Climate Change Kills Third Heathrow Runway.
Discussion
Scuffers said:
this is exactly the same deal with people that buy a house next to a race cct then b
h about the noise.
it's wrong, plain and simple.
What you have written is wrong, plain, and simple; coming to the nuisance is no defence, and aviation is exempted from legislation relating to nuisances by various acts. So the two are in no way exactly the same.h about the noise.it's wrong, plain and simple.
Magog said:
Scuffers said:
this is exactly the same deal with people that buy a house next to a race cct then bh about the noise.
it's wrong, plain and simple.
What you have written is wrong, plain, and simple; coming to the nuisance is no defence, and aviation is exempted from legislation relating to nuisances by various acts. So the two are in no way exactly the same.h about the noise.it's wrong, plain and simple.
you can go on all you like about legislation this and that, does not change the basic reality of the situation.
if you move in next door to something that makes a noise, then complain about it, you only have yourself to blame (for not doing due diligence).
Dress it up any way you like, this is the basic principle of right vs. wrong.
Now, if you bought a house and some time later somebody builds a race cct on your doorstep, then obviously, that's a completely different situation.
If you really cannot understand this as a concept, maybe you need ot get out more?
Magog said:
Scuffers said:
this is exactly the same deal with people that buy a house next to a race cct then bh about the noise.
it's wrong, plain and simple.
What you have written is wrong, plain, and simple; coming to the nuisance is no defence, and aviation is exempted from legislation relating to nuisances by various acts. So the two are in no way exactly the same.h about the noise.it's wrong, plain and simple.
Others will buy such a house knowing that these facilities already exist in the area, and then just live with it.
Hackney said:
The airport (as it stands) may have been there long before current housing, but this isn't about now, it's about future development. People have bought houses knowing conditions as they are.
Where do you live, and why? What if your nearest factory / pub / airport / nightclub / trunk road - was asking to double in size / extent opening hours etc, etc, etc, would you be happy because it was there when you moved in so what right do you have to complain?
If it was a new expansion application I would agree with you, but expansion at Heathrow, and not just the airport but hotels, warehousing and transport links as well, has been on the cards for decades. Where do you live, and why? What if your nearest factory / pub / airport / nightclub / trunk road - was asking to double in size / extent opening hours etc, etc, etc, would you be happy because it was there when you moved in so what right do you have to complain?
Scuffers said:
this is exactly the same deal with people that buy a house next to a race cct then bh about the noise.
it's wrong, plain and simple.
No, completely different. h about the noise.it's wrong, plain and simple.
A relevant comparison would be if someone moved near a circuit (rockingham village say) and then after the move a planning application was made to build an extra loop round said house.
Hackney said:
Scuffers said:
this is exactly the same deal with people that buy a house next to a race cct then bh about the noise.
it's wrong, plain and simple.
No, completely different. h about the noise.it's wrong, plain and simple.
A relevant comparison would be if someone moved near a circuit (rockingham village say) and then after the move a planning application was made to build an extra loop round said house.
NicD said:
What 'national plan' is that? The aspirations of the private airport owner do not qualify.
Heathrow was selected by the Air Ministry as the site for London's international airport in 1943 and construction started in April 1944.The Wilson government set up the Roskill commission to look at solving airport capacity problems for London in 1968.
The Callaghan government recognised Heathrow was to be the London hub airport and the site for future expansion in 1978, as did the Thatcher government in 1979.
It's been there for 60 years, expansion to 3 or more runways has been a possibility for 47 years and on the cards as a definite at some point for the last 37 years.
And this isn't about the aspirations of the airport owner, it's about the NEED of the UK economy to reach many more destinations than the current airline capacity from the UK can service.
I need to declare an interest at this point, I'm a civil engineer , currently work at Heathrow and have been delivering national crtitical infrastructure (M3, Jubilee line extension, coal mines, town bypasses etc) for the last 20 years that have been delayed by gutless politicians and short sighted selfish nimbys and I've seen the benefits they bring, even to the Nimbys. I just want to get on with this before we become a bankrupt back water while Holland, Frande and Germany romp away.
Edited by Collectingbrass on Wednesday 15th July 07:31
Our economy seems to be doing ok as is doesn't it? The system is set up to divert money to those who already have it. Why would a load of business travel help? Through increased demands for hotels and restaurants, where people work on zero hour contracts or below the living wage?
Capitalism requires constant growth for no reason
It takes no account of the human cost which can't be quantified
And before you come up with comparisons to other European cities, and call the million people whose lives will be made miserable by the horrible intrusive noise nimbys (would as many others really benefit from the growrh?), consider the fact that the other European hubs don't have anything like as much residential overflight as we have at LHR even as it is now...
Here is a quote from a 2013 Airport Commision study:
'the study finds that Heathrow is by far the most noise polluting of Europe’s major airports, with 725,500 people affected versus 238,700 at Frankfurt, 170,000 at Paris Charles de Gaulle and 43,700 at Amersterdam’s Schiphol'
So not such a big deal to blame the residents in Amsterdam when the bumber is 95% lower
Capitalism requires constant growth for no reason
It takes no account of the human cost which can't be quantified
And before you come up with comparisons to other European cities, and call the million people whose lives will be made miserable by the horrible intrusive noise nimbys (would as many others really benefit from the growrh?), consider the fact that the other European hubs don't have anything like as much residential overflight as we have at LHR even as it is now...
Here is a quote from a 2013 Airport Commision study:
'the study finds that Heathrow is by far the most noise polluting of Europe’s major airports, with 725,500 people affected versus 238,700 at Frankfurt, 170,000 at Paris Charles de Gaulle and 43,700 at Amersterdam’s Schiphol'
So not such a big deal to blame the residents in Amsterdam when the bumber is 95% lower
Edited by jakesmith on Wednesday 15th July 09:13
Scuffers said:
On that basis, We should build a new airport in some remote part of Scotland.
No, just not somewhere where such an unacceptably high number of people are affected. The same report also states:Stansted handles 12,467 passengers for every person affected by noise – 47.8 times more than the 261 passengers handled by Heathrow. For Gatwick the figure is 9,233 passengers, while Luton handles 3,927 and Manchester 638
Collectingbrass said:
Heathrow was selected by the Air Ministry as the site for London's international airport in 1943 and construction started in April 1944.
The Wilson government set up the Roskill commission to look at solving airport capacity problems for London in 1968.
The Callaghan government recognised Heathrow was to be the London hub airport and the site for future expansion in 1978, as did the Thatcher government in 1979.
It's been there for 60 years, expansion to 3 or more runways has been a possibility for 47 years and on the cards as a definite at some point for the last 37 years.
And this isn't about the aspirations of the airport owner, it's about the NEED of the UK economy to reach many more destinations than the current airline capacity from the UK can service.
I need to declare an interest at this point, I'm a civil engineer , currently work at Heathrow and have been delivering national crtitical infrastructure (M3, Jubilee line extension, coal mines, town bypasses etc) for the last 20 years that have been delayed by gutless politicians and short sighted selfish nimbys and I've seen the benefits they bring, even to the Nimbys. I just want to get on with this before we become a bankrupt back water while Holland, Frande and Germany romp away.
Romp away where? What is going to happen all of a sudden? As you just said this farce has been going on for decades. The UK is not going to suddenly become a 3rd World it will adapt somehow via an alternative option such as Cambridge or somethingThe Wilson government set up the Roskill commission to look at solving airport capacity problems for London in 1968.
The Callaghan government recognised Heathrow was to be the London hub airport and the site for future expansion in 1978, as did the Thatcher government in 1979.
It's been there for 60 years, expansion to 3 or more runways has been a possibility for 47 years and on the cards as a definite at some point for the last 37 years.
And this isn't about the aspirations of the airport owner, it's about the NEED of the UK economy to reach many more destinations than the current airline capacity from the UK can service.
I need to declare an interest at this point, I'm a civil engineer , currently work at Heathrow and have been delivering national crtitical infrastructure (M3, Jubilee line extension, coal mines, town bypasses etc) for the last 20 years that have been delayed by gutless politicians and short sighted selfish nimbys and I've seen the benefits they bring, even to the Nimbys. I just want to get on with this before we become a bankrupt back water while Holland, Frande and Germany romp away.
Edited by Collectingbrass on Wednesday 15th July 07:31
jakesmith said:
Our economy seems to be doing ok as is doesn't it? The system is set up to divert money to those who already have it. Why would a load of business travel help? Through increased demands for hotels and restaurants, where people work on zero hour contracts or below the living wage?
That assumes the world economy will continue as now, which we know is not true as Brazil, India, Russia and China are all on the rise. Our airports serve those countries very poorly at the moment and companies looking to invest in in those countries to create skilled high paying jobs also want to invest in European countries that offer direct flights. The UK cannot support that pent up demand without expansion of Heathrow.The airports commission also recognised that expansion could deliver up to 180,000 new jobs by 2050 across the UK. Over
half created beyond London and the South East. More importantly some 44,000 jobs, including 10,000 apprenticeships will be created in the 5 boroughs Heathrow is bounded by, some of the most deprived and lacking in youth employment & training opportunities in the UK.
jakesmith said:
And before you come up with comparisons to other European cities, and call the million people whose lives will be made miserable by the horrible intrusive noise nimbys (would as many others really benefit from the growrh?), consider the fact that the other European hubs don't have anything like as much residential overflight as we have at LHR even as it is now...
Here is a quote from a 2013 Airport Commision study:
'the study finds that Heathrow is by far the most noise polluting of Europe’s major airports, with 725,500 people affected versus 238,700 at Frankfurt, 170,000 at Paris Charles de Gaulle and 43,700 at Amersterdam’s Schiphol'
So not such a big deal to blame the residents in Amsterdam when the bumber is 95% lower
Here's some other numbers for you:Here is a quote from a 2013 Airport Commision study:
'the study finds that Heathrow is by far the most noise polluting of Europe’s major airports, with 725,500 people affected versus 238,700 at Frankfurt, 170,000 at Paris Charles de Gaulle and 43,700 at Amersterdam’s Schiphol'
So not such a big deal to blame the residents in Amsterdam when the bumber is 95% lower
Edited by jakesmith on Wednesday 15th July 09:13
London population 8.308 million - 9% affected by aircraft noise
Frankfurt population 688 thousand - 35% affected by aircraft noise
Paris population 2.24 million - 8% affected by aircraft noise
Amsterdam population 780 thousand - 6% affected by aircraft noise
300,000 will be removed from the current noise footprint and around 5% of the privately funded project cost will be spent on noise insulation for those affected.
Edited by Collectingbrass on Wednesday 15th July 09:53
2013BRM said:
Romp away where? What is going to happen all of a sudden? As you just said this farce has been going on for decades. The UK is not going to suddenly become a 3rd World it will adapt somehow via an alternative option such as Cambridge or something
Who's going to pay for that alternative option?DrDeAtH said:
Best way would be to approve new runways at both Heathrow and Gatwick. Then get cracking and get them built.
This.Won't happen though, too many politicians these days are only interested in their own political careers, rather than making long term decisions for the good of the nation, especially. You only have to see the 20 odd years of indecision regarding new Nuc Power stations despite the repeated warnings from industry about the delays and the impact on future generation ability and demand.
DrDeAtH said:
Boris' island airport would need massive infrastructure links.
Boris' Island is a complete fantasy - period - it only works in his own head, it doesn't work on just about every other measurable way. The guy isn't stupid, so I'm convinced he's only going down that route to suit his own political agenda, not because he actually believes it to be the correct decision.Collectingbrass said:
Here's some other numbers for you:
London population 8.308 million - 9% affected by aircraft noise
Frankfurt population 688 thousand - 35% affected by aircraft noise
Paris population 2.24 million - 8% affected by aircraft noise
Amsterdam population 780 thousand - 6% affected by aircraft noise
300,000 will be removed from the current noise footprint and around 5% of the privately funded project cost will be spent on noise insulation for those affected.
Doesn't that just reinforce my point? The actual numbers of residents disturbed in the other European cities is tiny, the % is actually irrelevant, amsterdam with its 6 runways only disturbs c. 40k people. Thats tiny compared to c. 1m in londonLondon population 8.308 million - 9% affected by aircraft noise
Frankfurt population 688 thousand - 35% affected by aircraft noise
Paris population 2.24 million - 8% affected by aircraft noise
Amsterdam population 780 thousand - 6% affected by aircraft noise
300,000 will be removed from the current noise footprint and around 5% of the privately funded project cost will be spent on noise insulation for those affected.
Edited by Collectingbrass on Wednesday 15th July 09:53
You're also quantifying something using arbitrary measures - 300,000 people taken out of a footprint according to a measure that deoends on perception, weather, and the psychology of tge people affected. Thise 300k people taken out could easily still be bothered by the remaining noise, despite it being ubder some arbitrary theoretical level
And as for the insulation point, what a joke and smokescreen, it's actually an insult. Assuming all those people dont want to open a window, sit in their garden, go to a park in peace. Again, something the impressive numbers fail to take into account
Edited by jakesmith on Wednesday 15th July 11:15
jakesmith said:
Doesn't that just reinforce my point? The actual numbers of residents disturbed in the other European cities is tiny, the % is actually irrelevant, amsterdam with its 6 runways only disturbs c. 40k people. Thats tiny compared to c. 1m in london
I live in Frankfurt and have lived in Amsterdam. The cities are small, but the surrounding -economic- areas connected to the cities are not so small. For example : the Rhine-Main area has 5,8 Million inhabitants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_Rhine-Main
Most of the people affected by the noise live outside Frankfurt, in different cities & villages.
The same goes for Amsterdam with people in Haarlem, Amstelveen etc etc. being affected.
jakesmith said:
Assuming all those people dont want to open a window, sit in their garden, go to a park in peace.
If you wanted to do that, you wouldn't really choose to live in London at all FFS 
Far too many people in this country want a slice of the pie without any sacrifice in getting it.
Of course, you could always resort to the Madonna approach to local airport noise....
jakesmith said:
Our economy seems to be doing ok as is doesn't it? The system is set up to divert money to those who already have it. Why would a load of business travel help? Through increased demands for hotels and restaurants, where people work on zero hour contracts or below the living wage?
Capitalism requires constant growth for no reason
It takes no account of the human cost which can't be quantified
And before you come up with comparisons to other European cities, and call the million people whose lives will be made miserable by the horrible intrusive noise nimbys (would as many others really benefit from the growrh?), consider the fact that the other European hubs don't have anything like as much residential overflight as we have at LHR even as it is now...
Here is a quote from a 2013 Airport Commision study:
'the study finds that Heathrow is by far the most noise polluting of Europe’s major airports, with 725,500 people affected versus 238,700 at Frankfurt, 170,000 at Paris Charles de Gaulle and 43,700 at Amersterdam’s Schiphol'
So not such a big deal to blame the residents in Amsterdam when the bumber is 95% lower
You seem to not know how to argue against Heathrow expansion.Capitalism requires constant growth for no reason
It takes no account of the human cost which can't be quantified
And before you come up with comparisons to other European cities, and call the million people whose lives will be made miserable by the horrible intrusive noise nimbys (would as many others really benefit from the growrh?), consider the fact that the other European hubs don't have anything like as much residential overflight as we have at LHR even as it is now...
Here is a quote from a 2013 Airport Commision study:
'the study finds that Heathrow is by far the most noise polluting of Europe’s major airports, with 725,500 people affected versus 238,700 at Frankfurt, 170,000 at Paris Charles de Gaulle and 43,700 at Amersterdam’s Schiphol'
So not such a big deal to blame the residents in Amsterdam when the bumber is 95% lower
Edited by jakesmith on Wednesday 15th July 09:13
Is it socialist beliefs or noise abatement?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff