. For European flights I find Stansted much better, if for no other reason than the access roads are usually free running (ish) and short stay parking is cheap. Even for long haul it's often quicker and easier to hop across to Schipol and pick up a connection from there. RYH64E said:
One time I booked a cab the driver turned up late, said not to worry because he knew a quick route through town, ended up stuck on the M4 spur and missed my flight. For European flights I find Stansted much better, if for no other reason than the access roads are usually free running (ish) and short stay parking is cheap. Even for long haul it's often quicker and easier to hop across to Schipol and pick up a connection from there.
Cheaper too as you can skip the APD, for extra brownie points book an open jaw so you land back in the UK.jamoor said:
Fozziebear said:
Yep, I've got a couple of bikes. Plenty of connections at EMA, just needs expanding to give it further reach. The whole connection thing is down to Heathrow and London being hyped up more than other airheads, shame really as it's a long drive for most
Well, as far as I can see there are no airlines using EMA as a connecting hub.Obviously your bikes have taught you nothing
Anyone who lives West of London the main airports for them are
1. City Airport - train and tube access useless for families
2. Heathrow M4/M25/M3/M40
3. Gatwick M4/M25//M3/M40/M23 (more M25)
4. Luton M4/M1/M25/M3/M40 (more M25)
5. Stanstead M4/M40/M3/M25/M11 (more M25)
So as you can clearly see Heathrow is far easier to access - any traffic problems would impact all 5options. Train and tube is simoly not possible with kids.
Say train option with two kids and two adults
You'll need 2x car seats for when you arrive plus luggage for a week or two which is min 3cases and then of course you have the pram. Going onto a train with luggage like that a single family would fill up the luggage area plus as you will know Oran's can only go onto 1 carriage. Then try to tackle the escalators to the tubes...- actually you need a taxi to the train station but it would need to be a minibus taxi with the luggage. I simply couldn't carry that lot of luggage nor could we share it with the Mrs then couldn't safely look after the kids.
Trains are delayed and any death on track as we've seen so much of lately from Reading to London shuts the line so your screwed.
We cannot fit our luggage into our car now to go to the airport as we need 4 child seats (imagine one of the two you took on holiday broke or were lost in he return flight you couldn't get home also the hassle of the bus transfer to the airport. As such we have airport minibus taxi transfer which is hardly any more than he airport parking plus it's door to door.
Fine if you fly solo or just two people train it - but what if you need a really early train which doesn't exist in he timetable what then?
1. City Airport - train and tube access useless for families
2. Heathrow M4/M25/M3/M40
3. Gatwick M4/M25//M3/M40/M23 (more M25)
4. Luton M4/M1/M25/M3/M40 (more M25)
5. Stanstead M4/M40/M3/M25/M11 (more M25)
So as you can clearly see Heathrow is far easier to access - any traffic problems would impact all 5options. Train and tube is simoly not possible with kids.
Say train option with two kids and two adults
You'll need 2x car seats for when you arrive plus luggage for a week or two which is min 3cases and then of course you have the pram. Going onto a train with luggage like that a single family would fill up the luggage area plus as you will know Oran's can only go onto 1 carriage. Then try to tackle the escalators to the tubes...- actually you need a taxi to the train station but it would need to be a minibus taxi with the luggage. I simply couldn't carry that lot of luggage nor could we share it with the Mrs then couldn't safely look after the kids.
Trains are delayed and any death on track as we've seen so much of lately from Reading to London shuts the line so your screwed.
We cannot fit our luggage into our car now to go to the airport as we need 4 child seats (imagine one of the two you took on holiday broke or were lost in he return flight you couldn't get home also the hassle of the bus transfer to the airport. As such we have airport minibus taxi transfer which is hardly any more than he airport parking plus it's door to door.
Fine if you fly solo or just two people train it - but what if you need a really early train which doesn't exist in he timetable what then?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Firstly I need to declare some nimbyism here, I live in West London which is currently not under a flight path but the proposed expansion might change that. For me the key reason to choose Heathrow as the expansion location is it's already the UK hub. Most people travelling through the UK want to come to Heathrow to further continue their travels. Secondary to this is most tourists coming to the UK want to come to London and Heathrow (other than city airport) is the only London airport actually in London.
Putting aside my nimbyism I wonder if we aren't thinking big enough and are taking an option that will quickly become saturated. Also the transport links are already under huge pressure, the Western section of the M25 is one of the most congested I've encountered in the UK and it is not at all reliable with regard to journey times. There are also the environmental (air quality) concerns with various claims about it's impact. To summarise I think we're trying to develop something that has had it's time and we need to start a fresh; I was a big fan of Boris Island despite it's highly ambitious nature.
I think back to when the UK post war decided to build loads of steam engines when the rest of the world was going electric, it turned out to be a short sighted decision based on cheap and plentiful coal resources. I feel that we need a revolution rather than evolution in this case, Heathrow will need replacing and so why not now? These are all my own thoughts and open to challenge and I'm not declaring any expertise here (probably obvious).
I think to save digging up great chunks of the M25, with all the disruption (and expense) that will cause, it would be much simpler to put the new runway in a tunnel. If it had a fairly high roof, all the pilots would have to do is to fly more or less level, at a low altitude until they were out of the tunnel.
This is a much simpler, and therefore cheaper solution.
This is a much simpler, and therefore cheaper solution.
truck71 said:
Firstly I need to declare some nimbyism here, I live in West London which is currently not under a flight path but the proposed expansion might change that.
For me the key reason to choose Heathrow as the expansion location is it's already the UK hub. Most people travelling through the UK want to come to Heathrow to further continue their travels. Secondary to this is most tourists coming to the UK want to come to London and Heathrow (other than city airport) is the only London airport actually in London.
Putting aside my nimbyism I wonder if we aren't thinking big enough and are taking an option that will quickly become saturated. Also the transport links are already under huge pressure, the Western section of the M25 is one of the most congested I've encountered in the UK and it is not at all reliable with regard to journey times. There are also the environmental (air quality) concerns with various claims about it's impact. To summarise I think we're trying to develop something that has had it's time and we need to start a fresh; I was a big fan of Boris Island despite it's highly ambitious nature.
I think back to when the UK post war decided to build loads of steam engines when the rest of the world was going electric, it turned out to be a short sighted decision based on cheap and plentiful coal resources. I feel that we need a revolution rather than evolution in this case, Heathrow will need replacing and so why not now? These are all my own thoughts and open to challenge and I'm not declaring any expertise here (probably obvious).
It should be J13 M4 beside Newbury or a J13B the A34 change it to be the M34 and link up M3/4/40/M1 Make it an 8 runway airport For me the key reason to choose Heathrow as the expansion location is it's already the UK hub. Most people travelling through the UK want to come to Heathrow to further continue their travels. Secondary to this is most tourists coming to the UK want to come to London and Heathrow (other than city airport) is the only London airport actually in London.
Putting aside my nimbyism I wonder if we aren't thinking big enough and are taking an option that will quickly become saturated. Also the transport links are already under huge pressure, the Western section of the M25 is one of the most congested I've encountered in the UK and it is not at all reliable with regard to journey times. There are also the environmental (air quality) concerns with various claims about it's impact. To summarise I think we're trying to develop something that has had it's time and we need to start a fresh; I was a big fan of Boris Island despite it's highly ambitious nature.
I think back to when the UK post war decided to build loads of steam engines when the rest of the world was going electric, it turned out to be a short sighted decision based on cheap and plentiful coal resources. I feel that we need a revolution rather than evolution in this case, Heathrow will need replacing and so why not now? These are all my own thoughts and open to challenge and I'm not declaring any expertise here (probably obvious).
te anyway and the airport might be handy from time to time.The Mad Monk said:
I think to save digging up great chunks of the M25, with all the disruption (and expense) that will cause, it would be much simpler to put the new runway in a tunnel. If it had a fairly high roof, all the pilots would have to do is to fly more or less level, at a low altitude until they were out of the tunnel.
This is a much simpler, and therefore cheaper solution.
Just imagining an A380 in a scene from Star Wars...This is a much simpler, and therefore cheaper solution.
truck71 said:
There are also the environmental (air quality) concerns with various claims about it's impact.
All this guff about noise and air quality…..as having lived near Heathrow and under the flight paths, since the early 60’s, I can assure you things are far, far, quieter and cleaner since those days when stuff like this were flying...
aeropilot said:
truck71 said:
There are also the environmental (air quality) concerns with various claims about it's impact.
All this guff about noise and air quality…..as having lived near Heathrow and under the flight paths, since the early 60’s, I can assure you things are far, far, quieter and cleaner since those days when stuff like this were flying...My late dad used to refer to many of the aircraft as "screamers", not just Concorde, but Tridents, VC10's DC8's etc etc etc.
Please don't get me started on the noise. Whilst i fully appreciate it can be tiring for some, the vast majority of complainers have ulterior motives ie house prices.
I know of one chap who lives in Richmond. Recently retired from a high paying executive role, flew all over the world. He's now campaigning against the airport on noise grounds, with a view to adding a few hundred thousand pounds to his 6 bedroom Victorian property price.
I know of one chap who lives in Richmond. Recently retired from a high paying executive role, flew all over the world. He's now campaigning against the airport on noise grounds, with a view to adding a few hundred thousand pounds to his 6 bedroom Victorian property price.
Robertj21a said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
In reality, we need to the new runway at Heathrow and, in addition, a second runway at Gatwick and a genuine high-speed rail link (sub 30 mins and non stop) from central London to Stansted.
To all those talking about Birmingham/East Mids/Leeds Bradford, just get a grip; this is about strengthening our economy and keeping London as a global hub, not about helping Provincials get to Alicante that bit easier every summer
What a stupid post.To all those talking about Birmingham/East Mids/Leeds Bradford, just get a grip; this is about strengthening our economy and keeping London as a global hub, not about helping Provincials get to Alicante that bit easier every summer
Do you honestly feel that LHR is easy to get to for most people across the country ? - of course it's not (unless you live in London/S East). Why shouldn't businesses be able to use BHX/EMA etc far more than they do at present if it also eases the pressure on LHR ?
As for the three selected options or the one picked by the government; none are satisfactory on their own, LHR needs 2 runways planning as by the time the current project actually arrives in tarmac form traffic will likely be nudging 80% again. Gatwick should be given the opportunity to compete for some of the business, particularly as their plan doesn't involve putting a wrecking ball through whole villages, just a handful of houses at most. AIUI they already own the land needed(or have options) and if they can raise the finance they should be allowed to get on with it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff