|
|
Post by John tuthill on Oct 25, 2016 13:33:02 GMT
Not really a green light given the legal requirements on environmental matters have not been met. There are years, possibly a decade or more, of planning disputes and legal challenges ahead. Even if the scheme gets through all of that it will be years and years before construction is complete (assuming it is not plagued with protestors on the site) and the expanded airport is operational. If it's done in 20 years I'll be astonished. Oh and Zac Goldsmith has resigned as MP for Richmond Park thus worsening the Govt's majority in the house. And Bozza has pledged to continue his opposition. Lying MP Kwasi Kwarteng has suddenly had an attach of regret and won't be resigning. Clearly his nose is too stuck in the trough.  The Mayor of London has confirmed his opposition as has the London Assembly and we know at least 4 Tory led councils (Windsor & Maidenhead, Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth) also oppose expansion. I don't really have a strong view either way. I just know we can't do aviation policy in this country with any semblance of logic. potentially both involved in attempting to block it. And how long before Jeremy Bonehead says:" And to protect the good labour voters of Hounslow from aircraft noise and emissions, when we gain power we will ban all flights over Hounslow." I wouldn't put it passed him  |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 25, 2016 13:37:34 GMT
Not really a green light given the legal requirements on environmental matters have not been met. There are years, possibly a decade or more, of planning disputes and legal challenges ahead. Even if the scheme gets through all of that it will be years and years before construction is complete (assuming it is not plagued with protestors on the site) and the expanded airport is operational. If it's done in 20 years I'll be astonished. Oh and Zac Goldsmith has resigned as MP for Richmond Park thus worsening the Govt's majority in the house. And Bozza has pledged to continue his opposition. Lying MP Kwasi Kwarteng has suddenly had an attach of regret and won't be resigning. Clearly his nose is too stuck in the trough. The Mayor of London has confirmed his opposition as has the London Assembly and we know at least 4 Tory led councils (Windsor & Maidenhead, Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth) also oppose expansion. I don't really have a strong view either way. I just know we can't do aviation policy in this country with any semblance of logic. Labour led Hounslow may also join on board judging by reports online so good to see the council within the airport boundaries and the one just outside potentially both involved in attempting to block it. I think it is overdue, would have preferred extra runway at Gatwick as well. Find it odd that Hounslow will object as it includes a £2600m fund for properties and schools to get noise insulation, so Hounslow buildings could receive tens of millions. Also many depend on the airport for jobs. Not sure but I think Heathrow already bought up over half the houses (and renting them out) and some other residents have said they will sell up if offered enough. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 25, 2016 14:15:34 GMT
Labour led Hounslow may also join on board judging by reports online so good to see the council within the airport boundaries and the one just outside potentially both involved in attempting to block it. I think it is overdue, would have preferred extra runway at Gatwick as well. Find it odd that Hounslow will object as it includes a £2600m fund for properties and schools to get noise insulation, so Hounslow buildings could receive tens of millions. Also many depend on the airport for jobs. Not sure but I think Heathrow already bought up over half the houses (and renting them out) and some other residents have said they will sell up if offered enough. You find it odd that a council might just listen to the views of its residents (and voters) over a massive bribe from Heathrow Airport? Really? I don't get to Hounslow very much but I can't comprehend how you live there with planes rattling over every 1-2 mins for 19 hours a day. To my ears the noise is deafening and even if you "adjust" to it over time it can't be doing anyone any good. Let's face it - Heathrow is in completely the wrong place for an airport of that scale and that importance. I know it's impossible to shut it down now but you would never, ever be able to build such a large airport that close to major residential areas if you were starting afresh today. It simply wouldn't be allowed. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 25, 2016 16:34:00 GMT
I think it is overdue, would have preferred extra runway at Gatwick as well. Find it odd that Hounslow will object as it includes a £2600m fund for properties and schools to get noise insulation, so Hounslow buildings could receive tens of millions. Also many depend on the airport for jobs. Not sure but I think Heathrow already bought up over half the houses (and renting them out) and some other residents have said they will sell up if offered enough. You find it odd that a council might just listen to the views of its residents (and voters) over a massive bribe from Heathrow Airport? Really? I don't get to Hounslow very much but I can't comprehend how you live there with planes rattling over every 1-2 mins for 19 hours a day. To my ears the noise is deafening and even if you "adjust" to it over time it can't be doing anyone any good. Let's face it - Heathrow is in completely the wrong place for an airport of that scale and that importance. I know it's impossible to shut it down now but you would never, ever be able to build such a large airport that close to major residential areas if you were starting afresh today. It simply wouldn't be allowed. Indeed, great to see a council actually listen to it's residents when others regularly ignore the views of the people who put them in power in the first place. If the runway eventually does get built, I'm dreading the excess noise it will create as I live on the flight path to Heathrow and currently, it's bearable being so far from the airport but with the extra traffic, I can see it becoming increasingly nosier. The other thing that seems to have been forgotten by some is currently, noise & pollution levels far exceed what they should around Heathrow and the surrounding areas and that's without a third runway. I agree that Heathrow is totally in the wrong place for an airport yet it still seems to some that it's perfectly fine to continue expanding it despite this important point and also despite the poor people north of the airport who will have to leave their homes which were standing their before the airport was even built. Meanwhile, Gatwick loses out on an extra runway that it's being crying out for years. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Oct 25, 2016 17:05:52 GMT
Devil's advocate here, I'm glad Heathrow is the chosen airport for expansion, and rightly so.
Two runways is simply insufficient for such a major international airport, there is constantly endless amount of air traffic whereby planes circle London repetitively in order to be cleared for landing, while the views maybe great on the occasional clear day/night I'm sure others can agree that it does become annoying after a while when this delays your approach to landing, It's rare to have a direct landing.
Consequently, a third runway would minimize air traffic despite the general increase in flights, therefore decreasing noise pollution as planes would be distributed among three runways in order to land/take off as well as potentially decreasing fuel consumption as a result of less air traffic.
Personally, the positives substantially outweighs the negatives for expanding Heathrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 25, 2016 17:35:28 GMT
Consequently, a third runway would minimize air traffic despite the general increase in flights, therefore decreasing noise pollution as planes would be distributed among three runways in order to land/take off as well as potentially decreasing fuel consumption as a result of less air traffic. I'm afraid it wouldn't - noise & pollution are already way over the safe level limits without a third runway and will only increase even more if the third runway is actually built. Not only that but noise pollution would not be distributed across three runways as rather than capacity being shared across all three runways, the excess capacity is to be gobbled up by yet more airlines chartering more flights - I'm just waiting for the report into a fourth runway to be sanctioned because where will it end - when Uxbridge is as flat as a pancake? The one point I'd agree with is potentially decreasing fuel consumption on each craft but that's where the positives end there on particular note. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 25, 2016 18:47:31 GMT
I don't see noise being much of an issue with the newer aircraft such as the A380, A350 and 787 which are actually very quiet planes. A lot of the older planes are being phased out by airlines, so I don't see noise being much of a long term issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 25, 2016 19:04:57 GMT
I don't see noise being much of an issue with the newer aircraft such as the A380, A350 and 787 which are actually very quiet planes. A lot of the older planes are being phased out by airlines, so I don't see noise being much of a long term issue. I was going to make much the same point and I think it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that Heathrow would get the nod, of course this should have been done decades ago. Hopefully if and when it goes ahead we won't have planes circling around waiting to land, It's a shame that Stansteds spare capacity can't be utilised in some way. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 5, 2018 12:44:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 5, 2018 15:02:43 GMT
It still has a number of hurdles to get past, the biggest one being it has to comply with safe pollution levels so still not a foregone conclusion - thankfully. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 6, 2018 11:03:37 GMT
It still has a number of hurdles to get past, the biggest one being it has to comply with safe pollution levels so still not a foregone conclusion - thankfully. I would be quite surprised if the pollution levels do end up being a problem for it, I doubt they'll backtrack on this decision now that it's been approved as there isn't time to waste in terms of airport capacity. London used to be a global hub for air travel and it's losing out to places like Doha and Dubai. Planes these days are also becoming far more fuel efficient and do not cause nearly as much pollution as they used to. One of the biggest worries I do have over this runway though is the disruption it's going to cause on the M25 while it's being built. This is going to be years of roadworks in the area and the whole road will probably need to be closed for at least a month while they put it in the tunnel. It makes me shudder just thinking of it. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 6, 2018 11:18:47 GMT
It still has a number of hurdles to get past, the biggest one being it has to comply with safe pollution levels so still not a foregone conclusion - thankfully. I would be quite surprised if the pollution levels do end up being a problem for it, I doubt they'll backtrack on this decision now that it's been approved as there isn't time to waste in terms of airport capacity. London used to be a global hub for air travel and it's losing out to places like Doha and Dubai. Planes these days are also becoming far more fuel efficient and do not cause nearly as much pollution as they used to. One of the biggest worries I do have over this runway though is the disruption it's going to cause on the M25 while it's being built. This is going to be years of roadworks in the area and the whole road will probably need to be closed for at least a month while they put it in the tunnel. It makes me shudder just thinking of it. I really can't imagine the M25 being closed completely, I seem to remember reading somewhere that a temporary roadway would be installed whilst the tunnel is built? |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jun 6, 2018 13:27:13 GMT
I would be quite surprised if the pollution levels do end up being a problem for it, I doubt they'll backtrack on this decision now that it's been approved as there isn't time to waste in terms of airport capacity. London used to be a global hub for air travel and it's losing out to places like Doha and Dubai. Planes these days are also becoming far more fuel efficient and do not cause nearly as much pollution as they used to. One of the biggest worries I do have over this runway though is the disruption it's going to cause on the M25 while it's being built. This is going to be years of roadworks in the area and the whole road will probably need to be closed for at least a month while they put it in the tunnel. It makes me shudder just thinking of it. I really can't imagine the M25 being closed completely, I seem to remember reading somewhere that a temporary roadway would be installed whilst the tunnel is built? It’s being moved sideways, and ultimately widened to 14 lanes, look at the plan There are 4 adjacent cut and cover tunnels, the western one is built first to the side of M25, this has 3 lanes (the M4 exit slip lanes), those are then moved clearing space for next one (4 lanes M25 northbound) to be built, lanes diverted through tunnel, then next (4 lanes M25 south) built and slewed and finally 4th tunnel (3 lanes from M4), no more than few hours overnight each time whilst white lines repainted into new alignment As for pollution which option is worst, aircraft queuing 20 minutes at end of runway burning fuel, (and others circling around burning fuel and creating noise whilst waiting for landing capacity) or being able to take off efficiently (and less fuel wasted is less carbon). Of course if the new runway is overfilled (and 98.4% runway capacity usage is too high, but currently permitted) then straight back to mess we have now, that’s why it’s not a straight 50% capacity uplift as current over scheduling (which creates the delays) is proposed to end. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 6, 2018 16:27:49 GMT
I really can't imagine the M25 being closed completely, I seem to remember reading somewhere that a temporary roadway would be installed whilst the tunnel is built? It’s being moved sideways, and ultimately widened to 14 lanes, look at the plan There are 4 adjacent cut and cover tunnels, the western one is built first to the side of M25, this has 3 lanes (the M4 exit slip lanes), those are then moved clearing space for next one (4 lanes M25 northbound) to be built, lanes diverted through tunnel, then next (4 lanes M25 south) built and slewed and finally 4th tunnel (3 lanes from M4), no more than few hours overnight each time whilst white lines repainted into new alignment As for pollution which option is worst, aircraft queuing 20 minutes at end of runway burning fuel, (and others circling around burning fuel and creating noise whilst waiting for landing capacity) or being able to take off efficiently (and less fuel wasted is less carbon). Of course if the new runway is overfilled (and 98.4% runway capacity usage is too high, but currently permitted) then straight back to mess we have now, that’s why it’s not a straight 50% capacity uplift as current over scheduling (which creates the delays) is proposed to end. Now that it's starting to become less cloudy as opposed to the winter months it's actually amazing the amount of planes you can see circling over the area. The other day while waiting for a train at Greenwich I probably ended up seeing more planes than the last time I went Heathrow It's also a pain as a passenger when you're in the sky going around in circles because of a lack of landing capacity. I remember once seeing a plane from Manchester spending more time in the hold than it actually did making the journey from Manchester  |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jun 7, 2018 2:17:33 GMT
It’s being moved sideways, and ultimately widened to 14 lanes, look at the plan There are 4 adjacent cut and cover tunnels, the western one is built first to the side of M25, this has 3 lanes (the M4 exit slip lanes), those are then moved clearing space for next one (4 lanes M25 northbound) to be built, lanes diverted through tunnel, then next (4 lanes M25 south) built and slewed and finally 4th tunnel (3 lanes from M4), no more than few hours overnight each time whilst white lines repainted into new alignment As for pollution which option is worst, aircraft queuing 20 minutes at end of runway burning fuel, (and others circling around burning fuel and creating noise whilst waiting for landing capacity) or being able to take off efficiently (and less fuel wasted is less carbon). Of course if the new runway is overfilled (and 98.4% runway capacity usage is too high, but currently permitted) then straight back to mess we have now, that’s why it’s not a straight 50% capacity uplift as current over scheduling (which creates the delays) is proposed to end. Now that it's starting to become less cloudy as opposed to the winter months it's actually amazing the amount of planes you can see circling over the area. The other day while waiting for a train at Greenwich I probably ended up seeing more planes than the last time I went Heathrow It's also a pain as a passenger when you're in the sky going around in circles because of a lack of landing capacity. I remember once seeing a plane from Manchester spending more time in the hold than it actually did making the journey from Manchester Oh yes, spending more time holding than making the journey is pretty much the norm for short-haul flights into Heathrow. I used to do Paris - London quite a bit (connecting with flights from further afield); when you started circling over London you knew you'd only done half of the flight at most 
At one time Air France were talking about running trains through the Channel Tunnel to take passengers directly from London to CDG. It was never likely to happen, but would have made my journeys soooo much easier.
|
|
The Mayor of London has confirmed his opposition as has the London Assembly and we know at least 4 Tory led councils (Windsor & Maidenhead, Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth) also oppose expansion.
