Climate Change Kills Third Heathrow Runway.
Discussion
Scuffers said:
the left of field stupid solution.
even if it was financially feasible (which it's not without massive government support), to provide road access to it would be laughable, it's bad enough already with the traffic to the Kent ports and you want to add a Heathrow to it?
IF you were going to pick a place to put a new mega airport, you would go north, not east, and being blunt, it's just not feasible without the corresponding investment in rail/road links to places people will want to get to.
Heathrow is only now going to get cross-rail access in the next few years, just how many decades away would starting again take?
Stuff the NIMBY's and just get on with it, (and forget 3rd, make it 3rd and 4th runway) along with a second runway for Gatwick to provide some real competition.
Wow, you're a little ray of sunshine.even if it was financially feasible (which it's not without massive government support), to provide road access to it would be laughable, it's bad enough already with the traffic to the Kent ports and you want to add a Heathrow to it?
IF you were going to pick a place to put a new mega airport, you would go north, not east, and being blunt, it's just not feasible without the corresponding investment in rail/road links to places people will want to get to.
Heathrow is only now going to get cross-rail access in the next few years, just how many decades away would starting again take?
Stuff the NIMBY's and just get on with it, (and forget 3rd, make it 3rd and 4th runway) along with a second runway for Gatwick to provide some real competition.
truck71 said:
Wow, you're a little ray of sunshine.
you mean I am not a wildly unrealistic Boris fanboy?Look, you only have to see how we are incapable of big transport infrastructure projects these days to realise just how impractical Boris Island is.
If we were in China or the like, then yes, it may well work, but no chance here.
Look at all the recent and current roadwork projects, M1 widening took how long? A14 Cathorpe, how many more years is that going to take?
Rail electrification - Midland Main Line - will this ever actually happen?
and yet you somehow think that something as massive as building Boris Island with a fully functioning airport and transport links is really going to be practical?
even if we had the money and political will, the inquires into everything from Mrs. miggins view to the great crested newts being re-homed, it would take 20+ years...
Scuffers said:
truck71 said:
Wow, you're a little ray of sunshine.
you mean I am not a wildly unrealistic Boris fanboy?Look, you only have to see how we are incapable of big transport infrastructure projects these days to realise just how impractical Boris Island is.
If we were in China or the like, then yes, it may well work, but no chance here.
Look at all the recent and current roadwork projects, M1 widening took how long? A14 Cathorpe, how many more years is that going to take?
Rail electrification - Midland Main Line - will this ever actually happen?
and yet you somehow think that something as massive as building Boris Island with a fully functioning airport and transport links is really going to be practical?
even if we had the money and political will, the inquires into everything from Mrs. miggins view to the great crested newts being re-homed, it would take 20+ years...
Now I realise times have moved on since queen vickie was on the throne, but wasn't the west end of the metropolitan conurbation better to live in because of the overall prevailing wind direction. Isn't adding more planes simply going to add substantially more pollution to a city where air quality already could do with an improvement?
For the last 15 odd years i've worked just to the south of the terminals and it's fair to say that the air is thick with filth that can only be described as the delicate aroma of heathrow; airline fuel and burnt rubber. On a hot day it can sure make the eyes smart. Surely, if anything we should be building away from the key city in the UK. We are in effect proposing to take an increasing dump on our own major doorstep.
For the last 15 odd years i've worked just to the south of the terminals and it's fair to say that the air is thick with filth that can only be described as the delicate aroma of heathrow; airline fuel and burnt rubber. On a hot day it can sure make the eyes smart. Surely, if anything we should be building away from the key city in the UK. We are in effect proposing to take an increasing dump on our own major doorstep.
truck71 said:
Scuffers said:
the left of field stupid solution.
even if it was financially feasible (which it's not without massive government support), to provide road access to it would be laughable, it's bad enough already with the traffic to the Kent ports and you want to add a Heathrow to it?
IF you were going to pick a place to put a new mega airport, you would go north, not east, and being blunt, it's just not feasible without the corresponding investment in rail/road links to places people will want to get to.
Heathrow is only now going to get cross-rail access in the next few years, just how many decades away would starting again take?
Stuff the NIMBY's and just get on with it, (and forget 3rd, make it 3rd and 4th runway) along with a second runway for Gatwick to provide some real competition.
Wow, you're a little ray of sunshine.even if it was financially feasible (which it's not without massive government support), to provide road access to it would be laughable, it's bad enough already with the traffic to the Kent ports and you want to add a Heathrow to it?
IF you were going to pick a place to put a new mega airport, you would go north, not east, and being blunt, it's just not feasible without the corresponding investment in rail/road links to places people will want to get to.
Heathrow is only now going to get cross-rail access in the next few years, just how many decades away would starting again take?
Stuff the NIMBY's and just get on with it, (and forget 3rd, make it 3rd and 4th runway) along with a second runway for Gatwick to provide some real competition.
truck71 said:
Hmm, fanboy seems a little strong. I was more referring to your style rather than content, there's a good debate going on here and you seem to have ratcheted up the tone somewhat. Or maybe I've mis interpreted.
OK, point taken...My beef really is that being blunt, if we want to move forwards, Heathrow expansion is the only realistic option, yes, it's far from perfect, and if you had a clean sheet of paper, you would not have started there in the first place, but we are where we are.
I also agree that Gatwick should get another runway, at the very least to provide an alternative to Heathrow when they have to divert flights etc, and to give some genuine competition.
We have tried to build new airports before, Stansted for example, not a bad airport, just the market has not taken to it, it's only competing with low cost carriers.
Scuffers said:
OK, point taken...
My beef really is that being blunt, if we want to move forwards, Heathrow expansion is the only realistic option, yes, it's far from perfect, and if you had a clean sheet of paper, you would not have started there in the first place, but we are where we are.
I also agree that Gatwick should get another runway, at the very least to provide an alternative to Heathrow when they have to divert flights etc, and to give some genuine competition.
We have tried to build new airports before, Stansted for example, not a bad airport, just the market has not taken to it, it's only competing with low cost carriers.
Agree re Stansted. If I put my self confessed NIMBYism to one side (I live near Heathrow and kind of have two hats in the debate really) I believe as a nation we are not ambitious enough. Using the channel tunnel as an example (hopefully a good one) it was a huge and expensive project that in hindsight hasn't delivered enough capacity. It is now strangled by only having one rail line in each direction when a little extra investment relative to the overall cost could have delivered two lines in each direction making it far more effective and financially viable. My beef really is that being blunt, if we want to move forwards, Heathrow expansion is the only realistic option, yes, it's far from perfect, and if you had a clean sheet of paper, you would not have started there in the first place, but we are where we are.
I also agree that Gatwick should get another runway, at the very least to provide an alternative to Heathrow when they have to divert flights etc, and to give some genuine competition.
We have tried to build new airports before, Stansted for example, not a bad airport, just the market has not taken to it, it's only competing with low cost carriers.
Looking back to the industrial revolution the victorians invested hugely in infrastructure leaving a legacy that is still very much in play today (all the railways, Bazzalgettes sewers etc). I think we need to adopt this approach if we are to prosper in a global economy. I fully support HS2/3 etc (for capacity rather than speed reasons) and believe the road network needs a complete overhaul. Building a new London airport from scratch would be hugely expensive and not without significant challenges as you rightly say, I just think it's what we should aspire to. I am very glass half full though..
I suspect that all sides of the dabate here would agree that making a decision (whatever it is)quickly is what is needed rather than constant procrastination.
Targarama said:
I think the government should just bite the bullet and add a runway to both Heathrow and Gatwick. Make Gatwick a safer place. Why create a new area of pollution and ruin more pristine country/estuary-side?
Gatwick have already said if we build a runway, they won't.The reason is extra flights will gravitate to Heathrow, as that's were the airlines earn the big money. Only when Heathrow is full, will airlines look elsewhere, and that could be decades away. So why spend the money now, build a runway, when no-one will use it?
As for Boris Island. The Belgium and Dutch Govts wouldn't be happy handing over large parts of their airspace to the UK, for starters!
And regarding air quality, emissions from aircraft only impact on local AQ up to 300 metres. The majority of the AQ issue is non Heathrow. I've seen a chart showing the source of emissions at the various sensors around the airport and if I recall correctly more that 50% of the emissions captured at each monitor was non Heathrow sourced.
LHRFlightman said:
Gatwick have already said if we build a runway, they won't.
The reason is extra flights will gravitate to Heathrow, as that's were the airlines earn the big money. Only when Heathrow is full, will airlines look elsewhere, and that could be decades away. So why spend the money now, build a runway, when no-one will use it?
so your saying that given the choice, the airlines will chose Heathrow?The reason is extra flights will gravitate to Heathrow, as that's were the airlines earn the big money. Only when Heathrow is full, will airlines look elsewhere, and that could be decades away. So why spend the money now, build a runway, when no-one will use it?
if yes, then that should be the voice to listen to?
Targarama said:
I think the government should just bite the bullet and add a runway to both Heathrow and Gatwick. Make Gatwick a safer place. Why create a new area of pollution and ruin more pristine country/estuary-side?
Gatwick have already said if we build a runway, they won't.The reason is extra flights will gravitate to Heathrow, as that's were the airlines earn the big money. Only when Heathrow is full, will airlines look elsewhere, and that could be decades away. So why spend the money now, build a runway, when no-one will use it?
As for Boris Island. The Belgium and Dutch Govts wouldn't be happy handing over large parts of their airspace to the UK, for starters!
And regarding air quality, emissions from aircraft only impact on local AQ up to 300 metres. The majority of the AQ issue is non Heathrow. I've seen a chart showing the source of emissions at the various sensors around the airport and if I recall correctly more that 50% of the emissions captured at each monitor was non Heathrow sourced.
Scuffers said:
LHRFlightman said:
Gatwick have already said if we build a runway, they won't.
The reason is extra flights will gravitate to Heathrow, as that's were the airlines earn the big money. Only when Heathrow is full, will airlines look elsewhere, and that could be decades away. So why spend the money now, build a runway, when no-one will use it?
so your saying that given the choice, the airlines will chose Heathrow?The reason is extra flights will gravitate to Heathrow, as that's were the airlines earn the big money. Only when Heathrow is full, will airlines look elsewhere, and that could be decades away. So why spend the money now, build a runway, when no-one will use it?
if yes, then that should be the voice to listen to?
LHRFlightman said:
Look at how many airlines have left LGW to come to LHR when a pair of slots has come up. And easyJet paid about £20,000,000 for all their slots at LGW. SAS sold a pair for £60,000,000 this year for LHR!
so, if you believe in the free market, it's heathrow all the way then?on this basis, if there was a 3rd runway, how long before it's at 100%
el stovey said:
saaby93 said:
I still dont understand why they cant take over one of those big bases like Fairford, Brize or whats the one up near Thetford
Well it's because replacing Heathrow with its terminals and car parks and transport network and TWO long runways with some old airfield with ONE runway wasn't a good way of getting increased capacity. GrumpyV8 said:
Do you mean Lakenheath or Mildenhall? No, we don't want anything expansionist in Norfolk thank you. The A11's bad enough as it is without encouraging extra traffic!!
and that still then fails miserably to do the job of a HUB airport!(or is the idea you land at Lakenheath to catch your connecting flight from Heathrow Terminal 2?)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff