Climate Change Kills Third Heathrow Runway.
Discussion
You can keep this for posterity and quote it back if I'm wrong "there will be no new runway at Heathrow or Gatwick in 10 years time" TY4C 1st July 2015.
This country can do some amazing things, in so many ways it's the best on earth but alas Health and Safety legislation, NIMBYs, Human Rights, Planning laws, people's feelings, rare newts feelings, Public enquiries.
All of the above and more will conspire together meaning despite many fine words and directives from who knows where no runway will be built.
In ten years time Heathrow will have been bypassed as an International hub by other Airports (Dubai already has) and a new breed of people will take up the challenge which they will fail at.
It's a years work, it's not hard. Compulsory purchase of a few houses, a mile or so of 50 yard wideTarmac and you're away, but we won't be as we've been in this position for what? 20,30,40 years.
This country can do some amazing things, in so many ways it's the best on earth but alas Health and Safety legislation, NIMBYs, Human Rights, Planning laws, people's feelings, rare newts feelings, Public enquiries.
All of the above and more will conspire together meaning despite many fine words and directives from who knows where no runway will be built.
In ten years time Heathrow will have been bypassed as an International hub by other Airports (Dubai already has) and a new breed of people will take up the challenge which they will fail at.
It's a years work, it's not hard. Compulsory purchase of a few houses, a mile or so of 50 yard wideTarmac and you're away, but we won't be as we've been in this position for what? 20,30,40 years.
Enough inquiries and reviews, just get it built. Any buildings of real merit in the way, just move them, on excavation trailers or brick by brick if necessary, places like New Zealand do the former regularly, living museums like Beamish near Newcastle prove that the latter is more than possible. Expensive to move things like that, sure, but nothing compared to the cost of endless reviews and inquiries that provide no useful end result beyond enriching lawyers and conference room owners.
All that delaying these big infrastructure projects does is push up the costs that inevitably have to be paid out in compulsory purchase.
And yes I am one that already has to put up with the "noise" from Heathrow, living right under the final approach in West London, and still I'm saying get on and build it. Sod the noise, I stopped noticing it forever ago, your brain just tunes it out. The only time it bothers me is for a day or two back at home after having several weeks away. I'm quickly back to tuning it out again.
All that delaying these big infrastructure projects does is push up the costs that inevitably have to be paid out in compulsory purchase.
And yes I am one that already has to put up with the "noise" from Heathrow, living right under the final approach in West London, and still I'm saying get on and build it. Sod the noise, I stopped noticing it forever ago, your brain just tunes it out. The only time it bothers me is for a day or two back at home after having several weeks away. I'm quickly back to tuning it out again.
Thankyou4calling said:
You can keep this for posterity and quote it back if I'm wrong "there will be no new runway at Heathrow or Gatwick in 10 years time" TY4C 1st July 2015.
This country can do some amazing things, in so many ways it's the best on earth but alas Health and Safety legislation, NIMBYs, Human Rights, Planning laws, people's feelings, rare newts feelings, Public enquiries.
All of the above and more will conspire together meaning despite many fine words and directives from who knows where no runway will be built.
In ten years time Heathrow will have been bypassed as an International hub by other Airports (Dubai already has) and a new breed of people will take up the challenge which they will fail at.
It's a years work, it's not hard. Compulsory purchase of a few houses, a mile or so of 50 yard wideTarmac and you're away, but we won't be as we've been in this position for what? 20,30,40 years.
A years work? More like 3-5 for the core parts. The development of the M25 part alone would take the best part of 2 years. This country can do some amazing things, in so many ways it's the best on earth but alas Health and Safety legislation, NIMBYs, Human Rights, Planning laws, people's feelings, rare newts feelings, Public enquiries.
All of the above and more will conspire together meaning despite many fine words and directives from who knows where no runway will be built.
In ten years time Heathrow will have been bypassed as an International hub by other Airports (Dubai already has) and a new breed of people will take up the challenge which they will fail at.
It's a years work, it's not hard. Compulsory purchase of a few houses, a mile or so of 50 yard wideTarmac and you're away, but we won't be as we've been in this position for what? 20,30,40 years.
Derek Smith said:
Scuffers said:
up, depressing isn't it?
Britain, a once proud country with the best engineering in the world reduced to pathetic hand-wringing and Nimbys
Is either Heathrow or Gatwick in your backyard?Britain, a once proud country with the best engineering in the world reduced to pathetic hand-wringing and Nimbys
Heathrow has been there for 100+ years and as a major airport since WW2, nobody can possibly live there that was there before it was.
Buy a house under the flightpath, live with the noise.
How many of the people affected actually work for or around heathrow?, would you rather they just closed it and went somewhere else (and throw some 250,000 people out of work?)
dcb said:
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.
Looks mostly green, don't it?
The area takes in Lowfield Heat & the farmland area of Langley Green.
There are quite a few mostly large properties in that area, many of which will be farmhouses.
A quick look on Rightmove finds a £900,000 farmhouse currently on the market in the zone that will go, should the proposal go ahead.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...
Another, a snip at £700,000
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...
Edited by zygalski on Wednesday 1st July 17:05
The third runway is pretty poor solution anyway, as is the runway extension idea; the 4 runway plan set out by the policy exchange is well argued, makes a lot of sense and they claim it would be cheaper too.
drivin_me_nuts said:
A years work? More like 3-5 for the core parts. The development of the M25 part alone would take the best part of 2 years.
I agree it's 3 to 5 years just for the core in the way we currently work, in the same way it takes 2 years to build a 1 mile stretch of road.I'm talking about a COMPLETELY different way of working, 24 hours a day with huge teams of motivated, trained and organised people working to achieve massive bonus' for completion on time and to standard.
I know structural engineers will come on here and say I'm stupid and it can't be done that's because they don't have the vision and drive that leaders of other countries do.
If we want to get on the front foot commercially in this respect we need to wise up and see what's happening out there because while we talk, others do.
I just noticed this thread is FIVE YEARS OLD! Which kinda says it all really.
Edited by Thankyou4calling on Wednesday 1st July 17:22
Scuffers said:
Derek Smith said:
Scuffers said:
up, depressing isn't it?
Britain, a once proud country with the best engineering in the world reduced to pathetic hand-wringing and Nimbys
Is either Heathrow or Gatwick in your backyard?Britain, a once proud country with the best engineering in the world reduced to pathetic hand-wringing and Nimbys
Heathrow has been there for 100+ years and as a major airport since WW2, nobody can possibly live there that was there before it was.
Buy a house under the flightpath, live with the noise.
How many of the people affected actually work for or around heathrow?, would you rather they just closed it and went somewhere else (and throw some 250,000 people out of work?)
You're suggesting there was an airport at Heathrow before the first powered flight!
Do you realise the argument that "you bought a house there, so tough" is absolutely insane?
Yes, people have moved there since the airport was built, which gives them less right to complain about current noise levels etc.
But they have every right to be unhappy about increases to noise, no. of flights, earlier starts and later finishes to the airport day. Of course they do!
and "no but so what?" as an argument? Do you realise how ridiculous that is?
"Just build it so what?..... live near the airport? Good heavens no, are you quite mad?"
If you're so happy that people should live with the consequences of a new runway, may I suggest you house-swap with someone who will see the value of their house drop, the noise and actual pollution increase etc, etc
Come on, you realise you'd be helping to "just get it built"
It's funny how all those decrying the nimby argument aren't facing a f
king runway being built in their backyard. Idiots.I won't have this nonsense about increased noise levels, sorry it's not true, not true at all.
I was born in Chiswick, lived in Hounslow from age of 1 to age of 27, when I say I was living under the flight path I really mean it. The planes went right over our family garden, as an example when we flew into Heathrow and sat on the left of the plane you could literally see, and recognise someone in ta sun lounger. The planes were that low.
That was the 70's to the 90's. Those planes were LOUD!! Tridents, DC10's, Tristars, VC10's, belching our noise and air pollution but it didn't bother us because we loved looking at the planes and the noise was a non issue.
Concorde used to take off in the early evening and boy was that loud but what a magnificent sight and I'd wager anyone who saw that plane would trade the noise for the view all day long.
Planes now are whisper quiet in comparison, do you notice the good folk of Richmond, Twickenham, Barnes, Chelsea, Kensington complaining? Of course you don't, it's not an issue they (we) know that without the planes the area would not be what it is, the economic powerhouse of Europe.
I was born in Chiswick, lived in Hounslow from age of 1 to age of 27, when I say I was living under the flight path I really mean it. The planes went right over our family garden, as an example when we flew into Heathrow and sat on the left of the plane you could literally see, and recognise someone in ta sun lounger. The planes were that low.
That was the 70's to the 90's. Those planes were LOUD!! Tridents, DC10's, Tristars, VC10's, belching our noise and air pollution but it didn't bother us because we loved looking at the planes and the noise was a non issue.
Concorde used to take off in the early evening and boy was that loud but what a magnificent sight and I'd wager anyone who saw that plane would trade the noise for the view all day long.
Planes now are whisper quiet in comparison, do you notice the good folk of Richmond, Twickenham, Barnes, Chelsea, Kensington complaining? Of course you don't, it's not an issue they (we) know that without the planes the area would not be what it is, the economic powerhouse of Europe.
zygalski said:
dcb said:
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.
Looks mostly green, don't it?
The area takes in Lowfield Heat & the farmland area of Langley Green.
There are quite a few mostly large properties in that area, many of which will be farmhouses.
A quick look on Rightmove finds a £900,000 farmhouse currently on the market in the zone that will go, should the proposal go ahead.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...
Another, a snip at £700,000
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...
Edited by zygalski on Wednesday 1st July 17:05
It's only the very North of Manor Royal that will go as well.
The right option is to expand both. At least then, for a moment in time, we might actually be where we need to be...
Hackney said:
Heathrow has been there for 100+ years, but the airport? Not so much.
You're suggesting there was an airport at Heathrow before the first powered flight!
Do you realise the argument that "you bought a house there, so tough" is absolutely insane?
Yes, people have moved there since the airport was built, which gives them less right to complain about current noise levels etc.
But they have every right to be unhappy about increases to noise, no. of flights, earlier starts and later finishes to the airport day. Of course they do!
and "no but so what?" as an argument? Do you realise how ridiculous that is?
"Just build it so what?..... live near the airport? Good heavens no, are you quite mad?"
If you're so happy that people should live with the consequences of a new runway, may I suggest you house-swap with someone who will see the value of their house drop, the noise and actual pollution increase etc, etc
Come on, you realise you'd be helping to "just get it built"
It's funny how all those decrying the nimby argument aren't facing a fking runway being built in their backyard. Idiots.
You're suggesting there was an airport at Heathrow before the first powered flight!
Do you realise the argument that "you bought a house there, so tough" is absolutely insane?
Yes, people have moved there since the airport was built, which gives them less right to complain about current noise levels etc.
But they have every right to be unhappy about increases to noise, no. of flights, earlier starts and later finishes to the airport day. Of course they do!
and "no but so what?" as an argument? Do you realise how ridiculous that is?
"Just build it so what?..... live near the airport? Good heavens no, are you quite mad?"
If you're so happy that people should live with the consequences of a new runway, may I suggest you house-swap with someone who will see the value of their house drop, the noise and actual pollution increase etc, etc
Come on, you realise you'd be helping to "just get it built"
It's funny how all those decrying the nimby argument aren't facing a f
king runway being built in their backyard. Idiots.
Heathrow is the only airport I've flown into which has fewer runways now than when I started commercial flying 14 years ago.
I would be amazed if Heathrow has a new runway within 10 years. If it does it will meet the needs of the airport 10 years ago. We need some bold infrastructure, including a way to get to LHR by rail without going into London first. IMO.
I would be amazed if Heathrow has a new runway within 10 years. If it does it will meet the needs of the airport 10 years ago. We need some bold infrastructure, including a way to get to LHR by rail without going into London first. IMO.
I am a nimby and proud of it, the planes are landing from the West tonight, so we can enjoy the river terrace in peace.
The thing that should be moved are not the 'in the way houses' but LHR itself. Turn it into housing and a science park
Put a huge 24 hour airport where any thinking person would, near the coast - build a high speed rail link
I will be dead before that, so am making alternative plans.
The thing that should be moved are not the 'in the way houses' but LHR itself. Turn it into housing and a science park
Put a huge 24 hour airport where any thinking person would, near the coast - build a high speed rail link
I will be dead before that, so am making alternative plans.
Thankyou4calling said:
You can keep this for posterity and quote it back if I'm wrong "there will be no new runway at Heathrow or Gatwick in 10 years time" TY4C 1st July 2015.
This country can do some amazing things, in so many ways it's the best on earth but alas Health and Safety legislation, NIMBYs, Human Rights, Planning laws, people's feelings, rare newts feelings, Public enquiries.
All of the above and more will conspire together meaning despite many fine words and directives from who knows where no runway will be built.
In ten years time Heathrow will have been bypassed as an International hub by other Airports (Dubai already has) and a new breed of people will take up the challenge which they will fail at.
It's a years work, it's not hard. Compulsory purchase of a few houses, a mile or so of 50 yard wideTarmac and you're away, but we won't be as we've been in this position for what? 20,30,40 years.
Some good points Britain on the one hand can do so many good things.But when any new roads or infrastructure needs to be build it takes forever.Meeting after committee meeting is the order of the day.I'me sure people are payed for meetings about meetings.I t is a shame we should be building canals to take more traffic of our roads.Build proper sea defences this country could be so much better.It is like everything is about the financial world the end and be all which got us in so much trouble.This country can do some amazing things, in so many ways it's the best on earth but alas Health and Safety legislation, NIMBYs, Human Rights, Planning laws, people's feelings, rare newts feelings, Public enquiries.
All of the above and more will conspire together meaning despite many fine words and directives from who knows where no runway will be built.
In ten years time Heathrow will have been bypassed as an International hub by other Airports (Dubai already has) and a new breed of people will take up the challenge which they will fail at.
It's a years work, it's not hard. Compulsory purchase of a few houses, a mile or so of 50 yard wideTarmac and you're away, but we won't be as we've been in this position for what? 20,30,40 years.
Hackney said:
Heathrow has been there for 100+ years, but the airport? Not so much.
You're suggesting there was an airport at Heathrow before the first powered flight!
Do you realise the argument that "you bought a house there, so tough" is absolutely insane?
Yes, people have moved there since the airport was built, which gives them less right to complain about current noise levels etc.
But they have every right to be unhappy about increases to noise, no. of flights, earlier starts and later finishes to the airport day. Of course they do!
and "no but so what?" as an argument? Do you realise how ridiculous that is?
"Just build it so what?..... live near the airport? Good heavens no, are you quite mad?"
If you're so happy that people should live with the consequences of a new runway, may I suggest you house-swap with someone who will see the value of their house drop, the noise and actual pollution increase etc, etc
Come on, you realise you'd be helping to "just get it built"
It's funny how all those decrying the nimby argument aren't facing a fking runway being built in their backyard. Idiots.
from wiki:You're suggesting there was an airport at Heathrow before the first powered flight!
Do you realise the argument that "you bought a house there, so tough" is absolutely insane?
Yes, people have moved there since the airport was built, which gives them less right to complain about current noise levels etc.
But they have every right to be unhappy about increases to noise, no. of flights, earlier starts and later finishes to the airport day. Of course they do!
and "no but so what?" as an argument? Do you realise how ridiculous that is?
"Just build it so what?..... live near the airport? Good heavens no, are you quite mad?"
If you're so happy that people should live with the consequences of a new runway, may I suggest you house-swap with someone who will see the value of their house drop, the noise and actual pollution increase etc, etc
Come on, you realise you'd be helping to "just get it built"
It's funny how all those decrying the nimby argument aren't facing a f
king runway being built in their backyard. Idiots.wiki said:
Heathrow Airport started in 1929 as a small airfield (Great West Aerodrome) on land south-east of the hamlet of Heathrow from which the airport takes its name. At that time there were farms, market gardens and orchards there: there was a "Heathrow Farm" about where Terminal 1 is now, a "Heathrow Hall" and a "Heathrow House". This hamlet was largely along a country lane (Heathrow Road) which ran roughly along the east and south edges of the present central terminals area.
Development of the whole Heathrow area as a very big airfield started in 1944: it was stated to be for long-distance military aircraft bound for the Far East. But by the time the airfield was nearing completion, World War II had ended. The government continued to develop the airfield as a civil airport, opened as London Airport in 1946 and renamed Heathrow Airport in 1966.
as for noise, it's way quieter now that it has been for at least 60 years, no more 707's, Concorde, VC10's, etc etc etc. the current airline fleets are getting ever more quiet.Development of the whole Heathrow area as a very big airfield started in 1944: it was stated to be for long-distance military aircraft bound for the Far East. But by the time the airfield was nearing completion, World War II had ended. The government continued to develop the airfield as a civil airport, opened as London Airport in 1946 and renamed Heathrow Airport in 1966.
My main point though is if you don't like the noise, why live there?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff