Climate Change Kills Third Heathrow Runway.
Discussion
Magog said:
Digga said:
Funkateer said:
Mazda Baiter said:
Good. I think there were better options anyway.
An expansion at Birmingham airport, if I heard (or assume) correctly to connect with the HS2 line.For ages now, people from the Midlands & North have had to trog down to HEathrow & Gatwick to get direct flights to many destinations. It does seem to make sense to build up other airports sufficiently to take some of the strain and thereby also ease demand for road, rail and internal flights.
There are other major hub airports in other countries which are not located as close to any city and not by the nation's capital.
Digga said:
There are other major hub airports in other countries which are not located as close to any city and not by the nation's capital.
I think your right, I think the best location in the UK would be to locate it somewhere in the Fens or the Wash (rather than out in the Medway/Thames estuary. An airport south east of Peterborough, bordered by Whittlesey and Ramsey would seem to be ideal to me. With true High speed Rail (250+mph)connections, Nottingham, Birmingham and London would be within half an hour, and Leeds and Manchester reachable in an hour or so, possibly less. Just had a little look and looks like this area is zoned as a nature reserve, oh well
Magog said:
Digga said:
There are other major hub airports in other countries which are not located as close to any city and not by the nation's capital.
I think your right, I think the best location in the UK would be to locate it somewhere in the Fens or the Wash (rather than out in the Medway/Thames estuary. An airport south east of Peterborough, bordered by Whittlesey and Ramsey would seem to be ideal to me. With true High speed Rail (250+mph)connections, Nottingham, Birmingham and London would be within half an hour, and Leeds and Manchester reachable in an hour or so, possibly less. Just had a little look and looks like this area is zoned as a nature reserve, oh well
No matter what developments take place at other major airports around the country (and I am fully in favour of that), there are many routes that will not sustain sufficient traffic for more than one flight per day (or per week for that matter) from the UK, and they will have to leave from the "main" airport. For example, Continental are now flying into umpteen UK airports from the States, but the market for travel to Kiev might be smaller
Mikeyboy said:
Right result for the wrong reason.
+1Expanding Heathrow means adding traffic to Europe's
most congested road (M25 near Heathrow). Not a wise
move in my view.
I'd be happy for Stansted, Luton, Manchester or Gatwick
to be expanded, instead of Heathrow, to share the load.
I'd also be happy for the much talked about Maplin Sands
idea to come to fruition. I'm sure a few seagulls and
other avians will overwinter happily in South Essex instead.
I have no particular opinion for or against runway three.
For me, the interesting part of the story is that it seems to be the very first time that the Government's headlong dash to reduce CO2 has been used against it to defeat its own policy.
I find the irony quite amusing.
I wonder whether this will be an isolated case? Or are we to witness many more of these 'carbon' setbacks in the months and years to come?
For me, the interesting part of the story is that it seems to be the very first time that the Government's headlong dash to reduce CO2 has been used against it to defeat its own policy.
I find the irony quite amusing.
I wonder whether this will be an isolated case? Or are we to witness many more of these 'carbon' setbacks in the months and years to come?
s off sunshine, I'll always be a vegetarian but not a "lentalist".Mikeyboy said:
Right result for the wrong reason.
What Heathrow really needs (like many things in this country) is for an authroty to bite the bullet say its in the wrong place for expansion and build a new airport in a better place.
Madrid, HongKong and others have had the courage to do it but not the UK where we have sat on our hands for too long.
Very true but the problem is someone, somewhere will not want an airport in their backyard, not forgetting the ecomentalists who will not be happy until we're back to the stone age.What Heathrow really needs (like many things in this country) is for an authroty to bite the bullet say its in the wrong place for expansion and build a new airport in a better place.
Madrid, HongKong and others have had the courage to do it but not the UK where we have sat on our hands for too long.
dcb said:
I'd be happy for Stansted, Luton, Manchester or Gatwick
to be expanded, instead of Heathrow, to share the load.
The last thing Gatwick needs is expansion - not least because there's not the housing stock in the area to support the increased people/staff demands.to be expanded, instead of Heathrow, to share the load.
Besides, I fail to understand the logic of expanding an airport which is 25 miles from the coast, with a radial catchment area which includes two of the most rural counties in the country - East Sussex, for example, has no motorway, very little dual carriageway, and extremely poor rail services after the Beeching Axe.
Surely it would better to build a ferking great airport North of London, to serve the rest of the country, rather than just cramming everything into the South East?
This is back on the table again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3145475/Co...
Doesn't really bother me as I don't live anywhere near it but if the government agree to it then they are saying there is no housing crisis in this Country because they are able to demolish 800 of them, and the people who own listed buildings should be able to do what they want with them because Heathrow will be knocking several down to put a strip of tarmac in their place.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3145475/Co...
Doesn't really bother me as I don't live anywhere near it but if the government agree to it then they are saying there is no housing crisis in this Country because they are able to demolish 800 of them, and the people who own listed buildings should be able to do what they want with them because Heathrow will be knocking several down to put a strip of tarmac in their place.
stuart313 said:
This is back on the table again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3145475/Co...
Doesn't really bother me as I don't live anywhere near it but if the government agree to it then they are saying there is no housing crisis in this Country because they are able to demolish 800 of them, and the people who own listed buildings should be able to do what they want with them because Heathrow will be knocking several down to put a strip of tarmac in their place.
I can't see this going ahead tbh. I suspect It'll be Gatwick in the end even though that has its valid shortfalls http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3145475/Co...
Doesn't really bother me as I don't live anywhere near it but if the government agree to it then they are saying there is no housing crisis in this Country because they are able to demolish 800 of them, and the people who own listed buildings should be able to do what they want with them because Heathrow will be knocking several down to put a strip of tarmac in their place.
The main problem with the Gatwick proposal is that the new runway to the South would mean that Crawley loses one of it's finest areas. Farmland with a lot of 4 & 5 bed detached houses around the £1m mark. It's virtually a green belt area between Gatwick & North Crawley which would go.
There will be a whole load more dithering and hand wringing from our spineless politicians and nothing will get built as usual.
Boris is being a moron with this pie in the sky island airport, he's never actually explained who will pay for it and why anyone would want to travel to the arse end of no where to catch a flight.
Cameron, meanwhile, will sit on his hands and spout a load of facile nonsense until the next election as he hasn't actually got the balls to make a decision on the whole thing.
Boris is being a moron with this pie in the sky island airport, he's never actually explained who will pay for it and why anyone would want to travel to the arse end of no where to catch a flight.
Cameron, meanwhile, will sit on his hands and spout a load of facile nonsense until the next election as he hasn't actually got the balls to make a decision on the whole thing.
zygalski said:
The main problem with the Gatwick proposal is that the new runway to the South would mean that Crawley loses one of it's finest areas.
Really ??? Care to name this area ?North side of Crawley is a big industrial estate called Manor Royal, AFAIK.
Unless you mean the sewage works to the SE of the current airport.
zygalski said:
Farmland with a lot of 4 & 5 bed detached houses around the £1m mark.
The number of million pound houses in Crawley I suspect I could count on the fingers of no hands.
I've just checked the map and I see no such houses. Advice sought.
zygalski said:
It's virtually a green belt area between Gatwick & North Crawley which would go.
Now some of that I can agree with. North of Manor Royal is a thinstripe of rural land.
Someone has to be inconvenienced by building a new airport.
Doing it in an area with the cheapest housing stock in the
entire county of West Sussex makes sense to me.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff