Climate Change Kills Third Heathrow Runway.
Discussion
brenflys777 said:
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.
That's the biggest argument against the northern 3rd runway plan, it's running to stand still. What do you think of the thinktank 4 runway plan?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.
zygalski said:
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...
You wrote that there were many million pound houses affected.http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...
Another, a snip at £700,000
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...
To be blunt, you found none.
One is 900K and has over 8 acres of land included in the deal.
The other is 700K and no mention of the amount of land included.
I think my original point still stands. Few folks, and even
fewer folks with million pound houses, will be affected by
any feasible expansion at Gatwick.
Which probably makes it a least worst option, compared to Heathrow.
Mind you, I still think Boris island is a better solution than both.
Hackney said:
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.Aircraft are getting quieter. Go listen to a 744 take-off then a 380.
Heathrow has a reduced its emissions 16% over the past few years. Reduced engine taxing now is reducing it further, as are electric vehicles. Taxibot will reduce it further.
The numbers of flights running late is coming down year on year.
The number of noise fines is too.
With another runway comes a condition of no flights before 0600 as well.
And a 3rd runway also means additional noise respite measures above and beyond what is in place now.
hidetheelephants said:
brenflys777 said:
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.
That's the biggest argument against the northern 3rd runway plan, it's running to stand still. What do you think of the thinktank 4 runway plan?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.
LHRFlightman said:
Houses near Heathrow aren't cheap. People pay to live there as they like a short commute. And the number of houses being built inside the 57laeq contour continues to grow, so local planners aren't put off by the airport.
Aircraft are getting quieter. Go listen to a 744 take-off then a 380.
Heathrow has a reduced its emissions 16% over the past few years. Reduced engine taxing now is reducing it further, as are electric vehicles. Taxibot will reduce it further.
The numbers of flights running late is coming down year on year.
The number of noise fines is too.
With another runway comes a condition of no flights before 0600 as well.
And a 3rd runway also means additional noise respite measures above and beyond what is in place now.
This man speaks the truth.Aircraft are getting quieter. Go listen to a 744 take-off then a 380.
Heathrow has a reduced its emissions 16% over the past few years. Reduced engine taxing now is reducing it further, as are electric vehicles. Taxibot will reduce it further.
The numbers of flights running late is coming down year on year.
The number of noise fines is too.
With another runway comes a condition of no flights before 0600 as well.
And a 3rd runway also means additional noise respite measures above and beyond what is in place now.
Thankyou4calling said:
LHRFlightman said:
Houses near Heathrow aren't cheap. People pay to live there as they like a short commute. And the number of houses being built inside the 57laeq contour continues to grow, so local planners aren't put off by the airport.
Aircraft are getting quieter. Go listen to a 744 take-off then a 380.
Heathrow has a reduced its emissions 16% over the past few years. Reduced engine taxing now is reducing it further, as are electric vehicles. Taxibot will reduce it further.
The numbers of flights running late is coming down year on year.
The number of noise fines is too.
With another runway comes a condition of no flights before 0600 as well.
And a 3rd runway also means additional noise respite measures above and beyond what is in place now.
This man speaks the truth.Aircraft are getting quieter. Go listen to a 744 take-off then a 380.
Heathrow has a reduced its emissions 16% over the past few years. Reduced engine taxing now is reducing it further, as are electric vehicles. Taxibot will reduce it further.
The numbers of flights running late is coming down year on year.
The number of noise fines is too.
With another runway comes a condition of no flights before 0600 as well.
And a 3rd runway also means additional noise respite measures above and beyond what is in place now.
NicD said:
Oh yes. the 'truth'.
How about this. At two minutes to six most mornings, instead of two lanes of 'quiet' (compared to Concorde) planes on full flaps, gear down, we will get three. So that will be an 8 mile wide swathe of London suffering.
Terrific.
Move then...How about this. At two minutes to six most mornings, instead of two lanes of 'quiet' (compared to Concorde) planes on full flaps, gear down, we will get three. So that will be an 8 mile wide swathe of London suffering.
Terrific.
Nobody is forcing you to live there...
Do you understand why both runways are used for arrivals between 6-7? Because if you did you'd know that with a 3rd runway at the very worst you'll have 1 week in 3 with NO ARRIVALS at all, and possibly 2 in 3 depending upon the restrictions placed upon the airport.
In Richmond, when the aircraft are landing 27R they are barely audible. On the new runway that won't be heard at all.
In Richmond, when the aircraft are landing 27R they are barely audible. On the new runway that won't be heard at all.
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?)
I've worked at Gatwick airport and loved the place.
I won't go into why those who didn't buy a house under the flightpath could, I think, justifiably complain that they will be under the flightpath after being promised no runway there, as others have covered the issue.
My point was nothing to do with the location of the runway but more to the fact that I've found that most people who call others nimbys for a specific reason are not those affected.
Just checking.
LHRFlightman said:
Impossible. Thames Water told me that getting permission for a new reservoir is as difficult as getting the runway sanctioned..
The whole thing is a colossal electoral liability for the tories but it needs to be done. Arguing that our labyrinthine planning system is too labyrinthine is a sterile point; filling in a hole in the ground is not technically challenging, nor is digging a replacement hole in the ground. Whichever option is picked the government will need a metaphoric planning bulldozer to avoid it being in legal challenge and planning limbo for the next 20 years.It's difficult to compare any non-shortlisted options because the commission did not consider the Policy Exchange proposal or anything vaguely like it. It's also difficult to take seriously a report that includes banal platitudes like "The analysis demonstrates a clear case for at least one net additional runway in London and the South East by 2030."; Heathrow needed another runway 15 years ago. As was suggested at the time the commission was set up, it wasn't established for the purpose of identifying the right answer, just kicking a tough decision into the long grass and postponing awkward and electorally unpopular decisions.
Personally I'd love to live under the Heathrow flight path but with a 2 bed terrace costing more than 1.5 million pounds I can't afford it !
And if a third runway were to be built at Heathrow prices would rise even further because of the prosperity and commerce it'll bring.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...
And if a third runway were to be built at Heathrow prices would rise even further because of the prosperity and commerce it'll bring.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...
I live in the SE but not close to either airport, so I have no obvious axe to grind. However I do travel by road and air reasonably frequently, so I suppose I need to declare that interest.
I think the recommendation which selects LHR is utterly insane, and unsubstantiable in any sane context which doesn't involve enormous backhanders somewhere in the equation.
Picking up on a few things I have thought and a few which have been mentioned in this thread:
"Appalling road and rail infrastructure?" - LHR or LGW? Either option will involve significant disruption and investment, but surely LGW less so?
"A quick look on Rightmove finds a £900,000 farmhouse…..that will go………..Another, a snip at £700,000" - and how much is the average property in the LHR-affected area? £450k? £500k? I'm guessing. Multiply by the number of properties which would be compulsorily purchased. Probably a cost factor of many hundreds of times.
Terrorism - is nobody REALLY considering the difference in the potential impact of a plane being downed on, say, the newly-developed Battersea vs a plane coming down in fields halfway between Lingfield and E Grinstead?
Jobs - all this yak about the creation of thousands of jobs, well, those will be required, and therefore created, wherever the expansion is sited
Notwithstanding all the above, the island option is not as bonkers as many make out. Dedicated road and rail links in & out could prove to be the best way to access onward travel. And it's been done elsewhere.
You only have to try and access LHR by road any time from 0600 to at least 2000 to understand that expansion will not only create immense ongoing mayhem but also that it's simply the most ridiculous proposal they could possibly have come up with. More runways at the expense of a tunnelled M25? I'll have a draw on whatever they're smoking.
I think the recommendation which selects LHR is utterly insane, and unsubstantiable in any sane context which doesn't involve enormous backhanders somewhere in the equation.
Picking up on a few things I have thought and a few which have been mentioned in this thread:
"Appalling road and rail infrastructure?" - LHR or LGW? Either option will involve significant disruption and investment, but surely LGW less so?
"A quick look on Rightmove finds a £900,000 farmhouse…..that will go………..Another, a snip at £700,000" - and how much is the average property in the LHR-affected area? £450k? £500k? I'm guessing. Multiply by the number of properties which would be compulsorily purchased. Probably a cost factor of many hundreds of times.
Terrorism - is nobody REALLY considering the difference in the potential impact of a plane being downed on, say, the newly-developed Battersea vs a plane coming down in fields halfway between Lingfield and E Grinstead?
Jobs - all this yak about the creation of thousands of jobs, well, those will be required, and therefore created, wherever the expansion is sited
Notwithstanding all the above, the island option is not as bonkers as many make out. Dedicated road and rail links in & out could prove to be the best way to access onward travel. And it's been done elsewhere.
You only have to try and access LHR by road any time from 0600 to at least 2000 to understand that expansion will not only create immense ongoing mayhem but also that it's simply the most ridiculous proposal they could possibly have come up with. More runways at the expense of a tunnelled M25? I'll have a draw on whatever they're smoking.
Me?
Applying the hub adjective doesn't magically make the cramming of a gallon into a pint pot work. Neither does it outweigh the almost 3 times cost of provision. Neither does it make LHR a viable LONG term solution. 10 years' time? Where does the LHR hub expand to then? Today's proposal is an Elastoplast at best, when major surgery is required.
Applying the hub adjective doesn't magically make the cramming of a gallon into a pint pot work. Neither does it outweigh the almost 3 times cost of provision. Neither does it make LHR a viable LONG term solution. 10 years' time? Where does the LHR hub expand to then? Today's proposal is an Elastoplast at best, when major surgery is required.
Scuffers said:
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.
My main point though is if you don't like the noise, why live there?
Thanks for quoting wiki and proving my point.My main point though is if you don't like the noise, why live there?
There's a difference between accepting the status quo - tolerating the existing noise - and wanting more noise. Or is your logic as bad as your maths?
CAPP0 said:
I live in the SE but not close to either airport, so I have no obvious axe to grind. However I do travel by road and air reasonably frequently, so I suppose I need to declare that interest.
I think the recommendation which selects LHR is utterly insane, and unsubstantiable in any sane context which doesn't involve enormous backhanders somewhere in the equation.
Picking up on a few things I have thought and a few which have been mentioned in this thread:
"Appalling road and rail infrastructure?" - LHR or LGW? Either option will involve significant disruption and investment, but surely LGW less so?
"A quick look on Rightmove finds a £900,000 farmhouse…..that will go………..Another, a snip at £700,000" - and how much is the average property in the LHR-affected area? £450k? £500k? I'm guessing. Multiply by the number of properties which would be compulsorily purchased. Probably a cost factor of many hundreds of times.
Terrorism - is nobody REALLY considering the difference in the potential impact of a plane being downed on, say, the newly-developed Battersea vs a plane coming down in fields halfway between Lingfield and E Grinstead?
What difference is a third runway going to make? If a terrorist wanted to and could bring a place down on Battersea power station ( not sure if the relevance of this as against say Buckingham Palace) they could've / would've over the previous 70 odd years.
Jobs - all this yak about the creation of thousands of jobs, well, those will be required, and therefore created, wherever the expansion is sited
They won't be, the economic argument is clear.
Notwithstanding all the above, the island option is not as bonkers as many make out. Dedicated road and rail links in & out could prove to be the best way to access onward travel. And it's been done elsewhere.
Ridiculous pie in the sky idea.
You only have to try and access LHR by road any time from 0600 to at least 2000 to understand that expansion will not only create immense ongoing mayhem but also that it's simply the most ridiculous proposal they could possibly have come up with. More runways at the expense of a tunnelled M25? I'll have a draw on whatever they're smoking.
You need to plan your journeys better if you are having that many problems. 70 odd million a year manage it.
I think the recommendation which selects LHR is utterly insane, and unsubstantiable in any sane context which doesn't involve enormous backhanders somewhere in the equation.
Picking up on a few things I have thought and a few which have been mentioned in this thread:
"Appalling road and rail infrastructure?" - LHR or LGW? Either option will involve significant disruption and investment, but surely LGW less so?
"A quick look on Rightmove finds a £900,000 farmhouse…..that will go………..Another, a snip at £700,000" - and how much is the average property in the LHR-affected area? £450k? £500k? I'm guessing. Multiply by the number of properties which would be compulsorily purchased. Probably a cost factor of many hundreds of times.
Terrorism - is nobody REALLY considering the difference in the potential impact of a plane being downed on, say, the newly-developed Battersea vs a plane coming down in fields halfway between Lingfield and E Grinstead?
What difference is a third runway going to make? If a terrorist wanted to and could bring a place down on Battersea power station ( not sure if the relevance of this as against say Buckingham Palace) they could've / would've over the previous 70 odd years.
Jobs - all this yak about the creation of thousands of jobs, well, those will be required, and therefore created, wherever the expansion is sited
They won't be, the economic argument is clear.
Notwithstanding all the above, the island option is not as bonkers as many make out. Dedicated road and rail links in & out could prove to be the best way to access onward travel. And it's been done elsewhere.
Ridiculous pie in the sky idea.
You only have to try and access LHR by road any time from 0600 to at least 2000 to understand that expansion will not only create immense ongoing mayhem but also that it's simply the most ridiculous proposal they could possibly have come up with. More runways at the expense of a tunnelled M25? I'll have a draw on whatever they're smoking.
You need to plan your journeys better if you are having that many problems. 70 odd million a year manage it.
CAPP0 said:
Terrorism - is nobody REALLY considering the difference in the potential impact of a plane being downed on, say, the newly-developed Battersea vs a plane coming down in fields halfway between Lingfield and E Grinstead?
Yes, all airport planning is led by this vital piece of work 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff